Sitting of 22 February 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Preamble
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 8 March.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 6 March at Seven o'clock.
COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 8 March.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967 that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Customs and Excise Management Act 1979

Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Act 1979

Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979

Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979

Matches and Mechanical Lighters Duties Act 1979

Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979

Excise Duties (Surcharges or Rebates) Act 1979

Films Act 1979

Inverclyde District Council Order Confirmation Act 1979

Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland (Amendment) Order Confirmation Act 1979

Tamar Bridge Act 1979

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Mentally Abnormal Prisoners
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mentally abnormal people are currently detained in prisons.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): On 31 December, the lastest date for which figures are available, there were 519 persons held in prison department establishments who were considered by prison medical officers to be suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree warranting their detention in hospital for medical treatment under the Mental Health Act 1959. Of these, 389 were serving a sentence.
    Mr. Spicer: Does the Minister accept that many people believe that that figure is too low and the the real figure is about 1,000? But whatever the exact figure, it is too high. The prison service is completely incapable of providing adequate medical facilities for these people, and the reason behind it is that there has been a scandalous—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must seek information rather than give it. If he can put his remarks in the form of a question, it will be helpful.
    Mr. Spicer: Does the Minister accept that the reason behind this high number of mentally ill offenders in prison is that there has been a scandalous under-pro-vision of regional secure units, and that although the Government have allocated money it just has not been spent?
    Dr. Summerskill: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about people in prison who should be being treated in hospital under the Mental Health Act. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services continues to urge regional hospital authorities to set up more regional secure units, and 10 out of the 14 hospital authorities have submitted firm proposals for units. These are now under way and should be established in the early 1980s.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Did my hon. Friend see the recent "Tonight" programme on television which gave some examples of the use—and sometimes grave misuse—of drugs on mentally disordered offenders in prisons? Does she accept that one way to allay disquiet on this issue would be to take the prison medical service into the National Health Service, so that the standards laid down in the National Health Service about training, equipment, and so on, could be guaranteed within the prison medical service?
    Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend raised this on the Adjournment, and in reply I spoke at great length on the whole subject. I recommend that he reads my speech in Hansard.
    Mr. David Howell: Can the Minister confirm that this whole subject is being looked at in the present inquiry under Mr. Justice May? Can she also confirm that it is still expected that the final report of that inquiry will reach us by the target date of March, as originally intended?
    Dr. Summerskill: I understand that a parliamentary question on that matter was answered yesterday, and that the reply was that it was expected to receive the report in the summer.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my hon. Friend accept that the prison department not only says that it is inhuman to keep such persons in prison but also adamantly refuses to make proper arrangements for their appropriate medical care and treatment? Surely this is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security, which has failed to provide regional secure units? Perhaps some pressure could be brought to bear on that Department, if the full economic cost of keeping such persons in prison was charged to the Department of Health and Social Security, and if we legislated to ensure that courts could remand mentally disordered offenders to named hospitals.
    Dr. Summerskill: This has always been considered jointly between the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security. I have already referred to the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is taking to set up these units.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I intend to move faster on the other questions.

    Local Radio Stations
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make a statement about the authorisation of further local radio stations.
    Dr. Summerskill: We hope to be able to announce the location of further local radio stations in the course of the year.
    Mr. Blaker: Is the Minister aware that there was great disappointment in Blackpool and the Fylde that they were left out of the Government's last list? Is she also aware that they were named by the IBA as a priority area in regard to the development of independent local radio and that they are not adequately covered by Radio Blackburn? Will she, therefore, give careful attention to their claim in considering the next list?
    Dr. Summerskill: I realise that many hon. Members must have been disappointed that their areas were not among the 18 that were recently announced. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said, and no doubt he will be making representations to the BBC and the IBA.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend convey to the IBA the Government's hope that these local radio stations will be genuine community stations that are owned by the community and not the conventional kind of joint stock companies, since the profitability of independent local radio is now established?
    Dr. Summerskill: Great efforts are being made in the preliminary period, as the stations are being set up, to make sure that the views of the local communities are taken into consideration, and that they are able to make representations to the BBC and the IBA.

    Television Programmes (Scenes of Violence)
    Mr. Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a departmental working party into the effects of scenes of violence in television programmes on society, and the influence which they have on the viewing public, particularly children and young people.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): In response to the Government's White Paper on broadcasting, the BBC and the IBA have been reviewing their codes of guidance on violence and have set up their own working parties to advise them, in the light of available research. My Department has recently conducted, and published in 1977, a wide-ranging research study on "Screen Violence and Film Censorship", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The available research also includes the study by Dr. Belson, published last year, on "TV Violence and the Adolescent Boy".
    Mr. Stoddart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that I am very disappointed that he has not set up a high-level working party in his Department? Is he also aware that, judging from a recent reply that I received from the chairwoman of the IBA, the working parties do not seem to be working very well? Does he accept that the balance of evidence now shows that the disgusting scenes of violence on television are increasing the tolerance of violence in society and encouraging the aping of violence among the young? Will he reconsider his position and set up an urgent inquiry?
    Mr. Rees: I indicated to my hon. Friend that research has been done. I shall willingly help in any way. The problem is that I believe it has been proved that violence on television does have this effect. I am not sure whether I need more advice in that regard. What matters now is what the BBC and IBA do about it.
    Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a little more urgency to this matter? His hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) has a motion on the Order Paper that has been signed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. Can we have a ministerial reaction to that?
    Mr. Rees: It is on the same subject, as to whether one could grade films that are shown on television in the same way as films are graded for the cinema. The difference is that control in the home is different from control in the community, and is something that can be done only by the head of the household.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that as a first step at least feature films on television could carry the BBFC grading that is operated for cinemas? Surely it seems a bit ludicrous to have censorship indication for cinemas but no indication at all for films shown on television. Could not that suggestion, which I made more than two years ago, be adopted?
    Mr. Rees: I shall certainly put it to the BBC and the IBA. But it is still a fact that notification outside a cinema leads to those who control the cinema controlling people who move in and out on the basis of age. I shall put that suggestion to the authorities, but it is a fact that the use of television in the home is rather different from paying to go to the cinema.
    Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we do not need any more inquiries, because they tend only to delay the action that is required. Does he also appreciate that if this House tells the governors of both the BBC and IBA that they must act now—and we believe that they should do so—they then must respond to our request?
    Mr. Rees: I do not know that they have to, but we can bring that matter to their notice. There are schemes in the legislation for the BBC and the IBA that I believe would help us in monitoring, or whatever the word is.

    British Broadcasting Corporation
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has had any recent meeting with the director-general of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I last met the governors and the director-general of the BBC on 8 February and discussed a range of subjects.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea if he met the director-general again urgently and told him that it is not only members of Parliament but many millions of people outside who are concerned about the removal of certain current affairs programmes and their replacement by chat shows? If it is really a question of finance for the BBC, surely the Gov-
    602
    ernment should take on board the idea that has been put forward by many Labour Members, namely, that the funds should be paid out of a block grant from the Government instead of in their present form.
    Mr. Rees: On the latter point, as was announced in the House recently, an inquiry is taking place without any commitment. Whatever my views may be about the difference between a chat show and the very interesting programmes on "Tonight", I have no control over them and neither should I. However, I can indicate my view.
    Sir Paul Bryan: When the Home Secretary does see the director-general, will he be able to give him an assurance that the Government have had second thoughts on the White Paper proposal to undermine the political independence of the BBC by introducing about 20 Home Office nominees into the management?
    Mr. Rees: I think that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong with regard to the proposal, but there will be plenty of time to discuss it when the appropriate moment comes. I have been looking back to the time of Suez, about 20 years ago, and I do not believe that there is any political control over the BBC in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman has suggested, nor do I believe that any of the changes would bring that about.

    Immigration (Screening Procedures)
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the criteria on which the immigration officials reach decisions concerning the admission of fiancées of British residents and the advice issued by his Department on what methods may be used to obtain the necessary information on which to base decisions.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will hold an inquiry into the examination of women by his immigration officers, giving the full text of instruction and legal provisions extant since the passing of the first Act and publish the report of his findings.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he

    603
    is satisfied with the fairness of the screening procedures for immigrants' dependants and fiancées by the immigration authorities.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have nothing to add to what I said in the House on Monday 19 February.
    Mr. Ovenden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread feeling among the minority communities in the country that the immigration procedures, adopted particularly at Heathrow, are discriminatory either in principle or in application? Does he accept that the only way to allow a proper and informed discussion on this matter is to publish the regulations that have been issued to immigration officers, so that we can judge whether they are fair and whether they are being properly applied in individual cases?
    Mr. Rees: The regulations have been published. I have looked through the regulations very carefully this week. There is a problem. The instructions give advice to immigration officers as to how to deal with abuse. They describe methods of doctoring passports, and so on. It would be very foolish to publish that information. I dealt with the medical aspect at length a few days ago. Indeed, I gave the figures which show that only 0·8 per cent. of those who arrived from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1977 were refused admission. It is only 0·1 per cent. for all those arriving, about 12 million people. I do not believe what my hon. Friend says. Although there may be problems from time to time, I do not accept the general stricture.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sense of shock and abhorrence that most of us feel about these events was not allayed by his announcement of two professional inquiries on Tuesday? Will he make sure that there is a public announcement about the results of the inquiries? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the hazards of life and death for would-be immigrants and members of the prison service exposed to X-ray by unqualified radiographers is a responsibility that cannot be met by mere instructions? Qualified radiographers must do these jobs.
    Mr. Rees: It is important to look at the use made of the X-rays, not only because of what has happened recently. Indeed, we are considering the whole nature of medical examinations. We went into this at great length the other night. I am sad that all that was said in the House the other night was not reported, whereas the original allegation was.
    Mr. Whitehead: On Tuesday I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend said, but will he now go further and say whether the inquiry that he has set in train, in consultation with Sir Henry Yellowlees, will include the practices of our immigration authorities on the Indian sub-continent? Secondly, will the results of the investigation be published?
    Mr. Rees: I see no reason for not publishing the results of the inquiry in this country and abroad.
    Mr. Townsend: If a major mistake was made by immigration officials recently, will the Home Secretary tell us whether any official has been reprimanded as a result? Does he appreciate that the whole of our immigration policy has been discredited by that episode?
    Mr. Rees: I do not think that is so. This was the action of a doctor, and in terms of the rules. It was done after signing a paper. There is no need for disciplinary action. It was wrong to have done it, and I have stopped it happening again.
    Mr. John Page: Since many of us have watched the immigration officials at work, will the Home Secretary pass on to them our admiration of their courtesy and dignity, often under great provocation?
    Mr. Rees: The immigration officers work under the Home Office. They are civil servants in the Home Office. I shall pass on the comments of the hon. Gentleman.
    Miss Richardson: My right hon. Friend said that he cannot publish the detailed guidelines that are issued, but can he publish parts of the guidelines or at least give the House the general criteria of guidelines that are issued to immigration officers? That would be a response to the widespread concern that this case, and others, have revealed.
    Mr. Rees: It would be helpful from my point of view to do that. But there is information in general that I would not want to publish. The criteria are in the immigration regulations. Although it looks like covering up, it is not. We have gone a long way recently in what we have said. We must see what comes out of the inquiry.
    Mr. Speed: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we deplore the virginity tests and welcome his instructions to stop them? Secondly, when does he expect the investigations into the medical examinations and the X-ray examinations to be completed? Urgency is important, especially because of what is happening in the Indian Parliament. Thirdly, although we expect high standards from immigration officers, will he ensure that no changes are made that will assist those trying to abuse or evade our immigration controls?
    Mr. Rees: On the latter point, the answer is "No". It is important that there is firm immigration control. If there were not, it would give ammunition to those who want to make something out of it. That is absolutely firm.
    On the inquiry, I had a wide discussion with Sir Henry Yellowlees on Tuesday evening. I must now give him time to set up the inquiry and make the necessary arrangements, and I cannot give a date.

    Chilean Refugees
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refugees from Chile have been admitted to the United Kingdom in the years 1976, 1977 and 1978 respectively.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): The available figures are 568 and 600 Chilean refugees in 1976 and 1977 respectively and 485 refugees from Latin America in 1978.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the Government's record on Chilean refugees? But we must press the Department on individual cases. In Argentina there are many Chilean refugees as well as Argentinians who are in a desperate plight. It would be more than likely that if the Chileans were sent back to their country they would
    606
    be tortured and killed. Will my hon. Friend consider the plight of these refugees in Argentina in order to expedite matters?
    Mr. John: I am grateful for that tribute to our policy on Chilean refugees. I welcome the opportunity to enlarge upon an answer given by my right hon. Friend in June last year in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). He indicated that, in addition to Chileans and non-Argentinian nationals in Argentina, applications are considered from Latin Americans in their countries who can show a genuine need for resettlement and who have ties with this country.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Is the Minister's definition of "refugee" the same as that applied to Vietnamese refugees or East African Asians? Should not the Government adopt the Convention on the Status of Refugees so that we know the conditions under which people may qualify as refugees?
    Mr. John: I confirm that the definition is the same. We have nothing to yield to any country in our observance of that United Nation's convention and the number of refugees that we accept.

    Fines (Arrears)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of persons who are currently in arrears in payment of fines; and what is the present total of such arrears.
    Dr. Summerskill: The information sought in the first part of the question is not available. On 30 September 1978, the latest date for which this information is available, the amount of unpaid fines outstanding in England and Wales, excluding inner London, was £26,605,835. This figure includes fines in respect of which the time allowed for payment had not expired.
    Mr. Hardy: Is it therefore not clear that urgent and intensive consideration should be given not merely to alternatives to fines but alternatives to custodial sentences that could be awarded to defaulters? Does my hon. Friend agree that her answer suggests that there may be a

    607
    measure of disdain for the law that should not be ignored?
    Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend is rightly concerned that such a large amount of money is not paid, but he does not suggest a satisfactory remedy. The fines written off annually as uncollectable are 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of the total amount imposed.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Can the Minister state what proportion of the arrears relate to juvenile courts? Is she satisfied that juvenile courts have sufficient powers to enforce their fines?
    Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman would ask a specific question I could give him the exact figures. On the practice in courts, a Home Office working party on administration and procedures in courts has considered and issued advice on the enforcement of fines.

    Police (Women Recruits)
    Mr. MacKayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of new recruits to the police force in the last six months were women.
    Dr. Summerskill: About 25 per cent.
    Mr. MacKay: As women are very often physically unable to carry out the difficult tasks required of our police officers in protecting the public against violent crime, does not the Under-Secretary think that this relatively high percentage of new women recruits shows that there are still many police forces in this country which are desperately undermanned or, as the Minister of State says, underpersonned? Does not this mean that we should be implementing in full the Edmund-Davies report to make sure that we have more male recruits to bring our police forces up to strength?
    Dr. Summerskill: The question shows the total confusion in the hon. Member's mind. He says that there are too many women on the one hand, but on the other he says that there are not enough men. To reduce the number of women will not increase the number of men. The proportion of women in the police service is 7·8 per cent., which does not sound an excessive amount. There is a desperate need for more male police officers, but it
    608
    is nothing to do with the fact that 7·8 per cent. are women.
    Mr. George: Is the Under-Secretary equally concerned about the number and quality of entrants into another group of crime prevention officers, namely private security—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about the police force. The hon. Member's question must relate to that.
    Mr. Pavitt: In the campaign that the Home Department is running for recruitment of ethnic minorities in multi-racial areas, will my hon. Friend pay special attention to the recruitment of females from such minorities? This would be of considerable help in solving a number of problems that we face in integrating ethnic minorities into the community.
    Dr. Summerskill: I would welcome recruitment to the police service of men and women of any minority group which would improve the strength of the service. There is no discrimination within the service. The Sex Discrimination Act was introduced to deal with the kind of prejudice and discrimination shown in the original question.

    European Assembly (Direct Elections)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that British subjects resident in the Netherlands who are given the right to vote in the election for the European Parliament do not lose their electoral rights in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. John: Under United Kingdom law, a qualified elector does not lose his right to vote by virtue of having voted in an election abroad. No one may vote more than once, however, in the forthcoming European Assembly elections.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Since the Home Office has neglected its duty to enfranchise British subjects living in Europe for the forthcoming election, does not the Minister have some sense of shame in relying on the charity of the Dutch to give these people the franchise that they deserve?
    Mr. John: No. This was a decision of the House and I am only sorry that we

    609
    were spared a contribution from the hon. and learned Member. The House having taken that decision, it is not merely a Home Office diktat.
    Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister look again at the question of disfranchisement of British subjects living in the EEC? This was raised at the time of the Common Market referendum and it has caused very considerable disquiet among British subjects. There are an increasing number of them living in the Community now.
    Mr. John: The decision of Parliament has been taken in this case and any change in the franchise should be looked at by Mr. Speaker's Conference. If hon. Members want to refer it as a subject to Mr. Speaker's Conference, they are at liberty to do so.

    Probation Officers (Pay)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations have made representations to him about the rates of pay proposed on behalf of probation officers, and their concern about the erosion of their pay in recent years; what steps he has taken to reassure the probation officers; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Summerskill: The only organisation from which we have received representations in the current pay round about probation officers' pay, on which the existing agreement expires on 30 June, is the National Association of Probation Officers. A working party of the joint negotiating committee is examining the pay structure of the service and is due to report shortly.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the main concern of probation officers and all those who work in the probation service is the danger of the erosion of their pay and of future pay? Will she do all in her power to avoid a breakdown in the probation service?
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware of the concern which exists in the probation service. He will give close consideration to any recommendations that the Committee makes as a result of the report.
    Mr. Wells: Is the Minister aware of the great anxiety in the prison service as well—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about probation officers.
    Mr. Wells: Many probation officers work on the fringe of the prison service.

    Immigration Officers (Instructions)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the instructions given to immigration officers.
    Mr. John: The instructions to the immigration service provide the detailed information and guidance as to the procedure to be followed by immigration officers in the exercise of their duties in accordance wih the Immigration Act 1971 and the immigration rules.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend accept that there are two major items of concern? First, when my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was a Minister he gave instructions to civil servants to stop the virginity test, yet apparently it has re-emerged. Secondly, wilt my hon. Friend accept that I am very concerned that, at the time when I was making representations to his office, an immigration officer gave instructions to the daughter of one of my constituents to report to Heathrow airport? This gives the impression that the immigration officers are behaving in a manner which indicates that they have rather more power than they should have. Does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers control his Department, not civil servants?
    Mr. John: On the case that my hon. Friend has mentioned, the form sent to his constituent was for an extension of temporary admission. It contained on the top of it a telephone number. In the vast majority of cases, people who are so contacted, telephone Heathrow and therefore have no need to go along—their temporary admission is extended. That was done in response to some of my hon. Friends' representations. I have looked again at the wording of the letter, because obviously temporary admission must be extended and I am now trying to clarify that wording so that there is no confusion, even among a small minority, about what

    611
    is intended. All that is intended is the extension of temporary admission.
    Ms. Colquhoun: Will not the Minister accept that there is now an urgent necessity for an inquiry into the appointment and training of immigration officers? Will he further accept that many of us feel that as immigration officers, and not this House, control immigration in this country, the inquiry is urgently needed?
    Mr. John: In the latter part of her question, my hon. Friend puts a quite impossible doctrine. Twelve million people come to this country annually. At most, a very, very small proportion are refused admittance. Those refusals are under the control of Ministers and are subject to representation by hon. Members. I do not accept that there is a need for such an inquiry, but I shall keep procedures under review to see that they are as flexible and humane as possible.

    BBC and IBA
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the director-general of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I said in reply earlier today to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I last met the governors and the director-general of the BBC on 8 February. I last met the chairman of the IBA yesterday.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: When the Home Secretary met the two organisations, did he draw to their attention the article in The Daily Telegraph on 22 January by the former Minister of State, Home Office in which he claimed that there was a serious imbalance in the reporting of matters relating to the police and law breakers, with a bias against the police? If he did draw their attention to their article, what reply did they give?
    Mr. Rees: I did not draw this to the attention of the director-general and the chairman. There is strong feeling in the police about this matter. I think that we can let it rest that the police have let their views be known. I am quite prepared to leave it like that.
    Mr. Madden: Does not the Home Secretary think it extraordinary that the BBC, an organisation that is so touchy about the dangers of interference in its affairs, should have proposals to reduce radically its current affairs coverage, and that these can reach a very advanced stage without the governors even being consulted?
    Mr. Rees: I really do not know at what stage the governors were consulted, I know that there is a bit of a rumpus taking place about it now, and there are not many countries in the world where that could happen. I am glad that it is happening.
    Mr. Forman: When the Home Secretary last met the director-general of the BBC did he make it clear that many of us in this House are opposed to the financing of the BBC on the basis of a block grant, as suggested by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Does the Home Secretary realise that it is much more difficult to take this position if the BBC itself is departing from its original Reithian purpose in many programmes and becoming little less than a benefit match for Michael Parkinson?
    Mr. Rees: Bearing in mind the constituency that I represent, I never attack Yorkshiremen in public. I leave that part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question alone. The House will have time to discuss a block grant and other methods of finance.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority he accords in his policy of combating street crime and household break-ins to increasing the number of policemen on the beat or to applying a similar amount of financial support to publicity campaigns on crime prevention.
    Dr. Summerskill: Police forces generally, and those in metropolitan areas particularly, are below establishment. Priority can be given to their need to recruit up to establishment without restricting expenditure on crime prevention publicity.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be spending much more on crime prevention, especially on the use of modern publicity techniques,

    613
    so that the public generally are made aware of how they may prevent a great deal of street crime, in particular, from taking place? In promoting such publicity campaigns, will she take a lead from other major cities in Europe and plead with the public not to carry openly purses, wallets and like items that attract crime? Likewise, should we not be publicising modern methods of securing doors and windows?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can assure my hon. Friend that a great deal is being done. Nearly £400,000 will be spent on crime prevention publicity in 1978–79 compared with £250,000 in the year before. Local chief officers of police are spending money as they see fit to deal with problems of crime prevention in their areas.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does my hon. Friend agree that a great deal may be done by existing resources being applied in a different way? Will she bear in mind the success of the Devon and Cornwall force in community policing, which has reduced street crime by about 40 per cent., and that of the Hands-worth force, which has achieved a 50 per cent. reduction? Is it not time that we applied that system throughout the country?
    Dr. Summerskill: Each chief officer of police is left to decide the needs of his own area. I am sure that the chief officers are aware of the procedures in other areas and will take measures to emulate them if they think fit.
    Mr. Costain: May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to the fact that the police in the Folkestone area are giving much appreciated talks to various organisations such as senior citizens clubs? The talks are much appreciated and are helping to reduce crime? Will she carry that initiative to other areas?
    Dr. Summerskill: That is done in many areas, including my constituency of Halifax. I should like to see the practice spread throughout the country.

    Parliamentary Constituencies
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he is contemplating in the rules and procedures governing the reviews of
    614
    parliamentary constituencies in England; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John: None, Sir.
    Mr. Madel: As there are frequent population changes in many English parliamentary constituencies, does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the interests of fairness there should be more frequent reviews of parliamentary boundaries? Why cannot we have a system in England under which there are a fair and reasonable number of electors—about 60,000 in each constituency—rather than having 80,000 to 90,000 in many constituencies and under 40,000 in others?
    Mr. John: In 1958 the House of Commons decided to change the period of review and make it every 10 to 15 years because the previous method of review every three to seven years was thought to be too frequent. I sometimes wish that we would make up our minds and stick to that decision.
    Mr. Corbett: Will my hon. Friend think about that again? Will he take on board the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel), that there is a gross and inherent unfairness in the great variations between the sizes of electorate and as to the times at which sensible changes may be made?
    Mr. John: That is why a general review is now taking place. I was asked to change the rules in the middle of the general review and to expedite it in certain instances. That I am not prepared to do.

    Chief Officers of Police
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends next to meet representatives of chief constables; and what he expects to discuss with them.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I frequently meet the office bearers and other members of the Association of Chief Police Officers, individually or collectively, to discuss matters of common interest.
    Mr. Adley: Has the Home Secretary discussed with members of the association the White Paper that was issued last week—namely, the concordat, if I may call it that?—and its contents on secondary picketing? If he has not done so, will he do so to ensure that the chief

    615
    constables have their anxieties stilled about the present position?
    Mr. Rees: The chief constables have no anxieties on that score. I brought the matter to their notice. That is one of my jobs. I had not discussed the issue with them because guidance was given by the TUC to its constituent unions. The guidance was not to chief constables.

  TUC AND CBI
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister when last he met the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I meet representatives of the TUC and CBI from time to time at the National Economic Development Council and on other occasions. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
  Mr. MolloyWith reference to the dispute of local authority manual workers and the trade unions recommending acceptance of a settlement, what was the role of the TUC? Will he enlarge on the terms of the comparability studies?
  The Prime Minister: There was a turn for the better the week before last when Mr. Murray, the general secretary of the TUC, made an approach to me with certain proposals that I thought the Government would be ready to consider. He spoke to the negotiating officers of the unions following that approach. I pay tribute to the valuable part that he has played throughout the whole dispute in trying to bring the parties together and trying to help to formulate a good settlement. I believe that the settlement is a fair one.
  My hon. Friend asked about comparability studies. There is agreement that there should be an independent standing commission that would be willing to review not only local authority workers' pay and conditions compared with others but, if it was so wished, the pay and conditions of Health Service employees of the same level, university "manuals", as they are called, and Health Service ancillaries. All these categories could come before the independent commission. Its terms of reference and its composition have to be worked out. We would wish to consult the TUC and other bodies.
  Mr. Gow: When the right hon. Gentleman last met the TUC did he discuss the changes that will be made in the operation of the closed shop following the agreement of 14 February? Following that agreement, may we take it that representations will be made by the TUC to British Rail for the reinstatement of the 43 railway men who were dismissed without compensation from British Rail because they did not want to join a union?
  The Prime Minister: I did not discuss these matters in detail. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment discussed them with officials of the TUC and members of the general council. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tables a question to my right hon. Friend on individual matters.
  Mr. Hoyle: When my right hon Friend meets the TUC and the CBI will he draw to their attention the speech of His Royal Highness Prince Charles? Does that not underline the fact that—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not our custom—indeed, it is unparliamentary—to mention the names of members of the Royal Family in furtherance of argument in this place.
  Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend draw to their attention the speech of a certain personage in which reference was made to British management lacking much that is desired in industrial matters? Does that not underline what many of us have said in the House on numerous occasions?
  The Prime Minister: I am glad to be relieved of the responsibility of commenting on all the speeches on which I am asked to comment at the Dispatch Box. The management of British industry has come under certain strictures from time to time, with almost general agreement. Rather than both sides casting stones at each other, it would be far better in present circumstances if we were to cooperate and if management were to take employees fully into their confidence and if employees were to recognise some of the difficulties that management have to face.
  Mrs. Thatcher: May I return to a supplementary reply the Prime Minister gave

  617
  to one of his hon. Friends? If I understood him correctly, the right hon. Gentleman said he would discuss the terms of reference for comparability studies with the Trades Union Congress. Does he fully stand by the undertaking he gave to me from that Dispatch Box last week that any comparability study would include studies of manning levels, of job security and also of the relevance of the entitlement to inflation-proofed pensions? Those three matters are absolutely vital. I hope that there will be no retreat from them in any comparability study that is made.
  The Prime Minister: I do not know why the right hon. Lady needs to make that suggestion. I gave her an answer last week and I have not said anything today that differs from it. She is, perhaps, not fully seized of the width of this commission. If it is set up, it would include, according to ideas that are being bruited but not finally agreed, not only public sector but also private sector industries where there are few examples of inflation-proofed pensions. The terms of reference would clearly have to be adjusted to the needs of the case.
  Mr. Corbettasked the Prime Minister when last he met the Trades Union Congress?
  The Prime Minister: I met the general council of the TUC on 14 February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.
  Mr. Corbett: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC and other bodies a speech made to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee yesterday in which it was said that many managers and managements paid too little attention to the human factor in industry? Will he bring forward early proposals to try to deal with this matter through the extension and encouragement of industrial democracy.
  The Prime Minister: The basis of the Government's policy on industrial democracy is that there is a gap in many companies and firms between managements and employees. That gap relates both to knowledge of what the company is doing and the impact on the lives of its employees of the plans of the company. I believe that the step forward to providing industrial democracy will be an important one. I hope that we can legislate on the matter in due course.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he draw to its attention the events that occurred two weeks ago at the Cowley plant of Leyland during recent industrial troubles? On a show of hands, the strike call vote was indecisive. Yet the following day, when there was a secret ballot, an overwhelming majority of workers voted against the strike call. Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's strongly held view that secret ballots should be held before strikes are called, is he managing to persuade the TUC that there should always be a strike ballot in such circumstances?
  The Prime Minister: The agreement entered into last week by the TUC with the Government calls—I paraphrase the words—for strike ballots to be secret wherever appropriate. Experience has shown all of us that secret ballots in the case of every strike could be a hindrance to a settlement and would not necessarily make for an accelerated settlement. That should be taken into account.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: When the Prime Minister next meets the TUC, will he tell it that the decision taken by the Cabinet today not to continue supporting the Kirkby workers' co-operative is not a final decision and that, in the light of the heavy unemployment on Merseyside and at Kirkby and the many hundreds of redundancies in the pipeline, the Government will reconsider their decision and will continue support of the co-operative and the 700 people employed there?
  The Prime Minister: I regret that I cannot give that assurance. The basis of the Cabinet's decision is not merely that a lot of money has been put into this cooperative. We would have liked to see it succeed. The basis of the decision is that the Cabinet believes that to put the cooperative into receivership at present is more likely to preserve the jobs of those concerned and the interests of commercial organisations than to continue putting in money on the present basis.
  Sir Paul Bryan: When the Prime Minister sees the TUC, will he be able to explain that the offer now being made to local government employees is in line with the formula which he approved at the local government conference at Newcastle and which he disowned three days later at Question Time in this House?
  The Prime Minister: I agree that there has been a certain amount of confusion, but not on the Government's part. The trouble is that we are not negotiating as principals. We provide the money, but we do not negotiate. The agreement into which I entered with the trade union negotiators and general secretaries provided for a 9 per cent. increase in the pay of the grades concerned. That was the offer that was made. The local authority negotiating employers then went away separately with the trade unions and decided to offer something further. That is, unfortunately, not an area in which the Government are directly concerned. But the Government have made clear that we are not prepared to pay our part of the finance of that extra offer between now and August. We stand by the 9 per cent. which we originally offered and on which there was agreement.
  Mr. George Rodgersasked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett).
  Mr. Rodgers: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss with the TUC the various and often helpful schemes introduced by this Government to provide employment opportunities, especially for young people? In view of the fact that many of these programmes are due for renewal, particularly the job release scheme, was he able to assure the TUC that these programmes would be extended and maintained?
  The Prime Minister: I have not discussed this with the TUC, but the Secretary of State for Employment has been active in the matter. I hope that he will be able to make an early announcement on an extension of the job release scheme which I believe has been of great benefit and can be extended further.
  Mr. Tebbit: Do the Prime Minister's remarks about the local government pay negotiations mean that the Government will not increase the cash limit for the rate support grant beyond that which is needed to finance the basic 9 per cent. increase?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, my right hon. Friend
  620
  the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be making a statement and answering a question on this matter in due course. I know the answer, but I prefer to stick to the doctrine of ministerial responsibility whenever I can.
  Mr. Whiteheadasked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.
  The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett).
  Mr. Whitehead: Reverting to the speech by an eminent member of one of our smaller trade unions, will my right hon. Friend, when he next meets the TUC, get it to discuss with British management the possibility of a crash course in communications which would benefit both sides? One of the problems of industry is a failure of vocabulary and communications. Has not that been abundantly shown in the class system in miniature seen in the lamentable dispute at Times Newspapers Limited?
  The Prime Minister: The problem of communications in British industry is very real and is generally acknowledged. I am glad that it has been given further prominence recently. It is an area in which everybody, I believe, accepts that more work must be done. By financing the work of the sector working parties, and setting aside a considerable sum of money to help translate the decisions and recommendations of those working parties to company level, the Government are giving direct assistance.
  Mr. Stanbrook: During the silent watches of the night, if not at other times, does the Prime Minister have any qualms of conscience about the power of the monster of irresponsible trade unionism which he has spent his political life building up? Has he no better proposals to cut it down to size than those contained in the concordat?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of my right hon. Friend's comments on the speech yesterday to which reference has been made, will he look at one of the suggestions made for improving the situation, namely, the introduction of single

  621
  status in British industry? Will he discuss this matter with the TUC and see if the Government can do more to implement this across British industry?
  The Prime Minister: The Government may, and certainly do, have a view. On the other hand, it is for industry itself to take these matters by the scruff of the neck and try to get some new thinking in questions of staff status. It is not the Government's responsibility to decide who shares canteens, who goes into which lavatories, what overalls are used, and similar issues. If British industry and management have any common sense, they will press ahead on all these matters and bring us more into line with what happens in the United States, Japan and some other successful countries.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: The Prime Minister has been asked to discuss many matters with the TUC. When he next meets the TUC, will he have meaningful discussions on the basis of figures produced by the "Think Tank", comparing world industry with world industry, about the potential number of redundancies in this country, in order that we can get an idea of the overmanning problem that we face?
  The Prime Minister: At the last meeting of the National Economic Development Council, the TUC and the CBI began work on that matter, especially in relation to the microprocessing revolution which will undoubtedly make big differences to our industrial system. The Government are also making investigations into this matter and, if we can get any useful information, we shall communicate it to the House.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister refused to answer a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) on the grounds that it was to be answered later by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Prime Minister said that he believed in the doctrine of ministerial responsibility, but, as he is First Lord of the Treasury and, therefore, head of that Department, why did he dodge the question?
  Mr. Speaker: Every Minister answers as he will, and the Prime Minister gave his answer.

  CIVIL SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the strike action planned by two Civil Service unions for tomorrow. Seven other unions will not be taking action.
  The two unions concerned, the Civil and Public Services Association and the Society of Civil and Public Servants, have called on their members not to work tomorrow, in support of a pay claim. They have taken that decision in spite of assurances already given to all the unions concerned that the Government will implement a settlement based on a joint evaluation of the evidence submitted by the independent Civil Service Pay Research Unit. That work is now going on. The unions concerned have also been informed that any increases will be staged and that the staging will be the subject of negotiation. Moreover, the present pay settlement has not yet expired and will not do so for another five weeks, on 1 April.
  I also understand that tomorrow's action may be followed by an orchestrated campaign of disruption designed to achieve maximum disruption to public business in the forthcoming weeks, arranged to ensure the least loss to the unions' members. Rarely can there have been a more unnecessary and unjustifiable strike. This action and any continuing disruption are wrong both in principle and in practice. They are against the best long-term interests of the Civil Service and are contrary to the guidance recently issued by the TUC—to which both unions are affiliated—which emphasises that strikes are to be used only as a last resort. In no circumstances can the present position on negotiations be interpreted in that way. The civil servants who go on strike will suffer a loss of pay for the day or days concerned.
  Even at this late stage, I ask the two unions to show a proper sense of leadership and responsibility, and I express the Government's thanks in advance to those civil servants who will remain at their posts tomorrow and thus maintain the traditions of service to the public.
  The Government regret any inconvenience that will be caused to the public.

  623
  Contingency action will be taken, as far as possible, to mitigate the effects.
  Mrs. Thatcher: May I put three points to the Prime Minister? First, does his statement not cast considerable doubt on the agreement that he reached with the TUC about a week ago, in that the two unions should be in breach of it so soon? Is he aware that we join him, agreement or no agreement, in condemning a strike that takes place before a current agreement has run out and while negotiations are still in progress?
  Secondly, the Prime Minister has given us few details about the preparations that he will be making to keep going some emergency services in vital areas. Can he give us a few more details about that? For example, a press statement released today says that the Royal Courts of Justice will be picketed and that there will be attempts to disrupt hearings at courts and industrial tribunals. What arrangements is the Prime Minister making to ensure that the administration of justice continues? In addition, what arrangements is he making to ensure that there are minimal services for air traffic control, defence installations and immigration control? Those are vital matters, and unless the public are certain that there will be a minimum of manning there could be serious effects.
  Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement shows the wisdom of resisting a closed shop in the Civil Service? Will he give the House an assurance that anyone who crosses the picket lines and carries on working will not be victimised in any way?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady raised a number of red herrings, but I shall do my best to answer her other points.
  The proposed strike shows the importance of keeping the agreement with the TUC. I promise the right hon. Lady and the scoffers on her side of the House that there must be a sense of responsibility when agreements are entered into because nothing but a sense of responsibility will keep people at work. I hope that the unions concerned will bear that in mind in future considerations. I have done my best, and the Lord Privy Seal has done his best, to remind them of that fact.
  624
  On contingency plans, I am told that what is planned by the unions is "a demonstration of what we can do". I hope that the right hon. Lady will not press me to say what the Government's response will be. There is no doubt that the unions propose a series of guerrilla actions to try to discomfort the public and to get at the Government machine in the most vulnerable areas. I ask the right hon. Lady not to press me to say what we are doing in response. I do not want to give those who are planning these strikes any more ammunition than I have to.
  The question of a closed shop is a matter for discussion. Talks have been going on for some time. The Government have put forward certain proposals, which the unions have not so far accepted because they have thought that the conditions are too stringent. We shall continue those discussions on the basis of which the House is already aware.
  Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that the secretary of one of the unions involved admitted in a radio interview at lunchtime today that the proposed action was irresponsible, but added that the only way to get anything done with the Government was to be irresponsible? Since that appears to be the unions' view, will the Prime Minister think again about trying to create an effective long-term pay policy and a framework of industrial relations, backed by the authority of the House, to deal with matters such as holding ballots before strikes take place? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the whole process of subcontracting the authority of the Government and the House to other bodies will not work?
  The Prime Minister: If it is the case that people believe that the only way that they can get anything is through strikes, it is important that the Govern-men should make clear that they cannot be subjected to pressure in that way when claims are irresponsible. As I have said before, almost everyone in this country is central to the needs of the community. Almost any group can upset the whole of the community and bring things to a halt.
  Therefore, I must make clear, as I do now, that we shall examine the claim—though none has been put in yet, because the evidence is still being evaluated

  625
  —on its merits, reach a conclusion on its merits and implement a settlement on its merits. That is the most important thing. We shall get into a dangerous situation if any group thinks that it has the power to push the community around. How many groups nowadays have that power? We have seen some signs of that attitude recently, and the community must stand up and say "Thus far and no farther".
  Mr. Ovenden: As we all approve of trade union democracy, will the Prime Minister confirm that his recent statement was not an invitation to trade unionists to defy the agreed policies of their trade unions by going to work on Friday? Will he also confirm that he has been unable to give the trade unions involved any assurance that the Government will this year implement in full the proposals of the Pay Research Unit as those proposals relate to pay not next year or the year after, but to the level that should exist now? Will he further confirm that the strike on Friday is not in defiance of agreements but in defence of agreements and of the idea that the agreed procedures on pay research should be implemented in the Civil Service?
  The Prime Minister: No. I disagree with my hon. Friend, who I know has a particular interest in this matter. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is entitled to have a particular interest in this matter. I know that he has an interest, but I must disagree with him on every point that he made.
  We shall reach a properly negotiated agreement without duress on either side, I trust. We have already indicated that, as with the Armed forces, the police and the firemen, it will be staged. That staging is the subject of negotiation.
  I am asking civil servants not to defy their unions but to keep to their contract and to come to work.
  Mr. William Clark: The Prime Minister is right to deplore this strike. As the pay agreement does not expire until 31 March, will he have urgent discussions with the TUC to see whether a change in the law should be introduced to make contracts legally binding?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have already explained my position and that of the Government many times.
  Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Civil Service unions which are not yet involved in this form of action have some real problems? Will he use his influence and assist his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to meet the leaders of these unions, who are on the lip of an agreement, to try to seal that agreement before they are compelled to take similar action?
  The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the problem that my hon. Friend has in mind. In the two cases that I am discussing this afternoon, there is no reason for a strike tomorrow. Work is steadily going ahead on trying to get the evidence evaluated, and the negotiations will then take place. I have no words of defence for what is to be done tomorrow. I cannot find any words to excuse it. If there is any possibility of expediting the work, or if there is a criticism or feeling that it will not come into operation by 1 April, I suggest that those concerned all work hard to see whether they can get it done by then. But this agreement does not expire for another five weeks.
  Mr. Emery: Does the Prime Minister consider that instead of refusing to reveal what he and the Government are going to do about the strikes tomorrow it would be more helpful to inform the public that the Government will take every possible step to ensure that such action will not limit or inconvenience the public? In particular, will he consider the position at London airport, through which 50,000 to 70,000 people will be passing tomorrow? Can he assure us that the Government will do everything possible to ensure that the traveller is not inconvenienced?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is asking an impossibility. Obviously he did not hear the last sentence of my statement:
  " Contingency action will be taken, as far as possible, to mitigate the effects "
  of the strike. That is what the Government are doing.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to the House, to union members and to the public if we could have some proper information about the findings of the Pay Research Unit? So far we have had only press leaks from sources that may not

  627
  be reliable. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the findings of the Pay Research Unit to be published, so that we can make our own judgments on them?
  The Prime Minister: I do not see any objection in principle to doing that, but it is for the Pay Research Unit to decide what it does with the evidence. It is made available to the unions and to those on the Government side involved in the negotiations. It will be a matter for the Unit whether it decides to publish. There is no difficulty in principle about it.
  Mr. Baker: Does the Prime Minister accept that most people agree that this strike is unnecessary and irresponsible? I should like to refer to an answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave a few minutes ago. A Civil Service union leader said "We are striking because this is the only language that the present Government understand." Is that not a damning indictment of the lack of authority of the Government? Does the Prime Minister appreciate that while he speaks strongly and acts weakly, the unions will continue to look upon him as a pushover?
  The Prime Minister: If it were true, it would be so, but the hypothesis is untrue. Therefore, the conclusion is unfounded.
  Mrs. Wise: May I express the hope and ask for my right hon. Friend's confirmation that this matter will be dealt with on its merits? Some of us would welcome that very thing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the refusal to deal with cases on their merits is at the root of a good deal of the present unrest? Dealing with cases on their merits involves meaningful negotiations and free collective bargaining not pre-empted by Government instructions and norms.
  The Prime Minister: I thought that we had been going through a period of free collective bargaining, with results of which the House is aware.
  The Pay Research Unit is an independent body. It produces independent evidence, made available to both sides. Both sides then proceed to negotiation and, we hope, reach an agreement. There is nothing in the procedure here which, on any rational grounds, would lead any-
  628
  body to believe that there was a case for withdrawing labour tomorrow.
  Mr. Mayhew: Is it not the case that the Government can be and will go on being subjected to pressure so long as a strike that the Prime Minister has roundly condemned as indefensible can be carried out with complete immunity from any civil legal procedure? The Prime Minister said that he had made his position clear. Is not that just the trouble?
  The Prime Minister: All Governments are subject to pressure. This Government yield to less than most—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"]—including our predecessors, who called in a distinguished legal luminary to get the dockers out of gaol when they put them there.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that this matter has been boiling up for a period of not less than three months, to my knowledge? There have been questions on this matter in the House to the appropriate Minister on several occasions and warnings to the Government of the consequences of the failure of the Pay Research Unit to deal with this matter as these people require. Is he aware that many of these civil servants—indeed, the great proportion—can be categorised as low paid? When the Prime Minister refers to people not having the right to strike or not agreeing with their right to strike, does he not understand that these people live in an environment in which, only two or three years ago, they were being subjected to cuts in public expenditure, which they did not like, as a result of which thousands of sackings took place? Is not the only way in which—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is developing a statement rather than a question.
  The Prime Minister: I should like my hon. Friend to point out to me how many thousands of sackings from the Civil Service in recent years he is aware of.
  My hon. Friend is wrong again about this issue boiling up. It is untrue to say that the Pay Research Unit has failed to deal with this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will listen to me. The Unit has dealt with it in accordance with—
  Mr. SkinnerIt has not.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend does not know anythting about it. The Unit—
  Mr. Skinner: I have been to meet it. That is more than my right hon. Friend does.
  The Prime Minister: The Unit has dealt with it in accordance with the normal procedures. The discussions are going on, and the evaluation is taking place. The discussions can continue and can, I hope, be concluded by 1 April. It is about time my hon. Friend stood by some of the agreements which are made instead of trying to have them broken.
  Mr. Forman: When this inexcusable strike is over, will the Prime Minister undertake to have his officials look carefully at the results of the strike to see whether the services of a considerable number of these civil servants who will be on strike tomorrow are not indispensable?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not believe that. A great many staffing investigations are made from time to time. The level of efficiency in the Civil Service is as high as we shall find in a great many other institutions, both private and public. Certainly it is higher than in some. However, there is always room for improvement in these areas. That we shall continue to try to undertake. I would not want to cast any general aspersion on the general level of efficiency, or, indeed, on the attitude, of the Civil Service in its approach to public affairs.
  Mr. Speaker: I propose to call one further speaker from each side.
  Mr. Arthur Latham: My right hon. Friend said that we had come through a period of free collective bargaining. Is not the truth of the matter the fact that unions have been free to make claims but that the employers have claimed that they were
  630
  not free to make settlements? As we are going through a period of discussion about communication and human understanding, does my right hon. Friend accept that many members of these unions have lobbied Members of Parliament over recent weeks? They certainly did not appear to be taking action in the spirit that the Prime Minister described. Will he make a last attempt to allay their genuine fear that they are likely to be cheated over the Pay Sesearch Unit?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that my hon. Friend gave a perfect definition of free collective bargaining—where one side made claims and the other side either accepted or rejected them. That is what it is about.
  As to the fear expressed by my hon. Friend, there is absolutely no occasion for fear unless it is spread by those who have a desire to do so. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance on this and will do his best to allay any misplaced fears that may have been spread by other people.
  Mr. Burden: Will the Prime Minister be a little more forthcoming on a matter of great importance? What arrangements will be made at the ports of entry tomorrow to ensure that customs and immigration clearance facilities will be available to travellers? Many passengers from abroad will not be able to cancel their journeys. They should be able to know whether they will be able to clear customs and come into this country, or whether they will be totally blocked tomorrow.
  The Prime Minister: Without going into detail, I can say that contingency plans have been made on matters such as immigration controls, the airports, and in other areas, including the courts of justice. I do not wish to disclose details of those actions. I do not know that they will be 100 per cent. successful, but we shall do the best we can with the resources that are available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for the week after the Adjournment will be as follows:
Monday 5 MARCH—Supply [9th Allotted day]: Debate on housing.
Motion on the Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order.
Tuesday 6 MARCH—Second Reading of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill.
At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
Wednesday 7 MARCH—Second Reading of the Leasehold Reform Bill.
Motions on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order and on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Northern Ireland) Order.
Thursday 8 MARCH—Supply [10th Allotted day]: The Questions will be put on all outstanding Estimates and Votes.
Debate on a subject to be announced.
Friday 9 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
Mrs. Thatcher: May I put three points to the Lord President? The first concerns the business on Monday 5 March. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have chosen to have a debate provisionally on housing. He will also be aware that it may be necessary to change it as events develop, in which case we shall give him notice as soon as possible. It is not our choice to have a Supply day the first day we are back. We regret the inconvenience of not being certain about the subject, but I am afraid that that arises from the right hon. Gentleman's decision to have a Supply day the first day after the recess.
Secondly, the Lord President has not arranged for a debate on the public expenditure White Paper. That is urgent. Why has he made no provision for that during the first week after the recess?
632
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to announce the date of the Budget?
Mr. Foot: I take the questions put by the right hon. Lady in reverse order. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to present his Budget on Tuesday 3 April, to be followed by a Finance Bill in the normal course of affairs.
Secondly, it is customary for the debate on public expenditure to be held after the publication of the Expenditure Committee's report on the White Paper. Clearly, it will then be necessary to give hon. Members sufficient time to study the report before holding a debate.
On the first matter raised by the right hon. Lady, I am sorry that I am not able always to satisfy her. Sometimes she complains that she does not have a Supply day. Now, when we come along with a nice, early Supply day, she seems to be more dissatisfied than ever.
Mrs. Bain: Will the Leader of the House say why, in the light of earlier requests from many parts of the House, the debate on the aircraft and shipbuilding industries has been restricted to Northern Ireland, especially as an early decision on the various options within the corporate plan are of interest to many hon. Members representing shipbuilding areas throughout the United Kingdom?
Secondly, may I ask the Lord President why no reference is made to the Government's laying the appropriate Orders in Council following the decisions taken within the referendums in Scotland and Wales on 1 March? Is he aware that the decisions taken by this House are equally important, or perhaps more important, in the light of these decisions? Will he give us an idea when these orders will be laid?
Mr. Foot: On the first matter put by the hon. Lady, I do not withdraw anything from what I said in answer to previous questions when she raised this matter. The question is most important. At some point there must be a discussion upon it in the House. The fact that this order is tabled does not mean that there is any difference from the statement that I made on earlier occasions.
On the second matter raised by the hon. Lady, I am sure that the proper

633
course for the House is to hold the referendums first and decide the course to be followed afterwards.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: Has my right hon. Friend studied early-day motion No. 191 on steel manufacturing in Corby, Northants?
[That this House, knowing that Corby, Northants, was deliberately developed by successive Governments as a steel town and that successive Governments have refused to support the diversification of industry in the town, calls upon the Government to reassure the people of Corby by making an immediate and definite statement on its commitment to future employment in the steel industry in Corby.]
Does he realise that we should have a debate on this subject as soon as possible as both parties—successive Governments—are directly responsible for what may be happening in Corby today?
Mr. Foot: I recognise the great concern in Corby on the matters raised by my right hon. Friend. We all recognise the considerable concern and distress that is felt in his town. I cannot promise an immediate debate when we return. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be making representations to the Minister concerned. Then we may see how to proceed from there.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Last week I asked the Lord President whether he would arrange at an early date for a debate on the new White Paper issued by the Government "Farming and the Nation", which is a sequel to "Food from Our Own Resources." The Lord President indicated that that was a proper subject for a full debate. Will he announce when he intends to allow us to hold this useful debate?
Mr. Foot: As I made such a good reply to the hon. Gentleman last week, I do not need to repeat it now.
Mr. Heffer: As most hon. Members representing English constituencies will not be involved in the devolution campaigns in Scotland or Wales, will not my right hon. Friend, even at this late stage, be prepared to consider a debate next week in this Chamber, or in Committee, by hon. Members from Merseyside and the North-West to discuss items such as
634
KME and the future of employment on Merseyside? Rather than wasting our time, we could be doing a parliamentary job in the House.
Mr. Foot: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the matters to which he referred. However, the House decided that we should suspend our proceedings next week. That does not mean to say that there will not be an opportunity to return to those other subjects later.
Mr. Pardoe: Does the Lord President recognise that he did not make a very good reply last week to my right hon. Friend about the Liverpool, Edge Hill by-election? Will the Government be moving the writ in the recess, or will they return after the recess and move the writ in the first week of business? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is now way beyond the average lapse of time of 78 days for this to be moved? There is no reason for further delay. Why are the Government not abiding by the conventions of the House?
Mr. Foot: The Government abide by the conventions of the House in this matter. I have nothing to add to what I said last week. But I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is not usual to have discussions in the House about the moving of a writ, as the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will recall, but I will take into account what he says.
Mr. William Hamilton: When do the Government intend to produce the appropriate orders to the House following the referendums in Scotland and Wales?
Mr. Foot: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), the best course is to wait until the referendums have been held and decide afterwards as to the time schedule.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the Lord President aware that the House is appreciative of his decision to subordinate his own personal prejudices to the wishes of the House on the matter of holding a vote in this Parliament on the proposals of the Procedure Committee? Is he in a position now to tell us when that vote will be taken, and to give us a date? In view of what he said in the debate on the report of the Procedure Committee, we should like the proceedings to take place while he is still holding his present office.
Mr. Foot: I gave the hon. Gentleman and the House a clear reply on this matter at the end of the debate. The first stage of the proceedings will be to have discussions through the usual channels, and I shall be happy to proceed along those lines.
Mr. Faulds: May I have an answer this week to the question that I put to my right hon. Friend last week, as to when the House may have an opportunity to discuss the excellent White Paper on the national heritage fund?
Mr. Foot: No doubt my hon. Friend will put that question to me again when we return after the recess. I hope that I shall then have a satisfactory reply to give him, because I fully acknowledge the importance of the matter to which he refers.
Mr. Amery: Has the right hon. Gentleman had his attention drawn to early-day motion No. 278, calling on the Government to send official observers to monitor the general election in Rhodesia?
[That, in view of the forthcoming election for the establisment of a majority government in Rhodesia, an act which will finally satisfy the six principles, this House urges Her Majesty's Government to send observers to the general election to be held in Rhodesia in April 1979.]
Will he find time for us to debate this matter when we come back, or at the very least for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on it?
Mr. Foot: I have nothing further to add at the moment to what has been said on this matter from the Dispatch Box. Let us see what the situation is after next week and whether there should be a fresh statement made upon it.
Mr. James Lamond: Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind the threat to world peace posed by the Chinese invasion of Vietnam, and the fact that the position there appears to be deteriorating? Will he also keep in mind the fact that we cannot rely on the BBC for accurate information? This was revealed yesterday by the Director-General of the BBC, when he said that important persons in this country had prevented the BBC from giving us the truth, for example, about the position in Iran. Bearing these points in mind, are these not fitting matters for
636
a major debate in this House rather than some of the subjects listed by my right hon. Friend for the week after next?
Mr. Foot: It might be that they would need to be debated in some form in the House. I am not denying that for one moment. The Government and the House are fully aware of the tremendous significance of these events. Whether it is best to deal with them by way of a debate is another question. I hope that my hon. Friend will wait to see what is the position when we return after the recess. We may then be able to discuss how best to deal with these matters, or debate them, if we wish to do so.
Mr. Speaker: I propose to call those hon. Members who have already risen—I hope that they will be brief—and not those hon. Members who will be rising.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his observation of last week, concerning early-day motion No. 223 in respect of the Hon. Sir Desmond Ackner.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be pleased to remove the Honourable Sir Desmond Ackner from the office which he holds as Justice of the High Court.] and the amendment thereto
Line 1, leave out from ' That ' to end and add ' this House recognises in Mr. Justice Ackner the qualities of fairness, clarity, patience and courtesy which make him eminently fitted for high judicial office; deprecates ill-considered criticism of him, whether deriving from ignorance or political partisanship; and hopes that he will for many years continue to serve successfully the cause of British justice.'.] He said that the motion might be withdrawn and implied that if it were not he would find time to debate it. Has he any further information, and how long does he propose that the motion, if not withdrawn, should stand on the Order Paper before the House is given an opportunity to negative it?
Mr. Foot: I did not imply that if the motion were not withdrawn we would have a debate. I do not think that that was the implication of what I said, but I still hope that the motion will be withdrawn.
Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that after the recess

637
there will be a statement on KME, which is an important symbol for the Labour movement? We want to know more about the decision which apparently has been made.
Will my right hon. Friend provide time for a debate on the wool textile industry? Many people are anxious about the application of the multi-fibre arrangement by the EEC, which seems to be lacking in certain aspects. This is an important industry and the matter ought to be debated.
Mr. Foot: I agree about the importance of the industry. As my hon. Friend is well aware, the Government have taken many strenuous actions over several years to assist the industry, in regard to the multi-fibre agreement and in other respects. Whether there should be a statement or a further debate is a question that I will consider in view of my hon. Friend's representations.
I shall not commit myself one way or the other on the question whether there should be a statement on KME when we return after next week. I will discuss it with my hon. Friend and with other hon. Members who might wish to discuss it.
Sir David Renton: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he wound up the debate on Tuesday night he said that he would consult not only the usual channels but unusual channels before tabling motions? We greatly welcomed that statement. I remind him that members of the Select Committee, who are not part of the usual channels, would gladly offer any help that he requires in this matter.
Mr. Foot: I do not want to go over the debate, and I am sure that no one else wishes to do so, but I indicated in my reply that the subject could be a good deal more elaborate than some hon. Members realised. I shall be quite happy to have discussions with those who were on the Committee, although I do not think that I should have the right to select them. They have the right to ask to see me. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and others interested in the subject, that if they wish to have discussions with me before the Government bring forward any proposals on how we should next proceed, I shall be happy to take part in them.
Mr. Flannery: May I support the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) for an early debate on steel, with special reference to steel closures? Does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House know that the recent NEDC report pointed out that the great specialist steel industry of Sheffield is in danger of imminent collapse, due to dumping from the Common Market? Many of us are worried and want to know what is happening in the steel industry generally and what are the dangers that could presage what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering talked about.
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend does not need to tell me that there are great problems in the steel industry. I am well aware of them from my experience in my own constituency. It is certainly a fitting subject for debate in this House at some stage. Whether it would be a good idea, prior to any such debate, to have a meeting between some of my hon. Friends and the Secretary of State for Industry, I am not sure. That might be another way in which to proceed initially. But let us see what happens.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at early-day motion No. 4, which has been signed by over 130 Members of the House, and which talks about the way in which the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital fiasco is being handled?
[That this House urges the continuation of the specialised work of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital on its present site; believes that women patients should have the right to be treated by women doctors if they so wish; while welcoming the setting up by the Secretary of State of a Working Party to consider the future of the hospital would have preferred an independent public inquiry; but insists that meanwhile essential maintenance, especially to the lifts, should be carried out immediately so that the hospital can function to full capacity.]
Will my right hon. Friend also take into account the back-door methods now being used to close the terminal hospital, St. Columba's, in Camden, and see whether it is possible to have a debate on that subject after the recess?
Mr. Foot: I do not necessarily accept what the hon. Gentleman says about what is proceeding, but I shall consider what he said. I have seen the early-day motion to which he referred and I shall look at his further representations.
Mr. James Johnson: Will the Leader of the House confirm that he and I have been in correspondence together about a short debate to celebrate Commonwealth Day? Has he given any further thought to this matter? Will he consider having a statement by the Prime Minister on that day, in view of the importance of the Commonwealth and the work that is done? It might be appropriate also to have a few very short speeches following a statement by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Foot: I apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that I have no statement to make on the subject today, but I will look afresh at the correspondence that I have had with him and see whether it is possible for a statement to be made when we return after the recess or to have an indication on the subject given to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have shown a special interest in the occasion.
Mr. William Clark: Following the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), may I press on the Lord President the urgency of dealing with the subject of observers at the Rhodesian elections? Is the Leader of the House aware that we are now only weeks away from that election, and that in all probability the United States of America will be sending observers to watch it? It would be deplorable if Her Majesty's Government did not also send observers to see that the election is carried out fairly and without any victimisation.
Mr. Foot: I shall not enter into a debate with the hon. Gentleman on the subject here and now, because there are other factors involved as well as those he seemed to indicate in his remarks. At present, I have nothing to add to what was said from the Dispatch Box on the subject a week or so ago. I shall take account of what the hon. Gentleman and others have said about it, but I am not necessarily making a promise of an early debate on the subject.
Mr. Skinner: Will the Lord President agree to a debate on the question of Civil Service pay when the House returns, especially taking into account the fact that the Prime Minister was implying today that some hon. Members did not know too much about the subject? It might then be possible to place upon the record in that debate the fact that whilst the Prime Minister was sunning in Guadeloupe, the hon. Member for Bolsover—myself—and one of the Prime Minister's Ministers in the Ministry of Agriculture were meeting officials of the Department of Health and Social Security, my constituents and his constituents, in Mansfield, and that perhaps in that debate we should be able more fully to explain precisely what we all know about the subject. Perhaps then the Prime Minister would have the good grace to withdraw the untrue statement that he made about me.
Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend would await the possibilities of a debate with all the full facts before the House, I am sure that that would be most welcome. If he would add his voice to the voices of others in urging that no industrial action should be taken until we have that opportunity, that would make it pretty well unanimous.
Mr. Goodhart: If the Government accept the view of their road safety advisers, why are they still making no attempt to bring forward the Bill on the compulsory wearing of seat belts? If they do not accept their advisers' advice, why did they bother to publish the Bill at all?
Mr. Foot: I have answered the hon. Gentleman and some others who raised this matter last week. I have nothing further to add to the replies that I gave then.
Mr. Jessel: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), may I remind the Leader of the House that next Thursday three years will have passed since the House, on a free vote, gave a majority of 100 to the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill, and that every week's delay costs 20 lives, about 200 serious injuries and the waste of over £1 million in National Health Service resources? Why are the Government being so complacent and

641
ignoring the wishes of the great majority of the House?
Mr. Foot: The Government are not being complacent. The Government have brought forward the Bill on the matter. I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to similar questions last week.
Mr. Hastings rose—
Mr. Kilroy-Silk rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that both hon. Gentlemen rose to their feet only after I had said that I proposed to call those who had already been standing. That statement makes no sense if I continually alter the ruling.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 16 MARCH
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook

Mr. Tony Durant

Mr. Philip Goodhart

BILL PRESENTED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS (ETHNIC GROUPS)
Mr. Secretary Rees, supported by Mrs. Secretary Williams, Mr. Secretary Shore. Mr. Secretary Millan, Mr. Secretary Morris, Mr. Secretary Ennals, Mr. Robert Sheldon and Mr. Brymnor John presented a Bill to authorise the payment to local authorities in Great Britain of grants towards expenditure attributable to the presence of ethnic groups within their areas and for connected purposes: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1959 (REVIEW)
4.13 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Review of the Mental Health Act 1959 (Comand Paper No. 7320).
I welcome this opportunity to open the debate today on our recent White Paper, the "Review of the Mental Health Act 1959". One yardstick by which the compassion of any community can be measured is the facilities and legal framework which it provides for the mentally disordered. In few areas of social policy have attitudes changed so dramatically as in the field of mental health. Gone are the chains, whips and fetters of previous centuries. Gone are the ignorance, superstition and inhumanity which could leave a patient in Bethlem chained to a wall for years. Gone, too, are some of the fears and ridicule which produced labels such as "imbecile" and "lunatic".
Public attitudes and prejudices, inevitably, have changed more slowly than professional attitudes. Future generations will no doubt be as contemptuous with us—for our prejudices, for example, towards discharged mental patients—as we are with earlier generations. But not only have public attitudes been changing; the pace of change has been quickening too. The landmark which led to this change was the Mental Health Act 1959. The bedrock upon which this Act rested was the principle that people suffering from mental disorder should, as far as possible, be treated in the same way as those suffering from physical sickness.
Certain inalienable policy implications followed from that principle: first, that compulsion was to be used as little as possible; secondly, that care rightly became more important than custody; and, thirdly, that treatment must not be confined to hospital—indeed, that the emphasis should be on community provision rather than institutional care. After all, nine out of 10 people who are treated for a physical ailment never go into hospital at all.
The 1959 Act was rightly seen to be as far reaching as the County Asylum Act

643
of a century and half before. The mishmash of legal amendments, alterations and afterthoughts which had grown up over the years was replaced by a single Act. But it is now 25 years since the Royal Commission which led to the 1959 Act first began its study and two decades since the proposals were enacted. With the increase in the pace of change, many developments have occurred in this last 20 years. Let me point to three.
The first is public perceptions. We have at last come to accept that there is no clear and unambiguous boundary between mental illness and mental well-being. People have woken up to the fact that as many as one in nine of us must expect to spend some part of our lives as in-patients of psychiatric hospitals.
The second is professional developments. The opportunities which new drugs created for open door policies are now well known. But new developments have not been confined just to drugs. In an earlier era, for example, medical professionals were totally preoccupied with the individual. Today the relationship of the patient with his family and society is seen to be equally as important. Everyone needs emotional warmth and support. Where patients fail to receive this from their families, the service has to try to provide this through other means—such as foster care or a more domestic scale of hospital care.
As regards patients' rights, a growing concern for civil rights in society as a whole, not surprisingly, brought into its ambit the rights of patients in mental hospitals. Yet this is not as new a phenomenon as some might think. It was concern for the rights of the individual which led to the mental health reforms of the last century, and, indeed, to the Mental Health Act itself in 1959. The issue is not very simple. I intend to look at some of the most crucial of these questions in detail in a moment.
First, however, I want to comment on the philosophy with which we have approached this proposed reform. There are three separate strands to the Government's strategy for the mentally ill. As a first priority we concentrated on the two strands which inevitably are linked together—services and resources. As hon. Members are aware, the broad lines of strategy on services and resources have
644
been laid down at national level. There were the two "better services" White Papers. There was a consultative document on priorities and there was the follow-up report "The Way Forward".
Today's debate is on a White Paper with a more narrow focus—the law on compulsory powers—which makes up the important third strand of our strategy. But, before I look more closely at this strand, let me briefly bring hon. Members up to date on services and resources—of course, the White Paper is not about those. However, we ought to look at the law in relation to the broader picture, so, first, I mention the shortcomings—and there are many.
It gives me no satisfaction to have to report to the House that the latest published statistics show that there are still 11 local authorities with no direct residential provision for the mentally ill, 36 which have no day centres, and 44 which have no direct residential provision for mentally handicapped children. Only 31 authorities have met the minimum standards for residential care for the mentally ill and only three have met the minimum standards for day care.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Instead of mentioning the round figures, why does not my right hon. Friend actually now name all those local authorities which have not met the minimum standards?
Mr. Ennals: I have quite a lot of material to deal with in the White Paper. I shall not do what my hon. Friend asks now, but he will know that league figures are published. If he writes to me, I shall let him have the figures which indicate the records of individual authorities.
All right—there have been some bad things.
Mr. Eric Moonman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ennals: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed.
Let me list, on the other hand, some of the achievements. The number of mentally handicapped children in hospital is now lower than the White Paper target for 1991. About half the 204 health districts in the country are now served by a general hospital psychiatric unit. Nearly one-third of all psychiatric admissions are

645
now received through general hospital psychiatric units. The number of available day hospital places for the mentally ill has been rising rapidly—from about 7,500 in 1972 to 11,700 at the end of 1977. Out-patient attendances for the mentally handicapped are up by 8,650 since 1970.
Further, the number of community psychiatric nurses has increased tenfold in recent years. The number of WTE psychiatric nurses has gone up 7,000 in the last four years at a time when the number of long-stay hospital patients has been steadily falling. We have now reached the target of one nurse to three patients. There have been considerable improvements also in the nursing staff of mental handicap hospitals. Joint funding has helped to improve community services, inadequate though many of them still are. For example, residential provision, which has been increasing by 350 places a year, has kept pace with the White Paper's targets. There are now over 5,500 places.
In addition, NHS capital and revenue expenditure on the mentally ill has been increased by 2 per cent. a year since 1976. Taking account of the drop in the number of beds, that means a 5·5 per cent. increase per patient.
We should, therefore, take some pride in this progress. But what about the law? The White Paper which we are debating today was designed to complement our new strategies for services and resources. We went out of our way to consult all parties—most of whom were demanding changes. No package can satisfy them all—doctors, mental nurses, social workers, patients' rights campaigners, Members of Parliament and Butler committee members concerned about mentally abnormal offenders.
But I believe that we have achieved the right balance between what were sometimes conflicting claims. We have, for example, accepted the need to provide more protection for individual patients' civil rights. But in strengthening these rights we have sought to ensure that the needs of hard-pressed staff have not been overlooked.
The mental health law must, as the 1959 Act does, cover several areas. It must provide for the care of the patient who cannot appreciate his need for care and treatment. It must also protect the
646
public against those whose illness or handicap may cause them to endanger others. It must strive to safeguard the liberty of the individual; and it must pay proper regard to the interests of the staff involved in caring for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. In the White Paper we have tried to balance the various interests and, where necessary, to reconcile them. In doing this, we had 300 comments in all as part of our consultation.
We are now receiving comments on the White Paper itself, and initial reactions suggest that we have perhaps managed to strike a fair balance. In some of these issues, the interests and views of various groups are genuinely and fundamentally at odds. It has been the Government's task to weigh the arguments and then to determine their own point of view. We have not merely compromised for the sake of it. Where we have had to, we have made a firm proposal based on our assessment of what was the right thing to do.
I am encouraged in the belief that we have been able to strike a just and fair balance by the welcome given by the House to the Private Member's Bill introduced two weeks ago by the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie).
At the heart of this Bill are four proposals which are set out in the White Paper. The Government hope that the Bill will bring about the early implementation of these four reforms, which will benefit the majority of patients, both the informal and the detained.
In undertaking the review of the Act—a major task—we have comprehensively scrutinised all the issues surrounding the nature and use of compulsory powers. We have come up with more than 100 proposals for change—most of which will need changes in legislation, but there are some on which we can take action independently of legislation. Some of the proposals are marginal changes in the detail of the law. Individually, none of them represents a startling departure from what I believe to be the fundamentally sound framework of the 1959 Act. But, taking all 100 proposals together, we have what amounts to a substantial reform which will, if enacted, carry us forward into the years ahead with a soundly based legal framework for mental health.

647
I now turn to a more detailed description of six of the important issues where the various and complex factors involved do not lend themselves easily to a consensus. Those six issues are: the criteria on the use of the powers; mental handicap; the rights of patients, including consent to treatment; the protection of staff; mentally disordered offenders, and, finally, guardianship.
First, then, I shall deal with the criteria governing the use of compulsory powers. In what circumstances should society exercise control over a person on the grounds that he or she is mentally disordered? We should always be sure to remind ourselves of the nature of a compulsory power. It means that an individual is to be deprived of his liberty, often in circumstances where the very condition which triggers society's use of powers so clouds the judgment of the individual that he cannot see that it is for his own benefit and safety. He may, therefore, view the action of society as, at best, a gross imposition, an infringement of his liberty, and, at worst, a malevolent action of aggression. He may view the action of society in this critical way. The ultimate purpose of the law is to protect and enhance the liberty of the individual, yet mental health law expressly addresses itself to the restriction of liberty for some individuals. I think that it is this paradox which causes mental health law to become so complex and detailed.
Compulsory powers are designed for those exceptional circumstances where a patient's mental disorder warrants detention in hospital for treatment or reception into guardianship and the patient is unwilling to agree to that. The White Paper adopts the principle that compulsory powers should be available only as a last resort. But if all alternatives have been exhausted, compulsion is on occasions clearly necessary. I am thinking, for example, of patients with a mental disorder which is likely to benefit from treatment, or of someone undergoing an episodic crisis. Only five out of every 100 patients in mental hospitals are under a compulsory order. People often forget that the percentage is so small.
We must beware of the use of such powers to provide for what would be, in effect, the preventive detention of those
648
people whom some elements in our society would want us to ignore. The changes proposed in the White Paper, whilst they acknowledge that certain mentally disordered people may need asylum and protection from harm, are designed to promote a pattern of care in which the function of the hospital, in the broadest sense, is treatment and rehabilitation of the patient with the aim that, whenever possible, he can return to employment and his home.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Is not the burden of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no equivalence between a compulsory admission to hospital and the maintenance of emergency services? Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to those hospitals where, in the present disputes, the unions involved are allowing the admission only of patients under compulsory powers, while excluding the admission of patients under the voluntary procedures? Will he say something about that?
Mr. Ennals: I say only that I greatly deprecate this action and that I am well aware of it. It is happening on the outskirts of my constituency, and it causes me a lot of alarm.
This leads me directly to the second issue that I wish to discuss—that of mental handicap. I know that there will be some who will object to the view that this approach is suitable for mental illness but not for mental handicap. They will argue that the factors which warrant the detention of some mentally handicapped people in hospital are more usually due to additional psychiatric or behaviour disorders than to intellectual retardation or diminished social competence.
I know that this is the view of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and of other bodies which work on behalf of mentally handicapped people. They argue also that including mental handicap in the measure has the unfortunate effect of equating it in some people's minds with other forms of psychiatric disorder. The society and others pressed strongly for separate legislation for the mentally handicapped. This advice came from organisations which

649
are highly respected for their contributions to policy-making. They are organisations with which I have had much contact over many years. Our rejection of the advice was not taken lightly.
After thoroughly exploring the various arguments, we decided to retain mental handicap within the Act chiefly because we believe that there is a group, although it is small, of mentally handicapped people whose mental handicap is uncomplicated by mental illness or personality disorder but who nevertheless need to be compulsorily detained in hospital to ensure that they get the care and training that they need, or who need to have a guardian to take decisions that they cannot take for themselves.
Statistics show that only three out of every 100 patients admitted under a compulsory order are there on the ground of mental handicap. I know that in the vast majority of cases care can be provided without recourse to compulsory admission or guardianship in the community. The burden of the professional advice available to me is that there will be some, although a small group, of mentally handicapped people for whom compulsory powers are needed and for whom the only realistic course is hospital care.
In theory, the Government could maintain their established view on the need for compulsory powers but could differentiate between mental handicap and mental illness by introducing separate legislation for mental handicap. Two different pieces of legislation setting up similar arrangements for two different, but sometimes overlapping, groups would cause confusion and difficulty—not least for relatives and friends. The Government have, therefore, rejected the idea of separate legislation for its own sake.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that, although we believe that there is a need for compulsory powers for a small minority, we agree wholeheartedly that the mere fact that a person is mentally handicapped is no justification in itself for the use of compulsory powers. For the vast majority of the mentally handicapped they are irrelevant.
Mr. Moonman: My right hon. Friend mentioned that the White Paper was just about right in terms of needs and so on. He has rejected the idea of separate legis-
650
lation for the handicapped. Is that in line with representations made to him by the various organisations concerned?
Mr. Ennals: I said that I had received representations from the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and other organisations which deal with the mentally handicapped. It is interesting that a report just published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists took the opposite view and welcomed our decision. On every controversial issue I have received representations from diametrically opposed opinions. The task of the Minister sitting in the middle is to weigh up those opinions and reach conclusions.
A further issue involves the rights of individuals which must be protected as far as is compatible with ensuring that the care and treatment which they require is made available. It is a tribute to the dedicated work of medical, nursing and other staff, and to the therapeutic advances that have been made, that the vast majority of patients accept voluntarily the need for treatment and the need to attend hospital either as an out-patient or an in-patient. This is because people are less frightened than they used to be and because the issues are more openly discussed. This is accepted as part of general treatment.
There are cases—although they are in the minority—when the patient does not accept that he needs treatment or refuses to agree to the treatment that is proposed. Staff have great professional skill in explaining sympathetically to the patient the need for and the nature of the treatment. Sometimes that skill does not prevail. What should happen then?
In 1959, the power to impose treatment was left implicit in the long-term detention powers of the Act. Nowadays we are aware that it is much better if the legal position on these complex and difficult areas is as clear as the ability of the legislator will allow. It is vital to the essential function of a hospital for mentally disordered people that the staff are not left uncertain of their legal position when they seek to provide treatment and care for their patients.
The detailed proposals which we have made are admittedly somewhat complex. But the circumstances of patients and the nature of treatment vary and account must be taken of these variations. First, any patient—detained or not—must

651
accept the normal pattern of in-patient care. That is unavoidable. Secondly, if the patient is wholly incapable of comprehending what treatment is being offered staff must be able, within certain limits, to treat the mental disorder so as to ameliorate—or, if possible, cure—the condition. Without this power the purpose of the detention would be frustrated.
We suggest that a relative or friend who takes a close interest in the patient should have the proposed treatment explained to him and should be given the chance to discuss the patient's needs.
Many detained patients are capable of understanding the purpose and effects of a treatment if it is explained to them in simple terms. A detained patient who is capable of this will have the right to refuse to accept proposed treatment—that is, if he is unconvinced by the efforts of staff to persuade him of the advantages. At the same time, the Government feel that there are some circumstances in which staff should be able to override his wishes. But it will be clearly subject to two safeguards for the patient.
First, we have accepted the Butler committee's recommendation that treatment should be imposed against the patient's wishes only if it is necessary to save life, to prevent violence or to prevent deterioration in the patient's condition. Secondly, we propose that except in an emergency the patient's wishes should be overridden only where a concurring second opinion has been obtained. I believe that thus far our proposals meet with general approval. Indeed, they are generally in line with existing good practice. It is when we come to the form that the second opinion should take that we enter more controversial waters.
Hon. Members will know that the White Paper proposes the establishment of a multi-disciplinary panel for the purpose of giving second opinions. We envisage that this panel will have substantial medical membership, but we suggest that it should also include a lay member. Most medical opinion is opposed to this suggestion on the ground that the panel would be interfering with professional, clinical judgment. I appreciate the strength of this view and I recognise that the doctrine of clinical freedom is pursued in the interests of the patient for whom the doctor takes responsibility.
652
What I find—and I think the House may find—difficult to accept is that the decision to override the wishes of a patient who, though mentally disordered, is capable of a valid consent should be left entirely in medical hands.
After all, other professions may be involved in the case and have important contributions to make on these difficult issues. More importantly, the rights of the patient to accept or refuse treatment require a full and careful consideration of the expected benefits. This is not solely a medical matter.
The White Paper therefore proposes a multi-disciplinary panel to give second opinions. We do not suggest that the panel should usurp the psychiatrist's role. There is no question of the panel expressing an opinion on the clinical quality of the proposed treatment. The panel will not suggest alternative forms of treatment, nor will it seek to influence the future management of the patient in any other way. The panel will try to reconcile the duty and aim of the doctor and the staff—which is to treat the patient—with the fundamental requirements that the patient's rights and liberties should be respected. As part of our further consultation on the White Paper, we intend to discuss with the professional and staff bodies concerned the membership and working methods of the proposed panels.
With uncertainty about the law on treatment having been clarified, I hope that members of the medical profession will recognise that the proposed panels will enable them, as a profession, to participate in a fair and balanced approach to what are very difficult questions.
Mr. Christopher Price: My right hon. Friend has set out the position very fairly. He said that the medical evidence would be substantial, but does he see the medical profession having, as it were, a majority holding on a panel—with a lay minority holding—or does he see the medical profession on the panel having a minority holding? That is at the root of those difficult cases where the composition of the panel might be important. That is one of the matters in which the medical and other professions are interested.
Mr. Ennals: I understand the point behind my hon. Friend's question. He tempts me to commit myself, but I will

653
not be tempted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Be tempted."] No, I resist all temptations. It is important that we should now proceed to proper consultation. I have already said that that is what we intend to do. We intend to discuss with the profession and other bodies the membership and the working members of the proposed panels. I think that if we were to reach hard conclusions before that consultation took place we would close some options, and that would not improve the possibility of getting agreement, which is what we want to do.
We recognise that there are some sorts of treatments where special safeguards—over and above the safeguards that will ordinarily operate—are needed. These fall into three categories—that is to say, "irreversible" treatments; "hazardous" treatments or "not fully established" treatments. The special safeguard would be that both the agreement of the patient concerned and a concurring second opinion should be obtained. This would apply to "irreversible" procedures such as psychosurgery.
When I launched the White Paper I was asked questions which I could not answer, and I promised that we would soon have better statistical information on psychosurgery. We now have that information. In 1977, 44 operations were carried out in England and Wales. When one looks at these figures in the context of the number of people who receive a form of treatment for mental disorder, one finds that they are very small indeed.
In a typical year, an estimated 5 million people with a psychiatric problem visit their general practitioners and 3,300,000 visits are made to day hospitals or outpatient clinics. However, even though the figure is small, in no area of mental health are the safeguards that we propose more important than in psychosurgery.
The protection of patients does not relate solely to this difficult issue of consent to treatment. Unnecessarily prolonged detention is another serious breach of a patient's rights. On this front we have set out important reforms. The patient's right to apply to a mental health review tribunal will be virtually doubled by halving the period after which detention must be renewed. In addition, we have several detailed proposals which are designed to extend and develop the functions of mental health review tribunals.
Dr. Gerard Vaughan: The Minister has just given some very interesting figures on psychosurgery. Will he confirm that those figures represent the total number of patients, including informal and detained patients, or is he referring to detained patients only?
Mr. Ennals: That is the total number, including both detained patients and non-detained voluntary patients. That shows what a very small figure we are talking about, but that is not a reason why we should say that we need not worry.
In proposing to make clear what the rights of patients are, I recognise that we must make sure that the legal position of staff, which is the fourth issue I wish to raise, is also quite clear. The two are closely interrelated. We must reduce as far as we can any uncertainty about the legal position of staff so that they are not distracted from the task of managing and caring for their patients. There is no doubt that staff who care for mentally disordered patients have an arduous and demanding job which requires great skill and humanity. I know from my long experience of mental health work how true this is. We must be satisfied that they can approach this task conscientiously without always feeling that they must look over their shoulders.
The amendment and clarification of the law, and the clear central guidance which we propose, will, I believe, enable staff to concentrate on the job of caring for patients and will strengthen their confidence in tackling the difficult situations that can arise on a ward. The new "holding power" which we propose for registered mental nurses and registered mental nurses for the subnormal is designed to cater for the situation where an informal patient either becomes extremely disturbed on the ward or wishes to take his discharge and where a doctor is not immediately available. Nursing staff may well feel that they have reasonable grounds for preventing the patient from leaving hospital because he could be a danger to himself or others, even though he is a voluntary patient. But if there is no clear emergency they may be uncertain as to how far they can go because the patient is informal and is not subject to compulsory powers. The new power that we propose will last for six hours, long enough to enable a doctor to be called to deal with the case, and its

655
existence should reassure staff of their position.
Section 141 of the Act provides protection for staff in the event of civil or criminal proceedings being brought against them in relation to their actions under the Act. In its present form, however, it represents a very considerable obstacle for patients who are seeking access to the law. It is here that the question of achieving a proper balance arises. It seems to the Government that we can maintain a full and adequate protection for staff against mischievous or frivolous prosecutions, while at the same time strengthening the access which patients have to the law.
The central proposal is to remove criminal actions from section 141 and transfer them to the same section—section 126—which covers the ill treatment of patients. This will mean that the Director of Public Prosecutions, rather than the High Court, would have to give leave before criminal proceedings could be taken against staff.
The fifth issue which I wish to touch upon concerns the mentally disordered offender. Three-quarters of mentally disordered offenders admitted to hospital—some 770 out of 980 in 1976—are under section 60 of the Act without restrictions, and their position is virtually the same as that of a person admitted under one of the civil powers.
There is, though, a small group of mentally disordered offenders who would, in the opinion of the court, based on expert medical opinion, be likely to commit further and serious offences if released too soon. To guard against this risk of premature discharge, section 65 of the Act empowers a court to impose restrictions on the discharge of the offender. The effect of the restrictions is to require the approval of the Home Secretary should it be desired to discharge, grant leave to or transfer the patient. The duty of the Home Secretary is to have particular regard to the need to protect the public.
Offender patients, to whom the provisions of section 65 are applied by the court, are usually referred to as restricted patients, and the White Paper devotes a lengthy section to their position. Several detailed changes are proposed, the most important of which draws upon a sugges-
656
tion of the Butler committee that the wording of section 65 be amended so as to indicate clearly its essential purpose—which is to protect the public from serious harm.
I realise that there are strongly held views about other aspects of section 65 where we have decided, after the most careful consideration, that the Government cannot recommend changes. The first concerns the power that courts have to impose restrictions on an offender for an indefinite period. It has been argued strongly, by MIND, BASW and others, that the court should be empowered to make an unlimited restriction order only where the defendant was convicted of a serious offence, for instance, involving serious violence against the person. They point out that criminals who it is known are dangerous are released from prison when they have completed their sentences, whereas some restricted patients may have been convicted of relatively minor offences but may be faced with an indefinite period of detention. In my view, this argument pushes the analogy with criminals too far. The length of a prison sentence is meant to be directly related to the gravity of the prisoner's offence.
However, section 65 is not concerned with the nature of the offence in this way; rather, it is concerned with the future needs to guard against premature discharge. I want to point out that although restrictions may be imposed for an unlimited period their duration does not bear any relationship whatever to the length of a notional prison sentence. The Government have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the balance of advantage lies with leaving the law as it is.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government would leave the law as it is, but a moment ago he said that section 65 was not concerned with the nature of the offence. Of course, that is a requisite of section 65(1), which states that
" having regard to the nature of the offence, the antecedents of the offender and the risk of his committing further offences if set at large ".
All those things must statutorily be taken into account, and then it must be necessary for the protection of the public. Those are the criteria that are spelt out by the Act, and I apprehend that the

657
right hon. Gentleman proposes to maintain them in this form.
Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who knows a great deal about this subject. I appreciate his intervention. I was saying that the provisions that he quoted are ones that will not be changed when we bring the legislation before the House.
Mr. Graham Page: Surely that will go hand in hand with annual reports on the patient. I think that the White Paper says that the Government accept the idea of annual reports with statutory backing.
Mr. Ennals: I would want to check that before I gave the right hon. Gentletleman an answer. With permission, perhaps I can ask my right hon. Friend to confirm whether or not that is exactly so.
Much attention has been focused on the ability of the NHS to accept and provide care for those patients who are difficult to manage or who are likely to be violent or disruptive. A patient is not necessarily difficult to manage or violent simply because he is an offender, or simply because he is the subject of a restriction order.
The White Paper acknowledges that there has been an increasing reluctance on the part of some hospitals to accept patients whom they feel would be particularly difficult to manage. This has been highlighted by the publicity given to cases involving offenders whose mental disorder warranted detention in hospital for treatment but who have to be sent to prison, or kept in prison, for want of a suitable hospital place. It has been argued that the solution to this problem is simple—that the courts should be empowered to require a hospital to admit an offender where there is the appropriate medical evidence that he is mentally disordered and that his condition warrants hospital admission.
Let me explain the reasons for the reluctance of some hospitals to accept these patients. In brief, it is an inevitable consequence of the beneficial changes made in the care of psychiatric patients over the last two decades and of the resulting change of attitudes of staff. The last 20 years have seen a move to a much more open therapeutic environment in
658
psychiatric hospitals. This change, which is still developing and which permeates every facet of hospital life, has brought immense benefit for patients, staff and the public. Inevitably, a freer and more open approach makes it more difficult to manage patients who are extremely violent or disruptive, or who need secure accommodation of some sort.
In particular, staff sometimes feel that they might jeopardise the hard-won advances made for the benefit of the patient if they have to cater for a small but difficult group. They do not want to go back to the days of the locked wards. They may also feel that the security needs of a few will absorb too much of the staff time needed for the treatment and care of patients as a whole. Moreover, where the patient concerned is restricted, doctors may sometimes feel that their hands are too much tied by the restrictions that require them to seek the Home Secretary's consent before allowing a patient out of hospital on leave, or discharging or transferring him.
I believe that it would be quite wrong for Government to invite Parliament to give the courts the power to oblige hospitals to accept patients for whom they did not feel they could offer appropriate care and treatment. I am glad that the hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) agrees, because it is a controversial matter.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My right hon. Friend may welcome the support of the Opposition, but I do not agree with him. He talked a great deal about the right to give treatment to patients who refuse that treatment. Will he now spend a little time telling us whether those patients who are disgracefully put into prison because NHS hospitals will not accept them also have a right to treatment? How will my right hon. Friend ensure that mentally disordered offenders are not kept in inhuman conditions in hospitals, and that they receive, as of right, proper medical care and treatment under hospital conditions?
Mr. Ennals: I presume that my hon. Friend got his argument twisted and that he was really talking about "conditions in prison". I recognise that this is a problem. In fact, I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about ways in which there can be an improvement in the psychiatric

659
treatment of those who are in prison and who need such treatment. That is a real problem, and I do not want to duck it.
Mr. Michael Spicer: I merely seek a point of information. Of the 200 restricted patients whom the right hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier, how many does he estimate are in the two special hospitals and how many are in the hospitals about which he is now talking?
Mr. Ennals: I cannot give that breakdown without notice. My right hon. Friend will deal with it when replying to the debate, or in answer to a parliamentary question or in some other way I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer. The point that I was on prior to the interventions—
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My right hon. Friend did not answer my question.
Mr. Ennals: I tried to answer it. I am coming to part of it, because I want to deal with the question of regional secure units, which is an important issue about which my hon. Friend is extremely interested. The other part of his question was whether we could improve the psychiatric care of those who are at present in prison. We must look at both sides of this problem. We must see how we can provide better circumstances in which people who are in prison, but ought to be in hospital, can get treatment in hospital, and how people in prison can get psychiatric treatment. I believe that we must deal with both points.
I can assure hon. Members that the NHS has an obligation to provide a range of facilities to meet the variety of different needs of the community it serves, and patients who are difficult to manage are no less a part of that community than those who are co-operative and amenable.
I mentioned regional secure units, but I am not suggesting that they will be the answer to all our problems; far from it. However, they will provide secure accommodation for those patients who require a degree of security less than that of special hospitals but greater than that in local psychiatric hospitals. Our programme for their development, as hon. Members will be aware, has had considerable difficulties. But over the last three years we have made great efforts, and
660
progress has been made with regard to interim secure units.
There are now about 100 places in designated interim units, and we plan to double this number by the end of the year. However, I cannot pretend that progress has been uniform by any means. The process of influencing attitudes is a slow and gradual one, but I believe that the efforts we are making are beginning to produce practical results. This is something in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has himself been actively involved. There are attitudes of staff, attitudes of unions and attitudes of local residents to the establishment of secure units. There are many obstacles that we must try to overcome.
We have now decided that because of the very high priority that we attach to these schemes, further funds should be made available to those regions where the Department feels that they are needed. The extra allocations will be made available to regional health authorities as the units are established, so long as we are satisfied that the money we are already allocating is being fully spent on secure units and that an additional contribution is required for a particular unit.
Mrs. Lynda Chalker: Will the Secretary of State outline how many of the regions that have the money for the interim secure units are not fully utilising them at present? From visits and talking to people about this, we feel that hardly any of them are using fully their present allocation.
Mr. Ennals: The position is not nearly as bad as the hon. Lady suggests. My right hon. Friend has devoted a good deal of time to this issue and intends to deal with it in winding up.
The sixth and final issue that I wish to raise is guardianship. This chapter in the White Paper is "green-edged", and we have put forward our thoughts as the basis for consultation. Guardianship takes us away from hospital services to the personal social services provided by local authorities. I opened my speech today by saying that the White Paper on the review was written to complement our strategy on resources. The options that we have put forward for the refinement of existing powers of guardianship are a good example. We want to see a shift in the balance of care from hospital

661
to community, and this has been and remains a central factor in our overall strategy. We have therefore sought comments on various ways of adapting compulsory powers so that they can provide a flexible means of making services available to clients in the least restrictive setting possible, whilst still providing any necessary guidance and control.
Before looking more closely at these options, I want to mention the fundamental suggestion that has been put to me that the Government should enforce their strategy of shifting resources from hospital to community by means of legislation, that mandatory duties should be placed on local authorities and that health authorities should be obliged to transfer their resources into the personal social services.
I fully understand the case that is made, but, frankly, creating new legislation does not create new resources; nor can legislation of itself bring about the transfer from one sector to another of trained manpower or of physical facilities such as buildings and equipment. It is a relatively simple matter to direct finance. However, any fundamental structural change of this kind can only take place gradually. There are powers that exist without further legislation, and I have turned down proposals to introduce new powers into the Act.
It is against this background that we hope to see the use of guardianship powers on the mentally ill or mentally handicapped living in the community adapted to new purposes. Guardianship has not been used nearly as much as the Percy Royal Commission hoped. The White Paper argues that this may be due in part to the all-embracing nature of the power that stems from guardianship and that is not viewed by authorities and their social work staff as being appropriate to the community. Our aim is to adapt the powers more closely to the need in the community to provide alternatives to compulsory hospitalisation.
We have also suggested that a guardian might have a useful function in relation to informal patients. We are thinking here of the informal patient who is so disordered that he cannot be held to agree or refuse to enter hospital or to accept or decline treatment. That category of non-protesting patient may be particularly vulnerable and needs someone to take
662
decisions on his behalf. We have suggested that the appointment of a guardian might help. The guardian would look after the patient's interests in matters of consent to treatment. He would also be alert to the need to ensure that a stay in hospital is not unnecessarily prolonged. Once the patient left hospital, the guardian would represent a ready-made link, guide and mentor when the patient was ready to return to the community.
I have picked out six issues which I felt merited some close attention this afternoon. I selected these six not only because each of them is important but because, as a group, they exemplify the thinking and philosophy that have formed the basis of our review. Of course, there are many other issues which are discussed in the White Paper. In every case we have made the fullest use of the many comments and suggestions that we received.
As the House knows, our intention is to embody in a Bill the proposals contained in the White Paper. The essential exercise of consultation and discussion on these proposals is not yet complete. The task of analysing the comments and preparing legislation is already in hand and we would hope to put a Bill before the House towards the end of this year.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Would any subsequent amending Act apply to Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland operates under the 1961 Act passed in the former Stormont. Therefore, would any subsequent Act apply directly to the Province or would an Order in Council have to be applied?
Mr. Ennals: No decision has been taken, nor would it be taken without consultation with the Secretary of State, who would also wish to consult others.
The reforms proposed in the White Paper will, when enacted, mean that all remaining legislative distinctions between informal patients and patients who are in hospital for some physical illness will be removed. We want to ensure that all patients—formal and informal—receive full and clear information on their legal position and rights. We intend that this should be in a form that they can readily understand. But because we know how difficult this may be we also intend to set up and evaluate some schemes of patients'

663
advisers. The aim will be to provide further support for staff in protecting the interests of those patients who have most difficulty in understanding their position. However, we can best help informal patients, and also detained patients, by continuing to improve the quality and quantity of our services.
If we are to continue the process of improving mental health services, we must provide a clear and balanced legal framework to support it. That is the aim of the White Paper, and I believe that it will have the support of hon. Members on both sides.
5.7 p.m.
Dr. Gerard Vaughan: The House listened with great interest to what the Secretary of State said and particularly the way in which he opened the debate. He was right to begin by saying that this was a subject for great compassion. Although often the numbers are small, the implications of the law and the changes of the law proposed are of immense importance to individuals.
It is not an easy White Paper to debate. It makes over 100 different proposals. Some are small but almost all are of great importance. I shall not cover the whole of the White Paper but will concentrate first on a few general issues and then on other points that we think are especially important, because I know that many hon. Members wish to raise points based on their experience about which they feel strongly.
Looking at the White Paper, the comments on it and the general articles, no one could fail to realise how much work has been carried out by MIND. It is due largely to its repeated pointing out of the shortcomings of the 1959 Act that we are today debating the White Paper. I also recognise the important contribution of the British Association of Social Workers, Dr. Bluglass and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
The 1959 Act followed the excellent report of the Percy Commission. But, more than that, it followed several major breakthroughs in psychiatric treatment. In the early 1950s I worked for a time in a psychiatric hospital. I remember vividly the locked wards and the bunches of keys—an appalling situation. I remember also the aimless, futureless mass of pat-
664
ients herded together. Nobody really knew what to do with them and they did not know what to do with themselves.
Then there was the advent of electro-convulsive therapy. It is important to remember when ECT is criticised today that it transformed the situation. Then there were drugs such as largactil which transformed the situation even more and made it possible for the first time seriously to consider unlocking the wards and returning people to the general community.
The 1959 Act crystallised all this by putting in a legal framework the principle that psychiatric patients should have the same rights and be under the same conditions as patients with physical illnesses. I think that the White Paper is a little complacent when it says that so much has been done. Even today the informal psychiatric patient is not really on quite the same footing as the non-psychiatric patient. He has hanging over him the possibility that he could become a formal patient if his illness became worse or if other problems arose.
The 1959 Act provided that psychiatric hospitals should be for treatment only. Although we have moved some way, we have not yet achieved that objective. These hospitals are still used for care and custody and not just for treatment. However, we are moving in the right direction.
Since the 1959 Act, treatment has progressed. We now have the long-acting drugs which have helped so much in cases of schizophrenia. We also have anti-depressants which have largely replaced the queues for ECT. Now the law can be changed towards liberalisation of the care of patients. I am sure that every hon. Member welcomes this possibility.
It is that possibility which makes the White Paper so important today. The other day the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) was universally welcomed. That is a sign of how various people working in this field are prepared for some quite major changes in mental health legislation. The Government are right to consider amending the Bill. The most important question is what compulsory powers, if any, are needed outside hospital in the community.

665
This White Paper is supremely important because it deals with the dignity of man, when his capacity to control his own destiny has gone or has been reduced because his mind is disordered. It deals with the extent to which his freedom can be removed by society in order to help him, and it deals with the protection which society exerts for its own sake against him. We must recognise that there are times when society puts its own protection before the interests of the individual.
Despite the fear we all have about mental illness, these are great personal issues. We should have expected that a White Paper dealing with them would have been universally welcomed. In fact, the Secretary of State, in his opening speech, spoke as if this was a great triumph. Perhaps it is from his point of view. But, sadly, that is not the general view. It seems that nobody is particularly pleased with the White Paper—everyone seems to have reservations and criticisms of one kind or another. The British Association of Social Workers says:
" This timid paper with its myopic vision…rarely lifts its head to see which way we are going…It fails to promote new initiatives,…fails to lead and inspire in the manner of the great Act which fathered it."
Rather harsh words, but that is what was said. Wherever one looks there is criticism. Tony Smythe, the director of MIND, says:
" The DHSS has thrown down a woolly glove. There in the slush it will lie until after the general election ".
The Guardian started with praise under the title
" Active Ennals Stout of Heart ";
but sadly a few days later, after closer examination, it said that the White Paper was "woolly…pusillanimous".
These criticisms result from the Government's failure to follow up "Better Services for the Mentally Ill" which was published by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) when she was Secretary of State. The 1959 Act also failed in many ways because it was not given the resources to back it up. Sadly, we in this House have had to face the implications of a number of Acts—the Children and Young Persons Act, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, the Mental Health Act 1959 and the
666
Children Act—all of which have raised hopes and then resulted in a great deal of disillusionment. Although Parliament has passed the legislation, it has not always provided the resources to carry it out. That is our main criticism of the White Paper.
We believe that the Government have grossly underestimated the resources needed in terms of buildings and staff. The proposals for violent patients, for example, are absolute nonsense unless more special units are provided. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) clearly recognises this. There are also the anxieties of the unions, particularly COHSE, about the facilities. Already some hospitals think it necessary to send out a union representative with a doctor to examine a patient and see whether the hospital is prepared to accept him.
We should have liked in the White Paper a much more realistic and up-to-date review of the mental health services. The Secretary of State has gone some way in giving us some figures, but he has not gone far enough. He sounded far too complacent in talking about the increase in the number of nurses. He knows, as we all do, that many mentally ill patients, and particularly mentally handicapped patients, are housed and treated today in the most appalling conditions. Many wards have inadequate staff. I know of wards where beds are closed because there are insufficient nurses to look after the beds, even at a low level of nursing care.
For the mentally handicapped we must depend very largely on the services of overseas-trained doctors. There are now some posts which it is impossible to fill suitably. This is the context in which we should look at any changes in the law.
Mr. Ennals: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is making these points, because the whole purpose of this substantial and complicated White Paper is entirely to review the Mental Health Act. White Papers have been produced dealing with the provisions within the community and within hospitals. It would have been confusing for the House and for the public had we included that in the White Paper. I should have thought it right to concentrate entirely on the legislative provisions.
Dr. Vaughan: I was just coming to that point. We are afraid that by narrowing the vision only to the 1959 Act the Government will shelter behind the proposals in the White Paper and avoid facing the real and urgent issues for mentally sick people in our community. If the Secretary of State can reassure us about that, one of our major criticisms of this White Paper will disappear.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We listen with interest to the view of the official Opposition. Is there to be considerable public expenditure in that direction if the Conservative Party comes to power at the next general election?
Dr. Vaughan: The Opposition can promise that they will not brush on one side an appreciation of what is going on. We shall not take the complacent approach of the Secretary of State—that only improvement is needed—when we know from various inquiries that many places are an absolute and total disgrace.
It seems that much of the White Paper is cast the wrong way round. We have a campaign for the mentally handicapped to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and we also have Exodus, which is aming to get all mentally subnormal children out of hospital. However, the exodus out of Egypt meant 40 years spent in the wilderness. We do not believe that the approach of Exodus is completely right, nor do we think that the right hon. Gentleman's approach is realistic. We need a campaign of entrance into the community. That is the approach that we want him to take. We hope that he will take a much closer interest in community barriers that prevent patients from returning into the community. I am sure that that is a philosophy that the right hon. Gentleman shares.
We are disappointed that the Government have not seized the opportunity to face the problems in the community for the mentally sick. One small step in that direction would be to remove mental subnormality from future legislation. I refer to "mental subnormality", the old name for the condition, because to change its name is merely a euphemism. To make that change does not alter the situation. There is surely no need for mental sub-normality to be a special category within
668
an Act dealing with mental illness. Surely low intelligence on its own does not make a person a danger to the community. To put mental illness and low intelligence together is an insult, and a cause of confusion, to the mentally subnormal. It is interesting that it is mainly the junior doctors working in psychiatry who seem to take that view. They feel that mental subnormality should be removed from the psychiatric sector and treated as a condition of low intelligence.
When we consider the reasons for detaining a mentally sick person who may also be mentally subnormal, we should also consider, as MIND has said, the behaviour that leads to detention. It is not mental illness that leads to detention but the behaviour that follows certain types of mental illness. As the right hon. Gentleman will realise, a person may be mentally ill and suffering from a certain condition but be a perfectly acceptable informal patient. That is why the level of detainees has been reduced to 7 per cent. There is a strong argument that it is the disorder that goes with certain types of mental illness that should be recognised in the Act rather than specific sorts of mental illness and disability.
I turn to some of the specific proposals. We welcome the proposal that a written statement should be given to patients setting out their rights of admission and their rights to leave, provided that it is made clear that it must be safe for them to do so. That needs to be specifically stated in any written document. We welcome the proposal that if a patient's status is changed he should be properly informed of that change within 24 hours.
The most relevant feature is that whatever information is given to the patient must be in a form that he can understand. If he is mentally ill or of low intelligence, the wording, or the explanation from the hospital staff that goes with it, must be of a character that enables him to be properly informed. The Royal College of Psychiatry has observed that the new definition of treatment, which includes behaviour techniques, habilitative techniques and training techniques, may all lead to problems if they are not properly supervised. No doubt the Government will want carefully to consider that point of view.
The suggestion that certain nurses should have the right to detain a patient

669
compulsorily for a short period is extremely important and a good advance. It will remove much of the confusion about whether a patient may be restrained for a short time while other measures are considered. I do not understand why the period needs to be six hours. That seems to be an extraordinarily long period. Surely in any hospital it should be possible to obtain an experienced doctor within two to three hours and the necessary social work back-up to get the patient on a proper detained basis. Six hours would be unnecessarily hard on certain patients.
Significant in the White Paper is the recognition that social workers, if they are to oversee the compulsory arrangements—most of us want that to continue—must have special experience. The generic social worker has been a total disaster. We have all come across instances where a young generic social worker, changing her job every week, confused, bewildered and often frightened by what has been asked of her, is totally out of her depth when it comes to judging whether people should be put on a compulsory order and where they should go. It will be a great advance to have a specially trained social worker who knows what he or she is doing to the same degree as the old mental welfare officer.
It is surprising how little reference is made in the White Paper—it is a serious fault—to the standards required of doctors who will operate under section 28. There is an urgent need for criteria to be set out for selected doctors. There is a great shortage of suitably qualified general practitioners.
I have not gone into the proposals for the tribunal reviews. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) will deal with that matter and others when she addresses the House. It seems that the White Paper proposals would be an advance and an improvement on the present procedure. We are worried about the resource implications in terms of staff in the hospitals and the members of the tribunals. We do not think that the Government have faced the implication of their proposals.
There are the curious features of consents to treatment, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and the treatment of detained patients. One of the most important steps in the 1959 Act was to make
670
psychiatric treatment available in the same way as any other medical treatment. The White Paper appears to be moving in the opposite direction. It is strange to have to raise the issue, but surely where informal consent is available there is no basis to erect a barrier around the administration of treatment. There must be consent between the informal patient and the medical staff. If there is not, it will be impossible to carry out treatment.
I cannot understand the provisions in the White Paper in this respect. For detained patients, it seems to many of us that the question of consent has already been dealt with legally by arranging for compulsory detention. The proposal of a second opinion for irreversible or hazardous treatments makes great sense. This has been the general practice of good doctors in this field for many years. It is not a new proposal. It is not only in the psychiatric field where this occurs. If one is presented with a complicated decision over an operation, most surgeons will turn to another surgeon for a second opinion.
What seems strange is that the Secretary of State appears to be suggesting that if an experienced psychiatrist has decided that a particular kind of treatment is necessary, he should turn not to another experienced psychiatrist but to a panel of people, some of whom will have had no experience in that field. It makes absolute nonsense of a lot of medical training. Why spend up to 10 years training to become a psychiatric consultant and then have one's view of what is best for a patient reversed by someone working in a different speciality who may have spent only two or three years in training?
Mr. Christopher Price: The hon. Gentleman is making a comparison between an experienced consultant and a less experienced professional of some kind. Would he not agree that many professional nurses in psychiatric hospitals have had about 100 times more experience of the needs of psychiatric patients than the doctor who has regular but very much less intensive contact with the hospital?
Dr. Vaughan: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. It is a matter that we shall have to debate before legislating.
There was an interesting article in The Guardian recently on this subject.

671
Sadly, it confused the multi-disciplinary team with a multi-disciplinary panel. I can understand that some of the medical profession have become upset. No experienced psychiatrist, to my knowledge, would embark on a doubtful form of treatment without discussing it first with his multi-disciplinary team—not only the nurse and the ward sister but also the social worker and the psychologist. The psychiatrist will have formed his view from the report of this team as well as from his own experience. This is a matter which many hon. Members will want to consider further.
The White Paper seems to us to have raised many excellent issues. We query whether the Government have faced up to the question of the resources which will be required. We think that they have underestimated them. We should have liked to hear much greater emphasis put on the needs of the community. I hope that the Secretary of State will not use the White Paper and any future legislation on it as a substitute for facing up to the urgent needs of the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped.
I started with a comment by MIND. I end with a comment from MIND:
" Even disappointing White Papers can serve a purpose: in this case they give us time to debate these issues and to come up with better and more relevant solutions to some of these very large problems."
I hope that the Government will face the challenge realistically.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Eric Moonman: It is regrettable that over the past 20 years since the 1959 Act was passed, and increasingly within the past 10 years, when we have discussed mental health it has always been because a report has suggested ill treatment of patients, that there has been abuse or something has happened that has demanded the attention of the Secretary of State. This occasion is therefore to be welcomed. It gives hon. Members a chance to examine not only what needs to be put right under the Act but also what sort of Act we should like. We can also give thought to the services that have been operating.
Reference has been made to the fact that this is the first real opportunity we have had to put another Bill on the
672
statute book. I wonder whether the proposals are courageous enough. I make this as a general comment and will return to specific issues later. Many of the items in the White Paper are most creditable, but they reflect issues which we have faced for the last 20 years.
A Bill, if it involves taking decisions for the next 20 years, must also anticipate the future. In addition to matters that will need to be put right, based on our hard experience over the last 20 years and information and evidence given to the Secretary of State, a new Act should also anticipate as intelligently as possible what will be needed in the mental health service over the next five to 10 years.
The White Paper does not give any encouragement to those who have argued the need to avoid the discrimination between the mental health service and the general hospital service. This happens in the most extraordinary ways. It affects the number of nurses made available to psychiatric hospitals and to mental health and mentally handicapped hospitals compared with general hospitals. It reaches even the cost of feeding patients. There has never been any justification for the fact that it costs £8·18p a week to feed a patient in a general hospital and almost half that amount to feed a patient in a mental handicap hospital.
The Secretary of State was right in stating that his aim was to put right many matters. But we have the opportunity to bring together the two parts of the National Health Service in the course of implementing this White Paper. We need to deal with the element of discrimination in the mental health service. We can then have an Act on the statute book which not only serves us for some time ahead but which also tries to remove some of the unjustifiable anomalies that have been part of the burden of the mentally handicapped and the mentally sick.
The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) was right to mention the enormous help given by outside bodies, such as MIND, the hospitals and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which have provided us with background material. I hope he will agree that the all-party committee in the House has played an important part. In 1966, when I first became a Member of the House, we tried to raise

673
some interest in this subject. We did not try to do so in the Chamber because we knew it would not attract great interest here. It is a subject which interests hon. Members when a problem has been raised by constituents or because they see an issue that needs to be put right. We can discuss it upstairs in Committee Rooms with outside experts to brief us on the needs to improve the service.
The all-party committee has helped enormously in bringing to the attention of hon. Members what needs to be done. It has done much good educational work. In 1966, it was not possible to get more than two or three hon. Members to attend a meeting on this subject, but many more hon. Members are now interested. It is not a party issue. The great success of the committee is that it is not in the pocket of any party or Government.
I wish to deal with a number of specific points. The troubling feature about emerging attitudes towards the treatment of the mentally ill is the obvious conflict that has been created between local authority services and the medical profession. We have seen, in the name of "clinical judgment", patients who may be troublesome because of their illness refused admission or patients with marked residual symptoms discharged when they are unable to cope within the community. In some quarters, it is assumed that the distress of those patients will force the local authority to take action. The patient becomes a pawn in promoting new resources, mostly without success.
We have seen increasing doubt and distress about the reliability of the social services and a reciprocal response to hospital services. Health care planning teams, joint planning and other devices have not solved the problem. It is likely, is it not, that the best solution is for rehabilitation and day care to be a continuous process from the hospital?
That aspect was touched on by the Secretary of State and I wish to amplify it only a little further. We must ensure that conflicts of initiative do not promote avoidable anxieties and avoidance of responsibility. After all, the treatment of a broken limb and the subsequent rehabilitation to a restoration of functions are not seen as divided functions. Why should a broken mind be so treated?
Obviously it is not as simple as that, but fragmented responsibility means that
674
those who wish to do so can more easily avoid their fragment of responsibility when the demands are too great for them rather than expose their inadequacy or demand help. We are talking about the crisis of leadership. We must not pretend, as many do, that all our medical and nursing care is superb. Psychiatric care in its many aspects demands much of the personalities involved, and from time to time their judgment is faulty and unsavoury incidents occur. I am not necessarily referring to Normansfield or Ely.
The Act seeks to offer the best possible protection for patients and staff alike, but let us not forget the protection of the relatives and the public and their need for support. The attitude of some groups towards, for example, medium secure units is disgraceful. Although money is available, the setting up of such units is resisted by fairly powerful forces. The relatives and the public carry the burden, particularly in the poorer areas whence most of the problems emerge.
My right hon. Friend mentioned medium secure units, and no doubt we shall hear more about them from the Minister of State. Something more than resources is required here because the resources have already been allocated. What is required is the will to ensure that in every part of the country there is such a facility and a common understanding that great courage is needed by the Department and the areas concerned.
One or two hon. Members have had the opportunity to visit the Prestwich hospital in Manchester. We found to our dismay that, although there is a great deal of good will and much work has been done in trying to establish a medium secure unit, there are problems that will not be easily overccome unless courageous and bold decisions are taken. I hope that the Minister of State will refer to that problem when he replies to the debate. There is a feeling on both sides of the House that we need action to take us from the stage of the blueprints to the stage of haying the units in operation.
I am not concerned with apportioning blame, but I hope that those who have resisted the establishment of such units, at Prestwich and elsewhere, will think again. I have listened to some of the objections of my trade union colleagues in NUPE and I am not impressed. They

675
must come up with a better argument if we are to believe that their case is about the patient.
My own region of East Anglia has no firm plans for a regional secure unit. It has identified a possible site, but there are all sorts of difficulties that should have been overcome by now. A run around the regions gives the same impression, although in the Northern region planning is advanced on a 30-bed unit at St. Luke's hospital in Middlesbrough and in Yorkshire planning is advanced on a 40-bed unit at Wakefield. Other hon. Members may wish to indicate the problems in their parts of the country. The good will exists, but it seems that we are not translating that into action and that is the great test of this part of the debate.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: While my hon. Friend is dishing out gold medals to the regional health authorities that have made at least some limited progress, why does he not also point out that some have made no progress? The Oxford regional health authority has received almost £1 million and has not spent a penny of it on establishing a regional secure psychiatric unit or improving mental illness or psychiatric services in the region, but has retained the money in its regional reserves and has not submitted even a plan to the DHSS for the establishment of such a unit.
Mr. Moonman: I am not suggesting that medals are in order at the moment. It is better to look at medium secure units in a realistic light. We have had more than one discussion in the House on the importance and value of such units, not only for their own sake but because they would enhance and strengthen other elements of the mental health services. My hon. Friend's remarks are justified because some regions wish to have no part in taking on this important work.
Mr. Michael Spicer: Is not the true scandal that about £700,000 has been allocated by Parliament in the past three years to the region with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned and that only about £50,000 has been spent?
Mr. Moonman: That is a scandal, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind
676
that the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) and I felt when we visited Prestwich recently that the troubles there are affecting the willingness and initiative of other authorities to go ahead. If there were a willingness in areas such as Oxford, I would concede that they should take account of some of the problems, but the ripple effect of what is happening at Prestwich is extraordinary. People are being obdurate and cannot reach a compromise, and that is giving excuses to other regions for not making progress.
That is the most terrifying aspect of what is happening at Prestwich. It cannot be seen in isolation. The view has been expressed to me from Oxford that the ripple effect of what is happening at Prestwich is the underlying difficulty behind the problems at Oxford. We cannot dismiss Prestwich lightly as the consequence of a group of people preferring to delay or to have greater security outside the hospital grounds. It is causing considerable difficulties, and I appreciate the dilemma faced by the Government, but I hope that the Minister of State will comment on this matter when he replies to the debate.
Mrs. Chalker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the sad spin-offs of this situation, whether at Prestwich or anywhere else, is that it excites in the community a fear of secure units which makes it so much more difficult for other regions to overcome the difficulties? It behoves us to try to put right what is done in the units in order to allay the fears of the regions that are attempting to make progress but are facing enormous community objections.
Mr. Moonman: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I am glad that she has put those facts on the record. There is no party difference on this matter; we all speak feelingly about it. When the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton and I went to Prestwich, we met representatives of local residents. Although they had some disbelief in the value of the scheme, after discussion and explanation they were totally impressed with it. It would be wrong to say that they now believe in the concept of the secure unit, but some of their fears were allayed by the discussion. There are important characteristics arising from a case study

677
in Prestwich which should encourage other authorities if it were not for the obdurate attitude of certain individuals. However, I am glad that the matter has been raised, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take it into account in replying.
I should like to make three points about the White Paper. First, it appears that the White Paper is arguing that there should be no changes in the procedure for the admission of informal patients. MIND puts forward the argument:
" Nearly 90 per cent. of those admitted to mental illness and mental handicap hospitals and units and 95 per cent. of those resident there at any one time are informal patients."
I accept that argument. The Government seem to offer no protection against inappropriate admission for informal patients. They consider that the actions taken by these patients are purely voluntary, assuming that the patients have consented to loss of liberty, therefore waiving the right to review. It is only fair to ask how accurate that assumption is.
The voluntary nature of admission is particularly suspect where members of staff impede the discharge of a patient without recourse to lawful procedure. The all-party committee visited Friern hospital following the famous secret report of the regional monitoring unit which indicated the dilemma. That report demonstrated that staff sometimes prevented informal patients from leaving hospital by removing their clothing, locking them inside rooms and restraining them with the use of drugs. It is important to hold professionals accountable for the care of informal patients. There should be a thorough review of the need for hospital care for non-protesting patients, particularly children, mentally handicapped and long-stay patients. The requirement should be that the reviewing body explores every community thoroughly.
I asked my right hon. Friend to indicate the amount of support for the Bill he had received from voluntary organisations on the matter of the mentally handicapped. However, my hon. Friends and I believe that he did not fully state the position. I understand that all the major voluntary organisations concerned with the care of the mentally handicapped recommend the removal of the mentally handicapped from the ambit of the Act. COHSE has
678
carefuly examined the definitions and recommends that the mentally handicapped should be removed from the jurisdiction of the Act. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to re-examine the matter.
Failure of the White Paper to make special legislative provision for the mentally handicapped is a disappointing feature. I am not entirely clear about the arguments that have been put forward to justify that omission. The Act was formulated to meet the needs of psychiatrically ill people, but its terms suggest that it is wholly applicable to the mentally handicapped. The premise of the Act is that psychiatric illness may cause anti-social behaviour, that illness can be "cured" and that the behaviour can be corrected through compulsory hospitalisation. That does not square with the experience of the mentally handicapped that some of us have had.
Another fundamental point is that the Act should specifically outline the facilities that should, rather than may, be provided. The hon. Member for Reading, South pointed out the difficulties that he would have in justifying some of the services being put into the Act. It is a matter for discussion. I hope that we shall be able to explore that aspect before a Bill is introduced.
Crisis intervention should be encouraged, if only to resist the growing assumption that psychiatric hospitals are available only where imminent tragedy is to be avoided. Similarly, compulsory powers to divert disturbed people at risk within the community may play a valuable role in future. However, compulsion implies sanctions. What can those sanctions possibly be? I hope that the Minister will provide an answer.
The recent MIND conference laid down a series of proposals which, no doubt, my right hon. Friend has had the opportunity to consider. The crisis intervention service was recommended. The final statement upon that was that there should be a crisis intervention service
" to bring primary mental health care to a level commensurate with its importance,
(c) to recognise the importance of care, support and guidance for the mentally ill living at home and for their caring relatives."
We should use this occasion not only to produce an Act to support and strengthen hospital services, for all those who take

679
part in running those services, but to strengthen community care services. That is an example of what I mean by anticipating the future trend. There are many trends and fashions in the mental health services. Facilities that we argued about 10 years ago as being wholly applicable are no longer applicable. However, the need for the provision of back-up to community care will remain with us for the next 10 years or so.
I believe that it is not misleading to point out that there is minor reference only in the White Paper to resource implications. In a fine aide-mémoire to members of the all-party committee, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that it believed that the resource implications resulting from the proposed amendments to the Act had been seriously underestimated. It said:
" The amendments will, if they are all enacted, result in a considerable amount of extra work particularly in relation to Mental Health Review Tribuanls, automatic reviews and related matters."
I believe that we should get right not only our sums but the legislation. Many of us who have examined the legislation of the past 20 years that affects the social services are not impressed by the way in which it has worked in practice.
Part of the problem is that we did not consider the resource implications and what, in practice, they were likely to mean. If a mental health Bill is presented this year, we shall have an enormous responsibility to ensure that it takes full account of the costings—both updated and future costings and inflationary effects—and the points raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Earlier in the debate reference was made to problems regarding the generic social worker. Earlier debates seemed to imagine that the service would work itself out. I do not believe that the proposals will work themselves out unless we understand the resource implications. However anxious I may be to develop a Bill to take full account of the need for future improvement, I should prefer to take it in two parts. I would give priority to matters at the top of the list and delay and defer other matters rather than fool people. If we go ahead on everything, the problems that we have failed to consider will come back here.
680
The small number of hon. Members present today gives us the chance to have a calm debate. Whenever the general election takes place, there will be time to think the problem through. We have waited long enough for the White Paper. I urge that we now start to do our sums in the most realistic way. I assure my right hon. Friend that, if he takes Members into his confidence, he will get the greatest possible support. There would be no political advantage for either side in trying to do otherwise.
What is being suggested is an attempt to take account of good practices at all levels in the psychiatric profession to ensure that we remove some of the ambiguities in the law. We have been helped enormously by organisations and people who have given a great deal of time to ensure that the Bill, when it is produced, will contain a great deal of realism. I am aware of the organisations which have been mentioned. I am impressed by the way that my right hon. Friend has taken the trouble to explain some of his dilemmas—for example, the problem of the medium secure units.
At the end of the day, it will be for the House to recognise that the mental health service can take account of the improvements which have been made, not only in other EEC countries but in the United States. Nevertheless, the task of implementing them will be according to the cloth that we produce in this country. The debate on the White Paper today is only the beginning of a series of discussions which I hope will enable the Minister to feel confident that, when he moves towards a Bill to improve the original Act, it will be based on experience and will meet the needs of the community.
6.2 p.m.
Sir David Renton: The House has listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman). We all appreciate the work that he does as chairman of the all-party mental health group. We have had evidence of his tremendous interest in this subject from the remarks that he addressed to the House. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not comment on his remarks, except to say that I agree broadly with them. I want to concentrate on the subject of mental handicap.

681
I confess that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) presented to and piloted through the House of Commons the Mental Health Act, I, as a junior Minister at the Home Office had the privilege of assisting him and was responsible for part V—sections 60 to 80—dealing with criminal proceedings.
The 1959 Act was based upon knowledge as at about 1957 when there was an inquiry into this matter. In my opinion, that Act has stood the test of time not too badly, bearing in mind that this is an area in which there has been rapid change in this century. But my right hon. and learned Friend, whom I have consulted, and I agree that the time has now come to review the position. That is what the Government are doing. My principal reaction is that the White Paper pays too great a compliment to the 1959 Act by proposing too little change in its terms. In my opinion, much more change is needed.
I shall confine my remarks to the changes needed for the mentally handicapped. That will not surprise the Minister of State, because he knows that I am chairman of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and am the father of a mentally handicapped child.
The White Paper suggests no change regarding the mentally handicapped, except a change in terminology. Paragraph 1.21 states:
" The terms ' subnormality ' and ' severe sub-normality ' cause offence and distress and it is proposed that they should be replaced by ' mental handicap ' and ' severe mental handicap '. It is also proposed to amend the definitions of these two sub-categories."
I need not read on. It is all on record.
Frankly, that is not good enough. Experience now suggests that, as we have much clearer knowledge of the capacity and understanding of the mentally handicapped and of their position in society, it is no longer good enough to lump them together with those suffering from mental illness and various other kinds of mental disorder.
I was surprised that the distinguished Royal College of Psychiatrists should deal with mental handicap in a couple of ill-informed paragraphs. I say that after consideration. A study of the paragraphs
682
shows that they are even more reactionary than the White Paper in this respect, because they do not suggest a redefinition and, indeed, they criticise the White Paper for suggesting one. That is an extraordinary situation.
I appreciate that mental handicap is not the scene for psychiatrists. That will be understood better when I point to the differences, which are often ignored or misunderstood, between mental handicap and mental illness. Although I may be preaching to the converted in this Chamber, it is important, for the benefit of the press among others, that we should get this distinction absolutely clear.
Mental handicap is a condition which means that a person's brain will not develop as fast or as fully as the brain of a normal person. Of course, the degree of mental handicap can vary enormously. On the other hand, mental illness is a condition which means that a person has psychiatric or emotional problems. A person may have a brilliant mind—he may be a genius—but still suffer from mental illness.
Mental handicap is usually determined before birth—often by genetic factors. It can happen in any family. Mental illness can affect anyone at any time in his life. Again, that can happen in any family.
As mental handicap is due to permanent factors—generally it exists before birth—it cannot be treated. It is rare for any form of mental handicap to be capable of treatment. On the other hand, mental illness is in most cases temporary. It can be treated, and often cured, by medical means and therapy. That is where the psychiatrist rightly comes into his own.
With those differences in mind, we should not assume, as the White Paper suggests, that the mentally handicapped should have the same legislative provisions to govern what happens to them as apply to the mentally ill. I say that especially with regard to the criminal provisions in the 1959 Act. I have seen something of this in operation in the courts. I am sorry to say that the action of the courts has often been harmful, undeserved and harsh to the mentally handicapped persons concerned.
I give the example of a mentally handicapped young man. He may be in open

683
employment as he is not severely handicapped. He may commit an offence in respect of which another young man without a previous conviction would be bound over or given a suspended prison sentence. But the mentally handicapped young man may find himself compulsorily incarcerated in hospital for an indefinite period until he is considered stable.
That happens after all the palaver that there has been, I am glad to say, in the courts, with medical and probation reports and whatever else is considered appropriate. The young mentally handicapped man may never have previously been incarcerated. He may have lived an open life. Inside, he finds himself acutely frustrated in an institution where he will mix with all kinds of mental cases. It is not right that we should continue to run this risk.
Let us take another circumstance which may arise as a result of criminal provisions. Some slightly mentally handicapped young people are basically good but are easily led or misled. They may appreciate—and generally do—the difference between right and wrong. I do not say that they always appreciate the difference between what is lawful and unlawful. They may commit crimes which bring them before the courts. In such cases a short, sharp lesson or a period of several years' probation would be the right treatment. However, as the person appears in the dock looking a bit of a nut case, a bit mixed up, the court judges the matter superficially, I fear. The young person may find himself unnecessarily incarcerated for a long time.
As I was responsible for the original provisions of sections 60 to 80 of the 1959 Act, I implore the Home Office to consider the matter. I was glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department was present earlier. I hope that the hon. Lady will return to the debate and take to heart what is said. I hope that the Home Office will come off its perch. It is time that it did so. I speak of a Department in which I spent four and a half of the best years of my life and for which I have great respect.
I consider that there is a need for separate legislation, not only for the needs that arise directly from the White Paper,
684
which I have briefly outlined. There is a need for separate legislation to replace the 1959 Act as it affects mentally handicapped people and to embrace the statutory provisions dotted all over the statute book which affect the mentally handicapped. I refer to the Children and Young Persons Act, the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1958, the important Education (Handicapped Children) Act 1970, which was a great advance, the Local Government Act 1972, which put responsibilities upon the local authorities, and the Guardianship of Minors Act 1973, which needs further adjustment as it affects the mentally handicapped.
If it were merely a question of consolidating into one Act of Parliament all the provisions affecting the mentally handicapped strewn about the statute book, that would be an advantage in itself. However, consolidation would not be enough. We need to bring the provisions up to date in the light of modern knowledge and experience.
Besides that, we need fresh, extensive legislation to define the civil rights of the mentally handicapped, who form a special case. They are frequently ignored.
I do not apologise for extending the scope of the debate beyond the White Paper. We must look at this as one subject. It may be said that only one child in a hundred is born mentally handicapped. Such a child—as I know—creates severe problems not only for himself but, much more, for the family. The United Kingdom and other countries are beginning to advance their knowledge of these matters. The United States, Scandinavia and Germany are far advanced in this regard. An international conference is convened from time to time to discuss this subject. There have been great results. We must apply our minds more specifically to mentally handicapped people as a separate group needing help and sympathy. We must not ignore them.
I appreciate the interest in this subject shown by the Minister of State. I have witnessed it at close hand and expect to do so again next week. That interest is greatly appreciated.
We realise that the Department of Health and Social Security and the health authorities require much more money to provide the necessary facilities—which

685
will be needed increasingly from now on—so that the adult mentally handicapped may live in more humane conditions.
Many young people who have survived with the help of antibiotics in the past 30 years would formerly have died. They have survived to become the adult mentally handicapped in considerable numbers. We must make provision for them. We must try to get the mentally handicapped of all ages out of large institutions and place them in smaller residential homes. The Minister will receive the full support from the House in diverting funds to these good causes.
A debate such as this does not take place often. We must not fail to say a word of thanks and admiration to those wonderful people—whatever their trade union, even if they do not belong to a trade union, and many of the best do not belong—who help to look after the mentally ill and mentally handicapped in all kinds of places. But for the work done by the voluntary societies in looking after the mentally handicapped, by Jove the DHSS would be in an even poorer way.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I endorse the final remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) about the staff. However, I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow the points he made. Like him, I want to talk about a specific group of mentally disordered people. I refer to mentally disordered offenders.
We spent a great deal of time today listening to the Secretary of State telling us how important it is to have the right to give patients treatment, in many cases against their own wishes, or indeed perhaps against their own perceived interests. We have heard very little, unfortunately, about the rights which other patients have to treatment but which they are now currently being denied. As the Minister of State, Home Office, has said:
" It is no part of a civilised policy to put the mentally ill in prison and make prisons the receptacles of those whom no other agency in society will accept."—[Official Report, 18 March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 864.]
I believe that every Member of this House will agree wholeheartedly with those sentiments, yet it is everyday practice to put mentally ill and mentally dis-
686
ordered ordered individuals into Prison Department establishments.
As the "Report of the work of the Prison Department 1976" points out,
" mentally ill people are entering prisons and borstals in increasing numbers and people of previous good personality, whose offences frequently stem solely from their illness, are now being refused admission to psychiatric hospitals and are, instead, being received and detained in establishments."
Yet, as the prison department admits, it does not have within the prison system the facilities, the staff, the experience or the training to provide the appropriate medical care and treatment for the individuals who, through no fault of their own, are consigned to incarceration in prison.
Paragraph 258 of the same report states that
" it is not possible to provide many of these unfortunates with the medical and nursing care their condition requires whilst they are in custody."
That, to me, is an extremely distressing state of affairs, to say the least. On the one hand, we say that it is no part of a civilised policy to put the mentally ill into prison, but we do this daily in large numbers. On the other hand, we then admit publicly and clearly that we cannot treat them while they are in custody. Not only does the Home Office go so far as to say "We cannot treat them, we do not have the facilities to look after these unfortunates within the prison system". I will quote what the director of prison medical services, Dr. Orr, said at the forty-second annual conference of the boards of visitors on 3 November 1977. I will quote the report at length, because it is an extremely important indication of the Home Office attitude, as well as being a contradiction of what my right hon. Friend said earlier when he was asking for more resources to be provided so that we could look after people in prison:
" It had been suggested that the Prison Department should itself take measures within the prison service to cope with the problem "—
that is, of mentally disordered offenders—
" but it was felt that if the prison service were seen to be effectively dealing with the problem, there would be an even greater reluctance on the part of mental hospitals to accept dangerous and possibly disturbed offenders. There was no doubt that mentally ill prisoners should not be in prison, and should be transferred to hospital; we should not take steps which might cause people outside to conclude that the mentally ill were in their proper place in prison."

687
Here, then, we have the classic Catch 22 situation. Everyone says that the mentally ill and mentally disordered should not be in prison, and it is acknowledged that they cannot be properly treated or obtain the appropriate medical care or attention when they are in prison. Recognising that, the prison authorities go on to say "Neither do we intend to take any steps whatever to provide the appropriate care and attention, otherwise our colleagues in the DHSS will wash their hands of the problem and assume that the people concerned are all nicely and neatly tucked away in prison. There will then be no pressure to provide the necessary alternative resources."
That is all very well, except that the only losers are the mentally ill.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that he would want to cast any aspersions on the medical officers in, say, Parkhurst prison in the Isle of Wight, which has tended to become very much an extension of Broadmoor, and where there are at least 26 psychopaths certified, and up to 70 could be so certified. The prisoners in Parkhurst are getting very reasonable treatment, as was shown recently in a television programme.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a very direct constituency interest in Parkhurst prison. I was not, of course, casting any aspersions on prison medical officers. They do their job, as I know from the prisons that I visit, in extremely difficult and arduous circumstances. Every prison medical officer that I have seen has grabbed me by the arm, as soon as I have entered the prison, taken me to a mentally disordered offender and said "For God's sake, can't you get people like this out of these institutions?"
I was talking about officials within the Home Office, who are going round the country saying "We know that these people are not getting the proper treatment, but we are not taking any steps"—this is all on the record—" to provide them with the appropriate treatment. It is the job of the DHSS." The only problem is that my right hon. Friend's Department is not doing the job, either. As I said earlier, we have a classic Catch 22
688
situation, in which the only losers are the mentally ill.
It can be seen from recent parliamentary answers that there are many hundreds of mentally disordered offenders within the establishments of the prison department. On 30 June 1978, there were 581 mentally disordered offenders deemed to require treatment in hospital under the conditions of the Mental Health Act 1959 but for whom no hospital place could be found. Of those 581 offenders, 288 men and 32 women were mentally ill, 196 men and 22 women were classed as psychopathic, 35 men and 7 women as subnormal, and 1 woman as suffering from severe subnormality.
But it is not just the individuals who are disposed of to the social dustbins of prisons who are caught by the lack of alternative provision outside, whether it be in regional interim secure psychiatric units or in the psychiatric wards of NHS hospitals. It also affects those patients who are awaiting transfer from the special hospitals.
On 30 October last year, a total of 146 men and 46 women were deemed by their responsible medical officer, as the terminology of parliamentary answers has it, to be appropriate for transfer to less secure conditions, such as those that would exist if we had the regional secure units or the NHS psychiatric wards.
A man of 66 has been waiting eight and a half years for a transfer from Moss Side to the Royal Eastern Counties hospital. There is a woman at Rampton who has been waiting seven years for a transfer to less secure conditions. One woman and two men have been waiting in the special hospitals for seven years for a transfer. The majority of the 146 men and 46 women to whom I refer have been waiting for four years or more.
Many of us here, unfortunately, in the future, and certainly many of my constituents, will at some time in their lives have to wait—and sometimes wait a very long time—for a hospital place, but very few of them will have to wait the excessive period of eight and a half years, and none of them will have to wait in the secure and inhibiting conditions which exist in a special hospital.
I cannot speak except with the knowledge of what patients in the special hospitals, who are on the transfer list, have

689
said to me, but I can imagine the degree of resentment, of bitterness and frustration which must necessarily be engendered in individuals who have been waiting for transfer for such a long period of time. They know—and this is the important point—that their transfer is blocked, not because of a lack of resources but because, on the whole, of a recalcitrant and prejudiced attitude on the part of many of the people concerned, be they consultants, nurses, ancillary staff or trade unionists, to their transfer.
That is one half and one part of the problem which has not been properly or adequately discussed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today. It is a fact, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State full well knows. He presented me last year with a list of all those hospitals which have refused to accept such patients from the special hospitals and prisons. He gave me a long list of hospitals throughout the country which, in some cases, as a matter of principle, refused to take offender patients. They refused in some cases because consultants had refused to take patients they believed would be potentially disruptive or violent, and on other occasions—regretfully, one of them happened to be in my constituency—where there had been opposition from nursing staff, ancillary staff or their relevant appropriate trade unions.
My right hon. Friend has refused to provide me with the same kind of list for this year. He realises the controversial area into which he would be entering.
But this is an extremely important subject. We are talking about people who are ill and who are being denied their proper treatment, which everyone accepts is their due and acknowledges to be necessary for them. They are being denied it because of the refusal of NHS hospitals, for one reason or another, to admit them. It is totally indefensible for hospitals and their staff to fail to live up to their proper duties and responsibilities to patients of this kind.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will at some time ask who runs the NHS, and for whom. Let him make it very clear that it is certainly not run for the benefit of the doctors. It is not there for the benefit of the nurses or the ancillary staff, and certainly not for the benefit of the National Union of Public Employees or
690
the Confederation of Health Service Employees. The NHS exists to benefit patients. As all hon. Members are fond of constantly saying—to the extent that it has now become a cliche—patients come first. But they do not come first; not when they are mentally ill.
Yes, there would be uproar if we were saying that we would refuse to accept heart patients, but somehow or other my right hon. Friend can tolerate a situation in which NHS hospitals can refuse point blank to take patients who are ill but whom they regard as being too troublesome, too inconvenient, to disturb their cosy, comfortable lives.
It is not merely a problem of who runs the NHS and of the reluctance of NHS hospitals to accept offender and, indeed, non-offender patients who are mentally disordered. It is also a consequence of the absence of regional secure psychiatric units.
As long ago as 1961, I think, the Glancy working party report from the Ministry of Health, as it then was, suggested that we should have something akin to what we now call regional secure psychiatric units. In 1974 we had the Butler committee on mentally abnormal offenders. Unusually, it rushed out an interim report calling, as a matter of urgency and as a national priority, for the establishment in every region of the country of what it called a regional secure psychiatric unit, able to take patients who would otherwise be incarcerated in prisons, patients who were awaiting transfer from special hospitals. The report pointed to the alarming overcrowding that existed at Broadmoor at the time. It still exists at Broadmoor today. In the interim report, it was said that this was a matter of urgent national priority.
Quite unusually, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), accepted the report with alacrity within a couple of months. Usually, Secretaries of State do not respond to reports for years, if they respond to them at all—even if we ever reach the point of discussing them. However, on that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn not only accepted the report publicly but circularised the then health authorities asking them to make suitable interim arrangements. Nothing happened. Today,

691
five years later, we still do not have a single regional secure psychiatric unit in operation.
In parliamentary answers to me, my right hon. Friend the Minister can say only that he hopes—" hopes "—that the first such unit will be opened in the 1980s. Yet this is not because—as might be a reasonable excuse—the regional health authorities have a shortage of funds. My right hon. Friend's predecessor, the present Foreign Secretary, started with a special revenue allocation in 1976 of £5 million, allocated to the 14 regional health authorities in order to enable them to make suitable interim arrangements. That sum now totals £17·3 million, distributed to all of the 14 regional health authorities. Yet four of them, Oxford, East Anglia, South-West Thames and North-West Thames, have still to submit plans to the DHSS for the establishment of a unit.
The majority of the other regional health authorities have not spent a penny of the money that was allocated to them for that purpose. The Oxford regional health authority, for example, has retained roughly £800,000, I think, in its regional reserve. Many of the others have spent minimal amounts on trying even to improve mental illness or psychiatric services within their areas. Some of them, as my right hon. Friend knows—perhaps he will shame them today by naming them—have actually used the money allocated by his Department for a special nationally determined priority to provide such things as maternity units.
We give a low enough priority as it is to the mentally ill and the mentally disordered. It is nothing short of a national scandal that when regional health authorities are given additional sums tied for a specific purpose and then use them for something else—for no doubt locally more glamorous and locally more acceptable and popular schemes—my right hon. Friend does not take far more constructive and positive action to ensure that they are doing more to live up to what the money was intended for.
The lethargy of the DHSS on this matter is not surprising. Many of the problems about which I have constantly to chide my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have their origin in the DHSS. Many of those who are clogging up our prisons, be they mentally disordered,
692
drunks or 14 to 16-year-old schoolboys and schoolgirls, are there because it is easier for the Secretary of State for Social Services to accept that inappropriate, inhumane disposal than to provide the necessary services out of his budget, from where they should properly be coming.
It is not surprising when one sees the attitude of some of the Secretary of State's officials. Let us look at the evidence that they gave to the Expenditure Committee on the reduction of the pressure on the prison system. On 15 May 1978, a Mr. K. J. Moyse was giving evidence from the DHSS. When asked what that Department was doing to get mentally disordered offenders out of prison, he said:
" I am not aware that we were aware that there was any really serious problem about this until, say, a year ago. I think certainly ever since it has been brought to our notice that there is a problem we certainly accept that there is one; it is simply that the scale of it is rather difficult to assess."
Could there be more complacent evidence than that? This is evidence from a senior official in the DHSS, saying that he was not aware that the Department was aware of the serious problem until it became aware of it. Yet the prison department's report in 1973 pointed out the seriousness of this problem and the inability to get mentally disordered offenders transferred from prisons to psychiatric hospitals. Yet the DHSS can either be so negligent in living up to its responsibilities or so complacent about its responsibilities that only six months ago it could suddenly discover what everyone else has been talking about for years. Indeed, the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) had an Adjournment debate on precisely this subject just a few weeks before that particular gentleman was giving evidence to the Expenditure Committee. I am not surprised that we experience lethargy and sloth from the Department and from a whole variety of other sources if that is the calibre of evidence given to Select Committees.
Mr. Michael Spicer: How does the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) equate the story that he has been telling about the misappropriation of funds allocated for the regional secure units—and that accords with my understanding of the situation—with what I

693
understood the Secretary of State to say earlier, which was that 100 of these beds had already been provided?
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: But they have not been provided. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State can clear this matter up.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): There are 100 places in interim secure units in the country.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Regional secure psychiatric units?
Mr. Moyle: Interim regional secure psychiatric units.
Mr. Kilroy-SilkThat is precisely the sort of obfuscation and confusion that we get. We are talking about regional secure psychiatric units. They are totally different from the 100 places in interim units. They are not the same thing. Unfortunately, unless hon. Members are aware of the difference, they can be fobbed off with such answers. The Minister says that he has produced 100 places in interim units, but there is still not a single regional secure unit in existence. These units were recommended as long ago as 1974 by the Department as well as by the Butler committee.
It is no exaggeration to say that it is totally intolerable for mentally ill people to be put in prison. That is not the place for them. In prison they cannot receive the kind of care or treatment that they deserve and need and to which they are entitled. It is certainly totally unreasonable to expect the prison service to look after such individuals. Prison officers are not trained as nurses. They certainly have no training in handling mental illness. As I know from conversations with them, one mentally disordered person in a prison is extremely disruptive, and, because of the kind of conditions necessary to contain such a person, he places enormous pressures on the prison system generally.
It is a national scandal that we should allow ourselves to put sick people into prison rather than into hospitals or secure units as we should. If these people were pensioners, trade unionists or heart patients there would have been a major public outcry. People would have lobbied the House and there would have
694
been demonstrations in the streets. The people we are talking about tonight do not have access even to Members of Parliament as other individuals have. They are not represented by any powerful pressure group. They have no industrial muscle and no political clout. They cannot write to the press, they cannot campaign and they cannot demonstrate. Yet they are some of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and deprived members of our community. They deserve far more of our care and compassion as well as of the facilities that we should provide for them.
One test of a civilised society is the way it treats those who do not have votes, those who are unpopular—and I know how unpopular is the advocacy of the cause of mentally disordered offenders, as the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), although often on the other side of the divide from me on this issue, will testify in my defence.
Equally important is the fact that these people have no other voice. By that test alone we have failed—and that applies to both sides of the House and to successive Governments. Perhaps now we can begin that urgent and necessary progress towards establishing a so-called civilised and compassionate society.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. George Gardiner: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and I agree with a great deal of what he said. I was pleased that he did not seek to pin all the blame for the non-establishment of regional secure units upon the local communities involved. I have some experience of a case in that category, and since the hon. Member mentioned my regional health authority—South-West Thames—I shall give a little detail.
A proposal was put forward for the siting of a regional secure unit by that health authority. But the authority made no attempt at meaningful consultation with the public and the community. The proposal was put forward in the face of opposition from every organ and every level of local Health Service opinion. An attempt was made to browbeat the community into accepting a thoroughly ill-conceived proposition.
I freely admit that I was one of those who strongly fought the proposal. We

695
managed to kill it. Time was lost, and now the discussion revolves around the establishment of an interim unit, for which the money has already been received in the form of an allocation for a full secure unit.
The lesson that one learns from that is that, in approaching these matters, regional health authorities, if they do not adopt a totally open approach with the communities involved and with all levels of the Health Service, are bound to run into trouble. I think that lesson has been learnt in my region. The same need will exist once the units are established. After establishment there will be a continuing need for openness to and the involvement of the local community with these units. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ormskirk for the thoroughness with which he dealt with this subject.
With great deference, I follow in the footsteps of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). He presented an eloquent case on behalf of those suffering from mental handicap. I take up this matter partly because there are in my constituency two substantial institutions dealing with the mentally handicapped, and among those associated with these institutions there is great disappointment that the White Paper is not a little more adventurous in dealing with the mentally handicapped. There is particular disappointment over the proposal to retain the compulsory powers of detention. There is a strong case for excluding them and for our following the lead of some other countries in this respect.
The Secretary of State began today by referring to the growing enlightenment in public attitudes towards mental handicap and towards those suffering from psychiatric disorders. But I do not think that that same degree of enlightenment is reflected in this proposal in the White Paper. Why do we object to the suggestion that these powers of compulsory detention should be retained for dealing with those suffering from mental handicap? The White Paper says:
" Mental illness and mental handicap are still often confused with one another ",
a point that my right hon. and learned Friend demonstrated earlier. Sadly, this is true, though it can be broken down over a period of time. For example, the Royal
696
Earlswood hospital in Redhill, which has existed for about a century, has built up a good relationship with the local community. There is much voluntary activity and it is accepted that its patients should be regarded not as lunatics but as handicapped people. That situation takes a long time to build up.
The continued retention of powers of voluntary detention for the mentally handicapped presents a barrier that prevents enlightenment from proceeding further. This presents a difficulty for those who run such hospitals when they seek to have their patients accepted in the community.
Let us be honest. This also has an effect on the mentally handicapped and their families when the handicapped persons are not in a hospital. Each hon. Member has been moved by meeting families who have had to overcome the trauma of discovering that their baby is mentally handicapped. They have gone on to accept their responsibilities as parents and to make many sacrifices on behalf of a child whose "childhood" extends in years way beyond the normal span. Those parents have gone through the process of countering the initial suspicions and reservations of their neighbours and other children. In time, this is achieved. In time, the neighbours come to understand and to give their support.
How much easier it would be for such parents if there was not the immediate, initial public assumption that there is no difference between a mentally handicapped child and one who suffers from a psychiatric disorder.
Compulsory powers are irrelevant to those who suffer from mental handicap alone. Often other psychiatric conditions develop in conjunction with this, and they can become acute. In those cases, of course, there might be a need to exercise powers of compulsory detention. But our case is that when they are used they must be on the basis of the psychiatric condition and the behavioural problems, and not purely on the basis of mental handicap as such. The Secretary of State went half-way to conceding that when he said that the "mere fact" of mental handicap should not constitute a ground for the use of compulsory powers.
The continued existence of these powers impairs the proper development of care

697
facilities for the mentally handicapped generally in more normal community settings. Let us not underestimate the effect on the mentally handicapped themselves. As we all know, there are many degrees of mental handicap. It is no comfort to those unfortunate people who know that they are easily associated in the public mind with those who suffer from psychiatric disorders, or if they are in a hospital of the type that I have mentioned, to know that others in that hospital are compulsorily detained.
The White Paper states rather blandly:
" There seems to be a fairly general recognition that although most of the mentally handicapped can and should receive the care and training they need on a voluntary basis, there is a need to retain some compulsory powers."
The White Paper uses the words "a fairly general recognition". The Secretary of State referred to "majority" expert opinion that had been expressed to him on this subject. I should like to know of what that majority is made up. The Secretary of State acknowledged the submissions made by the National Association for Mentally Handicapped Children. We have had representations from MIND, the Association of Educational Psychologists, the British Psychological Society and the British Association for the Retarded. The British Medical Journal stated:
" the factors which warrant the detention of some mentally handicapped people in hospital are more usually due to added psychiatric or behaviour disorder than to intellectual retardation and diminished social competence. This argument is, indeed, acceptable: there seems no reason to retain the category of mental handicap or intellectual deficit as such ".
The Secretary of State drew our attention to the recent reports from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I share the surprise expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire about that organisation's comment on this matter. I noted just two lines, which read:
" The College is pleased to note that mental handicap is to remain under mental health legislation."
The college states just that, and no argument is presented to substantiate or enforce that passing comment.
The Secretary of State referred to the "small group" that makes the retention of this power necessary. I should like
698
to know more about the type of cases that make up that small group. I urge the Secretary of State to think again. Whatever his understanding of the interests of that small group, I question whether they justify the retention of this blanket power over the mentally handicapped.
Dr. Vaughan: My hon. Friend might be surprised to know that amongst psychiatrists there is a divided view. By no means the majority agree with the Secretary of State.
Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When the Secretary of State reads the record of the debate, he will note that I am the third speaker so far to urge that these powers should not be retained over the mentally handicapped in forthcoming legislation. Perhaps more hon. Members will agree with me as the evening progresses. I should be interested to hear if any hon. Member presents an argument to the contrary and in support of the line taken in the White Paper.
I have another argument which I wish to express briefly. It concerns what the Secretary of State said about patients' consent to treatment and particularly what constitutes "valid consent". I have read the section of the White Paper with great interest and listened to the Minister's remarks this afternoon. But I should like to refer to the case of one of my constituents who, for obvious reasons, must remain anonymous. She gave me a copy of a sworn statement that she had made concerning her experience with ECT. I do not wish to be drawn into an argument about ECT as a treatment. I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) had to say about this earlier, and it is an argument on which I am not competent to give an opinion. I am concerned purely with what constitutes valid consent to the use of ECT.
I shall quote from the statement made by my constituent. I shall leave out the names of the consultants involved. She said:
" When ECT was suggested by a consultant psychiatrist I flatly refused the idea altogether. Since 1952 I have known that ECT was a bad thing and something I would not want to receive myself. I would not sign the consent form for the ECT treatment, neither would anyone in my family. As a result of myself

699
or anyone else in my family refusing to sign the consent form, it was decided that no more could be done for me and it was arranged that I should go home from the hospital that I was in. The consultant psychiatrist spent hours trying to persuade me but I was adamant and I refused."
It was arranged that she should leave the hospital and return home. My constituent goes on:
" My husband visited me one morning. It was very near the date I was due to leave and then he left the hospital. He returned to visit me again in the afternoon and he was told by another consultant psychiatrist that I had signed a consent form and had already had one treatment of ECT. My husband then went home and told my children that I had been persuaded to have ECT, that I had signed a form consenting to six treatments and that I had already received one. My family were all very shocked by this."
This lady has since asked to see the consent form that she had signed, but at the time she gave this statement to me the request had been refused. She cannot recall signing that form at all and it is a reasonable assumption, in the circumstances, that she was fairly heavily drugged at the time. My constituent goes on to say:
" My husband was asked to sign a consent form. He refused to do so."
Indeed, she understands that the first consultant was of the view that the patient was not willing to receive it. She continues:
" As far as I am concerned I was given ECT treatment against my will. I consider myself to have been morally and mentally raped."
That is extreme language, but it indicates the kind of resentment and feeling that this woman has as a result of what happened to her. I realise the difficulties here, but I urge the Minister or his successor to approach with great care the redefinition of what constitutes "valid consent" in the coming legislation and to build in the necessity to consult the relatives, next of kin or family of the patient concerned. In the case that I have mentioned, those relatives knew perfectly well what this woman's view was. I hope that the Minister will also seek to ensure that the second opinion obtained is not an opinion too closely related to the first.
I put it to the Minister that cases of the kind I have just outlined are totally unacceptable, and that whatever the merits of ECT as a form of treatment
700
they in fact add weight to the public fear and resentment concerning it.
7.4 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Price: Although this subject tends to receive all-party support and is not normally one on which there is any argument across party lines, I think that there is a great deal more controversy in the areas of mental health and mental handicap than one may have gathered so far from this debate. We must accept that what we are discussing today is a matter of such considerable controversy, and such widely diverse views, that it is extremely difficult to agree on legislation.
One of the reasons relates to something that the Royal College of Psychiatrists is never willing to admit—that the scientific knowledge of mental illness particularly, but also mental handicap, is in its infancy. Although there are treatments, the doctors who use them know very little about why the treatments appear to work. For that reason, I believe that the safeguards which the Secretary of State has proposed in regard to consent to treatment are important. That is also why I believe that we should have just a little more humility from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and less desire from it to stand on its own clinical judgments against allcomers—whether they be nurses, patients or laymen—than has been evidenced in its recent reports, particularly the last two reports, one on electro-convulsive therapy and the recent report in response to this White Paper.
The experience of so many Members of Parliament is that when one goes to see the psychiatrist in one's local hospital he will pooh-pooh any question of hazardous treatment and will be keen on either ECT or chemotherapy, or both. On the other hand, there is hardly a Member of Parliament who has not received letters—such as the one quoted by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner)—from patients who, rightly or wrongly, feel that their experience of a mental hospital has been the most horrific of their lives.
From time to time the allegation is made that such treatment has completely blighted the rest of their lives. On the other hand, one has to remember that a few psychiatrists—such as Thomas Szaz in the United States whose colleagues thought that he was not worth listening

701
to—believe that the present trend in psychiatry is wrong, and that what we call mental illness is not an illness at all but something that should be treated in a totally different way.
I do not want to use this debate to have a discussion between the radicals and the doctors. I mentioned this point only because it is one reason for us all to proceed with more humility. It is not an area where we can look to the experts, hear what they say and do what they ask us to do. One must remember that psychiatry has not had a very good track record over the years. In the nineteenth century even Maudsley, one of the greatest phychiatrists in Britain at the time, was performing quite horrible operations, doing clitoredectomy at a time when everybody thought mental illness was directly and solely related to masturbation. That disappeared, insulin treatment came in and disappeared completely. Then ECT came in and it has not disappeared, and everybody puts his trust in what is broadly called chemotherapy.
I predict that a time will come when the chlorpromazine that is being injected in enormous amounts and taken orally, right across the Western world—very often compulsorily—will be looked on as having been completely barbarous treatment, especially when better ways have been found to deal with such conditions. That is why the Secretary of State is absolutely right to have proposed the review of hazardous treatment in the way that he has. I wish him well in his discussions with the Royal College of Psychiatrists. If our recent discussions with the Royal College are anything to go by, it will not be all that easy, because the college has very strong views on the subject. I urge him to hold his ground and to stick to the recommendation in the White Paper.
I appreciate that no doctor likes his treatment to be reviewed by someone whom he regards as a layman. But one must face the fact that from time to time many hospitals have lay procedures to review compulsory admissions. I was recently called into the Maudsley in the case of a doctor who had been sectioned and compulsorily retained. Since he was at one of my local hospitals, he asked me to speak for him and be his advocate.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It seems to me that there could be no possible object-
702
tion to having a patient's friend to argue the case, exactly as the hon. Gentleman did in relation to the doctor. But I think it would be difficult for a layman such as myself to accept that what is essentially a medical matter should become of joint decision by doctors and laymen. There is a quite narrow, but nevertheless distinct, difference between these two functions.
Mr. Price: The point that I was making did not relate to my role as the friend but to the fact that the Maudsley hospital appoints three of its lay governors to listen to the views of a patient's friend and the consultant psychiatrist who sections the patient. They then take a lay decision either to overrule the doctor or not to overrule him. As I undersand it, they have never overruled a consultant psychiatrist, but at the hearing at which I was involved I got them to admit that the fact they had never done so did not mean that they would never do so on principle. In fact, only five minutes before the second hearing in this case, the consultant psychiatrist thought better of the matter and lifted the section unilaterally. That is one way in which these matters are sometimes resolved.
We deserve to be told a little more about how my right hon. Friend envisages hazardous treatments. At the moment, there is a vast gulf between how people in MIND see hazardous treatments and how the Royal College sees hazardous treatments. Many people in the Royal College think of psycho-surgery, which is normally carried out by a brain surgeon, as the hazardous treatment and electro-convulsive therapy and, even more so, chemosurgery as just everyday treatment which no one could call hazardous.
On the other hand, in its reactions to the White Paper MIND has said that it welcomes the proposals
" to safeguard patients against hazardous and irreversible treatment ".
But it emphasises
" the need for clear criteria being established to cover the precise nature of treatments classified as hazardous ".
It goes on to say, I believe very pertinently:
" There are instances where disabling or irreversible side effects, phenothiazine drugs or electro-convulsive therapy, may be accumulative over months rather than as an immediate consequence of treatment ".

703
As the Minister's discussions with the Royal College go on, I believe that we must have clearer guidance about what is considered to be hazardous treatment and what is not. The report of the committee of inquiry on St. Augustine's hospital in Canterbury is now several years old, but it still bears reading. My copy is marked
" Not to be removed from the Commons Library "
and I can assure the House that it will go back there after this debate. Anyone who has read that report must have doubts both about the nature of electro-convulsive therapy and about the propriety of leaving the administration of it solely in the hands of doctors without any review. I should like to read a passage from paragraph 3.82 of that report, which criticised one particular doctor—not identified—who is called "Doctor Q". It states:
" Our criticisms of Doctor Q have been based on his own evidence. His casual approach to E.C.T. on this occasion, and the large number of treatments given to a particular patient disturb us deeply. Neither are we at all happy about his use of E.C.T. as a diagnostic measure to distinguish between depression and dementia."
It goes on to say:
" We understand that Doctor Q, although retired, has facilities to treat patients at St. Augustine's Hospital. The Regional Health Authority should consider this Report before extending these facilities."
It is worth remembering what happened. The regional health authority considered the report. It suspended Doctor Q, but the massive pressure from the Medical Defence Union and the Royal College of Psychiatrists ensured that he was reinstated, and in the end the regional health authority had to back down. One must remember the forces that are at work in this area and how absolutely necessary these procedures are in reviewing these hazardous treatments.
I accept the point of the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) that in discussions between the Royal College and the Minister it may be possible to find some formula other than the multi-disciplinary panel. That may not be the right approach. But if one has a medical majority on the panel—whatever that might be—there is no point in having the panel at all. One might just as well have a medical second
704
opinion. The point about the panel, as I understand it, is to have, in what will be a tiny number of cases, the possibility of proper lay review. I think that the Minister should stick to this proposal.
There is one other document in relation to electro-convulsive therapy that I should like to bring to the attention of the House. One of the interesting effects of the Freedom of Information Act in the United States is that one can now get hold of documents, which one certainly cannot get hold of in this country, which throw interesting light on the non-medical use made of these treatments in other places. The document I have is a CIA document, admittedly an old one dated 1951. It concerns the use by the CIA of electro-convulsive therapy to produce amnesia. It says that a particular psychiartist, who is not identified,
" explained that he felt that electric shock might be of considerable interest to the ' Artichoke ' "—
that was the code name of the CIA project for making its agents forget about what they had been doing—
" type of work."
He stated that
" the standard electric-shock machine could be used in two ways. One setting of this machine produced the normal electric-shock treatment (including convulsion) with amensia after a number of treatments ".
He also said:
" using this machine as an electric-shock device with the convulsive treatment…he could guarantee amnesia for certain periods of time, and particularly…guarantee amnesia for any knowledge of use of the convulsive shock ".
The textbooks say that ECT should not be used for people who need to use their memory, and that includes many of us. I hope that the Minister will make the point in his discussions with the Royal College that ECT is hazardous and should be subject to this review.
I hope that as a result of these discussions and the White Paper doctors will insist less on their treatments and allow hospitals to become true places of asylum. Many mental patients who feel that they have to leave their home and the community desperately want a place where there are people to look after them. But quite often they are insistent that they do not want electrical or chemical treatments. They want to get better in their own time.

705
The hon. Member for Reigate gave an example of a frequently occurring situation where a doctor tells a patient that he will have to have the treatment recommended or leave the hospital. I hope that the right of asylum will be accepted to a much greater extent by doctors.
Last week there was a MIND conference, "Acting on the Act", which I hope was successful. A resolution from that conference was that
" All patients should have the right to appropriate care and treatment, and choice of treatment…"
Most psychiatrists do not accept that. But there is no point in forcing treatment on patients against their will, even if they are detained patients. Even for those who are mentally ill, the only proper and effective treatment is that undertaken with the patient's full consent and understanding. When we come to legislate, that will be the nub of the Act and the most controversial part. The forthcoming discussions between Ministers and the Royal College of Psychiatrists will therefore be especially important. I appeal to them all to reach agreement so that we can legislate on an agreed basis.
The Secretary of State's remark about mentally disordered people in prisons disturbed me. He said that he wanted to ensure that there was better psychiatric treatment in our prisons. That raises the suspicion that the Government have given up the policy of proper regional secure units and are opting for the much less satisfactory solution of a slightly better regime in our prisons for the mentally disordered. That is a mistake and will divert us from the proper purpose of getting these people out of prison.
The prison medical service is, in the main, staffed by dedicated people. But prison officers have only an eight-week training period for the prison medical service. They do not have the qualifications and experience of nurses within the National Health Service. I was told about two years ago by the Department of Health and Social Security that just under 10 per cent. of prison medical service personnel have NHS training. The remainder have various forms of prison medical officer training. I was also told that in the 18 or 20 prison hospitals, which in many prisons are hardly more than medical wings, there are ECT
706
machines. I was assured that these machines always have one NHS qualified nurse operating them. But there is not the necessary staff or plant to upgrade psychiatric treatment in prisons. One cannot begin to get the atmosphere needed for the treatment of mentally ill people in prison. So I hope that in his reply my right hon. Friend will be more forthcoming about what is meant by upgrading psychiatric treatment in prison.
As demonstrated in a recent BBC "Tonight" programme, there is extreme concern about the level and administration of drugs in prison. There is suspicion that these drugs are used not for medical purposes but for what is graphically called the liquid cosh or a means of discipline and control. The DHSS should press the prison medical service to come into the NHS. The safeguards that exist within the NHS, although not great, could then be applied to the prison medical service.
I am disappointed that the Government do not intend to change the law in regard to section 65. There are times when one's civil rights could be more greatly eroded by being called a patient than a prisoner. Along with the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), I recently took the case of William Pate to the Ministry. That case has had a lot of publicity and there is no harm in mentioning the name. Had this man been convicted of the offence with which he was charged, he could not have been in custody for more than two and a half years. He has been in custody for nine years and it is difficult to transfer him even now to a less secure unit. He is being kept in custody because he had the misfortune to be sent to a hospital instead of a prison. Although the Bill of the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton deals with that situation, it must be put right when we come to legislate.
I am glad that the White Paper makes clear that mental illness should be restricted to what it says it is, mental illness. It should not cover alcohol dependency, drug dependency, sexual deviancy and so on. These serious problems should not be dealt with under the Mental Health Act.
Recently there was a tragic case in my constituency of a young drug addict who was in hospital after severely cutting his wrists. His family were pleading with

707
the doctors to keep him in hospital under that section of the Mental Health Act because he threatened that when he came out he would succeed in his attempt to kill himself. The doctors, rightly, in what was a very difficult decision, refused. They said that the man was not mentally ill. He had a history of drug addiction but that was not mental illness and therefore he must be released. The only way that he could get better from an addiction was voluntarily, and not under constraint. He was released, and so far there have not been any further tragedies. I believe that the White Paper is quite right to make it clear that doctors should not extend their tentacles over other areas beyond mental illness.
I am quite sure that it is common ground in these debates that the answer is to treat as many patients as possible in the community. I do not think that the answer lies in extending any sort of compulsory powers to patients within the community, however attractive this may seem at first sight. The Royal College of Psychiatrists was quite honest about this. Its representatives said that as doctors they wanted to keep control within the hospitals but they wanted the hospital sector to shrink to the smallest size possible to contain the problem. The psychiatrists considered that within the community their job was just one of a number of professions.
In my borough of Lewisham, one of the first really worked-out and organised multi-disciplinary team and crisis intervention centres has just been set up. The Minister of State knows all about this because it is in his constituency rather than mine. Having visited the centre the other day, I am quite sure that a team of every sort of professional situated within the community and aware of problems that may arise could cut the number of inmates in our mental hospitals by half and cut down enormously the incidence of Acts of Parliament and compulsory measures. I hope that that policy, with all the difficulties that it incurs in running down hospitals and building up facilities within the community, is pressed ahead with as fast as possible, because the answer lies in that direction.
The whole area of legislating on mental health is very difficult. We must give the maximum possible dignity to the patient,
708
consistent with reasonable protection for the community. I think that the balance has been reasonably well struck in the White Paper. I would have liked the Secretary of State to go much further, but I think that in the discussions that he is having at present his primary aim must be to stick to the lines of the White Paper. I am glad to see that the Opposition are approaching this with the sort of bipartisan attitude that should enable this White Paper to turn into legislation within 12 months or so.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) was right to call attention to the remark of the Secretary of State that he intended to provide better psychiatric treatment in prisons. That is a wrong attitude towards the problem set out in chapter 5 of the review which deals with offenders in prison—" offender patients ", as the chapter calls them.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) raised the matter extensively, not for the first time in the House. He and I are neighbours. In my constituency, on his boundary, we have two special security hospitals—Moss Side and Park Lane. They contain people who have been found to have committed an act which would otherwise be a crime and have also been found to have a mental disorder. They are detained either under section 60 of the 1959 Act—generally called a hospital order, from which they can be discharged by the doctor, the hospital managers or a mental health review tribunal—or under section 65, the restriction order, from which they can only be discharged with the consent of the Home Secretary.
From the fair number of letters which I receive from the inmates of these hospitals and cases which I accordingly investigate, I would say that there are a number of patients there who are awaiting transfer, not because they remain as a danger to the public if released but because there is no halfway house for them.
I thank the Minister of State for his great courtesy in answering the letters that I send on to him having received them from patients in these hospitals. I assure him that I do not send him all the letters that I receive. He helps me in investigating those cases, and there is no doubt that there are a number of people

709
there who would be transferred if the new units were built or if they were allowed into existing hospitals. Undoubtedly they are being barred from existing hospitals by employees of those hospitals, and to that extent they are being wrongly detained in the special hospitals. I admit that when I say "wrongly detained" I am begging the question. What, after all, is the purpose of detaining such a person who has committed a criminal act?
I agree entirely with the recommendation on page 65 of the review that
" section 65 should be reworded to indicate more clearly the essential purpose of the restriction order—that is, to protect the public from serious harm."
If that were made more clear in the statute, it would serve a very useful purpose. But that does not entirely dispose of the issue whether one should detain an offender in a special security hospital for longer than he might have been in prison. This is discussed fully in the review. Should he be detained for longer than would be justified by the gravity of the offence if he were sane?
It is argued that the length of the restriction order should be equivalent to the length of the probable sentence which he would have received had he not had a mental disorder. After that time it is suggested that he should be discharged from security as a criminal and transferred to a civilian hospital under security as a civilian. I do not go as far as that because I think that that would defeat the primary object of the restriction order, which is to guard against the discharge of an offender on purely medical grounds when he remains a risk to the public.
I am glad that the Government come to that conclusion. I quote from the review on page 52:
" In the Government view the law should continue to enable society to protect itself from certain dangerous mentally disordered offenders by detaining them in hospital for a period longer than would be justified by the gravity of their offence."
As I said in an intervention during the Secretary of State's speech, that should be coupled with an annual review. The review should be given statutory backing. A statement in statute that it is the primary object of a restriction order to detain those who might well be a risk to the public would ease the mind of the
710
public when a regional secure psychiatric unit is proposed for a certain area.
I am sure that the Minister of State knows how I suffered when Park Lane was proposed and was being built in my constituency. The residents were terrified, although they had had no trouble from Moss Side, the special hospital that was next door. However, at that time there was a tendency to talk about the releasing of offender patients purely on medical grounds without real consideration of the public concern and whether release would be a risk to the public.
I find a considerable conflict of emotions and duties when I receive a request from a patient asking me to ensure his discharge as quickly as possible. I may find from the facts I obtain on his case and his dentention that there is an element that allows me to make representations on his behalf.
Let us suppose I were to succeed and a few days later, he having been discharged, he committed rape or murder. I do not think that for fear of that happening one should funk investigating cases in which there may be something to say for the release of the offender patient. In the end I know where my main consideration lies—for the protection of the public. If that were more clearly stated in statute, we should overcome many of the difficulties that the public feel about secure units. Had it been more clearly stated when Park Lane was being built, I should not have had the trouble that I experienced with residents in my constituency at that time. I talk about "trouble", but I really mean that I had to try to calm their fears about what might happen if there were another security hospital in the area.
My only fear was that we were meeting saturation point in the area in supplying voluntary help to the hospitals. There comes a stage in any area when all the voluntary help that may reasonably be expected has been called upon. That is what happened in my constituency. If, as in my area, there are seven epileptic homes, all of them having about 100 inmates, and two security hospitals with hundreds of inmates, voluntary help is stretched to the limit.
I turn to chapter 3 of the review that deals with admissions. It has already been said that the present industrial dispute, which has resulted in hospitals being

711
able to accept only emergency cases, has a direct bearing on the subject of the debate. It has resulted in the section 29 emergency procedure—the recommendation of one doctor only—being used to the exclusion of the more appropriate two-doctor recommendation under the other sections of the Act. Not only compulsory admissions have been refused but non-emergency admissions under section 29. As the section 29 procedure is operated by the social service workers, who are on strike in my area, applications are being signed by relatives without any guidance. A serious position has arisen.
It may be that I am jumping the gun by dealing with the immediate problems. However, there is the immediate problem of the emergency procedure only being accepted by the hospitals. The stage of admission is when the relatives of those involved are most seriously distressed. The way in which a person is, if I may use that ghastly Victorian phrase, "put away" is of great concern to the public. It conjures up perhaps the horrors of "Jane Eyre". People still talk about putting a person away, and they mean it. To many families, the admission of a relative to a mental hospital is as distressing as the death of that relative. It is extremely distressing to the relatives.
It is essential that we get the process of admission absolutely right. It is essential that it is operated correctly and properly observed by those who have to operate it. We must achieve the right balance between the protection of the public, the help needed by the mentally disordered person and the deprivation of a person's liberty. On the whole, the relevant sections of the 1959 Act—sections 25 to 32—achieved the right balance. The House will remember the several ways in which there may be compulsory admission under those sections.
I return to the question of emergency admission under section 29, cases of urgent necessity on the recommendation of only one doctor. Although that may be for only 72 hours, I fear that in many instances the detention lasts longer than that before a second recommendation is made.
An application under section 29 is made either by a relative or by a mental
712
welfare officer. I have been horrified by facts given to me concerning the making of such an application by, if I may refer to them in these terms, so-called mental welfare officers. I was given the facts by one of my constituents, Mr. Tom Smith, who is the retired senior social work adviser for mental health for Liverpool. For several years Mr. Smith had been the superintendent mental welfare officer for that city. Since his retirement in June 1976 he has published some of the facts that he made known to me. He is extremely concerned about the responsibility and authority in mental health matters that are vested in junior social workers untrained and inexperienced in mental health.
That anxiety is reflected in the review. I quote from paragraph 3.9 on page 30, which states:
" The comments received show that there is widespread concern about the lack of specialist knowledge on the part of many social workers engaged in mental health work; this has been attributed to the setting up of social service departments and the concept of the general purpose, social worker which arose from the Seebohm Report."
That is exactly what happened in Liverpool. In 1970, when the social services department was established, the instruction was issued that all social workers were thereupon authorised to act as mental welfare officers. Mr. Tom Smith, the then superintendent, who lost control of all the inexperienced workers who had been carrying out that work, has documented about 20 cases of the most horrifying errors and mistakes by those social workers. They instructed police to remove patients without any application for admission, or made applications for admission to hospitals that were not equipped to deal with those patients. There are many such examples with which I shall not delay the House. These cases show that completion of applications for admission must not be delegated to untrained and inexperienced social workers.
I am glad that the Government intend to try to put that matter right by providing a training for social workers to ensure that an aprpoved mental welfare officer, in the same way as an approved doctor,

713
signs an application. The review proposes on page 31
" to give the ' Approved Social Worker '—

i. a statutory duty to interview the person concerned before making an application for compulsory admission; and

ii. a responsibility to satisfy himself that the care and treatment offered is in the least restrictive conditions practicable in the circumstances."

That shows clearly the responsibility and a desperate need for training social workers. There must be a responsibility on somebody to activate the detention. It is our duty to see that someone is capable of accepting that responsibility.
These are not just procedural matters. They are practical preparations to meet a crisis in someone's life—a moment of complexity, confusion and distress for both the patient and the relatives—when a firm decision has to be made by an experienced person and when, having made that decision, that person has to ensure that the patient is received into a hospital that is equipped to receive the patient and has suitable accommodation and suitable medical and nursing skill. I am glad that the Government intend to act positively on this issue, which will have my full support.
I have heard the most horrifying facts about patients dealt with by inexperienced social workers. I support the Government's conclusions on the points I have mentioned. I hope that they will be carried out whatever party happens to be in office.
7.54 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: The Secretary of State reminded the House that the White Paper sets out to review the working of the 1959 Act. Hence its title. The Act is limited in scope to compulsory powers for the admission of patients to hospital, powers relating to their detention and release, and powers relating to their rights while detained.
The Act makes provision for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. It is undoubtedly the major extant piece of legislation in this field. It would appear from the length of time that has elapsed since the Act was passed that 20 years is about the minimum going rate for legislation. If this is so, a new Act will codify society's wishes and attitudes for the rest of this century. What concerns me more
714
than the detail of the White Paper is whether the White Paper is sufficiently wide in its scope. I cite, for example, the major question of whether it is right to include mental handicap within the ambit of this legislation. Including mental handicap and mental illness together compounds the identity seen in the public mind between the two groups. Yet they could not be more different.
The former condition is congenital and irreversible although there is still much potential to be realised, whereas the latter is an illness which is curable, like any other, to a greater or lesser degree. I know that the psychiatrists feel that the two should be kept together because mentally handicapped people can fall prey to mental illness and can exhibit certain symptoms rooted in frustration related to their own condition. I fully accept this. I feel that these mentally handicapped people should then, and only then, come within the scope of the Act as treatment is required and for as long as it is required. I accept also that some will need institutional care and support all their lives. But the presumption is now growing that this number is smaller than was previously thought. The assumption in future should be that mentally handicapped people will be best living in the community with the requisite degree of support.
The point I am seeking to make is that a new Act should deal with the problems of the mentally ill and no one else. Some of the mentally ill may be mentally handicapped. Some may be physically handicapped. Others will be physically normal. The common factor must be mental illness. We have, however, included another group, the mentally handicapped, as a totality, most of whom cannot be described as mentally ill in any way. If we were logical, we would also include the physically handicapped witthin the Act. I am not putting this forward as a serious suggestion but simply to point out the illogicality of the present situation.
Public attitudes have undoubtedly changed dramatically for the better in the past 20 years. But it would be foolish to pretend that there is not still a sizeable reservoir of ignorance and prejudice relating to both categories. We cannot blame the public if they equate in their minds a hostel for the mentally handicapped with Broadmoor patients if we in

715
this House lump both categories together in our legislation. Paragraph 1.19 in chapter 1 of the White Paper recognises:
" a substantial number favoured separate legislation."
I find it difficult to keep up with the mathematics of the White Paper. There has, quite properly, been a lot of consultation. A sizeable number of people who are actively engaged in the care of the mentally handicapped feel that they should be either excluded or separately provided for. The Government have none the less come to a different conclusion—not that they were bound to follow the consultations—but there seems to be a non sequitur in paragraph 1.19.
The problem facing the House is that, the original decision having been made in 1959 to include the mentally handicapped, the Government said that basic fundamental questions such as this are not open for debate and that we are only debating the White Paper reviewing the working of the Act. This is rather a Catch 22 situation. This is an extraordinary contention because it implies that it is impossible to consider fundamental changes of direction.
It is not an answer for the Secretary of State to say, as the White Paper does, that other statutes are involved in the sphere of mental illness and mental handicap and that other White Papers have considered the problem. The House is aware of the existence of those other White Papers. What the public are expecting, irrespective of whether they are right to expect it, is that a new Act will be definitive and all-embracing and will not simply be about custodial elements and the rights of patients. If it is not intended to bring forward a Bill to meet that expectation, we should say so quickly. The Secretary of State knows that I am among those who would welcome new legislation.
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of State and his Department for their assistance over my modest Private Member's Bill. I know only too well what a low priority Governments of either persuasion often afford to the mentally afflicted. When I hear that new legislation could be ready by the end of this year, I feel that I face the dilemma, on the one hand, of not wanting to delay
716
it and to seize the opportunity while it exists and, on the other hand, of urgently wishing to get any new legislation absolutely right, particularly bearing in mind the comparative infrequency of legislation on the subject.
Behind my point about mental handicap lies the major criticism that the Government have missed the opportunity to review the whole area. They have obviously deliberately decided not to do that and they are, therefore, open to criticism. They could have gone far beyond merely reviewing the 1959 Act. They have not addressed themselves as fully as they should have done to resource questions and to taking the whole issue much wider.
Many groups have legitimate interests in these matters. Earlier speakers have paid tribute to them. I note that the Royal College of Psychiatrists, in its otherwise extremely good report on the White Paper, appears to be very sensitive to the comments of MIND. It is inevitable that we shall have entirely healthy creative tension between the different interests. I welcome the contributions of the Royal College, MIND, the unions, BASW and all those involved in these matters. None of those good people should feel that there is an inbuilt bias in the House in any one direction.
I should also like to add my commendation to the work of the all-party committee. The chairman, the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman), has made a major contribution.
Mr. Moonman: The hon. Gentleman is vice-chairman of the all-party committee and I am sure that he will agree that I committed an error by omitting to pay a tribute to the Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, which has been a great support to us over the years. It would be a pity if we did not put that fact on the record.
Mr. Pattie: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has repaired that omission and averted the possible danger that I might repeat it. I am well aware of the work of the PRA and, in particular, the contribution of John Wilder.
The role of hon. Members is to ensure that a balance is preserved between the interests of patients, staff and the public.

717
I have the highest regard for the contribution of MIND, but I am not a slavish devotee of its viewpoint, right or wrong. I also admire much, though not all, of the argument of the Royal College.
The 1959 Act, liberal and far-sighted as it was, enshrined what I call—without, I hope, causing offence—the principle of medical supremacy. It is the most natural response in the world for highly qualified and skilled psychiatrists represented by the Royal College to feel that, in all matters of treatment, the medical view should predominate.
The Royal College is unfairly criticised because it is seen to be as enthusiastic for compulsion and the denial of patients' rights as MIND is reckoned to be obsessive about patients' rights. The Royal College special committee's report on the White Paper recommends that the proposal on a new holding power under section 30 should have a time limit of three hours rather than six hours. That is hardly the language of those who seek to restrict patients' rights.
On the other hand, I hope that I shall not be thought to be hypercritical if I draw attention to the Royal College's comments on the role of relatives as set out in paragraphs 14 to 17 of chapter 3. The college says:
" as far as possible relatives themselves should be encouraged to take responsibility and continue to be involved in admission and discharge procedures rather than to relegate this entirely to a professional group (social workers) ".
The word "relegate" may be a Freudian slip or, more mundanely, a typing error, but it has overtones of perceived stratification. The word "delegate" would have conveyed the meaning equally well.
The Royal College has reacted strongly to the Government's proposed new definition, in paragraph 23 of chapter 1, of treatment in relation to the mentally handicapped. The White Paper proposes a new definition
" which makes it clear that it includes care, training, the use of habilitative techniques and medical, nursing and other professional help."
I support that proposal because I am convinced that the future will lie with the inter-disciplinary concept and that increasing numbers of patients will be in hospital for relatively short periods. The whole direction nowadays is towards units
718
in district general hospitals and more community support.
Close teamwork in support of patients is vital. There are so many medical factors that contribute to the onset of mental stress and illness that it would be wrong in future to accord the degree of primacy to the strictly medical function that it has enjoyed to date.
What does not seem to have been appreciated is the urgent need for positive discrimination in favour of mental health and mental handicap because of their permanent position at the end of the queue for resources. The resource question is tucked away in four short pages at the end of the White Paper, and those involved in these matters must wring their hands again in fear of another exercise of raising hopes without fulfilment. The Royal College has described resources as "seriously underestimated". Resource allocation will certainly be the name of the game.
The White Paper has also failed to offer suggestions about the duties that should be laid on social service departments. No guidance is offered on the scope and extent of professional discretion. We shall obviously need machinery for the maintenance of standards.
We have heard talk of accountability, but there is no mention of establishing minimum standards to which all questions of accountability must relate. It seems to be generally agreed that in future the main burden of effort will be devoted to rehabilitation, getting patients back into the community and, above all, to actions designed to prevent patients from being taken into hospital in the first place. That will mean a major reorientation in favour of community-based services and, in particular, crisis intervention services. We must recognise, above all, the importance of care, support and guidance for the mentally ill at home and for their families—and I stress the importance of support for the families.
The White Paper does not specifically address itself to the problems of psycho-geriatrics and it does not discuss the question of upgrading primary mental health care in the community.
One of the so-called non-consensus areas listed by the Secretary of State was mentally disordered offenders. The hon. Member for Basildon referred to a recent

719
visit that he and I paid to Prestwich hospital where we examined the difficulties being experienced by the interim secure unit because of a campaign of obstruction being waged by the NUPE branch secretary—one of the hospital cooks. The other union involved, COHSE, made clear that it supported the regional secure unit and wanted to help to make it work. The entire programme at Prestwich is in danger, with the ripple effect going out to other hospitals, and there is a cloud of indecision and anxiety over staff and patients because of the activities of one man. Something has to be done to get the programme on the rails.
The word should go out from the House to the public that patients in regional secure units are people who cannot be admitted to Broadmoor but they are not travelling in precisely the opposite route. There should be the chance for rehabilitation and the avoidance of tragic human waste.
We look forward to a Bill being presented later this year so that we may confront the dilemma whether to go ahead while we have the chance or to delay for a while and hold further consultations. Above all, I should like the new Bill to be as close as possible to what we all agree represents the best way forward. The hon. Member for Basildon suggested that a two-part approach might be most practicable. I was taken with that suggestion. We all agree that there is a need for reform. We should be ready to move forward with that reform as soon and on as broad a front as possible.
8.9 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) made a knowledgeable and well-researched contribution to the debate and argued powerfully for the exclusion of the mentally handicapped from forthcoming legislation. I should like to put on record my own limited experience in support of that view.
I speak with some trepidation because mental health is a vast and complicated subject. The knowledge that I have gleaned has been comparatively recent and is largely the result of constituency cases. There are three prisons in my constituency. I could say a great deal about them, but I shall not tonight. I did not
720
appreciate that there were so many secure homes in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I should like to return later to a point made by the right hon. Member with which I totally agree.
I should like to pay tribute to MIND. That organisation has been helpful as has the all-party mental health committee to me in the cases with which I have been concerned. Two weeks ago the chairman of that committee complimented me. I should like to return that compliment both to the chairman and to the vice-chairman, the hon. Members for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) and Chertsey and Walton. They have given up much time and energy to a cause which they both hold dear and they have also been of considerable help to me. I am most grateful to them.
I have attended two mental health tribunals at Broadmoor. The first one was the first to be open to the press and the general public, limited though it was, and it caused quite a stir at the time. I was enormously impressed by the quality and expertise of the tribunal members. Moreover, at the tribunal which I attended only in December last the members could not have been more fair or thorough. The country owes a debt of gratitude to these people.
At the first tribunal my constituent did not obtain his release, However, six months later, when he again appeared before a tribunal, he was successful, and rightly so, in my view, because he had been in Broadmoor for nearly five years. He was then released immediately. I was delighted by his success, and he has since fully justified the confidence that was placed in him by the tribunal. However, at the time I felt that it was a terrible mistake to discharge him into society without real preparation after almost five years' detention.
That is why I particularly endorse recommendation V. on page 79 of the White Paper. That would enable tribunals to delay discharge for up to three months. That time should be spent constructively, allowing the patient adequately to prepare himself for the problems that lie immediately ahead. Some sort of halfway hostel is clearly desirable. I do not believe that these places even exist in the South of England. Certainly I have not discovered one.

721
The White Paper also mentions trial leave, which I believe to be an excellent idea, or even guardianship, where family circumstances dictate that course to be preferable. To release a youngster just out of his teens from Broadmoor without preparation is to take an enormous risk. There is the possibility, mentioned in the White Paper, of recommending the transfer of a patient, who is obviously not ready for discharge, to another hospital or secure establishment where it is felt that he or she has a better chance of recovery.
I do not think that anyone in this country can be satisfied with the existing provision of regional secure establishments. I asked the Minister of State about present and future provision of small secure units for juveniles suffering from mental disorders which are considered capable of cure and was told that only one regional authority was planning a secure unit for adolescent psychiatry with about 20 places, but that it would not be ready within 12 months. That is the position, and it is a public disgrace.
The staff of Rampton, Broadmoor and other secure hospitals do an excellent job to the best of their ability. But the whole atmosphere of these vast Victorian edifices—I refer particularly to Broadmoor—fills one with foreboding for the teenager. I have in mind a constituency case of a girl just on 15 years of age when she went into Broadmoor. It is a very difficult case about which many hon. Members will know. She was detained in Broadmoor under sections 72 and 74 of the 1959 Act. I felt that she was doomed almost from the moment she entered that establishment. An article in The Guardian on 19 February dealt with the numbers at Broadmoor. At the moment there are
" more than 580 men and 120 women, about one-third more than its designed capacity."
The need for smaller homes set in a pleasing environment is overwhelming. A great deal more public money will have to be spent. I was pleased to hear that from the Opposition Front Bench today.
Mr. Moyle: Only today.
Mr. Ross: But it has come. We should be grateful for it.
A great deal of public money will have to be spent. I agree with those who criticise the regional health authorities which
722
have not spent the money that was allocated for that purpose. If necessary, the Secretary of State may have to direct, when money is available, that it is spent on such homes. Of course, we must also spend more money on training suitable staff to manage them.
Paragraph 5.52 of the White Paper deals with the transfer to hospital of un-sentenced prisoners. The right hon. Member for Crosby covered much of the ground to which I wish to refer. This area is cloaked in mystery. I could not fathom out the reasoning behind the decision in one case which came to my attention. It happened before I became a Member of the House. The person concerned was already in Broadmoor. His parents besieged me to try to get him out. The more I researched that case, the more unhappy I became. MIND's criticism of this area is fully justified.
I have always suspected that the report of the probation officer in the case to which I referred held too much sway. I think that it also held too much sway with the tribunal when it first met. As subsequent events proved, that official had gravely abused his position. He has now resigned from the probation service.
The right hon. Member for Crosby talked about the doubtful role of criticised social workers in this field. The trouble is that once a report is on record it takes a devil of a job to get it off. Even if it is untrue, partially true or badly knocked together, it is on record and it is used time and again. I think that the Home Office must insist on a more thorough investigation into the background of each case before these sections are invoked. Once an order has been made and the person concerned has been committed, the process of reversing that decision is prolonged and fraught with difficulty. In the case to which I referred, it took five years.
The availability of a second opinion, which is referred to in paragraph 6.28, is of paramount importance. Adequate legal representation at a subsequent tribunal hearing is highly desirable. I do not criticise those who represented my constituents at the tribunals. However, a higher level of legal experience and knowledge would have helped their cases. I am thinking of someone who was perhaps more versed in taking such cases. There seems to be a dearth of such people. Those

723
who represented my constituents are to be congratulated on their work. However, it seems odd when an American appears before a tribunal on behalf of a client in Broadmoor.
I strongly support the recent MIND conference resolution calling for legal aid to be made available for representation and for a patient advice and advocacy service to be established. I strongly support the proposal that it should be the positive duty of mental hospitals to admit patients who require treatment. I have never been able to understand the refusal of some hospital directors to take quite ordinary cases within their jurisdiction. If they are not prepared to take such cases, they should be required to give adequate reasons for refusal to admit. When I have come up against this blockage it has seemed to me that directors were taking the easy way out.
I welcome the increasing role now being played by housing associations in the provision of accommodation for the mentally handicapped. Recently I visited Portsmouth. The Portsmouth housing association is already operating in this area. The Housing Corporation published a document on the subject. Although there is a long way to go, we are making progress.
There is another good reason why mental handicap should not come under the provisions of a new mental health Bill. I am thinking of a constituent with a vaccine-damaged child who is in her teens. That case is a nightmare for the parents. They have had to raise the garden fences and take other precautions. It is a wonderful case of parental love, devotion and duty to their child. However, occasionally they would like to take a short holiday. There is no provision for a mentally handicapped child, who has committed no offence, to go to a secure place. Rightly, the voluntary bodies do not make such provision in the area of mental handicap. They do not wish to create secure establishments. This pinpoints the difference that we are trying to demonstrate. That duty should fall on the local authority.
I hope that our suggestions and objections will be heard by the Government and that when the legislation appears it will be in the form of a Bill dealing with the mentally sick.
8.23 p.m.
Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) reminded us that there were three prisons in his constituency. In the rural depths of South Worcestershire there are two mental hospitals and the latest maximum security prison. Perhaps that is one reason why, over the past two or three years, I have developed an interest, which I share with the Minister of State, in the questions of patients restricted under section 65, the mentally ill and offenders, especially those languishing in prison now. This morning the Minister of State, in answer to a question, told us that the number of such cases runs into many hundreds.
I make no apology for referring to an extremely good speech by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), with whom over the past few years I have shared an interest in the question of regional secure units and the reasons why they are required, as well as the scandal about the lack of such provision. It is true that 95 per cent. of residents of mental hospitals are there, by definition in the Act, as informal patients who wish to be there. That is to be welcomed without qualification. The Mental Health Act 1959 is working extremely well in that respect.
I am concerned with what I believe to be the basic set of paradoxes running through the review that we are debating. I am concerned with the conditions and facilities provided for patients who are referred by court order under section 60, and particularly for those who are restricted under section 65 of the Act. I am also especially concerned with those who are not restricted under either of those sections, namely, the hundreds of people who are in prison as a result of the lack of facilities for their treatment in secure hospitals.
Chapter 5 of the review is entitled: "Offender Patients", and it is riddled with paradoxes which perfectly illustrate the dilemma faced by the authorities. The dilemma is largely of their own making. I say "largely" because the co-culprit in this matter, I believe, is the psychiatric profession, which has dithered around, giving conflicting advice, particularly on regional secure units, with such damaging results.

725
I have to admit that on a constituency basis I am losing patience with the psychiatric profession, which seems invariably to cloud its own uncertainties and indecisiveness in the most obscure jargon. As the hon. Member for Lewis-ham, West (Mr. Price) has pointed out, this would be acceptable, the profession being a relatively new one, if it were not put over with such arrogance.
I want to refer in a moment to two cases which precisely concern the regional secure units, and to the advice received from psychiatrists, although I do not think that that is the right description for it. It is in some cases more like bullying. This leads me to be extremely concerned about the profession and its role, together with the regional health authorities and central Government, on the question of regional secure units.
Paragraph 5.52 of the review indicates that there has in the past 10 years been a decline in the number of offenders compulsorily admitted to hospital. I have scrawled in the margin of my copy that the reason is that they all have gone to prison instead. It is ironic that the drop in the number of offenders compulsorily admitted to hospital, which is now round about 550, as stated in the review, is absolutely identical with the number of mentally ill patients languishing in prison. I am sure that this is coincidental; nevertheless, to my mind it is ironical. The review goes on to say that the drop in the number of offenders compulsorily admitted seems to be in part due to an increasing reluctance by hospitals to admit patients.
One of the important questions raised in the White Paper is whether receiving doctors should have a final veto in cases submitted under section 65 of the Act. I certainly understand the arguments for bringing receiving doctors much more closely into the picture—the White Paper may well have got that matter right—but I would not want doctors to have the final veto on matters under section 65.
However, without going into that, there is no question but that an unqualified onus lies on the authorities—I do not believe that they have fully accepted its significance—to recognise that the present system puts an intolerable burden on doctors and nurses working in mental hospitals. It is true that the philosophy and workings of the 1959 Act were admirable
726
in their intentions, but it is also true that they have meant that a nightmarish task exists for hospitals and their staff of coping with those restricted patients who are capable of becoming violently out of control.
That was one of the reasons why I asked earlier what proportion of those patients who are restricted—we were given a figure of about 200—
Mr. Moyle: It is 129.
Mr. Spicer: What proportion of those are in special hospitals and what proportion are in normal mental hospitals? I very much hope that the Minister will answer that question.
Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman has obviously misunderstood me. Of the 200 patients about whom he is talking, it is 129.
Mr. Spicer: I am sorry. I am most grateful to the Minister. It is 129 in special hospitals.
Mr. Moyle: Yes. The other figure is 76.
Mr. Spicer: Seventy-six remain in the mental hospitals.
That is an indication of the problem. Mental hospitals as such, for understandable reasons, are not proving very adequate in providing the facilities for the kinds of offender patients I am discussing.
As the hon. Member for Ormskirk mentioned, the problem is worse than the figures indicate. The figures provided to the House by the hon. Member in relation to special hospitals—I hope that the Minister of State will comment on the figures if they are wrong—showed that 146 men and 46 women are in special hospitals whom those hospitals would like to discharge into a more intermediate hospital but a hospital which, nevertheless, is able to look after them. This is a very serious addition to the problem. It is an extremely important dimension. Part of the problem of mental hospitals in my constituency has been caused by the fact that they have met with several patients from Broadmoor, in particular, with whom they are unable to cope in the circumstances in which they find themselves under the 1959 Act. It is a very serious problem.

727
The whole crisis must be viewed against the background that nothing that any of us has been saying tonight is new. As has been mentioned, the Butler committee reported in 1975. Subsequently, the Government, time and again, have accepted its recommendations that regional secure units and interim secure units should be built. Five years after the recommendations of the Butler committee were known to the Government, virtually nothing has been done.
In an Adjournment debate on 16 June last year, I quoted the Minister of State, Home Office, who spoke in a debate in the House of Lords on 22 March 1978. I should like to repeat the quotation. He said:
" I think we can state this problem very simply so far as secure units are concerned. If we do not get them, a large number of mentally ill people are going to remain in prison. "—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 1978; Vol. 389, c. 1886.]
I suspect that many hon. Members will have examples of constituents who have been sentenced to prison in the full knowledge of the courts that they are sentencing mentally ill people. In the Adjournment debate of 16 June I raised the specific case of a constituent of mine, Richard Tolley, who was sent to prison on 9 March 1978 at the Worcester Crown court and of whom the sentencing judge said:
" the medical evidence in your case is considerable…you suffer from severe mental illness, which is schizophrenia, or an illness akin to it…You have in the past acted violently, using an axe, threatening members of your family…there is no suitable place in any hospital whatever outside the prison service which is suitable to you…A prison sentence is, in the absence of a hospital order, justified in your particular case."
Another case that has come to my notice and, I am sure, that of many other hon Members is that of Mr. Michael Thynne. He is not a constituent of mine, but his mother has written to many hon. Members who are interested in this case. He was sent to prison for life in November 1975 at the Central Criminal court, although again he had a long history of mental illness.
These two cases are of concern for several reasons. One is that neither person could have received personal adequate mental treatment in prison, although in both cases the judges expressed the hope that they would.
728
In the case of Mr. Tolley I received a letter dated 13 March 1978 from Mr. Rayfield, governor of Gloucester prison, who gave me permission to quote him as saying:
" It is obvious that Richard has been sent to prison because there is nowhere else for him to go. He will be seen by a visiting psychotherapist whilst he is here, but you will appreciate that we cannot give him the specialised care he would expect to find in a hospital."
That is one unsatisfactory aspect of this. There are not, whatever the authorities may say—and there should not be—the facilities in prison for coping with the mentally ill.
The second unsatisfactory characteristic of the present situation is that judges have the option of passing life sentences for certain offences, as in the case of Mr. Thynne, or, as in the case of Mr. Tolley, passing finite and often short sentences at the end of which the prisonerpatient is simply thrown back on society, once again to try to fend for himself. That is exactly what has happened in the case of Mr. Tolley.
Like the hon. Member for Ormskirk, I believe that the present position is both unfortunate and scandalous, because the Government have accepted the validity of this argument and have in the past three years allocated £17·7 million specifically for building regional secure and interim secure units. From the answers that have been given to parliamentary questions over the past six months, I find that only £800,000 of that money has been spent by the regional health authorities on the development of regional secure units and interim secure facilities.
All sorts of excuses are given for that. When I questioned the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) about this, he produced one of those excuses referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), namely, that there is a problem in securing the approval of the local community for such projects.
That may be true, but there is certainly an example in Warwickshire, in the case of Hatton hospital. There the regional health authority, recognising the problems associated with converting part of it into a regional secure unit, held various public meetings and won the support, or at least overcame the objections, of the local community.

729
I do not say that that was a fatuous excuse, but the problem could be overcome by proper communication between the authorities and the local population.
If there is to be any accountability for public moneys and any responsibility to ensure that moneys voted by Parliament are spent on the purposes for which they are voted, the regional secure unit scandal must be seen as yet another threat to parliamentary democracy.
In Adjournment debates and in response to questions in the last year the Government, although they accept the facts, have tended—for reasons best known to themselves—to shrug off these implications. They have accepted that moneys can be spent on activities which are totally different from those for which they were allocated.
I hope that the Minister of State will be willing to make a firm statement aimed at those regional health authorities which have wilfully and scandalously misappropriated public funds. I hope that he will take a firm line and demonstrate that the Government recognise that there is a major problem which goes to the heart of our democratic and funding processes. I hope that he accepts that money must not be spent on purposes for which it has not been allocated.
8.41 p.m.
Mrs. Lynda Chalker: We welcome the debate on the White Paper. Less than three weeks ago I requested the Minister of State to allow us to have this debate. He said that it was not within his power. He has become influential with the Lord President in the last few weeks, as is shown by the fact that we are now having the debate.
The debate has shown not only a wide but a highly informed view of the problems of mental health and mental handicap. The House will benefit from it. In the last few years we have had a plethora of different reports on the problems of mental illness and mental handicap. It began with the report on "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped" produced in 1971 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). That is the first base from which the arguments have been continued.
We cannot cover either in the White Paper or in tonight's debate every aspect
730
of the problems that beset us. However, for the sake of education outside the House it is worth going over one or two of the issues which might not be included in the White Paper directly but which affect the care of those who are mentally ill and the question of prevention.
The Secretary of State became a little hurt at the possibility of being criticised by outside organisations and by some of my colleagues because these issues had not been brought together. I am sure that he accepts that the Government's duty is to bring together the reports and views across the whole spectrum, not only those matters contained in the White Paper.
Mental illness and mental handicap are parts of life. They have often been brought to hon. Members' attention for the first time after they have become hon. Members. The problem of mental illness affects one in six women and one in nine men in their lifetime. We are doing much research into the problem of mental handicap, but children are still being born mentally handicapped. It is not a scene from which society can turn its eyes and simply leave it to central and local government. It is a problem that affects all of us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) said that the Secretary of State's speech was a compassionate one on a compassionate issue. I do not think that any hon. Member has deviated from the pattern set at the beginning of the debate.
The size of the problem is not all that we have to cope with. There is the deep-seated fear of mental illness, the assumption that somebody who is mentally ill is less than a whole person. I do not believe that that is true. I have many friends who have suffered in the past, who have come through and who, with careful rehabilitation, are full citizens in life today.
Therefore, in re-writing the 1959 Act, we should ensure that any stigma which that Act imposes at present is as far as possible removed for the sake of those who become afflicted by pressure and stress, because in mental illness, aside from the better known diagnoses, there is a need for education and rehabilitation. This debate will go some way to advancing these roles among a few more people who have not perhaps turned their minds to the issue of mental illness in the past.

731
Though it does not affect the White Paper, one further matter which is important is that we must all remember that the stress of modern life is increasingly revealing a tendency to mental illness in industry. It has always been my hope that industry will learn to recognise the early signs of mental illness, or the approach of extreme mental stress, and take preventive action amongst employees so that it is not allowed to develop, consequently disrupting the life of the employee, his family and large numbers of other people.
There are other matters with which the White Paper does not deal but which need to be remembered when discussing the issue. One is the role that general practitioners can play in recognising the onset of mental illness and giving guidance and support to the families of those affected. I do not believe that we are doing sufficient through our family doctors at present to assist those families that suffer.
One factor which very often exacerbates this situation is that the different Royal Colleges do not always come together over these issues. I hope that the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists will make sure that those general practitioners who do not have mental health expertise—perhaps because they trained many years ago and have not undergone retraining to enable them to assist in the recognition and treatment of mental illness and in counselling—can be given some help.
We heard from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) of the role which some housing associations are beginning to play in our society. They are helping those who have previously been mentally ill but who are now, thankfully, coming back into the community. I also know of a housing association which is beginning to help those less severely mentally handicapped people.
This seems to me to be the right kind of move in our society today, where we recognise and seek to deal with that affliction or that problem wherever it may occur. I think that it is the experience of hon. Members who are associated with mental health and mental handicap that we must now give much more attention
732
to this aspect of society than we have done in the past.
Some comments were made at the beginning of the debate about resources. I am very bothered by what has been described by MIND as the "inadequacy" of chapter 9 on resources in the White Paper. When everyone speaks about resources in relation to mental health and mental handicap, the point being underlined is that we have seen so many good ideas floated but few have come to real fruition. That was why I was much attracted by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman)—and his vice-chairman in the all-party mental health group, my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie)—that perhaps in dealing with the problems that we face today we should be proceeding on two levels.
One is to rectify those aspects of the 1959 Act which obviously attract major support—with agreement across an even wider range than those issues that my hon. Friend's Private Member's Bill covers. We must change the law and start the process. But in no way must the law changes be allowed to become an excuse for not doing what to me is an even more major task—to change the way in which we help those people in mental ill health, and with mental handicap, to regain as normal a life as possible and to live in our society.
I believe that in a recent speech the director of MIND, Mr. Tony Smythe, said that, if we were to fail to make a connection between a statute which essentially deals with duties and rights, the Secretary of State would add fuel to the fire of those who have consistently maintained that the law on patients' rights is relatively unimportant, and even a threat to professional performance, and that we should concentrate on getting more resources for what must remain a hospital-based mental health service. No hon. Member wants the service to be totally hospital-based in the future, and that is why, when we are dealing with the law which essentially affects hospital-based patients, we must consider the other side of care, because we are all concerned that fewer people should be hospital-based in future.
During earlier comments about resource needs, there was also a comment

733
about what we Conservatives felt. We have always recognised—I do not believe that any party or Government have done enough about it—that the mental health and mental handicap services have been the Cinderellas of the NHS. We believe, as I am sure do the Government, that the priority which is now beginning to be accorded to them must continue, because in a civilised society there is no way in which we can go on putting to the bottom of the pile those who become mentally ill or who suffer mental handicap. I for one will fight again and again to make sure that this is accorded a much higher priority than sometimes has been possible in the past.
I suppose that I must enter my regular caveat when I say that to do all the things that we genuinely want to do, we must first get our economy in good shape. Only then will we be able to do so much more than has been possible of late.
One of the remarkable things in the debate has been the unanimity about the question of legislation and the mentally handicapped. Not one speaker has felt that the Government were proceeding correctly in leaving the law on the mentally handicapped under the same heading as the mentally ill. Practically every speaker has either referred to that directly or has implied it. Therefore, I rather feel that the Secretary of State and his Department have been steered away from separating the mentally handicapped from the mentally ill in the case of detained patients. I am not certain who has steered them away, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South said must surely be the guidance.
Those mentally handicapped persons who do not present behavioural problems, or who do not have associated mental illness, ought to be separated quite clearly from those who do present behavioural problems and, perhaps, a threat to other people in the community. I hope that the Department will re-examine that and make sure that it is not swayed by the Home Office or others.
Mr. Ennals: The hon. Lady has obviously given this matter some thought. Does she think that there should be two pieces of legislation, one dealing with the mentally handicapped and another with mental illness, or one piece of legislation that should totally exclude compulsion for mentally handicapped people?
Mrs. Chalker: I am not expert on this, but there are groups of mentally handicapped people whose behaviour is not associated with mental illness and who do not present a threat. These people are unlikely to be detained, and a separate and clearly defined section in one piece of legislation might enable us to achieve the object that we all desire.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) mentioned those who are mentally ill and in prison. He made a forceful speech containing the figures and all the arguments. There is a need for better provision for those who perhaps for a time have to remain in prison. We must also consider whether psychiatric services can be provided for people in prison hospitals if they cannot go to a special or mental hospital with secure accommodation such as an interim secure unit.
There must be a greater degree of collaboration between the Home Office and the DHSS. In 1959 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was Minister of Health and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) was a Minister in the Home Office, and those two Departments worked closely together on the 1959 Bill. But in this sphere there is far too little collaboration and, as the hon. Member for Ormskirk said, the problem has been pushed from one Department to another and swept aside.
If these most difficult patients—and I call them patients and not prisoners—are to come from the prisons into the community, there is urgent need for guidance in the treatment of violent patients. The White Paper gives some assistance in this direction.
On to the detailed aspects of rights of patients, guardianship and the need for treatment, everyone who has studied the White Paper has welcomed the proposals in paragraph 1.14 dealing with the information to be given to all informal patients on admission to hospital. It is always sad when a person who can no longer cope decides to accept his doctor's advice and go into hospital. He is more fearful than ever. At the best of times one is afraid of hospital. But a mental hospital, especially if it is an old building, will be more frightening and threatening

735
and less clinical than our surgical hospitals, and many patients would be greatly reassured if they knew their rights in advance.
Such information will also provide additional understanding for the families of these patients who find the situation particularly traumatic. In some cases it is quite disastrous when the mother goes into hospital. This degree of understanding is very important, and it should be extended to those who may have to face treatment not in a hospital but in the community. That is why the proposals contained in paragraph 1.8 of the White Paper that there might be a guardianship role for those who are to be cared for in the community are welcome.
There is one aspect of the way in which guardianship is used which is particularly important. There should never be powers to impose treatment in the community. If a patient is in such dire straits and in need of treatment but will not accept that treatment easily, the treatment should be in hospital. That person will most likely need to be treated under section 26. In order to create greater confidence in treatment within the community, the idea of guardianship should be pursued. I am glad to see that the Royal College of Psychiatrists agrees with this in principle. For some reason, it seems to think that it is impractical, however. I have not yet discovered why.
There is one other aspect of caring for patients who initially may be informal patients in hospital or in guardianship in the community. Although I am quite certain that doctors prefer patients to be informal wherever possible, because sometimes they have to exercise their duty under common law to prevent patients from coming to harm, there may be a greater use of sectioning in order to allow this to happen where the guardianship proposals perhaps do not take effect in quite the way that some envisage.
The guardianship proposals contained in chapter 4 of the White Paper produce a number of possible options. I was interested to see that the Royal College of Psychiatrists believes that there should be qualified support for the third option, the "essential powers" approach. In its notes to Members on the White Paper the Royal College says that there are ques-
736
tions to be raised about the operation of these powers, but since this is not spelt out in enormous detail in the White Paper we shall look forward to discussing it in detail when the Bill to amend the 1959 Act comes before the House.
The other aspect is that we should ensure that, where guardianship is introduced to assist, there should always be a body that can give advice to the families of persons placed under guardianship.
I turn to the question of patients' rights and the need for treatment. There is a very delicate balance between patients' rights and the professionally judged needs of a patient. Also, there must be consideration of the risk to others and the risk to staff. I do not believe that in any Act of Parliament or any guidance operated by the DHSS we can possibly cover every case. We can make general rules, but much of the decision taken in coping with the problems of informal patients rests fairly and squarely on the leadership and experience of the staff dealing with them and the atmosphere of care that exists in the institutions.
I do not believe that we can write down in any legislation how far persuasion can go. That must be a decision of the staff in charge of the patients. There is one thing that can be done, and it is being done in a number of hospitals around the country. Each disciplinary team needs to know very clearly in advance the sort of lengths to which it can go to persuade a patient that a certain course of treatment should be pursued.
The Maudsley hospital is not one of the general run-of-the-mill mental health hospitals by any manner of means. There are in that hospital and in many others excellent examples of good working practice. The multi-disciplinary team has decided in advance of a difficult situation how it can cope with the variety of instances that may occur. The Villa ward has both informal and sectioned patients. It provides intensive care for those who are experiencing very difficult problems. Among the staff there is a confidence about how to act. There is an understanding of exactly what to do if informal patients reject the treatment that they need. The support that the White Paper gives to staff in that position is greatly to be welcomed.

737
Another fact that has emerged from the debate and the White Paper is that the problems that we face in coping with both detained patients and informal patients when they become violent or have a period of great disturbance depend to a large extent on the quality of the staff. That is significant in the light of the present staff problem.
I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State say that the nurse-patient ratio is one nurse to three patients in most of our hospitals. That has not been my experience that of my colleagues during visiting of late. When we visit hospitals and are told about the difficulties of dealing with patients, both informal and detained, we well understand the difficulties that they face when they are under pressure through lack of staff.
I shall be grateful if the Minister of State will speak about the quality of those who are entering mental health nursing training. It is not necessarily those who are already in post but those who are coming through the training procedure who will be crucial in the years ahead when we hope to implement the recommendations in the White Paper.
Another problem that is coming to light more and more where wards are severely understaffed and where the nursing staff has to deal with difficult patients is the great need for the staff to receive counselling. Often members of the staff take on their own shoulders and into their own selves many of the problems experienced by their patients. The counselling of staff is something that few of our National Health Service mental health hospitals have the opportunity to undertake. If staff are under great pressure, mistakes can occur because decisions are made without necessarily all the right influences being at work.
Staffing levels and the quality of staffing are of great importance when dealing with the mentally handicapped, especially mentally handicapped children. I listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire and I visualised mentally handicapped children in disastrously understaffed wards who will probably never live in the community because they are severely subnormal and have all the multitudinous problems that will probably necessitate their being detained throughout their lives.
738
Often we see staff coping with multiple handicapped patients when they are severely below the required staffing level. I can think of Balderton hospital at Newark and many others throughout the country. That underlines what I said about giving attention to resources. If we do not, wrong decisions will be taken.
There are many other aspects of the White Paper that we welcome. For example, we welcome the staff safeguards that are contained in chapter 7.
The recommendation for the mental health review tribunals is first-class. The first four sections of the recommendation are already included in the Bill ber for Chertsey and Walton, which I hope the Government will assist to get on to the statute book as soon as possible.
In the list of proposals for changes to the mental health tribunals there are those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) about delayed discharge that might be in the best interests of the patient who is going out into the community. The suggestion in paragraph 6.5 that discharge might be delayed for up to three months is not only something which doctors will welcome in watching the progress of a patient once they know he is going out, but will also allow proper preparation for the reception into the community of those people being discharged or for their reception into another hospital of less security, which does not now happen.
I felt that there was one gap in the proposals in chapter 6. I would be grateful if the Minister, if not tonight, on some future occasion, could give his attention to this gap. Under the new proposals for mental health review tribunals, what happens to a conditionally discharged restricted patient? It appears to me that such a patient has no right of appeal to a tribunal to have his status changed. It is not clear, if the proposals in the White Paper become part of a new mental health Act, what will happen in the case of such a patient.
There are other suggestions, such as those for tribunal enlargement, which we welcome. It is already possible to have four members of a mental health review tribunal. We do not feel that it is necessarily right to have a rigid rule that a

739
social worker must always be a member of the tribunal. A social worker can at present be a fourth member, but I think it is important to retain the presence of lay members. This is one further aspect of educating and involving members of the public. A family whose relative is going before a tribunal is also given confidence if it is known that the tribunal contains a lay person as well as representatives of the medical, legal and social work professions.
There is much that one can say about detained patients and their treatment. The question has been raised about whether a detained patient who is resisting treatment should have his case for treatment considered by a multi-disciplinary group. As an individual, I am sure that the first reaction of many people is that this should be left to the medical specialist and psychiatrist. But there may be a better way of resolving the problem of whether the 5 per cent. of patients who are detained and the proportion who resist treatment should have that treatment. We have heard different approaches to the problem of mental health which will set the debate further along the right road.
I pay tribute to the work of the all-party mental health group. Its chairman made some comments earlier in the debate. It is right to say that, without the push that the group has given and without the support of the mental health special committee of BASW, of MIND and of many other bodies, we would probably not have reached this point of debate, and certainly not this point of informed discussion, even in Parliament.
We should follow the advice of the hon. Member for Basildon and approach the task in two ways. If we merely change the law and debate the individual changes outlined in the White Paper, we shall take only the first and probably a minor, step towards rectifying a deplorable state of affairs in a socially conscious nation. For too long, those who are afflicted with mental handicap or mental illness have been the outcasts of our society. We are all resolved that that time has passed and we have to put our resolution into action.
Sir David Renton: Before my hon. Friend finishes her interesting and splendid speech, I am anxious that she
740
should make clear that she was speaking for herself, and not for the Conservative Party, when she said that she believed that the mentally handicapped could be dealt with in one clause of a mental health Act. She must make that clear.
Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. What I said was probably insufficient. Having been caught on the hop, I was seeking to find my way out without getting into too much difficulty. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me. I wish to think further about that matter and I am sure that I shall be advised by my far more educated colleagues that separate legislation will be required. Perhaps I had better sit down quickly before anyone else steps in and sets another little trap.
The way in which the White Paper has, at long last, been brought forward has to be given extra impetus and it must become a priority for action in 1979.
9.17 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): We have had a thorough and thoughtful debate. It is quite a tribute to the House that on an issue which will probably not affect the outcome in a single seat in this year's general election we have been able to sustain a debate of noticeable expertise, including many informed contributions, for the best part of a day. The debate has contributed a great deal to the consideration that Ministers will be giving to the future of the 1959 Act which was put on the statute book by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, (Sir D. Walker-Smith), assisted by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton).
Hon. Members have put forward many useful ideas which we shall seek to use. I should like to express my appreciation to the all-party committee and its chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman), and the vice-chairman, the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), for the good work that they are doing. I also wish to express my appreciation of the work done by the many interested groups that keep an eye on this subject and the dedicated, professional and thoughtful way in which they go about their work. Even

741
though many of them are volunteers, they have a professional approach to the problems.
I intend to answer one or two of the questions raised by hon. Members but to devote most of my speech to mental handicap and whether that should be dealt with in the Bill, to care in the community—on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was unjustly accused of complacency—and to regional secure units, which have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) made an interesting speech and many good points. Perhaps the best was his assumption that my right hon. Friend would be putting legislation on the statute book. As that cannot be done until the next Session, I found the hon. Gentleman's comments cheering, and cheering comments are particularly welcome at this time.
The hon. Member began to undermine the credibility of his contribution when he talked about increased resources. In real terms, we are committed to a growth rate of about 2 per cent. a year in the National Health Service. The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) has criticised the Government over and over again, alleging profligacy in public expenditure. Yet the hon. Member for Reading, South forced the issue and said that more resources were needed. If more resources are devoted to mental health, there will be fewer resources for other parts of the National Health Service. The Government are committed to restraining growth in the acute services.
Dr. Vaughan: I was making the point that we should be frank about the lack of resources and services in many aspects of health care.
Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That was not how it sounded earlier. If he is saying that the Conservative Party will provide fewer resources, if it ever returns to power—
Dr. Vaughan: No.
Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman is not saying that. Therefore, what he is saying is in direct defiance of what has always been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East. I make
742
that point because it underlines the seriousness of the debate.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) addressed herself to the problem. She said that priority should be given to the mentally ill and mentally handicapped but that there could be no question of increasing resources until the economy was put right. If Opposition Members are talking about resources of the size that they mentioned today, that will be some time in the future.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is important that there should be no misunderstanding about this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) said that we should face the resources implications of what was in the White Paper. There was criticism—not only from this side of the House—that that was not being done. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) said that we recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) that it may be necessary to proceed with the legislation in two parts. It is common ground between the parties that the resources do not exist at the moment.
Mr. Moyle: That is a real clarion call to the people of this country. I am sure that they will respond to it when they understand what it means.
Let us proceed to the more important part of the debate. It is important to clear up the question of resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon made the important point that we should anticipate the future as well as try to assess the current situation. The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton said that the wider issues should also be considered. My right hon. Friend and I agree entirely with that. My right hon. Friend is to undertake an extensive review of the development of mental handicap services, for example, and will announce the details shortly.
The Government are putting forward an extensive number of documents about mental illness and mental handicap. Those documents will enable us to try to anticipate the situation as we see it in the White Paper. For example, there will shortly be a report on the training of nurses for the mentally ill and mentally

743
handicapped. There have been several reports—the reports on the way in which children in hospitals are dealt with, the Normansfield report and the White Paper that we are discussing today.
All in all, an extensive view will be taken of mental illness and mental handicap in the coming months. The exercise has already started. I hope that it will carry on and provide fruitful debate so that we can reach a good consensus on the correct way forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) argued powerfully about how hazardous treatment and consent to treatment should be dealt with. Like my right hon. Friend, I shall not be drawn on that matter, but my hon. Friend's contribution underlined the importance of that matter. We shall hold discussions with the interested parties as a result of comments on the White Paper that have been submitted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to section 65. I should emphasise that section 65 has not been retained exactly as it is. As the right hon. Member for Crosby pointed out, it has been reworded to emphasise that its aim is to protect the public. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West that section 65 will be administered against a background of annual reports on patients. That is set out in paragraph 5.29 of the White Paper.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) made a number of interesting points based on his personal experience. They will be helpful in throwing light on the White Paper when we translate it into legislation.
The hon. Member for Wallasey asked about staff. The ratio is one nurse to every three patients. In 1974 there were 43,000 nurses. The latest figure shows that there are now 50,000 nurses. The matter for regret is that the proportion of fully trained nurses within that figure has gone up by only 1 per cent.—from about 54¼ per cent. in 1974 to 55½ per cent. in 1977. It has to be admitted that nursing in this area is a calling which does not appeal to large numbers of people. This area has always been understaffed because it has been difficult to recruit to it. The situation is improving,
744
but there is a long way to go. The last thing that I should want to claim is that we are fully staffed with nurses and that the situation is as it should be. We certainly have a long way to go, and we can make use of all the young people and others who wish to come forward for training for nursing in this area.
Mrs. Chalker: Perhaps I may make a helpful suggestion to the Minister. One or two of our larger mental health hospitals have had pilot schemes for would-be mental health and mental handicap nurses. They have taken girls—mainly girls, but also some men—at an early age to give them eight or 12 weeks' experience of what it would be like to train for nursing in this sphere. Many of these pilot schemes started with volunteers in hospitals. I hope that the Minister will examine whether that could be done over a wider area to attract more people into nursing mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients.
Mr. Moyle: That is a very useful suggestion. I understand that some use has already been made of it. Part of the trouble is that nurses who appear on television are usually in the acute sector, and that gives a one-sided impression of nursing as a profession. I think that it would be as well to try to counteract it.
I should like to turn to three subjects which form most of our discussions. First, I want to deal with the question whether mental handicap should be included in the proposed Bill. The point from which I start—a point which my right hon. Friend put to the hon. Member for Wallasey—is that we are advised that a very small number of mentally handicapped people require compulsory detention. It is a much smaller proportion of the mentally handicapped than of the mentally ill, but they exist. The question therefore is whether we should legislate for these compulsory powers within one or two measures.
One of the main arguments—the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire put it most succinctly in his contribution—is that the public tend to confuse mental handicap and mental illness anyway and that to put them in the same measure would highlight that confusion. I would be the last person to say that that is an erroneous judgment.

745
The alternative is to take the mentally handicapped people out of the legislation that we are contemplating this evening and produce an entirely separate Bill for mentally handicapped people—a very small number of people—which would have within it provisions for the compulsory detention of a small number of mentally handicapped people. That indeed might focus public attention on the fact that mentally handicapped people could be compulsorily detained. That might cause just as much confusion in the public mind as the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire is afraid might be caused by the course that we are now putting before the House. I place that idea before the House for consideration. It involves a fine balance of judgment. It is one in which there may be a legitimate field for disagreement. That is the problem as my right hon. Friend and I see it now. That is the way that we are going forward.
The hon. Member for Reading, South made a colourful remark when he spoke of concentrating not on getting mentally ill and mentally handicapped people out of hospital but on overcoming the barriers in the community. That is a positive way of looking at the problem.
I thought that I would set out in greater detail than my right hon. Friend what we are doing and what progress we have made towards implementing the White Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Ill" and the 1976 consultative document on priorities.
Frankly, the picture is patchy. In some ways we are making reasonably good progress. In other ways the progress is nothing like as good as we would wish. First, local authority residential provision has been reasonably satisfactory. Since 1975 the number of places in the community in this area has increased broadly in line with the consultative document target of 350 places a year, although many local authorities are not yet providing a balanced range of accommodation as envisaged in the White Paper.
Progress in providing day care for mentally ill people, however, is not satisfactory. Since about 1976 the number of day places available to local authorities has increased by about 500 a year. Even allowing for some new places for mentally ill people in mixed day centres, this is a long way from the consultative docu-
746
ment target of 1,200 places a year. It looks as though we shall increase that rate of progress over the next year or two, but the provision of day care remains one of our top priorities. We are considering what more we can do to encourage progress.
The development of field social work with the mentally ill is also needed. The White Paper suggested a nucleus of staff, within a social service department, with special expertise in mental illness. That point was made by a number of hon. Members, who advised the House that we should move away from the concept of generic social work—I think that the hon. Member for Reading, South raised this point—in this area and make sure that more people concentrate and specialise on the work in connection with the Mental Health Act 1959 and whatever might succeed it.
Probably part of the trouble in applying the generic social worker concept in this area is that the opportunities for such work do not occur all that often. Therefore, it is difficult to develop expertise without making a special effort so to do.
When it comes to the health services, we have made some progress towards the White Paper priority aim of setting up district-based psychiatric services, although the bulk of services are still provided by the large mental illness hospitals, from which we wish to move. About half of the 204 health districts are now served by a general hospital psychiatric unit, although some of them do not provide a comprehensive service to the whole district at the moment.
The number of in-patients in psychiatric hospitals and units has continued to fall. The 1977 figure was about 80,000. However, nearly 10 per cent of those were accommodated in general hospital psychiatric units. There has also been a continued development of psychiatric day hospitals. If the growth remains steady, the White Paper guideline of two-thirds of a place per thousand of the population will be reached nationally in about 17 years. This lends emphasis to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wallasey about impatience.
One of the areas of the most rapid growth and the most important developments in this respect in the past few years

747
is that of community psychiatric nursing. A community psychiatric nurse can look after 40 to 50 patients at a time. A team of six community psychiatric nurses in a district can make a very good contribution to the solution of the problem. A few years ago there were only 100 of these nurses. Now there are well over 1,000.
It is envisaged that the National Health Service capital and revenue expenditure nationally on mental health should increase in real terms by about 2 per cent. a year from 1976–77 up to 1981–82. During this time, as the number of beds is expected to decline—a point made by my right hon. Friend—the amount spent per unit would increase by 5½ per cent. a year. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer injected £41 million into the Health Service in England in the Budget last April, the authorities were asked to spend £9 million of it on improved psychiatric and geriatric hospital care.
I have indicated some of the progress that we were making in the important task of developing community health services. I stress that the provision of services for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped is the number one priority of the National Health Service. We intend to change existing patterns of expenditure so as to shift resources to those services.
Another subject which created a great deal of interest in the debate was that of regional secure psychiatric units. The hon. Member for Reading, South led into the subject very well when he gave his reminiscences of work in a psychiatric hospital in the 1950s and talked about the keys and the clanging doors which were then a feature of life. He mentioned the breakthrough which came subsequently with the provision of chemotherapy, which has helped to such a remarkable degree. As a result of the development of those techniques, the psychiatric hospitals became open in a way in which they had never been before. This has been regarded by the staff and by the consultants working in them as a tremendous advance.
The ordinary psychiatric hospital is now a potentially unsuitable place in which to keep people in secure conditions. This has been the great revolution of the last 15 to 20 years. It has given rise to the
748
need for the solution of the problem by the creation of regional secure units. My right hon. Friend and I are very much in favour of the development of a full regional secure unit service, aiming at about 1,000 places by the mid-1980s throughout the Health Service in England. There should be no doubt about that objective.
My right hon. Friend was taken to task in his absence for saying that he wanted to see a development in the prison psychiatric service. Against the background of some remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) that some Home Office representatives—who should, in fact, be nameless—were saying that they would not develop psychiatric services in the prisons in case it weakened the resolve of the DHSS, it gave rise to some deep suspicions in the House.
I do not think that there is any need for these deep suspicions. There are people who will have to be treated as detained patients and others who have to be treated as informal patients. But an increasing number of people, as I have tried to indicate in my references to community mental illness services, will be treated on a day basis, outside hospital, for perhaps the whole of their illness. Their number will increase, and they will become the majority of psychiatric cases. If those people commit a crime and end up in prison, they will require psychiatric treatment. Therefore, there is a case for developing and strengthening the prison psychiatric service, and this has nothing to do with any provision made for regional secure units.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The individual, Dr. Orr, is not nameless. He was at a public function. He is a director of the prison medical service. He has said regularly that it is not and will not be the intention of the Home Office to provide adequate care or treatment for mentally disordered offenders and regular treatment and detention in a hospital under the terms of the 1959 Act. Clearly, that is putting the onus back to where it properly belongs, as my right hon. Friend will accept, with the DHSS providing these facilities either in NHS hospitals or in regional secure units.
Mr. Moyle: I take that point. I shall be coming to these problems shortly.

749
However, the point I am seeking to establish—I think that I have established it—is that there is a case for strengthening the prison psychiatric service, irrespective of what happens in regional secure units. That is the point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was making earlier.
Having said that, my right hon. Friend and I fully accept that we must have regional secure units, but I do not think that I want to arouse great expectations. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk mentioned figures about people in prison who could be treated in regional secure units. My advice, which comes from the prison medical service, is that about 2 per cent. of the prison population might be treatable in regional psychiatric units if a full regional secure unit service were to be set up—for example, psychopaths, people with whom the psychiatric hospitals, with or without regional secure units, cannot cope properly.
There was a considerable discussion about Prestwich. There is obduracy at Prestwich. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, I, too, have visited the hospital there and have talked over the situation with the management and the trade union representatives. The dispute at the hospital affects Prestwich only. It is not correct to say that progress is held up all over the country because of the attitude at Prestwich. There is, though, another mental hospital where there are difficulties.
I am in consultation with the union primarily concerned, the National Union of Public Employees, to try to get this matter resolved. Unfortunately, events over recent weeks have put a brake on the consultations. That should not be taken as indicating that the union has removed co-operation as part of industrial action. That is not so. The unions are not professionally overstaffed and the officers are involved in other matters at present. Therefore, consultations are in abeyance. However, as soon as the present disputes are settled, I would hope to resume consultations and move towards a solution of the Prestwich problem.
Having said that about Prestwich, it is also worth placing on record the fact that Prestwich is one of the more advanced centres in the provision of security, in that there is actually a functioning interim secure unit at the hospital.
750
Those who have spoken about regional secure units made one fundamental assumption which is not necessarily an accurate reflection, namely, that it is beyond peradventure and beyond question that regional secure units of the type which provide physical security are the way forward in this field. I certainly believe that to be true, but it must also be taken into account that many other people have different views about the way that provision should be made. They say that these units are expensive in terms of physical provision and staff and that there is a danger that resources will be taken away from the normal hospital psychiatric service.
Some say that these units reintroduce the closed door, the clanging doors and the bunches of keys, about which the hon. Member for Reading, South spoke, through one entrance, just as the open door has been introduced into psychiatric hospitals through another. They say that these secure units should be built some way from the normal psychiatric hospitals. In an ideal world that might be possible, but when resources are limited we have to use the facilities of existing psychiatric hospitals. They say that it is in principle wrong to lock the door on people. I am not saying that I agree with any of these arguments, but it is worth while that certain people in psychiatry should know that these arguments have been considered by the House of Commons.
In view of certain remarks that have been made about COHSE and NUPE, it is worth pointing out that the TUC is in full support of the regional secure unit programme and is jointly manning a working party with members of my Department to go into the problem and try to solve its problems.
There is then the question whether physical security is the right sort of security anyway. Wessex region has decided that it will have security not by use of bricks, mortar and locks but on the basis of a high ratio of staff to patients. The normal ratio of staff to patients in these secure units is one to one. Wessex is going for two to one. The interesting thing is that Wessex will—in 1980, not the 1980s—be the first region to have a regional secure unit operating, just because it has gone for security in this way.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the TUC's support for regional secure units. This is an important point to stress. The union which is most involved at Prestwich, which is the right hon. Gentleman's union, NUPE, pursues a national policy of opposing, for the reasons that the Minister set out, the establishment of the interim regional secure unit. It is very difficult to justify that one union by itself, against the rest of the TUC and against a Government policy which is supported throughout the House, should take it upon itself to obstruct the operation of such a unit to the extent that food comes in by taxi, the laundry has to be done outside, and less than half the patient capacity is taken up. That is the kind of thing that the House of Commons is entitled to say is intolerable
Mr. Moyle: It would be intolerable if the situation was as the right hon. Gentleman described it. It is not. Since discussions are proceeding on the matter, I do not want to comment further upon it.
Mr. Pattie: May I persue the point concerning Prestwich? The Minister of State said earlier that the interim secure unit is in operation. That is indisputable. The House should know that the staff there are working in considerable difficulties but in a first-class manner. None the less, the kind of obstruction that is taking place is exactly as was described by my right hon. Friend, as the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) and I saw. There are 13 patients there, although there is capacity for 25 or 26. While the unit is operating, therefore, it is nothing like as effective as it might be.
Mr. Moyle: The impression I got from the staff when I went there was that it had taken all the patients that were available of the calibre who at that time should have been there. I am not pretending that the situation is satisfactory, but I want to put into perspective, given the difficulties, the fact that it is a functioning interim secure unit, although it is not functioning as well as it ought to.
The question of waste or misapplication of resources was raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk said that some money had been spent on a maternity unit. It is probably true that some of the allocation for the financial
752
year 1976–77 was spent on such purposes, but, because it was, we stepped in in 1977–78 and 1978–79 and said that if the money was not spent on regional secure units it should be spent on psychiatric services.
In the last financial year, 1977–78.60 per cent. of the money allocated was spent on secure or psychiatric facilities. Obviously, if one makes a change in policy one cannot expect a 100 per cent. change in a short time. I have every reason to believe that the figures for 1978–79 will reveal that all the money has been spent on psychiatric services, although a minority of the money is still being spent on regional and interim secure facilities.
The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) was under a considerable misapprehension. No money has been voted by the House of Commons for spending on secure facilities, either regional or interim. That should be made clear. The House votes money for the health and personal social services amounting to about £8,000 million. A policy decision by the Secretary of State is involved about how that money should be applied. My right hon. Friend's predecessor decided in 1976–77 that £5 million should be spent on interim and regional secure units. That amount was not spent in that way. But that was not in defiance of a vote by the House. That is where the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is mistaken. The question of principles of democracy being at stake does not arise.
Mr. Michael Spicer: If the Government have allocated a certain amount of money for a specific purpose, is it not intolerable that they should take such a cavalier attitude and say that they are satisfied with a 60 per cent. expenditure and not mind about the way in which the other 40 per cent. is spent? Is that not a misappropriation of funds?
Mr. Moyle: It is not a misappropriation of funds. The money is being spent on health and personal social services, for which it has been voted. We should like that money to be spent on regional and interim facilities. We did not adopt a cavalier attitude. When we discovered that the money was not being spent in the way in which it had been decided, we took action to ensure that it was so spent That action has been successful. There

753
has been throughout full and close cooperation between the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security.
I shall indicate the progress that is being made in the regions. In the Northern region a 30-bed unit is planned for St. Luke's hospital at Middlesbrough. The Northern region has gone straight towards secure unit provision. I have just been informed by the Northern region that building started on the St. Luke's hospital site a few days ago. This is likely to be the first purpose-built provision of a regional secure unit in the country.
In the Yorkshire region, planning is advanced on a 40-bed to 45-bed unit at Fieldhead hospital in Wakefield. In the Trent region two units are proposed—a 60-bed unit at Towers hospital, in Leicester, and a 40-bed unit at Balderton hospital, Newark. The plans for both those centres are advanced.
The East Anglia region has been the subject of criticism in the debate. I am happy to say that that region has been under new leadership since last August and now has a new chairman. I have discussed the problem with the chairman. I am happy that the region has advertised for a consultant to advise it on these matters. The closing date for applications is Saturday. The chairman has informed me that a suitable number of applicants have applied. The region is confident that it will make an appointment effective from 6 April this year.
The North-West Thames region is considering possible sites for a permanent, secure unit. This is one of the regions where progress is still lacking. I shall take the opportunity to discuss these matters with the chairman of that region on a number of occasions.
In the North-East Thames region, local consultation is proceeding on the region's proposal to provide a 40-bed unit at Friern hospital. The South-East Thames region is planning to provide a 30-bed central unit at the Bethlehem Maudsley hospital, together with four 15-bed peripheral units at Bexley, Cane Hill, Oak-wood and Hellingley hospitals. The proposals are in fact with my Department for clearance.
The South-West Thames region has been attempting to get a unit established
754
for some time. I believe that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who is no longer with us, knows about a proposed unit at Royal Earlswood, where the local population rose up—not inspired by Prestwich, but purely self-generated—with the result that the region decided to switch to an interim unit at Netherne hospital.
I have already mentioned the Wessex region, but it is likely to have the Health Service's first regional secure unit at the Knowle hospital in Hampshire.
The Oxford region is one which has not made the progress it should have made. However, it claims that all its hospitals can provide interim secure treatment throughout the region. Here again, this is a region which is under new leadership, and I have discussed the matter with the chairman, who no doubt will forward a report to me in due course.
The South-Western and West Midlands regions have, or are likely to, run into trouble from the local population. In the South-West region the whole matter is subject to a planning inquiry. It is sometimes suggested that we should provide central guidance as to how local populations should be approached when it is proposed to set up units of this kind. The problems of that approach are illustrated by the South-Western region, which, in my view, went through all the correct steps in order to get the population of Dawlish on its side. It had a considerable measure of success, but in the end it was thwarted by a certain amount of misinformed public opinion. We had no alternative but to agree to a public inquiry, and I am waiting for a decision from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Mr. Stephen Ross: The Minister talked about the secure unit at Knowle. Is that for both sexes? I have a feeling that it is either for men or for women.
Mr. Moyle: It is for both sexes. On Merseyside there is a fully functioning interim secure unit at the Rainhill hospital. We have discussed the Northwest region at great length.
I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as drawing attention to the views of trade unionists, psychiatrists and people of that kind,

755
do not pay sufficient regard to the difficulties of planning and introducing a new concept. That is certainly as important as any of the other factors holding up the development of regional secure units.
I readily admit that the situation is far from ideal. There is a tremendous amount to be done. All I can do is to assure the House that I shall give the matter my earnest consideration with a view to expediting matters throughout the country with the greatest possible rapidity.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the White Paper on the Review of the Mental Health Act 1959 (Command Paper No. 7320).

FOOTPATHS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
9.58 p.m.
Mr. Michael Spicer: Having been fortunate enough to be called first at Question Time, and now that I am winding up the proceedings of the House, I seem to be the Alpha and Omega. In fact, I seem to have been popping up and down all day, because I also caught the eye of the Chair in the debate on mental health.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise what I believe to be a much more important problem than perhaps first meets the eye. I think that the rights, usage, routes and costs of rural footpaths are a matter of considerable significance.
There are 120,000 miles of footpaths in England and Wales. In the county of Hereford and Worcester, part of which I represent, there are 5,000 miles of footpaths, which is equivalent to the total highway network. The cost to local authorities of these footpaths, if they were fulfilling their statutory obligations, which are severe and considerable, is very high. I am told, for instance, that West Sussex spends £100,000 a year on footpaths.
Unlike the highways, this vast network of footpaths has been handed down, with very few modifications, from an age when passage across the countryside on foot and on horseback was critical to the
756
social and economic life of the community. It is perhaps small wonder that in country areas such as my own—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
Mr. Spicer: I was saying that it is perhaps small wonder that in country areas such as mine the question of how to maintain those historic rights in an era very different from that in which those rights were established, and where the cost of continuing to maintain those rights has grown daily, is causing great anxiety.
To an extent, the problem can be seen as a further stage in the tension, which has existed for at least the last 200 years, between the ever-encroaching tentacles of towns and big cities such as Birmingham and the increasingly threatened countryside. In recent years, this tension has acquired several new twists. For instance, on the one hand, there has been a determination by the Government and by all parties to increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which agriculture is undertaken. The Government's recent White Paper is an example of that. On the other hand, there is an acceptance that people, especially in cities, will have a rapidly increasing requirement to fulfil their growing number of leisure hours by, for instance, rambling in the countryside.
These conflicting demands are, to my mind, perfectly illustrated by the problems surrounding the footpath network. They are problems which, unless a solution can be found, will in the future greatly aggravate what are at present latent tensions between town and country.
The footpath question easily breaks into two parts. There is first the most contentious issue, which is the question of extinguishment of some of the existing rights of way. Obviously it would be in the interests of local authorities and landowners to cut the network as much as possible. But, against this, there is the convincing argument put forward by the Ramblers' Association and other bodies that access to the countryside should be available to everyone, at least to the limit of historical rights. I believe that this

757
argument applies even to those footpaths that are not particularly heavily used, since one of the problems with which we are faced is not only our inheritance but also what we pass on to our successors, who may well have a much greater use for the footpath network than people in this day and age.
I should like to have the Minister's confirmation that the Countryside Commission report, which I am told is to be published in May, will cover the question of extinguishment in detail. It is just possible that all parties who have an interest in this matter will be willing ultimately to accept that where there is a clear case of duplication—for instance, between some bridle paths and what used to be called "wet weather" paths running in parallel—there may be a case for some rationalisation.
However, it is on the second aspect of the problem that I believe there is a real need for concentration and real possibilities exist for compromise between the conflicting interests. It concerns the question of footpath diversion. I believe that all three parties could be persuaded that they have a common interest in making the process of diverting footpaths easier. At present the position is governed by section 111 of the Highways Act 1959, in which there are two criteria for diverting footpaths—first, the securing of a more efficient use of land, and, secondly, the provision of more commodious and shorter paths. The first helps the landowner, and the second, by and large, helps the user.
There are two problems with the Act. First, it is restricted. For instance, it does not take into account in an increasingly congested countryside the important questions of security of property and privacy. There is therefore a need for consideration of a longer list of qualifications for diversion. Secondly, the legislation provides no limit to the grounds on which an objection to diversion can be brought. In practice this is often a major deterrent to the applicant and extremely costly to public funds. A single objection to an application can result in the matter being taken out of the hands of the local authority and passed to the Minister's Department and from him back to a local inquiry. That can be a protracted and expensive process.
758
The procedure for protecting historic rights should be maintained. Legislation should take account more fully of contemporary conditions and problems faced by the applicant. The objector should perhaps have to consider more carefully his objections.
If the process of diverting footpaths was made easier, everyone would benefit. The landowner, and particularly the farmer who has genuine concerns about, for instance, the safety of a barn against lighted matches—at present that is not a ground for diversion—would clearly benefit. That would in turn facilitate more efficient agriculture. County and parish councils would save legal and administrative costs of putting into effect current diversion policy. The users of footpaths could also gain. Under diversion improvement they would not be losing walks but in many cases would be benefiting from routes that were more appropriate to their requirements. Perhaps even more important, it would be a saving to the local authorities in legal and administrative costs of diversion orders. That money could be used more effectively to carry out their responsibilities of clearing obstacles and generally maintaining rights of way.
In Hereford and Worcester it is difficult to get a clear picture of the total costs properly attributable to footpaths. In order to fulfil the obligations of the statute, between £85,000 and £100,000 annually would have to be spent by local councils. But because of the way the rate support grant has discriminated against country areas, they do not have the money and spend only about £5,000 on direct maintenance. They also spend about £10,000 on legal and administrative costs to maintain the policy on diversion. Although it may be an oversimplification, it is probably not far from the truth to say that if they could halve the cost of administration they could double the amount of money spent on directly maintaining footpaths.
The question of footpaths is extremely complex. It goes to the root of our social history that has been developing over hundreds of years. It is remarkable that in an island as small and as crowded as ours we have managed to preserve the countryside in such a way. It is right, and essential, that we have established a

759
tradition whereby those who live in towns and cities and those who are not owners of land but who wish to travel across land have access to and rights in our beautiful countryside. But it is time to consider whether the current policy towards footpaths is in the best interests of all concerned.
I shall be grateful if the Minister will give the Government's reactions.
10.10 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) for raising this matter tonight. We do not often get the opportunity to talk about subjects such as footpaths. His expression "rights, usage and costs" summed up the whole problem in a few words.
I live in and represent a metropolitan area, so I am interested in the historic rights and the needs for recreation. The matter is included in my ministerial duties, so I am aware of the desires of ramblers and those who walk short and long distance. Also, people who live in rural areas and who are not farmers are particularly interested in this matter.
I shall report on the progress that has been made over the past few years in dealing with some of the problems. There have been some new initiatives and some very welcome discussions between the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, ramblers and other country organisations.
During the last two years there have been two comprehensive reviews covering this wide field—the countryside review committee's discussion paper "Leisure and the Countryside" and the report of the Dartington amenity research trust, DART—to the Countryside Commission on modification of rights of way. As the committee and the Commission have not yet made their recommendations to Ministers, it would be inappropriate for me to express a firm view on some of the problems covered in these studies. It is sometimes argued that such reviews provide a ready excuse for lack of action, but I am satisfied that these two studies have been well worth while. The issues are complex, there are many conflicting views on the major problems, and detailed
760
studies have been necessary to provide a firm basis for future action.
On the modification of the public path network, the Government set out their policy in their 1975 White Paper on sport and recreation. In paragraph 53 of that document, we said:
" In the Government's view there is scope for local initiatives to modify the existing network of footpaths and bridleways in order to reconcile the increasing demands for access for recreation with the needs of the farming community."
The amenity interests have expressed some fears that such modification, or rationalisation as it is sometimes termed, inevitably leads to a reduction in the path mileage, but we have made it quite clear that this should not be the aim.
We sought the views of the Countryside Commission and it was agreed that an appraisal should be made of modification schemes which had already been undertaken. These had been initiated by local authorities, voluntary bodies and landowners, and some of them had been grant-aided by the Commission. It was considered necessary to assess existing schemes in order to determine the best ways of reconciling the conflicting demands of path users and agricultural interests and the most effective procedures for more extensive modification of the path system.
The Dartington amenity research trust was appointed in early 1977 to carry out this research. It studied 11 areas in detail and collected information and received views from a wide range of official and voluntary bodies and from individuals. Its comprehensive draft report was circulated for comment among the main interested organisations, and a revised report, taking these comments into account, was issued last September.
I understand that the Countryside Commission expects to make its report and recommendations, based on the DART report, by May, and we shall give the interested organisations an opportunity to comment before we reach firm conclusions on whether any legislative or administrative changes are needed to facilitate future modification schemes and on whether any other changes are necessary to rights of way procedures.
I cannot give any assurance that the question of extinguishment will be included in the Countryside Commission

761
report. That is a matter for the Country side Commission. But I shall be very surprised if it is not included. We shall examine that report and the points raised by the hon. Member. We shall also consider the point he makes about the cost of inquiries to farmers. In fact, this whole aspect of planning inquiries is being examined.
Many organisations have already put forward their views on certain aspects of footpaths and bridleways in response to the discussion paper "Leisure and the Countryside" which was published in July 1977. The CRC sought views in particular on whether there was a need for new legislation and whether there should be any change in local authority responsibility for footpaths. Strongly opposing views were submitted on many of the issues raised. Those views are being carefully considered by the CRC and I await its conclusions. It will deal with many other aspects of the use of the countryside for leisure purposes as well as footpaths.
One type of highway that the hon. Gentleman did not mention has been the subject of a special study. In 1977 I asked the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council to look into what are termed "green lanes" and the old hedges often associated with them. Green lanes are not a statutory category. They are ancient tracks or droveways, many of which were classified as
" roads used as public paths "
or RUPPs following the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
Where RUPPs have a status higher than that of footpath or bridleway, conflict has arisen from the use of these unmetalled tracks by motorists, motor cyclists, walkers and horse riders. However, if the roads used as public paths are reclassified as public paths, arising from the special reviews instituted by the Countryside Act 1968, they may become liable to be ploughed up. The Countryside Commission engaged the Dartington trust to carry out a special investigation of the problems associated with these green lanes. I understand that its first draft report has recently been received by the Commission.
There are certain other public path matters on which we have decided to
762
proceed with legislation in the current Session. In the Countryside Bill, which received its Second Reading on 30 January, clause 11 relates to temporary diversions where it was necessary to pasture bulls in fields crossed by public rights of way. That is to be complemented by new model byelaws banning bulls in such fields except in certain circumstances.
Our package of proposals was based on the recommendations of the Advisory Council for Agriculture and Horticulture, which reported on the problem in 1975. We believed that it represented the best compromise between the amenity and the agricultural interests that was likely to be obtainable at that time. As I announced on Second Reading, the organisations representing these conflicting interests, the ramblers, farmers and landowners, have been having discussions. I hope that they will present an alternative to clause 11 which will prove acceptable.
The wardening of public paths is important to farmers. The House will recollect that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced on Second Reading of the Countryside Bill that it is our intention to amend clause 10 of the Bill so that the power of national park authorities and local authorities outside the parks to appoint wardens will be extended to apply to footpaths and bridleways. I think that this could be of considerable benefit to visitors to the more popular areas of the countryside and to farmers.
The DART modification study drew attention to the difficulties caused by delays in the issue of up-to-date definitive maps. The 1949 Act made provision for the review of such maps at least every five years. At that time it was envisaged that the amount of work involved in these reviews would be significantly less than that required for the first definitive map, but a written answer I gave to a question in the House in July 1978 highlighted the large number of objections which the current reviews have attracted and the very long delays which were expected before the consideration of the objections was likely to be completed. The delay is due largely to the combined effect of staffing restraints in central and local government. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the problems for local government, and there are the same

763
problems nationally due to restraint on public spending.
Mr. Spicer: I want to ask the Minister a question about wardens. Is he envisaging yet extra burdens being placed on local authorities? I realise that the Government are pregnant with Commission reports to which birth has not yet been given. Does he accept that certain local authorities which have a much greater footpath problem than others are discriminated against? Will the Government intervene directly on this matter?
Mr. Marks: As I see it, the local authorities will have an opportunity to do this, but we are hoping that the Countryside Commission, with its grants from the Government, will also come in. This is already happening in the urban fringe areas where there is co-operation between local authorities and the Countryside Commission. I was talking about the considerable delay that is taking place over the definitive maps. When restraints are imposed on local government and on national Government in staffing and other matters, a subject like footpaths tends to some extent to get pushed into the background.
We have decided that changes ought to be made urgently to simply and speed up the procedures. A draft consultation paper is being sent out today to a large number of bodies setting out the problems and our proposals for dealing with them, and seeking their comments.
I should like, in the short time available, to say something about signposting and waymarking, because these matters are important to ramblers and farmers. As I travel around the countryside, it appears to me that many highway authorities have made good progress in signposting paths where they meet or cross a metalled road. The Countryside Commission wrote last year to highway authorities to ascertain the extent to which the authorities have fulfilled their obligations in this respect. The results of this survey, when it is completed, will be awaited with interest. Some progress has also been made on waymarking, which is the term used to describe the marking of routes on the paths themselves. The system recommended by the Commission uses yellow and blue arows. However, it is clear that
764
a lot more waymarking needs to be carried out.
The Commission's poster and leaflet entitled "Waymarking of Public Paths—a practical guide" has been distrbuted to local authorities and voluntary organisations. I hope that the authorities will make greater progress on this work in conjunction with those voluntary organisations which are willing to carry out the practical work involved. I understand that the Ramblers' Association's waymarking officer, whose appointment was grant-aided by the Commission, has been fostering this co-operation and will be making recommendations soon on how progress might be made.
I should like to say something about long-distance routes. More than 2,000 kilometres of paths on 11 long-distance footpaths and bridleways are now open. Efforts are being made towards completing these routes and on opening several more, including the Wolds Way on the Yorkshire wolds and the Peddars Way and coastal path in Norfolk. Several months ago Norfolk county council engaged a field officer, again funded by the Countryside Commission, for work on the latter route.
The long-distance walker is now generally well catered for. In its policy statement "Footpaths for Recreation" issued in October 1976, the Countryside Commission recommended that there should be a change of emphasis and that higher priority should in future be given to improving opportunities for the great majority of visitors to the countryside who do not walk long distances or spend more than a day on a walk. The Commission suggested—I quote from its booklet—that there should be
" networks of linking routes providing walks of various lengths and circular walks ".
I am sure that such paths can provide great pleasure to a large number of people and I hope that many local authorities, in conjunction with voluntary organisations, will follow the example of the organisations in Calderdale in West Yorkshire in establishing routes like the Calderdale Way. I have mentioned the severe strain on central Government resources, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned the strain on local government resources. It is difficult to justify significantly increased public expenditure on

765
these paths, but I hope that local authorities and other organisations will make full use of the Manpower Services Commission schemes on such work as path construction and clearance of overgrown paths.
I talked to the chairman of MSC earlier this week and he said that the Commission would welcome more projects in rural areas for the youth opportunities programme. It has been proposed that MSC regional staff should discuss this and other matters with regional councils for sport and recreation where there is representation from all organisations. There is also considerable scope for the use of volunteers.
I was interested to see from the 1977 report by the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers that many of its tasks have involved construction and maintenance of footpaths and bridleways. In its policy statement "Footpaths for Recreation" the Countryside Commission refers to the increasingly important contribution which voluntary groups can make to maintaining footpaths and clearing them of obstructions and carrying out waymarking. The opportunity exists for them to have volunteer labour and to use the MSC schemes to get help towards administrative costs, even though they may be small, as well as the wages of adults and grants for young people.
In the White Paper, the Government expressed their belief that the modification of public path networks can be achieved only on the basis of co-operation between landowners, farmers, walkers, riders and local authorities. We said:
" Provided that it is clear from the start that the object is neither to pare down the existing
766
network nor to enlarge it, but to adapt it in ways which, taken together, are clearly beneficial to farmer, rambler and rider, the Government are confident that such co-operation can be achieved and be effective."
I have therefore been greatly encouraged by the spirit of co-operation which is developing. The public right of way advisory committee set up in 1977 by the Countryside Commission to help guide it on research and experimental work and other aspects of public rights of way matters has provided a useful forum through which the path users, farmers and landowners, and local authorities and other official bodies can express their views and seek common policy.
I trust that what I have said has demonstrated that encouraging progress is being made in dealing with some of the long-standing problems. I regret very much the delay in discussions on modification proposals, but that has been inevitable in the circumstances.
The studies to which I have referred will provide a sound basis for other changes. In closing, I should like to reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the House on 30 January. If the ramblers, the recreationists and the amenity organisations can work harmoniously and constructively with farming and landowning interests, as they appear to be doing on some aspects of the Countryside Bill, some of the problems that have given rise to difficulties in the countryside may be problems of the past, and we consider that that augurs extremely well for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  CATFORD
  CATFORD
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  AYLESBURY
  AYLESBURY
  BECKENHAM
  BECKENHAM
  GIDEA PARK
  GIDEA PARK
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  KIRKBY WORKERS' CO-OPERATIVE
  KIRKBY WORKERS' CO-OPERATIVE
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (SPEECH)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  National Heritage Fund
  National Heritage Fund
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Gartree Prison
  Gartree Prison
  Charity Law
  Charity Law
  Mr. and Mrs. Cain
  Mr. and Mrs. Cain
  Immigrants (Illegal Entry)
  Immigrants (Illegal Entry)
  Radio Reception (Birmingham)
  Radio Reception (Birmingham)
  Criminal Law Act 1977
  Criminal Law Act 1977
  Open Prisons
  Open Prisons
  Borstal Institutions
  Borstal Institutions
  Attendance Centres
  Attendance Centres
  Burglaries (Metropolitan Police Area)
  Burglaries (Metropolitan Police Area)
  Juvenile Courts (Certificates of Unruliness)
  Juvenile Courts (Certificates of Unruliness)
  Metropolitan Policemen (Injuries)
  Metropolitan Policemen (Injuries)
  Juvenile Crime
  Juvenile Crime
  Parole Board
  Parole Board
  River Thames (Flood Prevention)
  River Thames (Flood Prevention)
  Immigrants (Gynaecological Examinations)
  Immigrants (Gynaecological Examinations)
  " Disciplinary Arrangements for Chief Police Officers "
  " Disciplinary Arrangements for Chief Police Officers "
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Mentally Handicapped Suspects (Police Questioning)
  Mentally Handicapped Suspects (Police Questioning)
  Criminal Procedure
  Criminal Procedure
  Immigrants (Bangladesh)
  Immigrants (Bangladesh)
  Mentally Disordered Persons
  Mentally Disordered Persons
  Local Elections (Ward Boundaries)
  Local Elections (Ward Boundaries)
  Fire Precautions Act 1971 (Designations)
  Fire Precautions Act 1971 (Designations)
  Radiation Monitoring Equipment
  Radiation Monitoring Equipment
  Prison Standing Orders
  Prison Standing Orders
  Police Forces (Complement)
  Police Forces (Complement)
  Telford (Magistrates' Court)
  Telford (Magistrates' Court)
  Police (Negotiating Machinery)
  Police (Negotiating Machinery)
  Derbyshire Police Force
  Derbyshire Police Force
  Nationality
  Nationality
  Refugees (United Nations Convention)
  Refugees (United Nations Convention)
  Police Contacts (United Kingdom and South Africa)
  Police Contacts (United Kingdom and South Africa)
  Police (West Midlands)
  Police (West Midlands)
  Firearms and Shotguns
  Firearms and Shotguns
  European Assembly (Elections)
  European Assembly (Elections)
  Betting Levies
  Betting Levies
  Mr. Harry Podlewski
  Mr. Harry Podlewski
  Residential Fires (Merseyside)
  Residential Fires (Merseyside)
  Police Interrogations (Tape Recording)
  Police Interrogations (Tape Recording)
  Private Security Industry
  Private Security Industry
TRADE
  British Airways (Concorde)
  British Airways (Concorde)
  Civil Aviation and Shipping (Transport Ministers' Meeting)
  Civil Aviation and Shipping (Transport Ministers' Meeting)
  Pilotage and Shipping Movements
  Pilotage and Shipping Movements
  Plastic Bottles
  Plastic Bottles
  Sheep (Exports)
  Sheep (Exports)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Public Servants (Pay Comparability)
  Public Servants (Pay Comparability)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Mr. Bedward (VAT Tribunal's Findings)
  Mr. Bedward (VAT Tribunal's Findings)
  Public Corporations
  Public Corporations
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Income Tax (International Comparisons)
  Income Tax (International Comparisons)
  Industrial Output (International Comparisons)
  Industrial Output (International Comparisons)
  Gross National Product (Wages)
  Gross National Product (Wages)
  Treasure Trove
  Treasure Trove
  European Community (Budget)
  European Community (Budget)
  Nationalised Industries (Accounts)
  Nationalised Industries (Accounts)
  European Community (Finance Council)
  European Community (Finance Council)
  Budget
  Budget
  Prices
  Prices
EMPLOYMENT
  Picketing
  Picketing
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Sector Working Parties
  Sector Working Parties
  Public Sector Earnings
  Public Sector Earnings
  Pension Schemes (Employers' Contributions)
  Pension Schemes (Employers' Contributions)
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Cadmium
  Cadmium
  Canvey Island (Gas Storage)
  Canvey Island (Gas Storage)
  Forecourt Attendants (Pay Settlement)
  Forecourt Attendants (Pay Settlement)
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Local Authorities (Joint Financing)
  Local Authorities (Joint Financing)
  Hospital Floor Space (Avon)
  Hospital Floor Space (Avon)
  Young Offenders (Custodial Homes)
  Young Offenders (Custodial Homes)
  Motor Cars (Running Expenses)
  Motor Cars (Running Expenses)
  Hospitals (Cleanliness and Hygiene)
  Hospitals (Cleanliness and Hygiene)
  Departmental Leaflets
  Departmental Leaflets
  Area Health Authority Employees
  Area Health Authority Employees
  Prisoners' Families (Reimbursement of Expenses)
  Prisoners' Families (Reimbursement of Expenses)
  Hospitals (Picketing)
  Hospitals (Picketing)
  Hospitals (Industrial Disputes)
  Hospitals (Industrial Disputes)
  Cadmium
  Cadmium
  Elderly Persons (Fuel Bills)
  Elderly Persons (Fuel Bills)
  Hospital Beds (Mersey)
  Hospital Beds (Mersey)
  Administration (Expenditure)
  Administration (Expenditure)
WALES
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  M4 (Tredegar Park and Morriston)
  M4 (Tredegar Park and Morriston)
  Wales Tourist Board
  Wales Tourist Board
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
  Written Questions
  Written Questions
  Dairy Farmers (European Community Proposals)
  Dairy Farmers (European Community Proposals)
  Farmers (Fodder Supply Costs)
  Farmers (Fodder Supply Costs)
  Nominated Bodies (Annual Reports and Expenditure)
  Nominated Bodies (Annual Reports and Expenditure)
  Public Bodies (Annual Reports)
  Public Bodies (Annual Reports)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Portland (Sea Defences)
  Portland (Sea Defences)
  Fishing Arrangements (Third Countries)
  Fishing Arrangements (Third Countries)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Directorate of Overseas Surveys
  Directorate of Overseas Surveys
  Rhodesia (Student Grants)
  Rhodesia (Student Grants)
  Aid
  Aid
CIVIL SERVICE
  Public Bodies (Annual Reports)
  Public Bodies (Annual Reports)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Mobile Homes
  Mobile Homes
  Civic Amenity Sites
  Civic Amenity Sites
  Special Projects (Funding)
  Special Projects (Funding)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Countryside Commission (Government Expenditure)
  Countryside Commission (Government Expenditure)
  Cadmium
  Cadmium
  Pollution (Rehousing Assistance)
  Pollution (Rehousing Assistance)
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Amenities (Preservation)
  Amenities (Preservation)
  Local Authorities (Planning Proposals)
  Local Authorities (Planning Proposals)
  Statutory Plans
  Statutory Plans
  Publicly Owned Land
  Publicly Owned Land
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Community Land Scheme
  Community Land Scheme
  Lead (Screening)
  Lead (Screening)
INDUSTRY
  Manufacturing Investment
  Manufacturing Investment
TRANSPORT
  British Railways (Corporate Plan)
  British Railways (Corporate Plan)
  A21
  A21
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  M62 (Speed Advisory Signals)
  M62 (Speed Advisory Signals)
  M3 (Inspector's Report)
  M3 (Inspector's Report)
  Road Fund (Suffolk)
  Road Fund (Suffolk)
SCOTLAND
  Mr. David Nay
  Mr. David Nay
  Rents
  Rents
  Development Land
  Development Land
  Edinburgh (Green Belt Land)
  Edinburgh (Green Belt Land)
  Electricity Boards (Financial Targets)
  Electricity Boards (Financial Targets)
ENERGY
  Oil (Mexico)
  Oil (Mexico)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  National Coal Board Government Grants
  National Coal Board Government Grants
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAHtS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Pretoria (Military Attaché)
  Pretoria (Military Attaché)
DEFENCE
  Reserve Forces
  Reserve Forces
  Employment
  Employment
  Army Cadetships
  Army Cadetships
  Armed Forces (Retirements)
  Armed Forces (Retirements)
  Equipment (Cancellations)
  Equipment (Cancellations)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Erne Catchment Area
  Erne Catchment Area
  Regional Rate (Working Party Report)
  Regional Rate (Working Party Report)
  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum
  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum
  Economic Development
  Economic Development

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

THE PRESS CHARTER
11.6 a.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made in the preparation of a draft Press Charter, and how many meetings of the Press Council the Secretary of State for Employment has called and attended.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the Government's consideration of the Press Charter is continuing, following the completion of a long and detailed series of consultations with those in the industry carried out by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment. The Press Council is an independent body set up by the industry and is one of the parties which remain to be consulted under the terms of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he not agree that it is a little disappointing that an Act of Parliament which was passed in March 1976—nearly three years ago—to write in the freedom of the Press under a Press Charter has still not been drafted or provided for Parliament? Secondly, if the interested parties continue to agree to disagree, could he say at what stage the Minister will introduce a draft Press Charter to Parliament, as laid down under the Act?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I can understand the noble Earl's anxiety about this matter, but I do not believe that there has been any undue delay. Press freedom is a complex
1912
subject, as noble Lords will know from the length of our debates when the legislation was before this House in 1976. The Government naturally wish to establish as much common ground between the parties as possible before laying a draft Charter before Parliament. As regards what steps my right honourable friend can take, there are few that he can take until some measure of agreement has been reached. There are still a number of consultations to be held. Until a reasonable measure of agreement has been reached he will not be in a position to bring it before Parliament.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, will the noble Lord say how close is the agreement? I believe that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Pearce, was submitted to the Government some months ago indicating the consultations in which he had taken part between the interested parties. How close is the agreement? Can he give an undertaking that the Government will ensure that safeguards will be written into the Press Charter, particularly safeguarding editors and journalists, as provided under the Act?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, it is very difficult for me to give any details of what has been agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in a previous Question on another occasion raised the same matter. However, I can say that some progress has been made at these meetings and that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Pearce, indicates a large measure of agreement on the basic objectives of the Charter. For example, the parties declared support for the principle of the freedom of the Press to collect and publish information, to publish comment and criticism, and to abstain from the exercise of any improper pressure upon editors. However, there was less agreement on the best methods of putting it into practice. On several important points the parties still remained far apart. That is the situation, and I am afraid that that is as far as I can possibly go in giving information about what has been agreed.
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: My Lords, while accepting that the freedom of the Press is a complicated issue, would not my right honourable friend, or rather the noble Lord, agree that the Royal

1913
Commission on the Press which reported in the summer of 1977 gave a great deal of attention to an analysis of this issue, set out six essential safeguards, and made a series of recommendations for the content of a Press Charter in default of the agreement of the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Pearce? Would the noble Lord explain why his right honourable friend has been unable to accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission in respect of the content of the Press Charter?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the implied compliment, which nearly put me off my stroke. However, in point of fact, all the recommendations, such as my noble friend mentioned, are still the subject of negotiation, and until we can get all the parties to come to some measure of agreement—which, strangely enough, they seem very loath to do—there is nothing that can be done at present. I accept the valuable contribution made by the Royal Commission. It is now a question for the parties involved to adopt the same attitude to the matter as I and many of my colleagues.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would not my noble friend think that the best way to ensure Press freedom is to leave the Press free, subject only to the laws of libel?
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 required the Secretary of State to lay a draft Charter before Parliament in default of agreement among the parties?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, yes; but it would be a very unwise Minister who did so in spite of a great deal of opposition. The best thing that can be done, so far as my right honourable friend, the Government and Parliament are concerned, is to get the largest possible measure of agreement. There is very little use in having a Press Charter as regards which the majority do not agree on one point or another.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of that answer, may I ask again
1914
whether the introduction of a Press Charter would do something to interfere with the freedom of the Press?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, my noble friend has had vast experience in the past in many areas of journalism, and my mind boggles at trying to find a suitable answer to his rather difficult question.

LONG-TERM PRISONERS IN NORTHERN IRELAND
11.7 a.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will apply the recommendations of the report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System on The Régime for Long-term Prisoners in Conditions of Maximum Security to prisons in Northern Ireland where maximum security prisoners are confined.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, the principal recommendations of the report related to the dispersal in England and Wales of a relatively small number of high-risk, long-term prisoners, the provision of maximum security for these prisoners and the type of régime which should be applied to them. The high proportion of such prisoners in Northern Ireland at the present time and the nature of the accommodation available makes dispersal within Northern Ireland impracticable.
Most high risk prisoners in Northern Ireland are held in Maze and Belfast prisons, and the security arrangements and the régimes within these prisons are generally in line with the recommendations made in the report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Although having no sympathy with the prisoners in Northern Ireland, who seek to blackmail by indecency and filth, is

1915
not the position in the Maze prison becoming humanly intolerable both to prison officers and to prisoners? Would not the extension of these recommendations—which are good in themselves—to Northern Ireland, do something to change that situation?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I certainly agree with the first remarks made by my noble friend, and I am sure that what he said has the agreement of the whole House. In fact, to some extent conditions have improved slightly in the cell blocks where prisoners are protesting, because the introduction of steam cleaning, and now the greater regularity with which that is carried out has enabled the prison officers who are carrying out their duties in very difficult circumstances to keep the cells in rather better condition than was the case last year.
As I said in my original Answer, the fact of the matter is that the recommendations of this report which apply to the régimes within prisons, are already in force in Northern Ireland if prisoners wish to take advantage of that régime. If prisoners refuse to take advantage of the régime, there is very little that the Government, prison officers or anyone else can do about it.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, would not an acknowledgment of this be very valuable in meeting the very misleading propaganda which is now being undertaken in the United States of America?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords. Indeed, I would go further and say that an acknowledgment of the fact that prison conditions in Northern Ireland are to some extent rather better than either the Radzinowicz Report recommended or the position in Great Britain, would be helpful. For example, prisoners can wear their own clothing during leisure periods; all sentenced prisoners receive a weekly visit; prisoners are allowed compassionate home leave for family matters and some prisoners are allowed it at Christmas. All prisoners receive a 50 per cent. remission on their sentences. All those things are available to prisoners in Northern Ireland, and are not generally available to prisoners in the rest of the United Kingdom. I agree with my noble friend that a rather wider recognition of those facts would be very helpful to all concerned.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, whatever sympathy we feel—and I saw the programme about United States' help to Northern Ireland—should we not hold on to the fact that these conditions are self-inflicted? That is what the Secretary of State made so clear when he spoke on television a few days ago.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, yes. It is also important to recognise the influence which some people outside the prison system have on those who are protesting inside the prison. It is not simply a question of convincing those inside the prison that the protest is completely without any hope, but also of persuading those with influence outside the prison, who have influence over the prisoners, that they should persuade them to abandon this completely hopeless protest.

COMMUNIST TAKE-OVERS AND ELECTIONS
11.18 a.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there have ever been genuinely free multi-Party elections in any country in the world after that country has been taken over by a Marxist or Communist group or administration.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, there have been cases where Communist Parties have participated in Government and where free elections were subsequently held. But in none of these cases did the Communist Party control the Government. Genuinely free elections have never been held in any country where a Communist or Marxist Party has achieved full power.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government still believe that it is essential that after independence Rhodesia should have regular elections, or even one man, one vote once, as is normally the case?

1917
If so, can he explain why the Government insist that the Marxist terrorists must be so closely involved in view of their record and the obvious consequences?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is certainly our central aim to break with the past and to institute in Rhodesia a truly democratic system. We look to the future in Rhodesia—or Zimbabwe, as it may be known—as one in which the will of the majority will prevail. For that reason we are working through the Anglo-American proposals to get an all-Party conference which in due course will set up a constitution which will do precisely what the noble Lord advocates.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is not this problem a little more general? Can my noble friend the Minister tell me of any instance anywhere in which a post-colonial independence Government has lost an election? Is not that the point being made by the opposition in St. Lucia at the moment?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is no doubt that my noble friend would like it to be the exclusive point. However, it is necessary to relate what happens in one category of country to what happens in others. I refuse to apply a general political principle simply to one type of country. In any case, my noble friend knows very well that there are instances, splendid instances, in the post-British colonial period, if I may put it like that, when countries which were not familiar with democratic processes have made excellent progress towards, and indeed have achieved, democratic processes. If I only refer to Malaysia, it is an excellent example of this.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord answer my question? Has any Government ever lost an election?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, indeed. The major example of post-colonial development is surely the Indian Union. I seem to recall that from time to time the Indian Government has lost an election.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to define what is meant by "genuinely free"? So as not to arouse passions in the immediate present, would he take his mind back to three historical examples. Would he have said that the attempt by the Tory Party to exploit the forged Zinoviev Letter through the medium of its Press, or the Savings Bank scare in 1931, or the attempt by Mr. Churchill to do the same thing over the Gestapo, were attempts to maintain genuinely free elections or not?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, genuinely free, of course, is as we in this country—and we have a right to apply our principles in this matter—understand genuinely free elections to be. We know what they are, and we apply this commonsense principle to what happens in other countries and, without unduly interfering I hope, give good advice. As to my noble friend's always interesting historical excursions, I am not here either to explain to him or to defend to him the past, present, and future vagaries of the Conservative Party.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, on the subject of the post-colonial glories of the British Commonwealth, would the noble Lord not agree that it is already a hopeful advance that under the internal settlement in Rhodesia regular elections at not less than five-year intervals are proposed?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that this is an advance—a little late and perhaps too little. But I have never from this Box condemned any movement forward by anybody in Rhodesia towards what we all want to see in that country. However, the position is surely that the elections as proposed to be held in April, and the constitution which is presaged by them, are woefully inadequate for a permanent, equitable and lasting solution for that country.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, when he uses the phrase "we understand", he may be quite correct, but so far as Rhodesia is concerned our apparent reluctance to give some support to the internal agreement—which is a big step forward—is not understood in Africa?

1919
It looks as though we are giving sympathetic support to the guerrilla parties, who are Marxist and who are dictatorial in their outlook; we understand, but the countries that can be influenced by our reactions do not understand to the same extent.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord. I am quite sure that, if we took any other attitude to what is happening now in Rhodesia, and is proposed for it constitutionally, African opinion as a whole would rise in protest against any such attitude. When the noble Lord refers to African opinion, it is not just a section of African opinion about which he should be thinking but the great mass of African opinion as represented, for instance, in the Organisation of African Unity.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think we are running rather wide of the original Question. The next Question is really about Rhodesia; perhaps we could go on to that one.

RHODESIA: ELECTIONS
11.25 a.m.
Lord FORESTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have made to respond to the request made by the Rhodesian ruling executive council on 5th February 1979 to send observers to monitor the 20th April elections.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, our objective is to get agreement between all the parties on a cease-fire and the holding of free and fair elections under United Nations supervision. For the Government to send observers to the internal elections would not bring us nearer that objective.
Lord FORESTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for replying to my Question. I should like to take it a little further. What harm can there be in
1920
sending some observers? At least that way we shall receive back in this country a true picture of what has taken place.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I believe that I have put forward the Government's view on previous occasions, and fairly recently. The conditions for what would be genuinely free and fair elections in Rhodesia do not, in our view, exist. Therefore, if we were to take official action (this is how we see it) in the form of sending out official observers to observe such elections, it might very well be taken in the rest of Africa—and I referred to African opinion —as being our endorsement of those elections, which we all know to be inadequate and indeed not fully free and fair. Therefore, we insist that the elections should be under United Nations supervision with everybody taking part.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to reconsider this? Although he has made it plain that the Government are not satisfied with the constitution and the arrangements in the internal settlement in Rhodesia, it might very well be that the people of Rhodesia at the election would take a different view from the Government. Why is it not possible for the Government at any rate to send observers to see what happens in the election? There can surely be no damage in that? Would the noble Lord not think again that there would be advantage it from everybody's point of view?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are constantly thinking about the situation in Rhodesia, and we are not by any means dogmatic on these matters. Ninety per cent. of the country is under martial law; a large number of substantial parties, the external parties, are banned; the Press and the radio are censored. Under those conditions for a Government, especially in view of their obligations to the international authority, to send observers officially to that country to observe elections which palpably are not free and fair in any sense of the term would be gravely interpreted in the rest of Africa, and I believe in the rest of the world.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would my noble friend agree, and would he draw to the attention of Members opposite, that the Salisbury régime is still in a state of treason to Her Majesty? Would he further agree that, after blocking the Anglo-American plan designed to provide genuinely free and United Nations supervised elections for six months, that régime has now produced a constitution, and is hoping to hold elections under it, which is grossly undemocratic? Therefore, would it not be highly improper for Her Majesty's Government to send anyone who could be held to give credence to this undemocratic and treasonous régime?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I think my noble friend has put the Government's view. In these conditions we do not see that it would be helpful, and it might be harmful, in terms of outside opinion, African and worldwide opinion, if we took this step in these conditions.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord elucidate his references three or four times now in the last seven or eight minutes to African opinion? Would he not agree that he has referred to the OAU as the organ of African opinion? Can he tell the House whether any, and if so how many, of the Governments that make up the opinion attributed to OAU are themselves democratically elected in the sense that we understand?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I refer to the OAU as an extremely important element in the formulation and presentation of African opinion as a whole and we would be making a very grave mistake indeed, in the interests both of this country and of a durable settlement, if we ignored that fact. The internal arrangements of the various members of the OAU have no relevance at all to the fact that we have so to formulate our policies and actions that we take fully into account what the OAU says about the position in Rhodesia.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, when the Minister talks of African opinion, is he not talking about the opinion of Governments—Governments like ours—the opinion of peoples?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Earl knows enough about the OAU and Africa to know that whenever there is any development in the situation in Rhodesia and in other parts of Africa the OAU very effectively intervenes and makes its views known.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Idi Amin?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: It is a matter for judgment and interpretation whether any particular Government represented in the OAU does, in his sense and mine, represent the African people.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I was about to ask—
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, although it is the last day before the Recess, we have a very large amount of business to conclude. We have now spent 24 minutes on Questions and I hope I have the House with me when I say that I think we have had enough. That being so, I would, with the leave of the House, remind noble Lords that lunches will be served in the Lords' Dining Room throughout the Recess.

FILMS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
11.33 a.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wells-Pestell).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Attendance allowance]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): I understand there is a mistake on the Marshalled List in that Amendment No. 1 should be shown as standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sandys and Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
(" ( ) In subsection (2)(b) after the words 'one or both of those conditions' the following words are added 'except if a person is already in receipt of the attendance allowance at the lower rate in which case the Secretary of State may empower the Attendance Allowance Board to issue a certificate under which he may receive the attendance allowance at the higher rate so long as the normal conditions are satisfied for a period of not less than 3 months'.")
The noble Lord said: I was particularly pleased when I saw the Marshalled List this morning because it gave currency to the suggestion that the Government had appropriated this Amendment, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, appearing to it. It would give us great pleasure if that proves to be the case and the Government accept it.
The Amendment arises out of a very similar Amendment moved in another place on 23rd January, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I read out the three factors which compose the situation here. We have the principal Act—the Social Security Act 1975—the Amendment, and the wording as it stands in the Bill, and I will read out how the clause would read as amended:
"… a period preceded immediately, or within such period as may be prescribed, by one of not less than six months throughout which he satisfied or was likely to satisfy one or both of those conditions, except if a person is already in receipt of the attendance allowance at the lower rate, in which case the Secretary of State may empower the Attendance Allowance Board to issue a certificate under which he may receive the attendance allowance at the higher rate so long as the normal conditions are satisfied for a period of not less than three months".
That is the critical issue and it revolves around a situation in which a person suffering from, say, a debilitating disease such as multiple sclerosis has already been in receipt of the attendance allowance at the lower rate. It was our contention that should a deterioration take place in
1924
the debilitating disease, a further waiting period of six months should not be necessary if he wishes to go on to the higher rate of attendance allowance.
The Amendment moved in another place proposed that if circumstances and the Attendance Allowance Board permitted, it would have effect immediately once the situation was granted. The Government resisted that Amendment in another place and claimed it would not be satisfactory and would have the opposite effect from that desired. We are now proposing an alternative in which a three months period is suggested. This was proposed in another place on Report and the Minister for Social Security, Mr. Deakins, said he would look into the matter and consider it further.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for explaining the position as he sees it. The Government cannot accept the Amendment for the reasons I shall give. My colleague in another place said we would look carefully at this, and that has been done, and I know Lord Sandys will accept my word when I say that. As the noble Lord pointed out, under the Amendment those receiving the lower rate of attendance allowance would be able to receive the higher rate of allowance after satisfying the different requirements for that rate for only three months instead of the six months as everybody else must do, and it is important to bear in mind that everybody else must do it.
It is important to remember that it is the attendance needs with which we are concerned and not the medical disability. Lord Sandys made a point of deterioration; but deterioration does not necessarily mean that more attendance is necessary—the two do not necessarily go together—and so we must be concerned with attendance needs. The requirements which have to be established to qualify for the higher rate are different from those of the lower rate. Attendance needs can vary even between individuals suffering from precisely the same disability, depending on how they have managed to adapt, their age, their home circumstances and a whole variety of matters, and one cannot say that because two persons are suffering from the same disability, there is no difference in attendance needs. In fact

1925
there is. The needs can fluctuate for some time after the worsening of the medical disability. They may well lessen, as we know from medical evidence, as a person adapts to the worsening situation.
I accept that this is an area of very real difficulty where it is more difficult to establish settled attendance needs than it is to diagnose the medical disability. It is so easy to diagnose the medical disability. It is not easy to assess accurately the attendance needs. We rely upon medical advice and opinion for what I am about to say. It is generally accepted that the needs of the individual in the long term can be reasonably determined only over a period of six months, so with respect, I think that a period of three months is unreasonable.
I note that the Amendment tacitly accepts that it seeks to make the change for only one group. I hope I have shown that the establishment of the attendance needs for this group is no different from that of any other. The period of six months in order to show established attendance requirements is needed in general, and to reduce this category, and this category only, would be unfair on other claimants who have to continue with the six months rule. Indeed, this category already has some advantage, in that during the qualifying period the claimants are receiving the lower rate of the allowance and their relatives who are caring for them may well be receiving invalid care allowance.
I must remind the Committee of the question of cost. I dislike doing so because I seem to be doing nothing else from the Dispatch Box. We must consider the cost of concessions time and time again during consideration of the Amendments. The cost of the concession proposed here would be little more than half a million pounds, but the cost of reducing the qualifying period generally to three months would be about £15 million. We are in a period in which we must look at every penny—and I really mean every penny, not just every million, or every half million. If some of the Amendments before your Lordships today were carried, the consequent cost, added together, would be a considerable sum.
1926
However, I am not really relying upon the cost argument, but rather on the medical advice and opinion that we have received that the attendance needs cannot be accurately judged in three months, and that six months is not only a much more realistic period, but the period in which medical opinion can make the best judgment. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, whether, following that explanation, he feels able to withdraw the Amendment. We have gone into the matter very carefully, not just superficially.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question about this matter. Let us suppose that it is decided within three months that the allowance should go to the additional amount. Would the claimant still be limited to the lower amount for six months despite the fact that perhaps within a short time of a medical condition arising it was certified by doctors that the condition was permanent and merited the higher figure?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The limit would have to continue for the six months. I say this because I should be very surprised if, after a claimant had been receiving the attendance allowance for one or two months, a doctor would say that the condition was going to be permanent, that it would not get better, but worse. I am advised that it is the general practice that the doctor would say, "We must see what develops". Over a period of six months a much more adequate and accurate judgment can be made about what the future situation will be. In answer to the noble Baroness, I would say that it would not be possible to make the judgment after one or two months, but if a judgment were to be made in such a short period we would say that it ought to be delayed up to the six months.
Lord SANDYS: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining in such detail the situation surrounding the Amendment. Of course I am reluctant to withdraw the Amendment, but before doing so, I wish to ask the noble Lord whether it would be possible for the allowance to be backdated to a period when the deterioration took place and the attendance necessity

1927
increased after the six months period had elapsed?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: This would be a very dangerous door to open, because if such action was taken for one group, what might be the argument for other groups? I should like to take advice on this matter and I promise to do so and to write to the noble Lord before the Report stage, to let him know whether it is possible to meet him on this. My first reaction is that the suggestion would not be helpful other than to one or two individuals, and I think that it would put others at a disadvantage. However, I should gladly take back the matter.
Lord SANDYS: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance that he will examine this matter, and I look forward to hearing from him. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL: moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("and ' in") and insert ("and ' mentioned in").
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will see, this is a simple drafting clarification. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.47 a.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert—
(" (7) For the purposes of determining the entitlement to attendance allowance of any person who

(a) has been refused payment of an allowance, or

(b) has had an allowance withdrawn,

section 35 of the principal Act shall be deemed always to have had effect as amended by this section, but payment shall be made at the appropriate rate out of the National Insurance Fund.").
The noble Lord said: We return to the matter of attendance allowance related to renal dialysis. On Second Reading I referred to this unhappy situation, which is only partially rectified by the Bill. I am well aware that we should deal with the Amendments as swiftly as possible, and so I shall go back only a short way into the history of this matter. The
1928
anomaly arose in that patients who were receiving kidney dialysis treatment in hospital, with all the facilities of the NHS, were receiving the attendance allowance in full, while patients who were dialysing at home for two periods a week, rather than three, were denied the attendance allowance by a ruling of the Attendance Allowance Board.
I wish to quote what the Minister for Social Security, Mr. Orme, said in the Standing Committee in another place, as reported at column 10 of the Official Report:
"The latest figure for people now receiving attendance allowance is 320,000, of whom there are 2,400 dialysing. It is estimated that 100 home dialysists have lost the allowance, or will lose it, before the change in the law becomes effective. We estimate that approximately 200 more who were patients at home will lose the allowance if the law is not changed. Approximately 350 people who dialyse as hospital outpatients will no longer qualify".
We have already been informed by the Minister for the Disabled that 40 people have received the back payments, and we are very glad to hear this good news. Can the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, assure the Committee that the remainder of those people mentioned in the Minister's statement will shortly be receiving their extra statutory payment?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: There is no difference between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, on this particular matter. We are all agreed that the people adversely affected by the Attendance Allowance Board's decision should have their benefits restored. I hope I shall be able to convince the noble Lord that there is no need for him to press his Amendment, for two reasons. The first is that arrangements have already been made under the extra-statutory powers, and I am happy to inform the noble Lord that so far about 200 cases—I might as well be precise; it is 202 cases—have already been paid. It is many more than 40, because we have taken these powers and have used them to pay. The remainder will be paid soon. We felt that this was the best way to proceed, rather than to make the legislation retrospective, since that could have meant delaying the payment for a considerable time; and we have all agreed—and I think we in your Lordships' Committee all agree—that this should be accomplished as soon as possible. I recognise the

1929
noble Lord's desire to put the matter on a statutory footing, but, as I have said, it is unnecessary because we have powers to do it immediately.
It would have, I think, two unfortunate effects if the noble Lord pursued his Amendment, and I am sure he would not want them. It would certainly mean that those who over the years have received the allowance while dialysing as hospital out-patients have been overpaid. Secondly, the statutory authorities who make the awards of the allowance could not take into account the extra-statutory payments already made; and I am sure your Lordships will recognise that if this could not be done there would be duplication of payment and we should therefore have immediately to stop making these extra-statutory payments, to the detriment of those presently receiving them. Furthermore, in some cases, I am advised, where payment has been made, we may have to make the payment again, so some might have to be paid twice. This, of course, would not be desirable; but I am sure the noble Lord will take the point that we have embarked on paying them and have made 202 payments. We have these extra-statutory powers, which we are using at this stage, and I hope the noble Lord will feel able to accept that.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Might I ask the noble Lord a question arising out of what he has just said? If he continues to deal with these cases under extra-statutory powers, what happens if there is a disputed case, if there is a dispute as to the facts between a patient and the Department? As I understand it, where he is proceeding under the legislation, as he would be proceeding, of course, if this Amendment were accepted, then I assume the ordinary adjudicating system would operate; that is, the system approved by Parliament for dealing with these cases. But where the matter is being dealt with extra-statutorily, does the adjudicating procedure come in, or is the patient simply at the mercy of the Department?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I frankly do not know. I had not given thought to that arising, for the simple reason that we know the number of people who were stopped and who ought to be paid, and, because we have such a list and know
1930
the people who are involved, it had not occurred to us that they would not be automatically paid. It is possible that this may well arise, but, as I say, I would have to find out what procedures would be adopted in the event. It may be possible for me to find out during the course of this morning.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord a question following on what has just been said? While wholly agreeing that these payments should be made in one way or another, may I ask him whence the statutory powers to which he is referring derive? It seems rather curious that it should be possible to make the payments in this way, without statutory authority.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My understanding of the payments under the extra-statutory powers is that they are payments which the responsible Minister regards as being within the broad intention of the relevant statute but which fall outside a strict interpretation of the statute; and, with Treasury approval, they are charged to the relevant Vote but are noted in the Appropriation Account which is laid before Parliament for approval. Essentially, they are made when a technicality frustrates the intention of Parliament and individuals would otherwise suffer hardship as a result. Parliament retains the ultimate control through the approval of the Appropriation Account, but this is done with prior Treasury approval.
Lord SANDYS: I am very glad that 202 patients are to be reimbursed in this particular situation. I am very glad to hear that announcement, because it is considerably more than the 40 I mentioned previously. There appears to be a very interesting area here, and I was most pleased to hear the points raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because as I understand it the extra-statutory payment is permitted through powers contained in an Act of Parliament deriving from the 19th century. It is one which I have not given attention to, and it is an area which I think will require further examination; but there does appear to be a number of situations in which this particular problem may arise again, and I

1931
am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn for what he said in this regard. Of course, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment, with your Lordships' permission.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Mobility allowance]:
11.57 a.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 26, at end insert—
" (6) If a person—

(a) is over the age of 75; and

(b) was, immediately prior to reaching the age of 75, in receipt of a mobility allowance under section 37A of the principal Act, as amended by this section; and

(c) ceased to receive a mobility allowance under section 37A of the principal Act, as amended by this section, only by reason of subsection (5)(a) of the said section, as amended by this section and otherwise fulfils the conditions laid down for the receipt of a mobility allowance;

that person shall be entitled to an allowance payable out of the National Insurance Fund at the same rate as may be laid down for the time being for a mobility allowance under section 37A of the principal Act."
The noble Lord said: We turn now to the mobility allowance. Your Lordships will be aware that in the Bill as presented to us the position was as follows. There were two categories of disabled who benefited from the disability allowance. The first category comprised those who became eligible prior to their 65th birthday and continued to be eligible to claim the allowance until the age of 75, now permitted in the Bill. However, after the age of 75 the allowance is going to be denied. The second category comprised approximately 32,000 patients (reference was made to that number in column 55 in Standing Committee) in the ex-vehicle scheme, who were beneficiaries under mobility allowance and who will continue to enjoy the lifetime mobility allowance.
How do we stand? What information have we on the estimates? I can only draw your Lordships' attention to a very interesting Written Answer given in your Lordships' House on 10th April 1978, at column 442 of the Official Report. This is what the Government informed us (I quote the words, and I shall be as speedy as I may):
1932
"By the end of 1979, it is estimated that mobility allowance will be payable to 100,000 new beneficiaries and possibly 25,000 ex-vehicle scheme beneficiaries. By increasing the value of mobility allowance to £10 a week from July 1978 the Government are putting potentially some £65 million a year in the hands of disabled people …".
Perhaps I can go forward a little and quote the words of the Minister, Mr. Deakins, who said this in Standing Committee, at column 85:
"The Committee will appreciate that most mobility allowance awards are for life, although there are some one-year or two-year awards where the medical condition might improve".
So there is, in a sense, a third category of beneficiaries, who might be only temporary beneficiaries under the scheme.
But there is an important point here which I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention, and it is this. Here, the Minister acknowledges that the award to eligibility is on a life basis, but, alas!, under the Bill the financial provision will stop at the age of 75. Our Amendment seeks to rectify the situation and to ensure that, in the unknown number of cases of those people who survive beyond their 75th birthday, the allowance should continue, and that the sum charged should be charged to the National Insurance Fund, which as we understand it has at the moment a surplus of over £200 million. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I first comment on the National Insurance Fund issue? If this Amendment were to be carried, the money for the allowance would come out of the fund and would be a continuing commitment that would have to be taken account of when future contribution rates were decided. It might require increased contributions from the generality of people who pay National Insurance contributions and, in the Government's view, that is not desirable. If the noble Lord's Amendment were put into operation the additional cost would be in the region of about £50 million a year.
But there is probably another argument which is much more telling. I was perfectly frank with the House on Second Reading that the relevant provision in the Bill was simply to give a breathing space of about ten years during which we or another Government—and I am sure that whichever Government were in power they

1933
would want to do it—would be able to look in depth at the position of the elderly. A lot of what we have done is to meet emergencies. In some respects it has been piecemeal, but good and effective. But we must take a long-term view of the best way or ways of helping the disabled. As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State indicated in another place, we are considering with the Office of Population and Census and Surveys the updating of the Amelia Harris Survey, which was a survey on the handicapped and the impaired in Great Britain. It came out in 1969 and is now ten years old. I do not think that we can plan for the over-75s on the basis of the information we have at present. We need much more up-to-date information upon which to base our concept of what they need and what kind of services we ought to offer them. With respect, what we think in 1979 may be useless in ten years' time. I think this must be something which (while I dislike the word "on-going") has to be an on-going thing.
Little is known about the mobility requirements of disabled people over 75. They are sometimes much more difficult to provide and much more serious than those of people who are getting mobility allowances at a younger age. At some stage, services such as shelter accommodation or domiciliary care become more important perhaps than cash benefits. It may be that we shall have to introduce some entirely different concept of help to people who need mobility at that particular age. I would emphasise that we are not seeking logic here; it is merely a breathing space. I accept that the Amendment put down will not create any immediate expenditure but, equally, it is not going to achieve immediate legislative effect. The situation it envisages cannot happen for ten years, and by then the Amendment may be totally unnecessary because the whole structure of benefits for the disabled may have changed radically. If it has not done so, the review and the surveys which will be undertaken (and which I am sure will be carried out by any other Government) may suggest something entirely different.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in another place:
1934
"When we reach the late 1980s I am sure that my right honourable friends will have worked out further proposals for extending benefits to the disabled which I am sure will meet the situation at that time".
But he went on:
"My right honourable friends deserve to be judged on their record, which is extremely good".
I would go farther and say I am confident that when the time comes a Labour Government will not be found wanting; and, from the terms of this Amendment, I am perfectly certain that that could be said of a Conservative Government also. This is a matter that both sides of the House are very concerned with. I feel that rather than to clutter up (and I apologise for using the word) an Act with things which at this stage are unnecessary, we ought to leave it so that either side or both sides, working either independently or simultaneously, can be looking at the needs of the disabled with a view to planning something in ten years' time. I believe that this is the way to deal with it and I hope that I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that it is the better way.
Lord BANKS: The Minister said that it would be unnecessary to make this provision. One might as well say it is as unnecessary to make provision for somebody at the age of 74 as it is at 76. The person who comes into the category in the years immediately ahead will be affected by the knowledge of whether it was for a limited period or for life. It could be argued that it is necessary that he should know that this allowance is there for life. I do not think that one can put forward the argument that it is unnecessary. The noble Lord also said that a breathing space is required. There is a breathing space. If it should turn out that the current provisions are, as the noble Lord said, useless in ten years' time, or before then, no doubt they can be altered to suit the facts that have become available in the interim or the experience that has been obtained in the interim. I cannot see that there is any argument against extending this provision beyond the age of 75, except the argument of cost.
I wonder whether this is the real point: that the noble Lord feels that it is not safe enough to allow for the additional cost that would occur over the present system if people over 75 were to be included; that

1935
is to say, people who became qualified before the age of 65 in the way the Bill lays down. I wonder whether that is such an enormous cost that we have to be so careful at this stage.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not want to take up too much time. We are, of course, concerned with cost; but I should have thought that if a Government, regardless of the Party in power, wanted to do something for the over-75s or the 75s in ten years' time, the thing to do would be to start making adequate provision now in the terms of how they are going to give that help—help which may be something entirely different from a mobility allowance. It might be a provision in some other way, as I have tried to point out.
Lord BANKS: Would that not also apply to the 74-year-olds in nine years' time?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think it would. That may be so; but I do not see that this Amendment can really serve any useful purpose when it is clearly understood that it cannot be effective for the next ten years. Governments are criticised time and time again for the amount of legislation, for the number of sections and provisions that go into every Act and which at some subsequent stage are found either not to be in use or not to be effective. Anybody who has sat on the Consolidation Committee, as I did for some years, will realise that. I cannot see that any useful purpose can be served by putting this in the Bill when it will not have any immediate effect and cannot possibly have any effect for 10 years. I would much sooner leave it out because I think it is wise to do so. Then we can consider what our long-term policy for the disabled is to be. That can be introduced at a later stage.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to award for life. If he does not mind, I ought to qualify that for him, by saying that it only applies in what I think are known as the switch cases, that is the vehicle scheme beneficiaries. To use it without that qualification might give a wrong impression.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether I may try to clarify my own mind, if nobody else's, on this point. What I think the noble Lord is saying is
1936
that if it is passed this will cost £50 million 10 years later. He does not want to enter into a commitment of that kind. He also says that it may prove later on that this may not be the best way of dealing with the circumstances. But the fact remains that people will be looking forward to this particular allowance, and the longer time goes on the more difficult it will be to alter it and amend it. People will have become accustomed already to the payments up to 65 and thereafter. Anybody who is incapacitated and immobile will be wondering what is going to happen to them after that—and increasingly so as the years go on. This will not be a common rate of growing disability for all people, it will vary in many different cases. I cannot see any objection to making this commitment at the present time because if the commitment is there a Government will have to make a better provision later on in order to supersede the commitment. I do not see why they should not do that. If this matter is going to be studied now and a better answer is obtained for those over 75, that is fine, it will obviously supersede the existing arrangement. What I think is difficult to see is why there should be a cut-off date at 75 when quite obviously the immobility will be growing. There will be a greater need after 75 than there is before it.
Lord PARGITER: I wonder whether I may ask a point which is rather technical. Presumably it would not be possible merely to extend the mobility allowance, because I assume that there is a Money Resolution in the other House which would prevent that. So it is being dealt with in a round about way to throw the cost—quite apart from the merits of the case—on to the Insurance Fund. Is there any power to throw matters brought in under one Bill, a charge, on to another Act of Parliament?—I would have thought not without providing the appropriate resolution providing the money for it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It has occurred to us whether the Committee can properly discuss this Amendment. My understanding of the situation is it can; I do not know whether the fact that the Amendment being switched over to the National Insurance Fund alters the situation; but there is certainly a doubt in our minds as to whether we are competent

1937
to pass an Amendment of this kind. I cannot give a more definite answer than that.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, regarding when the mobility allowance came in, it came in by stages and, if my memory serves me correctly, it is only recently that we have extended it as distinct from—shall I say?—just phasing it in. We have only recently extended it to take in, as they say, women from 60 to 65. The mobility allowance has been adjusted as we have gone along. I can see no reason why later on, if it is felt that this is the right way to deal with the over-75s—and it may well be the right way—we could not do this by amendment at some later stage. I cannot see that there is any merit at all in putting this in this Bill when in point of fact it cannot be implemented for 10 years.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: May I ask the Minister one short question? I understood him to say that the Department are not able to reckon the number of people this will encompass either now or in 10 years' time; yet he has given a figure of £50 million. He must have based that on some figures and I wonder which.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The £50 million being committed will only help those disabled before the age of 65. One would not be able to get a mobility allowance from 65 until they are 75 unless one qualified for it before the age of 65. It means that those who would receive it until 75 would be those who had qualified for it before 65. In 10 years' time noble Lords opposite may be in power and may wish to spend the £50 million to help all the elderly and disabled through services as I have tried to say. If the commitment is made now they could easily be very frustrated if this goes into the Bill at this stage.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I have listened with great interest. Do I understand that if a mobility allowance is being paid to someone up to the age of 75, then that allowance is cut off after 75 because there is nothing in the Bill to continue it? That seems to me extremely unfair.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is not unfair when one is talking about something that is 10 years hence. If somebody said: "We are going to cut it off in a year's time or two years' time" then there would be very serious objections to it; but there cannot be serious objections to saying to people that it has to stop at the age of 75 unless we come up with something, either by way of extending it or by some other form of mobility allowance which will help them. It stops at the present moment when people reach the age of 75; that is quite true. What I am saying is, let us plan in the coming years. We are undertaking an extension of the survey through the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to see what the real problems of that age group really are so that we can make some benefit provision for them. Whether it is the right way to do it in kind or financially or provide some other facility, only a scientific survey will tell us. It is far better to let us, or any other Government that may be in power in the next 10 years, do this so that we fit the garment to the needs.
12.20 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: May I put a point to the noble Lord which I think his own departmental experience will confirm? In 10 years' time, whoever may be in power will have to consider this, as he says: and he knows as well as any noble Lord who has been in Government knows, that any project, however admirable and socially attractive, has to compete inside the Government machine for funds or with other good causes which other Departments in their wisdom wish to put forward. I do not suppose the noble Lord will be, or will wish to be, in his present appointment 10 years from now but, taking as a hypothesis that he is, would he not feel himself to be in a much stronger position to look after the interests of this very deserving section of the community if he had already got this provision on the Statute Book and could say to his colleagues: "Look, if you want to prefer some other expenditure to this, you will have to repeal through Parliament what is now on the Statute Book"? He would find himself in a very much stronger position in the scramble for funds—I think that is the right word to use, because anyone who has been in Government

1939
knows that all departments under all Governments have to indulge in it. Why will he not think again and endow his successor in 10 years' time with that stronger position which my noble friend's Amendment offers to him?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am most grateful to the noble Lord; his experience in Government is greater than mine will ever be, and I acknowledge that. I acknowledge his vast experience and his competence, if he will allow me to say so, in this particular field. But, speaking for the Government, I accept the Government's view for two reasons, because I know that a great deal of thought has gone into it. I accept it for another reason entirely; that is, that all my life has been concerned with professional and voluntary social work and I have seen the disaster—that is not too strong a word—when people have laid plans today for five or ten years hence, and those plans, when the time comes, have borne no relationship to the needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, for example, started a remarkable college in Birmingham for the disabled. She planned it and had the best possible advice available when they were able to start on the project, and yet the end result bore no relationship to the beginning and cost about five times as much, if I remember rightly.
I think it really is very unwise. I would urge that we should use all the experience in the community, both inside and outside Government, to see what we really ought to be doing, not in 10 years' time, but what we ought to be doing in six or seven years' time to plan for the period ahead. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will be convinced by me.
Lord CLITHEROE: There is one point the noble Lord has not dealt with, and that is the question of giving a sense of security to the individual.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not want to make a Party political point about this, because the disabled are above that sort of thing; but with great respect I think that this Government—and I do not doubt that any other Government would do precisely the same—have shown immense concern about this problem. I should have thought that any disabled
1940
person could go to bed every night feeling fairly certain, in fact very certain, that his or her needs will be looked after to the fullest possible extent. I do not see that there is any reason for anyone feeling they are going to be let down.
Lord SANDYS: I wish that I could share the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I am sure there are many disabled people who will share the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. From a long and seasoned experience, it is of course this pressure of events and the struggle which takes place for funds available at a particular moment in time which so exercise our minds.
There are two matters I should like to mention to the noble Lord. I am well aware that time is creeping up on us, but I think it is worth mentioning because your Lordships have expressed such interest in this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestcll, mentioned that the Amelia Harris survey was to be updated. When we discussed the Snowdon Report two years ago, on a Motion introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, we went into the whole question of the integration of the disabled at that time. It surprises me that in the interval of the two years that have passed since then material should not be available on the disabled mobility arrangements for those over 75. I have been re-reading that important debate, and I think the Amelia Harris survey was mentioned at some length on that occasion—and even in those days it was seven years old.
I think the Government are leaning on a very slender argument in this set of circumstances. I believe there are other factors here which weigh heavily on their minds. But let us not forget that in the Bill we have Clause 3(2): an important Amendment brought in by the Minister for the Disabled which states:
"any changes in taxation which directly affect the cost of motoring for persons in receipt of mobility allowance and such other matters as he thinks relevant; and he shall lay before Parliament a statement setting out his conclusion and the reasons therefore as soon as is reasonably practicable.".
Here is a Minister saying that the allowance, as such, might be increased by special provision. He is allowing for that, and both major Parties have agreed

1941
on that. So there is some flexibility in the uprating of the allowance. Nevertheless the extension of the allowance to those over 75 is disallowed by the Government. I hope that we may come back to this on Report, and I advise the Government that we would welcome some consultations were it possible. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
12.27 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of provisions relating to earnings after retirement age
(" .—(1) In section 30 of the principal Act (supplementary provisions about retirement pensions) the following subsection is inserted at the end—
"(6) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) substitute for the period of 5 years mentioned in section 27(5) of this Act and subsection (1) above a shorter period; and

(b) substitute for the ages of 65 and 70 mentioned in sections 26(1) and (3), 36(5), 37(6) and 79(2)(a) of this Act and subsection (3) above such lower ages as are appropriate in consequence of any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) above.".

(2) In section 167 of the principal Act (Parliamentary control of orders and regulations)—

(a) in subsection (1) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph (b)—

"(c) no order shall be made under section 30(6),"; and

(b) in subsection (3) after the words "section 17(3)" there is inserted "30(6),".

(3) In Part II of Schedule 15 to the principal Act (regulations not requiring prior submission to National Insurance Advisory Committee) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 17—
"17A. Regulations contained in a statutory instrument which states that it contains only provisions in consequence of an order under section 30(6) of this Act.".").
The noble Lord said: With the indulgence of your Lordships, I wonder whether I may preface what I want to say about this Amendment by a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I have taken advice on the matter he raised concerning a dispute between the Department and a person receiving a
1942
payment under the present system of extra-statutory payments. I am informed that there is no sort of appeal procedure at all when payments are made by that method, but I can give the noble Lord an assurance that, should the situation arise that there was a dispute, then we should certainly do our level best to secure some sort of independent view. The answer to the noble Lord's question is that in fact there is no appeal procedure.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I am much obliged.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: In moving Amendment No. 5, which stands in my name, I think I ought to refer, if the noble Lords, Lord Sandys and Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, will allow me, to their Amendment No. 6 which follows immediately.
This new clause, which is concerned with the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, flows from an undertaking given by the Government in another place, to which I referred briefly during our debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, when I said that at the Committee stage we would come forward with an Amendment to honour a pledge given by my right honourable friend in another place. May I say that the Opposition in the other place tabled an Amendment to the Bill at Report stage to make provision for the earnings rules applicable to retirement pensioners, and to increases of retirement pension, invalidity pension and industrial injuries unemployability supplement in respect of wives living with their husbands, to be abolished by an order approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. At present such a change would require an amending Act.
But the Amendment had defects, to which I will refer later, which precluded its acceptance by the Government. The movers therefore withdrew the Amendment on the Government's undertaking to introduce a new clause in your Lordships' House, which would enable the Government, by the use of affirmative orders, to phase out the earnings rule for retirement pensioners by steadily reducing the period over which it applies, with the aim of abolishing it entirely in due course.
The earnings rule for retirement pensioners, which applies only in the first

1943
five years after pension age—that is, between 60 and 65 for women and between 65 and 70 for men—provides that where a pensioner's earnings exceed £45 a week, his pension is reduced on a sliding scale. This earnings limit is reviewed each year and increased in line with the movement in the general level of earnings.
The earnings limit is also relevant to the retirement condition which a person in these age bands has to satisfy before he can be awarded a retirement pension. A person can be treated as retired if his earnings are not expected to exceed the earnings rule limit. However, women over 65 and men over 70 are treated as retired whatever their earnings may be.
In fact, the only purpose of the retirement pensioners' earnings rule is to maintain this retirement condition. Since 1948, it has been a condition for the receipt of the pension that a person must have retired, or been treated as retired, from regular employment. But this is not a concept that has been readily accepted by contributors, and I admit that the earnings rule has been a constant source of complaint for many years. As a result, the Government are committed to abolishing the earnings rule for retirement pensioners when resources are available. But the cost would be very high.
It would depend on the number of people who continued to defer their retirement beyond pension age and, depending on what assumptions are made, the cost to central Government funds over the 12 months from November 1978 to November 1979 would be between £64 million and £124 million. The problem of abolition and details of how these costs are calculated are set out in the report on the earnings rule, which the Secretary of State for Social Services published last October under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1977. Copies are available in the Library and I would refer your Lordships to them.
During the debate in another place the Opposition cast doubts on these estimates, and because they did so we have reexamined the figures with the help of the Government Actuary, who is independent of the Department of Health and Social Security, and the Department's Economic Advisers, and we are quite satisfied that these estimates are reliable.
1944
These are very large sums of money, indeed, and the most likely way of bringing the earnings rule to an end is by phasing it out over a period and thus spreading the cost. One of the major objections to the Amendment introduced by the Opposition in another place was that it did not allow the rule to be phased out. Another objection was that abolition of the earnings rule in the way the Opposition proposed would have left the retirement condition in the air, as it were, and it was not at all clear what the effect on that condition would have been.
The Government's new clause now before your Lordships overcomes these problems. It provides that the Secretary of State may by affirmative order substitute a shorter period for the period of five years over pension age during which a person has to retire in order to qualify for a retirement pension and over which the earnings rule applies to pensioners. It also enables consequential Amendments to be made where necessary to the principal Act; for example, by inserting a lower age for the age of 65 at which a widow pensioner who has not retired automatically becomes entitled to full retirement pension.
The clause provides that any such order shall not be made until a draft has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of both Houses. The new clause therefore provides a simple and convenient way of phasing out the earnings rule for retirement pensioners, by reducing the age at which the retirement condition is deemed to be satisfied and at which the earnings rule ceases to apply. I beg to move.
12.37 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: I hope that the noble Lord will not think it ungracious of us to put down our Amendment No. 6, in view of the fact that the Government have carried out their promise to introduce this new clause today. We are grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the new clause to us. The only difference between our Amendment and the noble Lord's, apart from the technicalities to which he has referred, is that his is really an enabling clause and ours provides for action over the next five years. Where we differ is as to the cost that would be involved in abolishing the earnings rule.

1945
I think the noble Lord will remember that the Government's estimates of cost used to be considerably higher than they are today. In fact, it was under pressure from the Opposition that the Government brought out a report very much altering the estimated cost. Strangely enough, before that time no proper review had ever been carried out. This report of over 40 pages was published four months ago and it contains a great deal of information. It overturns many previous mistaken assumptions put forward by the Government, to which I shall refer later. There is no doubt that it was an extremely useful exercise.
When the earnings rule was discussed last month in another place, one of the objections to abolition put forward by the Government was that it would be incompatible with what is called the retirement condition. The Minister meant that the pension is for retirement only, and that if a person takes up work he is no longer retired and, therefore, should no longer receive a retirement pension. The earnings rule ensures that this is what happens.
I have only two observations to make and I should like the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to refer to them if he intends to repeat this argument. Would he explain why the retirement condition applies to the younger pensioner, but not to the woman aged 65 or over or the man aged 70 or over? If the retirement pension is truly a retirement pension, then how can this distinction be justified? Secondly, would the noble Lord also explain why, if the retirement condition is of such vital importance, it does not apply to the new State second pension scheme?
I could go on. I could ask why many widows receiving a retirement pension are completely unaffected by the retirement condition, whatever their age, but it would be unnecessary. The so-called retirement condition is a convenient peg on which to defend the earnings rule which would have been abolished a long time ago if this had been its only justification. So we come to what is really the crux of the matter, which is the cost of abolishing the rule, and I must ask your Lordships to bear with me as I shall have to use various figures in order to make my point.
1946
As I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons which prompted this House to defeat the Government in 1977 was the unreliability of previous Government estimates. In 1976, concern about Government errors was mounting so fast that Ministers published a special 15 page paper, entitled Note on Estimated Savings, in which they conceded that:
"Assumptions have been altered in a number of important respects from those used to provide earlier estimates".
As my noble friend Lady Young pointed out in this House, these mistaken assumptions were not trivial. The Government had miscalculated the cost of abolishing the earnings rule by up to £75 million a year. In another place, the Government Minister described these mistakes as hilarious, though I think he could have chosen a more suitable adjective. The same Minister admitted that the new figures about the cost of abolishing the earnings rule might also be wrong. It is hardly surprising that in these circumstances your Lordships forced an Amendment upon the Government to ensure that a proper review of the earnings rule was carried out, and the report was made in Parliament in October 1978.
In 1977, the Government had put the net cost of abolishing the earnings rule at around £150 million. Imagine my surprise on reading the new report to discover that the net cost of abolishing the earnings rule for pensioners had been reduced to a possible £64 million, as the noble Lord told us a moment ago. How, I asked myself, had this come about? The answer is quite simple and relates to the number of people deferring retirement —that is, those who postpone drawing their pensions and who become entitled to a higher pension when they do eventually retire: the incremental benefit. As the State makes a big profit out of people who defer retirement, it follows that the fewer the number of people who defer retirement the less money the State will make.
In their 1976 document, Note on Estimated Savings, the Government assumed that if the earnings rule was abolished, 100 per cent. of those who deferred retirement would no longer do so. However, in their recent review, the Government discovered, to their evident surprise, that 40 per cent. of those who deferred retirement would in fact probably

1947
continue to do so if the earnings rule was abolished in order to get the incremental benefit. This, of course, makes a radical difference to the cost of abolishing the earnings rule. This correction to their previous figures reduces by some £80 million the Government's estimate as to the cost of abolishing the rule. To this figure must also be added the increase in income tax revenue resulting from so many people deferring retirement. They will be working and also getting their pension and will therefore have to pay extra tax. This has been calculated at £43 million.
The latest official cost of abolishing the earnings rule having thus been reduced to a possible £64 million, many noble Lords may think that we need go no further and that it is perfectly feasible to abolish the earnings rule in five stages over the next five years, with each stage costing less than £13 million. However, I should like to explain why this figure is still wrong and why the cost of abolishing the earnings rule is much less than even this estimate. Conservatives have long argued that the abolition of the earnings rule would remove a major work disincentive. Many pensioners work up to or near the earnings rule limit but not beyond it. If pensioners work longer hours and increase their pay, then there will be an increase in tax revenue. In their latest review, the Government have gone some way towards meeting this argument and have conceded that £28 million would be raised in tax revenue.
I have two comments to make on this. First, I strongly dispute the Government's strange assumption that if the earnings rule were abolished a number of pensioners would work fewer hours. The Government are assuming that all those who had previously deferred retirement would now be drawing a pension and would cut their earnings by 10 per cent., thus reducing tax revenue by £17 million. Why such a large number of people should make this decision in such inflationary times is a mystery to me. That some will do so—some disabled people or those contemplating ceasing work altogether—I have no doubt, but why do the Government think so many people will work less when a disincentive to work has been removed? On that reasoning, many people would reduce
1948
their hours of work whenever the standard rate of income tax came down. I cannot agree to £17 million. We could agree to £1 million or £2 million, perhaps, and we might stretch it to £3 million, which would knock £14 million from the £64 million and reduce it to £50 million.
My second point is a very simple one. We know that there are thousands of unemployed pensioners who would have liked to continue to work. A recent survey carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys showed that four out of 10 people would have liked to work beyond normal retirement age. There are some 2 million people within the earnings rule age bracket, most of whom are not working but some of whom would certainly like to do so. I believe that if we abolish the earnings rule, we can expect an increase in income tax revenue from many pensioners taking up work. How many we know not, but 35,000 pensioners taking up work on average earnings would mean extra tax revenue of £40 million to £50 million a year. It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that if extra tax revenue of the higher of these two figures were achieved, the annual cost of abolishing the earnings rule would be nil.
I concede that we are talking about several grey areas, and it is impossible, either for us or for the Government, to be precise on these figures. But we are getting to an interesting situation where the cost, instead of being between £64 million and £120 million, could well be between £64 million and nil—possibly it could be nil.
We can also expect pensioners outside the earnings rule bracket to take up work. For example, I am aware of a pensioner aged 81 who saw his local Member of Parliament and said that he wanted to work and the only thing that deterred him was the earnings rule. His Member of Parliament was able to assure him that the earnings rule did not apply in his case. The moral of this anecdote is to show the psychological effect of the earnings rule.
It is not enough for the Government to say that only male pensioners aged 65 to 70 are affected by the earnings rule. The crucial point is not whether someone is affected by the earnings rule but whether

1949
he thinks he is affected. I suggest that the abolition of the earnings rule will come as a relief to people outside the earnings rule age bracket, as well as those within it, and that the extra tax revenue gained will match the cost of abolition. I do not know what allowance, if any, the Government have made, but I suspect that they have skated over this important issue altogether. I emphasise that some of the figures are on the cautious side and that if the number of people who take up work proves higher there will be a net gain to our economy.
Before I close I should like to ask the Minister whether, in view of the discrepancies between the original Government estimate of the cost of abolition and the figure given in the Official Report, it would not be valuable to dig deeper into some of the grey areas to which I have referred and to publish a further report in 1980.
Finally, I should like to summarise the position of the various Parties. The Conservative Party is committed to the abolition of the earnings rule and we have concluded that five years is a reasonable period. If it can be done sooner, so much the better. The Liberal Party—as I expect the noble Lord, Lord Banks, to confirm—is committed to the abolition of the earnings rule as soon as possible. Then there is the Labour Party, and in another place a Government Minister has said that there are sufficient references for future historians to see that at least in the last couple of months all Parties in the House have placed firmly on the record, by one means or another, their commitment to abolish the earnings rule.
The same Minister added that the Government did not need to carry out a broad review of the rule in 1978 to emphasise that abolition is, and remains, their long-term objective. That was said in 1977; this Amendment proposes abolition of the rule in 1984, and no doubt noble Lords will agree that this is what the Minister may have had in mind when he said that it was Labour's long-term objective. To my mind, seven years is indeed a long time. In supporting this Amendment, noble Lords in the Labour Party will be doing no more than giving effect to what their Government colleagues have said in another place, and there is no reason for withholding their votes.
Lord SOMERS: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would clear up one point which has always rather puzzled me. Can he tell us whether a pension from one's previous profession, from which one has now retired, counts as earnings under this particular rule?
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he replies, to deal with two questions. The first is this: when a Government put forward legislation giving themselves additional powers, it is normally the custom to give some indication of the Government's intention as to the likelihood and timing of any exercise of those powers? If the Committee and another place approve this Amendment in the Minister's name, the Government will have these powers. I am inclined to think that the noble Lord ought to give some indication, even in general terms, whether or not, if the Government have these powers, they intend to exercise them, and to give some indication of the time scale.
The second point is a slightly more complicated one. I note that the Amendment refers to 70 and 65 as being at present the age at which the earnings rule ceases to operate in the case of men and women respectively. Does the fact that those ages are incorporated in this Amendment mean that the Government have abandoned all ideas of altering the pensionable age under the National Insurance scheme? The noble Lord will be aware that there is a considerable body of opinion which feels that the discrimination against men under the scheme, with an age of retirement five years later than that of women—although the women have the longer expectation of life—is perhaps somewhat unfair, and I understood at one time that a review of the ages of retirement was being undertaken. Are we to assume that putting the ages of 70 and 65 quite firmly in this Amendment means that the Government have abandoned that concept?
I should like to say a word particularly to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I suppose that I have defended the earnings rule more frequently than any other noble Lord in your Lordships' House, even than my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, because I was longer in the Department—then called the Ministry of Pensions and

1951
National Insurance—than he was, although I recall his defending it most valiantly. I am bound to say that I have never had any great difficulty in defending it on one ground. The ground was that we could argue, as my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne has argued most persuasively, as to the quantum of expenditure that would flow from the abandonment of the rule, but, so far at any rate, we have proceeded on the basis that it would cost something.
I am bound to say to my noble friend that I have great confidence, based on experience, in the Government Actuary's view which has been given to your Lordships. As the Minister said, the Government Actuary is wholly independent. Indeed—if I may mention it in parenthesis—once when I was Minister in another place one of the noble Lord's honourable friends accused me, admittedly in the middle of the night, of "fixing" the Government Actuary and I was always very pleased with my reply: that I should be only too grateful if the honourable Member would tell me how one could do that, as no doubt on occasions it would be highly convenient but I had always regarded it as impossible.
I give a good deal of weight to the Government Actuary, and on my noble friend's calculations, as I tried to follow them, I wonder whether there is not one rather questionable item. He referred, by way of compensation, to the increased yield of the income tax arising from more employment being undertaken by people of pensionable age. But in an age where we have the best part of a million and a half unemployed, I wonder whether that would be a net increase to the revenue or whether the employment taken up by those people, admirable in social terms, would not be employment which otherwise would be available to, and taken up by, those under pensionable age and at present unemployed. If that be so, then, with very great respect to my noble friend, his calculations of the savings to the State are not very convincing, because, first, there would not appear to be any increase in the gross yield to the revenue, and secondly, one would have to offset the increased unemployment benefit which would have to be paid over and above what is payable under the present system.
For my own part, I believe that there will be some substantial sum, and I am
1952
inclined to accept the Government Actuary's lower figure because previous estimates have proved to be on the high side; there will be some additional expenditure. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will remember, the problem which always arose when he and I defended the earnings rule was this: given that there is always a limit to the amount of money available for social benefits, is it a good priority for the expenditure of that money to give it to those people over pensionable age who are fortunate enough to have good health and a good employer to enable them to continue to earn? These are admirable people and should be encouraged, but in terms of social welfare it never seemed to me that they were the highest priority. I was inclined to feel—I do not know how the Committee feels—that such funds as were available would better go to those elderly people whose health had broken down and who required, either through the retirement pension or through some of the allowances, support which their unhappy condition perhaps made even more urgent than it was in the case of their more fortunate brethren who were still healthy, happy and at work. Therefore, I have felt that we should be a little hesitant in abolishing the earnings rule.
My noble friend is, of course, absolutely right in saying that it has never been understood, and it has sometimes, I think, been deliberately misunderstood. It has never been popular; I accept that. But it has been a feature of the scheme since it was introduced in the 1940s. As a claimant for priority in the funds available I myself have never ranked it very high, and, indeed, even today would not rank it very high. Therefore, I am bound to say, as between the two alternatives offered to us, I am inclined to prefer the Minister's proposal, which leaves the matter open to the Government of the day in judging the priorities of expenditure, rather than to accept my noble friend's apparently rather Orwellian choice of 1984.
1.2 p.m.
Lord BANKS: Perhaps I might be allowed to say, very briefly, that we on these Benches have always been opposed to the earnings rule and have never accepted the retirement condition. We have never been able to see why it was

1953
perfectly in order to have the largest possible unearned income with no effect on the pension and the very opposite if you actually earned what you received. But I need not go into that because, as has been made clear, the Opposition and the Government together have both now come round to our point of view, and we certainly welcome that.
Amendment No. 5 gives the Government the ability to phase out the earnings rule, whereas Amendment No. 6 would place an obligation on them to do it. I should like to support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, when he was asking what kind of time-scale the Government had in mind. One wonders whether it would ever be done if we had to rely on Amendment No. 5. It is for that reason that of the two, as I understand the position at the moment, I prefer Amendment No. 6.
Lord PARGITER: Quite briefly, it seems to me that the Opposition have very cleverly dealt with this purely on a financial basis. I happened to be a Member of another place following Beveridge when the Insurance Acts were introduced. They were introduced for specific purposes, and one of the purposes was to enable people to retire and to have some reasonable pension on retirement from industry or whatever they were doing. This had the effect of opening up the avenues of promotion; that was one of the arguments used at that time. It also had the effect of bringing young people, school-leavers and so on, into the general stream of employment. That was one of the principal objectives that was provided for under the Acts.
At this time an increasing number of school-leavers are finding it very difficult to get work, and, in my view, that number will continue to increase, as people continue working and as we reach the stage of increasing efficiency, which we are supposed to be doing, and consequently we are required to work fewer and not more hours. It seems to me that if this matter is to be reconsidered we ought to reconsider the whole basis upon which the Insurance Acts were constructed, the financial aspects which were given by the Government Actuary at that time, the sort of things that could be done by the
1954
fund and the sort of conditions that would have to apply. These conditions have been gradually whittled away and, in whittling away those conditions, we have considerably increased the amount of contributions having to be paid into the fund.
It seems to me that if we are going to deal with this aspect we ought not to deal with it from the point of view of the earnings rule; it ought to be dealt with fundamentally from the point of view of whether we still mean the same sort of things now as we meant when the Insurance Acts were introduced, when the figures were decided on what pensions were available. It seems to me that if we are going to have an age at which a pension is payable, irrespective of retirement—that is what we are arriving at—we really ought to look at the whole situation properly, and not try to deal with it, even in the way the Government are trying to deal with it, on the basis of the abolition of the earnings rule.
It seems to me also that if people do continue working we shall have increasing charges on the insurance fund or some other fund for young people who are unable to get work. If people choose to continue to work and we do not have a retirement age at all, perhaps we should consider whether they should cease to pay insurance contributions, or whether they should not pay a social fund contribution in order that we can deal with those young people who cannot get work. I am not arguing against people continuing to work if they want to, but I am saying that we ought to look at all the social consequences and not just at the earnings rule and the likely effect of abolition purely on the financial aspects.
Lord SANDYS: I have listened with very great interest to what all the noble Lords have said. The noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, has raised the very widest issues, which go even beyond the terms of Amendment No. 5 and cover a very broad field of social policy. I think one point which I detect in common between Lord Pargiter and Lord Boyd-Carpenter is an assumption that by permitting elderly people of pensionable age to go on working you are denying younger people the opportunity of filling those jobs. I think it can be argued, and it has been argued in official documents—the Office of Population Studies have records of this—that

1955
this is not always the case. I was very interested in what my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne asserted, that four out of 10 of those of pensionable age would like to work beyond retirement. There is a whole area here for further investigation, and of course we do once again need that vital element, the Amelia Harris survey, updated in regard to those disabled persons in this category. I feel that if we remove this major work disincentive it would be of major benefit. Nevertheless I listened most closely to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who speaks from long experience in this field, both in Government and out of Government, and I believe we should be wise to follow his advice in this matter.
1.8 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not want to take up your Lordships' time. I am very grateful for the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who put the matter much more succinctly than I could. Also I think we ought to bear in mind what my noble friend Lord Pargiter has said. When I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, I thought the first thing I ought to do when I went back to the Department was to try to persuade my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to sack the Government Actuary and the Government's economic advisers because they were so totally at variance with the noble Lord.
I do not think noble Lords on the opposite Front Bench can have it both ways. The defeat inflicted on the Government in this House in 1977 forced us—I admit that—to review the whole basis of our costing of ending the earnings rule, and gave the Government Actuary over a year to fulfil that task. The resulting report might, one would have thought, have been accepted as a basis for further informed debate, but apparently it is not. Because the report does not reach exactly the conclusion which I think the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, wants, he argues that the underlying assumptions therefore must be vitiated. I do not think this will do. The Government Actuary is an independent person. One may not trust the Department's economic advisers —I do not say that seriously, of course—but when one has an independent Government Actuary I think one really must.
1956
It is a pity if we are to have our discussions on the basis that the only answers which will be accepted in one's debating points are those that one puts forward oneself. The ones that I put forward are from the Government Actuary who is an entirely independent person.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Perhaps I can clear this matter up. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the figures which the Government Actuary has provided. I am saying that he left out of account the effect that there would be if various people, who are now pensioners, decided to take up work. I believe that there could be a considerable number of such people. I leave out the factor that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter mentioned; that is, that if one of those took up a job somebody else might lose it. I think that a large number of those jobs would be part-time. There are many jobs about today, even though there are many people who are unemployed. Anyone who walks in a London street will find that practically every shop is looking for assistants. Many old age pensioners would be delighted to help out in jobs of that sort. Therefore, I am not suggesting that the Actuary's figures are wrong, but simply that he left out of account quite a major element.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I may be at fault, but I told your Lordships' House that the cost of all this would be between £64 million and £124 million. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, to say that the figures are between £16 million and £64 million. I must read Hansard tomorrow, because it may be that I misunderstood him. I thought that he was seriously challenging the Government Actuary's report.
I do not want to say anything more other than to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who raised two points. The exercise of the power to phase out the rule is a matter which the Government feel can be decided only in the light of the economic circumstances prevailing. At present—let me be quite frank about it—we cannot afford to exercise that power. Noble Lords will not want me to go on reminding the House of the restraint on public expenditure, but that is a very real matter so far as the Government are concerned.

1957
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked whether the provision of this new clause was without prejudice to any further fundamental change which the Government might introduce in relation to the pensionable age. No; we have not abandoned the idea or the possibility of being able to reduce pension age. But, as we all know the cost of reducing it for men from 65 years to 64 and for women by one year, is almost astronomic—it is extraordinarily high. Any such change would require main legislation. What we are concerned about is not that we have abandoned the idea of reducing the retirement age but rather the financial implications involved. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: Before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he would help us, as we may be in some procedural difficulty as regards this matter. We believe that there is a case here. Very wide issues have been raised on both sides of the House. We believe that one way out of these procedural difficulties, owing to the flexibility of procedures in your Lordships' House, might be as follows: To recommit this one clause of the Bill. It is so important. Major issues have been raised, and we believe that there is such a wealth of experience in your Lordships' House in this particular area that there would be justification for re-examining this one clause in Committee. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be willing to respond to that affirmatively?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We have had a long discussion on this matter this morning. We have taken a tremendous amount of time and I really do not think that there is anything fresh that could be said about it. We have had, if I may say so, the contribution of one noble Lord who is very experienced in these matters, as is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I should not have thought that any useful purpose could be served and I am very loath to agree because, I think that it would be taking up further time of you Lordships' House quite unnecessarily having regard to the length of time that we have discussed this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
1958
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Abolition of earnings rule
(" . Section 30 of the Social Security Act 1975 shall cease to have effect on 5th April 1984 and all references to those subsections in that Act or in any other enactment shall then likewise cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: I think that we are in the procedural difficulty which I identified. It appears that it would probably be better if this Amendment were not spoken to, but were withdrawn at this stage and we return to the situation once again on Report when we have a new print of the Bill. Therefore, with the leave of the House, and most reluctantly—because the noble Lord was given the opportunity to recommit this clause—I shall not move it.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clauses 4 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Increase of official pensions]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, leave out line 4 and insert—
(" (3) A direction under this section may provide that where it has applied ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. With the permission of your Lordships I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 enable a direction made under Section 59A to provide for an official pension to be recalculated in circumstances to be specified, as if the direction had never applied. The third Amendment enables a direction to provide for the re-calculation of an official pension as if the direction had applied to that pension during the whole of the specified period.
These Amendments are minor technical changes. New Section 59A of the Bill is directed towards certain unusual circumstances where full inflation-proofing of official pensions would, for technical reasons, not take place under the new arrangements. The intention of Section 59, as originally drafted, was to continue present levels of price protection but to link the arrangements to those for up-rating the additional componnents of the State pension scheme. Therefore new Section 59A allows the Minister for the Civil Service to make directions allowing full pension protection to be paid by public

1959
service schemes where this cannot be done by the Department of Health and Social Security. None of the categories of former public servants affected is likely to be large, but their pension circumstances are likely to be rather complicated.
These particular Amendments are required to ensure that the direction to be made by the Minister makes proper provision for the groups concerned. These groups will include certain widows of former public servants and could also include former public servants who have worked simultaneously in two contracted-out employments. In some cases this will require re-calculation of an official pension affected by a direction to ensure that the pensioner is neither over-compensated, nor under-compensated and these Amendments ensure that that can be done correctly. I hope that your Lordships will accept that these are not major changes although they are important in ensuring fair treatment for the groups affected. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Lord SANDYS: We are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining these Amendments, which are technical rather than drafting Amendments. We shall look at them with care. We believe that they are beneficial to the Bill as a whole.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question about one word that he used. He referred to public servants who had been earning a pension "simultaneously" in two, or presumably more, separate capacities. Did the noble Lord mean that, or did he mean "successively"? If he meant "simultaneously", can he give us an example?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I used the phrase "worked simultaneously in two contracted-out employments". I cannot give the noble Lord an example. I think that he has raised an important matter, and I shall certainly make it my business to find out about it and let him know. I do not know whether I can do so while we are sitting in Committee this afternoon.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Might not this cover those people who we describe as being members of QUANGOs, about which from time to time we have discussions in this House? There are
1960
members of QUANGOs who are members of several QUANGOS, and who hold two or three posts. They might very well be caught by this clause.
Lord DRUMALBYN: If that were so, are the members of QUANGOs public servants? I should have thought not. They are generally persons appointed to non-official bodies.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I can give one example, and I think that we should try to deal with it while it is fresh in everybody's mind. It would apply to a consultant who works for two health authorities. Does that satisfy the noble Lord?
Lord DRUMABLYN: I do not mean this offensively, but it seems plausible.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1.24 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL: moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 7, at end insert (", in such circumstances as may be specified in the direction,").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert ("that the rate of an official").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord LEATHERLAND: I shall be very brief indeed. I find few defects in this very beneficial Bill, but I think that there is a weakness in Clause 10. It adversely affects those people who had increases, say, on 1st December 1978. On 12th November 1979 they will receive eleven-twelfths of the cost-of-living increase that has occurred between November 1978 and November 1979. This is to keep up with the actual increase in the cost of living for the full period of 11 months and 11 days which will have elapsed by 12th November 1979. Therefore, it looks to me as though those people will be deprived of 11 days' worth of cost-of-living increase which might have affected their salaries. Therefore, I suggest that instead of using complete months, as we do in the clause, we should express the

1961
period in terms of actual days. I do not, of course, want an answer today, but the point is now on record and perhaps at the next stage the Minister will be able to give me a reply.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am aware of this. In fact, this matter was discussed rather extensively in another place, and as my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security explained, apart from the major administrative difficulty in introducing a fundamental change of this kind at such a late stage, there are other reasons for resisting any suggestion that we should do something about it. First, 11 days of inflation-proofing represents only about 5p a week on the average pension at current rates of inflation. Secondly, although these pensioners will receive only 11 months' worth of increase, they will get it three weeks earlier than the usual increase date. Thirdly, 11 days' worth of inflation is well within the margin of error of any statistical index or retail prices. Although on the face of it there seems to be a point here, in practice there is nothing of any consequence at all.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Maternity grant and death grant]:
1.26 p.m.
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
("If the Secretary of State concludes that during any year those sums have not retained their value he shall prepare and lay before Parliament the draft of an Order increasing those sums by at least the amount necessary to restore their value.
If the draft Order is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament the Secretary of State shall make an Order in the form of the draft.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 12 obliges the Secretary of State to review the maternity grant and the death grant each year to see whether they have lost value during the course of the year. This obligation was inserted into the Bill during the Committee stage in another place. The Government made clear that although, of course, they would carry
1962
out that review, they did not intend to act upon it; they did not intend to rectify any shortfall which the review might reveal.
This Amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to take action to restore the value. If we look at past experience we can see, for example, what has happened to the death grant, which was introduced at £20 in 1949. It has been increased twice and is now £30, but it would have to be at £123 in order to retain its original value. It has been allowed to decline in value over the years. The Amendment would not remedy that position. It would not take account of any past erosion, but it would prevent further deterioration. When I asked an Unstarred Question about the death grant, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, indicated that the Government were going to allow the death grant to fall further in value. This Amendment would prevent that from happening.
In my view, if Parliament decides that benefits at a certain level are necessary, they should be maintained at that level in real terms until a new decision is made. That has not happened in the past. I hope that Parliament will rectify that situation on some other occasion. This Amendment is designed to prevent it from happening in the future; to make sure that these grants retain their present value, and to prevent further erosion. I beg to move.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I do not suppose that at this stage my noble friend will say that he will accept this Amendment. However, I warmly ask him to persuade the Government to keep it very closely in mind. The maternity grant and the death grant are both very much appreciated, in the one case by the mother, and in the other case by the relatives. There is no doubt whatever that the amount of these grants has not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living.
I suppose that at the age of 80 there is a prospect that I might not be concerned with the maternity grant; there is probably a prospect that I shall be concerned with the other one. But I believe that these grants have been of inestimable benefit to large sections of the community, and if the cost of living has increased, and if it

1963
is likely to continue to increase—as it will —it is only fair that these two grants, which are so very valuable to millions of people, should also be increased in keeping with the cost of living.
1.29 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, we had a very full debate—notwithstanding that it was on an Unstarred Question—in your Lordships' House fairly recently, and I do not think I can add anything to what I said then. I would simply remind your Lordships that Clause 12 as set out in the Bill is the clause which was accepted by the other place. Albeit it was put in as an Amendment, nevertheless the wording, as set out in Clause 12, was accepted by the majority in another place. It resulted, as your Lordships know, from an Opposition Amendment at Committee stage. It does not require the Secretary of State to be committed to increasing these grants following any kind of review.
Lord Banks' Amendment makes the position of the Amendment very different from when it left the House. As I understand the situation, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can increase the grants, if he wants to, under the wording of the present clause. I do not want to go over all the arguments we had on 30th January. I raised the question of cost then. I pointed out that there had been a considerable piece of research done not so long ago into the effect on people of the death grant, and there was no evidence at all from the group, which was a real cross-section of the community, that any hardship was experienced at all in general terms. There were one or two cases, but of the number seen they were very small.
We are concerned with the financial implications of the matter, because if we are thinking in terms of from November 1978 to 1979, and uprate them each November thereafter, it would cost about £1 million for 1979–80, rising to about £3·5 million for 1980–81. Having regard to all the things that we have got to do for the aged, and across a very wide front of benefits which are being given to a large section of the community, we have to use every penny we can to meet and keep the particular benefits that we are paying abreast of any rise in prices and, as some of them rise, in earnings.
1964
I do not want to take up your Lordships' time by going over all the ground that we covered on 30th January, but the increases in child benefit taking place last November and the coming April require an extra £500 million; the Christmas bonus over £100 million. We are doing so much, and if a good many, as I said earlier on, of these Amendments before your Lordships today had been accepted, or had succeeded, they would have added quite appreciable sums of money, many millions of pounds, to an already overburdened Department when it comes to meeting resources from its allocation.
I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who is by no means an unreasonable person, to leave the clause as it is, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State can increase the grants if he wants. Let him carry out his responsibility to both Houses of Parliament by exercising the responsibility put on him under Clause 12, and then let him see whether, having done that, anything can be done to meet the spirit of the Amendment before your Lordships.
1.33 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help the Committee. He quoted two figures which rather puzzled me. The cost in the coming year would be about £1 million, and in the following year £3·5 million. Does this imply that the Government think that inflation is going to increase more in the following year than it has been hitherto?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No. I cannot give the age bands, but we know that, taking statistics year by year, there are more deaths in one group of people than in another. We know that another group tend to live a much longer period. The only way by which one can make judgments of this kind, which I admit are not absolutely foolproof but they are not very far off, is by working according to the trends of people who are going to live and how long they are going to live. We know that in the next 10 years there will be an increasing number of people not only living over the age of 75 but, believe it or not, over the age of 85. Therefore, there will be greater strains on our resources for providing for the elderly. In the same way, we can tell from trends the number of people who are likely to die in any one area.

1965
The cost is smaller in 1979–80, because the Amendment would only become operative in November and that would only really cover half a year. I said for that half-year it will be about £1 million; in the full year £3·5 million. That is because to some extent we can gauge the amount of claim there would be on this benefit if it was uprated.
Viscount SIMON: We cannot examine the figures very easily across the Floor of the House, but I must say I was rather surprised at the noble Lord telling us that, because if it is expected that people are going to live longer there will be fewer deaths in the ensuing year will there not?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: This is true, but we have to set that against what would be the possible uprating of the benefit if the benefit was uprated. If it is going to be done in line with prices, which I imagine it would be, then one would have to take into account the possible inflation figure in a year or 18 months' time.
1.38 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question about Clause 12, which the Amendment seeks to alter or add to? The clause itself is a curiosity. I do not blame the Government for this because it was not their clause. It merely provides for the examination of the present levels and, as a result, requires the Government to state what would be required to bring them up in real terms to what they were in the previous year. This is something which I imagine the Government still do; certainly we used to do it when I was associated with the Pensions and National Insurance Department. But this particular clause does not require him to do anything else. The noble Lord says that a Minister can, if he wishes, raise these amounts, either by the disparity between the previous value and the new value, or else presumably by another amount. I am not clear under what powers he can do that.
I take it that what he means is that at an ordinary uprating of National Insurance benefits provision could be made at the same time for uprating these two benefits. Of course, again he can do that anyway. I am not clear what the whole exercise involves. The great
1966
difference between Lord Banks' Amendment and what the noble Lord has been saying is that whereas Clause 12, as it now stands, provides only for a year to year increase, Lord Banks' Amendment would involve going right back to the original. Is this not so?
Viscount SIMON: I do not think so.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Going back a further distance, at any rate, because it says:
"during any year those sums have not retained their value he shall prepare and lay before Parliament the draft of an Order".
He is simply requiring that these two grants should be raised from their present levels to whatever is required from year to year to make up the loss in their value and their real purchasing power.
This is a curious procedure because the real value has already fallen behind so far that it seems almost miniscule to provide for increases from year to year based on the present state of affairs. At a certain stage one would have to decide what the value of this benefit was. Lord Wells-Pestell seemed almost to be saying that these two grants were not of much value anyway nowadays and that the money could be better spent elsewhere—he did not say exactly that, but that was the deduction one would make from his remarks. Yet that is at variance with what is at present in Clause 12, which seems to say that, whatever else happens, we must at least keep this benefit under review to see that its value is retained.
If Lord Wells-Pestell can demonstrate that the Amendment is unnecessary—because the Government have power, if they so wish, to increase the amount in accordance with their re-examination—then I should not have thought there was much point in pressing the Amendment. But if he is saying that the Government will simply tell Parliament what the amount is and leave it to Parliament to clamour for an uprating, he will probably find that from year to year an Amendment will be moved, and the Government would then have to resist it because that would be the effect in the annual uprating. Perhaps the noble Lord would elucidate the point and explain what he meant by saying that the Government would have power to increase the grants. And may we be told how they would do it?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify perhaps my own thinking on the matter. As I understand the situation, the Secretary of State is bound by various provisions in other Acts to consider certain benefits and, if they have not kept pace—some of them with prices; some with earnings—to uprate them accordingly. That does not apply to some benefits, and it does not and has never applied to the maternity and death benefits.
I think we are all agreed that the amounts paid out by way of death and maternity grants are very low; they were fixed a good many years ago and, trusting to memory, I do not believe the death grant has been raised since 1967 or 1968. To bring it up to its present level would be very costly; that is, if it were brought up to its present level from the time it was originally given. However, I understand the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is not asking for that. In his Amendment he is saying that the Secretary of State, when he looks at the death grant and maternity benefit eash year, must uprate them according to what their value was the previous year. I understand, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, is asking for this to be uprated in line with prices as from November 1978.
The clause as drafted puts a responsibility on the Secretary of State to review maternity and death grants at the next review, but it does not put him under an obligation, according to the clause as drafted, to use the power he has to uprate it; he is required to review it. I am saying that, although he is under no obligation, according to the clause, actually to uprate it, if he wants to do so he has the power to do so under Section 124 of the Social Security Act, and therefore he does not need authority here to do it. The authority in this Bill is merely to review, although he could come forward and say he has decided to uprate it in line with prices because of the power he has under Section 124 of that Act. I must not make suggestions as to what may be in Lord Banks' mind. He may feel there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to uprate. However, as things are, all he must do is review and he is under no obligation to uprate. I am merely saying that if he felt he wanted to do so he has the powers so to do.
Lord BANKS: When we discussed the Unstarred Question I was then asking for the whole of the back erosion, as it were—from the time when the grants were first established—to be made up, but, as has been made clear in discussing the Amendment, that is not what I am asking for today. I am simply asking that any future erosion should be made up, and I have chosen wording already contained in the Bill in respect of other matters. Noble Lords will see on page 8, at line 40, that exactly the same phraseology is used in regard to the uprating of income and guaranteed pensions; I have taken that wording and applied it to the death and maternity grants.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said the wording of the clause had been accepted in another place. I have not interfered with the wording of that clause in any way; I have merely added this obligation on the Secretary of State to the wording approved in another place. The noble Lord said the Secretary of State could improve the maternity or death grant if he wished to do so. The complaint is that he has not wished to do so. Indeed, he has not wished to do so, as Lord Wells-Pestell pointed out, since 1967.
Taking the death grant back to the time when it was introduced, it then met 60 per cent. of the cost of an average funeral, whereas it now meets less than 15 per cent. The question is whether it is to go down further. In my view, if the Government wish to abolish these grants they should come before Parliament with a proposition to that effect, rather than allow them to be eroded gradually and steadily over the years, as is happening now.
The Amendment would prevent any further erosion. It would maintain the present level, inadequate though that is in relation to the past value which the grants originally had, and I cannot see that Lord Wells-Pestell has adduced a substantial argument against doing that. The cost of £1 million out of the £10,000 million or so paid out of the National Insurance Fund would be minimal, but it would at least do a minimum of justice for those involved with these two grants. Because of that, I feel I should test the opinion of the Committee on this matter.
1.50 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Foot, L.

McNair, L.

Amherst, E.

Gainford, L.

Meston, L.

Amulree, L.

Grey, E.

Rea, L.

Avebury, L.

Hampton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Barrington, V.

Hayter, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Clancarty, E.

Ilchester, E.

Simon, V.

Feversham, L.

Kimberley, E.

Swaythling, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Leatherland, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Rugby, L.

Brock, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Shackleton, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Melchett, L.

Somers, L.

Craigavon, V.

Merrivale, L.

Stedman, B.

David, B.

Milford, L,

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Stone, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Oram, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pargiter, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Peart, L. (L.Privy Seal.)

Wall, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Henderson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wigg, L.

Jacques, L.

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24: Not-Contents, 43.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Adjustment of secondary Class 1 contributions for exceptions to redundancy provisions]:
2 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 together. The first Amendment is a paving Amendment, and the substance of the matter is contained in Amendment No. 12. The purpose of the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 12 is to enable certain regulations, consequent upon the passing of the Bill, which are made within six months of the Royal Assent, to be exempt from the general requirement to be referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The new clause includes the provision previously in Clause 13(3), but extends the power so as to include regulations made under Section 119 of the principal Act (effect of adjudication
1970
on payment and recovery) in consequence of the amendments to that section contained in Clause 7 and paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Bill. I am sure your Lordships will agree that reference to the Advisory Committee is unnecessary within such a short period following the passing of this Bill through Parliament. That is the ground on which we are moving Amendment No. 12: so as to exempt the general requirement to refer to the National Insurance Committee matters which have been discussed just prior to the passing of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: May I ask the Minister whether the National Insurance Advisory Committee have themselves been consulted; and, if so, whether they acquiesce in or object to their exclusion from a consideration of regulations made under these provisions.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think I am right in saying that they have not been so asked.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Reference of regulations to National Insurance Advisory Committee
(" . Section 139(1) of the principal Act (reference of proposed regulations to the National Insurance Advisory Committee) shall not apply in relation to regulations—

(a) made under section 119 of the principal Act (effect of adjudication on payment and recovery) by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to this Act;

(b) made by virtue of section 13 of this Act; or

(c) made under paragraph 4(a) of Schedule 1 to the principal Act (calculation and adjustment of amounts) in relation to contributions reduced under section 4(7) of thet Act;

and made within 6 months of the passing of this Act.")—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Overlap with benefits under legislation of other member States
(" .—(1) The following subsections are inserted at the end of section 85 of the principal Act (overlapping benefits)—
"(4) Regulations may provide for adjusting benefit payable to or in respect of any person whether there is payable in his case any such benefit as is described in subsection (5) below.
(5) Subsection (4) above applies to any benefit payable under the legislation of any member State other than the United Kingdom which is payable to or in respect of—

(a) the person referred to in that subsection;

(b) that person's wife or husband;

(c) any child or adult dependant of that person; or

(d) the wife or husband of any adult dependant of that person.".

(2) In Part II of Schedule 15 to the principal Act (regulations not requiring prior submission to National Insurance Advisory Committee) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph 12—
"12A. Regulations under section 85(4) of this Act (overlap with benefits under legislation of other member States).".
(3) The following section is inserted in the Child Benefit Act 1975 after section 4—
"Overlap with benefits under legislation of other member States.
4A. Regulations may provide for adjusting child benefit payable in respect of any child in respect of whom any benefit is payable under the legislation of any member State other than the United Kingdom.".")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the new clause is to give the Secretary of State power to restore the effects of certain overlapping benefit provisions of the EEC regulations on social security which, in the context of the Treaty of Rome, may be declared to be invalid by the European Court of Justice. It enables regulations to be made for adjusting benefit payable under the principal Act or the Child Benefit Act in cases where benefit is payable also under the legislation of another member State of the Community.
The origins of this Amendment are somewhat complex to explain, but I do not think I need dwell on them at great length. The object of the Amendment is quite simple. It is designed to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations which would restore the intended effects of certain overlapping benefit provisions in the EEC regulations on social security which, as I said a moment or two ago, may be declared by the European Court of Justice to be improperly included. The EEC regulations in question form part of the free movement provisions of the Treaty. They provide advantages in the social security field to persons who move from one part of the Community to another, such as enabling their insurance or residence in the various member States to be aggregated for benefit purposes and transferring their right to receive benefit from one State to another. But, as one would expect, the regulations also contain provisions which are designed to prevent excessive duplication of benefit where the person acquires title concurrently under the schemes of two or more States.
The European Court has given a succession of judgments which have shown some aspects of those overlapping benefit provisions to be invalid. The court has said, in effect, that although, in the interests of free movement, the EEC regulations may co-ordinate social security provisions to the advantage of persons who move within the Community, they are incompatible with the Treaty in so far as they purport to reduce rights which a person may acquire under the legislation of a member State without the aid of the EEC regulations. So far, the court's ruling affects only a very limited range of cases. But we are advised that the principle is likely to be extended in due

1973
course to other provisions of a similar nature in the regulations, and if this happens the consequences would be more substantial.
The result of these developments could be that a person who changed residence from one member State to another, or who pursued employment successively in them, could in certain circumstances receive two full benefits for the same contingency, or at any rate considerably more than the maximum that he would normally receive from either country. May I give an example?—and I hope it is right. To take child benefit, a husband who is working abroad would be eligible, perhaps, for child benefit in that particular country of the EEC, while the wife would also be entitled to it at home here if she was in this country.
The court has made it clear that, although the provisions in the EEC regulations which were intended to regulate this situation are invalid, there is nothing in the Treaty to preclude the application of similar provisions in member States' national legislation. Some member States already have such provisions, and these may in appropriate circumstances enable them to offset against their own liability in the case the benefit which is being paid from our funds. The power which we are seeking is therefore needed, not only to restore the intended effects of the EEC provisions so far as British benefits are concerned, but also to save us from being placed at a disadvantage in relation to some of our Community partners. The intention is that regulations should be made under the new power as and when developments, or anticipated developments, in judgments of the European Court make it desirable to do so. In the light of these facts, I hope that the Committee will feel that this is an appropriate Amendment, and one to be accepted. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: This field of overlapping benefits is an extremely complicated one. Your Lordships will be aware that we had a debate on this subject on Friday, 19th May, 1978, in which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, replying to an Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said at col. 692:
"Your Lordships may be interested to know that it has been estimated, although I admit that
1974
it is not easy to calculate this precisely, that it would cost something like £2,000 million a year or more to remove all the provisions preventing duplication".
I think that at this hour it would not be for the benefit of the Committee if I were to expand on this matter very much further, but as we read it at the moment we think that the Government's clause would be beneficial, and I have no further comments to make.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Criminal proceedings. 1965 c. 20. 1970 c. 55. 1975 c. 16. 1975 c. 61.
(" . For the purposes of the Criminal Evidence Act 1965 as it applies in relation to proceedings for any offence which is connected with—

(a) the obtaining or receipt of any benefit under the Family Income Supplements Act 1970, the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act 1975, the Child Benefit Act 1975, the principal Act or the Act of 1976; or

(b) the failure to pay any Class 1 or Class 2 contribution (within the meaning of Part I of the principal Act),

"business" shall include the activities of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: This new clause extends the scope of the Criminal Evidence Act 1965 to cover the records of the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Employment relating to claims for the payment of various social security benefits for which the two Departments are responsible. It is intended to allow the more effective prosecution of those engaged in the substantial defrauding of the social security system.
Your Lordships will wish to know that until recently it has been the practice of my Department to prosecute those who defrauded the social security system under our domestic social security legislation, but because the offence lies in making a false statement to obtain benefit the evidence which needs to be adduced is relatively simple and straightforward. But lately for a variety of reasons the Department has been under pressure to prosecute those who commit the more substantial frauds under the Theft Act.
However, prosecution under the Theft Act requires the Department to present full evidence of a chain of events leading from a fraudulent claim to the actual receipt of benefit. This requires, as your Lordships will understand, evidence from a large number of officials who deal with the claim in all its stages. Because of the vast scale of the Department's operations and the turnover of staff, it is often impossible to identify, when a fraud comes to light perhaps many months after the claim, the officials who dealt with the case. Furthermore, even if they can be identified, it is, in general, unreasonable to expect them to recall the events on which they would have to appear and give evidence.
The new clause, therefore, extends those provisions of the Criminal Evidence Act which enable documentary evidence to be presented in such circumstances to include the benefit operations of my Department and also the Department of Employment, and the records relating to benefit claims and the payments of the various benefits for which the two Departments are responsible. This is obviously done with the knowledge and consent of the Department of Employment and I also understand of the Home Office who in the normal way would be responsible for the Criminal Evidence Act 1965. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Financial provisions]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 39, at end insert—
(" ( ) Section 60(1) of the Scotland Act 1978 (modification of enactments authorising payments out of money provided by Parliament etc.) shall have effect as if subsection (1) above were contained in an Act passed before that Act.").
The noble Lord said: This is a technical Amendment connected with the Devolution Acts. I was a little puzzled but I am told that the Devolution Acts are on the Statute Book and they must be taken into account whatever happens. By virtue of Section 6 of the Pension (Increase) Act 1971 the Secretary of State is the pension authority (and hence responsible for paying increases under that Act) for teachers and National Health Services Staff and one or two other
1976
categories of people. Although the matter of making orders increasing official pensions under Section 59 of the Pensions Act is reserved by the entry in Part III of Schedule 10 to the Scotland Act 1978, the responsibility for paying increases will, in a case where the Secretary of State is the pension authority, pass to the Scottish Executive. This being so, the Scotland Act should provide for the increases concerned to be borne by the Scotland Consolidated Fund, and that is the purpose of this Amendment which I commend to your Lordships. I am advised that no Amendment on account of Welsh devolution is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I should like to ask the Minister something about this Amendment. It puzzles me. What happens if, as is perfectly possible, in the referendum the target of 40 per cent. is not obtained and the Scotland Act is, therefore, under the procedure contained in it, subject to annulment under the Resolution procedure? If we put this subsection into the Bill and that happens, will this not be an extraordinary anomaly in the Bill? Will it not be necessary to take it out?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I asked the same question because it seemed strange to me that before the referendum (and before we knew the result of it) we should be concerned with a matter of this kind. I am advised that this is necessary. The Devolution Acts are on the Statute Book. We shall know whether devolution takes place presumably within the next few weeks. If it does not then, again presumably, there will have to be some amendments.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: With respect, should this not have been framed —and I take the noble Lord's point—in some form of words such as, "subject to the continuation of operation of the Scotland Act 1978" or "providing the Scotland Act 1978 is still in effect" or something like that? This provision would stand out like a sore thumb if that Act were annulled.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I take the noble Lord's point. I found it rather surprising, but I am advised this is the way to do it; and I take the advice I am given.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: It is very odd.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Short title, etc.]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("(1) to (3)") and insert ("(3) and (4)").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. They are minor drafting Amendments dealing with commencement. The first Amendment is consequential on the insertion in the Bill at an earlier stage of subsection (2) of Clause 3. The second Amendment will ensure that Clause 10 of the Bill, which deals with the increase in official pensions will come into force on 6th April, 1979 which is the same date as that on which Section 59 of the Pensions Act (which also relates to increases in official pensions) is due to come into operation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 19, leave out ("Section") and insert ("Sections 10 and").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 18, line 46, at end insert—
("SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1973 (c. 38) 2A. In section 68(1) of the Social Security Act 1973 (reference of proposed regulations to the Occupational Pensions Board) for the words from" (other than "to" passing of this Act) "there are substituted the words" (other than regulations made for the purpose only of consolidating other regulations revoked thereby) ".").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I should like to speak to Amendments 18 and 19. These Amendments remove from the Social Security Act 1973 and the Pensions Act those provisions which exempted draft regulations—affecting
1978
occupational pension schemes and made within six months of Royal Assent—from the necessity of being referred to the Occupational Pensions Board. Obviously those provisions have now served their purpose. The Amendments also provide that future draft regulations made only for the purpose of consolidation shall be exempt from the Board's formal scrutiny. The Occupational Pensions Board have been consulted and are content with what is proposed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 20, line 43, at end insert—
("19A. In section 61(2) of the Pensions Act (reference of proposed regulations to the Occupational Pensions Board) for the words from "to be made" to "passing of this Act "there are substituted the words" made for the purpose only of consolidating other regulations revoked thereby ".").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported with Amendments.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES (GENERAL RELIEFS) BILL [H.L.]
ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
MATCHES AND MECHANICAL LIGHTERS DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
TOBACCO PRODUCTS DUTY BILL [H.L.]
EXCISE DUTIES (SURCHARGES OR REBATES) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
2.20 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Customs and Excise Management Act,
Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Act,
Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act,
Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act,
Matches and Mechanical Lighters Duties Act,
Tobacco Products Duty Act,
Excise Duties (Surcharges or Rebates) Act,
Films Act,
Inverclyde District Council Order Confirmation Act,
Solicitors in the Supreme Courts of Scotland (Amendment) Order Confirmation Act,
Tamar Bridge Act.

CIVIL SERVICE INDUSTRIAL ACTION
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Civil Service Industrial Action.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
2.21 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Increase of number of constituencies in Northern Ireland].
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("18 or less than 16" ") and insert ("5 or less than 3.
( ) For rule 2 of the rules in Schedule 2 to the principal Act there shall be substituted—
"2. Every constituency in Great Britain shall return a single member, but every constituency in Northern Ireland shall return not less than 3 or more than 5 members to a total not greater than 18 or less than 16.
3. Each vote in a constituency in Northern Ireland shall be a single transferable vote, that is to say a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voters' order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency, and

(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice—

(i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or

(ii) when, owning to a deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates.".").

The noble Lord said: The Bill increases the Northern Ireland representation in the House of Commons from 12 to between 16 and 18, and the object of the Amendment is to change the voting system by which this increased number of Members will be elected from Northern Ireland. It would replace the first-past-the-post system of voting in Northern Ireland for the election of Members of the House of Commons by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation. If this were done it would mean that the system used for Westminster elections would be the same as that already used for local government in Northern Ireland; it would be the same as that used for the election of the Assembly; the same as that used for the Convention, and the same as is proposed in Northern Ireland for the elections to the European Parliament.
We may well ask: Why was this system of proportional representation introduced for local government, regional and European elections? It was introduced because the first-past-the-post system leaves substantial minorities under-represented and sometimes unrepresented. Of course, the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland is such a minority. The proportion of Protestants to Catholics in Northern

1981
Ireland is roughly that of two to one, yet in the February 1974 election, securing a vote of 51 per cent. the Unionists secured 11 seats out of the 12, and the result in October 1974 was not very much better.
This Bill increases the number of seats, as I have said. It is anticipated that the number will be 17, which is five more seats, and, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, pointed out on Second Reading, all these seats could go to the majority. Surely we do not want that, and surely we do not want as a result of this Bill to compound the grievance which already exists. There would be no opposition to the statement that what is required in Northern Ireland is reconciliation. In order to get reconciliation one of the requisites is fair representation. It is only one element, but it is an important one. It is a necessary first step. It would not by itself solve the problems of Northern Ireland; but so long as there is not fair representation, then the problems of Northern Ireland are likely to be the greater. Certainly during the Second Reading debate the noble Lords, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Hampton, were in no doubt that proportional representation was the answer. The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, said that as the single transferable vote was already in operation in Northern Ireland, that would be the system of proportional representation to pursue.
What are the arguments that are so important that they completely outweigh that Southern argument in favour of fair representation as one of the means of reconciliation? The argument is that, as to the voting system, one cannot regard Northern Ireland separately from the United Kingdom; but Parliament, by introducing proportional representation where it does not exist in the rest of the United Kingdom, has already recognised the special situation existing there. Why is it possible to have proportional representation for Northern Ireland and first-past-the-post for the rest of the United Kingdom when it is a question of elections to Europe to the same Parliament but not for Westminster? Particularly, why should this be so when there is a precedent for the two systems operating together in Westminster elections? That of course is the precedent of the university seats.
1982
When we discussed this matter on Second Reading, I thought that the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, about this was irrelevant. He clearly objected to the universities having had representation, and maybe they ought not to have had it; but the point is that both systems worked perfectly well together, and no one denies that Northern Ireland should be represented at Westminster.
I hope that the Committee will support this Amendment as one contribution to reconciliation in Northern Ireland. It is far from being the only contribution required; nevertheless it is an important one. I beg to move.
2.37 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: I do not think that it can be denied that proportional representation is theoretically the most democratic system for elections. The most democratic of all would be a constituency as large as the area electing Members. I have always been opposed to it in returning Members of the House of Commons, for this reason: that it is very important that Members of Parliament should be in close contact with their constituents, and constituencies with five or six Members would make it almost impossible for a Member of Parliament to have that very close contact. Therefore, as nearest to a democratic system, I have been in favour of single constituencies with the transferable vote.
However, today I think there is a strong case for saying that proportional representation should be applied in Northern Ireland. It has been the system of election in Northern Ireland before. There is the very desirable necessity that in the election of Members for Northern Ireland to the Westminster Parliament there should be the opportunity for the minority. This has always been the crucial issue in Northern Ireland. It has been the case for power-sharing. I suggest that it is not logical to urge power-sharing in Northern Ireland unless you give the minorities the right to representation at the Parliament of Westminster. Therefore I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment.
Lord KILBRACKEN: In rising to support my noble friend in his support for the Amendment, which was so ably

1983
moved from the Liberal Benches, I should like to say first that I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, of the Alliance Party to say that unfortunately he is unable to be present in this Committee today, but that if he had been here he would have given his full support to the Amendment. The Alliance Party represents something like 20 or 25 per cent. of the electorate in Northern Ireland, and if we had to have the majority of the minority community, I think it would be fair to say that over half the electorate in Northern Ireland would be in favour of proportional representation. As has been stated already, in Northern Ireland all other elections are held under this system. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, a precedent exists, in that university seats were returned by proportional representation, and they would see nothing wrong in having one system of election for some seats and another system for other seats.
I have only one final matter to add: that if we are honest we must admit that it will be a very long time before proportional representation exists in this country as a whole, if only because it would be against the interests of both main Parties and it is principally the Liberal Party which would benefit from it. But I must point out that in this case it would certainly be in the interests of the Government to have proportional representation, because, whatever may be said, when it comes to the "nitty-gritty" the Unionists in another place are going to vote with the Conservatives and the SDLP, certainly on important occasions, will vote with the Government. Therefore, although I do not know whether it is politic to mention it or not, it would certainly be to the Government's advantage if this Amendment were accepted.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: However forlorn the hope of changing the first-past-the-post system for these elections, I think that those of us who support the principle of proportional representation should let no opportunity pass of stressing the unrepresentativeness of the present electoral system. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, a system of proportional representation was adopted when the present system excluded a minority which was so militant that it could not be, and has not been, subdued.
1984
When that imperative was behind the change, the Government made it and persuaded Parliament to support it. It looks now as if the Members of the other place and the Government are bent on adhering to the existing system long after its credibility has been assailed. I should have thought that the same reasons for agreeing to proportional representation for other elections in Northern Ireland would have held good for the elections for additional Members under this Bill.
We have heard in the past all the legends about the existing system providing this country with stable and firm government, that we are not as other people are who are content with coalitions and adjustments of political power with a view to getting a representative Government. That we regard as a form of democratic weakness. But recent experiences rather suggest that we are not so sure of getting the same results now from the first-past-the-post system as we are led to believe that we had in the past. It amazes me, for example, that in connection with the Scottish Assembly Referendum Parliament has insisted on a minimum proportion of consent to the change which, if applied to elections to Parliament itself, would throw out a very large number of people in another place. This seems to me to be a form of humbug. I also feel that at the root of it is the desire to preserve the system, with all that flows from it to the advantage of particular individuals and Parties.
If we have any firm conviction about democracy, we should be searching for the greater truth of democracy and not allowing the conventions of the past to hold us in such a grip that we feel there is no case for change. Other countries in Europe with a proportional representation system are politically and economically as successful as we are. The trouble with this country is that we are slow to change. Things that have been done by tradition and in traditional form we want to hang on to. We are going to be left behind by the world of tomorrow in all sorts of ways because we cannot adjust ourselves.
I have been reading over the last few days a book called Roads to Ruin by a writer named E. S. Turner. I got it out to read the history of the well-worn controversy about marriage to a deceased

1985
wife's sister, which arises from the Bill recently introduced by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger. What people said on that matter some years ago is absolutely incredible. Another item in the book is about daylight saving. We have been using this now for half a century: summertime. All manner of things were said about interfering with God's time, when William Willett was advocating the cause of greater happiness, more sunlight and more opportunity for outdoor recreation by using the clock to adjust our habits. One could go back not very far in the history of Parliament and public opinion and see how backward people were in their thoughts about changes which are now fully accepted. One wonders why they were not made long, long ago. I think we are going to have this delay about our electoral system and our Parliamentary system.
We are bewitched by the word "democracy" in this country, though little time is spent on examining the reality of it and the representativeness of our institutions. Why is it that so much pressure is being built up outside Parliament at the present time? The government of Britain today is government by pressure groups: let us be honest about it. Parliament has lost a good deal of its authority because it is not representative. In those circumstances, I think that in this Chamber, where we are not directly affected by the electoral system, we ought to be able to speak as we feel, even though it is unpopular in certain quarters and especially where they have still to undergo elections. I did not look back with pride to my representative capacity as a Member of Parliament for the Sowerby Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire when I realised that more people voted against me than for me at six out of eight elections. That does not give one confidence; and yet we talk about "representing our constituents" and we are so "prissy" about allowing nothing to erode our representative capacity in respect of our constituents—when, if they had their choice, we should not be there at all. Yet we go on introducing the same old system and rejecting the arguments for change. I am glad to have come into your Lordships' House just in time to express myself on this Amendment, which I support.
Lord BELSTEAD: The noble Lord, Lord Banks, who moved this Amendment, and the other noble Lords who have spoken, have done so as though the reasons which persuade them that proportional representation is a generally desirable objective prove that proportional representation should be written into this Bill. I suggest to your Lordships that it is on this point that the argument for this Amendment turns, and I take leave to disagree with the other noble Lords who have spoken. I believe that it is on this point that this Amendment founders.
This Amendment would, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, very fairly said, break totally with the past, and the principle that Members of another place are elected on the same basis, equal in their responsibilities and in their rights, would, to some extent, go by the board. This Amendment would also, in particular, break with the principle which the noble Lord specifically mentioned, and which has been very much valued over the years, in practice, that a Member is returned to Parliament to represent the interests of all his constituents.
Your Lordships who are in favour of the Amendment will say to me that, to some extent, that is what it is all about. We are talking about a different form of electoral procedure in which some things are discarded, but in which there are also future advantages. If such a very considerable step were to be taken, it would be fair to assume, surely, that an attempt had already been made throughout the country and in Northern Ireland to secure the widest measure of agreement possible for this change. No such attempt has been made.
Mr. Speaker's Conference, which was set up to consider the redistribution of constituencies in Northern Ireland, reached almost unanimous agreement as to the extent of the increase desirable, and that conclusion is provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill. But that Conference had no remit whatsoever to make recommendations about the method of voting. I do not know the reason for that. It was at a time—and I do not say this in a "snide" way—when the Lib-Lab Pact existed, and it was therefore, presumably, at a time when members of the Liberal Party could, at least, have given very strong advice to the right honourable

1987
gentleman the Prime Minister to include proportional representation as a term of reference of Mr. Speaker's Conference. But the fact of the matter is that Mr. Speaker's Conference had no remit to make recommendations about the method of voting, and therefore did not do so.
But—so the argument, as I understand it, of the noble Lords proposing this Amendment runs—all this is irrelevant to the political realities in Northern Ireland. Many of your Lordships, including noble Lords who have already spoken, may be reflecting that proportional representation would help to achieve a distribution of seats which corresponded to the total of votes cast, and that this, in particular, would be electorally fair to the minority interests in Northern Ireland. If I may lay my own cards on the table, I have very great sympathy with that point of view, provided that the election is confined to Northern Ireland. That is the reason why the Conservative Party, of which I am a member, in 1972 introduced the single transferable vote method for local government elections, and in 1973 was responsible for introducing STV for the Assembly elections.
But I say, most seriously, that to appear to hive off Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom in General Elections for the nation's Parliament is an entirely different matter. Such a move would be seen in Northern Ireland, so I believe, to call into question the commitment which Governments, of both the Conservative and Labour Parties, have given in legislation on two different occasions since the war, that Northern Ireland shall remain part of the United Kingdom while that remains the wish of the majority of the inhabitants of the Province. Certainly, that would not be the intention of your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, I believe that that would be the effect of this Amendment, and the risk which we should be running in that respect must not be taken without careful preparation, and without as wide a measure of agreement as it is possible to secure. That preparation has not been undertaken, and that agreement has most certainly not been secured.
So what do we do to try to go some way towards meeting the points which have been put very fairly by the noble
1988
Lord, Lord Banks, and the anxieties which he and other noble Lords have very properly voiced about the rights of the minority community in Northern Ireland? The rules for the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 do not include any rule that the Boundary Commission should take account of what will be the political consequences of their redrawing of constituency boundaries. However, the Government may have a view which they would wish to give to the House as to the kind of political spread of the increase in seats, which this Bill is likely to have. I do not know and I wait to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has to say.
But I believe, most certainly, that we must as a House rely on the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission, and Rule 6 of the rules in the 1949 Act, having regard to the special geographical conditions, which are especially relevant to constituencies in Northern Ireland. This rule will enable the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission to take account of the more thinly populated and inaccessible areas, and can prevent the increased number of constituencies from being concentrated only in the more densely-populated areas. To that extent, the redistribution can be as fair as it can possibly be made.
I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me, but I feel that this Amendment is no way to embark upon a step of electoral reform. I repeat that it would be seen in Northern Ireland not as a natural step, but as an indication that your Lordships' House does not stand by the undertakings which Parliament has twice given in the last 25 years. I hope that the noble Lords moving the Amendment will not seek to go so far as to alter the Long Title of the Bill, which is part and parcel of the package comprising this Amendment, and will not therefore be pressing the Amendment.
Lord MONSON: I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in opposing this Amendment. Whatever the arguments in favour of proportional representation, I am bound to say that I am not convinced by them for reasons which I shall not bore the Committee with at this hour. It would surely be quite wrong to have different electoral systems for different

1989
parts of the United Kingdom at the same General Election. It would merely fan the flames of suspicion and resentment within Northern Ireland. Furthermore, I believe that if any Amendments are made in your Lordships' House the Bill itself may well be jeopardised, in view of strong Left-Wing opposition to it in another place. I think that that would be intolerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, believes that coalitions elected by proportional representation make for stability. I wonder whether he has heard of Israel, where a small, ultra-religious Party, which represents very few voters, holds the balance of power in that country and completely calls the tune. Much the same thing happened in Turkey before Mr. Ecevit's recent re-election. So I do not think it can be maintained that proportional representation makes for fairness and stability in all cases.
2.49 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: If I may start by saying a word about something which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said in moving this Amendment, the noble Lord said that all of us wanted to see reconciliation in Northern Ireland, and I am quite sure that every Member of your Lordships' House would entirely agree with that sentiment. But what all the major political Parties in your Lordships' House and another place also agree on is that the need is for reconciliation leading to devolved government in Northern Ireland. As my noble friend Lord Blease said at Second Reading —a sentiment with which I agreed very strongly—the change proposed in this Bill for Northern Ireland's representation in another place is neither a step towards nor away from the agreement which is necessary between the political Parties in Northern Ireland if they are to secure the devolved government which all the political Parties at Westminster would like to see them achieve.
In other words, I think it is wrong to suggest that any changes which are made as a result of the Bill—whether more seats or the method of election—will secure any advancement so far as the agreement of the main Parties in Northern Ireland is concerned over the type of devolved government which Northern
1990
Ireland should have. That is perfectly clear from the remarks which members of the SDLP have made about the Bill and its intentions. They have said on numerous occasions that the Bill is irrelevant to the real problems of Northern Ireland. If that is the case, how can noble Lords suggest that it is relevant in attempts to secure the reconciliation which we all want to see. I simply do not believe that that is the case. What is needed in Northern Ireland is agreement among the political Parties there about an acceptable method of devolved government for Northern Ireland.
We are considering the representation of another place, and it would be worthwhile briefly to remind your Lordships' Committee about the views expressed by another place on this question. At the Second Reading of the Bill, there was a vote on a reasoned Amendment tabled by the Liberal Party calling for the rejection of the Bill because it did not provide for proportional representation. That Amendment was defeated by 355 votes to 27 votes, a majority of 328. So the views of those of another place, who would be directly concerned by the Amendments which we are now considering, were expressed, I think it is fair to say, pretty overwhelmingly.
If I could briefly mention one minor problem about the Amendments—I should like to go back in a moment to some of the technical problems—if these Amendments were approved as they stand, no longer would the Boundary Commission be given any guidance as to whether there should be 16, 17 or 18 Members. As I understand the noble Lord's intention, it would be left entirely up to them. Also it would be for them to decide whether there should be three, four or five constituencies. Again the Boundary Commission would be given no guidance. In fact, there could not be three constituencies because, as I understand it, the maximum number of Members per constituency is set at five, while the minimum total number of Members is set at 16. So there would have to be four or five constituencies. Nevertheless, for reasons which we might discuss in more detail on a later Amendment which my noble friend will be moving, I think that it would be very undesirable for the Boundary Commission to be left with this lack of

1991
guidance on two extremely important points which they would have to consider.
I accept that the Amendments are designed to ensure adequate representation in the other place of the minority community in Northern Ireland. That is something which all noble Lords who have spoken in favour have stressed. However, this assumes, without anybody having explicitly said so in this debate, that the simple majority system will give inadequate representation for the minority community.
Certainly it is true of most electoral systems that the more seats there are at issue the more proportional the result becomes. Certainly that is true of the proportional representation system. But it is also true in some circumstances of the simple majority system. In Northern Ireland, if there were simply three seats at issue, as there are in the European Elections, it is clear that the simple majority system would return three majority representatives. That is why the Government felt that it was right that the proportional representation system should be used in elections to the European Parliament. As we discussed at Second Reading, it is clear that this will be a once-off arrangement because of the introduction of a pan-European system of election to the European Parliament in future Elections.
The position in Northern Ireland, going up from three to 12 seats, is rather better. The October 1974 Election returned two minority representatives, and that number would have been three if the minority vote had not been fatally split in one constituency. If there had been three members elected, as the system allowed for, this would have provided 25 per cent. of the total representatives. With 17 seats, as the Bill now proposes, the proportionality is likely to improve even further. Nobody can accurately predict who will win the 17 seats, because we do not know yet how the Boundary Commission will draw the boundaries, but it is reasonable to guess that perhaps five of the 17 seats will have a majority of non-Unionist voters, which means about 29 per cent. of the total. That is as close to strict proportionality as one can get, given the 35–65 minority-majority split, as there is in Northern Ireland, and with 17 seats to be contested.
Lord KILBRACKEN: Will the noble Lord also take into account the Alliance Party, which is not usually counted among the minority community?
Lord MELCHETT: I am not quite clear in what sense I am meant to be taking the Alliance Party into account. They are an important Party in Northern Ireland, but as I understand it, the argument that has been put forward in the debate is that proportional representation would provide a fairer representation for the minority than the straight first-past-the-post system. What I have been outlining to your Lordships is, in my view, a reasonable assumption about the kind of results which the first-past-the-post system would provide, given the increase in seats which this Bill proposes.
In any constituency—and I mentioned that this happened in one constituency in 1974—it is possible for the vote to be split, with consequences for a Party that would otherwise have secured a majority. It might be split by the Alliance Party. There are a number of nationalist Parties which might split the minority vote. There are a number of Unionist parties which in the past have threatened to do so, and so far as the current publicity regarding the talks or the lack of talks between the unionist Parties in Northern Ireland is concerned, this threatens to split the votes in a number of constituencies in future elections. With respect, it is quite impossible to take into account either the likely effect of the Alliance Party, the nationalist Parties, the Democratic Unionist Party or any other, on these kind of calculations. All I would say to your Lordships is that to suggest that to increase the number of seats to 17 is simply a ruse whereby the Government will ensure that the Unionist voters in Northern Ireland secure extra seats at the expense of the minority is quite misleading. What the Bill proposes is likely to ensure that there is much fairer and more adequate representation of the minority community at Westminister than has been the case in the past.
I said that I would want to return to some technical points about these Amendments. I do so with some reluctance because I know that this is not something which your Lordships' House is particularly fond of Government Ministers setting out,

1993
but there is a more important point underlying it. This was made very cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. The question which your Lordships need to ask is whether this Bill is the right vehicle for introducing a fundamental constitutional change of the type which the Amendments propose.
The fact of the matter is that the Bill is not the right place, and if it is attempted, as these Amendments do, an enormous number of problems on drafting and consequential Amendments immediately arise. For example, the Amendments provide for proportional representation, but they do so in a Schedule to the 1949 Act which is solely concerned with the Boundary Commission's rules of procedure. The place to provide for a new method of election is the Representation of the People Act 1949. In addition, there is no power to make regulations governing the complex count procedures which are needed for PR-STV. The means of determining the electoral quota is completely wrong, with great respect to those who drafted the Amendments. No allowance is made for the effect on how the Northern Ireland Assembly members' constituencies are determined. At the moment, Northern Ireland Assembly members' constituencies are based on Parliamentary constituencies, and themselves become multi-member proportional representation constituencies for elections to an Assembly.
The effect of these Amendments would be to remove, for practical purposes, the possibility of setting up an Assembly elected by proportional representation, something which, as I said in introducing my remarks, all Parties in your Lordships' House and at Westminster are agreed is the main thing that we should all be aiming for, so far as finding some political solution to Northern Ireland's problems are concerned. In other words, as I have said, these Amendments would have to be followed, if they were approved, by the substantial rewriting not only of this Bill but of a number of other important constitutional statutes which affect Northern Ireland in fundamental ways. That reinforces my view that this Bill is simply not the right place to attempt to introduce this sort of change, and I hope your Lordships will agree with that view.
3 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: I always find myself in a very curious position when, during debates in this House, I am sitting on these Benches and listening to the discussion which takes place and I never find that I want to say anything at all, but when I am sitting in the Chair or perhaps on the Woolsack I always find an intolerable urge to intervene, simply, I suppose, because I am unable to do so. But it just happened that my noble friend took my place in the Chair in time for me to make one or two remarks on this Amendment before the noble Lord decides what he intends to do about it.
What seems to me so extraordinary is that the whole of the tenor of the arguments of my noble friend Lord Belstead was that if we were to introduce proportional representation in this particular Bill it would add to the suspicions and the resentments in Northern Ireland and would impede reconciliation between the various parties there. But the noble Lord the Minister said that in fact this is quite irrelevant to the whole problem of reconciliation: that reconciliation would come only if there was devolved government in Northern Ireland.
It really means that this opposition to proportional representation has nothing whatever to do with Northern Ireland. It is the gut reaction of the Parties here in the House of Commons against proportional representation of any sort in any place, except that, because of certain reasons which are historic, it has been introduced for two forms of election in Northern Ireland already. But anything that might contaminate the House of Commons by introducing into their numbers Members of Parliament from any part of the British Isles who were elected by proportional representation is regarded by them as being the thin edge of the wedge and would place the other Members of the House of Commons in a disadvantageous and intolerable position, because those who were elected by proportional representation would be able to say, "We are really representative," and those who were elected by the first-past-the-post system would then have to argue that their position was as strong as those elected by means of proportional representation; and the argument, to any reasonable, sensible person, would of course go against them.

1995
It really is intolerable that we should go on and on with this argument. Let us accept that the House of Commons is not ready, it is not sufficiently educated, it is not sufficiently far-sighted to see the importance of introducing proportional representation in this democratic age. But let us not go over all these old arguments about its being better to be first-past-the-post from a representational point of view and let us not have the argument of the Minister, saying that under the first-past-the-post system in Northern Ireland we shall get a better proportional representation between the various Parties there than we should perhaps under proportional representation. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is quite right: the noble Lord the Minister was thinking entirely of the Catholic minority and the Protestant minority while the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was thinking of the moderate minority on which, on the whole, the future of Northern Ireland probably rests.
I should be sorry if the noble Lord were to withdraw this Amendment. No doubt we shall be having many other arguments about proportional representation in this House in the future. I do not think for one moment that this is not the Bill to put it in, to start a precedent of this sort; I think it is exactly the Bill to introduce a precedent of this sort and I very much hope that the noble Lord will not withdraw his Amendment. I hope that your Lordships will support the Amendment and that the Government and the House of Commons will then have to face some of the realities of political life in this country before it is too late.
Lord MONSON: Before the noble Lord, Lord Alport, sits down, may I ask whether he wants the Bill to be lost? It will surely be lost if it goes back to the House of Commons amended.
Lord ALPORT: It may well be lost but it will come back in the next Parliament, which will start very soon.
Lord BANKS: I do not think I need detain the Committee at any great length, because I think we are all familiar with the arguments on both sides. I should like to say a word about the technical problem which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I have no doubt
1996
at all that in the further stages of this Bill we should have every opportunity to make quite certain that any further Amendments which were necessary as a result of this Amendment today could be made in their proper place in the Bill. I am quite certain, too, that this Bill is the proper place to do it, because it deals with increased representation for Northern Ireland. That is the essence of it and it is the argument which has been put forward by Ministers, that this is a Bill dealing not with a larger number of constituencies but with increased representation. By having increased representation we are in danger of compounding the distortion which already exists in the system, and this surely is the moment to choose to get rid of that distortion so far as we possibly can.
I greatly appreciated the arguments in favour of the Amendment which were put by the noble Lords, Lord Brockway, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Alport. It was the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken who mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, whom I should have mentioned earlier and whose support as a member of the Alliance Party for this Amendment is, of course, an important factor.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead spoke about "hiving off" Northern Ireland by having a different system of elections. I do not think that Northern Ireland has been hived off by being given a different system of voting for the European Elections, although it is for the same Assembly, and I see no reason why Northern Ireland should consider itself to be hived off by having a fairer system of elections for Westminster. The noble Lord said that this would lead to the calling in question of British commitment to Northern Ireland. That seems to me to be a complete non sequitur. I cannot see for a moment why a choice between first-past-the-post and the single transferable vote should be the issue on which Britain's commitment to Northern Ireland's remaining as part of the United Kingdom should hang.
Lord BELSTEAD: May I intervene? I think it is necessary to make clear to the noble Lord what I meant. In the national Parliament we are treating a part of the United Kingdom in a different way from the other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord BANKS: I understood that, but it did not seem to me to be an argument which carried very much force or very much logic, and that was the point that I was making.
Lord BELSTEAD: If I may interrupt the noble Lord again, I do not think it matters very much what force it carries with the noble Lord, Lord Banks: what matters is the effect it has on people in Northern Ireland. This is really the force of the argument that I was trying to make, and it is that that I hope the noble Lord might take to heart.
Lord BANKS: I do understand what the noble Lord is saying, but I find it very difficult to accept that the people of Northern Ireland will judge the atitude of the United Kingdom by whether a system of proportional representation or a system of first-past-the-post is used for elections to Westminster. That is the argument I am putting. I do not feel that the people of Northern Ireland will be moved about that matter in the way the noble Lord feels. Then, again, this question of leaving it to the Boundary Commission to work out the boundaries so that this will, we hope, produce a fair result is, surely, very unsatisfactory indeed; one could not possibly rely on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that this was not going to bring nearer any agreement between the various parties in Northern Ireland, but surely fairer representation must help; fairer representation cannot hinder. It must surely help in some way to improve the atmosphere and the situation. The noble Lord spoke about the Amendment in another place and the fact that that had been quite readily defeated, but there were people in that debate in the other place who felt that they could not vote for that particular Amendment, although they were not

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Ailesbury, M.

Barrington, V.

Halsbury, E.

Airedale, L.

Brockway, L.

Hampton, L.

Alport, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hanworth, V.

Amherst, E.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ampthill, L.

Erroll, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amulree, L.

Foot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Avebury, L.

Gray, L.

Ilchester, E.

opposed to the principle of proportional representation, and were they here today in this House they might well vote for the Amendment we are considering now.
The noble Lord felt that there was a fault in the Amendment because he felt that there could not be three constituencies, I think because 16 is not divisible by three. But, under the system of proportional representation, you do not need the same number of Members in each of the constituencies; it can depend on geographical factors how many members are elected for particular constituencies, so three would be quite possible. The noble Lord said, and I agree with him on this, that 12 Members gives a better representation under first-past-the-post, or a chance of better representation, than three, and 17 more than 12. But if 17 were the perfect number to ensure that one had satisfactory representation under the system of first-past-the-post, why was it felt to be necessary for the Assembly; why was it felt to be necessary for the Convention, which had very much larger numbers of members? Because, of course, it was desirable to see that all shades of opinion were fairly represented and to be certain that that was going to happen. That is why it was introduced there, and that is why I suggest it should be introduced for the elections to Westminister. I believe that this is a very important issue. I believe it is linked with the whole question of reconciliation. I have been regarding it today entirely separately from what might take place in the rest of the United Kingdom. Because I think it is important, I feel that I must press this Amendment.
3.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 72.

Kilbracken, L.

Rea, L.

Sidmouth, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Sligo, M.

McNair, L.

Robbins, L.

Smith, L.

Milford, L

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Soper, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Rochester, L.

Spens, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Rugby, L.

Swaythling, L.

Plant, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vernon, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Wall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Glasgow, E.

Reigate, L.

Auckland, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

St. Just, L.

Avon, E.

Gridley, L.

Sandys, L.

Belstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Birdwood, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hale, L.

Snow, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henderson, L.

Somers, L.

Carrington, L.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.

Cathcart, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Craigavon, V.

Long, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Craigton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Luke, L.

Strathspey, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Melchett, L.

Sudeley, L.

Davidson, V.

Molson. L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Monson, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Denham, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Torphichen, L.

Denington, B.

Newall, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Derwent, W.

Noel-Baker, L.

Trenchard, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ullswater, V.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Ebbisham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Peart, L. (L.Privy Seal.)

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ferrers, E.

Phillips, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Derwent): I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 2 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 3:
3.20 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I do not regard this as being in any way a paving Amendment or a preparatory Amendment for Amendment No. 4 standing in my name. However, I tabled it because it seemed to me that subsection (2) is unnecessary and otiose, and should be omitted. Under subsection (1) we have already amended rule 1 of Schedule 2 to the 1949 Act so that the number of constituencies for Northern Ireland shall be:
"Not greater than 18 or less than 16".
Therefore, I cannot understand—I am sure that the Minister will be able to
2000
enlighten me—why we have to state in subsection (2):
"in discharging their functions under section 2 of the principal Act, the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland shall read rule 1 as if it required the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland to be 17, unless it appears to the Commission that"
it should be 16 or 18. That is precisely what has been achieved by amending rule 1 to:
"Not greater than 18 or less than 16".
In addition, this subsection seems to leave us completely in the air because it says that the Boundary Commission:
"shall read rule 1 as if it required the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland to be 17, unless it appears to the Commission that Northern Ireland should … be divided into 16 or … into 18 constituencies".
If that Commission decides that it should be divided into 16 or 18 constituencies, what does it do then? We are not told. Presumably it then discharges its functions under Section 2 as though Northern Ireland were divided into 16 or, as the case may be, into 18 constituencies. But when it is left to the Boundary Commission to decide the number of constituencies, surely it goes without saying that it

2001
will decide on a number, divide Northern Ireland into those constituencies and discharge its functions accordingly. I do not think that subsection (2) adds anything at all. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend's view of this, although I confess this to be somewhat complicated. In essence, the point is that the Boundary Commission has been told—first, as a result of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, and subsequently as a result of the clauses in this Bill—that there is a target for the number of seats for Northern Ireland at which it should aim, and that that should be 17. That should be the case, both when it first draws up the new constituencies and on any subsequent occasions on which it reviews the constituencies in Northern Ireland. That is why the figure of "17" appears in Clause 1(2).
However, by this Bill, again as a result of recommendations made by the Speaker's Conference, the Boundary Commission is also being given a degree of flexibility: one above or below the target figure of 17. As I explained on Second Reading, that will, for example, allow the Commission to change some of the constituencies. Let us suppose that one constituency suffers a large loss of population and a neighbouring constituency a large gain, but there is not sufficient movement to make it necessary or desirable to redraw all 17 constituencies, with the consequent degree of change and upset that that would involve, and the time it would take. Under these proposals the Boundary Commission will simply be able to give Northern Ireland one extra seat by dividing into two the constituency which has gained a great many people. Obviously there are various permutations of that flexibility which will be available to the Commission.
It is very important that the Boundary Commission should be given a clear target—the target of 17, as the Speaker's Conference recommends—because although it may not be particularly contentious to suggest that as a result of changes in population constituencies should either be divided or changed in some degree, either to reduce or increase the number of seats by one, if the Boundary Commission were instead sitting back
2002
and having to make a decision first of all about whether they should be aiming for 16, 17 or 18 seats for Northern Ireland—in other words if they were not given any target to aim at—that would involve them in taking a politically contentious decision so far as Northern Ireland was concerned and one which, if they were considering it, would certainly bring them under considerable political pressure locally, or at least would run substantial risk of that being the case.
The problem with my noble friend's Amendment is that, although in the first review after the passing of the Act the Boundary Commission would have to recommend 17, and would have absolutely no flexibility in the matter—and that is the effect of my noble friend's Amendment, whether it is intended or not—
Lord KILBRACKEN: That is the next one.
Lord MELCHETT: I was looking at the two Amendments together because I had assumed that they would in fact go together.
Lord KILBRACKEN: Not necessarily.
Lord MELCHETT: Well, in that case, confining myself to the first Amendment, I have probably said all that I want to. It is important that the Boundary Commission, as the Speaker's Conference recommended, should have a target to aim for, and that is what the Bill attempts to do.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. There are two separate things here. There is Amendment No. 2, which covers the whole future and will be affected by changes in population, and so on, whereas in subsection (3) we are talking only about the first report after the Act, which is a different matter. It does not seem to me that by subsection (2) the Government are giving a target. They are saying that the Boundary Commission shall take it as being 17 seats in Northern Ireland unless it appears to them that there should be 16 or 18. That leaves them absolutely free to make it 16 or 18 as they, in their wisdom, may decide. I do not see in what sense it is providing any target in view of the strange wording that has been

2003
used. However, I do not want to prolong this discussion, and I certainly do not feel strongly about it. In fact, as I would read it, it is more or less a drafting Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
3.28 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 20, after (shall") insert ("(a) take the number of constituencies as being 17; and (b)").
The noble Lord said: As I understand it, this is a point of more substance because it considers the number of constituencies into which Northern Ireland should immediately be divided. I quite accept the necessity of having a spread of 16 to 18 for the reason which the Minister of State gave at Second Reading, that there are going to be changes in population. There may be rises or falls, or a redistribution of population. It may be necessary at some future date to have a greater number of seats, or a lesser number of seats. I accept that, and that is why the number of seats is stated to be 16 to 18.
The noble Lord has just told us in fact that 17 is the target number of seats at the present redistribution. If that is the case, then surely it should be stated without any doubt at all in subsection (3), which relates to the framing of the first report after the passing of this Act, that the number of seats should be stated to be 17. The Government have all the facts. They know the number of the electorate; they have all the data. They know the numbers they want, so why cannot the figure go into subsection (3)? For that reason, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Lord MELCHETT: My noble friend is right in saying that the Government, along with others, have the data and much of the information on which the Boundary Commission will be working and can make assumptions about the splits and divisions of population that the Boundary Commission might make at arriving at 17 constituencies. But that, with respect, is quite different from saying that the Government already know what the Boundary Commission will recommend.
2004
We do not; nor, so far as I know, does I anybody else, including the Boundary Commission at this stage because the Bill has not become an Act and the work, if it has started, is not far advanced.
The point of retaining this degree of flexibility, which the Amendment would remove, is that it may be, when the Boundary Commission gets down to its work in detail and on the basis of the new electoral register, which has been in force only a matter of days, that the Boundary Commission may find it is much simpler for some reason or other to divide Northern Ireland into 16 or 18 seats rather than 17. To give my noble friend an entirely hypothetical example—and I have no idea whether or not this is realistic; I stress that to your Lordships—it may be that it will be possible to redistribute the seats in Northern Ireland without changing the boundaries of one or more of the existing seats. As I say, this is totally hypothetical and may be quite unrealistic. But if that were the case and if that could be done only by going to, say, 18 seats or 16, the Boundary Commission might decide that was a sensible thing to do because it would involve less disruption, fewer public inquiries and so on. It is such unforeseeable reasons—that is why it is always difficult to give examples in advance—that the Boundary Commission might come across in the course of its work.
Incidentally, the Government and the Speaker's Conference originally recommended that the Boundary Commission should retain some degree of flexibility although, as I said when speaking to my noble friend's previous Amendment, they should be given the target of 17 quite clearly to aim for. I think it is fair to say that the Government feel it is very unlikely that they would do anything other than recommend 17 seats, unless they came across very good reasons for doing so. It is because there might be those very good reasons, although it is unlikely, that I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment either.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I certainly do not intend to press the Amendment in view of the lack of any support. My noble friend mentioned that we do not know what the Boundary Commission will recommend. Nevertheless, we can circumscribe the powers of the Boundary

2005
Commission in any way we like, as indeed we have done in the rules. Therefore, there is no reason why we should not restrict them to an exact number on this initial occasion, while leaving them a choice at some time in the future. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.34 p.m.
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("any") and insert ("each proposed").
The noble Lord said: It might be convenient to the Committee if I spoke at the same time to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 which are both concerned with the same point; namely, that when the Boundary Commission are considering the circumstances in any given area, they can make certain proposals as to the areas to be covered by the new constituencies. But these are not yet constituencies; the Boundary Commission can only make proposals and they are subject to Parliamentary approval. For that reason I believe subsection 4 (b) should be amended in this way.
Lord MELCHETT: My noble friend has with unfailing accuracy hit on another very complicated and technical point. The first point I wish to make to him is that the Bill is not one which is dealing in an entirely unprecedented way with this type of legislation; it is one of a series, and the wording which my noble friend seeks to change follows previous Bills. I shall come back to this matter in a moment.
Subsection (4) is designed to deal with two specific problems which would otherwise come from the operation of Rule 7 in Schedule 2 to the 1949 Act. There are two problems. Subsection (4)(a) makes it clear that the Commission should divide by 17, not by 12, to find the new electoral quota, because they will be working with 17 seats rather than 12. Subsection (4)(b) ensures that an up-to-date electoral register can be used by the Boundary Commission in their calculations. Subsection (4)(6) therefore changes the base date for selecting the electoral register to be used from February 1976, which it
2006
would be without subsection (4)(6), to the one in force on the passing of the Act —the one that came into effect in the last few days. Other than that, subsection (4) follows the wording of Rule 7 of the 1949 Act as closely as it can, and that wording, particularly the reference to a constituency, has worked perfectly well for the last 30 years, and the Boundary Commission have not been in any doubt as to its meaning. This is a complicated matter, but given that it has worked in existing legislation perfectly well for 30 years, and that the other changes made by subsection (4) are clearly necessary, I hope that my noble friend might think it wise to leave the Bill as it stands.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I am grateful for the explanation given by the Minister of State. I should like to consider it at greater length and leisure. In the meantime, I accept his assurances, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord KILBRACKEN Lord KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 39, leave out ("which") and insert ("that").
The noble Lord said: I hope that your Lordships will not think me pedantic in moving that the word "which" should be left out and the word "that" inserted. The use of "which" and "that" is a grammatical point that is perhaps less widely understood than any other, but I do not intend to give your Lordships a lecture on English grammar because I am perfectly certain that you all know already that in any defining clause "that" is desirable, and in any non-defining clause "which" is responsible. I do not feel that this is a matter that I would wish to press to a Division, but I should be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about it. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: As my noble friend can imagine, this substantial Amendment caused considerable consternation among my advisers, and we have spent a large amount of time looking through previous Acts of Parliament for useful precedents to support both my noble friend and the draftsmen of the Bill. Perhaps it would reassure my noble

2007
friend if I were to tell him that there are precedents for the use of the word "which" in the earlier House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958, the Representation of the People Acts 1948 and 1949, and the Health Services Act 1976. I hope that upon the basis of those substantial and weighty precedents my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord KILBRACKEN: All I can say is that what my noble friend has said only goes to show how very often Parliamentary draftsmen make this mistake, as I have frequently noticed. I have time and again wished to put down an Amendment that either the word "that" should be used instead of "which", or "which" should be used instead of "that"; but it was only today, when I was putting down six Amendments, that I thought I might as well put down another in order to bring up this highly important constitutional matter! But I do not feel that it would be appropriate to send the Bill back to the House of Commons, even if I could get your Lordships' agreement, for the sake of a "which" or a "that". Therefore, although I am right, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

CIVIL SERVICE INDUSTRIAL ACTION
3.42 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the strike action planned by two Civil Service unions for tomorrow. Seven other unions will not be taking action. The two unions concerned, the Civil and Public Services Association and the
2008
Society of Civil and Public Servants, have called on their members not to work tomorrow in support of a pay claim. They have taken this decision in spite of assurances already given to all the unions concerned that the Government will implement a settlement based on a joint evaluation of the evidence submitted by the independent Civil Service Pay Research Unit. This work is now going on. The unions concerned have also been informed that any increases will be staged and that the staging will be the subject of negotiation.
"Moreover, the present pay settlement has not yet expired and will not do so for another five weeks, on 1st April.
"I understand also that tomorrow's action may be followed by an orchestrated campaign of disruption designed to achieve maximum disruption to public business in the forthcoming weeks, arranged to ensure the least loss to the union's members. Rarely can there have been a more unnecessary strike. This action, and any continuing disruption, is wrong both in principle and in practice. It is against the best long-term interests of the Civil Service and is contrary to the guidance recently issued by the TUC to which both these unions are affiliated—which emphasises that strikes are to be used only as a last resort. In no circumstances can the present position on negotiations be interpreted in that way. Those civil servants who go on strike will suffer a loss of pay for the day or days concerned.
"Even at this late stage, I ask the unions to show a proper sense of leadership and responsibility. And I express the Government's thanks in advance to those civil servants who will remain at their posts tomorrow and thus maintain the traditions of service to the public.
"The Government regret any inconvenience that will be caused to the public. Contingency action will be taken as far as possible to mitigate the effects."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for repeating this very important Statement which his right honourable

2009
friend has made—one, indeed, in which the noble Lord himself has played a very considerable part. The fact that day after day we have become accustomed to first one Minister and then another coming to the House to explain that yet another body of people are going to strike should make us reflect on the deep seriousness of the situation: first, that a deep sense of grievance must have arisen all the way around throughout the present Government's tenure of Office; and, secondly, how serious it is that once a sense of frustration is allowed to grow it cannot be removed. That is the measure of the seriousness which is faced all the way round and of which today's Statement is one part.
My Lords, the fact that the noble Lord has told us that the Civil Service, of all people, are to go on strike is a matter of great regret and is wholly contrary to the public image, through public service, which these people have traditionally enjoyed and portrayed. It is a matter of great regret that they claim (as the Statement said) that they intend to conduct the maximum disruption to public business which will ensure the least loss to the union members.
I would ask the noble Lord to tell us, if he can, what parts of the Civil Service are to be so affected. Is Defence to be affected? What about the immigration authorities; are they to be affected? Will computers be affected?—because this could be devastating. And if they are to be affected are they going to be undermanned or are they going to have the plugs pulled out? If the latter, will the noble Lord confirm that that will wipe out the memories of the computers? The noble Lord is shaking his head, so I may assume that that will not happen. If that is so, I shall be glad to know it. Does not this Statement today indicate a breach of the agreement which the noble Lord and his right honourable friend the Prime Minister came to with the unions in the announcement of the concordat? Is this not, in effect, taking strike action while negotiations are still in progress and before the agreement has run out? Is it not therefore a straight contradiction of the agreement announced a week ago?
As two unions are affected and seven unions are not, can the noble Lord give
2010
an assurance that those civil servants who continue to work will not be victimised and that they will be permitted to go to work? And will the noble Lord carry out the words of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister and, with him, lead his people across the picket lines, if that should be necessary?
3.48 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to join in thanking the noble Lord for repeating this Statement and in deploring the action that is planned for tomorrow by the two unions involved—and all the more because, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said, that action is to be taken before the existing agreement on the pay of those concerned expires on April 1st. We support the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also in what he said about this being in breach of the joint statement which has just been issued by the Government and the TUC, and we offer the Government support in any action they may take to safeguard essential services in this area.
My Lords, I have two questions to ask the noble Lord, neither of which will occasion him any surprise. Does not the action that is now planned highlight the need for means to be agreed between the political Parties on how we can together ensure the general observance of negotiating procedures under which work would be continued throughout the period prior to the expiry of existing agreements and strike action used only as an instrument of last resort? Secondly, does not what is now in contemplation also show the need in the longer term for the pay of civil servants to be determined not in isolation as at present by the Civil Service Pay Research Unit, but by a single, independent and permanently constituted body which would deal with the pay of people employed in a number of key occupations which are vital to the support of life or, as in this case, it may be to the essential operations and even the security of the State itself?
3.50 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, became partisan in this matter. I do not complain when politicians behave like politicians, of course. But when he talks about a

2011
sense of frustration, I cannot understand this because most of the Civil Servants are not going on strike. This is only two unions and I believe they should be deplored because we have not properly started negotiations. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for the Liberal Party. It is a breach of the agreement which the Government and the TUC have made. I remember being cross-examined on this not so long ago in this House. It is a breach of the agreement and we regret it. I hope that this Statement made by the Prime Minister will be listened to very carefully and that civil servants will respond.
It has been said that we should think in terms of longer term arrangements; but we did reactivate the pay research unit. They wanted this. I have a responsibility in this matter, being responsible for the Civil Service Department, and I think it is a good system; but the system has to be allowed to work. Moreover, the trade unions are represented on that unit, so I see no sense in this strike. I hope, without wishing to score Party points, that noble Lords will condemn it.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to answer the questions that I specifically asked him, such as, are the computers to be affected, and what about Immigration and Customs?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not want to be drawn too much on this issue because obviously we have contingency planning. In a dispute of this kind I must be careful. There are certain sectors of the work in the Civil Service which are difficult from the point of view of interruptions, and I recognise that. However, I cannot reveal contingency planning.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether strike action by these unions extends to spheres other than direct employment by Government Departments? For example, a good many members of these unions work for the Civil Aviation Authority. Are these people involved in the strike or not? Secondly, while I fully understand his unwillingness to disclose contingency plans, can he at least reassure people proposing to travel tomorrow that the airports will be open and operating?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that I can give that assurance, yes. It is true that some of the civil servants are employed in different parts. Anyhow, only two unions are involved, as I stated: the Civil and Public Services Association—which I admit is a large union with a membership of about a quarter of a million—and also the Society of Civil and Public Servants, which has a membership of over 100,000. We believe, especially when we are now busily preparing the information for negotiation, that this is an unnecessary strike, and it really is deplorable.

RATES AMENDMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1979
3.55 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT rose Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order extends relief from rates in two main areas as a result of the recommendations made by the Lawrence Committee. That committee was appointed in September 1976 to look at the rate liability of bodies providing facilities for sport, recreation and community activities in Northern Ireland. In addition, Articles 5 and 6 of the order extend to Northern Ireland the rate relief provided for disabled people in Great Britain by the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978.
Article 3 increases the level of rate relief available to facilities used for sport and recreation from 35 per cent. to 65 per cent., but restricts this relief to the parts of the premises actually used for sport and recreation. A detailed list of the sports covered by this relief will be drawn up in consultation with representatives of local authorities and the Northern Ireland Sports Council. Article 4 provides for partial exemption from rates for premises occupied by voluntary bodies which are used for recreational and charitable purposes. This will allow the occupiers of suitable halls now outside the scope of rate exemption to reduce their rates bill by allowing their premises to be used for community purposes. Articles 5 and 6 remove the burden of rates from special domestic facilities needed by a disabled person living in the property, and provide

2013
rate exemption to organisations providing welfare facilities for the disabled.
I have no doubt that this order will be widely welcomed by the whole community in Northern Ireland, and particularly by those involved in voluntary and charitable work, and by disabled people. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th February, be approved. —(Lord Melchett.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the information he has just given to us, and especially as he has been working very hard for the last hour or so on a Bill concerning the boundaries of Northern Ireland. Now he is once again back on the Front Bench, working. We on these Benches agree that this order will certainly be very helpful to the disabled and will also be beneficial to certain bodies and organisations providing recreational and sporting facilities, both indoor and outdoor, in Northern Ireland.
The existing law of Northern Ireland restricts rate relief to property classified in the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 as
"playing fields or fields used for certain specified kinds of recreations"—
almost exclusively, if I may say so, by the look of the order, of the indoor variety. Also, the Department of Finance, which in Northern Ireland is the rating authority, has, as I understand it, no discretion to grant or withhold relief, or to vary its amount. It is obliged to apply relief at a fixed level of 35 per cent. on playing fields and premises designated under the 1972 order. Therefore I believe that this new order, as it increases the percentage from 35 to 65 per cent., as the noble Lord has said, goes a long way towards being very helpful to the recreation authorities.
It will also, I believe, allow premises used for community purposes to qualify for relief in proportion to the amount of time during which the premises are used for charitable purposes. I think these changes were recommended by a committee known as the Lawrence Committee, which did so much work in order to
2014
bring about these changes. That committee was set up quite a long time ago in 1976 and its report was given to Parliament in 1978. Two of its recommendations concern sport and recreation and also the disabled. That, in itself, as I have already said, is a great help to the bodies concerned.
I do not think that the order will put Northern Ireland exactly on a par with Great Britain so far as rate relief goes for sporting or recreation facilities. I am wondering whether the noble Lord would confirm that we still have not brought Northern Ireland into line with those facilities of Great Britain. Great Britain has elected local institutions, which are subject only to very general statutory conditions, and they are permitted to grant or refuse rate relief as they think fit. But in Northern Ireland the duties of levying and collecting rates have since 1973 been in the hands of the Local Government Department, responsible only to the House of Commons. This appears to be a weak point and shows a lack of effective democratic scrutiny of regional administration in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to comment on that point.
We on these Benches are very pleased to see the order and agree with what is in it, but I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord one or two questions. Though this order was received in Northern Ireland without any controversy, it appears that the sporting authorities there were slightly unhappy with the rating of clubs. If I have not given the noble Lord enough time, perhaps he can reply later. For example, rating relief is calculated on only part of a club, such as a committee room or a room used for the raising of funds, and the rest of the club may not get relief. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give his attention to that point, because the sporting authorities are slightly worried about it.
Also the Department of Finance already has power to grant relief on property used for cultural as opposed to community activites, and the Lawrence Committee felt that there was no need for any change. However, the Committee formed the opinion that the existing provision for rate relief was not generally known to people in Northern Ireland. Therefore,

2015
I should like to ask whether the Government are doing anything about this and spreading the word around, so that people in Northern Ireland can get this relief. Having said that, and also having given the noble Lord a little more work to do, may I say from these Benches that we are quite happy with what has been put into this order.
4.3 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may reply to the noble Viscount's point about the scrutiny of local government functions in Northern Ireland it is of course the fact that since the abolition of Stormont there has been a gap between the functions exercised by local authorities in Northern Ireland and the Westminster Parliament. That is why the noble Viscount's Party and the Government both agree that we wish to see a devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland exercising real powers and real functions, that is acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland, and to Parliament in Westminster. And it may be that the fixing of rates, and other matters connected with rates, is something which would come under the scrutiny of such a devolved legislature. Members of another place may have an opportunity to debate the question of rates in the near future.
But as the noble Viscount knows, this order is concerned with exemptions which are made and which are fixed. As he himself pointed out, the Lawrence Committee sat for a long time—because this is quite a complicated area—and made recommendations which, by and large, were accepted by the Government and are implemented in the order. The noble Viscount mentioned the question of not allowing rate relief for portions of premises which are not used for recreational purposes. That is the case, as I mentioned very briefly in my opening remarks and it might be helpful if I expanded on that a little. The exemptions are designed to ensure that those premises which are used most for sporting purposes, and least for fund-raising, get the maximum.
In other words, if a club consisted simply of playing facilities and changing rooms, it would get full exemption from the rates, because all the premises would be used for recreational purposes, and things connected with them, such as
2016
changing rooms. If, on the other hand, a club is 99 per cent. a lounge bar and disco, with one squash court tacked on at the end, then it will get very little rate relief. Its ability to raise money for itself will be very considerable. I know, from personal observation of the accounts and from visiting a number of sporting clubs in Northern Ireland, that many of these clubs are in an extremely healthy financial position because of the profits that they make from the sale of alcohol.
I do not think that it would be right or, indeed, expected by many of these clubs, if not all of them, that they should receive substantial additional finance from the public purse through rate relief, given the substantial profits that they are making by the sale of alcohol. Although the noble Lord has been told that there are some sporting organisations which are not entirely happy about this, on the whole I think that it is fair to say that the representatives of the sporting organisations in Northern Ireland are reasonably happy. Obviously, everybody would like rather more than they are being offered, but the way that this has been done is recognised as being fair and sensible, taking into account the ability—or the lack of ability—of clubs to raise funds for themselves.
The noble Lord also asked me about the extent to which we are publicising the availability of rate relief. I think that the noble Lord has hit on a real problem, particularly for smaller groups and community organisations. Most sporting clubs would be aware of the relief available, either through the governing body of their sport, or through publicity given by the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, or through their regular contacts with the Department of Education's Sports Branch about capital grants for sporting provision and about the help and relief that is available. But there is a problem, as I say, in the case of smaller organisations.
When the Lawrence Committee was sitting, I encouraged community organisations—whose representatives have regular meetings with me—to give evidence to that committee. Once this order becomes law in Northern Ireland, I shall certainly encourage them to have a look at the provisions and I shall encourage those who are eligible to claim relief. If I may, I will draw what the noble Lord has said

2017
to the attention of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland who, I am sure, will also do all that they can to encourage sporting organisations to claim the reliefs that are available.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.8 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 1 [Protected wild creatures to be known as endangered wild creatures]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, after ("In") insert ("sections 1, 3, 6, 8, 10 and 11 of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2, for both are drafting Amendments. They specify in the earliest possible place in the Bill the particular section of the principal Act in which references to an "endangered" wild creature are substituted for references to a "protected" wild creature. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, leave out from second ("Act") to ("there") in line 9 and insert ("and in the definition of "authorised person" in section 15(1) of that Act for the word "protected", wherever it occurs,").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is contingent upon Amendment No. 22 and the third part of the new clause which I am asking your Lordships to insert after Clause 7. Subsection (3) of Amendment No. 22 contains a minor drafting Amendment which is intended to ensure that the word "wild" in
2018
Section 10(d) of the principal Act does not qualify the word "plant". The point is that "plant" is defined in Section 15(1) of the principal Act as meaning:
"… subject to subsection (2) of this section, any plant growing wild on any land".
I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("or pupae of any such") and insert ("pupae or other immature stages of any such wild").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee—and here I must express my gratitude to my noble friends Lord Cranbrook and Lord Craigton—we got very briefly into a discussion about zoological stages from egg to adulthood, and this Amendment is intended to satisfy all points of view. I am advised that it is thought unnecessary to mention the word "nymphs" as such since they are now adequately covered by the general words "taking account of other immature stages". To mention nymphs as such would be confusing because in fact there are other stages in adult development, such as the "in-star" stage in the development of a caterpillar which would also have to be mentioned. Therefore I hope your Lordships will agree that the words in the Amendment are preferable. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) For Schedule 1 to the principal Act there shall be substituted the following Schedule:—

("SCHEDULE 1 ENDANGERED WILD CREATURES

Area where restrictions apply

Common name

Scientific name

Greater Horse-shoe Bat

Rhinolophus ferrumequinum

Mouse-eared Bat

Myotis myotis

Common Otter

Lutra lutra

England and Wales".").

Sand Lizard

Lacerta agilis

Smooth Snake

Coronella austriaca

Natterjack Toad

Bufo calamita

Large Blue Butterfly

Maculinea arion

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving Amendment for the second part of Amendment No. 23. In one of my discussions with the Department which the noble Baroness represents I was invited to move for the revocation of the Otters Order 1977 and I am advised that the only way this can be done in the Bill is to print the Schedule in the earliest possible place in the Bill, as it should appear. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Vulnerable wild creatures]:
4.12 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 3, transpose subsection (1) to end of line 36 on page 3.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. It is a much neater way of setting out the words in this clause. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10:
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("or marking") line
Page 3,17, leave out ("or marked") line
Page 3,19, leave out ("or marking").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 and the consequential Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 30 and 34. At the last stage of the Bill I gave an undertaking to the noble Baroness that I would seek further advice on the desirability of any authorised person being able to mark a vulnerable wild creature. I have now taken this advice from the Nature Conservancy Council, which of course is the competent authority under this Bill, and I am told by them that there are many vulnerable creatures which would be damaged by marking if the marking was done by inexperienced persons, which of course is the danger if this marking is left to "authorised persons". Therefore I hope your Lordships will agree with this Amendment. The licensing provisions here are already covered by Section 8(1)(d), as amended in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will put Amendments Nos. 8, 9, and 10 en bloc.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I should just like to say that everybody concerned with the conservation of wild creatures will be glad to see the last of that word "marking".
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In section 1(1) of the principal Act for the words "his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing" there shall be substituted the words "no other course of action was open to him to prevent".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I have given notice to the Table that I wish to move a manuscript Amendment to my Amendment: it is the addition of the word "reasonable". I wanted to add the words "no other course of action was open to him to prevent" and I now want the Amendment to read "no other reasonable course of action was open to him to prevent". What I say here also applies to consequential Amendment No. 26.
This is a fairly narrow but nevertheless important point. As the Bill is now worded, a person is not guilty of an offence "if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing …" et cetera. I want to say that no other "reasonable" course was open to him. Put very simply, under the Bill as it stands the farmer can say, "The otter was taking my poultry and I killed it". If my Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, the farmer has to explain why he did not call in an expert, or even what steps he took to strengthen the chicken-run. It is a small point. It is going to give a little protection, and I hope it will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In section 1(1) of the principal Act for the words "his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing" there shall be substituted the words "no other reasonable course of action was open to him to prevent".")—(Lord Craigton.)
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, may I say that so far as the Government are

2021
concerned we were not happy with the Amendment as it originally stood, but we are happier now that we have the word "reasonable" added by the Manuscript Amendment.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I am still a little unclear about this Amendment. It would have seemed to me that if the action was necessary it was also necessarily reasonable. But having made that comment, I do not object to the Amendment as moved by the noble Lord.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, if I may comment on this, it is very rarely that I find anything the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, says, not absolutely clear, but I am inclined to agree on this occasion with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. If action is taken which is necessary, then I do not think one has to bring in all sorts of other qualifying words. While the use of these qualifying words—if my noble friend Lady Stedman will forgive me—is always very acceptable to a Government department, because they produce a degree of uncertainty which is highly desirable, it seems to me that the original statement in the Bill is perfectly clear. I would not have thought it necessary to bring in a word such as "reasonable". If one is dealing with law one assumes that actions are reasonable. If one has to qualify every statement by saying that the action must be reasonable, it seems to me that all it does is to say that at any moment someone in the Department may come along and say, "We do not think it reasonable". In whose mind is the reason? I would have thought it much better to leave out a word like "reasonable".
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, if I can come to the help of my noble friend, we did look at this and we decided that as the Amendment was originally submitted it meant that a defendant in court had to satisfy the court that as an authorised person he killed or attempted to kill or took a wild creature and that no other action was possible to prevent that creature from damaging crops or property. If the Amendment had remained like that, I would have had to advise the House that it would be safer to reject it. The Amendment which the noble Lord has
2022
now put in— "no other reasonable course of action" —means that whereas under the original Amendment the court could have required the defendant to take quite unreasonable measures, and certainly might very well have led the defendant into considerable expense, the Amendment now changed, to "no other reasonable course of action", we think more acceptable. I hope my noble friend will not press his objection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with my previous Amendment, No. 8. However, it would probably be helpful to your Lordships if I said this Amendment seeks to omit subsection (4) of Clause 2.
Whereas at one time it was thought that marking a vulnerable wild creature would not be likely to cause harm, the point here is that, the view, as I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council, is that there is a danger to vulnerable wild creatures by marking them. As I said previously, the matter ought to be dealt with by licensing. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 27, after ("sections") insert ("3").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 27, after ("10") insert ("and")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a pure drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 16:

2023
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("or pupae") and insert ("pupae or other immature stages").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke in effect to this Amendment when we were dealing with exactly the same situation as regards the definition of "endangered wild creature". The Amendment is paralleled in the Schedule by Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Disturbance of certain wild creatures]:
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords I should point out that, if Amendment No. 17 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 18. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for having pronounced his name incorrectly hitherto.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 42, leave out from ("which") to end of line 5 on page 4 and insert ("an endangered or vulnerable wild creature uses for shelter or protection; or
(b) wilfully disturbs any such creature while it is occupying any structure or place which it uses for that purpose,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker. We now reach an Amendment of substance. It is of substance in two respects. First, it substitutes for the reference to a structure or place which is used for shelter or protection a reference to, a structure or place which a wild creature uses—in other words, it is in the present tense—for shelter and protection. In the passive tense, the words "is used" imply a casual connection with the relevant structure or place, whereas the active tense indicates that the structure or place has to be in current active use.
Secondly, the Amendment omits the qualifying words "being a mammal" which again was a point that I promised to look at after the Committee stage. It thus extends the scope of the offence in the new Section 1A to cover all endangered and vulnerable wild creatures. Therefore, the Amendment overtakes, and goes further than, the proposal of my noble friend Lord Craigton in the next Amendment to insert a reference to amphibians and reptiles. I hope that he will agree with that proposal. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Forfeitures]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 5, at beginning insert—
("( ) In section 11(1) of the principal Act for the words "£200" there shall be substituted the words "£500".
(1A) ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment to cover the increase of the penalty in the principal Act from £200 to £500 which we agreed in Committee. It is a neater place in the Bill to put it rather than Clause 6, which I am asking your Lordships permission to remove in Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I said during the Committee stage that we had persuaded the Home Office, subject to the sending of a satisfactory explanation, that it was right and proper for us to increase the amount of the fine. We have now sent that explanation to the Home Office and I understand that it has been accepted. Therefore there are no problems.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, I apologise for intervening as regards this matter, as I did shortly during the Committee stage. As I understood it, the reasoning behind the increase of the penalty as given then was that first, there should be a deterrent, and secondly there should not be an element of profit available to an offender. In the course of that discussion it was mentioned that indeed a sale might take place—although one did not want to force up the price—at a price of roughly £600. I ventured then to ask whether consideration could be given, bearing in mind that this is a maximum penalty and that all factors in mitigation could be taken into account by the court, to the convenient figure of £1,000. May I know whether that was considered in the communication with the Home Office and generally and whether it is still the decision that £500 is appropriate?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, perhaps I may read the relevant passage of

2025
the explanation to the Home Office. We told them:
"An otter can be valued at well over £600 (1976 figure) and whilst it is true that the animals/ skins may be confiscated by a court it is quite possible that they may by then already be out of the vendors possession; magistrates court costs would add very little to the penalty. In the circumstances it would be inappropriate for magistrates to be unable to levy a level of fine which would act as very little deterrent to a determined ' rogue ' who is not even gentleman enough to be offended by the opprobrium of conviction. As regards limiting the fine to otters, two points arise—in the first place some other rare specimens may fetch equally high prices (e.g. the emerald green moth which is about to be added to the schedule) and there is the possibility that others may be added which could have equally high values. We are convinced that the level of fine must allow magistrates a reasonable chance to prevent a felon from making a profit from deliberately undertaking illegal activities in this field.
"In the circumstances you agreed, provided the level of fine was consistent with your new scales and I am grateful for your assistance.".
This is the level of fine which is consistent with the magistrate's new scales and the £1,000 would have taken it rather out of the run of all the other offences that are subject to the same sort of fine.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, with respect, I shall obviously not persist in this, but does the noble Baroness agree that in the explanation she gave she was covering my point by reasoning, but not covering my point in the result? Quite obviously, it is still the possibility that a profit could be made; that the rogue of whom she spoke could, therefore, receive, as a maximum penalty, less than the profit he might obtain from his roguery. In all the circumstances, whether or not this is consistent with other fines imposed in other sections in other Acts, does she not think it is appropriate that there should be a maximum fine of £1,000?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, no. Speaking personally and with the advice of my Department, which looked into this matter, we think that the level at which it has now been fixed is the proper one at this point in time. Obviously, if there are some changes in future in other legislation which alter the range of fines on all kinds of things, this also is one of the offences that will have to be taken into consideration then, and, if necessary, the level of fine altered.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to put a suggestion to the noble Lord. Is it not possible that when it is forbidden to sell something, one would not get the full market price? It is rather like a burglar selling his goods; he will receive only a proportion of the value, because at the end of the day the man who buys those goods cannot put them in his shop window because it is forbidden to sell them there. Although technically an otter could fetch more than £600, it will be a very, very clever man who manages to get anything like that figure if he just catches one and tries to "flog" it where he can.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, perhaps this is an appropriate time for me to sum up this Amendment. The issues have been discussed very fully this afternoon and they were also discussed very fully at the Committee stage of the Bill. I would only add that there will certainly be magistrates' fines in one form or another and legal costs to be added to the fines which are imposed by the magistrates' court. Therefore, I do not think that £500 is an unreasonably low sum in this respect.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 15, after ("In") insert ("consequence of subsection (1A) above in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, again, is a pure drafting Amendment. It is to make sure that the second subsection of Clause 5 follows in consequence of the first subsection. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Penalties]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 21:
Leave out Clause 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when I spoke on my previous Amendment, No. 19. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Minor amendments of the principal Act
".—(1) In section 2(2) of the principal Act for the words from "and any reference" onwards there shall be substituted the words "and any reference to a dead creature shall be construed as including a reference to any part of, or anything derived from, such a creature".
(2) In section 9 of the principal Act immediately before the words "name and address", in the first place where they occur, there shall be inserted the word "full".
(3) In section 10(d) of the principal Act immediately before the word "plant" there shall be inserted the word "any ".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this in part on my previous Amendment, No. 3. The new clause is divided into three parts. The first, subsection (1), is paralleled by Amendment No. 33, and is again meant to meet Lord Craigton's point about the need to insert a reference to parts or derivatives in Section 2(2) of the principal Act. My noble friend's Amendment would have substituted the words "skeletons, parts or derivatives" for the existing words "or skeletons". It would seem to me that skeletons are already parts, and I hope that perhaps he will agree to this simplified form of wording.
The second subsection is paralleled by Amendment No. 35 and inserts the word "full" in Section 9 of the principal Act, to make good an inconsistency between what an authorised person or constable may require a person to give by way of his name and address, and the offence which is also in this Act of refusing to give his full name and address. I have already spoken to subsection (3), which is consequential on Amendment No. 4 to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Short title, etc.]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) The enactments mentioned in Schedule (Enactments repealed) to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule and the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants (Otters) Order 1977 is hereby revoked.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment inserts a new subsection to provide for a Schedule of repeals to have effect and also, as I said before, to revoke the Otters Order 1977. This last is unnecessary since the common otter has now been included in the revised Schedule 1 which has been entered into the Bill by Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 6, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 32.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment omits from the main Schedule to the Bill the references to the Criminal Law Act which are now unnecessary because of the revision of the fine to £500 in place of £200, which it would have been had the Criminal Law Act affected this particular range of fines, and also the Otter Order 1977, to which I have already referred many times. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 8, insert the following new schedule—

("SCHEDULE
ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Chapter

Short title

Extent of repeal

1975 c. 48.

The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975.

In section 10(d) the words "or restored". Section 14(2). In section 15(1) the definition of "protected wild creature ".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the substantive part and the summing up of all repeals in the principal Act made by the Bill. It is thus drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule [The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 as Amended]:
4.33 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 26:

2029
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("that") to ("serious") in line 19 and insert ("no other course of action was open to him to prevent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the addition of the word "reasonable", I beg to move. This was discussed with a previous Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("that") to ("serious") in line 19 and insert ("no other reasonable course of action was open to him to prevent")
—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29 and 30:
Page 7, line 23, leave out ("or marking")
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("or marked")
Page 7, line 26, after ("released") insert "uninjured")
Page 7, line 27, leave out ("or marking")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 27 to 30 en bloc. They are all consequential on the new necessity of having a licence to mark vulnerable wild creatures. In passing, I should say that Amendment No. 29, which is also covered by this general point, is to correct an omission in preparing the parallel Amendment at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
4.35 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 31 is accepted, No. 32 cannot be moved.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 and insert ("an endangered or vulnerable wild creature uses for shelter or protection; or
(b) wilfully disturbs any such creature while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the parallel of Amendment No. 17 to which noble Lords agreed in preference to Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 36:
Page 8, line 2, leave out from second ("and") to end of line 4 and insert ("and any reference to a dead creature shall be construed as including a reference to any part of, or anything derived from, such a creature.")
Page 8, line 6, after ("endangered") insert ("or vulnerable")
Page 10, line 23, after ("his") insert ("full")
Page 12, line 26, leave out ("or pupae") and insert ("pupae or other immature stages").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are all consequential on previous Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 13, line 16, leave out ("or pupae") and insert ("pupae or other immature stages").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is contiguous on Amendment No. 16; it parallels it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, before we leave the Bill, I wish from the Government Benches to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and welcome the improvements he has made yet again at this stage to the Bill. We hope now that we shall have a very early Third Reading, after the Nature Conservancy Council have had their next meeting. We hope they will give their blessing to the Bill, and then we can go full steam ahead.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but I should point out that without the help of herself and the officials of her Department, doing all this would have been quite impossible for me.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX BILL
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless

2031
any noble Lord objects, I beg to move on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Boston of Faversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LONDON AIRPORTS: DEVELOPMENT
4.38 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER rose Lord BOYD-CARPENTER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the present and projected developments at the London Airports will be adequate to deal efficiently with traffic in the mid and late 1980s; and in particular whether they are now prepared to arrange with the British Airports Authority for the construction of the second runway at Gatwick, further terminal buildings at Heathrow, and better facilities at Stansted.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking this Question I wish to express my deep gratitude to those noble Lords who have put their names down to take part in this debate. Although it may seem invidious to say so, I take special pleasure from the fact that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has so put down his name. When, as chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, I was involved in work leading up to the Government Blue Book, I worked very closely with him in his capacity of chairman of the Standing Group of South Eastern Planning Authorities; and, but for his skilful management of that highly variegated and sometimes opinionated team, it would have been impossible to present to the Government of the day a considered view representing both aviation and planning. Therefore, when we come to discuss the London airports it is particularly appropriate that my noble friend should be taking part.
I think I should also disclose three rather variegated possible interests. First, as some noble Lords may know, I am chairman of a company that makes cement, and as a certain amount of building will be suggested in the course of my remarks I should disclose that we make cement and that any sensible user of that commodity will have no difficulty in deciding where to select it. Secondly, as Minister I was involved both in the decision to develop Gatwick Airport and in the opening of the central buildings at Heathrow. Thirdly, I am involved as a member of the council of Trust Houses Forte Limited, the biggest holiday and travel organisation in the world. I hope that that multifarious disclosure of possible interest will not disqualify me in the minds of your Lordships from offering a few observations on this subject, because it is at least possible that the possibilities of bias which derive from it may, at any rate in some measure, be offset by a certain familiarity with some aspects of the topic.
The substance of my Question, as I hope is clear from its terms on the Order Paper, is that I am very concerned by the slow progress now being made in the development of the airports which serve the Metropolis, as against all the indications that are building up of increasingly heavy traffics in the 1980s. It may seem strange to be raising this matter with a Government whose life may be—in Sir Harold Wilson's immortal phrase—measured in weeks, not months, but the matter is urgent, and there is said to be a considerable moral value in death-bed repentances.
Part of the trouble about decisions on airport development is that they are so long term. When they are taken they are unpopular. They involve Governments in conflict with private interests, with environmental interests and with landowners, and if they are not taken in time it is not the existing Government who suffer but perhaps two Governments later—that is when the chickens come home to roost. It is just because it is such a long-term operation that there is perhaps a peculiar temptation to Governments—which I beg this Government to resist—to defer possibly unpopular action which can only have its beneficial effect and attract its credit many years ahead.
Having been involved in the business, I accept that the forecasting of the demand for airport use is a terribly tricky operation. It is rather like weather forecasting; it is reasonably easy to forecast what is to happen, but when it is to happen and the speed at which it is to happen is the difficulty of the problem.
I can only offer a thought by way of guidance. This is an area in which the penalty for forecasting too low a figure is in due course very serious indeed. It is perfectly true that if one forecasts more than the traffic turns out to be one undertakes nugatory expenditure. Perhaps a classical example is the beautiful airport at Rhoose near Cardiff—an airport which has every attraction, except traffics. I suggest that that is perhaps an error on the safe side, because the consequence of under-providing, particularly in the case of metropolitan airports, can be very serious indeed. After all, it is a fact—and I think that the noble Lord on the Government Bench will confirm it—that tourism today is overall our largest earner of foreign exchange. If there are not good facilities for airports for the capital, that enormously important national interest will suffer. The airlines themselves are very big earners of foreign exchange, and big contributors to the United Kingdom balance of payments.
The problem is that if we fail to make adequate provision in, particularly, the metropolitan airports, to which my Question refers, then we are simply going to lose very valuable business in both tourism and aviation. It is no use kidding ourselves that if the London Airports become over-congested most of the international air services will terminate at the other British airports. All experience points the other way. If they cannot get into London, they will go into Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt; and, indeed, we have already had a lesson in connection with Frankfurt, which has gained the newspaper traffic to North America simply because the business-minded Germans keep the airport open at hours at which newspapers have to be despatched to the United States, whereas the curfews which our own Department of Trade have imposed on Heathrow and Gatwick have lost us that traffic, and have lost it to British aviation. So there
2034
is a warning there. The first point I want to make to the noble Lord who is to reply therefore is that, whereas no one but a fool would claim to be able to give a completely confident assessment of the traffics even in the middle 1980s, never mind beyond that, this is an area of such economic and industrial importance to this country that, if there is to be an error, then the error ought to be on the side of over-provision rather than under-provision.
Again I stress the London context, even though I know that the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, feels, as he said the other day, that if people cannot get to London they will go to another British airport, perhaps one to be constructed at Severnside. I do not think experience supports that. A very large proportion of travellers to this country on international routes want to go to London. The same applies to an even larger proportion of them on domestic routes. And, of those who do not want to go to London, a considerable further proportion want what is called the interline; that is, to leave (shall we say?) an aircraft from North America at an airport in this country where they can pick up another one to Oslo, Moscow, Belgrade or wherever it may be, and therefore they want to go to the big metropolitan airports where interlining is possible. It is an easy temptation to all of us to try to get away from these very expensive problems by saying, "Let us build airports elsewhere"; but, apart from the fact that I do not believe, in the face of the resistances that there are in this country, we shall see a new green field site for an airport developed in this century, it is really a great mistake to seek to provide an airport at a place people do not want to go to, because you cannot in fact compel them to use it, and they will go to your foreign rivals.
The decisions are difficult, as I say, because they have to be taken well ahead; but I very much believe that present plans are falling behind any reasonable assessment of the demands of the future. I am not, I hasten to say, casting any aspersions at all on the Government's blue book, Airports Policy (Cmnd. 7054), which was laid before Parliament about a year ago. I am hardly in a position so to do because a body with which I was

2035
concerned was responsible for a good deal of its contents. But; the point I want to make is that, of course, the work leading up to that document was done mainly in 1976 and 1977, and could not help being influenced by the depression in the international aviation world which existed at that time. Since that time—indeed, not only since the work was done in 1976 and 1977, but since the blue book was laid in 1978—the situation has changed.
I know that one can argue that there are factors like Iran which could be said to be factors militating against further increases in traffic. But I think that the most significant element in this can be detected in the ebullient figure of Sir Frederick Laker. His popularisation, through the Skytrain concept, of cheap fares, and the repercussions from that which have shaken the old stranglehold of the IATA arrangements, shaken them to breaking point, is contributing to a very substantial increase in passenger movements even at a time of some economic difficulty.
I call in aid in that connection not only Sir Frederick Laker but I think it right at this stage to pay a tribute to the former Secretary of State for Trade, Mr. Edmund Dell; because when the Court of Appeal made its decision in the famous case of Laker v.the Department of Trade, Mr. Dell promptly accepted the decision of the court and used his very considerable ability to see to it that Sir Frederick and his airline were given full opportunity to exploit the opportunities that the courts had said were owing to them. It would be wrong, particularly now that Mr. Dell has resigned from the Government, that his; part in this build-up should be forgotten and I am happy to pay tribute to a man with whom I worked happily for some time a little while ago.
However, my Lords, there is further evidence of what is happening. I have seen in the last 48 hours a paper by Professor Secore Browne, who noble Lords may remember was the highly efficient chairman for some years of the American Civil Aviation Bureau and who is now an aviation consultant. He demonstrates that 1978 turned out to be a year of far greater expansion in international aviation than anyone had anticipated, and that this s continuing. Therefore, I must ask the Government to look
2036
very hard at proposals and timings which, arguably, may have been justifiable a year ago but which all the evidence is now suggesting are not adequate.
Let us look at the situation. Let us take Heathrow, first. Those of your Lordships who use that airport regularly, as most noble Lords do, and particularly in the summer, realise that there is already congestion at the terminals up to and sometimes beyond the limits of human endurance. When there is a delay, as there can always be in aviation, that congestion becomes appalling. It has reached a stage when I am afraid it is already damaging to the economic interests of this country, to our tourist travel to London as the aviation centre of the world. Perhaps not all noble Lords are aware that Heathrow has more international air movements than any other airport in the world. This is a very significant thing.
What is happening there? The British Airports Authority have put forward a proposal for a fourth terminal—urgently necessary and needed some time ago. I think that the Government were very much at fault in insisting on a public inquiry into this, which has dragged on as public inquiries do, despite the fact that everybody knows—including the noble Lord who sits on the Treasury Bench-that whatever the inspector finds, that fourth terminal must be built and when it is built it will be already late and overcrowded. Nothing has been done about a fifth terminal which could be built on the Perry Oaks site but which needs to be planned now because the Perry Oak site and its use involves moving a sewerage works. There are few things less popular in the planning world—as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford will agree—than the moving of a sewerage works to somebody else's neighbourhood. An airport is comparatively agreeable.
Here we have the London situation where the shortage is not of runways but of terminals. It is serious, increasingly serious, and there is not a sign that there will be actual additional facilities there for two or three years—and only then if the Government really act urgently. Then there is Gatwick. I have already inflicted on your Lordships on more than one occasion, so that I shall do so briefly now, my view that it is an extraordinary

2037
mistake to seek to develop Gatwick, as it is being most expensively developed, on the basis of it being a single-runway airport. No airport in the world dealing with traffic such as is contemplated for Gatwick is, or is planned to be, operated on a single-runway basis.
It so happens that this morning—whether there is any connection with your Lordships' debate this evening it would be indelicate to speculate—there appears in the Press (I am quoting from the Financial Times) a statement by the British Airports Authority that they are proposing, though apparently with some unwillingness, to convert the taxi-way which runs parallel with the Gatwick runway and widen it over 2,500 metres of its length, so that in an emergency it could be used as an alternative runway.
It is indicated—and this does not surprise me—that this is related to the reaction of the foreign airlines whom the Department of Trade are trying to persude to come to Gatwick. When the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry (who has asked me to say how sorry she is not to be able, owing to a previous engagement, to take part in this debate) raised the question of the compulsions being imposed upon a number of foreign airlines to go to Gatwick, it came out that one of the reasons—and there are several —for their reluctance was that they did not want to be directed to an airport where one minor accident could immobilise the whole set-up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, when she dealt with the question the other day, said that there had been such incidents in both December and January, when the breaking of a nose wheel on a modest-sized aircraft caused all aircraft trying to land at that airport to be diverted elsewhere, and all aircraft seeking to take off having to wait. That was in December and January when traffic was low. What will be the situation on a summer weekend when Heathrow is already full to capacity and unable to take any diversions? What will be the case if, as sometimes happens, weather conditions take Heathrow out and unavailable, and Gatwick has to be used? This could be a very serious situation indeed.
In some measure I hope the British Airports Authority's suggestion—which I
2038
gather, to my alarm, according to their statement is likely to be the subject matter of yet another planning inquiry by the Department of the Environment—would deal at some cost with that emergency situation; but, with respect, it would not deal with the major problem of how to operate an airport carrying, as is planned by the Government, up to 25 million passengers in the course of a year on a single runway.
We can easily delude ourselves by saying: "You average that out through the year; it is not all that much. "But aircraft movements and passengers do not average themselves out throughout the year and one gets far, far more of them—as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, knows from his practical experiences—on a summer weekend than in midweek in midwinter. They do not average out. An airport, if it is to be efficient, has not to be equipped to deal with demand averaged out throughout the year; it has to be able to deal with peak demands in difficult circumstances, perhaps with the weather going wrong, and perhaps with accidents happening. This is the alarm.
I was particularly struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said in reply to a question in this House on 7th December at column 268 of Hansard. The noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, said:
"My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government are satisfied that the single runway operated at Gatwick is going to be sufficient to cope with this enormously increased volume of traffic?"
The noble Baroness said this, which I think is significant:
"Yes, my Lords, until the mid-1980s".
Those ministerial words were no doubt used with some caution, and if the implication is—and it seems to be quite clear—that beyond the mid-1980s it will not be sufficient, it is becoming increasingly urgent that the Government should take action to secure this second runway. This is made all the more necessary by the statement in this morning's Press by the chairman of the British Airports Authority that there is no space available now for a second runway at Gatwick. I think, with great respect, that Mr. Payne is misinformed because even within the area of the airport I have a plan here which shows two possible lines for the runway which I can show to the Minister. But even if he is right in this respect, this is an area

2039
which has much open country around it and in a matter of such importance as this further land should be acquired if necessary.
When I raised this question the other day, my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery said that if the Government adopted this proposal it would produce an unplanned environmental catastrophe. My noble friend was not right to say "unplanned", because a second runway at Gatwick—and I speak as the Minister responsible for the Gatwick proposal—was in the original plans for the mid-1950s. So whatever the second runway is, it is not unplanned. Secondly, why is it an environmental catastrophe? A second runway will probably marginally increase the amount of use of the airport, yes; but the main effect will simply be to operate aircraft on two runways instead of one. From the environmental point of view, that may actually have advantages. Noble Lords may be aware of what is done at Heathrow where, when weather conditions permit, alternative runways are used for landing and take-off so as to spread the environmental and noise trouble more fairly as between different areas which are affected by one runway rather than the other. A second runway at Gatwick could be used for that purpose and so, with great respect to my noble friend, I would say that that comment does not seem to me to be wholly justified. The British Airports Authority are spending a great deal on buildings at Gatwick. I am delighted to see that; I hope they will continue with it and that they will be supported by the Government. But I hope also that they will match that with adequate runway facilities.
Then there remains Stansted. The Government of my noble friend Lord Home many years ago decided that Stansted should be the third London airport. It has a magnificent runway. The bad ground communications with London that used to affect it are now disappearing with completion of the M.11 motorway, and there is an enormous amount to be said for developing facilities at Stansted. It would be a particularly good airport to take over more and more of the holiday charter traffic, where interlining is of hardly any significance—less significance than with scheduled traffic. I should like to see work now
2040
being done at Stansted to deal with that traffic because, with the rates for holiday traffic now being quoted, once economic recovery comes in this country—and history teaches us that under some Government or other it always does come sooner or later—the public appetite for holidays in the sun reached by aircraft will become enormous and whoever is in Government at that time will have a very serious problem to cope with if people cannot get away on their holidays because no convenient airport is available.
I have put only tentative suggestions about the three airports to the Government. They are tentative suggestions and they are ones upon which I agree views may very well differ; but the central point on which I hope the House will feel there is no room for difference is that the matter is becoming increasingly urgent. We will never make up the lost time in respect of these airports if we go on losing that time. We shall see a gradual, perhaps almost imperceptible, shift of traffic and tourism away from London to our European friends. We shall see our civil aviation industry earning a good deal less than it could and less than the skill and devotion of those who run it would enable it to do.
I do not need to remind your Lordships of the problems that surround our economy, but here is an area in which we are doing well, in which we can do well, and it would be a tragedy indeed if it were to be strangled because of lack of pre-vision by the Government of the logistical bases on which these tourist and aviation industries depend. So I hope very much that, when the noble Lord comes to reply—and I know he will reply in his usual charming and agreeable style—he will give an indication that a wave of dynamism has come into the Government in this respect; that they are really going to get on with the job, not necessarily of doing what, in my amateur way, I have suggested should be do le, but of doing what they think right to improve the facilities of our airports, and therefore securing, at least in this sector of the economy, that we have a real future and a real success. I shall close by giving this Government a motto from one of my favourite hymns:
"Oh, happy band of pilgrims,
Look upward to the skies
Where such a light affliction
Shall win so great a prize".
5.6 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I cannot, I am afraid, equal the quotations of my noble friend, but, like him, I ought to begin by declaring an interest, because I, too, have a job in the industry and spend a lot of my time, when not in your Lordships' House, working at Gatwick. So I am thus directly concerned with the decisions taken relating to that airport, and indeed to the others. The House will be grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. We have indeed discussed the topic in general terms earlier, but he has, in his usual style, focused our minds on the immediate problems with considerable effect, and I think that we ought to be grateful to him for that. I am not so sure, though, about the Government's position in the matter. I recall speeches from the Government dispatch Box by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and now tonight we have the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and, like my noble friend, I am looking forward to the wave of dynamism, as he put it, that is to come across the Floor of the House and strike us all sitting here on this Opposition Bench.
Hitherto, the Government have told us—certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said this quite recently from the Government Dispatch Box—that there was no runway problem, anyway, until the middle of the 1990s. I think that the Government may well have changed their view on that. I do not wish to quote them unjustly, but my understanding is that the Government now think that there will be a runway shortage—and I use that word advisedly—before the time that they originally anticipated.
The question of terminal shortage is, of course, more imminent. As my noble friend has said, an inquiry is presently proceeding into the prospect of a fourth terminal at Heathrow, and undoubtedly, whatever the inspector may report, that terminal will have to be built in the very near future. There are plans for a second terminal at Gatwick, but that, too, will no doubt be the subject of an inquiry and, certainly, that cannot exist until a long time after the fourth terminal at Heathrow. It is true, therefore, that new airport capacity—and I use that word advisedly, as well—will be needed
2042
very soon, because it seems that we cannot necessarily get both runway and terminal capacity matched to provide the total capacity that we need at the right time.
The Government are assuming, in figures that they have published, that, for example, Gatwick will be able to handle 16 million passengers using the present single terminal, and up to 25 million passengers using two terminals, as and when that second terminal is built. Their figures also assume, I think, that there will be at least a fourth terminal at Heathrow, and perhaps a fifth. We are also told that modest expansion must be expected at Stansted.
The principal defect in the Government's argument is the capacity of Gatwick. I do not believe that with the present single runway it will be possible to carry 16 million passengers a year through Gatwick with one terminal, or 25 million passengers with two. As my noble friend explained, the prospects for growth are, for the most part, confined to what can be carried in the summer, because there is no growth in the market in the wintertime. It is the summer when people want to go on their holidays, and that is when the growth must be accommodated. The fact of the matter is that Gatwick is already very congested during the summer months. I simply refuse to believe the figures put forward by the British Airports Authority: that they can perhaps double the total carryings during the year to reach the 16 million figure that they are forecasting and take that growth only in the summer.
If I were asked to put a figure on it—and I confess that this is something of a "guesstimate"—I would say that Gat-wick's maximum capacity with a single terminal is 10 million, not 16 million. The figure of passengers moving through Gatwick in 1978 was, I think, 8 million and, as I have said, at times during the summer the airport was approaching saturation.
On the vexed question of a second runway at Gatwick, I very much doubt whether it can really be justified in terms of cost benefit. Almost everyone involved in the problem has turned his face against it so far. I was interested to hear what my noble friend said about the recent thoughts of the British Airports Authority

2043
regarding the use of the taxiway as an emergency runway. Even if a second runway were to be built—and I do not deny that it would be possible—it would increase the theoretical capacity of the airport, in terms of aircraft movements, by only 10 per cent., because I am advised that it is not possible to construct the new runway sufficiently far from the existing runway to enable it to be used to the full extent.
In fact, the two parallel runways at Heathrow are not so far apart as they might be, and that is why Heathrow has imposed a limit on the number of movements that can be accommodated. Certainly that limit is restricted by the proximity of the two runways. Thus, if a second runway were to be built at Gatwick, we would not provide a significant solution to the problem.
However, I see no prospect at all of achieving the forecast figures for Gatwick without the construction of a second runway. The British Airports Authority claim that they can carry these passengers with the single existing runway but, as I have said, I do not really believe that to be the case.
I am forced to conclude, therefore, that the money which could be spent on a second runway at Gatwick might be better spent elsewhere. My noble friend has referred to possible developments at Stansted, and I think that he is right. There are many fewer geographical problems over the terrain around Stansted. Access has recently been improved with the completion of a major length of the M.11 motorway, and there is already a considerable infrastructure, to use the modern jargon, around the airport in terms of housing for employees and all the other facilities that are required but which are not directly related to the airport itself.
It might be, therefore, that a second runway at Stansted would result in a better use of our scarce resources than a second runway at Gatwick. Without wishing to claim any detailed technical knowledge of the matter, because I cannot pretend deeply to have studied it, I feel sure that a second runway at Stansted would provide better use of the resources that we have than a second runway at Gatwick. But whether or not we have
2044
a second runway at Stansted, I certainly think that there is some scope for development there, even within the existing boundaries.
Indeed, the Government have already foreseen some development there and I think are at present forecasting an increase in the passenger carryings at Stansted to (if my memory serves me) 4 million passengers a year or thereabouts. Clearly to make any significant difference to the problem throughout the whole of the South-East airports Stansted will certainly have to carry many more passengers. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has suggested, I believe that the scope for expansion at Stansted must be in terms of charter operations which have already, to an almost complete extent, been excluded from Heathrow and may in future have to be at least restricted at Gatwick. As for Heathrow itself, my noble friend has described very fairly the position with regard to the fourth terminal, but, like him, I wonder what is going to happen to the sewage farm if they decide to build a fifth terminal on that site.
In the meantime, while we are considering these weighty problems, I am firmly convinced that better use of Heathrow could be achieved by a more equitable distribution of flights between the three existing terminals. For the moment there is no acute runway problem at Heathrow except for comparatively short peak hours in the mornings, but there are a number of what I might call complementary peaks and troughs at Terminals 1 and 3, for example. At times when Terminal 1 is very congested Terminal 3 is less so and vice versa. I hope that the Government will see whether they cannot bring some influence to bear on the British Airports Authority, and indeed British Airways, to achieve a better use of the existing, most expensive facilities at Heathrow.
I noted that my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has put his name down to speak this evening, and undoubtedly therefore we shall hear something about Severnside airport. Without wishing to dismiss that project out of hand I am somewhat sceptical about the likely success of that proposal. For a start the cost is clearly going to be astronomic, but I accept that that would apply wherever a new airport was built. The details that I have heard of the rail link, which is such an essential

2045
feature of the proposal, lead me to wonder whether British Rail are really going to be able to operate a train at 250 or 300 miles an hour—or whatever the speed was—having regard to their current success with trains at about 50 miles an hour. But assuming that that difficulty can be overcome, as perhaps it may be in the future, I am still worried about the difficulties of providing all the other facilities around the airport in addition to the aviation facilities that are required within the boundaries. I am also worried as to whether the airport proposed on Severnside can be constructed within the timescale that my noble friend so rightly described.
We certainly have some major problems just around the corner. I do not claim to have any cut and dried solution, but the Government, with all the machinery of office at their disposal, can and must prepare their plans and make their decisions. Whatever improvements can be made at existing airports, a new one will be required sooner or later and we are entitled to see the Government plan now, or at least to know their idea of the likely timing. Whatever may be the political uncertainties of the next few months, while the Government remain in office they have a clear duty to bring forward timely and well considered proposals. So far I am afraid we see no sign of it but perhaps tonight the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will be able to shed a little light for us.
5.20 p.m.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, I have no interest to declare other than that I am a pensioner of British Airways. In his Unstarred Question—for which I am grateful, because it gives us an opportunity to discuss this challenging question once again—the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asks the Government whether they are satisfied with the planning to date, up to the middle 80s or late 80s. The Government White Paper makes an estimate of passenger traffic growth up to 1990. But that is only 11 years away. We all know, as the noble Lord has already said, how long it takes to get airport developments off the ground and they can be delayed by such things as public inquiries. So I wonder whether it would not be wise now to consider planning for a much longer term, at least
2046
up to the end of the century—say, A.D. 2000. If I heard him aright, I think the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, had sympathy with this idea, which makes me wonder whether, during his distinguished chairmanship of the British Airports Authority, he had opportunity or occasion to promote it.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, if the noble Lord would allow me, I would not wish to sail under false colours. I never had any connection with the British Airports Authority. I had the good fortune to be chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, which is, of course, as the noble Lord will appreciate, a totally different body.
Earl AMHERST: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I was misinformed, or rather my paper is wrong. But I think my comment still holds. The White Paper estimates that in 1990 the London passenger traffic will increase to somewhere between 66 and 67 million; that is in rough figures. Is the Government's view that this indicates a saturation peak, or is some Department trying to crystal-gaze further, in which case should not we in planning try to crystal-gaze further, also.
London is to have three airports, according to the White Paper, all of international standards. These are to be Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Luton, it seems, is not to be so developed, so presumably the British Airports Authority will not purchase Luton Airport from the Luton Borough Council. I wonder whether the noble Lord can confirm this. A couple of weeks or so ago in a supplementary question by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in what seemed to be perhaps a rather light-hearted vein, he asked whether the Maplin chickens were not coming home to roost. I do not know whether that still is a moot question, but you never know.
As we all know, Heathrow is and has been for some time bursting at the seams. To relieve immediate pressures there are two major plans afoot. One is the building of a fourth terminal on the South side of the perimeter, and the second is the transfer of certain airlines and their traffic from Heathrow to Gatwick, and presumably later to Stansted. The building of the fourth terminal on

2047
the South side has been referred to a public inquiry, and I am told that we shall not know the results of this inquiry until next April. So I feel somewhat inhibited in trying to pursue that matter further tonight, save to say that I still urge, as I did last year, that the Authority should consider a long-term view and develop the Perry Oak site, despite its cost and delay and the removal of that wretched sewage farm, rather than pursue this South side site, where so far as I can tell the only advantages are that it is cheaper and can be done quickly. I am told that the customers—that is, the airlines—have rather grudgingly said, Yes, to this scheme on the basis that they think this is better than nothing, but they would much rather see development of the Perry Oak scheme on a long-term basis even though they would have to wait longer for it.
We discussed the transfers to Gatwick on 24th January, and if my memory serves there was considerable argument and objection to the transfer of Iberian, TAP, and Air Canada almost immediately to Gatwick. I understand that the matter has now been put back into the melting pot. In his reply, will the noble Lord answer a few questions of which I have given him notice? He has been kind and good enough to write to me in some detail on these questions and I am most grateful to him. However, I must still ask them so that my questions and his replies will be on the record.
First, do the Government intend to proceed with such a scheme, and, if so, how will the selection of the airlines to be moved be determined? Is it to be based on the safety requirements of the Air Traffic Control, so that the flight paths of aircraft coming to and going from the London area from the North and the East will not interfere with those coming from the South and the West. Or will it be based on the importance of the destinations overseas and their particular traffics, or perhaps a mixture of both? Will the transfers become mandatory or subject to negotiations between all the interested parties, possibly through the medium of a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Airport Policy?
Reverting to Heathrow, I understand there is, and has been for some time, growing irritation and exasperation at
2048
the delays experienced by passengers arriving at No. 3 Terminal in retrieving their baggage; indeed, so much so that I have been told that an increasing number of transatlantic passengers who used to stop off on their way to destinations in Europe for a day or so in London are now overflying and going to other places like Amsterdam, so as to avoid these delays. I am told that the bottleneck is the shortage of carousels in Terminal No. 3. The provision of carousels, is, of course, an Airport Authority's responsibility. What happens is that the baggage loaders have to wait until a carousel has been cleared of a previous flight's baggage until they can start loading another lot of baggage on to the baggage belts. They sometimes have to wait a long time before so doing.
Another source of extreme irritation and frustration, again in No. 3 Terminal, is that the immigration desks for foreigners are seldom, if ever, fully manned, and sometimes only half-manned. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made succinct reference to that during our debate on 24th January. The net result, of course, is that queues build up, temper;; become frayed and there is considerable delay. That is very bad for our national image and especially for those foreigners arriving early in the morning after a long, tiring night flight and possibly making their first visit to Britain. I am told that the Home Office, which is responsible, pays little or no attention to requests for more immigration officers. Can the noble Lord impress upon his appropriate colleague the necessity of inducing the Home Office to be at least a little more co-operative?
We had a considerable discussion on Gatwick on 24th January. So apart from saying that we agree very m ach with what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, and with a good deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said, I do not want to say any more than I said on that occasion. As regards Stansted, I understand that sufficient territory belongs to the airport to allow for more runway facilities, if that is what is wanted, but that the airport will require,;o bring it up to international scratch, considerable terminal and ancillary facilities.
As regards public access, as had already been said, the new motorway, the M.11, when it is completed will pass within

2049
two miles of the perimeter and presumably there will be a link with the terminal areas. But, the Southern end of the motorway ends somewhere East of Woodford. Therefore, should one want to reach central London or the West End one would have a long and tedious road journey through Woodford, Epping Forest, Seven Sisters and Caledonian Road to reach even King's Cross; or one could go round the North Circular Road and come into London via Finchley and Hampstead. Either way it would take considerably longer than it would take to reach either Heathrow or Gatwick.
There is a rail connection at the moment between Liverpool Street and Bishop's Stortford, which is some four miles from the airport. But at the moment there is no public transport available, so presumably it is a question of taking a taxi. The train frequency is one an hour on weekdays and one every two hours on Sundays. The fast trains take 35 minutes; the slow trains 55 minutes. There is a station at Stansted, but to reach it one has to change at Bishop's Stortford and take a local train. The Airports Authority's brochure, entitled Airport Information, says:
"Do not book to Stansted as airport connections are difficult".
Unless an air link—possibly by helicopter—is set up, quick or efficient interlining between Stansted and the other two airports would seem to be a difficult if not an impossible problem. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will tell us something of the plans of the Airports Authority and, indeed, of British Rail to improve the access facilities at Stansted.
I have the impression that high on the list of facilities for their passengers, airlines require quick and efficient access to and from airports, both by motorway and by rail. At the moment with its rail connection, which British Rail plans greatly to improve this year, Gatwick seems to be leading the field. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us when the adjacent M.3 will be extended to go into South London, and the M.25, which now ends at the top of Reigate Hill, will be extended to reach the M.4, passing quite close to the Perry Oaks site?
In the planning for the future I would urge the Government in their turn to urge
2050
the British Airports Authority to think long-term and to think big; and not to plump for short-term ad hoc patchings-up to meet this or that crisis, which may be cheaper but which ends by being too little too late. I should like to remind the Government, and through them the Airports Authority, of the proverb: "Where there is a will, there is a way", with the rider that the will must be genuine.
5.32 p.m.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I am afraid that owing to the rather unexpected lateness of the commencement of this debate I may have to leave before the end and therefore, strictly speaking, I should not take part. I have made my apologies to the Minister and I hope that my apology will also be accepted by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and by your Lordships as a whole; I impute no discourtesy. I have no interest to declare. I rise partly in order to support my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in his plea for a wave of dynamism in the matter which we are discussing. There is no doubt whatever that urgency is lacking, and is greatly required if the airport situation near London is not—as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, has just said—to burst at its seams, an expression that has come readily to the forefront of the minds of a great many people by this time, for I believe that that is more or less what is happening.
I should like to refer to one or two remarks in the speech of my noble friend. The first struck a certain amount of dismay into my heart. I do not know whether he meant to make quite so damning an accusation of the Government as he intended, but I take a certain pleasure in, for once, supporting the Government. My noble friend said that whatever the inspector in charge of the fourth terminal inquiry at Heathrow might say, the fourth terminal will be built anyway. The fact is that at that inquiry every local planning authority, and certainly every amenity group, which gave evidence was unanimously against the building of the fourth terminal. The inspector doubtless will report that, but what else he may say I do not know. What my noble friend's statement that I have just quoted (I hope correctly) amounts to is that the Govern-

2051
ment in fact have set up this inquiry as a pure whitewash exercise, and have not the slightest intention of taking any notice of it at the end.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, as my noble friend referred to me perhaps he would allow me to say that I think he has slightly misunderstood the emphasis of what I said. For the avoidance of doubt perhaps he would allow me to correct him. What I said was that, whatever the result of the inquiry, the terminal would have to be built because it is a sheer necessity. I criticised the Government, on a rather different basis from the one he is suggesting. I did, for setting up the inquiry, which they were under no legal necessity to do. And in the circumstances I should have thought they have probably wasted the time not only of a perfectly competent inspector but of all the worthy groups to whom my noble friend referred.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I am most obliged. I have no wish to pursue this matter, nor in any way to misrepresent him, but it sheds a rather unhappy light on the whole inquiry procedure, which I believe will be repeated in the case of the second terminal at Gatwick. I am not sure whether I am right in this, but I understand that an application for that inquiry has already been called in by the Department of Trade.
My noble friend was good enough to refer to the Severnside project, supposing that I would have something to say about that. I can give him a crumb of comfort by saying that I have no intention or wish to use his Question in order to advocate the Severnside project. This is not my purpose at all. I have done that before. If any noble Lord wishes to refresh his memory, or find out what I said in presenting that case, he will find it in the Official Report of 16th June last year. I do not wish to go into that any more.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has foreseen the arguments that I intended to deploy, and answered them, in a way, very much to the point. Therefore there is no need for me to deploy them any further, except to say this: he suggested that I had envisaged a speed for the high-speed train of something like 250
2052
miles an hour. He has in fact introduced a factor of two in this. My suggestion was 125 miles an hour, which is the present speed of the high-speed train.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am happy to stand corrected.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, it might go up a little but not to that astronomical speed. I must say a word about the time scale, to which my noble friend Lord Trefgarne referred. I argued, and I would be prepared to do so on another occasion, that the time scale is nothing like as great as he fears it would be. In fact, I have good authority for believing that if the construction of an airport at Severnside were to be sanctioned now it would be operational before the second terminal could come into operation at Gatwick, or at any rate in a space of time comparable with that, and certainly before the beginning of the building of a fifth terminal at Heathrow.
All I want to say about Severnside is simply this, and this is the important thing to me: it is not necessarily the only possible alternative to what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is asking for, but it is an alternative. I believe it is certain that we shall have to have another airport somewhere, and the time to begin thinking about that is now. This is a matter of urgency. We cannot wait until the mid-1980s. Almost all the advantages that were ever claimed for Maplin exist in favour of Severnside, and others as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, spoke on my Unstarred Question last June. Your Lordships will remember that he is now a Member of the Government. He was not supporting the Severnside proposition, but he said that in his opinion I had made out a convincing prima facie case for having the issue further examined. That is all I am asking for now. I believe it would be totally wrong for any of these proposals, to which my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter addressed himself, to be put into effect without proper consideration of all the alternatives that might make them unnecessary.
I believe, and others believe with me, that the Severnside project is the one which would fill the bill, but that is one among

2053
others. All I ask is simply that that project be examined and either approved or disposed of, one way or the other, before any decision is arrived at to expand at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke of the possibility of a new terminal at Gatwick, or even a second runway, and said that would not so greatly increase the number of air movements at that airport. I do not know the amount of salt so large that I could pinch between my fingers with which I should have to take that statement. Gatwick is looking forward to an expansion, with one runway, to 16 million passengers a year, and I share the doubts of others as to whether that capacity could be met; I very much doubt it, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, does, too.
If we had two runways at Gatwick, properly spaced—which, as Lord Trefgarne said, the ones at Heathrow are not—I see no reason why the passenger traffic at Gatwick should not go up to the projected Heathrow figure of 38 million. We should have another Heathrow, and an even bigger one possibly at Gatwick. If this is thought to be of no great importance, I would remind noble Lords that so far we have heard nothing about the people on the ground. It is all very well for Lord Boyd-Carpenter to say:
"O happy band of pilgrims,
Look upward to the skies,
Where such a light affliction
shall win so great a prize".
I suspect he has not heard the verse:
"O miserable groundlings,
Look upward to the skies,
And steel yourselves to suffer
This apocalypse, that flies".
An expansion of this magnitude at Gatwick would, I believe, amount to an urbanisation of the whole railway corridor from London to Brighton, an environmental disaster of the greatest magnitude. My noble friend took me to task, with some justice, for referring to his proposal—he made it in his Starred Question the other day—by referring to the second terminal at Gatwick as "an unplanned environmental disaster". I say "with some justice" because I think I was rather misleading. I meant to say that the whole airport network around London is itself unplanned. Nobody ever planned Heathrow or Gatwick to be London airports,
2054
as they are now; if they had, they would seriously have needed their heads examined because nobody would ever have set up a system such as we have now. It was not planned; it has just grown, like dropsy. I do not want to see it go on growing, and that is what I meant by "an unplanned calamity". It is not the runways that are unplanned but the whole system, the planning or non-planning of which has been grossly exaggerated at the expense of millions of people.
I have nothing to add and I have no analytical comments to make. However, I urge on the Government the point of view that the Severnside project, which in my opinion is the best of all, should be examined by the Government and either adopted or turned down. All the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, put against it must be considered; there are objections to every possibility that might be put forward. Nevertheless, may it please be considered one way or the other before anything else is done, above all at Gatwick?
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, we seem to have been sitting for an awfully long time today, and I shall be very brief. I rise to support my noble friend in his continued thirst for the latest Government thinking on how to handle the London airport traffic problems by the mid 1980s, and I congratulate him upon the very moderate and clear way in which, as always, he put what has become an increasingly urgent case for action. I do not think that there is any Member in this House who has more political, or indeed practical, experience than my noble friend of running the great CAA. He referred to Sir Freddie Laker and the catalystic effect that he has had on air travel, and indeed the effect which means that the only item which seems to go down in cost in our present days of inflation is the price of an air ticket. Perhaps we can reflect that my noble friend had some little part to play in the success of the Skytrain issue at the time of its introduction.
I start with the view that the London airports policy and the Government's contingency plans are developing into an increasing morass of lack of decision. We

2055
are faced with the situation in which last year there was an unexpected swing in passenger traffic of 15 per cent., whereas I understand that the figure on which the Government have been working in respect of the next 10 years or so is between 7 and 8 per cent.
We are also faced with contingency plans which are subject to long, expensive, and, to some people, puerile inquiries on whether the Heathrow fourth terminal should be built, or whether the second terminal at Gatwick should be built, when in fact we know that there is no alternative. We are faced with the official airport capacity figure at Gatwick of 25 million in respect of the second terminal, when many experienced people genuinely believe this to be ficticious. We are faced with a delay until the autumn because of the Government's private study led, I understand, by the Steele Committee, of which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, is a member—and I am pleased that he will be intervening in the debate—yet we do not know what progress will have been made by the end of that study. Will there be need of another Roskill, or of three or four years' planning procedures, or whatever?
The real truth is that our options are becoming more limited. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, no one now believes that we can afford a new green field site. I consider that no one believes that we can afford even a coastal site, in view of the timescale. So the options are limited to either an existing civil airport, or a military airfield; and of course that comes down to Stansted, or possibly Thurleigh. Whatever options the Steele Committee reach by the autumn, there will be one overwhelming view—that an existing airport must be used.
I turn to specific questions I wish to put to the noble Lord. I wish to ask whether the Government will genuinely look into the form of planning inquiries on new terminals at major airports. Other noble Lords have made the point, yet I believe it needs to be stressed yet again, that considerable money, time, and energy go into these planning inquiries, whereas at the end of the day everyone who has taken part knows that the Secretary of State does not have an option; he has to go forward because it is part of the contingency planning. I believe that there is
2056
room where, by the terms of reference, the evidence produced could be limited, which would allow a more sensible form of inquiry, yet still give people a chance to air their views. I am sure that many of the active bodies concerned with the environment—bodies which have to collect voluntary subscriptions in order to pay expensive barristers—and indeed all the local authorities involved, would be very grateful for that. I hope that the Government will look into the procedure of the planning inquiries and come up with something hopeful and helpful.
The second point is on the projected capacity of Gatwick. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne, whose experience, particularly his practical experience, we all value, knows that the projected movements on this one runway are, I think, 150,000 a year. This is allowing for the 25 million passenger projection. He knows that this figure assumes that each aircraft will carry 168 passengers. We also know that the present average load of the aircraft using Gatwick is only something like 80, so there is a big fall-short here. Are we to assume that if the Government are going to reach this capacity of 25 million, they are going to request, or indeed insist, that all the small aircraft using Gatwick at present move to another airport? I believe that is the only alternative; but I think the noble Lord who is to reply should come clean on this, because there have been serious doubts about this capacity figure.
I shall also be interested to hear a little about the facilities at Gatwick. The noble Lord who is to reply will have seen, as indeed the House will have noted, that the chairman of the British Tourist Authority recently described the Gatwick facilities in the midsummer of 1978 as appalling. There was a serious lack of immigration officers; there was a dearth of luggage trolleys; there was a meagre sprinkling of porters; and passengers, particularly the old, were forced to carry luggage down a long flight of stairs to the Gatwick Station. I hope the Government will have some reassuring words on the point of facilities, as this is a specific point in my noble friend's Question.
The last point I would put briefly to the Government is: How are they progressing in encouraging airlines to move from Heathrow to Gatwick? The noble

2057
Lord who spoke earlier commented on the fact that there have been problems with, I think, Iberia and Air Canada; indeed, not only problems but embarrassments and upsets. The case, I am told by Iberia, is that there was a distinct lack of consultation prior to an announcement on 18th August, delivered by our Ambassador in what was quaintly termed "a verbal note", that that airline—and indeed, I believe, Air Canada as well—was to move to Gatwick by 1st April 1979. This in fact culminated in a legal action by Iberia, and the Government have now withdrawn that request.
I should like to ask two questions, if I have put those points fairly. First, I should like to ask whether that apparent history is compatible with paragraph 86 of Airports Policy—and I would quote:
"This policy"—
and it is talking about the building up of Gatwick—
"requires the full co-operation of the airline operators";
and it went on to say that the Government will not dictate. The second question I should like to ask is whether, when discussions are taking place between Governments (and this, I think, is very important) included in those discussions are any counter-agreements with regard to airport facilities in other countries which could damage the interests of British carriers—and I am of course thinking of British Airways. I hope the noble Lord will be able to address his remarks to some extent to that point.
My noble friend ended his comprehensive case with the words of his favourite hymn,
"O happy band of Pilgrims".
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, when he comes to reply, will not send us away with a message from a hymn which I remember learning, irreverently, at school, which was:
"Onward Christian soldiers,
Marching up the wall".
Because what many people feel now, I believe, is that very message—that we are going up the wall.
5.54 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to take part in this interesting
2058
debate promoted by my noble friend's Question, and I should begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy. When I saw my noble friend's Question down on the Paper, I was in the difficult dilemma that if I did not speak people would ask why I did not, and if I did speak they would probably ask why I did. But, curiously enough, this structure, as the Minister will no doubt say, is not one of a completely confidential nature, and because of its very constitution it allows consultation outside. Many of these consultations have already taken place, and therefore I am not breaching any confidences in what I intend to say.
Our first meeting was last September so that we are, as it were, under way. Let me say immediately that my speech is not going to be a forecast of an inside nature of what the Committee is likely to recommend as the best solution to the Third London Airport. I shall confine myself to comment on the constitution of the inquiry and the methods by which we are approaching it. Let me say immediately to my noble friend that I feel that he has a "bull point" here (and I am sure that the Minister will agree) in the need for urgency. That is why we as a Committee have committed ourselves to making our report by the autumn, which is a very short time in which to deal with an immensely complicated subject. But we understand the urgency of the matter and if the Government is vulnerable to criticism—and I think they are—it is that they did not set up this inquiry two or three years ago, certainly a couple of years ago, when the signs were there.
However, they have done it now. I believe that the structure is a good one and I hope that what I have to say will be of interest to noble Lords and will, perhaps, give them some confidence, at any rate so far as we are concerned, that we should be able to produce a helpful answer. My membership of the Committee is because I am chairman, and have been so since it was set up, of the Standing Conference for London and South-East Regional Planning. That is the local government body for regional planning. What we have succeeded in doing after many years of argument with Government is to convince Ministers that in the search for a major airport it is absolutely essential to bring in the planning

2059
authorities at the very beginning. My presence on this body is, of course, the culmination of a long, long argument. The membership of this Advisory Committee—which is set up under the Board of Trade, as has been said, with the Deputy Secretary in the Chair—covers a range of Ministries very comprehensively. It includes a number of other important national bodies who may be interested, including the national and local government bodies. No doubt, the Minister will give details if he is asked for them.
An interesting feature of this inquiry in that there is a parallel body to the Advisory Committee which is called the Study Group on South-East Airports. That body is set up in order to consider the land-use planning aspect of the development of a third London Airport. Again, there is a senior Board of Trade official in the Chair and the members of the Committee include a range of representatives of various Government Ministries; but the members brought in are officials from the planning authorities from London and the counties and the planning authorities in the South-East who have the expert knowledge which is necesssary for this input.
This study group is charged to work in close liaison with, and parallel to, the Advisory Committee but also works directly and reports directly to the Minister. Of course, the success of the whole operation will depend upon the successful liaison between the Advisory Committee, on the one hand, and the study group, on the other. I am hopeful that we shall achieve that. The method of working by which we are proceeding is that the Advisory Committee, which includes all the aviation interests—the CAA, British Airways et cetera—with all their expert knowledge. They have advised, and the Advisory Committee has accepted, the basic air parameters which they consider are necessary. We have accepted that this covers such matters as the required capacity of this new airport that we are to look for. Let me say at once—and this should reassure noble Lords who have anxieties in this matter—that we are looking ahead to the year 2000 and beyond: that this airport that we are looking for has to be a multipurpose and omnidirectional one, and it has to have an ultimate throughput capacity of 50 million passengers per annum. In the location of it, we have to
2060
be guided by the air interests in the vital matters of air traffic control in order to co-ordinate the management with Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, et cetera. This has a determining influence on the location that we eventually find. Similarly, the Ministry of Defence and their requirements have to be catered for as well.
Regarding the size of the airport, we have been advised that it should be about 2,000 hectares. That is a very big airport, nearly double the size of Heathrow. It should cater for all future requirements. We must also cater for the necessary capacity and speed of communication to Central London, both by rail and by road; and, above all, we must cater for timetables. My noble friend made the cogent point that the dynamic effect of the Laker influence in the past year or two has been greatly to accelerate the increase in traffic flow particularly for leisure. Therefore the BAA, as the noble Lord has indicated, have orought forward the date at which existing airports, even with the proposed expansions of the fourth terminal at Heathrow, and the second terminal at Gatwick, will probably be bursting at the seams some three years earlier than the Government's blue paper indicated; in other words, coming forward from 1990 to 1987. We have taken these facts on board. We are well aware of the urgency and therefore we are aiming to make our report by the autumn, which will be quite an undertaking for us.
These basic parameters have been passed to the study group which are concerned with the landside interests. They set up a working party of experts who have expert knowledge of the physical conditions throughout the South-East region to apply those parameters to the ground. Inevitably, this has meant immediately the definition of quite large "no go" areas where, for one reason or another, it is impossible to establish a major airport. The study group has now completed its study and is about to submit its report which will show that there are a number of possible sites which can meet these necessary parameters. The study group has also added its set of parameters applying to the land use interests.
The first one—and this is the one which has brought my presence on to the Advisory Committee and brought the

2061
Standing Conference for South-East Regional Planning into the picture—is employment. A fact which is well understood by my noble friend but is not always well understood is that a major international airport is the largest single place of employment in the country. This is a factor which has to be catered for in deciding where the site is going to go. Heathrow today employs some 50,000 people. By 1987 it will probably have gone up to 60,000 people, and Gatwick in proportion. There are as many again in employment in the supporting and service industries. The third London airport, which is to have a potential of 50,000 passengers per day—nearly double Heathrow—will employ, when it reaches full size, something of the order of 70,000 or 80,000 people on the airport with as many again outside.
We are talking about an employment of 150,000 people by the end of the century, and multiplying that by four to get the full population, we are talking about a population of 600,000. That is a very large population. Therefore it is essential that the site should be located with regard to the urban infrastructure which could be called upon to operate the airport; in other words, near large populations.
The second parameter that the local authorities are concerned with is of course the broad environmental protection problem. Local authorities are responsible for planning generally, but of course they are responsible for the protection of local communities from noise; they are responsible for the protection of amenity in the villages, the towns, and countryside with special amenity values. And, of course, they are concerned with the protection of the best agricultural land. They are also domestically concerned with the very heavy financial liability which falls upon them in the early years of these developments.
Finally, both the Advisory Committee and the Study Group are concerned with the cost element. This, as noble Lords will know, was a major factor in the shedding of Maplin on the earlier study. Costs must be catered for: it is one of the factors that must be considered. I should add as a matter of interest, that within the standing conference for regional planning, we have set up a structure to
2062
make sure there is member participation both of county representatives and of district council representatives, so that they will be kept informed as these possible sites are being considered.
We consider we shall not adequately have discharged our difficult responsibility unless we can bring members in so that we can—I do not know whether it will be possible, but we shall try—to reach a consensus among local authorities, including London, throughout the South-East on what is the best site for a third London Airport. We feel it is so important to try to cater for the broad environmental picture from the representative council members, who, after all, have the major say in this matter. If would be a fact of tremendous value to the Government of the day, when the report comes along, if we can produce such support. That we shall try to do.
Obviously we have quite a formidable task on our hands in the Advisory Committee and the study group. It has been well said that there is no perfect solution. There are so many conflicting factors which have to be balanced one against the other; but we are going to be capable, first of all, of categorising them and evaluating them, and then we shall use our best judgment and our best compassion for each other to try to reach a consensus between us, which will produce a report that will be helpful to the government of the day. They will then be able to make up their minds, consult with all the interests concerned so that perhaps in the not-too-far distant future—even perhaps by 1987 but, my word! they will have to be quick —we may have the beginnings of this great new third London airport which is undoubtedly needed.
6.8 p.m.
Lord MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I should like to talk mainly about the environmental issues, and I should indeed like to declare an interest—the interest of an inhabitant of the South-East. We are, quite unquestionably, all closely concerned with this emotive problem, and though I live 25 miles to the South of Gatwick, perhaps that fact will give a rough idea of what my interests may be. That is what I am, and I shall declare it.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for putting

2063
down this Unstarred Question, because I agree so much about the urgency and the need not to let more water go under the bridge. Obviously, I am not a part of the aviation lobby; I am on the other side of the fence. I have one or two "parish pump" matters to mention regarding Gatwick, which I believe it is right to raise because they are illustrative. I recollect that the last public inquiry there had to be held because when the runway was last extended it was necessary to lop some trees on property which was outside the control of the British Airports Authority. I seem to recall that the hall was too small. At an early hour it rapidly became overcrowded with people who did not appear particularly anxious to operate the normal noise abatement procedures that would have been appropriate to such an occasion. One learned representative who was submitting evidence had to address the inquiry through a window from outside, with the aid of a packing case. The inquiry had to adjourn thereafter to make more seemly arrangements. That all indicates what an emotive business it is, and one must think how one can make it a little less emotive and more satisfactory.
The reasons that I have listed are, first, failure to take social costs into account, even remotely adequately, and many a local authority has complained about this. Secondly, there is noise. It may get better, according to the blue book, but I am sure we all realise that it is not a problem that will go away. Thirdly, there is a lack of sufficient forward plans. Fourthly—and this is something which we cannot do much about—we are a small island, the South-East is crowded, and we need to look after our land resources, because they are irreplaceable.
I should like to say a little more about the failure to take social costs into account. Part of this problem arises because of the function of the British Airports Authority. It is not their fault, and the last thing I want to do is to decry their management over this matter, but it remains a fact that they are permitted to cause a nuisance on their property against which others do not have normal remedies. On that score, their immunity from the more normal planning procedures has been too great, and it is an extremely good thing that efforts are now being made to remedy that situation. I know that it takes time,
2064
but it is vitally important that it should be done. In the same way, I think it is right to stick to having planning inquiries. I think that we must have them. If they could be a little less emotive because our policies were better, they would not waste so much time. Nevertheless, they remain of great importance.
I should like to mention the question of compensation for private property. In this connection, I want to take an extreme case, the case of Mr. Greenfield, who had a smallholding at the end of the runway at Gatwick. He had on it a livestock enterprise with a riding school, and his whole operation was completely upset by noise. I believe that independent tests of the noise levels were made at the time, and it was concluded that the houses there were unlivable-in. They were right at the end of the runway where by comparison at the end of the runway at London Airport there is a sewage farm. His property suffered blight. Not so very long ago, the late Lord Henley put down an Unstarred Question in this House about that man. I believe that nothing more has been done about him, and I wonder whether we shall one day get some better news about his case. He has recently died of a heart attack, which may or may not have been connected with his experience at the airport.
When this matter was raised earlier, there was the counter-agrument that more people suffered at Heathrow, but I think it is right to say that individually they did not suffer so much. I have every sympathy with the people living around Heathrow, but the case of Mr. Greenfield shows a serious lapse in the way in which our country upholds personal rights, particularly bearing in mind the situation of that man.
We have not done enough generally about these matters. Those who live around Heathrow have received grants for double glazing and other improvements, but I think that the help given to them should have gone further than it did. Air conditioning is an obvious corollary. A better regard for personal property rights would lower the temperature and might lead us to get on better with the problems that face us over the allocation of scarce land resources and the preservation of the quality of life. These two

2065
problems are difficult to quantify financially. Nevertheless, they are of vital importance.
Turning to local authority planning problems, it was good to hear what my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford had to say. The West Sussex County Council will certainly be glad to read what he has had to say. They have asked for a full environmental study to be carried out if the throughput at Gatwick is to be increased from 16 million to 25 million passengers. A great deal lies behind that short sentence. Their study group, consisting of five county councillors, produced a valuable outline report, entitled Gatwick Tomorrow, which they say straight away raises more questions than it answers. But these are the questions which need to be solved, and they are very much the ones which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford touched upon.
It is thought that the future increase in population which will be needed to bring about a 25 million throughput of passengers at Gatwick will be round about 68,000. This will take place in an area which is already crowded. Crawley New Town is close by. In the Strategic Plan for the South-East, it was said of the planning district:
"No further induced growth should be encouraged".
That means Gatwick. There will obviously be great infrastructure problems—over schools, finance, cross country roads, and so on. There is a serious lack of communications with Southampton, where there will soon be 1 million people, some of whom will doubtless want to get to Gatwick. Already there are pressures on the area. The effect on Crawley's modern industries must be considered. The airport will become the major employer. Will Crawley's industries therefore be able to keep the skilled labour that they need? There is anxiety about that.
I understand that the effect of the airport rates on Crawley should be mentioned. Crawley receive the airport rates but lose an equal amount of rate support grant, which means that the airport does them no good at all, despite the problems which it creates. This is another matter which should be considered in terms of social cost.
2066
We have already heard of worse to come. Both the West Sussex County Council and Crawley agreed to Gatwick handling 16 million passengers, but they feel the very greatest concern about Gatwick handling more than that number, that is, 25 million passengers; and it could be worse than that, as we have heard this afternoon. Will one runway and two terminals work? I understand that the airline operators told the county council a long time ago that they thought they would not work. There will be a severe problem over the peaking of air traffic, which may again make it impossible to reach the targets anticipated. I wonder whether Iberia was the best operator to send to Gatwick first, in view of the fact that I imagine theirs is a very seasonal operation. If there is to be a second proper runway I should very much like to know. If there is any further news about the emergency runway I should like to hear it. If there is a second full-scale runway the trouble is that there will be a great temptation in the future to say, "Well, what about a third terminal?". That will be the next cheapest way out of the difficulty, and if that is done I feel fairly certain that the consequences could only too easily be an unplanned urban mass extending from East Grinstead to Horsham and down to Haywards Heath, which would be a pretty profound tragedy and certainly would not contribute to the quality of life.
Does one not have to reckon the true cost to the community in all this? I think we do. Both at Gatwick and at Stanstead two major inquiries have found that they are not suitable sites for international airports. That is the point from which we start. As regards Stansted, I should like particularly to mention that although I understand there is to be a public inquiry at Gatwick there is no such intention at Stansted. I believe that there should be a public inquiry at Stansted. They have an equal right to have one.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way for a moment, can he say what it is that the public inquiry at Stansted should enquire into?
Lord MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I think it would clear the air very greatly about the planning difficulties that would be facing Essex.
Lord TREFGARNE: But surely, my Lords, the inquiry must enquire into something?
Lord MONK BRETTON: My Lords, it would be enquiring into the implications of the growth of the airport, as is the case at Gatwick. At any rate, although the Blue Book says that it is anticipated that there will be 4 million passengers by 1990 it is an open-ended commitment, and there is quite a possibility that there will be 16 million there instead, by 1990.
I hope that we shall not end with a 19th century type solution and repeat that kind of mistake. I feel that the Blue Book cost of £150 million for the developments is no great sum, bearing in mind this particular problem. One might call it a shoestring. I think we need perspective and an open mind about that.
To get this into perspective, may I say that only this morning I—and not I alone in this House—received from the British Tourist Authority a statement that 12 million tourists last year spent £3,000 million with us. Laker Airways and British Caledonian together, I understand, are shortly about to spend £500 million on their aircraft fleets. When one sees this one wonders whether £150 million is really not very little.
At this stage I do not want to go deeply into the matters of Maplin, but something on a greater financial scale should have been possible and might have got us over very great difficulties here in the South-East. I would have liked to get more precise information about the planning of de Gaulle airport at Paris. I believe it was thought about quite 20 years ahead and not 10, and that it was a very much smoother and happier operation for everyone concerned. I know it may be said that it is easier in France because they have three times as much land per head as we have, but I think it is really the other way round, that because we have so little we and not they are the people who ought to be more advanced withour planning.
At any rate, I think we have to decide between a great 19th century mistake, doing a proper job, or, the third alternative —the objections to it have already been mentioned but nevertheless it remains a third alternative—which would be to refuse the traffic after a certain point. I think, finally, that you will have, in view of the
2068
situation at Gatwick, to limit the growth there and after it has got to that stage traffic must go somewhere else. I would like to wish my noble friend Lord Nugent the best of luck, and I am sure his sagacity will contribute very greatly. I think that is all I need to say about it.
6.27 p.m.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, who unfortunately has had to leave, in asking the Government to give serious consideration to the Servernside airport project. Your Lordships may be aware that a notice has gone up that a study group has been formed for this matter, and I, for one, am looking forward to attending some of its activities. My own particular interest in the problem of airports is in the way of getting to them. In June last year there was an Unstarred Question on the Severnside project and the suggestion of using high-speed trains to and from Severnside on which special facilities for customs and immigration matters to be dealt with could be included. The proposed position for Severnside is an airport constructed on a sits where there would be little problem of either noise or disturbance of homes, and it could have easy access to South Wales, the Midlands and the South West of" England as well as London.
The study of railway tracks around the London area has been a particular interest of mine. For many years I have had to use public transport in my work, and I always prefer to use the rail rather than the road. At times I have had to go to some lengths to work out the railway routes from one place to another. In my contribution to the Unstarred Question last year I suggested the use of that very versatile station at Olympia, together with the idea of constructing a connection between the line there which goes north towards Willesden and the main line out of Paddington, with the use of a bridge connecting up with another suburban line, which I admit was a rather elaborate and very expensive project. I am glad to say that, with a little further simple research on the matter, I discovered that a connection already exists. It is between Westbourne Park and Acton and it is a double track. It has sharp bends, so if high-speed trains were using Olympia they could not accelerate at all until they were safely on the main line.

2069
The line north of Olympia is useful. It goes up to Willesden, where there is another connection with the main line out of Euston, and from there it goes eastwards to Broad Street via Kilburn, Hampstead and Camden Town. South of Olypmpia it joins the main line out of Waterloo at Clapham. There is another useful little addition because there is a small connection with the District Line at Earl's Court.
So, to sum up, Olympia should be the station for London to use as a terminal for Severnside. It could still be used for railway connections to other airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow, like the station at Feltham. It is easy to get to by road and it has good rail access from both the north and the south and, in particular, it has a very good central position.
Severnside is not really a new idea. I understand that it was thought up some years ago, but at the time it was definitely shelved because it was feared that the area would be far too remote. But, now that we have the fast trains—particularly the 125s—it makes it an ideal situation for the new airport for London and also for the rest of Britain.
6.32 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with great care. Your Lordships will notice that, in spite of perhaps wanting to do so, I have not interrupted any speaker. I hope that the House will give me the same courtesy and allow me to make my speech without interruption. However, at the end of my remarks your Lordships can always catch me before I sit down.
The planning of future airport capacity, raises such important environmental problems, involves the expenditure of so much public money and, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, involves such risks of under-provision that debate on the issues involved should always be welcome. That is especially so if the debate is informed and tolerant and if it is positive rather than purely negative. I think we can say that our debate has, by and large, been on those lines.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for putting down the Question. He has given very distinguished service to civil aviation, first as a
2070
Minister and latterly as chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. There is perhaps no one better qualified to lead this debate than he. I should also like to pay a tribute to the contribution that was made by the Civil Aviation Authority, under his chairmanship, to the work which preceded the White Paper. The noble Lord will be aware that the conclusions of the White Paper were based upon very careful studies of airport capacity, detailed forecasts of demand and exhaustive studies of the options.
That White Paper came to three main conclusions. First, owing to the very considerable uncertainty of forecasting, traffic demand should be kept under continuous review and the work should be commenced immediately on the next stage which was outlined in the Paper; secondly, that limits on the growth of Heathrow and Gatwick should be accepted; thirdly, that local authorities and other interested parties involved in future airport capacity should be brought into consultations. As a consequence, following the White Paper—as the House already knows—the Government set up the Advisory Committee on Airport Policy and the Study Group, to which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has referred. I was particularly pleased by the noble Lord's intervention because he is at the centre of this and was able to speak with first-hand knowledge of what is going on. I should also like to pay tribue to the work which he did preceding the setting up of those bodies and to the work which he is continuing to do as a member of the Advisory Committee.
I should like now to take each airport in turn, dealing first with Heathrow. Heathrow has a throughput of 26 million passengers per annum. Redevelopment of the central terminal area has been completed and this gives a capacity of 30 million passengers. The extension of the Piccadilly line has improved the flow of surface traffic; and the Eurogate satellite, which is planned and which we should have at a very early date, will be linked by travelators to Terminals 1 and 2, and should greatly improve the passenger handling at those terminals.
The construction of the fourth terminal will increase the capacity to 38 million passengers. It is subject to planning inquiry, which has just been completed. However, that planning inquiry showed

2071
that we not merely have problems of estimating demand, but that we also have problems of estimating what the capacity will be. It emerged from that inquiry that a more realistic figure of the capacity after the fourth terminal is completed is not 38 million passengers but 43 million passengers, which, of course, would be very much to everybody's advantage. But let us be quite clear: even though the planning inquiry has been concluded, without a final decision having been announced, the fourth terminal cannot be completed before 1984.
If the traffic continues to grow at the present rate, the capacity at Heathrow will be exhausted by 1981. Therefore, it is vital that the Government should pursue their policy of transferring traffic to Gatwick. I would point out that we are not transferring particular airlines to Gatwick; we are transferring aircraft for given destinations, regardless of the airline to which they belong. I would also point out that the consultations with the Spanish Government began almost two years ago. We are conducting those consultations within certain guidelines. The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, was good enough to give me notice of the points he has raised. His questions called for detailed answers. I have already written to him and I have given him those detailed answers, including the guidelines which are used for the transfer from Heathrow to Gatwick. If, at the end of the debate, any noble Lord would like a copy of that letter, I should be very pleased to arrange for him to have a copy.
The White Paper explained that the Government had concluded that Heathrow's ultimate development should not go beyond a fourth terminal. That is still the view of the Government. Consistent with that conclusion, the further development of Heathrow—whether by building a fifth terminal at Perry Oaks site or otherwise—is not among the options that are being considered in the long-term.
I know there are those who find the Government's policy on this more difficult to accept, and that suggestions have been mooted for further massive expansions at Heathrow. These ideas seem to us to take insufficient account of the environmental implications of such developments; insufficient account of the planning considerations; and insufficient account of the operational problems in the arrangement and management of an airport handling
2072
such volumes of traffic on what, by most standards, is still a very restricted site. The Government have made clear their policy on Heathrow, and I believe that the right approach now is to concentrate our efforts in the consideration of the long-term options which were identified in the White Paper.
I pass now to Gatwick. Gatwick had a throughput of only 7·8 million passengers last year. The £100 million redevelopment is virtually completed. This raises the capacity to 16 million. I am advised by the experts that this takes fully into account that there is only ore runway and that there is a seasonal peak in the demand. But it also assumes that the improvements in the rail-link which were dealt with by my noble friend Lady Stedman in answer to an Unstarred Question on 24th January should be completed within reasonable time.
The British Airports Authority announced yesterday that it will shortly make planning application for the development of the second terminal. The White Paper on airports policy stated that the proposal for a second runway at Gatwick should not be revived, which effectively limits development at Gatwick to a two-terminal airport. The Government are still of that view. The White Paper suggested that such an airport should be capable of handling 25 million passengers a year. I recognise that there is a strong body of opinion which takes the view that a single runway at Gatwick will be inadequate to handle such a volume of traffic.
Two main reasons have been advanced in support of this view. The first is the question of operational needs. It has been argued that closure of the runway could totally incapacitate the airport, and ground the aircraft possibly for a considerable time. Past experience does not support this view. Apart from planned maintenance and repairs which are carried out at night, usually in the off-season, and apart from closures due to adverse weather conditions which would not be reduced by having a second runway, the single runway at Gatwick has been out of use for relatively insignificant periods due to incidents or obstructions on the runway. Over the last nine years there has been an average of less than four hours closure per year due to incidents of this kind.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned, being always

2073
up to date, there was an announcement this morning that the British Airways Authority is seeking planning permission to widen the northern taxiway at Gatwick. It could then be used as an emergency runway when the main runway is obstructed. But it could not be used simultaneously with the main runway. Therefore, it could not become a second runway. At the present time, the Airports Authority is in consultation with the airlines on this issue, and it is also giving serious consideration as to whether the cost would be justified.
I come to the second reason why it may be thought that the capacity of one runway is not sufficient for 25 million passengers. The runway capacity at Heathrow is estimated at 160,000 air transport movements a year and, before going further, I wish to defend that figure. It will be readily understood that if you have two runways you cannot double the number of transport movements, because you need airspace for each of the runways; and there is the significant point which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, namely, that the runways at Heathrow were so close together that we could not safely make the fullest use of them.
At Heathrow we have on those two runways 269,000 movements, so we see no difficulty in having 160,000 movements on this single runway at Gatwick. At the present time the runway has less than 100,000 air traffic movements and the average passenger load is only 88. This relatively low figure in comparison with Heathrow reflects the mix of the traffic which currently uses Gatwick. However, with the increase in scheduled air services at Gatwick, the transfer of major blocks of traffic from Heathrow, the general trend towards larger aircraft and the introduction of new fares structures on scheduled routes, which are designed specifically to fill vacant seats on aircraft, there is little doubt that the average passenger load per aircraft will grow considerably during the next decade. When it reaches 168, then, assuming that 90 per cent. of the movements at Gatwick are passenger aircraft, the runway will be capable of handling 25 million passengers a year. And 168 is not outrageous; the third terminal at Heathrow already exceeds that figure.
One can hardly predict exactly when
2074
we will reach this situation, but all the forecasts indicate that it will be reached. The British Airports Authority are confident that the single runway at Gatwick will be sufficient to handle 25 million passengers a year and the Government see no reason to dissent from that view. In the light of that, and bearing in mind the Government's decision effectively to limit the extension of Gatwick to a capacity of 25 million, it is not envisaged that a second runway will be required at Gatwick.
Luton in 1973 had 3 million passengers. It is now down to 2 million. Nevertheless, as the White Paper indicates, we visualise an extension of the terminal buildings which would increase the capacity to 5 million. The local authority is considering the timing of this development. There are no plans by the Government to purchase Luton airport; that would be a matter for discussion and negotiation between the BAA and the local authority. The Government are quite happy to leave it at that. Stansted has a throughput of only 300,000, though it is capable at the moment of taking at least 1 million, and, as announced in the White Paper, we have at this stage of development an extension of the terminal buildings which would give a throughput of 4 million passengers capacity.
In the White Paper the Government identified three possible options. The first was the development of Stansted as an airport. The second was the conversion of a military airport to civil use, and the third was the construction of an entirely new airport. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said, the Advisory Committee and the study group are at present evaluating these options, and they are doing so with a sense of urgency. The intention is that the work of the study group and the Advisory Committee should form the basis of a document to be completed this autumn, and this should evaluate the options. This document will be published, and will serve as a basis for consultation on the options with a wide range of interests including local and environmental bodies. It is intended that this process should be completed in time for decisions on the longer term airports capacity to be reached by the end of 1980—by the end of next year we expect the decision to be taken.
I should like to sum up the position in the following way. Last year the throughput of the four London airports was

2075
36 million. The capacity is 50 million. Within the next decade we intend to increase the capacity to 72 million; that is to say, to double last year's throughput. Of course timing is of the essence, but we are assured by the British Airports Authority that in its opinion the work will be completed in time, provided that there is no undue delay in planning procedure. So far as the long-term is concerned, as I have indicated, we are working towards a decision next year.
I believe that I have covered the main ground, but I would add two points. First, we shall look at the record of what has been said, and in so far as I have not covered any points which call for replies in writing, letters will certainly be sent. Secondly, I can assure the House that what has been said, especially by the noble Lord who led the debate, as well as by all those who followed, will be taken into account when the final decisions are made—
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, can the noble Lord deal with the following point before he sits down? In view of his confident assertion that a single runway airport at Gatwick can handle 25 million passengers a year, can he explain why, throughout the world, airports which aim at much lower annual throughputs provide two or indeed three runways? Why does the noble Lord think that he is right and all the rest of the world is wrong?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think that the others were right when they built their airports, and that I am right when I am building my airport. The circumstances are quite different. The average passenger load at Gatwick at the moment is 88, whereas an average of 168 is required to carry the 25 million passengers. Other countries were planning for entirely different circumstances from those for which we are planning. That, I believe, is almost a perfect answer to the noble Lord.

  X-RAY EXAMINATIONS OF PREGNANT WOMEN
  X-RAY EXAMINATIONS OF PREGNANT WOMEN
  X-RAY EXAMINATIONS: GONAD DOSE
  X-RAY EXAMINATIONS: GONAD DOSE
  X-RAY EXAMINATIONS: AGE ESTIMATION
  X-RAY EXAMINATIONS: AGE ESTIMATION
  X-RAY EXAMINATIONS: ENTRY CERTIFICATE APPLICANTS
  X-RAY EXAMINATIONS: ENTRY CERTIFICATE APPLICANTS
  X-RAY EXAMINATIONS: CODE OF PRACTICE
  X-RAY EXAMINATIONS: CODE OF PRACTICE
  FOOD AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES: PICKET ACTION
  FOOD AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES: PICKET ACTION
  NHS ANCILLARY STAFF: WEEKLY EARNINGS
  NHS ANCILLARY STAFF: WEEKLY EARNINGS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE: LAYFIELD REPORT
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE: LAYFIELD REPORT
  ASSOCIATED STATUS: NATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
  ASSOCIATED STATUS: NATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
  M.25 PUBLIC INQUIRY: APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTOR
  M.25 PUBLIC INQUIRY: APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTOR
  N.25 PUBLIC INQUIRY: LOCAL OBJECTORS
  N.25 PUBLIC INQUIRY: LOCAL OBJECTORS
  HOMOEOPATHIC POSTGRADUATE STUDY
  HOMOEOPATHIC POSTGRADUATE STUDY
  SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES: COMPARISONS
  SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES: COMPARISONS
  TORCROSS AND EEC AID
  TORCROSS AND EEC AID