Sitting of 1 August 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Brandt Report and Nuclear Disarmament
  9.35 am
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition on a matter of grave importance not only to my constituents and my country but to mankind in all continents of the world.
  Led by Father Cowan, a peace group from the Catholic Church in Willesden, assisted by members of the Methodist Church in Harlesden, collected 1,241 signatures in less than a fortnight.
  The petition sheweth
  That the world is now entering a very critical stage, with immense economic, trade, ecological, environmental, military and survival problems, which if not attended to immediately, will cause the collapse of both the rich and the poor countries of the world by the year 2000;
  That the money, energy, brain-power, time and resources spent at present on arms on a world-wide scale, if diverted and used intelligently, could save our world and make it a better place to live in, these being some of the recommendations of the Brandt report, "North-South: A Programme for Survival."
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your House and Britain, with her great reputation for diplomacy in international affairs, take the initiative to

  (1) negotiate with all the countries of North-South for the scaling down and eventual removal of all weapons, nuclear, chemical, etc., which threaten the existence of our world; and at the same time

  (2) negotiate with these same countries for the survival of our world by providing the necessary trade, aid, trust and other links to guarantee this survival. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

  This petition is the voice of ordinary folk speaking on behalf of the poor and humble throughout the world, irrespective of race, colour or creed. It is not
  1900
  too late for the powerful and mighty to listen and to act.
  I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  PRISON SYSTEM
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]
  9.37 am
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): The debate gives the House an opportunity to discuss not only the May committee's report and the action which we within the Home Office have taken in implementing its various recommendations, but the report of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, "Too Many Prisoners", and the Government's observations on the fifteenth report from the Expenditure Committee. At some point my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will intervene on the Scottish aspects, which are separate.
  The central problem facing the prison service today is the sheer size of the prison population. When the May report was published last October the prison population in England and Wales was about 42,500. Earlier this year it rose to a peak of 44,800. The most recent figure I can give is 44,324 on 18 July.
  This total is quite plainly very high—and dangerously so. Most significantly, the local prisons, where overcrowding is most severe, had 17,357 inmates against certified normal accommodation of 11,657. Throughout the prison system 11,342 inmates were sharing two to a cell and 5,694 three to a cell on 13 July. The effect of these statistics on the prison service cannot be viewed in isolation. Our prison system forms a vital part of the criminal justice system. A crisis in our prisons is, by definition, a crisis for the police, the courts and the probation and after-care service.
  It is, therefore, essential to the well-being of the criminal justice system as a whole that the severe pressure on the prison system should be relieved. Our plans to do so have two broad targets. First, we shall increase the capacity and efficiency of the prison service through new building, through improvements in

  1901
  organisation, management and industrial relations, and through better use of manpower. Secondly, we shall take measures designed to reduce the size of the prison population.
  Most of the improvements which we can bring about in the prison service itself will take time. Some must take a very long time. The problems were set out by the May committee in stark relief—a decaying prison estate, the poor working and living conditions for staff and prisoners, the decline in the belief that imprisonment can have a positive effect and the deterioration in industrial relations. Even if, overnight, there were a substantial reduction in the prison population, these problems would remain to be tackled. I believe that, in its first response to the report of the May committee, the Government have acknowledged this as well as demonstrating their commitment to support and improve the prison system.
  We have already taken decisions on some of the May committee's most important recommendations. We accepted immediately the committee's recomdations on pay for the prison service. I announced in my statement to the House on 30 April a far-reaching reorganisation of the prison department designed to achieve the objective set by the May committee of enhancing its status and identity within the Home Office. That reorganisation is essentially complete only nine months after the publication of the May report. Subject to the overriding need to preserve direct ministerial accountability for the prison system, it will give the prison department, as the May committee urged, more freedom to manage its own staff and control its own finance. I also announced in my statement the Government's acceptance of the May committee's recommendations for an inspectorate of prisons separate from the prison department.
  I am today able to announce the appointment of Mr. William Pearce, at present chief probation officer for the inner London probation and after-care service, as Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. Mr. Pearce has had a most distinguished career in the probation service, and has an international reputation. He will take up his post full time on 1 January 1981.
  1902
  The Government's decisions on the reorganisation of the prison service have, I believe, been welcomed in the House, but reorganisation is only a beginning. We must, during the next few years, work steadily at all the problems exposed by the May committee. We must improve the conditions in our prisons for both staff and prisoners, especially where they are at their worst. We must take up the committee's concept of positive custody and give new impetus to the management of regimes in prisons and the development of prison industries. We must do whatever we can to avoid the necessity for prisoners, particularly in our local prisons, to be locked in the cells for so long each day.
  If we are to do so, we must ensure that our staff are used as efficiently as possible. It is our task, in partnership with the unions, to release the energy and imagination in the prison service for its primary purpose—the control and care of prisoners. If we can do so, it will not only make a vital contribution to improving the conditions in our prisons but also enable staff to play the more fulfilling role to which they aspire. We have made a start. I welcome the constructive discussions which have begun with the Prison Officers Association on a new attendance system to replace the complicated systems criticised by the May committee. I hope that these discussions, together with those on improvements in procedures for handling industrial relations, will be successful.
  I hope that we shall see the first fruits of these developments within the next two or three years. But what of the mid-1980s and beyond? First and foremost, as the May committee argued so eloquently, we must improve the prison estate. The committee criticised some of the conditions it saw as "against nature". So they are. Such conditions are the legacy of decades of neglect. They cannot be changed overnight. The Government, however, have a substantial building programme. Frankland, a major new dispersal prison, with over 400 places, will open next year. Firm plans have been made for four major new projects to begin by April 1983, including two new young offender establishments at Stocken and Appleton Thorn. We shall continue the programme of two starts a year into 1983-84 with category B prisons at Swaleside and Carrbrook. This programme, including places

  1903
  under construction and the new projects I have mentioned, should produce a total of 6,400 new places by the end of the decade. We are also undertaking an enhanced programme of maintenance and improvement.
  I am aware that it has been argued that the need to reduce the prison population is such that we should not build new prisons. The May committee rejected this argument. So do I. As the committee made clear, the fabric of much of the prison estate is decrepit; some of it is literally falling down. A considerable and enlarged effort is needed simply to maintain standards of physical accommodation at their present level.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: Has the right hon. Gentleman plans to close any prisons?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly not at present. The pressures on the prison system make clear that this would foe an impossible task, at least in the years immediately ahead.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose—
  Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to say, before giving way to the hon. Gentleman, that I want to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak. The more I give way, the fewer will have that chance.
  Mr. Lyon: I am grateful. Does not the Home Secretary's answer undermine his argument? If we are trying to replace bad fabric by building new prisons but still to continue with the prisons that have the bad fabric, have we done anything at all to diminish the problem?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Basically, we must maintain the prisons that we possess. That is why I have announced that we are determined to have an enhanced programme of maintenance and improvement. At the same time, we need all the existing places, and we need more places. The real answer is a considerable and enlarged effort simply to maintain standards of physical accommodation at the present level. The reduction in the prison population and the building programme are not alternatives. In my judgment, we need both. That is my genuine answer to the hon. Gentleman. It has the merit that I have been able to proceed with my
  1904
  speech because those were the next two sentences in it.
  Increasing the capacity and the efficiency of the prison service is one way in which we hope to relieve some of the pressure on the system. These measures are not enough in themselves. Unless we can also arrest the seemingly inexorable rise in the prison population, the prison system will reach bursting point.
  Successive Governments have sought to limit the growth in the prison population by providing the courts with a full range of alternatives to custody. This country can be proud of its record in extending the type of non-custodial penalties available to the courts. There have been some notable success stories. Community service, in particular, has developed rapidly into an effective means of dealing with some offenders. Community service was introduced by the last Conservative Government in 1973, and this one will give its development every encouragement.
  This country led the world in the development of the probation service, and the part it has played, with the assistance of the voluntary sector, in the provision of alternatives to custody in recent years is an impressive one. Nevertheless, there is still scope for further effort in this direction. In particular, there is a need for an increased use of probation and supervision orders by the courts for some of those who are currently being imprisoned. I welcome the initiative taken by the Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees in bringing together all those concerned, in particular the magistrates, the justices' clerks and the probation service, to this end.
  The record of the probation service in containing persons under supervision is impressive. In 1978, for instance, some four out of five probation orders terminated normally or early for good progress. The Government for their part have agreed to make additional resources available for the probation service, and only by a joint effort can the full potential of the probation service be achieved.
  The Government also believe that attendance centres are an important alternative to custody. We think that this is true for girls as well as boys; and for young men of 17 to 20 as well as for those under 17. Accordingly, since we

  1905
  took office, we have opened 17 new centres in different parts of England and Wales, with a further eight expected before the end of the year. Of the new centres, three are for girls. Plans are in hand for five senior attendance centres, of which two are expected to open shortly.
  It is unlikely that non-custodial measures will by themselves solve the problems of the prison service. The evidence of recent years has been that new alternatives to imprisonment tend to some extent to diminish the courts' use of existing ones. It would not be prudent, therefore, to rely alone on significantly greater growth in the use of alternatives to imprisonment to solve the problem of pressure on the prison system.
  This is not to say that the Government will not encourage further initiatives in the diversion of offenders from imprisonment where these offer some hope in relation to particular areas of concern. Our reply to the Expenditure Committee makes clear the importance that we attach to the problem of accommodating mentally disordered offenders. We have endorsed the Expenditure Committee's recommendation that the provision of regional secure units should be treated as a matter of great urgency. We intend to promote a better understanding of the problem of menially disordered offenders, both within the National Health Service and in the community as a whole.
  Another group of prisoners which gives rise to much concern is the small group of drunken offenders who experience repeated spells of imprisonment in default of fines. I have already announced that we are making public funds available to enable voluntary organisations to make experimental provision for simple overnight accommodation, linked to counselling facilities and the offer of longer-term help, for people who would otherwise be charged with offences of drunkenness. We hope that the first of the new experimental facilities will be operational by the autumn. If these experiments succeed, we hope to extend such centres and to introduce new sources of finance for them.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I warmly welcome the action that my right hon. Friend has taken in regard to drunken offenders. It is certainly a major step to decriminalise the
  1906
  actions of those who unfortunately are sick, socially handicapped and often homeless. Does he accept that there will be no significant results unless the new overnight accommodation is linked with services for rehabilitation? Will he be prepared to initiate discussions straightaway with the appropriate Departments and the voluntary agencies to see how a comprehensive and cost-effective service can be developed?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, most certainly. 1 respond to my hon. Friend by saying that we hope to initiate such discussions. I also want to refer to the sources of finance, which I have already mentioned to my hon. Friend in a recent answer.
  The all-party penal affairs group has drawn attention to one possible source of funds for this purpose—the licensing compensation funds. I announced our proposals for winding up these funds in reply to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) on 30 July. We propose that 50 per cent. of the amounts now held by the county licensing compensation authorities should be paid to a new charitable trust fund which would be empowered to finance, among other things pioneering schemes for dealing with drunken offenders. However, I must stress that this scheme as a whole will depend on finding a suitable legislative opportunity in which to seek parliamentary approval for the new arrangements. I suspect that such approval could easily be given, because I think that this trust could be of significant help. The funds would be made available, and I hope that it would be possible to make arrangements to that end.
  These developments are important in their own right, and we shall make every effort to ensure that they succeed. However, we must recognise that they will have only a limited impact on the total prison population.
  In its interim report "The Length of Prison Sentences", the Advisory Council on the Penal System concluded that
  "every consideration of penal theory and practice tells us that we should strive to restrict the use of imprisonment even more than we have done in the recent past."
  It posed the question
  "Are there not cases of two years' imprisonment where 18 months or 15 or even less,

  1907
  might safely be passed, and sentences of 12 months when six months would do just as well?"
  It urged all courts to stop at the point where a sentence had been decided upon and consider whether a shorter one would not do just as well. The Conservative Party's general election manifesto took up the same theme. We said that for really violent criminals and thugs really tough sentences were essential. But in other cases long prison terms are not always the best deterrent.
  I believe that a strong consensus is developing that shorter prison sentences are both appropriate and desirable. We now know that a longer sentence is most unlikely to aid a prisoner's rehabilitation in any sense, while the initial impact of imprisonment is quite sufficient to make a lasting impression in the minds of most offenders.
  The Lord Chief Justice recently said in the Court of Appeal:
  "the time has come to appreciate that nonviolent petty offenders should not be allowed to take up what has become valuable space in prison. If there really is no alternative to an immediate prison sentence, then it should be as short as possible."
  Of course, it is for the courts to decide the appropriate sentence in each individual case. However, it is the responsibility of the legislature to provide the framework within which individual sentencing decisions are made, and I believe that it is proper for Parliament to expect the courts to take account of its clearly expressed views in so far as they bear on the general tendency of the sentencing decisions which the courts make.
  I have said that exceptional measures cannot be ruled out if the situation demands them. Such measures would have to be indiscriminate and across-the-board. This would inevitably disturb the relativities which have been carefully established by the courts over a very considerable period of time. I do not find that an attractive course, nor am I as convinced as some of its powerful advocates that the emergency measures suggested would necessarily succeed in reducing the prison population, except temporarily. Indeed, they could turn out to be counter-productive if the thinking behind them were not accepted by judges and magistrates.
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept
  1908
  that the most important and significant reduction in the prison population can be achieved by means of reducing the length of sentences? I am glad to hear him confirm the statement that he made, as reported in The Times on 16 July, that if his entreaties to the judiciary were not heard and implemented, parliamentary action would have to follow. Can he now say how long he will give the judiciary to implement shorter sentences? Who is monitoring whether or not shorter sentences are currently being imposed?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I shall not be trapped into saying how long I shall give the judiciary. The hon. Gentleman is an old enough hand to know that he will not trap me—I hope, nearly as old a hand—into giving such an answer. I want to see how this develops. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not take my particular view, but I believe that in the longer term there is a danger of such measures being totally counter-productive. I am entitled to that view, and there are quite a few people who hold it. There is now an unmistakable consensus, to which I am sure today's debate will make an important contribution, about the desirability of shorter prison sentences. I should therefore like to allow time in which we can see whether this can enable a substantial reduction in the prison population to be achieved.
  Mr. John Patten: In view of everything that my right hon. Friend has said about shorter prison sentences, does he not agree that it is necessary to inform and reassure the general public that the level of punishment and protection is adequate?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, very much so. That is why to move quickly or suddenly into emergency measures, even if they are necessary, would have considerable drawbacks? That must be faced. I hope that we in this House can get across to the general public that, although longer sentences are inevitable for the protection of the public in crimes of violence and terrorism, there are many other offenders who could benefit from shorter sentences. We must try to get that distinction across to people. I believe that it is possible to do so, and it is up to all hon. Members to try to do so.
  Within the prison population as a whole, prisoners on remand give rise to

  1909
  special concern, which has been voiced on many occasions by Members of this House. Particular concern has been expressed about the number of young people in custody, and for this reason a limited amount of new accommodation specifically for unsentenced young prisoners will become available at two of our newest establishments, Glen Parva and Thorp Arch, later this year. The extra places which will be provided by the prison building programme will also provide some welcome relief for the establishments where remand prisoners are held. Quite apart from the prison places occupied by those on remand, hon. Members know how much prison staff time is occupied on court hearings. This problem illustrates once again the interdependence of the different parts of the criminal justice system. Delays in the judicial system inevitably aggravate the already intense pressures on local prisons.
  As to the Bail Act itself, differing points of view have been expressed on the outcome of the legislation. The first year of operation of the Act has been monitored, and the results will be published. When they are available it will be possible to have a better-informed public debate on this difficult subject.
  I have already indicated today that I do not intend to discuss in detail all the proposals which have been put to me for changes in the working of the penal system. But I wish to stress my appreciation to the all-party penal affairs group for its most important report, and to undertake to give careful consideration to its recommendations.
  I should also inform the House that in the autumn we shall publish a White Paper on the sentencing and treatment of young offenders.
  Although the internal problems of the prison system naturally tend to occupy a central place in our thinking at present, this will not distract us from our commitment to legislation giving the courts more effective powers of sentencing, principally as regards young adult offenders.
  But as this debate will no doubt make clear, our prisons present the greatest challenge within the whole criminal justice system in our society. No one can doubt that too little attention has
  1910
  been paid to our prisons, their staff, and inmates for decades. But in the last Parliament there was a realisation that this attitude had to change. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) acted in setting up the May committee. The Expenditure Committee's study and report were further evidence of Parliament's interest.
  I would claim that this Government, by acting so quickly and decisively on the May report, have shown that determination in this Parliament to face up to the problems, as has the all-party penal affairs group. We have made a beginning. Success in solving the problems of the prison system will need continued commitment and continued support for this task from all of us.
  10.6 am
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Home Secretary struck the right note in his last words by saying that continued effort on our part is needed. The May report and the Expenditure Committee report are of great value, but this is not a once for all job. It must continue all the time.
  We are debating the prison system and the report of the May committee. First, I should like to say a word about the May report and then a word about the reduction in the prison population. It is right that the report of the Expenditure Committee, although it is not mentioned on the Order Paper, is very much in our minds. A number of interesting matters are raised there, and the Home Secretary raised a number of matters regarding alternatives to prison. Other right hon. and hon. Members will comment on that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) will also concentrate on it in her reply.
  I should like to bring to the notice of the House the terms of reference of the May report, not as a historical exercise, but because it took a long time to draft them. The terms of reference are divided into two parts, because at the time I was more concerned with the administration of the prisons. It was not that we lacked advice from the Expenditure Committee and other sources about the size of the prison population, but at that time to have undertaken another investigation would have been a mistake. An introductory section sets the scene about the size of the prison population, but may I

  1911
  remind the House of the issues on which the May committee was asked to advise. It was asked to advise on
  "the adequacy, availability, management and use of resources in the prison services; the conditions for staff in the prison services and their families"—
  there has not been very much investigation of that over the years—
  "the organisation and management of the prison services; the structure of the prison services, including complementing and grading; the remuneration and conditions of service of prison officers, governors and other grades … in the prison services … allowances and other aspects of the conditions of service of other grades … working arrangements in the prison services … the effectiveness of the industrial relations machinery."
  The members of the committee included experts in the field of industrial relations in industry, a senior officer in the police force who had experience in police pay negotiations, so was able to give dual advice to the committee, a magistrate, and, of course, a representative from Northern Ireland and Scotland, because the report covers the United Kingdom as a whole.
  It was my view at the time that, until we had put right the administration of the prisons, penal reform would not be carried out properly. It is not sufficient to have good ideas in this House and in other places if they are unacceptable to those who work in the prisons. They would not get very far, and they would be carried out in the wrong way. I found in the prison service a resentment against this House. It was felt that we were concerned about the prisons but that we were not worried about the staff and their conditions. It was also said that we were not worried about their views or their experience. Also, the continuous duty credit argument showed me that the prison service was out of control.
  I, as the man ultimately responsible, was not running the prison service. There was an animosity between different trade unions, between different branches working in the Civil Service. Going back to 1975, before my time as Home Secretary, and even earlier, for long periods—this is chronicled in the May report—prisons were effectively in some essential ways controlled by local branches of the Prison Officers Association. The organisation was such that there was blurred responsibility,
  1912
  despite the best intentions of those within the Civil Service, particularly those with whom I came into contact.
  Therefore, whatever happens about non-custodial measures, whatever happens about the size of the prison population and much as this is absolutely basic to what is done in the prisons, I simply tell the House that I was particularly concerned with the industrial relations aspect of the running of the prison service. That had to be put right, because not nearly enough attention had been given to it.
  I agree that it is absolutely right to preserve ministerial responsibility for the prison service and for the treatment of individual prisons. Much depends on the junior Minister with day-to-day responsibility. No Home Secretary with a wide variety of responsibilities can concern himself with the prisons on a day-to-day basis. Much, therefore, depends upon the junior Minister who is appointed for that purpose.
  The junior Minister needs every opportunity not just to pass minutes to the Secretary of State but to talk with the Secretary of State about the problems that he sees. He needs a certain perception so that, when he sees problems arising, he can bring them to the notice of the Home Secretary.
  I agree that we need to give the prison service a greater corporate sense. Some people believe that the old system, which was altered about 20 years ago, provided a better corporate sense than the more dispersed system within the Home Office. I am not sure what is meant by the suggestion that those in charge should be made more directly responsible. I can see what is meant by those words as a general statement, but I am not sure what they mean in terms of regional and local organisation.
  I am sure that it is right that the present Director General should stay in his post. I do not say that because I appointed him, having seen him at close quarters in Northern Ireland; I am sure that overall it is the right thing to do.
  It is also right to bring on to the prison board the four regional directors and two outside non-executive members. We all know that when one is in Opposition, arrangements are not such that one

  1913
  can keep tabs on everything that is happening, and I wonder who these nonexecutive members are and where they come from.
  Mr.Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman has not missed anything. We are still considering who they ought to be.
  Mr. Rees: That gives me a certain amount of satisfaction. Are they to come from within the Home Office, from within the prison service, or from outside?
  Mr. Whitelaw: Outside.
  Mr. Rees: That is very good sense. People were appointed to the May committee from outside. They were people with a different view of life, although with experience that was germane to the matters under inquiry.
  The recommendation in the May report that there should be an inspectorate separate from the prison department is crucial, and I commend the announcement that the Home Secretary has made about Mr. Pearce. I also agree with the recommendation concerning the publication of his reports.
  I note the points about the regular inspections of individual establishments and the investigation of particular incidents. The Home Secretary has said that the annual report will be published, and that other reports will be made publicly available as appropriate. These are, no doubt, well-chosen words. I hope that more often that not reports will be published, because reports that simply go back into the Department do not perform the function that should stem from an independent inspectorate.
  Whatever we do about the size of the prison population, there will still be a problem in the remand centres and remand prisons. Reducing the size of the prison population—before sentencing anyway—will do nothing to deal with that problem.
  There was a recent suicide at Risley. There was a coroner's inquest. What the coroner does about suicide and deaths is, of course, a matter for him. I had a word or two to say about that case and I noticed that the coroner criticised me for asking for a public inquiry. I agree with him fully, but as I had not asked for a public inquiry, that makes it all square. Given the overcrowding in the remand
  1914
  centres and the remand prisons, my view is that the inspector's report on this event should be published. Whether the coroner's inquest has a bearing on it, I do not know.
  I have a great respect for the administration and staff at Risley, having had occasion to turn my mind to the problems of Risley when I was Home Secretary. But I wonder whether we are providing sufficient staff and sufficient resources at Risley to enable the job to be done properly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, South (Mr. Dubs) has raised the question of the death of Richard Campbell at Ashford remand centre and is pursuing that matter. I wish only to link that with what happened at Risley, given the nature of the present debate. The question I raise—my hon. Friend may well wish to raise other matters of concern—is whether it is a problem of staffing and conditions in the remand prisons. Are we providing the necessary resources through the Government and from this House? I believe that very recently there has been a further death.
  There was a basic industrial relations problem in the two years before the May committee was set up, and particularly in the few months before it was set up. The continuous duty credit argument was an indication of that. But it was more than a matter of pay, and this is brought out clearly in chapter 10 of the report. The number of people employed in the prison service is such that we are, in effect, talking about an industry. If the matters mentioned in chapter 10 had arisen at British Leyland or in any other major British industry, questions would have been asked on the Floor of the House.
  The story is quite remarkable. The media are always very quick to pick up individual events. When I was Home Secretary I tried to prompt a discussion on industrial relations in the prison service. If I had leaked a document, no doubt it would have appeared on the middle page of one of the weekend papers. Industrial relations in the prison service are bad. They are in many respects worse than those in many of the industries about which hon. Members are always popping up on the Floor of the House. The story that is told on

  1915
  pages 233 and 234 in chapter 10 of the report is well worth reading.
  Anyone who believes that the Prison Officers Association is a Left-wing union should think again. The problems and events of last year arose out of poor union-employer relations. The May inquiry considered one point that was on my mind and it is a point that we may well come to again. It considered whether prison officers should be subject to any limitations or restrictions in respect of industrial action. Let me say at once that volunteers—there has been a great deal of talk lately on this subject—would be of no use.
  What is mean by an all-out strike does not matter very much, because a strike by one or two key people in a prison can bring it to a standstill. But what about other staff as well as prison officers? How could the strike be enforced? The report correctly came to the conclusion that there should be no change in the status quo.
  Two years ago we were faced with a serious situation on the Isle of Wight. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is present. The prisons on the Isle of Wight were not brought to a standstill, but prisoners were not being allowed in although they were being allowed out. The dispute was over a small amount of money being given to prison officers because they lived across the water. If something as important but as small as that in the prison body politic could do that, we could face a similar situation again.
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I think that perhaps I had better correct that statement by the right hon. Gentleman. The dispute was over the inconvenience of locality allowance compared with, say, Dartmoor. The prison officers live on the Isle of Wight.
  Mr. Rees: I understand that, but there was also the question of allowances for crossing the water. That is an important issue for prison officers living there. The point is that it led to a breakdown in the running of the prisons on the Isle of Wight where historically we have put a number. What will the Government do when that happens again? Fortunately, we never got to the point of finally having to decide on the use of police cells as opposed to prison cells.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: It is done now.
  Mr. Rees: It may be that my hon. Friend can rule on this. I cannot. However, it is a question which must be asked. At that time we alerted the Army, but not with any idea that it would be brought into the matter. The report has properly dismissed any change in the status question about the right of prison officers to strike, but the situation could arise again over a small issue. Therefore, we should consider this problem.
  The report refers to industrial relations. I shall not mention all the points, but there is a list. For example, the report states:
  "An assistant or deputy governor should be designated at each establishment as a channel for complaints and a troubleshooter in the event of disputes occurring. This would not mean the governor being less concerned in the management of staff than he is at present."
  The problems arise in the prisons. Therefore, more of the problems should be resolved there.
  Another sentence states:
  "certain issues … can never be settled locally, and must be for national negotiation."
  The report states:
  "The Home Office and the CSD should give consideration to a return to the situation in which matters of pay and conditions of service are negotiated directly between the Home Office and the POA."
  There is no doubt that the split in responsibility between the CSD and the Home Office certainly weakened my position and those who worked with me in terms of negotiation. That comes into the wider discussion about the role of the CSD, but responsibility in these matters can rest in only one place, for divided responsibility leads to further trouble.
  I leave it at that point, but the report goes on to talk about the role of the Prison Officers' Association. The report suggests that the POA should have better back up in its organisation than is now provided. That is a matter for the POA, but it is dealt with in the report.
  The report deals with the working conditions of the staff. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House represent areas where prisons are located. The report recommends that urgent attention be paid to the working conditions of the staff
  "including … toilet facilities, office accommodation, rest rooms, showers, and facilities for drying clothes. … Any application for a

  1917
  club at a particular establishment should be looked at as favourably as possible."
  I have no doubt that is of great importance, but it appears in the May report on the administration of the prisons. I should not have thought that it needed an obiter dicta on whether prison officers could have a club.
  The report goes on to consider quarters. The problem of quarters in the prisons is important and it matters to prison officers. Many prison officers in the Prison Officers Association have told me that they do not merely want to be turnkeys. The prison officers who came to discuss a number of issues with our Back-Bench committee gave me a document which I wish to bring to the notice of the House, because it shows that the POA is considering wider matters. The document states:
  "At present there exist two prison officer training schools, one at Wakefield and one at Leyhill. These schools teach service entrants how to carry out the duties of a prison officer. They do not provide, adequately, for teaching the behavioural patterns or the social skills that will be required to avoid confrontation circumstances with inmates."
  The prison officers asked for development courses to be continued and for a third training school. The fact that prison officers are concerning themselves with training is important. It illustrates that prison officers want to be not just turnkeys, but professionals.
  On the question of work to be done in the regions and centrally, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has brought to my notice a discussion that she had with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants which apparently has had a meeting with the Home Secretary. That body is concerned that regional specialists—medical officers, chaplains, catering managers and education officers—are to be centralised in London as opposed to the regions. This is a matter for discussion between the Home Office and the organisation concerned, but if we are considering giving more responsibility to the regions and it is being centralised in Whitehall, it is a contradiction in terms. It is the general policy rather than the detailed argument about chaplains and so on about which I am concerned.
  The evidence from the Expenditure Committee report and the recent report of the prison department shows an escalating prison population. The Home Secretary
  1918
  acknowledged that needs to be reduced. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. But if we were to reduce the size of the prison population tomorrow, there would still be a need for a capital expenditure programme on the prisons. If we build one new prison, it will not mean that there will be no need. The prisons which may be left may be in the wrong places for the purposes for which they are needed. They may need capital expenditure or replacement. It is no use arguing that there is a spare prison 190 miles away if one is thinking in terms of a remand prison.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Perhaps I may reinforce that point, particularly against the criticisms directed to the Home Secretary, by indicating that the prison governors have said that even if the 6,000 places currently being planned and provided were available, they would not increase occupancy by one prisoner because in the period before they were established a similar number of inadequate obsolescent cells would have gone out of use. Even the 6,000 places that we are currently planning will not increase capacity. We need a greater prison building programme.
  Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  I have taken the opportunity this week to study my papers in the Northern Ireland Office. I introduced 50 per cent. remission as opposed to 33 per cent. remission. That was announced at about the end of 1975. We discussed the detail of the scheme, how it was to be handled, what it would mean in practice and what We would do when we announced it for the best part of 18 months.
  Mr. Whitelaw: It was probably discussed for longer than that.
  Mr. Rees: Indeed. An individual often thinks on taking office that he has had a brilliant idea. The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that others have often had brilliant ideas previously. Of course, we are not allowed to see the previous Government's papers. For the moment I shall take it that I had a brilliant idea.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly.
  Mr. Rees: When the right hon. Gentleman writes his memoirs he can claim a brilliant idea. It takes time to sort out a scheme such as increasing remission

  1919
  from 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. It takes time to consider public opinion. For example, can we assure the public that we are not letting out the wrong people? I wished to introduce such a scheme as Home Secretary, but I can imagine what Messrs. Saatchi and Saatchi would have made of it in the six months before the general election.
  As the House will know, there is no parole in Northern Ireland. However, if an ex-prisoner offends again, a judge can add the earlier 50 per cent. remission to the new sentence.
  Mr. David Mellor: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Parliament has two choices in intervening in these matters? First, it can do what he is suggesting and increase remission and the availability of parole. Secondly, it can take action to restrict the sentences that can be imposed. Does he think that the latter might be better than the former? Many of us in the courts suspect that judges are tending increasingly to take account of the activities of the Parole Board when they pass sentence and are adding to sentences equivalently.
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Last week I was talking to someone who worked in the Home Office about 20 years ago. He said that when remission was increased from 25 per cent. to 33 per cent. the judges took the opportunity to increase the tariff. I had not realised that. It would be worth considering whether the judges in Northern Ireland are nearer the body politic than judges in Britain. My information is that they are not.
  I discovered that when remission was increased to 33⅓ per cent. in England and Wales the judges upped the tariff.
  Mr. Percy Grieve: Surely this is entirely a subjective judgment. There is no objective evidence that the judges are increasing the sentences as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There is.
  Mr. Rees: The figures setting out the sentences for various crimes indicate that the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong.
  There is the variant of continuing with parole for more than two years' imprisonment and for less than two years' imprisonment having 50 per cent. remis-
  1920
  sion. I respect the Lord Chief Justice and what he has said, but I suspect that by the end of the year we shall find that the proposals have had precious little effect.
  Whatever we do about the size of the prison population, we shall still have a remand population. I have given examples relating to Risley and elsewhere. We are placing far too great a burden on the prison staff. The press hand-out from the Home Office conveniently summarises the report on the work of the prison department. It indicates that in 1979 the number of receptions on remand into prisons of untried males was 5 per cent. higher than the previous year and that the number of receptions of convicted unsentenced males was 6 per cent. higher than the previous year.
  In the debate on these matters in another place Lord Hutchinson of Lullington made one of the most remarkable speeches that I have read. He observed that we have been discussing these issues for the best part of 20 years. He referred to the proportion of those in our prisons who are on remand. He said that 44 per cent. of those imprisoned on remand ultimately receive non-custodial sentences. He talked about the prison officer manpower that is involved in getting prisoners from Lewes prison to the London courts.
  Lord Hutchinson discussed organisational matters, which are in part the responsibility of the Home Office. I greatly respect the Lord Chancellor and I appreciate that he is a politician. We talk about greater efficiency at British Leyland and greater efficiency in the coal industry. We talk about greater efficiency everywhere except in the way that our courts are used. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will produce one of his great explosions when wearing his political hat and will concern himself with the courts to the same extent as other areas about which he knows less.
  Mr. John Ryman: Is my right hon. Friend totally unaware of the many steps that are being taken by the Government and which were taken by the previous Labour Government to deal with the serious problem of expediting trials and reducing the waiting period for prisoners on remand? Many schemes have been introduced recently to reduce

  1921
  the delay between committal and trial although that period is still disturbingly long, especially in the London area. Surely my right hon. Friend is being rather unfair to the legal profession in belittling the efforts that have been made to expedite proceedings between committal and trial.
  Mr. Rees: No. The intentions of the legal profession have been excellent. What it has attempted to do has been good. However, just as mere politicians sometimes fail to get it right, I think that the legal profession has failed, or that part of it that organises the courts. I leave it there because I think that the speech of Lord Hutchinson speaks for itself.
  We must examine the remand system. Whatever we do about administration, industrial relations and reducing the prison population, the problem of remand prisons and centres will remain. Why is it that the same problem is not experienced in Scotland? Is that because the Scottish system includes the 110-day rule for serious offences and the 40-day rule for less serious offences? Does that concentrate the mind of the legal profession? Are those rules more effective than the good intentions that politicians and lawyers are good at mouthing? We should examine the Scottish system because apparently in Scotland the waiting list is not nearly so high.
  The May report is of great value. I hope that the House will put its mind to the administration of prisons. Every 15 years the broadcasting system is reconsidered. Perhaps the prison system should be reconsidered on the same time scale. The May report is excellent, and although Mr. Justice May said harsh words about the legal profession, the report shows what the legal profession can do if it puts its mind to it. Perhaps we should have a May report on how the courts are run. We should then be able to move on two fronts, as both sides of the House desire.
  10.40 am
  Miss Janet Fookes: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I dwell more on the Expenditure Committee's report than on the May report. I was very flattered that the Government
  1922
  bracketed the Expenditure Committee report with the May report as constituting the most comprehensive analysis of prison affairs since the Second World War. There has been widespread support for the Expenditure Committee's recommendations. That is not empty rhetoric.
  As a result of the initiative of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, a one-day conference was held last year to which several organisations were invited. They gave their views and the conference was followed up by a questionnaire. As a result, one can consider any one of the 52 recommendations that were made, and the resulting document gives an idea of what the various organisations thought, and whether they agreed with the recommendations. I was delighted by the unanimity of support. In a debate such as this, it is impossible to do justice to all of the 52 recommendations. However, I should like to consider some of them in three separate groups: first, the question arises of the length of sentences; secondly, one must consider the alternatives to imprisonment; thirdly, one must consider the possibility of change within prison regimes.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recognised that the most effective way of dealing with the immediate pressure on prisons is to shorten sentences, where that can be done without danger to the public. The Expenditure Committee made clear that a distinction must be drawn between those prisoners who are dangerous to the public and must be incarcerated for as long as it is in the public interest, and those who are not a danger to the public.
  All research suggests that a shorter sentence is just as effective, if not more effective, than a longer one. I think that my right hon. Friend knows that I disagree with him about how such shorter sentences should be carried out. I do not believe that pious exhortations to the judiciary are sufficient. The Home Office should now consider the maximum sentences for varying types of crime, and should bring their proposals before the House in a calm and considered way rather than in response to an emergency. I am sure that that is the only sensible way of dealing with the problem.

  1923
  I particularly liked the idea of the Advisory Council on the Penal System. It suggested that while there should be a maximum sentence for the general run-of-the-mill case, it should also be possible, in exceptional circumstances, for a court to advocate a much longer sentence, and to attach the reasons for so doing. That would deal with those evil cases where a longer sentence than usual is needed.
  In Scotland, sentences tend to be shorter. There is no suggestion that the rate of crime is any worse in Scotland than in England. We therefore have a practical example on our doorstep of shorter sentences which we should follow up.
  I commend the Expenditure Committee's suggestion that there should be a wider use of the partially suspended sentence, and that it should be possible to use it for sentences of three months or longer. Indeed, that point was made by the Magistrates Association. It works on the principle that it is a good idea to give an offender a short sharp shock of imprisonment in those cases in which it is generally agreed that the maximum impact can be made. The Expenditure Committee visited prisons and spoke to prisoners, and some of them seemed to share that view. I believe that it is worth trying.
  I should also like to commend an idea to which the Government gave a cold shoulder in their observations on the report—namely, the simple expedient that courts should be given general information about the availability of places in the various institutions. I suspect that the Government are afraid that it will be thought that they are putting undue pressure on the independent courts. However, I believe that it is a sensible proposition, and I commend it to the House.
  The Expenditure Committee's report mentioned several alternatives to imprisonment and those alternatives were echoed in the all-party penal affairs group report. I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to dwell on this subject. As a result of an oversight, one alternative did not appear as a recommendation in the Expenditure Committee's report. Therefore, it may not have received the Government's attention, although it deserves it. I refer to the use of probation "with strings attached".
  1924
  A package deal would be involved, in which the condition of probation would be that the offender must accept a package, individually tailored for his needs. That would represent a positive contribution. For example, someone who found alcohol a problem might be asked, as a condition of probation, to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous group. A work-shy person might be required to attend a sheltered workshop. We visited the Bulldog scheme, run by the inner London probation authority, which specifically tries to get petty workshy offenders to do a decent day's work. We were impressed by the scheme. In many cases it succeeds with people that one might otherwise have thought to be hopeless. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the appointment of Mr. Pearce, who is responsible for this particular project. We warmly commend it.
  We also recommended that there should be a thorough inquiry into the pay and conditions of prison staff. That has already been carried out by the May committee. Alas, I fear that it was not done in response to the recommendations of the Expenditure Committee, because if it had been, it would have been carried out more quickly. The report was carried out as a result of a crisis in the prison system rather than as a result of our recommendations. Nevertheless, we welcome the thorough review that May made of what had hitherto been a neglected issue.
  One suggestion has not received a very happy response from the Government, judging from their observations on the report. I refer to the suggestion that there should be a pilot scheme, at least, for paying prisoners the market rate for the job. I cannot stress too strongly how the Expenditure Committee felt about this. We felt that those in prison should do a decent day's work if that were possible to arrange. We all know the difficulties. Indeed, the May report was somewhat critical. It suggested—although not in the inelegant language that I shall use—that everyone had thrown in the sponge about producing decent jobs and conditions for prisoners. The possibility of paying the market rate for the job seems even more remote. However, if people are to be kept in custody, such work would represent the type of positive custody commended by the Expenditure Committee and by the May report. I

  1925
  hope that the Government will look again at this suggestion. Perhaps prisoners would then be able to contribute to their families. This would be preferable to allowing the families to remain on social security, and that is all to the good. Otherwise we find ourselves in the extraordinary position of paying heavily to keep people in prison and paying again to keep their families outside.
  Finally, I wish to make a point about parole which goes far beyond the point made by the Expenditure Committee, which contented itself with suggesting that there should be a thorough review of parole—not just an internal exercise but an independent study. I would go even further. All the considerations and views that I have heard about parole lead me to believe that the system is basically and intrinsically unfair to prisoners. The prisoners feel great frustrations while they wait for the results and they are irritated by the fact that they are not given reasons.
  In any case, a refusal of parole may depend not on how the prisoner has conducted himself, but on measures over which he has no control. These include whether there is a statistical likelihood of his offending again, his employment prospects outside and a stable home background. Once a man is in prison, there is nothing he can do about these aspects. To make parole conditional upon them is fundamentally wrong. We should consider revamping the system of shortening sentences by other means.
  I urge upon the Government the necessity for taking swift action now. I was somewhat disturbed by the observation in the White Paper on the Expenditure Committee report. It says:
  "Earlier this year it"—
  that is, the prison population—
  "rose to 44,800 and continues to be not much below this level. (Unusual fluctuations of this kind inevitably impose severe additional strains and, if prolonged, must raise the question of exceptional responses by legislative or administrative action.)"
  We need this exceptional response now and not at some unspecified time in the future.
  10.52 am
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: I join with hon. Members
  1926
  on both sides of the House who have paid tribute to the work of Mr. Justice May and his colleagues in preparing the report that is now the subject of the debate. The report is illuminating and very perceptive. I believe that Mr. Justice May and his colleagues have identified the major factors which motivated the anxieties of prison officers and staff in 1978. They have also identified the problems which led to deterioration in industrial relations which was evident at that time.
  I was encouraged this morning to hear the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) identifing overcrowding in Britain's prisons as one of the major issues confronting us at present. Like a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have been fascinated by the experiments which have been conducted in the Dutch penal system. I am interested in the suggestion for a moratorium on the building of new prisons. Equally, I am interested in the demand for saner sentencing policies.
  A few weeks ago I listened carefully to the Home Secretary's statement to the House emphasising his commitment to shorter sentences. I believe that these developments are an encouraging aspect of the Home Secretary's approach to the problem of overcrowding in British prisons. I believe that the poor living conditions provided for prison staff and prisoners is a major problem. Equally, I believe that as long as prisons remain the final sanction in the mechanism of social control in this country, we cannot ignore the conditions in which prisoners are obliged to live.
  I was particularly disturbed some months ago to read the comments attributed to one of Britain's distinguished prison governors—the governor of Strangeways, in Manchester, Mr. Norman Brown. He was quoted in a local newspaper as saying:
  "If we don't tackle this situation"—
  he was referring to overcrowding at Strangeways—
  "we are going to have riots and serious problems. It is an ever-present fear that one day we will have a crisis on our hands—it could happen in the exercise yard, on the landings, in the workshops."
  Mr. Brown made this statement against the background of conditions in a prison

  1927
  that was built in 1868. In appendix 6, list A, of the May report we see that Strangeways prison was built in 1868 to accommodate 1,087 prisoners. At present it is accommodating 1,700 prisoners. That is the reality of overcrowding. When Mr. Brown made his comments, 432 prisoners were allocated two to a cell, and 687 prisoners were living and sleeping three to a cell. They were living in those conditions for 22 hours a day. That is the reality of overcrowding.
  I have listened to anguished comments from hon. Members on both sides of the House about this serious problem. We tend to overlook the fact that overcrowding on that scale is against the minimum rules laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the May report refers. On page 130 the report quotes the European convention where it says:
  "Prisoners shall normally be lodged during the night in individual cells unless circumstances dictate otherwise."
  It goes on:
  "Where sleeping accommodation is in individual cells or rooms, each prisoner shall occupy by night a cell or a room by himself."
  We are not achieving this minimum standard, and that is a matter of great concern.
  1928
  Returning to the question of Strange-ways prison, I was encouraged when the Home Secretary said this morning that the new prison at Appleton Thorn in Lancashire is about to be built. I would like a response from the Minister of State when he winds up the debate as to when Appleton Thorn is likely to come into operation. This is a serious matter, and I echo the view expressed on page 151 of the report, paragraph 6.102. It says:
  "The fact is that the community"—
  it is talking about the community in Britain—
  "has evaded its responsibilities for too long in the past and that, if we continue—as seems likely—to send so many people to prison, then we cannot shrink from providing the resources to ensure that both staff and inmates may be accommodated in premises which are acceptable according to modern standards. It is no good arguing that capital expenditure on prisons should always bear some constant and inferior relationship to capital expenditure on more electorally attractive areas. … "
  I believe that the May report was right in that judgment, and I hope that it is a judgment that will be endorsed by the Minister and in the debate.
  It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Friday sittings).

  JURY CHECKS
  The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about jury checks.
  I have now completed the review, which I have been carrying out over recent months in consultation with the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Director of Public Prosecutions, of the arrangements whereby jury checks are carried out in a limited number of cases under the guidelines laid down by my predecessor. In reaching my conclusions, I have taken account of the recent judgments of the Court of Appeal, particularly that in the case of R v Mason. A copy of the revised guidelines that I propose to issue has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  The existing law provides, as it has for over 600 years, and rightly in my view, that the parties to any jury trial may inspect a copy of the panel from which the jury in their trial will be chosen, and there is no legal restriction on the use which may be made of this information. It has been accepted by the courts that the objects of this provision were to enable the parties to inquire about the members of the panel and to decide whether any should be challenged. I have also taken into account that, although the selection of those who are summoned for jury service from among those qualified and the final selection of those who are called to serve on a particular jury must be random, both parties to criminal proceedings have the right to object to a juror being called to serve, the exercise of which inevitably limits the truly random nature of the jury which eventually tries the case.
  A distinction must be drawn between checks to which my guidelines refer—namely, on the records of police special branches—and checks of criminal records which may be made for the primary purpose of preventing persons who are disqualified by reason of their previous convictions from sitting on a jury. It is a criminal offence for a disqualified person knowingly to serve on a jury, and a check of criminal records of the members of a panel is a matter for the police. That was recognised by the Court of Appeal in R v Mason as a proper thing to be done.
  1930
  The Association of Chief Police Officers, after discussions with the Home Office, is making recommendations to its members as to the circumstances and procedures relating to checks on criminal records, and these will be annexed to my guidelines.
  The checks, which for convenience I shall refer to as "authorised checks", and to which my guidelines refer, are checks which go beyond criminal records and for purposes wider than the mere discovery of previous convictions. I consider that it is in the public interest that the prosecution should continue to make use of its right to make inquiries about a jury panel with a view to exercising its right to stand by a potential juror. The practice, however, should not be unlimited, and I therefore endorse the general principles of the previous guidelines which were self-imposed restraints on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions as a prosecutor.
  Experience, recent observations of the Court of Appeal and a keen public interest in the subject have nevertheless caused me to make some revisions to those guidelines. The most significant are as follows. First, no check on the records of police special branches will be made except on my authority, following a recommendation from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Secondly, except in terrorist cases, such checks will not be authorised in cases involving so-called strong political motives. Thirdly, in cases involving security, such as under the Official Secrets Act, such checks will be authorised only when national security is involved and it is expected that the court will be asked to sit in camera. Fourthly, in no other type of case will such checks be authorised.
  Except where and in so far as it may be necessary to confirm the identity of a member of the panel against whom the initial checks had raised doubts, checks will not be made which go beyond checks on criminal records or those of police special branches.
  All parties to proceedings have a statutory right to inspect the jury panel under section 5 (2) of the Juries Act 1974. Therefore, the judge's authority for access is not required and will not be sought. However, the judge and defence counsel will be informed when a check has been authorised.

  1931
  The result of an authorised check will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director will then decide, having regard to the provisions of the guidelines, what information ought to be brought to the attention of prosecuting counsel. Records will be kept by the Director of Public Prosecutions, which I will see and thus be able to monitor the operation of the guidelines.
  I have recognised that the defence may have a particular reason to wish to have the panel checked for disqualified persons or to seek assistance in obtaining information relative to its right of peremptory challenge but has no access to the information available to the Crown. It is also my view that the courts have no jurisdiction to order the police to reveal information on their records relating to jurors. Accordingly, in cases which would fall within my guidelines, I shall be prepared to consider a request made by defence counsel through the Director of Public Prosecutions for assistance in obtaining information. I understand that chief constables, on the general recommendation of their association, will be prepared to consider a request relating to checks on criminal records, if approved by the director. In both cases, the results of any check undertaken will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will treat them in accordance with my guidelines. The intention of this proposal is merely to assist the defence and not in any way to restrict the right of the defendant to inspect the panel and to take such action as is lawful.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: We welcome the fact that at last the Attorney-General has seen fit to make a statement on jury checking or vetting—better late than never. However, we take issue with him on a number of matters.
  The statement gives cause for concern. An opportunity has been lost properly to look again at the guidelines introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney-General. In a sentence, the proposals are cumbersome, unwieldy and in many respects unnecessary.
  It is unfortunate, to say the least, that a matter of such grave constitutional importance should be dealt with today, on a Friday.
  Every year some 200,000 jurors are sworn. They see at first hand and take
  1932
  part in the criminal justice process, which gives people an identification with the enforcement of the criminal law. It is important therefore that the system should work properly and in the interests of justice. Unhappily, in recent times it has become fashionable in certain quarters to be critical of jurors and the jury system. Not least among the critics is a small minority of judges, aggrieved in some instances when juries bring in verdicts with which they do not agree. They seem to forget that that is one of the great strengths and glories of our jury system. Our system is such that jurors speak with a free voice, independent, untrammelled and not intimidated by judicial or other authority.
  May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a number of questions arising from his statement? Is he aware that the case of R. v. Mason has been heavily criticised in many quarters, not least by The Times in a striking leader? Does he agree that the question of providing information to prosecution and defence counsel was put into a different category when his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor decided, at almost dead of night, without consultation and debate in this House, that the occupation of jurors should no longer be given in the list?
  On the question of challenges, the constitutional right of the defence—although not the Crown, of course—to challenge jurors, having been reduced from seven to three, has been greatly restricted.
  Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that the Home Office should deal with the whole question of checks and not the chief officers of police?
  Finally, when will the right hon. and learned Gentleman hold further consultations, and with whom—in the near future?
  The Attorney-General: It is true that this statement is rather late—mostly because of the decision in the Mason case. The statement had been prepared and agreed before then. As I am sure the hon. and learned Member will be the first to recognise, that decision was a considerable spanner in the works.
  As regards the statement being made on a Friday, I have been available all week for this. There has been a great deal of pressure on the House and a large number of statements. There have been two

  1933
  Supply days, which I think the business managers were determined not to cut into any more than was necessary. This Friday is, of course, a very convenient day in view of the nature of the debate in which the House is engaged. Many people will share an interest in the debate and in this matter.
  I think that to suggest that there has been a lost opportunity to look at my predecessor's guidelines is an unfair criticism, because I have made considerable changes to those guidelines and I have looked carefully at them.
  Perhaps I may deal with the "better late than never" points which eventually arose in the form of questions from the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is true that Mason has been criticised, but it is now the law, and the law has to be enforced. It is one of the purposes of the statement that information to prosecution and defence should be even-handed. I think that the reason that occupations have been taken out is the number of occasions on which people were challenged simply because their occupation was one which the defence decided was not an appropriate occupation for a juror to hold in the nature of the case being tried.
  As regards the rights of the defence to challenge being reduced from seven to three, that was the decision of the House, with, I think, very little opposition, during the course of the Criminal Law Bill.
  I simply do not understand why the hon. and learned Member asks why the Home Office does not deal with these checks rather than the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Home Office does not have control over provincial police forces. It cannot tell them exactly what to do. It can merely issue guidance. ACPO has, very sensibly I think, drawn up some guidelines which will impose restrictions upon powers which Mason has underlined that they have.
  As regards future consultations, the principal matter that we shall have to discuss is whether the group of disqualifications should be widened, and whether there should be further legislation which would impose a duty upon a juror attending at the court of trial to sign a form, for example, to the effect that he is not disqualified, and if he signs it falsely he would, perhaps, commit an offence.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I may appeal to hon. Members to make sure that questions are succinct, because we are taking time out of the debate on the prison system.
  Mr. Grieve: As one who has repeatedly urged my right hon. and learned Friend to have regard, above all, to the protection of society and the administration of justice in regard to any danger of the infiltration of juries by evilly disposed persons, perhaps I may take this opportunity of congratulating him on new guidelines which hold the balance very evenly between the defence of society and the State and the needs of the defence.
  The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. Freud: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement—if not the timing or the notice given—will be very largely welcomed. Does he agree that, in the case of the Official Secrets Act, it is only section 1 on which exemption should be made? Secondly, does he agree that, if a defence counsel has access only if the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions are willing for it to be given, it would be preferable to allow an independent judge to be involved in this process?
  The Attorney-General: On the first point, there are cases under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act which would involve national security and in which the evidence may be given in camera, so it would, of course, cover those.
  Concerning the defence, it is well known that Directors of Public Prosecutions all through the years have always been most anxious to ensure that the defence has been given every assistance. I am sure that they will make certain in this case, when they act as a sieve, that that will be so, and in any question of doubt they will consult me.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I accept that my right hon. and learned Friend's statement represents a perfectly fair and reasonable compromise between the difficult conflicting interests involved in this matter. However, has he considered one or two of the consequences? For example, has he considered the potential damage to the

  1935
  reputation of a juror who is asked to stand by for the Crown? Does he recollect the situation in the anarchists' trial in which an eminent chartered accountant had to stand by and receive a great deal of uninformed criticism? How does he propose to overcome that difficulty?
  The Attorney-General: I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for reminding the House of this matter, because the fact that the juror is challenged does not and must never be seen to mean that he either has a serious criminal record or is in any way unsound. I am delighted to have this opportunity to make that clear.
  The case of the eminent chartered accountant is a very good case in point. This person was named upon a document found in the possession of the defendant. That document had a number of other names on it, including that of the late Lord Mountbatten. One view of it, which could be fairly taken, was that it was a "hit" list for a terrorist organisation. It would obviously be quite wrong to allow that individual to serve on the jury because, say, when exhibit 92 was shown to the jury, he might say "That is me," because the document contains his name, his Christian names, his address and his telephone number, and they are all right. Therefore, he had to be taken off the jury and no reason could be given, when he appeared on television and was interviewed by the press, because it might have prejudiced the trial. Therefore, he suffered, unfortunately, but it was nothing to do with a security check; it was simply because a police officer had the good sense to recognise the name as being on one of the documents. It was obviously in the interests of justice—I think that the trial would have had to be stopped and started again—not to allow that person to serve.
  I am pleased to have this opportunity to say publicly that there is nothing of any kind known against that man which tarnishes his character in any way.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Attorney-General enlarge briefly upon the reasons for the second of his revisions to the guidelines? Does "terrorist" in that connection have the meaning that it has in the prevention of terrorism Act or some other meaning? What, in any
  1936
  case, is the ground for distinguishing between violent offences and other crimes for the purpose of this change?
  The Attorney-General: What happens is that in terrorist cases particularly—and we have tried to limit it as far as possible—where very strong political views may be held, there is always a risk that there will be someone whose views are so extreme, particularly on one side or another, in a charge of terrorism that he will not approach the trial of the defendant fairly, from one side or the other. Such persons may be so violently opposed to any form of terrorism, or so violently pro that form of attack on society, that we have to know in order to remove them.
  I give the House an example. In one terrorist case it was found that one of the jurors on the panel was the mistress of Michael X. One can see that she would not have been a suitable person to try the case, because he was hanged the week before in the West Indies.
  Mr. Mellor: May I press my right hon. and learned Friend a little further about the case of Mason? I understand that that case gave approval to the practice whereby prosecution counsel may be supplied with notes of previous convictions and other matters that are not, by the will of Parliament, to exclude someone from serving on a jury, and that such information may be used as the basis for a successful challenge by the prosecution to that person serving on a jury. Is it not right to say, as The Times said, that that flouted the will of Parliament, and is it not unacceptable that nothing is to be done about it?
  The Attorney-General: It is important to make clear that the will of Parliament is that under no circumstances may certain disqualified people serve on juries. Lord Justice Lawton, supported by his fellow judges, said in the case of Mason "You may not check a jury just to find out what criminal record a man has, but if you are checking a jury in order to find out whether it includes disqualified people and other information is thrown up in the course of that check, counsel may make use of it in the appropriate case".
  Mr. Christopher Price: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that

  1937
  each further revision of the guidelines is in danger of eroding the English tradition of a random jury and, in that sense, eroding the whole jury system itself? Is he further aware that some of us have doubts about the DPP and himself being in charge of the operation of the guidelines, because the Lord Chancellor made a sudden change in the rules, in relation to the Shrewsbury trade union trial in the early 1970s, without informing Parliament? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman report to Parliament annually in such a way that we can monitor the operation of the guidelines and ensure that we know the extent to which they are being used and exactly what is happening?
  The Attorney-General: Any right of challenge, whether given to the prosecution or the defence, limits random selection to some extent, but the right to inspect the panel has existed for many centuries. I have never previously heard any suggestion that the decision of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to remove the occupations—if that is what the hon. Gentleman is speaking of—had any connection with the Shrewsbury trial. I doubt it very much.
  As for consultation and reporting to the House, I shall certainly consider those matters.
  Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the public will be reassured by his statement, which lays at rest some of the recent challenges to even a limited form of jury vetting? Is he also aware that the Bar will be reassured by his upholding of the fundamental principle that in this country we take the jury as we find it?
  The Attorney-General: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I hope that that will be the view taken by the British public.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not the legal effect of the statement that it binds no one except the DPP and that any chief prosecuting solicitor can take the view of the one in Northampton—namely, that he can act in any way that seems reasonable to him in order to check the jury list?
  The Attorney-General: There is no sanction that can be enforced on anyone
  1938
  in relation to examining criminal records. A complete sanction is provided on any checks beyond that.
  Mr. Greenway: As a layman in these matters, I have always regarded the essential principle as being the right of an individual to a trial before 12 jurors, each of whom must be true and good. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is the first principle which he must operate, notwithstanding the important points that have been made by other hon. Members?
  The Attorney-General: It is important to remember that it is unusual for checks to be authorised. I have restricted still further the guidelines that are themselves a restriction. Before they were imposed, the situation was almost a free-for-all. I hope that the occasions on which I shall be asked to authorise a check will be few and far between.
  Mr. Whitehead: May I ask, for the record, for a definition of a terrorist case? The statutory provision has been mentioned. In the event of someone being held under the prevention of terrorism Act and subsequently charged with an offence that does not involve terrorism, will recourse be had to special branch files?
  The Attorney-General: Will the hon. Gentleman put his second point again? I am afraid that I did not understand it.
  Mr. Whitehead: In the event of someone being held under the prevention of terrorism Act and subsequently charged with a non-terrorist offence, would there be a vetting of his files by the special branch?
  The Attorney-General: The only occasion on which there can be an authorised check, with my consent, is when a charge involves acts of terrorism. The definition of that is acts in which violence has been used or there has been kidnapping or anything of that sort in the furtherance of political purposes and involving terrorism.
  Mr. Dubs: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there will be disappointment that he has sanctioned the continuation of jury vetting, albeit with further restrictions? Can he explain a rather puzzling point? How can he ensure, without legislative backing, that his

  1939
  new guidelines will be enforced? After all, he gave his word to the House on the previous guidelines that no jury vetting would take place without his sanction. Now he says that he can enforce the new guidelines without legislation.
  Will the matter not be even more difficult if there is no clear distinction between the checks carried out to see whether potential jurors are disqualified from serving on a jury on statutory grounds and the check that will be part of the jury-vetting process? Is it not likely that, by having those two muddled up, the clear distinction between them will be eroded and practices against the guidelines will be able to occur?
  The Attorney-General: The authority to go to police files beyond the CRO will be given only by me. I cannot control what individual police forces do in relation to access to criminal records. It is entirely a matter for them. In discussions with the Home Office, they have imposed certain restrictions, in agreement with ACPO, which will be put in the Library attached to my guidelines. That is as far as I can go. I can ask them not to carry out checks and they will have to decide whether to follow their own association's recommendations. I am confident that they will do so.
  Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: May I finally put four brief questions to the Attorney-General? Does he agree that the fact that we have majority verdicts in this country provides an effective check and balance to cope with any maverick or unsuitable juror? The Juries Act 1974 sets out those who are disqualified to serve on juries. Secondly if that list is not wide enough, should it not be put to the House to decide what, if any, additions should be made?
  Thirdly—and this is a serious matter in relation to jury vetting—does the right
  1940
  hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it would be a constitutional outrage if potential jurors were to feel that they were being selected or vetted to be the placemen or parrot voices of some legal establishment? Finally, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it would be equally horrifying if potential jurors were to be deterred from jury service by the thought that their privacy was being invaded by State or other snoopers checking on their suitability for jury service?
  The Attorney-General: Those are all matters which I considered before making my statement.

  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:

  1. Employment Act 1980.

  2. Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

  3. Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

  4. Water (Scotland) Act 1980.

  5. Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.

  6. Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980.

  7. Finance Act 1980.

  8. Breasclete Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1980.

  9. British Railways Order Confirmation Act 1980.

  10. Greater London Council (Money) Act 1980.

  11. Salvation Army Act 1980.

  12. Falmouth Container Terminal Act 1980.

  13. London Transport Act 1980.

  PRISON SYSTEM
  Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
  11.29 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I am grateful for this opportunity to make—
  Mr. Shephen Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems ridiculous that in a debate on the prison system we are to hear speeches by two Front-Bench Scottish Members, when as far as I can see there is not one Scottish Back Bencher present to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that this is a United Kingdom debate. First, the two Front Bench speakers have promised to be brief. Secondly, they are genuine Scots.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful for your comment, Mr. Speaker. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my intervention will be very brief, because I recognise the desire of many hon. Members to take part in the debate, which is a United Kingdom debate on the May committee recommendations. The report affected the whole of the United Kingdom, but its conclusions recognised that the problems of the prison service in Scotland, although serious in certain respects, were less acute and less grave than those elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  The committee recognised, for example, that the problems of recruiting prison officers in Scotland were less than those elsewhere, and that the growth in the prison population, although it had been substantial in the 1950s and 1960s, had shown virtually no increase during the past decade, contrary to indications in England and Wales. Also, whilst it recognised that there were severe problems of over-crowding in certain local prisons in Scotland, overall there was no general problem of overcrowding, and the capacity of the Scottish prisons was greater than the number of prisoners presently incarcerated.
  The Government recognise that in Scotland, as elsewhere in Britain, there is the problem of too many persons being sent to prison when they could more properly be dealt with in other ways. By the Bail Etc. (Scotland) Act, which received
  1942
  its Royal Assent some months ago, we have abolished money bail and replaced it by a system of bail on conditions which has led to fewer accused persons having to be sent to prison on remand because of their inability to find the bail money required by the courts. This has had some effect on the number of prisoners held on remand, although it is too early to say what the long-term effects will be.
  Secondly, there are provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which received its Third Reading a short time ago, which will make more unlikely the use of prison except as a last resort by the courts. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responsible for social work matters recently announced the extension of the community service order scheme, which until now has operated only on an experimental basis in five areas of Scotland. We believe that this will equally have a desirable effect in this respect.
  Finally, there is the recognition that in Scotland an alarmingly large number of persons are incarcerated for non-payment of fines. About 40 per cent. of admissions in any one year are for non-payment of fines, although the period of imprisonment served is very short. Nevertheless, it is a grave problem, and the Government hope to start in October an experiment in fine enforcement officers in Edinburgh and Airdrie to ensure that the proper payment of fines is enforced by the court in order that it will not be necessary to resort to imprisonment.
  I turn to the specific recommendations of the report. Many deal with matters of internal management, training and conditions of staff, their management of prisoners and similar related matters. Over the past few months we have been working on the composition and terms of reference of a number of working groups that will be making detailed recommendations on the implementation of the May recommendations. We have been having consultations with the various prison service staff associations in order to ensure that their experience and expertise will be able to be incorporated in the event of proposals being implemented. We are nearing completion on these matters. I am to have a meeting with the Scottish Prison Governors Committee of the Society of Civil and Public Servants, at its request, in the near future.

  1943
  One of the other areas in which the report made important recommendations was the position of visiting committees in Scotland, which in recent years have not been as satisfactory as their counterparts in England and Wales, because of certain legal problems. These arose as a result of the reorganisation of local government, as it is local authorities that appoint the members of the visiting committees to adult prisons in Scotland. These problems have now been resolved. The new visiting committees have been established. We are also taking on board the May committee's recommendations for the better training of, and advice and assistance to, the members of those visiting committees. There is to be a conference in October representative of all the visiting committees, at which we hope a training programme will be properly established.
  The final matter to which I wish to refer is the very important recommendation with regard to a distanced prisons inspectorate. That recommendation was made only in relation to England and Wales. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has indicated his assent to such a proposition for England and Wales. We have naturally been giving consideration to the position in Scotland as well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland intends that there should be a Scottish inspectorate, and it is intended to appoint a chief inspector to head it. My right hon. Friend intends to look around as wide a range of experience as possible to choose a suitable person. The chief inspector will be assisted by a staff with substantial prison experience. We hope that the inspectorate will be established and be in operation by the end of this year.
  While the report correctly indicated that the problems of the Scottish prison service were not as acute as those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, it recognised, as do the Government, that there is still scope for substantial improvement. Within the resources available, we intend to ensure that improvements are made.
  The indications that I have mentioned today, plus the other proposals that will come forward in the next few weeks and months, will ensure that the prison service in Scotland, which already performs a very valuable and useful role in ensur-
  1944
  ing the proper administration of our prisons, will be able to benefit from further improvement in the months and years to come.
  11.36 am
  Mr. Bruce Millan: I shall speak extremely briefly. It is unsatisfactory to have this kind of debate about Scottish prisons. We shall have to find a separate opportunity to debate the May report in relation to Scotland. I know that many hon. Members want to speak, and I shall therefore take only two minutes.
  I want to respond to three points made by the Minister. First, I welcome the setting up of the working groups, although it is a bit late in the day, because the May report was published last October. Nine months have now passed, and I should have expected the groups to be established and to produce some results by now.
  I am glad to hear that the legal difficulties over the visiting committees, which I thought required legislative provision, have apparently been solved without that. The May committee legitimately criticised successive Governments for what had happened about visiting committees in Scotland. I am glad that that matter is now being put right.
  I turn to the inspectorate. Although this was a recommendation for England and Wales, and has rather less validity in Scotland—at least, some of the reasons for the recommendations have less validity in Scotland than in England and Wales—I think that the Secretary of State's decision is correct. There will be the question of establishing the right relationship between the inspectorate and the Department and the Secretary of State. I am sure that some independence there, and particularly the publication of an annual report about the prison system in Scotland, will be a valid improvement in the way in which we manage prisons in Scotland.
  I should have liked to say quite a number of other things, but in view of the circumstances I shall desist. I simply repeat that we must find a way to debate the Scottish prisons separately, because there are a number of very important matters that should have the attention of the House.
  11.38 am
  Mr. Charles Irving: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will forgive me if I complain bitterly about our having this important debate on a Friday, and in addition that a statement and questions on it have taken half an hour out of the very short time available to discuss one of the most disgraceful situations in the country at present—the problem of containing, assessing and rehabilitating about 44,000 people who are in prison and the problems of the staff.
  If parliamentary time could not be found before the recess, I believe that it would have been more advisable to have the debate after the recess. After all, we are talking about problems that have gone on under successive Governments for over 20 years, so a delay of a couple of months to allow the House to discuss fully and properly these urgent matters would probably have been more acceptable to those who take seriously the present deteriorating conditions. It is dreadfully wrong that Members who have a contribution to make should be prevented from making it because half-an-hour has been taken out of the time for this debate.
  The report on the work of the prison department for 1979 paints a depressing picture of a rising prison population. Increasing overcrowding and deteriorating physical conditions are worsening all the time. In the first half of this year, the position became markedly and rapidly worse to the extent that the prison governors have described the prison system as
  "collapsing under the sheer weight of numbers."
  There is nothing new about prison overcrowding or such warnings, but the current degree of squalor, with nearly 40 per cent. of all prisoners now sleeping two or three to a cell, is unprecedented. Moreover, for the first time the governors have warned that they are running out of cells to overcrowd. It is only possible to overcrowd the Victorian cells since modern cells are too small. Landings and dining rooms have been and are used. It is said that it has been possible in Winchester to cram five young men in a slightly larger than ordinary cell.
  The seriousness of the present position faces us with some stark financial choices.
  1946
  One possible way of overcoming a part of the problem is to make an open-ended commitment to devote massive sums of money to a vastly expanded prison building programme. The Home Secretary referred to that in particular. I notice from the statistics in the report that a new place in a category B prison costs £40,000 to build. The average cost of keeping a single prisoner inside for a year has now reached over £5,800. Let no one who might be tempted to advocate this course be in any doubt whatsoever about the scale of the expenditure involved.
  With the prison population at its present level, 9,000 new places would be needed merely to end the sharing of cells. A further 2,000 places would be needed to cope with the increase in the prison population projected in the report for the early 1980s. That makes a total of 11,000 new places.
  If we went further and chose to end the abhorrent process of slopping out, a further 5,000 new places would be required to provide for those lost in providing improved sanitation facilities. In total, to end overcrowding and slopping out we should be asked to spend about £½ billion in capital expenditure alone. Thereafter, every one of the new prison places would cost nearly £6,000 a year to maintain.
  I do not believe that such expenditure is economically justifiable at a time when public expenditure must be restrained; nor can it be morally justified when so many of those in prison are petty offenders who could safely and more appropriately be dealt with in other ways.
  The May committee rightly argued the problem of petty, persistent offenders. It said that continued efforts were required to find solutions
  "not only to keep such people out of prison, but to keep them out of the criminal justice system as a whole."
  People who work in prisons strongly support that view.
  In its evidence to the Expenditure Committee in 1978, the Prison Officers Association stated:
  "It is easy to recognise categories of offenders who can loosely be described as 'social inadequates'—inmates who clutter up the penal system and for whom imprisonment is simply a refuge."
  I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Expenditure Sub-Committee on prisons, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake

  1947
  (Miss Fookes), and her colleagues who did a great service not only to the House but to the country in producing such a balanced report. It would be a grave injustice if it joined so many others gathering dust in the archives of the House of Commons.
  I asked the Home Department yesterday to confirm some figures about people with whom I believe simple alternatives could deal adequately. It would give a totally wrong impression if I were thought to say that there was nobody at all in the prison system who needs containing. I know well—and most hon. Members appreciate it—that there is a hard core of dangerous, difficult men, and a few women, who will have to be contained for a long time.
  A total of 308 women are in prison for soliciting. A total of 2,700 alcoholics, 2,500 maintenance defaulters and 16,500 fine defaulters are also in prison along with 320 cannabis smokers. For having no home, sleeping rough or offences under the vagrancy laws, 350 people are in prison. For drug dependence—not drug pushing—1,260 people are in prison. Another 400 people with mental disorders or mental problems are in prison on any given day.
  If one adds that up, one comes to a healthy number of people who could be removed inexpensively and fairly speedily from the prison system. I accept that the 16,500 fine defaulters are in prison for short periods, but the work and administration involved is colossal. There must be a better way of dealing with such people.
  In 1972 the Home Office research unit made a detailed study of the sentenced male prison population in the South-East of England. It found that 30 per cent. of prisoners were petty or minor offences. It calculated that at least one-third of the prison population could be diverted if suitable alternatives could be provided.
  We should allow for the possibility under present day circumstances, that the prison population contains a higher proportion of very serious offenders now than it did in 1972. Even if only 10,000 men and women could safely be dealt with by alternative methods, this would bring an end to overcrowding. However, these calculations take no account of the important point that my right hon. Friend
  1948
  the Home Secretary made concerning shorter sentences. Many men and women who have committed non-violent crimes could be taken into account in this respect. If the Home Secretary took firm action to shorten sentences, either by legislation or by introducing an early release scheme on the Northern Ireland lines, the numbers in prison could be cut further.
  The alternatives to prison have been ably described in the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group's report. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who, if I may say so, following my experience in the previous Parliament, has mellowed so much. I fear to take upon myself the mantle that he used to wear of being extreme. The hon. Gentleman has come forward with an impressive report. I do not wish to make him blush too much or lose too many votes by praising him too enthusiastically.
  Many petty persistent offenders have practical problems which are bound up with their criminal activities such as homelessness, unemployment, poor literacy, lack of social skills and dependence on drink or drugs. In many areas, voluntary organisations such as NACRO and the Stonham housing association, together with the probation and after-care service, are attempting to meet such problems by providing hostels, housing schemes, employment projects and day centres, and for many such offenders, these schemes, combined with a probation order can and should be used as an alternative to imprisonment.
  The Stonham housing association has 70 projects in the pipeline this year and it is slowed down only by the Housing Corporation's bureaucratic system. I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley). Meeting him recently, I was relieved to feel that he is determined to reduce the red tape and the long delays in establishing the hostels and helping to provide more direct alternatives. Unfortunately, he tells me that he has practically no money.
  This is a great opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to support the views that he has expressed and to put the money where his mouth is. Perhaps, in his generous, affectionate and

  1949
  affable way, he will say to his hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction "We will do some lease-lend. I have more money than I need expend. If I take Charles Irving's advice and switch from the massive development of costly prison places to invest in the far less expensive alternatives, I shall have a surplus in my accounts." My right hon. Friend has the charm and the ability to say to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction "We will give you a little more money and we will make full use of the places you provide in much more humane and sensible conditions than are provided through the present over-burdened prison system." Much more use should be made of community service orders. Only 3 per cent. of adults convicted of indictable offences are made subject to them.
  It is encouraging to see more attendance centres which have been virtually non-existent. I cannot understand why, following the Expenditure Sub-Committee report and other reports ad nauseam over the years, we fail to emulate many countries in Europe and also New Zealand in introducing an experimental scheme of weekend imprisonment. Many petty offenders could well pay their penalty to the community or the sanctions that society seeks to extract from them by going into a weekend prison on a Friday and coming out on a Monday. It is nothing new.
  Mr. John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing this point. Does he not see a difficulty? How would the petty, inadequate offender get to a remote open prison in the countryside? Who would pay? Would it be the taxpayer or would it be an additional penalty upon the offender himself?
  Mr. Irving: I normally never sit down once I have stood up. I have such regard for my hon. Friend that, although I seldom give way, I thought it was worthwhile to sit down to hear his intervention. I made a mistake.
  It should be remembered that, in normal circumstances, we are talking of £6,000 a year. It cannot be claimed that a weekend camp will cost anything on that scale. Yet between 1972 and 1974 six open
  1950
  prisons were shut or sold. These had all the facilities that would have provided for weekend imprisonment. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will forgive me. I do not know whether he is shaking his head at me or at the Opposition.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I thought I was keeping it still.
  Mr. Irving: I do not think that there is any opposition. I have more support on the Opposition Benches than I seem to be getting on the Government side.
  I received this information from the Home Office yesterday through the noble Lord to whom I am grateful for enlightening me on the position. I do not think the House fully appreciates the situation. Since 1972, six open prisons which would have provided 400 places either have been shut or are in the process of being shut or sold. The argument is that their condition has deteriorated to an extent where they cannot be used. Surely, with the massive captive labour within the prison system, they could be done up. That suggestion might be examined.
  The cost of these alternatives would be a fraction of the cost of imprisonment. A community service order costs £7 a week and a probation order £6 a week. The Home Office gives a subsidy for a voluntary hostel place of £550 a year. This must make sense provided we make sure that the public is protected from the serious, violent offenders. In comparison with a massive prison building programme, a policy of reducing the prison population by developing alternatives would save millions of pounds over a period of 10 years. For many minor offenders, it would offer a better chance of preventing them from committing further offences rather than the negative and costly process of imprisonment.
  I am not against a prison building programme, but I favour a replacement building programme under which an old, stinking, Victorian prison would have to close as each new prison opens. I favour a programme that would provide better conditions for a smaller number of men and women. If the Home Secretary is prepared to take action along those lines with a determination which his predecessors, for all their good intentions, did not display, he can be assured of strong

  1951
  support from many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  12 noon
  Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) on a speech that I should like to have made myself if I had the ability to do so. He raised a number of interesting points. When talking about the prison building programme, he touched on the opposition to the May report. In the few moments that I wish to address the House, I should like to refer to that myself, probably inadequately. The opposition comes from Professor Roy King, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will have read at least some of the evidence that he submitted to the May committee, as well as some of the criticisms that he made of the report, mainly at a conference that I attended on 30 November last year.
  Professor King began by criticising the size of the prison population. I go along with everything that has been said about that. It is unarguable that the prison population must be reduced, and we have just heard some startling figures from the hon. Member for Cheltenham which show the area in which we should be moving. I was interested to learn that 40 per cent. of those in prison in Scotland were there for fine defaults. That seems an extraordinarily high figure, and it is surely something that we should change.
  Professor King then went into the argument about positive custody, which now seems to be the in-phrase, as opposed to humane containment. I shall not delay the House on this matter, because I do not know all the differences between those two phrases. But Roy King argues that in going for positive custody we seem to be moving away from the idea that people serving prison sentences should perhaps not be in a prison that is close to their home environment, as has been the case in the past. Professor King states:
  "Positive custody may sound harmless enough. But 'humane containment', if taken seriously, would be preferable. In time these could become both rights for prisoners and obligations on prison authorities which might actually be enforceable. Positive custody offers no such prospect".
  He claims that:
  "It is vague and will be as meaningless or confusing for prisoners and staff as was treat-
  1952
  ment and training. It offers no criteria by which success can be evaluated: even the most inhumane conditions could be justified by a statement that we are 'being as positive as we can in the circumstances'."
  Those criticisms ought to be answered. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer them today, and that would not be right because, unfortunately, I will be unable to be present for the winding-up speech. I apologise for that. However, I put these points forward in the hope that either in another place, or at another time, we shall get some answers.
  Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Write him a letter.
  Mr. Ross: I may do that. There is also the question of the dispersal system. As the Home Secretary knows, there are two prisons in the Isle of Wight, Albany and Parkhurst. There is a C wing at Parkhurst. The Expenditure Committee recommended that we should look at this matter and perhaps add a further wing to one or two other dispersal prisons in the country. The present system of moving prisoners around the seven dispersal prisons is extremely expensive, and has led to enormous expenditure on making those prisons secure. I believe that more than £2 millon has been spent on placing the large plastic balloons on the top of the walls at Albany and Parkhurst.
  I wonder whether this is the right policy. Lord Mountbatten was certainly against it, although the subsequent report was in favour of it. I think that prisoners prefer to stay in one prison. They do not like being moved about. I also believe that the staff do not like that system. Therefore, we should at least debate this point, because it is extremely costly and it means that many prisoners contained in the dispersal prisons do not require the maximum security that is imposed upon them.
  Of course one welcomes improvements to prisons. When I went around an extension to Camp Hill, I was fairly astonished to find that a modern building was designed for four or more to a cell. I want to see better conditions and modernisation within our prisons. I hope that in the process some of the older prisons such as Oxford, which have been re-opened, will be shut. That was the point of my intervention. What scares me stiff is that if we go on building more

  1953
  prisons and providing more places we shall fill them, and we shall not take the positive steps that have already been outlined in this House.
  The setting up of the May committee was extremely important. The situation prior to its being set up by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was extremely dangerous. That took the sting out of the problem. Morale is now much better, but it is not as good as it should be. Too much overtime is still being worked by prison officers. The role of the ancillary services is extremely clouded, and the rules are unclear. There are still a lot of queries about continuous duty credits, and so on. Some of the hours worked by instructors and others, especially when they are called out when an inmate has escaped, are amazingly long. We must give prison officers a more meaningful and fulfilling role, and I hope that changes in the structure will lead to that. I welcome the changes that have been made already, as well as the announcements that have been made today.
  I visited the Maze prison in Northern Ireland three weeks ago. I want to pay a tribute to the governor of the Maze and to the prison officers there. They are magnificent men whose morale is amazingly high. It is not generally known in this country that when those prison officers go home they face death and injury, not only from the IRA but also from the para-military Protestant groups. They are some of the best men whom I have been privileged to meet, and I want those views to be put on the record.
  I turn finally to prison officer housing. The Government and their predecessors took the right decision to encourage, through the rent allowance system, prison officers to move out of the housing compounds adjoining prisons and to find homes for themselves. That has resulted in a large number of houses being made vacant. I believe that there are between 80 and 100 in the Isle of Wight alone.
  I recognise that some of those houses are structurally unsound, but a large number are not. They have now been put on the market for sale, but at the same time, the Home Office is busy evicting ex-prison officers who have left the service, and is putting the obligation to house them on to the local authorities.
  1954
  The local authority in the Isle of Wight has no more than 12 per cent. of the total housing stock to rent. It is an impossible situation, particularly when prison officers' houses up the road are lying empty.
  I appreciate that some of those houses are perhaps too close to the prison in order to be sold or leased. But the Isle of Wight is facing an increasing housing problem. I shall be going back this afternoon to see a lady who is being evicted from a Lord Roberts' home because her husband, an ex-Service man, has died. Another old lady of 75 is also under notice to quit. There is no way in which the local authority can house them, because it does not have any houses available. Yet the prison houses are standing empty. In a way, they represent an indictment, because people are asking "Why cannot we make use of them?". Should not those houses be leased to the local authorities for three or four years in order to improve the situation? I welcome the May report, but some of the comments opposing it should be taken on board.
  12.9 pm
  Mr. John Wheeler: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate today. I begin by paying a fulsome tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the way in which he has responded to the May committee recommendations. His statement to the House on 30 April did much to encourage those hon. Members who are deeply concerned about the prisons, and to reassure the House of his personal commitment to seek solutions.
  There is no doubt that the prisons are, and will remain for some time, the most difficult and worrying of Home Office problems. For one reason or another the prisons are poised on the edge of crisis, chiefly because at the end of May the prison population rose to more than 44,000, with no easy prospect of relief from overcrowding. There are no simple solutions to the prison problem, or to the more general problem of lawlessness.
  For a very long time, since 1963 when the Prison Commission was abolished, and the practice began of the chairman of the prisons board changing about every second year, the prison service has lacked positive leadership and direction.

  1955
  One sensed that the prison service was drifting in a rudderless fashion. I congratulate the Home Secretary for grasping the nettle of organisational change, as was first suggested in the publication "The Proper Use of Prisons" in September 1977, and for giving the service some real autonomy while allowing it to remain politically and administratively accountable to the Home Secretary. This is a radical and important step, and I am glad that the new headquarters arrangements are now in operation.
  I also welcome the continued service of Mr. Dennis Trevelyan, who is a committed prisons man, as director general. He will have the advantage of a strengthened prisons board, which will include the four regional directors and two independent non-executive directors. Those appointments will do much to engender public confidence in the prison service.
  I also welcome the fact that the new arrangement includes an independent public relations unit at prison headquarters. That will do much to ensure that the public are better informed on prison matters. That is important, because, for obvious reasons, so much of the prison service takes place—as I know as a former assistant prison governor in two of those Victorian gaols to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) referred—behind closed doors.
  I welcome, too, the Home Secretary's firm commitment to encouraging the courts to impose shorter sentences for the average offender for whom a custodial sentence is appropriate. Let me make it quite clear that I do not regard the shorter sentence as in any way meaning that we are going soft on offenders. Nor, I am sure, does the Home Secretary intend that either. On the contrary, we must face the fact that we have a major crisis of overcrowding in the prisons of England and Wales, and it is an absolute scandal that this situation has been allowed so obviously to build up over recent years. The truth is—here I speak from personal experience in the prisons—that, for the average offender, the impact of imprisonment is most emphatically felt during the first few days or weeks of a sentence. That fact is now well confirmed by recent criminological research, and thus it makes sense to pursue a policy of shorter sentences whenever appropriate, both from a penological point
  1956
  of view and from the standpoint of cost-effectiveness. There are obvious exceptions, such as murder, terrorism, and serious crime involving harm to the innocent. and in the case of robbery where a firearm is used. My only reservation about the shorter sentence policy is whether the courts will play ball. If they do not, I urge my right hon. Friend to give consideration to introducing appropriate legislation to enforce shorter sentences by law. The scandal of overcrowding and the strain it places on the staff cannot be overlooked for long.
  Apart from the important decision to go for shorter sentences where appropriate, there is the question of who is in prison and need not, and should not, be there. The recent parliamentary all-party penal affairs group report—"Too Many Prisoners"—has made a number of recommendations about offenders for whom imprisonment is wrong in principle. They include, in particular, mentally disordered offenders, petty inadequates, and fine and maintenance defaulters.
  Taking this last category first, urgent steps need to be taken to improve the attachment of earnings procedures, and magistrates—who are required, under section 31 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1952, to take into account the offender's means when determining the level of a fine—should be provided with better information so as to enable the court to impose penalties not only appropriate to the circumstances of the offence but also within the ability of the offender to pay.
  It is worrying that mentally disordered offenders should be sent to prison, and for these people the DHSS must be required, as a matter of urgency, to provide the proper facilites for their care and custody. For the petty inadequates—and especially those suffering from alcoholism—greater efforts must be made to encourage a variety of hostel and other accommodation to be provided by the many excellent voluntary organisations.
  We must also have the will and the common sense to remove the power to send people to prison for those minor charges where there is no danger to the public. For example, removing prostitutes from prison would diminish the numbers by a daily average of 80, and save about £140 per week per person in costs.

  1957
  Even if all these ideas were adopted, the plain fact remans that reducing prison numbers would continue to be a difficult problem. Broadly speaking, crime occurs because of the availability of both goods and money to steal. This fact, plus the learning experience of the criminal, that he can commit most crimes with ease and expect to get away with it, fosters dishonesty. An improved detection rate for those crimes that really concern the public should be the objective of the police. Rightly, the actual police strength is being increased, particularly in urban areas, but the police must be effectively deployed if crime is to be detected.
  Most important of all is the need to encourage ways of preventing and containing crime at source, since this obviously prevents the whole complicated and expensive saga of police, courts and the social services, from being brought into play.
  While there is much that can be done to improve the present prison crisis, I wish I could tell the House from my personal experience that I could see a continuing and sustained reduction in the prison population. Alas, I cannot. We must face the fact that the prison population will remain high for the foreseeable future. Of the total of about 44,000, some 5.000 or 6,000 will be remanded or convicted but unsentenced prisoners.
  Some will say that more remanded prisoners should be allowed bail. For some this is true, but we cannot ignore the growing evidence that many offenders on bail go on to commit further crimes.
  The heart of the prison crisis is here in London. About one-third of all crime is committed within the Metropolitan Police District. It is significant that of the six male prison establishments in London, the certified normal accommodation is 4,401 and the approximate actual population is about 5,800. In London the overcrowding is at its worst.
  On many occasions in the past, consideration has been given to the provision of a new secure prison in central London. This has always come up against the implacable opposition of local borough councils, and Ministers have been extremely reluctant even to consider
  1958
  using their compulsory powers of land acquisition.
  This failure to make proper provision for the prison service in London is now costing us dear. I urge my right hon. Friend to take steps now to initiate a major new prison and Crown court complex, in conjunction with the Lord Chancellor, somewhere in the docklands. We have over 5,000 acres ready for development, and a new prison and court complex would require about 20 acres. Not only would it provide the facilities necessary; it would also provide a range of job opportunities in north-east London. If this were done, it would provide the needs of the prison service in Greater London for the next 50 years.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. Perhaps I should indicate that there is one hour and 35 minutes left before the closing speeches. Eleven hon. Members are still waiting to speak. Any speeches of more than 10 minutes will deprive one or more hon. Members of the opportunity to speak.
  12.20 pm
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: As the House knows, I have the privilege of being the chairman of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group to whose report "Too Many Prisoners", published in June, I want to address most of my remarks.
  Before doing so, I should like to place on record my appreciation and that of the group for the constructive and helpful attitude that has been exhibited by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has always been willing to see us on deputations quickly and has treated us courteously and sometimes even constructively. He has made himself, his Ministers and his officials available to attend meetings of the group and has given the group facilities to visit penal establishments. I place on record the group's appreciation of his constructive and helpful attitude. That is not to say that either I or the group do not or will not criticise him in future.
  The report was compiled and published in an attempt, first, to draw attention to the gravity of the situation in our prisons with the overcrowding and intolerable conditions to which many right

  1959
  hon. and hon. Members have referred in the debate.
  The words "We now have a crisis which, if immediate action is not taken, will become a catastrophe" were not invented by us. Those words were used a long time ago and have been repeated by successive Home Secretaries and by those working within the penal system.
  The group's report was also designed to help the Home Secretary to achieve his stated objective of reducing the number of people in prison and to provide him with clearly identifiable practical means by which this could be achieved. I think that is achieved by the 48 recommendations in our report.
  I want to talk about the four main sections of those recommendations. By far the most important, which has been referred to in enthusiastic terms by every speaker in the debate, is the demand for a reduction in the length of prison sentences. Our aim is shared by the May committee, the Expenditure Committee, the Advisory Council on the Penal System, the Justices' Clerks' Society, the Magistrates' Association and the Home Secretary himself. We all agree on the need to reduce the length of prison sentences. We differ on the means by which that reduction can be achieved.
  We agree with the Advisory Council on the Penal System, in its interim report in 1977, that long sentences, particularly in the middle and lower ranges, have no significant impact on reconviction rates and do a disservice both to the offender and to society as a whole. The May committee unanimously and emphatically endorsed that statement by the Advisory Council on the Penal System.
  There is overwhelming and clear evidence against the efficacy, still less the justice, of the excessively long prison sentences through all the ranges which are currently being imposed by the courts. We were not impressed by the arguments constantly put forward by the Home Secretary and his predecessors that the way to deal with this matter is by persuasion and exhortation directed at the judiciary. I know that the Home Secretary may sincerely believe that, though I suspect that his reasons for advancing that argument have more to do with his private conversations with members of the judiciary and their reactions to any
  1960
  legislation. But I think that he will accept that the House has a responsibility to legislate and to determine the appropriate length of sentence and that it is for the judges to interpret and to use their discretion within the range determined by Parliament. If Parliament, as has been expressed in the debate, has decided that the length of sentences imposed by judges is excessive, Parliament has the right, the duty and the responsibility to ensure that those sentence maxima are reduced without in any way inhibiting judicial discretion.
  We are not impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's argument that it would be more appropriate—I think that on one occasion he said that it would be a constitutional procedure—to go along the path that he has chosen. We would be more impressed if such exhortations in the past—as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, they are not new—had achieved the impact that he is now seeking. The plain fact is that sentences are now a third longer than they were 10 years ago. Page 44, paragraph 178, of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group's report entitled "Too Many Prisoners" recommends:
  "to achieve a significant reduction in sentence lengths the powers of the courts must be restricted by legislation. We propose the two-tier sentencing structure similar to that proposed in 1978 by the Advisory Council on the Penal System but with certain modifications. 'Ordinary' offenders should be subject to new lower maximum penalties fixed somewhere below the point which reflects the existing sentencing practice. Exceptional offenders should be eligible for sentences above these maxima but subject to a further maximum determinant sentence varying with the offence but in no case exceeding 10 or 12 years. Life sentences would remain available for certain offences."
  The evidence that we have had in the few months since the publication of the May report demonstrates clearly that eventually the Home Secretary will have to grasp what I accept is a difficult nettle and bring proposed legislation to the House as a means of reducing the length of sentences.
  There has been a conditional release scheme in operation in Northern Ireland since 1976. That could be applied as an immediate expedient or contingency measure within the present system. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, and my right hon. and hon. Friends when they were in Government, have

  1961
  paid testimony to the effectiveness of the scheme and to the fact that it is working reasonably and well. Those who are released after 50 per cent. remission do not have a higher reconviction rate than those who serve their whole sentences.
  Why cannot we take good practice which has already been established in one part of the United Kingdom and which has shown itself to be successful, and transplant it in England and Wales? That would have an important impact immediately on the numbers serving prison sentences. It is a conditional release scheme, and I emphasise "conditional". It would not be a danger to the public and it might produce some reduction in the size of the prison population.
  The Home Secretary should say how long he will give the judges to come good on this issue. What sentence has he given them? Do they have six months, nine months or a year to show that they are seized of the importance of reducing sentences? There has been unanimity in the House so far—there is unanimity outside—that what is lacking is the judicial will to implement a reduction of sentences in practice.
  The second major series of recommendations of the report entitled "Too Many Prisoners" dealt with petty persistent offenders, a topic that has been admirably and lucidly dealt with by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving). The report of the Home Office that reviewed criminal justice policy in 1976 observed that a significant reduction in the prison population could be achieved by diverting from the penal system all those who are regarded as petty persistent offenders and of no danger to the public.
  We have made detailed and substantial recommendations to increase the facilities for day care, for hostels and for employment-related schemes, all of which would be tied to a sentence of the court. We contend that that is an adequate way of dealing with many who are generally referred to as socially inadequate rather than as dangerous or as a serious threat to the community. They would properly and more constructively be dealt with in a more positive manner within the community than in our expensive and obsolescent penal system.
  1962
  We also made detailed recommendations about reducing the number of fine and maintenance defaulters, and those in prison under the Immigration Act. Like the previous Labour Government, the Home Secretary does not accept the argument that I accept, which was first put forward by the Finer committee. The Finer committee said that the imprisonment of fine and maintenance defaulters was an "essay in social futility".
  Just as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) did when he was in office, the Home Secretary relies on inadequate and outdated research evidence which was conducted six years ago. However, that is an argument that can be debated on another occasion. We suggested many ways in which the numbers of fine and maintenance defaulters in prison could be reduced substantially. We also made recommendations about the greater and continuing use of the successful community service order scheme. The report "Too Many Prisoners" recommended that there should be a national network of senior attendance centres. We also suggested that the absurd and unnecessary prohibition that prevents those who have had a custodial sentence from being sentenced to a senior attendance centre should be eliminated.
  The Home Secretary could quickly do many other things, which would have an immediate and effective impact on the prison population. The worrying thing is that he, like his predecessors, makes all the right noises and says all the right things. He gets the congratulations and applause that rightly follow, yet very little happens by way of significant action. We are in danger of saying the right things, and of saying that we have had a wonderful and constructive debate today, without anything much happening afterwards. That has been the result of the debates held during this Parliament and also the result of debates held during the past five years. Nothing significant or important has been done for the prison population.
  I should like the Home Secretary to say that he shares our sense of urgency about the way in which petty persistant offenders are dealt with. I should be unreasonable if I were to ask him to reply to the detailed points and specific recommendations that were made in the

  1963
  report of the all-party penal affairs group. He has already agreed to meet members of the group in the autumn, in order to discuss the programme for the implementation of some of its recommendations.
  The right hon. Gentleman has a duty to say clearly and specifically that he accepts our sense of urgency and the need to develop options to custodial sentences. I hope that he will tell us that that sense of urgency will be matched by the implementation of specific and desirable recommendations. A worrying phrase occurs in the White Paper's response to the Expenditure Committee. If I remember correctly, it says that, even if all petty offenders were removed from prison, it would not have a significant impact on overcrowding. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that phrase. It conflicts with the study that the Home Office research unit made of the prison population in the South-East. Indeed, that study has been referred to by the hon. Member for Cheltenham. Its report said that it would be possible to divert about 30 per cent. of the prison population in that catchment area. Which of the two views is correct? Are we to believe the report of the Home Office research unit, or are we to believe the White Paper? There seems to be a discrepancy. The evidence at my disposal supports the Home Office research unit, rather than the statement in the White Paper.
  The third section of recommendations dealt with those for whom prison is regarded as wrong in principle. That means the mentally disordered and ill, alcoholics and those who are dependent on drugs. It is wrong and indefensible that mentally disordered people should be in prison. No hon. Member has ever defended the imprisonment of the mentally ill. Everyone has clearly and openly said that imprisonment is inappropriate and that such people should be in hospitals, where they can receive the proper nursing and medical treatment. They are in prison, not because someone wants to put them there, but because successive Governments have failed to provide the resources for regional secure units, or because hospitals, doctors, consultants, nurses and ancillary staff in National Health Service hospitals have refused to accept mentally ill offenders, whom they regard as
  1964
  potentially violent or disruptive. This is quite disgraceful and indefensible and it is no good this Government doing what the previous Government did. All Governments say with fine, trenchant words that they are concerned about the issue, that they think that it is a disgrace and a scandal and that they want to do something about it, but there is no evidence of any action except the setting-up of yet another research study to find out why there is a problem in transferring the mentally ill from prison to hospital.
  We know why there is a problem. The Butler committee was set up and reported in 1974 specifically to deal with that. That points clearly to the reasons for the difficulties. We know the problem but we have not tackled it because it is controversial. Yet, if we are serious about reducing the prison population and if we are particularly serious about taking out of the system those who should not be there in the first place, then the mentally ill and the mentally disordered are a prime and important segment of that population. They should be dealt with, if for no other reason, on straightforward, simple, humanitarian grounds. Their proper place is in hospital, not in prison.
  The same applies to a lesser extent to those who are in prison for failing to pay fines for drunkenness. We all accept that they are sick, not bad. They need treatment, not punishment. They should be in detoxification centres, hospitals or hostels rather than being allowed to go through the circle of prison, release, police pick-up, courts, fine and prison. We have said all these things in the past and they are being said again today. We want a much more specific commitment from the Government to remove these individuals from penal establishments.
  The fourth and final section deals with prisoners who are on remand. We firmly believe that there are far too many people who are held on remand and that far too many of those who need to be held on remind in custody are held for too long a period. In the first case it is a fact, as the May committee pointed out, that 44 per cent. of those held on remand in custody are not subsequently given prison sentences. It should be a cause for concern that people who are eventually found not guilty or who have committed an offence not serious enough

  1965
  in the eyes of the court to warrant a prison sentence, should, nevertheless, have spent on some occasions weeks, if not months, in prison serving what is in effect a prison sentence. The recommendations that my Committee made about the duty solicitors scheme, the national scheme of legal aid, and legal proceedings against a refusal of bail being simplified and being made more effective, could help to reduce the unnecessary remands in custody of a large number of people.
  Equally, there is cause for concern about those who, for the protection of the public, are quite properly held on remand in custody but who spend an inordinate and unnecessary length of time awaiting trial. A reference has been made to the 110-day rule in Scotland: it is not possible or permissible to hold a person in custody on remand for more than 110 days After that period, if the case has not been brought to court, all the charges are dropped, the individual is released and that case cannot be proceeded with on a subsequent occasion. If that can happen effectively and successfully in Scotland, there is no reason why the same principle cannot be applied in England and Wales. On the last count that the Home Office conducted there were 900 men and women who had been held in custody on remand in England and Wales for longer than 110 days. They would not have been still held on remand—technically innocent—had they been in Scottish prisons.
  Although the Home Secretary agreed earlier from a sedentary position that the way in which remand prisoners are treated is a scandal—both in terms of those who are on remand and who should not be, and in terms of the length of time spent in custody—not enough is being done to reduce the numbers on remand and to reduce the length of time for those awaiting trial. A lot can be done. Small, undramatic and not very prepossessing recommendations are made in the report, but each one could have at least a marginal impact on reducing the number of prisoners and length of time that people are properly and necessarily held in prison.
  In conclusion, the subject of the penal system and prisons generally does not figure centrally in public debate. It is not an
  1966
  important subject, a great priority in the House or a major priority of this Government, witness this debate, nine months after the publication of the May report, taking place on a Friday and interrupted by a statement on another important and significant issue. It is not a subject that is popular with the general public. It is not a topic on which votes will be easily garnered or for which there is a great deal of sympathy or public support. It is nevetheless extremely important. I would say that it is crucial.
  About 44,000 men, women and schoolchildren are in prison today in our name. We are responsible for them. If it is not a popular issue, which does not centrally feature in debate outside the House, it is even more important that this House should take responsibility for ensuring that only the right people are in prison for the right period of time. This House must take responsibility for doing what is right. We have not done so in the past. It is wrong to put the mentally ill, mentally disordered, the drug-dependent, prostitutes, maintenance defaulters or other categories of individual in prison. We all agree that it is wrong. It is time, therefore, that the Home Secretary began to do what is right. He is a decent and civilised man. He makes the right noises. Let him now take the right action.
  12.42 pm
  Mr. David Crouch: The whole House shares the sincere concern of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).
  I wish to speak from my observations of the prison in Canterbury. It is squeezed between the ruins of St. Augustine's abbey, where Christianity arrived in this country, and the bright new Christ-church teacher training college. Opposite is the grammar school. Beneath the prison walls is the oldest parish church in England, St. Martin's. One hurries past the prison walls on the other side of the road. I confess that that is the natural reaction to a prison set in the beautiful surroundings of a medieval town.
  The May report describes it as a local prison, pre-1930. It was built in 1808 as a naval prison. The report describes its future potential as poor, and gives its certified normal occupation of accommodation as 246. This morning I telephoned the governor. He refused to tell me the

  1967
  present population, because, as a new governor, he did not know me personally and he could not be sure that I was an outside body. That was fair. Whenever I have been there, the population has never been less than 450.
  I have sometimes visited my temporary constituents in that prison. It is depressing inside. I hope that the House will not laugh when I say that there is an oppressive feeling of being shut away from life. High walls and iron bars do make a cage. It is clean, but it is airless. The windows are high and the sky is a long way away, and it smells of urine. It is an oasis of brick and stone, but, unlike the real thing, nothing seems to grow there.
  However, it is not all gloom and sadness. There are some bright parts, such as the library and its use by the inmates and the studio and the paintings and art work produced. I speak well of the kitchens, too. I have tasted the meals. They are not bad. The workshops are not inspiring. Workshops in which mailbags are made are not inspiring places. But there are other workshops where the inmates make clothes. These are a little better, because the very colour and the nature of the product being made means more attractive and interesting work.
  The hospital looks quite good. As one who has served for many years in the Health Service, I must say that the hospital, small though it is, compares very well with some hospitals outside. Incidentally, it is to the hospital that convicted murderers go first of all for their first two or three weeks. When I was last in this small prison, there were about eight or nine convicted murderers there. At another time I visited the prison, years back, there were nothing like so many murderers there, but I can draw no conclusion from that.
  I am not alone in having this depressing view of a local prison. May speaks of the
  "bleak conditions of local prisons."
  The report says
  "the worst prisons are very bad indeed."
  I would not put Canterbury in that class. The old buildings—they are very old—are well kept and well painted, and even brightly painted. A lot has been done to make the best of an old building, albeit a building designed for another age and
  1968
  another approach to a social problem. There is even music-while-you-work. The inmates even have to endure Mr. Jimmy Young—and they cannot switch him off.
  An old building such as this cannot be ideal even for the offenders, who are often in for lesser offences, as we have heard today, or on remand. But even if we thought that it is wrong to pamper prisoners with a brighter and better building, it is not right for those who have to spend much longer in such a place—the prison staff. Representatives of the Prison Officers Association and prison staff come to see me at my surgeries regularly. I have been impressed by these prison officers. Canterbury is not a prison which has been giving many problems. I have not found prison officers downhearted when I have met them. They seem to make up for their drab surroundings by a cheerful attitude and by their general approach to their job and to the inmates.
  I have been very impressed by their approach to the inmates. Admittedly, some prison officers look like the toughest sergeant major one ever saw; but even the toughest sergeant major one ever saw is sometimes helpful to the youngest new recruit in the Army, and I have seen such an approach from prison officers to the newest recruit of inmates in the prison.
  I have been impressed by the inmates, too. Subdued they may be—but not surrendered. Of course, I cannot make more than a superficial comment, because I have not made a study of them. But one thing depressed me. That was how young they are today.
  What of the cells? One of the good things about May is that it is an illustrated report. The illustrations of cells are exactly like the cells in Canterbury prison. There is only one word that I can use to describe them—grim. Of course, there are many in Canterbury living two or three to a cell. As has been said, this is wrong, and we must not go on ignoring it—although when I spoke to prisoners living three to a cell, they did not complain. I pressed them on this point. Perhaps they did not complain because of the presence of prison officers with me, but I do not think so. I think that they sometimes appreciated the companionship of three to a cell rather than

  1969
  being on their own, particularly in their first days in prison. The May committee reports that in nine years the number of inmates sleeping two or three to a cell has risen from 10,500 to more than 16,000. The figure is even higher now.
  When I last visited Canterbury prison, I saw some mentally disordered patients—I used the word "patients" through a slip of the tongue, but that is what they are. They are offenders, but they are also ill, and prison officers told me that those men should be in psychiatric hospitals, being treated for being ill and not being punished for being offenders.
  We know from the sensitive and instructive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) that the vague reference in the May report to "some hundreds" of mentally disordered inmates is about 400 at any one time. The South-East Thames regional health authority, on which I serve, proposes to design two regional secure units, each to take 30 such patients. We are awaiting sanction to go ahead. I recently arranged for a display of such work in the House.
  Prison officers have been to see me about pay. The remuneration of prison officers could not be described as bad, but I am staggered by the system of remunerating them. They are dependent on overtime to a fantastic degree. An average of 37 per cent. of a prison officer's pay is represented by overtime—12 hours on top of a 40-hour week. The May committee refers to the "peculiar reliance" on overtime and to the fact that there are "overtime bandits" who manipulate their work so that they get as much overtime as possible. That must have a bad effect on the management of the service and on the relationship between staff and management.
  The most extraordinary anomalies exist, as I have found from talking to the governor at Canterbury and prison officers of various grades. I could not believe those anomalies until I read them in the May report. The governor said that officers were paid more than he received. Many officers earn more than a governor, because governors and senior prison officers do not receive overtime payments. It does not pay a middle grade prison officer to get promoted. The figures are remarkable. According to the May
  1970
  report, the most junior prison officer can earn, on average, £122 a week, while an assistant governor grade II can earn only—I pause for effect—£100 a week, £22 a week less for being the boss. A class I assistant governor does a little better and gets £127 a week. On the other hand, a senior officer can earn £145 a week and a principal officer can make £153 a week. But, as we go up the scale, overtime payments cease and the next grade, chief officer class II, gets £126 a week—less than the senior and principal officers below him.
  The most senior rank below governor, chief officer, class I, gets only £138 a week, compared with the £145 and £153 of the lower grades who work for him. On the basis of my experience of trying to run industry, I cannot understand how one can run a prison service when such anomalies exist.
  Prison officers have complained to me about some of the implications of the May report. They feel strongly about the ILA—the inconvenience locality allowance—which the May committee recommends should not be retained. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about this matter. After studying the report, I am inclined to agree with May that perhaps it is illogical today to continue with an allowance of a few pounds a week for the inconvenience of being in a remote locality. But I also agree with the report up to the hilt when it says that the allowance should be phased out by negotiation. That is the very important qualification that I would make.
  We heard from the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) the reservation that we should be careful about the little irritants that we might cause the staff by taking away something, which could cause the pot to boil over and cause trouble. The allowance was a traditional extra, and if it goes it should be balanced by some recompense.
  May said that transfers should no longer be carried out at the public expense. I do not agree. I think that transfer from inconvenient outstations should continue to be at the public expense. Otherwise, prison officers might feel themselves condemned to stay somewhere that is miles from anywhere when they would like to return to a place that is

  1971
  near schools for their children and centres of entertainment for their families, friends and so on. Transfer at the public expense should be retained.
  The officers feel that May neglected thoroughly to study the problem of rent allowances and I agree. The report is very weak on the subject It says nothing other than that the matter requires further consideration. I pass the ball straight back to my right hon. Friend and say that it certainly does. I am amazed that May did not study the police system in detail. Why should a police constable receive £18.20 a week rent allowance when in the same town, Canterbury, a prison officer receives only £11·30?
  Another matter that officers feel strongly about is complaints by inmates. The officers feel a real irritation over this problem. If an officer is suspended as a result of a complaint by an inmate, he can draw only his basic pay. With no overtime, he loses 37 per cent. of his remuneration at once because of the complaint. Inmates know a thing or two. They know that they can deprive of his overtime pay an officer they have it in for, reducing him to basic pay. What is more, they know that even when the officer is found to be not guilty and is reinstated, he gets no back pay for the overtime that he might have worked if he had not been suspended. Inmates are using this anomaly to work on prison officers. The matter should be investigated.
  The report is most important, and I have found it fascinating reading. It is on a social problem that we do not think enough about. The report is a window on to a closed world. We should all, in Parliament and in the country, take a look inside. We need to know what prison life is like for offenders and the officers in charge of them.
  I said in opening that a prison in Canterbury was like an oasis of brick and stone. That is misleading. It is the other way round. The prison is the desert, and it is we who are in the oasis, where life exists, where plants grow and where people laugh. However much we may clamour for law and order and stiffer punishments, and whatever is done and must be done to keep our prisons secure and society safe, we still
  1972
  have a duty, a moral duty, to consider what it is like to be inside. If we do not like what we see, we must speak out and make our voices heard.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): There remain just over 55 minutes for Back-Bench speeches. Seven hon. Members would like to contribute to the debate. I leave it in hon. Members' hands.
  1 pm
  Mr. John Tilley: I shall be as brief as I can. I am pleased to speak after the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) because, although I usually disagree with him on health matters, I agreed with much of what he said about the prison service.
  I wish to talk about the prison in my constituency, Brixton. Unlike Canterbury prison, it was singled out by the May committee as being particularly bad. On page 124 the committee states:
  "To put it baldly and without equivocation but choosing our words carefully nonetheless, we think that the worst prisons are very bad indeed … At the bottom are most of the urban Victorian local prisons i.e. those that are responsible for remand and trial prisoners. Of the ones we have seen, Birmingham, Bristol, Brixton and Liverpool deserve special mention."
  Brixton is the main remand prison for London. The dreadful conditions there are suffered by men who have either not been convicted or have not been sentenced for any offence. About 44 per cent. of people remanded in custody will be found not guilty or receive a non-custodial sentence.
  Brixton was built for fewer than 700 prisoners. This morning more than 1,100 prisoners are in Brixton. They go in and out at the rate of more than 100 a day when the courts are sitting. The reason for the overcrowding is not necessarily that more people are being remanded but the long delays before a trial and the dragging out of trials. The biggest reduction in the prison population at Brixton could be made by swifter trials.
  Increased productivity by the legal profession would be a great help. The average delay in coming to trial in London is five months. We should take seriously the proposal that we should

  1973
  copy the Scottish model. In Scotland a remanded man or woman is set free if not brought to trial within 110 days.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Canterbury that overcrowding is not just a matter of too many to a cell. Many of the cells were built by the Victorians as single cells because isolation was deemed to be an extra part of the punishment. The real problem in Brixton is the stress and strain on the facilities caused by overcrowding. There is inadequate sanitation and cramped provision for family and legal visits. Recreation and education facilities are restricted. That is made worse by the extra security required because of the high proportion of category A prisoner on remand. Many of them are on terrorist charges. When I last visited the prison there were 53 category A prisoners. Only Wakefield has more. The extra security affects all the prisoners, not only the high risk prisoners. The education block at Brixton cannot be used because it is outside the secure perimeter and there are not enough staff to make it usable and to maintain security.
  Parts of Brixton, particularly F wing, are falling down. Some of the buildings were built before Queen Victoria was born and are way beyond their useful life. It is disturbing that 1,000 men, who are all innocent until proved guilty under British law, should be confined in such conditions.
  Another 600 people share the conditions—the prison staff. They are there not just for a few months but for much of their working lives. Their recreation and trade union facilities are cramped and inadequate. They have to deal with the tensions and strains created by the overcrowding and poor facilities. A senior officer said yesterday "I am offended that the State should use me to deny innocent men their rights to cleanliness and human dignity."
  Housing is also a problem for prison officers in London generally. A single man working at Brixton receives a rent allowance of £8.42 a week. That is totally inadequate in South London where lodgings, if they are obtainable, cost at least three times that amount. The men who manage to buy a house have to work massive amounts of overtime to pay their
  1974
  mortgage. They have a choice of housing their families properly or of seeing them for a reasonable time. They cannot do both. It will get worse. Staffing at Brixton is to be increased over the next year by up to 200 more officers to service new courts. Yet the Home Office has refused to provide a single further quarter for prison officers stationed at Brixton. Although it is selling off prison quarters in other parts of the country, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) indicated, presumably at a considerable gain to the Exchequer, it is refusing to replace them in places where they are needed, such as London.
  We have to examine the May report and the Government's reaction to see how the problems of prisons such as Brixton are affected. The reaction of those in the prison service to whom I have spoken is that the report will do precious little. It is dismissed as the "dis-May report". It has not solved the problems of pay, and the debate has clearly exposed the fallacy that prison officers want to work the long hours that they now undertake. Nor has it solved the problem of the long hours of escort duty of prison officers accompanying prisoners on remand to courts all over the South of England.
  The prison service seems disappointed with the reaction of the Government so far. It is possible to say that all recent Governments have failed to tackle the wider problems of prisons and the particular problems of remand prisoners. But this Government have a particular responsibility because of their emphasis, in speeches and manifestos, on law and order. The prison service seems crucial in determining whether the punishments meted out in the interests of law and order are just, or inhumane and brutal. The prisons seem to become the Cinderella of the law and order services.
  The Government have taken steps, however much the Opposition may not like them, to give special preference to the Armed Services and the police in terms of expenditure when cuts are taking place elsewhere. Little has been done so far for the prison service. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to announce, although possibly not today, what action the Government intend to take on the May report. We need a commitment to a new remand

  1975
  prison for London, possibly in the docklands. This should be high in the building programme. Such a prison is not open to the objection that it would simply be filled up, as might happen with a longer-term prison. Attached to it should be a major new court building to eliminate the long journeys and the waste of time of prison officers, which also involve massive expense.
  Some measures are required to be taken by the Law Officers and the legal profession to cut down the delays in the beginning and the finishing of criminal trials in London. I see that the parliamentary lawyers' party is well represented. It could get down to some work on this matter.
  A rigorously liberal application of the Bail Act by magistrates is needed, together with the provision of more bail hostels. A period of silence would be welcome from those who say that too many people are going out on bail. There must be a review of the housing allowance system and the provision of quarters for prison officers in London.
  I believe that the May report, and the others that have been mentioned, provide an opportunity for a real commitment to steady change. But there seems to be a fear among those who are more deeply involved in the prison service than I am that the intention of the May report was to buy some time because of the crisis which then existed. That time has been bought, but one member of the service has told me that they will not fall for it again, and that what they now want is action.
  If we do not see the sort of action that has been advocated from both sides of the House today, there is the danger that another crisis—brought about by more disruptive industrial action or by further riots such as those that occurred at Hull—is the only way in which change will occur. I hope that the Government, both in the Minister's reply today and in their later actions, will show that those fears are unfounded.
  1.10 pm
  Mr. Edward Gardner: The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Tilley) has shown great concern for the state of our prisons today, particularly for the one in Brixton, in his constituency.
  1976
  This is one of the most worrying of our present-day problems, and I congratulate Mr. Justice May and the members of his committee on the proposals that they have produced to try to solve this crisis. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on accepting those proposals.
  The present state of our prisons, as I think we all agree, and as the May committee found, is a disgrace. It is a scandal that has become a crisis. It is an affront to the national conscience, and it is a danger to society. If today's debate has established nothing else, it has shown that on both sides of the House there is full agreement that the prime reason for the crisis is overcrowding. That overcrowding has left us with a crisis that cannot be contained indefinitely with any certainty or safety. I should not like to predict how long we can continue with a prison population of over 44,000.
  We have, by way of options to deal with the crisis, the possibility of building more prisons, which I am happy to know that my right hon. Friend has decided to do. There is also the option of reducing the prison population by reducing the sentences that send offenders there. It is interesting to notice that most sentences imposed on offenders are short. For example, in 1978, 33,000 out of 44,000 sentences were of 12 months or less. Only 1,072 sentences were for periods of imprisonment of four years or more. Therefore, there is safe and ample room for manoeuvre in respect of short sentences.
  I should like to repeat what many hon. Members have already said. No one should misinterpret either this debate or the Government's determination to reduce our prison population to be a deflection from a determination to ensure that in proper cases we maintain our system of imposing long and appropriate sentences of imprisonment, especially for serious and violent crimes.
  How should we deal with the problem of imposing shorter sentences? There are two temptations which I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to resist at all costs. One is the improper use of the parole board, although I am not suggesting that my right hon. Friend is ever likely to fall for that temptation. As a result of the activities of the parole

  1977
  board, the Government are saved the expense of building five or six prisons which would have to be built to contain the number of prisoners who are now on licence. I am sure that the parole board would resent any misuse of its services and the way in which it exercises its powers.
  The other question is how we can persuade our judges and whether we can rely on the decision to ensure that shorter sentences are imposed. There is little, if any, difference between a 12-month and a six-month sentence or a six-month and a three-month sentence as a punishment for the first offender for a petty or nonviolent crime.
  We are fortunate in having had Lord Lane appointed to the office of Lord Chief Justice of England. He has put forward his views through judgments in the Court of Appeal, in the criminal division, which will have a profound effect on the judicial attitude to shorter sentences. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary read out one of the judgments that Lord Lane recently gave. I shall read another. In the course of a recent judgment Lord Lane said:
  "Courts should ensure that if an immediate prison sentence was inevitable it had to be as short as possible."
  I believe that we can rely on members of our judiciary to take notice of advice such as that.
  I say in all earnestness to the House and to the Home Secretary "Please do not be tempted into introducing legislation to effect shorter sentences when you can rely on the good sense, judgment and experience of the judiciary to do it for you." Not only would it be resented by the judiciary; it would be resented with a sense of outrage by the people in the country if it was thought that Parliament was trying to fetter the discretion of the judiciary. I believe that the people would far rather trust our judges than our Members of Parliament to decide proper and appropriate sentences for criminal offences. Therefore, I hope that the judiciary will listen to the advice that has been given from the court of appeal.
  We must reduce the prison population. The difficulties of doing so were illustrated by the Minister of State when he said in a speech some time ago that, if we
  1978
  were to cut by one-sixth all the short-term and medium-term sentences, in three years we would reduce the prison population by only 2,000. If we were to cut all the short-term and medium-term sentences by one-sixth, and if we were to remove from our prisons the mentally ill, the inadequate, the drunks, the fine defaulters—all the categories that we feel ought not to be there—the total would be only 5,000. That would be just about sufficient to enable the authorities to implement the recommendations of the May committee for the improvement of sanitary facilities.
  That is the measure of the problem. I feel sure that all those who feel seriously about it will wish to give my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government full support in what they are doing to try to solve it.
  1.20 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I start with a simple appeal to the Minister of State, and I hope that he will pass it on to the Home Secretary. It is that before he and his right hon. Friend take any action on this matter they will read the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). In a very short speech, the hon. Lady showed far more insight into and understanding of the problem than I have heard for a very long time. If the Minister and the Home Secretary were to act on the hon. Lady's speech, we might make much more progress than I would have dreamt possible otherwise.
  Prison officers, probation officers, prisoners, social workers, and most other people associated with penal policy, have been disappointed by the May report, and disappointed by the Government's reaction to it. I am in regular and frequent touch with people from all those groups.
  I do not in any way criticise the many very good recommendations and very good intentions expressed in the report but it does not in any way express the sense of urgency that the problem requires. The hon. Member for Drake put her finger on the problem. We do not have time. We have a crisis, and it is no wonder that prison officers feel bitterly let down by Governments—previous Governments as well as this one—because we have not listened to them and responded to their needs, or at best we

  1979
  have listened to them but we have not heard. That is a fundamental criticism.
  The problem is crime, and it is very simple to take the popular public attitude as to its cause. We all know that crime has many causes, among them unemployment and "parenting". Two of the most important aspects of the latter are love and consistency. But it is very difficult to be consistent when living in a high-rise block of flats, with the children either playing in the flat all day or down below, where they cannot be disciplined and where they cannot learn the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. So the urban environment is important.
  When people say that crime must be reduced, surely we must say that something must be done about the consumption of alcohol. The rate of consumption of alcohol is now closely associated with the rise in crimes of violence. If the people are to accept a high level of alcohol consumption, they will have to accept a high level of crime.
  We also have to consider the type of society that we want. Recently, members of the special patrol group were put into the London Underground to clear up crime. I am not against clearing up crime in the London Underground. What worries me is that the method is horribly reminiscent of that portrayed in Stanley Kubrick's film "A Clockwork Orange". We ought to be thinking about getting back to a more humane system. Crime on the London Underground could, for example, be reduced by having more staff on Underground stations.
  Punishment is accepted by people. Probation officers, social workers and others accept that punishment is important. I also accept that. Above all, prisoners often understand punishment far more than they understand treatment or attempts to be understanding, sympathetic, and so on. But the punishment must be realistic, and our prison system is not in any sense realistic. Everybody here has said that, and it is demon-stated fundamentally by research.
  We know that the best deterrent to crime is the fear of being caught, not just by the number of policemen, but by the type of policing. Here I put in an appeal for community policing. I think, too, that we should think about the age
  1980
  of police officers. This is important in terms of experience.
  We know that short sentences are the most effective in terms of the shock created. Why is that? We can split a prison sentence into three parts. The first part is the shock, the horror, of going in. I am referring to those who have not been in prison before or who perhaps have been in only once. The shock and horror are immediate and they last for a couple of days or sometimes for a week or two weeks. After that one slips into the second phase of adjusting to the institution. The third stage is where anxiety arises again and the person concerned has to face the idea of coming out, meeting his family, getting a job and so on. Those three phases of prison sentences are well known.
  I can make hon. Members and people outside most aware of this position by drawing an analogy with admission to hospital as an emergency. There is the immediate shock of going in. After that the patient adjusts to being in hospital and then he worries about coming out and getting back into his old position in society.
  If we want maximum impact, we should go for short sentences. In some cases it will be a matter of days. If the crime is not serious, there is much to be said for imposing a short sentence.
  Why is it difficult? One reason is the so-called public attitude. I know all about that. I am frequently labelled as a "softy" in society. We have failed fundamentally in tackling this problem because we have not given enough thought to the problems of the victim. It is important to consider the victim if we are to achieve penal reform.
  The majority of people in our prisons are working class in the Registrar-General's definition of social classes IV and V. I shall come back to that point. What is frequently forgotten is that the vast majority of victims are also from those two groups. That is because they are affected more dramatically by crime. They are not insured. Their houses and flats are more vulnerable to breakins, and so on. That is the problem to which we must respond. We can respond not only by having more generous compensation schemes, but by developing victim support schemes in areas in which

  1981
  such schemes have not been developed. They are particularly important and should be given a boost.
  The Home Secretary said that he wanted to try reducing the length of sentences by voluntary means. I have heard it all before. That is why prison officers, probation officers and others concerned with penal reform are cynical. It is not people such as me who make them cynical.
  I recall that in 1972 or 1973, at the annual conference of the probation officers, the Home Secretary, in answer to a question, accepted that we might have to reduce the length of prison sentences. This idea has been around for years, but no one has acted on it. Again, the feeling outside by those who have to deal with the problem is that people listen but do not hear or respond.
  I am willing to help with any voluntary effort. But how long must we wait before we take our responsibilities seriously? The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said that it would be resented if the Government were to step in and interfere with the judiciary. It is an abdication of responsibility by the Government and the House not to change the law when it is necessary. It is necessary to change the law now because, whether we defend prisoners, prison officers or anyone else, we must recognise that there is a crisis. By that I mean that, unless we do something soon—I get no joy from saying this; I have said it before and have been proved right an uncomfortable number of times—the riots will not only continue, but sooner or later lives will be lost or more people will be injured, whether prison officers or prisoners.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that admirable as the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice and others may be, which were referred to by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), and accepting them, as I am sure we all do, as being a genuine effort to persuade the whole width of the judiciary—magistrates as well as judges—to reduce the length of prison sentences, the pressures upon the judiciary from the press and others are so great that it needs to be fortified by what we do in this place? What we do
  1982
  here has a great influence on the way that it is likely to think.
  Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who with his great experience has expressed the situation so felicitously. I know that it is not popular in an area such as the one that I represent to say some of the things that I have been saying. If it costs me votes, so be it. I know that it is the right thing to do. It is an issue that we must face. We must not duck it as I fear the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde was suggesting, although I am sure that he advanced his arguments with the best of intentions. It is an issue that we have been ducking for too long.
  We must aim for a long-term ideal. That ideal is to reserve prisons for those who use violence, threaten to do so or indulge in certain other serious offences that threaten the fabric of society—for example, large-scale corruption. Our aim must be to get out of our prisons those who do not fall into those categories.
  I turn briefly to the problems of the working class in prison. Why is it that there are more prisoners from the two class groups that I have described than from other groups? That is not because they are more wicked or anything like that. The fact is that laws impinge more heavily upon them. To deprive people of their liberty for offences against property is to enter a minefield of double standards.
  If there were a police raid on the House next week and every Member's books were checked to ascertain whether there had been what is called "white collar crime", I am sure that the same problems would emerge as those that are uncovered when employees are searched before leaving a factory to discover whether they have stolen anything on their employer's premises. However, in one situation the individual is more likely to be caught and sent to prison.
  That is the difference, and that is why we should return to the position of the original Utilitarians and Victorians. They argued that people should be deprived of their liberty as a punishment and no more than that, and that it should be done as a measure of last resort. Given that it is a minefield of double standards, as I have suggested, it should not be done lightly

  1983
  when there are alternatives that are not only cheaper but give something back to the community—for example, community service orders and compensation.
  Reducing the prison population will not solve the problem overnight. However, it will reduce the immediate impact of the problem. The House recognises that there is a crisis and that lives are at risk. Surely we have a duty to make an immediate impact on the problem.
  Prison cells are often about 8 ft by 13 ft. They are often occupied by three prisoners. There is no sanitation and no water. Prisoners go to the toilet during the night and they slop out in the morning. There is a long queue in a Victorian prison. The toilets are not capable of dealing with the amount of sewage put into them and they block. There is a long row of prisoners waiting to empty their chamber pots. The staff try to control the queue. It must be an explosive situation.
  What happens? We must recognise that what I have described is taking place in the last quarter of the twentieth century. Human faeces are thrown out of the cell windows at night. They can be found all the way round the walls of many prisons. Those are the conditions in which we are asking the staff to work, and in which prisoners have to serve their sentences. Even to begin to justify those conditions is an insult to moral standards.
  We must do something. There must be drastic action. We cannot wait. If that primary action is taken, we may be able to do some of the other things that we all desire—for example, providing prison officers with the in-service training that they often want. The management and salary structure could be altered to reflect the importance of prison officers with experience, especially chief officers. They are the ones who are in contact with the prisoners, and they do the real welfare work. Unless we back them on that point, we shall fail.
  I am in favour of giving the Director-General and the staff the power to speak in public. Let us get rid—in such circumstances—of the absurd use of the Official Secrets Act. Let us recognise that the prison officer's job of sympathetic control is an exercise in tightrope walking. We have undervalued prison staff. We have used prisons as dustbins;
  1984
  and consequently prison officers cannot cope. We have asked them to do more than is reasonable in such circumstances. It takes political courage, vision and humanity to make the necessary changes. If we cannot ask that of a Home Secretary, who can we ask it of?
  1.35 pm
  Mr. Percy Grieve: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) along all the avenues down which his prejudices have led him. I agree with him, and with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) about the appalling and disgusting conditions that are found in our prisons. Those conditions are primarily due to overcrowding in buildings that were built in another age, which had a different concept of imprisonment.
  I congratulate Sir John May and his colleagues on having produced a comprehensive and valuable report. I do not share the criticism made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his response, and on his promise of a partial remedy. He would agree—as we all do—that it is a partial remedy, but it nevertheless represents a step on the road towards remedying the disgraceful situation. I express profound opposition to, and dissent from, some of the things that have been said in the debate. I strongly oppose some of the attitudes that have been expressed by Opposition Members towards the judiciary's contribution to the solution of this problem.
  The recent statements of the Lord Chief Justice—Lord Lane—have been commended. Indeed, they are commendable. He has not sought uniformity of sentence, because uniformity of sentence is unobtainable. One has to deal with individuals, and each case is different. He sought uniformity of approach. He, his colleagues in the Court of Appeal and others on the bench have recommended that the judiciary should seek to minimise the extent of prison sentences, save where the defence of society demands it. It is wrong to say that the judiciary has not complied with that. I have been exercising judicial functions—and perhaps this represents my contribution to the debate—for the past 25 years. When I

  1985
  first began to sit at quarter sessions there were no suspended sentences, or suspended sentences with supervision, community service orders or attendance centres. The higher courts—the quarter sessions, the assizes and the Central Criminal Court—had to send a man to prison, fine him, put him on probation, or discharge him. There was no other choice. Immense progress has been made during the past 25 years. The judiciary has cooperated in a most remarkable fashion.
  Were it not for the use made of suspended sentences, the prisons would probably be three times as full. When I came back after the war to practise at the Bar, those who robbed their employers were automatically sent to prison, whether or not they were likely to do so again. Since the introduction of the suspended sentence, we have had a valuable way of marking society's reaction to the disloyalty of one who has betrayed the trust and, at the same time, it can exercise the utmost degree of mercy. Implementation of this policy has been in the hands of the judges. I would deplore and resolutely oppose any measures that this House saw fit to take in order to fetter the hands and the discretion of the judiciary in sentencing.
  Since 1961 we have seen the operation of one such fetter on the power of the judiciary—that concerned with offenders under 21. The effects of this fetter have been deplorable. The judiciary has been obliged in cases involving those under 21, some of whom may have a long list of convictions behind them, to impose a sentence either of less than six months or more than three years.
  The truth of the matter is that the reforms that have been made in sentencing and the new powers that have been available to the courts over the last 25 years have greatly contributed not only to a civilising of our judicial and criminal process but also to a reduction of what would otherwise have been an intolerable strain on our prisons. This is pointed out in chapter 4, paragraph 13 of the May report where it says:
  "A further main cause of the loss of faith in treatment has stemmed paradoxically from the fact that the courts have been enabled and encouraged by Parliament in a series of statutes to make use of a number of new non-custodial types of sentence. The result has been that the courts are now encouraged
  1986
  to regard prison as the last resort, as the place where people should go only where there is no other course to take with them. Thus for many years, although the number of people coming before the courts consistently increased, the proportion sentenced to imprisonment until recently declined."
  There is another point about this aspect which was touched upon by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. He said that the fear or the certainty of detection was the principal sanction against the committal of crime. I agree. It is paradoxical that so far the failure of the police to detect has ensured that the crisis in our prisons has not reached boiling point.
  In 1979 in London alone there were 68.544 burglaries in dwelling houses. The Home Secretary, in dealing with the sort of offence which demands a long sentence in order to protect society, cited terrorism and crimes of violence. I would add to that. Indeed, recently the Lord Chief Justice, in listing the sort of crimes that demanded a long sentence, included burglary in private dwellings. Long experience has shown that burglary in private dwelling houses, particularly where forcible entry has been made, is usually committed by the professional criminal. In the figure that I just quoted for London there were 51,496 cases of forcible entry.
  Had all these criminals been brought to justice there would not have been enough space in our prisons to hold them. In fact, only 11 per cent. of these offenders were brought to justice. We are now encouraging the police by every means in our power to protect society and to bring more criminals to justice. That is how we shall prevent crime and maintain law and order. But if the police succeed there will be a far greater demand for prison places. Even allowing for shortening the long sentences, we shall see a number of people brought before the courts who will have to be locked up for protection of society.
  By all means let us encourage judges to shorten sentences when they can be shortened—when they are for petty crime or beginners—but we must provide the prison space for the terrorist, the violent man, the rapist and the professional burglar, for the protection of society. Therefore, the answer lies in the end in building more prisons and modernising

  1987
  those that we have. That is the contribution that I desire to make to this debate.
  I deplore the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) that there should be a sword of Damocles held over the heads of judges by this House, putting them on probation to reduce prison sentences. I regret that the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin), in his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North, should have even come near to associating himself with that suggestion.
  I agree, particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler), about the pressure that is put on prison space by those on remand. However, we shall not meet the problem by increasing the number of people on bail. I can substantiate from my experience in court what has recently been said by a number of chief constables. I see case after case where offences have been committed by people on bail. It is almost classic that the old lag, up for a number of offences, bailed until he comes to trial, commits as many more offences as he can in order to provide the better for his wife and children while he is inside later on. The answer is not to bail more people, but to shorten the period of remand, speed up our judicial process and provide more courts and judges to deal with the appalling burden of modern crime. The answer is not to let loose upon society those who are well known to be old lags and professional criminals so that they can line their families' pockets against the time that they will shortly spend in gaol.
  Finally, I share entirely the comments made from both sides of the House about the necessity to keep the mentally defective and those suffering mental difficulties out of prison. The problem is that hospitals will not take them. Only last year in the Middlesex Crown court, just across Parliament Square, I had before me a man with a long series of convictions for violence, who was convicted of having an offensive weapon. I would have done anything that I could to send him to hospital. The case was adjourned to give me time to do so. No hospital would take him. They explained that they could not keep him in security, he was too dangerous and so on. Such cases are
  1988
  multiplied daily throughout the country. When I finally had to send him to prison, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to say that I hoped that he would at least receive some treatment in prison. However, judges are aware that the chances of such people receiving treatment are very small indeed with the present pressures on the prison services.
  I do not underrate the splendid results that have been achieved at such places as Grendon Underwood. Nevertheless, we know that the chances of such a man receiving treatment in prison are small. We must provide more facilities for the mentally unstable and defective, so that they do not crowd the cells of our already overcrowded prisons.
  1.49 pm
  Mr. Alfred Dubs: There is nothing soft about our prisons or penal institutions. They are harsh, tough places. I suggest that anyone who believes otherwise has not visited them.
  Our prison population has been increasing over recent years. It is a sad commentary that of all West European countries we have the largest relative prison population, with the exception of West Germany. I should like to give one or two figures. In 1948, of the prison sentences given, 30 per cent. were for six months or longer. By 1975, 45 per cent. had reached this length of sentence. In contrast, in the Netherlands, where in 1948 about the same proportion of sentences were for six months or longer, by 1975 these had declined as a result of deliberate policy to 10 per cent. of all sentences. There is no evidence in the Netherlands that crime is increasing at a different rate from that in this country.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does my hon. Friend know whether there is any evidence that the judiciary in the Netherlands resents the fact that the Netherlands legislature has imposed this policy?
  Mr. Dubs: I have no reason to think that the judiciary in the Netherlands resents this policy. Indeed, I differ from the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and some other hon. Members in that I find it difficult to see how we can achieve the shorter sentences to which we are all paying lip service without legislation. What happens in our prisons and what are the consequences of long sentences is surely our

  1989
  responsibility and not that of the judiciary.
  I should like to mention one other point about long sentences—the effect of public opinion. It seems to me that what is now regarded as a long sentence has changed from what public opinion thought it was some years ago. That is partly, I think, because newspapers and others have constantly kept up pressure for sentences to become longer and longer because of some of the crimes that have been committed. It seems to me that two years in prison is an intolerably long sentence, and yet by public opinion's standards, two years would be regarded as a very short sentence. I think that public opinion has been pressurising the judiciary, and that is another reason why sentences have become longer.
  I turn briefly to remands in custody. At present, there are about 6,000 people untried or unsentenced in gaol. But the waiting time for trials is about 11 weeks outside London and, I understand, as long as 19 weeks in London. As has been said, in the event, about 40 per cent. of those remanded in custody are either later acquitted or given non-custodial sentences.
  I urge the Home Secretary to look again at what is happening in Scotland, where those concerned have managed to do things rather better.
  I note that the Home Office intends to carry out a vast new building programme. Certainly many of our old prisons are desperately in need of improvement. Wandsworth prison in my constituency needs a lot of money spent on it to improve it and make conditions more tolerable. However, I suggest that most building improvement works in our old Victorian prisons will have the effect of reducing the accommodation available. But there are other needs in Wandsworth prison. The baths and shower arrangements are hopeless, and there is a lot of pressure on prison officers when they try to give prisoners their minimum of one bath a week. More money spent on improving those facilities is very much needed.
  However, I suggest that unless we pull down old prisons as we build new ones, we shall simply be making the space in which the prison population will be increased. I should like to cite some
  1990
  American experience. Some investigations were carried out which showed that the 15 American States that had done most prison building over the past 20 years had increased the capacity of their prisons by 56 per cent. and their prison population had then gone up by 57 per cent. But in the 15 American States which had done least prison building during the same period the prison capacity had increased by 4 per cent. and the prison population overall had fallen by 9 per cent.
  I turn to secrecy in the prison system. Yesterday in the House the Home Secretary suggested that he welcomed it if police constables spoke up on behalf of their police forces. I wonder whether he would say the same for prison governors and other members of the prison service, apart from the public relations officer to be appointed. It seems to me that we are doing a disservice to our whole prison system, to all people who work in it, by surrounding our prisons with an obsessive cloak of screcy, with the result that so little of what goes on in our prisons is made known to the people outside.
  I am not suggesting that every governor should take a course on becoming a public relations officer, but more openness would be welcomed by all who work in the prison system. It is an ironic comment on the secrecy that a group of hon. Members is not able to invite a prison governor to come to the House to discuss prison conditions. I ask the Home Office to look again at that position.
  Some weeks ago I visited Wormwood Scrubs and saw three men in their twenties in one cell. They were spending 23 hours a day in that cell. One had been there for three months and had never been out of the cell for more than one hour a day. I can think of few more soul-destroying experiences. I do not suggest that that applies in all prisons. There is work in prisons, but, at least in some of the London prisons, we have much to answer for in keeping people in cells for 23 hours a day.
  In contrast, I visited a borstal at Rochester where the work was enlightening. There was plenty of opportunity and young men were taking further qualifications. Some were enthusiastic about the fact that they would leave the borstal better qualified to earn more

  1991
  money and to do a better job than when they went in.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the education service in prisons and borstals. Does he agree that that service has a crucial role in holding prisoners together while they are serving their sentences?
  Mr. Dubs: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree that education and training for work are vital ingredients of prison regimes. When I went to Bullwood Hall, the closed borstal for girls, I thought that the work provided there was disappointing. The authorities were struggling to think of any work that could be provided. They would do well to take a leaf out of the Rochester borstal's book. It does not matter that there are young men at one borstal and girls at the other. It should be possible to provide better work at Bullwood Hall. When I visited the Send detention centre a few months ago, I found that young men were having to break up tape cassettes. Surely we can do better than that for young men who are kept in custody.
  I understand that in institutions for women the nursing staff are properly qualified, but there is only the minimum of qualification—a three-months' training course—in institutions for men. Given the number of deaths and other incidents that occur in prison, it is desirable that we give staff in men's prisons the same sort of nursing training that we give to the staff of women's prisons.
  There has been an alarming growth in the number of young offenders in our penal institutions in recent years. In 1969, a total of 2,600 young men aged between 14 and 16 were in penal institutions. By 1979, that figure had increased to more than 7,000. There has been a similar increase, though not quite as large, in the case of men and women aged between 17 and 20. The figures are alarming. There is a thin line between whether a young person, who is part of a sub-culture, becomes an offender or not.
  The Home Secretary spoke recently on Westward Television about the difficulties of knowing why young persons become offenders. One of the challenges to us is to get as many young persons
  1992
  as possible through the difficult years of adolescence without their going into penal institutions. The evidence is that once they are put into such institutions they are caught in the system and stay in the criminal world for the rest of their lives. If we can keep them clear of that, we shall have done them a service.
  I in no way condone violence or vandalism. We should not take any measures that will weaken our society or increase the threat to it. We must show full concern for the victims of crime, but it is clear that at the same time there is a need for major changes in our penal system. Those changes should take place as a matter of urgency—in fact, right away.
  2 pm
  Dr. Shirley Summerskill: This has been an extremely wide-ranging debate, albeit too short. I am sorry that some hon. Members who were trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have not been called.
  A great deal of expertise has been shown in what has been an informed debate. We have had the benefit of two excellent reports, which are complementary. One, the May report, deals primarily with the prison service, whereas the other, the Expenditure Committee report, examines how to reduce the pressure on the system.
  Naturally, the emphasis has been on the figure announced by the Home Secretary, in opening the debate, of 44,324 men and women now in prison. As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) pointed out, we have a higher proportion of our population serving custodial sentences than any other European country except West Germany.
  If we consider the reasons for the high prison population, we must bear in mind the important fact that last year the number of recorded offences of violence against the person increased by 9 per cent. over the 1978 figure. Another development that has added to the chronic overcrowding in prisons is that a larger number of women are being sentenced to custodial treatment. The annual report of the Prison Department states that there is an increasing number of women inmates whose crimes, circumstances and personalities are similar to those of the male

  1993
  prison population. Their total number in prison has now reached a record of 1,546.
  It would be possible for us to have a separate debate about the causes of crime in our society, an extremely complex subject, and about ways of reducing its incidence. In this connection, I wish only to refer to one aspect of the increasing prison population, which was also referred to in passing by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). The recent annual report of the parole board revealed that there was clear and unmistakable evidence that a high proportion of those who committed violent crime were drunk at the time of the offence. The board considers that in about half the cases of unpremeditated violence drink is a major factor. Much has been said today about the need to get alcoholic petty offenders out of our overcrowded prisons, but if we do not deal with the problem of violent drunken offenders their numbers in prison will continue to increase.
  Mr. Soley: I should like to make it clear that, although there is a problem of alcoholics in prison, the particular worry is that alcohol is associated with crime and violence without the person concerned being an alcoholic. That is the point.
  Dr. Summerskill: I agree.
  The report of the May committee, which was established by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), has been widely welcomed. It largely endorses proposals that have been advocated for many years. Every speaker—even the Minister—has agreed that in the long term the ideal is to replace old and insanitary prisons, not to add to them with the new prisons. That should be our long-term aim.
  Ideally, it should be possible for prisoners to choose between a single cell and sharing a cell. Some people believe that being in a single cell is an additional punishment and that sharing a cell is not necessarily more of a hardship. However, the existing figures of 4,833 who are three to a cell and 11,752 who are two to a cell, through no choice of their own, are surely not acceptable. That is one of the reasons why we must increase the total number of places. Overcrowding
  1994
  occurs not only in the cells but in relation to access to facilities. That affects prisoners and staff alike and was well illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley).
  One school of thought supports the view that prison places are like parliamentary time—the more that are provided the more that will be filled. That implies that courts constantly look over their shoulders to see how many places there are in prisons. That is not the way in which courts should come to decisions.
  The plan is for a further 3,400 prison places by 1985. I hope that those places will eventually replace present places in the old Victorian prisons. I hope that it is not planned simply to add to the total prison population.
  The Home Secretary said in Bournemouth:
  "We must go forward with a sustained, it necessarily modest, building programme."
  During my time at the Home Office I had an almost unique experience in that I actually opened a prison. We are promised two more new establishments in 1982 and a further two in 1983. They seem drops in the ocean when we know that Liverpool prison, for example, contains about 1,500 prisoners in a building designed for 1,000. Only 13 closed prisons have been built since 1914. My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central gave a vivid description of conditions in Brixton.
  I appreciate the economic constraints, but there is anxiety that new prison building and the rebuilding of parts of prisons is being emphasised more than the resources for other amenities and other ways of keeping people out of prison, such as facilities for non-custodial sentences. It is hoped that there will be a balance and that the resources provided for custodial sentences will be equivalent to those provided for non-custodial sentences. It is hoped that there will be a balance in favour of provision for the short-stay prisoner and remand prisoner who have more overcrowded conditions than long-stay prisoners.
  The subject of shorter sentences has dominated the debate. Sir John May recommended that successful attempts to reduce inmate populations in Holland and Sweden suggest that United Kingdom

  1995
  practices, especially sentencing policy, require re-examination. Most hon. Members have supported shorter prison sentences, not across the board as the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) implied, but only in appropriate cases and where possible as a sensible way of reducing the prison population. That is confirmed by the Expenditure Committee and successive Lord Chancellors and by most people working with offenders, including prison governors and probation officers.
  Research evidence based on reconviction rates indicates that longer custodial sentences produce no better results than short sentences. The Lord Chief Justice has been referred to frequently in the debate in view of what he said recently when delivering judgment on an appeal against sentence. He said:
  "When courts consider that a prison sentence is necessary they must be particularly careful to examine each case to ensure that the sentence is as short as possible, consistent with the duty to protect the public interests and punish and deter the criminals."
  The reluctance of judges to impose shorter sentences—if they have been reluctant—is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said, because they lack judicial will. Possibly it is partly because they believe that the public do not expect them to do so.
  The natural emotional reaction of the public is often to support long sentences as a punishment for serious crime. I am sure that hon. Members would prefer to see people looking at the whole matter in a more logical and informed way. I hope that the debate, in which only one voice has been heard opposing shorter sentences, wherever possible and where appropriate, will help to persuade public opinion and, therefore, the courts to support the enlightened view of Lord Lane.
  We should also encourage greater public knowledge about, and acceptance of, alternatives to prison. These may then be found more acceptable to the courts. As well as being cheaper, they are often equally as effective as, if not more effective than, prison. We must keep questioning the benefit of the custodial sentence. A sample of people given custodial sentences for serious criminal offences in January 1971 was studied by the Home Office. It was found that by the end of 1976 about 70 per cent. of those people
  1996
  had been reconvicted. This makes an extremely depressing statistic, but in Holland, shorter prison sentences and more non-custodial sentences are accompanied by crime statistics that are no greater proportionately than our own.
  It is clear that we must increase the use of non-custodial sentences wherever possible. While the courts, we hope, are lending their minds to shorter sentences where appropriate, it is also to be hoped that they will heed the call for a greater use of probation to relieve the prison system. Most of those on probation avoid further serious crime for the average period of two years during which they are under supervision. The probation service itself would welcome this development as it would mean that it was working with offenders at an earlier and more successful stage instead of during, and after, a custodial sentence.
  I join the tributes to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) for chairing the successful report of the Expenditure Committee. I particularly support the recommendation that the Department of Health and Social Security should accept more responsibility for accommodating mentally disordered offenders. The previous Government found, as the present Government also find, that some NHS staff and the public are reluctant to give higher priority to the needs of mentally disordered offenders, especially when there is great pressure on Health Service resources. I hope that the views expressed in the debate will help to promote a better understanding of the problem and greater co-operation in dealing with it by all concerned. I also hope that the DHSS will not regard the research project, set up with the Home Office on this matter, as a reason for delay in taking action to overcome the problem.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South raised the question of remand. I should like the Minister to say whether the Government have any proposals for dealing with this serious situation in which nearly one in seven of all prisoners are now awaiting trial. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman comment on the suggestion of the National Association of Probation Officers relating to the introduction of a time limit on remand—a statutory maximum period of

  1997
  110 days—similar to Scottish criminal practice?
  There have been many tributes paid during the debate to the role of prison officers. I am sure that this is the general feeling of all hon. Members who have spoken. Most of us have attended meetings with prison officers. They feel strongly that they want to play an active and constructive role within the prison system and not act merely as turnkeys. They want to be more concerned with the welfare and rehabilitation of prisoners. The Opposition would support any measures that reduce burdens on the prison staff, including measures to increase recruitment.
  Amid the general welcome for the May report and the proposals of the Expenditure Committee, it is often said that all that is needed now is the political will to act upon them. But it seems that it will need far more than simply the will of this House—a will that is clearly in evidence. It will need the positive and enthusiastic support and co-operation of everyone working in this sphere, especially the prison and probation officers and the courts. Above all, it will need the support of the general public, because it represents the taxpayers who will be footing the bill. Their support is needed for the measures that do not require resources. As the Home Secretary said, this is only the beginning and there is a great deal more to be done.
  2.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): In the subject that we have been debating, it has been customary for policy decisions to be taken, not on the basis of a simple decision by the Government of the day but by a process of building up an informed consensus. That is because the number of agencies involved in implementing the policy are so diverse, and many of them, such as the judiciary, rightly so independent, that this is the proper approach. However, for that to work, it is absolutely essential that there should be reports—such as those of the Expenditure Committee, the all-party penal affairs group and the May committee—to form a basis for the development of such a consensus. We are indeed fortunate to have had those reports and now to have had the benefit of the
  1998
  comments of the House on them. I hasten to add that that is not the last word, because opportunities will and do recur for us to consider these matters.
  The debate can be divided into two parts—first, that concerned with conditions in prisons as they are, dealing with the people who are there at present, and, secondly, with the question of who should be in prison and what one can do in order to deal with the numbers in prison.
  On prison building, my right hon. Friend explained the position. A specific question was asked by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) about Appleton Thorn. We are planning for the new young offender establishment there to become operational by the mid-1980s.
  Turning to wider matters, reference was made from time to time—in particular by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and more recently by the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill)—to the aspirations of prison officers and to their desire to play a larger and more constructive part than that of merely fulfilling the role of turnkey. As the hon. Lady felicitously put it, they seek an active and constructive role. That is an aspiration that we share on their behalf.
  In order to give reality to it, the key is very much the question of training. We recognise the desire for a more fulfilling role, and we are anxious to improve the efficiency with which we use our valuable staff resources. We shall, therefore, shortly be undertaking a comprehensive review of training provided in the prison service in accordance with the recommendations of the May committee. I very much hope that that will lead to opportunities for prison staff to give reality to their genuine desire to play a more constructive role.
  Reference was also made to another series of matters relating to the conditions of prison officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and others raised questions relating to rent allowances and matters of that kind. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it is impossible to answer all those points now, but we shall want to consider them carefully.
  Most of this debate has been concerned with the questions of the size of the prison

  1999
  population and with what can and should be done to reduce it. Reference was made to the growth of non-custodial sentences. The hon. Member for Halifax asked us to support the use of noncustodial sentences and the greater use of probation. I am happy to accede instantly to that plea. The probation service has the ability, resources and desire to play an even greater role than it has done in the past, and we shall support it in its efforts to do so. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) gave a graphic account of the development of non-custodial sentences over the past few years. It is right that we should concentrate on the difficulties that we have experienced, but, difficult as the situation is today, it would have been infinitely worse if successive Governments had not developed the alternatives to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.
  What can we do today to ensure that those who should not be in prison are no longer there? Reference has been made to court delays, which concern the Government as a whole. I say "the Government as a whole" because responsibility goes beyond the Home Office. One of the steps that can and should be taken is the provision of courts and judicial manpower to deal with cases. The Lord Chancellor has taken steps to provide a substantial number of extra courts. But the more fundamental steps that can be taken will depend on alterations in the prosecution process. That matter is being considered fundamentally and radically by the Royal Commission, which will report by the end of the year. I do not think that we can reasonably be expected to take steps in that direction without the benefit of the report.
  Specific reference was made to the question of the 110-day limit on custodial remands. That course is not nearly as promising as has been suggested in the debate. The Scottish rule is not absolute. It is aimed primarily at delay by the prosecutor. The High Court may extend the 110-day period if the court is satisfied that the delay is due to a sufficient cause for which the prosecutor is not responsible. Our provision south of the border is covered by section 7 (4) of the Courts Act 1971 which provides that
  "The trial of a person … shall, unless the Crown Court has otherwise ordered, begin not
  2000
  later than the expiration of the period … prescribed by Crown Court rules,"
  which is eight weeks from the date of committal. That is similar in form to the Scottish provision, except that the period in the one case is prescribed by rule and not in the statute. The difference is not great. But, in any event, if an artificial rule of that sort were rigidly enforced it would be like the question of price controls—to take an analogy from a different area. We are trying to stem the flood, but it does not stop the problem, because there will soon be grave public disquiet if the prosecution process cannot be speeded up and large numbers of people, many of whom might be dangerous, have to be released.
  It is fair to say that the debate concentrated on the question of removing from the prison system the categories of prisoners referred to very graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), and also on the question of short sentences more generally. Obviously this whole area of diversion from custody is one with which we are very concerned.
  One of the categories mentioned was that of the petty persistent offender. The Home Office research unit has for some time been engaged in a series of research projects designed to examine ways in which petty persistent offenders might be diverted from prison. We hope to publish in the new year the results of the work.
  The research has examined three points in the criminal justice process—arrest, sentence and release from prison—where attempts could be made to reduce the interaction of petty persistent offenders within the criminal justice system.
  We hope to develop further work in connection with the initiative to provide a simpler form of overnight shelter for drunks and also in relation to the use of day centres.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham was right in saying that many of these categories of people—the fine defaulters, and those begging and sleeping rough—are people whose presence in the criminal system is inappropriate. I disagree with him only in his remarks that they could be removed inexpensively and quickly. The obstacles to their removal—which is dependent on the provision of alternative facilities in the community—are not insubstantial. If it was

  2001
  as easy as that to solve the problem, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that Conservative and Labour Governments who have had to deal with it would have seized the opportunity with open hands.
  I turn next to the question of shorter sentences generally. Suggestions have been made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) and others that some sort of action should be taken on a legislative basis. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not excluded the possibility of action being taken, but he pointed to the disadvantages of such a course. They are considerable.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South reminisced about discussion of the matter which showed that when remission had gone up to one-third there had been a compensatory effect from the courts. That is something that cannot be avoided unless we adopt the other approach of altering the maximum sentences, as opposed to dealing with matters such as remission and conditional release.
  I do not believe that there is much future in attempting to reduce the maximum sentences. The reason is not just the question of public reaction to any attempt to do that. The reaction would be quite considerable, as was shown when the advisory council published its report. The reason is more fundamental than that. The existence in prison of people with sentences that are rather longer than they might necessarily have does not derive primarily from the use of the maximum of the range. It is not the case that people are being sentenced to life imprisonment, to 14 years, or whatever the maximum may be. That is not what causes the problem. Where the problem arises is a truly exceptional case, and the law must be flexible enough to deal with it. I am more optimistic than some hon. Members—but as optimistic as my hon. and learned Friends the Members for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and Solihull—in saying that there are signs that the message has got through and that the courts are responding.
  The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) said that this proposal had been around for years. It has, but
  2002
  there is such a thing as an idea that comes of age and that is seen to be right. In my experience—which is not as extensive as that of many hon. Members on both sides of the House—I detect a different attitude and a development in the approach to the problem in recent months and years which gives us cause for optimism. Of course, it is too early to say, but I believe that the speeches in this debate today—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DECISION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Newton.]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: There is much public concern about the behaviour of the agents of the media in relation to criminals. Journalists have interviewed escaped prisoners; Idi Amin has been televised. Such incidents arouse moral outrage on the part of the public.
  Why should the media appear to be a law unto themselves? That question is particularly acute in relation to terrorism. This morning my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General defined terrorism in a way which can be summarised as "acts of violence for political ends". Terrorism thrives on publicity. Publicity is an essential element in the aims of the terrorist. It is morally wrong to consort with criminals. In relation to terrorists, is also criminal.
  Section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 provides that anyone in contact with terrorists has a legal duty to inform the police.
  Last year two incidents occurred in which the BBC, acting through its staff, in my opinion, broke the law. The first was a televised interview with a member of an Irish terrorist organisation who, according to the transcript of the broadcast, said
  "We have murdered Airey Neave",
  and explained how and why that foul deed was done.

  2003
  The second incident was the filming at Carrickmore in Northern Ireland of a road block set up by the Provisional IRA.
  It is common ground that the police were not informed in both cases.
  The conduct of the BBC staff involved in this matter was disgraceful and, I believe, criminal. What the BBC and its apologists fail to remember is that in Northern Ireland we are fighting a vicious war in which British lives are being lost almost every day. It is a war with battles just as bitter and cruel as any during the Second World War. What would have happened during that war if the BBC, or a member of its staff, had interviewed Dr. Goebbels and asked him to explain why the Nazis thought it necessary to kill British troops or to exterminate Jews? The people responsible for such an interview would have been strung up on the nearest lamp posts. Yet there is no difference in principle from what the BBC has done in these cases.
  Why has the BBC not been prosecuted? I asked my right hon. and learned Friend that question recently in a written question and on 4 July he replied that, acting within his authority, he had decided not to prosecute but that he had written to the chairman of the governors of the BBC a letter which, on 18 July, in reply to a further question from me, he refused to publish.
  The matter cannot be left there. I do not believe that the difficulty in this case is insufficiency of evidence. My right hon. and learned Friend has not sought to suggest that it is. The only ground must be public policy within the guidelines laid down by a former Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, as he then was, in this place on 29 January 1951, as reported in Hansard for that day, at column 681.
  What public policy could justify letting the BBC off scot-free when a serious crime has been committed? If it has been let off with a caution, why are we not entitled to know? Judging from unofficial leaks that I have heard from the BBC, it seems that it has rejected any criticism of its conduct and that of its employees. Its apologists talk piously of political interference and censorship. The law must be obeyed however mighty the culprit, and that applies just as much to Granada Television as to the BBC.
  2004
  It is Parliament that makes the law. We were elected to make it. It is for us to set the limits. No one elected the governors of the BBC or authorised them to define the law.
  The incidents of which I speak may not be the most serious, but they are not the only ones that cause one to have worries about the way in which the BBC and members of its staff are exercising their duties. Some curious items have been broadcast, notably on the World Service, by the BBC—for example, the broadcasting of IRA songs, which leads one to suspect that some BBC staff are in active sympathy with the IRA.
  Has my right hon. and learned Friend let off the BBC? If so, why? If so. what guarantee do we have that this and similar offences will not be repeated?
  2.37 pm
  Mr. Tom Benyon: I welcome this opportunity to make a brief contribution in this important debate. I believe that there are various issues which should be ventilated publicly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) described the programmes which gave rise to our grave concern. I wish to confine my comments to the "Tonight" programme broadcast on 5 July 1979, which broadcast an interview with the alleged murderers of my predecessor, Airey Neave, and an employee of the BBC, Mr. David Lomax.
  Soon after this broadcast I contacted the then Director-General of the BBC and expressed my objections to this interview. Sir Ian Trethowan, in a written response to my objections, stated
  "that we should remind the public of the thinking and nature and character of those people who are committed to acts of terrorism and violence."
  He continued:
  "it is not enough to report the daily acts of violence in the Province. I see it as part of our duty to look at its causes and its practitioners."
  I believe that in this instance the BBC made a serious error of judgment. The programme deeply distressed the late Mr. Neave's family, his friends, colleagues and constituents, and was regarded by many as a national outrage. His murder was fresh in their minds. In addition, various allegations, albeit groundless in truth and fact, were made about him which were nevertheless harmful and tasteless.

  2005
  So the first charge that I press against the makers of this programme is that of appalling taste and the timing of the broadcast, which was offensive to all who heard it. I accept, however, that matters of taste are matters of opinion and a value judgment in the eye of the beholder. The counter-argument would be that the sensibilities of those I have already mentioned should be subordinated to the wider national interest as expressed in Sir Ian Trethowan's letter.
  However, the BBC enjoys an unparalleled reputation as a medium concerned with the highest standards of truth, blended with balanced comment. Such a reputation carries onerous responsibilities towards the public. The public regard, and rightly so, serious programmes produced by the BBC as having weight and credibility.
  In the instance of this programme, the BBC gave its cloak of status and credibility to a murderous illegal organisation which otherwise would have skulked in the shadows of obscurity to which it naturally belongs before it is brought to justice. In giving this evil organisation an opportunity to parade its corruptive argument justifying its murder in the guise of a political exposition to a massive audience, the BBC gave it assistance in terms of publicity. To these illegal gangs, wedded to murder in pursuit of their goals, publicity acts as nourishment for its crazed members and supporters, and as a seed-bed for recruits. Such publicity acts as a spur in terms of raising morale; and that can lead to further violence.
  It is possible that the programme organisers breached the law in terms of the way in which they conducted the interview. I understand that they did not inform the authorities until after the event. In short, they placed their desire for a scoop before the overriding national interest which must be, unarguably, to bring those responsible for the appalling murder of Airey Neave to justice.
  However, I recognise the dilemma in which the prosecuting authorities find themselves in retrospect, as to what action—if any—they should take. I am not party to all the facts surrounding this incident, nor am I a lawyer. As a layman, it would seem to me that it might
  2006
  be difficult to prove criminal intent on the part of those BBC authorities responsible for the programme. If a breach of the law has been committed, it could be argued that those responsible were unaware that they were acting in contravention of the law and were genuinely sustained by the belief that they were acting in the public interest. It is relatively easy to launch a prosecution but much harder to achieve a conviction in the courts in such circumstances.
  Doubtless, consideration must be given as to the possible byproduct of such a prosecution. The stars of the programme, the murderers, might secure substantial quantities of gratuitous publicity for their seedy cause. Let us not forget that it was for publicity that the organisation sought the interview in the first place. Also, there is the risk that in the event of an unsuccessful prosecution the finding of "not guilty" would be translated into a victory for the murderers. The real issues might become obscured.
  I see only one reason why the Attorney-General might wish to prosecute such an august body as the BBC in such circumstances—namely, if lessons had not been learnt and if there were a possibility of an encore. In that case, the Attorney-General might feel obliged to demonstrate that no one—be he never so powerful—is above the law.
  I hope that lessons will have been learnt and that those responsible for the programme will not congratulate themselves. I hope that they will think most carefully before making another similar programme.
  2.41 pm
  Mr. Stephen Hastings: I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), and to congratulate him on bringing this issue before the House. Concern is widespread, and growing. There is evidence of that support in the number of Conservative Members who are here to support my hon. Friend. It is not just that the programme represented an extremely repulsive error of taste among those at the highest levels of the BBC, but in addition, we are concerned that terrorism and bestial murder are being dignified beneath the cloak of some bogus media ethic.

  2007
  I understand that such a programme would never be permitted in the Republic of Ireland. Not only are programmes not permitted about organisations that are proscribed in the Republic of Ireland, but in addition no programmes are permitted about organisations that are proscribed in Northern Ireland. If the Act is not man enough to cope with such a situation, and if there is no room for the only logical result—namely, a prosecution—it should be made man enough. There is no shortage of Conservative Members who are prepared to support an amendment of the Act. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will reassure us.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that legislation is not a matter for an Adjournment debate.
  2.43 pm
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I should like to speak on behalf of my late colleague and friend, Mr. Airey Neave, and to express my repugnance of the type of programme which was produced on 5 July, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) has referred.
  The immediate power and influence of television is unsurpassed. Therefore, that power should not be abused. It should be used responsibly.
  I do not want it to be said of the BBC what Mr. Baldwin said about the press in his day—that it enjoyed the power of the harlot; power without responsibility.
  I received many letters from my constituents immediately after the programme, expressing their personal dislike of, and dismay about this programme. If that is the kind of programme that emanates from the media, the reputation that Mr. Baldwin attributed to the press when he was Prime Minister will be emulated by the reputation of the people who put out programmes of this type.
  2.46 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Does the hon. Member have the permission of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to speak in the debate?
  Mr. Stanbrook: The hon. Member has my permission.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I wish to place on the record once again that Ulster people were absolutely horrified by the interview to which my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has referred. They were aghast that a national organisation such as the BBC could not only put over a programme which attacked Mr. Airey Neave, who served this country so well, but should try to undermine the security forces in Northern Ireland who are trying to keep law and order.
  Like every other urban guerrilla force, the IRA thrives on publicity and welcomes an opportunity to put forward its view. The programme should be condemned and action should be taken in such circumstances.
  2.47 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: I wish briefly to express a view which is not in any way designed to make political capital out of a great tragedy for the House of Commons. But I should be failing in my duty if I did not join with my Ulster colleague, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), in saying that we condemn utterly the activities of those who were not merely alleged to have committed the crime, but who confessed to it. As on previous occasions, we express the hope—so far in vain—that a more responsible attitude will be shown by the BBC and the other organs of the media. I hope that due notice will be taken of the unanimous view expressed in the debate today.
  2.48 pm
  The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I am grateful for the manner in which my hon. Friends have contributed to this debate. The facts are important, so I shall summarise them briefly.
  On 30 March 1979 Mr. Airey Neave was murdered in circumstances that are well known. Within a short time of the explosion that caused his death an organisation calling itself the Irish National Liberation Army claimed responsibility for the explosion. By reason of the detail provided, it was thought that the claim was true. Between March and July 1979 a BBC production team for the "Tonight" programme was attempting to contact a terrorist spokesman in Ireland, and these

  2009
  efforts culminated in complex arrangements for the team to meet a representative of INLA in Dublin on 3 July.
  On 5 July during the "Tonight" programme the BBC television services broadcast an interview between a member of its staff and a man purporting to be a spokesman for INLA. There was widespread public revulsion as a result of this broadcast, which I shared. It was not the interview itself which might constitute an offence under section 11 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, but information received in the course of making the arrangements for it and the identity of the spokesman.
  The other incident was at Carrickmore. Another BBC production team preparing an item for broadcast as part of the "Panorama" programme was in Dublin. Shortly before the team was due to leave for Belfast an anonymous telephone call was received inviting the team to go to Carrickmore in Northern Ireland where there would be something for it to film. The team went and witnessed a road block set up by suspected members of the Provisional IRA who were armed. A number of passing motorists were stopped and questioned. The team filmed and sound recorded what was happening, and members of the team could have been under no misapprehension about what was happening. Although they were aware that what they had witnessed was a criminal offence, no member of the team took steps to inform the police or the Army. They contacted the Army the following day, seeking its assistance with further filming. By that time the Army had got wind of what had happened and raised it with the team. Only then did any member of the team report any details of what had been witnessed.
  Having briefly outlined the facts of each incident, I should first like to say that I profoundly disapprove of the conduct of the BBC staff directly involved, which was, in my view, deplorable. However, I could not base a decision to institute proceedings on disapproval only, however deeply felt. I had to have regard to the general circumstances of the alleged offences, the prospects of obtaining convictions and what in the long term would be in the best interests of the public.
  2010
  I was satisfied that the actions of the BBC staff were of a kind that would have constituted offences under section 11 of the 1976 Act. It is worth reminding the House and perhaps the public of what that section provides:
  "If a person who has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance—

  (a) in preventing an act of terrorism … or

  (b) in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any person for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism …

  fails without reasonable excuse to disclose that information as soon as practicable … to a constable or … in Northern Ireland … a member of Her Majesty's forces, he shall be guilty of an offence."
  A number of factors in the end made me decide against proceedings in both cases, each of which I considered individually but at the same time, and with the benefit of leading counsel's advice and the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  While it is not usual practice to disclose the evidence that I have before me in reaching a decision, I can point to one or two parts of it that had some influence on me. In the INLA incident—and because it involved an interview with someone who boasted of being associated with the muderers of Airey Neave it was therefore the more deplorable one—the events took place in the Dublin area, and any information that could have been passed to the United Kingdom authorities would have been of limited value. Moreover, such as would have been available was of limited value.
  That could not be said of the Carrickmore incident, because there the BBC staff were witnesses to an act of terrorism. It would have been foolhardy of them to report the incident while in the immediate area, but their failure to do so later was wrong. They sought, belatedly, the advice of a BBC legal adviser, and acting on the advice given decided still not to report the matter. That advice was, in my view, unquestionably wrong. Moreover, I doubt that bad legal advice could be regarded as a reasonable excuse for failing to inform the proper authorities. Nevertheless, I took into consideration the fact that advice had been sought and given.

  2011
  It must be obvious to everyone that the BBC staff were being used by INLA and the Provisional IRA for propaganda purposes. While that makes their conduct more regrettable, one factor that I had to bear in mind—and this was pointed to in the excellent contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon)—was whether by instituting proceedings, particularly if unsuccessful, I may be adding to such propaganda. I do not say that that was a major factor in reaching my decision, but it was one that I bore in mind.
  Another factor that influenced me was that, by the time the papers reached me for a decision, the BBC had already taken steps to tighten control over reporting of terrorist activities in Northern Ireland. I am glad that the corporation took that step of its own accord. It reminded me of the success of my choosing to refer to the Press Council the conduct of some newspapers over the question of payment of witnesses in a recent case.
  There were grounds to believe that the action that the BBC had already taken would prevent a recurrence of the conduct in question. That this would be the consequence of any action that should be taken was, to my mind, of great importance. I would add that, although neither incident could, in my view, be regarded as remotely falling into the category of proper reporting, the BBC and the press have a duty, which, apart from being dangerous, must be very difficult to perform fairly, to inform the public about Northern Ireland affairs.
  Those are some of the reasons for my decision.
  I was, however, determined that my decision should not be interpreted as a licence to journalists to have relation-
  2012
  ships with terrorists outside the legal restrictions which operated on all others. There is no such licence, and that must be clearly understood. Therefore, after I had decided not to prosecute, I saw the chairman of the BBC governors, Sir Michael Swann, to convey to him personally my views on the matter and the strength of my feelings. I also wanted to make certain that he understood that my decision did not imply that I took the view that conduct of the kind which had taken place could not constitute an offence. I followed this with a letter reaffirming the views that I had expressed at our meeting, making it quite clear that if similar incidents took place again I would take a stricter view of what had happened and those who participated would be on warning that, subject to the evidence and circumstances of the case, they risk criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. I trust that there will be no repetition, and I welcome the fact that the BBC has taken clear steps to prevent one. But the warning remains.
  So, for the benefit of others who have not seen the correspondence, perhaps I may broadly summarise what I believe the law to be. Anyone who has contact with terrorists puts himself potentially in the position of acquiring information which would place him under a legal duty to report it as soon as possible to the proper authorities. Those involved in such contacts must consider carefully the consequences of their acts and the risk they run if they do not report quickly relevant information which has come into their possession.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Three o'clock.

WALES
  Road Building Programme
  Road Building Programme
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Administrative Cost
  Administrative Cost
CIVIL SERVICE
  House of Lords (Administrative Cost)
  House of Lords (Administrative Cost)
  Rayner Review
  Rayner Review
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
  ROYAL ACADEMY
  ROYAL ACADEMY
  LONDON TRANSPORT (SELECT COMMITTEE)
  LONDON TRANSPORT (SELECT COMMITTEE)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Latin America (Ministerial Visits)
  Latin America (Ministerial Visits)
  Palestine
  Palestine
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Regional Fund (Tourist Projects)
  Regional Fund (Tourist Projects)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Boarding School Places
  Boarding School Places
  State Residential Schools
  State Residential Schools
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
DEFENCE
  Trident Submarines
  Trident Submarines
  BAOR
  BAOR
  NATO Forces (Central Front)
  NATO Forces (Central Front)
ENVIRONMENT
  Government Conference Centre
  Government Conference Centre
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Royal High School
  Royal High School
  Chantry House
  Chantry House
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Foreign Currency Earnings
  Foreign Currency Earnings
  Ministers (Overseas Travel)
  Ministers (Overseas Travel)
  Treasury Solicitor (Costs Department)
  Treasury Solicitor (Costs Department)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Miss Kate Akele
  Miss Kate Akele
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Police Working Hours
  Police Working Hours
  Attendance Centres
  Attendance Centres
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Eggs
  Eggs
EMPLOYMENT
  Liquefied Gases
  Liquefied Gases
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Compensation Scheme
  European Community Citizens
  European Community Citizens
  Woodworking Industry (Redundancies)
  Woodworking Industry (Redundancies)
  Low-wage Earners
  Low-wage Earners
  Wolverhampton
  Wolverhampton
TRADE
  Hazardous Cargoes (Safety Requirements)
  Hazardous Cargoes (Safety Requirements)
  Major David Le Sueur
  Major David Le Sueur
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Import Controls
  Import Controls
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Multi-Fibre Arrangement
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Styrene and Vinyl Acetate
  Styrene and Vinyl Acetate
  Doors (Imports)
  Doors (Imports)
  Biggin Hill Airport
  Biggin Hill Airport
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Printing Machinery (Japan)
  Printing Machinery (Japan)
  Wood (Imports)
  Wood (Imports)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Milk
  Milk
  School Meals and Welfare Milk
  School Meals and Welfare Milk
  Community Care (Coventry)
  Community Care (Coventry)
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit (Fraud Investigations)
  Supplementary Benefit (Fraud Investigations)
  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality
  Smaller Hospitals
  Smaller Hospitals
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Overseas Visitors (Health Insurance)
  Overseas Visitors (Health Insurance)
  Mortality Rate
  Mortality Rate
  PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICE
  PUBLIC RECORDS OFFICE

Preamble
(Sitting in the Royal Gallery)
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.

ROYAL ASSENT
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): 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:

Employment Act,

Magistrates' Courts Act,

Education (Scotland) Act,

Water (Scotland) Act,

Solicitors (Scotland) Act,

Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act,

Finance Act,

Breasclete Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

British Railways Order Confirmation Act,

Greater London Council (Money) Act,

Salvation Army Act,

Falmouth Container Terminal Act,

London Transport Act.

ISRAELI GOVERNMENT: EAST JERUSALEM
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 intend to recognise the transference of the Israeli Prime Minister's office to East Jerusalem.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, British Governments have taken the view since the 1967 conflict that Israel's rights in East Jerusalem do not extend beyond those of an occupying power, pending an agreed solution on the
1178
city's future. It follows that we do not accept that Israel has the right to establish government offices there.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that many of us are deeply concerned about the future of Israel? I went there years ago and described it as the most socio-democratic country that I have visited. We are deeply concerned about its isolation now in the world from the United Nations and from the European Community. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether it is true that America has declined to recognise this new office in East Jerusalem, and are not European countries likely to do the same?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, of course I am aware of the concern of all right-minded people about the state of the Holy Land. Those of us who are friendly to Israel—and I hope that they are the enormous majority—are concerned about her diplomatic position. But, as regards the specific question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I think that I am right in saying that the new office, to which he has referred, is not yet there. I understand that the United States has adopted a similar stance to ours about existing events, and so have our European partners, in the main, as evinced by the Venice Conference. I think that the question of the new office is still hypothetical.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that all these issues, including that of the future of Jerusalem, cannot finally be settled except by mutual agreement at a properly convened and representative conference to deal with the future of the area? Secondly, does he agree that attendance at such a conference must obviously depend, as the noble and learned Lord himself said here yesterday, on the total abrogation by any individual or organisation of the intention to destroy another member of that projected conference?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that as usual I find myself in entire agreement with the noble Lord.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, when this matter is being considered will the Government be good enough to approach it with the knowledge, first, that as regards the re-establishment of the Jewish state, Jerusalem was the capital, and for 1,000 years had observed the highest regard and protection for other religions, and that Jerusalem was the town which was saved by Jewish martyrdom for the benefit of monotheism? Will they also take into account what happened when Jerusalem was in other hands? Did we or did anyone protest, other than the Jewish bodies themselves, when Jews were not allowed into Jerusalem for 19 years after another Government had taken it over without anyone's consent? In those circumstances, has Europe really a right to interfere in a matter which is to be considered between the authorities who have dealt with Camp David, which has been so very sadly underestimated by us all?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Janner—whose steadfastness in stating his point of view is, I think, the subject of admiration of all of us—has raised a number of rather different matters. I rejoiced at Camp David, and I would be sorry to see any action taken on either side which jeopardised what was achieved there. I think that matters have not gone as well in recent weeks as some of us had hoped. It is, of course, true that the Jewish population of Israel suffered indignities of an intolerable kind during the 19 years to which the noble Lord referred. I think that during that period of time the British Government adopted a stance in relation to the then occupying power similar to that which we now adopt with regard to the present occupying power. I do not think that anyone is more conscious than I of the Jewish feelings towards Jerusalem. The noble Lord has movingly expressed them on a number of occasions.
I remember that last week the noble Lord referred us to Psalm 122. I remember the words with which that psalm ends, and I happen to have quoted them on Mount Skopos when I had the honour of delivering a lecture on English legal subjects at the Hebrew University. The psalmist said:
"O pray for the peace of Jerusalem:
they shall prosper that love thee.
1180
Peace be within thy walls; and plenteousness within thy palaces.
For my brethren and companions' sakes … I will seek to do thee good".
I do not think that I can better that by way of a supplementary answer.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the manner in which he approaches this. I shall not enter into a biblical dissertation at present. However, does the House realise what all this means to Jewish people? Does it realise that when the soldiers entered Jerusalem the first thing they did was to go to the walls of the temple to pray? During the whole period in which Jerusalem was the capital of the Israeli state, every religion has been most scrupulously cared for. In those circumstances, is anyone surprised that an attack of this sort is justifiable when they consider Jerusalem to be the capital?
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord JANNER: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, I am bound to say—it may be bad timing—that I think it is right.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is going a little beyond our bounds of order. Could he come to the climax of his question?
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I just—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can only deal with one supplementary question at a time. I think that the whole House realises the depth of feeling that prompts the noble Lord, Lord Janner, in these matters and is probably prepared to make allowances for that feeling in applying its rules of order. The noble Lord expressed the very deep feelings which Jews have towards Jerusalem. He was quite right in his earlier supplementary question to refer to the fact that the monotheistic religions of the world—which include Islam and, if I may say so in the presence of the right reverend Prelate, my own religion too—are due, of course, to the inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures and to the frequent martyrdoms of the Jewish people.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this matter, but can the noble and learned Lord say whether it is not the case that the main difficulty behind this problem is the fear that the Palestinians wish to destroy Israel? Has he seen the interview with the leader of the PLO this morning denying that that is his attitude and saying that he is quite prepared to enter into negotiations?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I did read the press reports this morning, but of course one does not entirely found one's political views on the press reports of a single morning. I think that I had better be a little careful about that, but if it be true, I am very glad indeed that a number of Arabs—and I know that there are a number of such Arabs—recognise the right of Israel to exist; because the destruction of a member of the United Nations would deal a blow to world peace which would not stop at the Holy Land; it would undermine the whole fabric of international law.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, I should like briefly to ask a question. Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that there are many Jews—and I am one of them—who do not approve of the settlements that have been set up by the Prime Minister, Mr. Begin? Is the noble and learned Lord also aware that, despite what my noble friend Lord Brockway said about the policy of the PLO, in their covenant they have the destruction of Israel stated clearly? Unless they take that out of their covenant there will be no peace in the Middle East.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that the role of Britain, as one now happily of the Nine, is to attempt to instil into the warring hearts of people who are deeply stirred by this question a love of peace. By my answers I have tried to do that. I do not want to go much further than that. Of course what Mr. Begin does is no doubt a matter of dispute inside Israel and it is also a matter of dispute outside Israel, but I would far rather not respond to that part of the supplementary in the way that Mr. Begin responded to my noble friend Lord Carrington the other day.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask whether any Government have as yet announced their intention to recognise the transfer of the seat of government of Israel to Jerusalem, and whether there is any prospect that any Government will?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I would have to have notice of that, but I think none of the Governments with whom we are in closest touch has done so, but I would rather leave that to a Question on notice.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask one very brief question to the noble and learned Lord, which is simply whether Her Majesty's Government realise, as I think they do, that the Jews alone, the Israelis, can give freedom to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians alone can give security to the state of Israel; and that unless and until they both do just this, there can be no hope for peace in the Middle East?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thought that that was the object of the Camp David agreements in which our friends and allies in the United States played such a notable part. I hope that it will be recognised that both peace and security are interdependent.

JURY VETTING
11.23 a.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to repeat, with your Lordships' permission, a Statement which my right honourable friend the Attorney-General has made this morning in another place on the subject of jury checks. The Statement is as follows:
"I have now completed the review, which I have been carrying out over recent months in consultation with the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Director of Public Prosecutions, of the arrangements whereby jury checks are carried out in a limited number of cases under the guidelines laid down by my predecessor. In reaching my conclusions I have taken account of the recent judgments of the Court of Appeal, particularly that in the case of R v. Mason. A copy of the revised guidelines

1183
which I propose to issue has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
"The existing law provides, as it has for over 600 years, and rightly in my view, that the parties to any jury trial may inspect a copy of the panel from which the jury in their trial will be chosen, and there is no legal restriction on the use which may be made of this information. It has been accepted by the courts that the objects of this provision were to enable the parties to inquire about the members of the panel and to decide whether any should be challenged. I have also taken into account that, although the selection of those who are summoned for jury service from among those qualified and the final selection of those who are called to serve on a particular jury must be random, both parties to criminal proceedings have the right to object to a juror called to serve, the exercise of which inevitably limits the truly random nature of the jury which eventually tries the case.
"A distinction must be drawn between checks to which my guidelines refer—namely, checks on the Records of Police Special Branches—and checks of criminal records which may be made for the primary purpose of preventing persons who are disqualified by reason of their previous convictions from sitting on a jury. It is a criminal offence for a disqualified person knowingly to serve on a jury and a check of criminal records of the members of a panel is a matter for the police. That was recognised by the Court of Appeal in R v. Mason as a proper thing to be done. The Association of Chief Police Officers, after discussions with the Home Office, is making recommendations to its members as to the circumstances and procedures relating to checks on criminal records, and these will be annexed to my guidelines.
"The checks, which for convenience I shall refer to as 'authorised checks' and to which my guidelines refer, are checks which go beyond criminal records and for purposes wider than the mere discovery of previous convictions. I consider that it is in the public interest that the prosecution should continue to make use of its right to make inquiries about a jury panel with a view to exercising its right to stand by a potential
1184
juror. The practice, however, should not be unlimited and I therefore endorse the general principles of the previous guidelines, which were self-imposed restraints on the part of the Director as prosecutor.
"Experience, recent observations of the Court of Appeal and a keen public interest in the subject have nevertheless caused me to make some revisions to the guidelines. The most significant are as follows:—

(i) No check on the Records of Police Special Branches will be made except on my authority "—

that is, of course, my right honourable friend—

"following a recommendation from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(ii) Except in terrorist cases such checks will not be authorised in cases involving so-called strong political motives.

(iii) In cases involving security, such as under the Official Secrets Act, such checks will only be authorised when national security is involved and it is expected that the Court will be asked to sit in camera.

(iv) In no other type of case will such checks be authorised.

(v) Except where and in so far as it may be necessary to confirm the identity of a member of the panel against whom the initial checks raised doubts, checks will not be made which go beyond checks on criminal records or those of Police Special Branches.

(vi) All parties to proceedings have a statutory right of access to inspect the jury panel under Section 5(2) of the Juries Act 1974. Therefore the judge's authority for access is not required and will not be sought. However, the judge and defence counsel will be informed when a check has been authorised.

(vii) The result of an authorised check will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The director will then decide, having regard to the provisions of the guidelines, what information ought to be brought to the attention of prosecuting counsel.

(viii) Records will be kept by the Director of Public Prosecutions which

1185
I will see and thus be able to monitor the operation of the guidelines".—

the first person singular is, of course, my right honourable friend—
"I have recognised that the defence may have a particular reason to wish to have the panel checked for disqualified persons or to seek assistance in obtaining information relative to its right of peremptory challenge but has no access to the information available to the Crown. It is also my view that the courts have no jurisdiction to order the police to reveal information on their records relating to jurors. Accordingly, in cases which would fall within my guidelines, I will he prepared to consider a request made by defence counsel through the director for assistance in obtaining information. I understand that chief constables, on the general recommendation of their association, will be prepared to consider a request relating to checks on criminal records if approved by the director. In both cases the results of any check undertaken will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions who will treat them in accordance with my guidelines. The intention of this proposal is merely to assist the defence and not in any way to restrict the right of the defendant to inspect the panel and to take such action as is lawful".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement, but it may be helpful to your Lordships to know that I have caused a copy of my right honourable friend's guidelines to be placed in the Library of this House as well.
11.32 a.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, while we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord for this morning reading this lengthy Statement of the Attorney-General, I really must make some protest about what is taking place. This is a tremendously important Statement; that it should come before this House on a Friday morning is really intolerable. There are many of my friends in the legal profession who would greatly have liked to be here. I think, for instance, of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others. I, myself, saw the Statement for the first time at five minutes to eleven this morning. This is no way to treat this House. I do
1186
protest most strongly. This is a very important Statement governing a vital aspect of the civil liberties of this country; namely, the right to trial by jury. "The palladium of our liberties" and all sorts of other noble phrases have been applied to it through the generations. In particular, there has been a great deal of concern about the nature and extent of jury vetting.
I should like to ask a number of questions. What troubles me is this. This Statement calls for a debate, and unfortunately I see little prospect of that being possible within the coming week. But I do give notice that we shall need to return to this in detail and with care as soon as the House resumes in October. In the meantime, I must ask the noble and learned Lord what consultations took place before the preparation of this Statement. What consultations took place with the legal profession, with the Bar, with the criminal Bar, with the solicitors, with the various bodies intimately concerned—the National Council for Civil Liberties and other bodies? The Statement itself speaks only of consultation with the Home Secretary, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—which, of course, I appreciate —and the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is no clue to consultation outwith the Government departments themselves, and if that is in fact the position I find it highly unsatisfactory.
I come now to the points of detail. I do not know whether noble Lords who have been listening to the Statement have been able to come to a conclusion that the outcome of all this is going to be more or less jury vetting; it is not clear, and we shall need time to consider it. As I understand it, the basic principle that selection of the jury must be a random selection remains; but when one comes to consider, for instance, what has been done by chief police officers, there has been a certain lack of uniformity in what they have regarded it as proper for them to do. I hope that the references to decisions of the Association of Chief Police Officers will establish uniformity of practice and conformity with the guidelines.
We are, of course, grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for saying that he has put the guidelines

1187
in the Library, but they were not there when we arrived this morning; at least I have not had an opportunity of seeing them. So I really find myself embarrassed on this occasion in dealing with the Statement, and accordingly I must reserve our position on this side of the House in regard to what is proposed. There is an indication, which I welcome, that defence counsel are to be informed and to be assisted in various ways; we shall have to see how that operates. Am I to understand from the Statement that these new guidelines will operate forthwith, before Parliament has had a further opportunity of considering them? That, again, I would not regard as wholly satisfactory, and I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would assist us in dealing with a situation which this morning I have found, frankly, quite intolerable.
11.36 a.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for repeating this Statement, may I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in asking the noble and learned Lord whether he does not agree that Friday morning is not really, at short notice, the most convenient time at which to marshal the kind of advice necessary in order to deal with a Statement of such immense importance as this? The noble and learned Lord will realise that we shall wish to study this Statement very carefully. In the meantime, may I ask him whether he is aware that there are noble Lords on these Benches who take the view that we weakened our jury system somewhat by introducing systems of majority verdicts? Thus we welcome this Statement in so far as it makes clear that we will not weaken the jury system further by jury vetting, save in cases in which national security is involved. May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether we will have an opportunity of considering these matters in much more detail at a later stage when we have had more warning?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for the expressions of thanks from the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord. If he will forgive my saying so, I think the noble and
1188
learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—and he knows with what respect and affection he is regarded by my colleagues and myself—was a little unreasonable in his criticism of Friday morning The custom of Parliament is that Statements are made in the House of which the responsible Minister is a Member. When, as is more frequently the case, the House concerned is the House of Commons, it is their usual channels and their convenience which are studied primarily, just as, when my noble friend the Foreign Secretary makes a Statement here, it is his ability to attend and to deliver a Statement in the first place which are normally considered.
Like myself, the noble and learned Lord has been a Member of the other place. He knows that, although it is true that there are distinguished Members of this House who are members of the legal profession and who would wish to be present on an occasion like this, there are far more such members, including my son, who are Members of the other place. These are matters which doubtless were considered through the usual channels of another place when that place designated this particular Statement for a Friday morning. I am sure that, at the end of a session which is heavily loaded and sometimes when tempers rise rather high, all these matters were taken into consideration when the Statement was made.
If I may venture a personal opinion, when the noble and learned Lord consults the guidelines, which of course are the key to the whole matter, he will realise that, in the nature of things, this Statement cannot be really penetrated and discussed in detail; there are many pages with their annexes of closely-typed foolscap, and what the House, I imagine, will want to do, and what I imagine another place will want to do, is to study them carefully and then consider what further comments require to be made. The guidelines, which have no legal force at all, will, I hope, be followed from now onwards, hut both Houses if they desire a debate, which I imagine they will, will have an opportunity to debate them.
As regards consultations, I think my noble and learned friend has pursued the correct course. The matter is far too detailed and urgent to require consultations in that sense, while criminal trials

1189
are going on every morning, and what will be required is a careful consideration by both branches of the legal profession as to the implications, and their comments and those of the press will naturally be taken into consideration. But, until the matter is fully exposed to the public gaze and not subjected to leaks, which are the inevitable accompaniment of prolonged discussion internally, I think publicity and open government demand publication at the earliest possible moment, and of course criticisms will be made.
I do not understand why the noble and learned Lord asks whether more or less vetting will take place as a result of the guidelines; I should have thought it was obvious that the answer was less. I can only attribute the question to the fact that he has, quite rightly, complained that he has had very little opportunity to study the matter in detail. I agree with him that what one wants is uniformity of practice, but once one is given the fact, first of all, that the courts have a limited jurisdiction in this matter and that both parties in every prosecution, some of which are private prosecutions, have the right by statute to inspect the panel—which derives from a statute of 1974, so it has recently been considered by Parliament, but which has an honourable tradition of no less than 600 years behind it; I think it was first introduced into England in 1368 or something of that order—then one must realise that one can proceed, unless one is going to alter the substantive law, only by guidelines and that the essence of there being guidelines is that absolute uniformity cannot be imposed.
The noble Lord from the Liberal Benches, Lord Winstanley, associated himself with the noble and learned Lord's protest about a Friday morning, and I can understand that he himself was in a particular difficulty in the matter because I have no doubt that the Liberal Party would have liked to have seen the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his place, and so should I, but I have already dealt with that and I shall not repeat myself. I do not share his view that the jury system was weakened by the introduction by Mr. Jenkins of majority verdicts. I supported Mr. Jenkins throughout in another place in his desire to do so, and I must remind the noble and Liberal Lord that majority verdicts of acquittal have saved a number of people from
1190
being subjected to a second trial; and the public annoyance caused by the existence of the "oddball" who happens to exist on a panel of 12—or in Scotland a panel of 15 where they have majority verdicts of eight to seven—and who can subject both parties to costs amounting to tens of thousands of pounds if a trial aborts by reason of a disagreement. That is a very real evil, the extent of which is, I think, underestimated.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I do not think the Statement had anything to do with majority verdicts, so I will not deal with that issue, but I confess to a sense of dissatisfaction with the noble and learned Lord's reply. This decision of the Government involves immediate action. As I understand it, these arrangements will apply from now on and, as I further understand, there has been no consultation outside Government departments. I find this a curious form of consultation—Executive action first, consultation afterwards—which is the cart before the horse in our understanding of what open government could indicate. Certainly there will now be careful examination, and of course it will be the duty of the Government to hear and consider whatever representations may hereafter flow. This matter has been on le tapis for month after month and the plea of urgency, with great respect, is not convincing in those circumstances. Certainly there should be a decision and it is right that one should be made.
I am not now going into the detail of the examination of the pluses and minuses of these proposals in regard to the practice of jury vetting, but we shall have to go into them very carefully. I must, however, repeat my feeling that on this crucially important aspect of the administration of justice, this has not been a satisfactory way of dealing with the matters involved. I have not had an opportunity, for instance, of discussing it with the Shadow Home Secretary in another place. That opportunity was not available in the circumstances. All I can now say, apart from protesting, is that we shall return to this subject as soon as may be.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I believe the noble and learned Lord has the wrong end of the stick here.

1191
This is not Executive action; this is a guideline which imposes further restrictions in the interest of human liberty—by way of guideline and not Executive action—as from now on. In other words, it is an enlargement of liberty and not a restriction of it, and it is not Executive action. lf, like Alice in Wonderland, one was saying, "Execution first, evidence later", I would see the force of the noble and learned Lord's protest in that respect, but I do not think it is fair. And I would add that I do not think his other criticism is fair, either. It is true that this is an extremely complex and difficult matter and that it has been protracted for a very long time. That is an argument in favour of urgency and not an argument against it.
I quite understand that the matter requires further consideration and I am sure the House will give it, but to have withheld over the long Recess an enlargement of human liberty on the basis that it is called Executive action is, I believe, a complete misconception of the situation. I hope the noble and learned Lord will realise that I am not intending to express a harsh criticism of what he said; I am simply expressing my personal disagreement.
11.50 a.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I agreed in the main with every word my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said on this matter and with his protest, although I disagreed with him in what he said about majority verdicts, although it is a question of the manner in which majority verdicts were introduced. It appeared to me to throw away the basic principle of British justice in the administering of the criminal law, without adequate opportunity for discussion. Mr. Jenkins (as the noble and learned Lord quite properly refers to him) called in their absence the evidence of unnamed judges who were alleged strongly to approve of this innovation after several hundred years.
I have previously suggested—and my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has expressed that prompt disagreement that I usually encounter from my legal friends—that there is growing evidence that the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions has increased, is
1192
increasing, and ought to be diminished. It was never intended that the staff and the organisation of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be large enough or influential enough to undertake so many duties and so vast an increase in the number of cases.
I do not often intervene. This is the first time that I have intervened on a question in the Royal Gallery, although I made a brief speech last night. I am speaking about something which has greatly affected my heart during the past few years. There must be opportunity for the fullest consultation before there are taken innovatory steps which weaken the situation or which lead to the possibility of more disagreement.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord began by saying that he agreed with every word of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and then proceeded to disagree with what seemed to me to be the one unexceptionable statement that the noble Lord had made; namely, that we were not debating majority verdicts. Since the new proposals, whatever they may be, and whatever their merits, will not alter the powers of the Director of Public Prosecution, I do not see the relevance of what the noble Lord says on that point.
Lord RENTON: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the making of this Statement today will be greatly welcomed by all concerned with the administration of the criminal law, and that they might have had reason to complain had the Statement been delayed until the re-assembly of the House of Commons on 27th October?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and I entirely agree with what he says.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, whom I respect very highly and with whose views I most frequently agree. But it is not quite a question of the material itself; we do not know what that material is. I speak as a solicitor of 60 years standing. I wish to ask a question not only in my personal capacity, but also as an officer of the solicitors' group in both Houses. Does the noble

1193
and learned Lord Chancellor realise that this matter has been before us for 60 years, in my experience at any rate? We would be very anxious to use the proposal, but we cannot possibly do anything about it until it appears in the Library. Since we are meeting next week surely an opportunity should be taken after the proposal has been deposited in the Library for those of use who are very deeply interested in this problem to have a look at it. We may entirely agree with it; I do not know, because, first, we cannot hear very easily in this Chamber. Secondly, we must have an opportunity to see what it is all about, so that at least we can either approve it, or make some comment about it. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will realise our difficulty in that regard.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the use of the House's time is not a matter for me. I do not see my noble friend the Leader of the House in his place, but I see the Chief Whip present and no doubt he will convey the feelings of the noble Lord to the Leader. My own feeling is that this is a complex matter and that it should be carefully considered. When we come to debate it, as obviously we must, we ought to have had a much wider opportunity of seeing the reactions in the press and consulting our friends in the profession. We do not want to hurry a debate, but of course if the House wants a debate next week, I am sure that the Leader will pay attention to that.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will permit me to say so, those last observations were more helpful than some of the earlier ones.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad that amity has been restored.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, the Motion put down in the name of my noble friend is a technical necessity to enable what I believe is an uncontroversial Private Member's Bill to obtain a Second Reading before the Summer Recess. My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move the Motion.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 46 (notice to be given in respect of Commons Bills not taken up) be dispensed with for the purpose of enabling the Second Reading of the Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Amendment) Bill to be taken on Thursday next.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL
11.56 a.m.
Bill read 3a, with the amendments.
Clause 1 [Secure tenants' right to purchase]:
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 1.
Page 5, line 10, after ("dwelling-house") insert—
("( ) where a dwelling-house is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age and which, since completion or adaption, has always been let for occupation by persons of pensionable age.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is to give your Lordships' House a chance to think again about its treatment of Scotland and England. It has been suggested to me that this amendment is exactly the same amendment as that which we debated the other day—and by the "other day" I mean the other day, the Report stage. It is not the same amendment. Indeed, I have before me the Official Report, from which it is perfectly clear that time after time the noble Earl the Minister took exception to the amendment, on grounds of technical defects and the drafting. He went to very considerable length to prove that the drafting was so loose that you could drive a coach and horses through the whole Bill and its purpose. He implied that somehow or other I had conspired with others to wreck the Bill; hundreds of thousands of one-apartment and two-apartment flats were going to be handled and the tenants of them would be denied the right.
So I looked at the amendment to see whether I could tighten it up to suit the noble Earl. I have found that very difficult. The amendment refers to a

1195
dwelling-house which is designed or specially adapted to make it suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age, and which, since the design was carried out and the house was completed, or, if it had been adapted, since the adaptation, has always been let for occupation by persons of pensionable age. The noble Earl will remember that in regard to the other amendment he suggested that it must be unambiguously drafted. This is unambiguous. It is to cover the point about houses that have been designed or specially adapted and which have been let for the occupation of pensioners. It is the type of house in respect of which there is a tremendous demand; and the balance of the ages is such that as people live longer and this age group grows larger, more and more shall we need this type of house. This could not possibly mean every one-apartment and two-apartment house in the public sector. This could not mean hundreds and thousands of houses unless they had been designed or specially adapted for old people. I do not think the noble Earl can rule this amendment out because it is ambiguous in any way; I am perfectly sure it is clear.
The noble Earl said, first of all, that it would include houses which are only minimally adapted. I deny that. The phrase "designed or specially adapted" cannot be construed as minimally adapted. His last point on the previous amendment was that it would apply to houses not actually let to elderly people if a house currently let to another type of householder had previously been let for a considerable time to elderly people. Under this amendment, this house has got to be let, from the start right through to the point of would-be purchase, to pensionable people. So there is no question of his first argument, his second argument or even his third argument applying. I would suggest to the noble Earl that when he comes with tears in his eyes to tell us we would be denying a great section of people the right to purchase their house, he should remember that if they are of pensionable age then, in the case of a man, he is at least 65. Pensionable age is definable. How many building societies in this country would make a loan to a person of the age of 65, payable over, what?—25 years?
Your Lordships will remember that in one of his earlier statements the noble Earl himself spoke about wanting to make it possible for people to be able to purchase their houses while they are earning. We are dealing now with tenants, as well as houses. At least 40 per cent. of these tenants are on supplementary pension; so when he talks about denying to a certain category the right to buy, he is deceiving himself. You have got to balance the rights of this particular group against the needs of other members of the same group who are not properly housed and who need these houses that are specially designed and adapted.
This is a different amendment. It is much more tightly drawn. I know that the Government are sensitive about this; they have got to face a row in another place, because the words to which they objected before were words which your Lordships' House accepted for the English Bill. To my mind, these words (I do not say this simply because I drafted them myself) meet and clear the hurdles of the arguments which the noble Earl put forward. I did not think they were very good arguments at the time, but I thought I would at least try my best to get over them and tighten the wording up. This is an important amendment, and I beg to move.
12.4 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I think we really ought to see what are the effects of the Bill as it stands at the moment. I believe there are hardly any pensioners who want to purchase their house themselves. They know that they will have to move out sooner or later; they may have to move to an old people's home. No, it is not them at all. The people who will purchase it are, of course, the relatives. They will put up the money. They may see it as a good investment. But it really is of no benefit at all to almost any pensioners to purchase their house, except to have something to leave, possibly, to their family.
That is not what the Bill is trying to do. What is going to happen, of course, is that in many cases the houses will be purchased; and if they are owned privately, when three or four out of ten, perhaps, have been so purchased, the whole of that provision

1197
for the old people will be wound up. Why is it that the Government are doing this? I suspect that they do not like making exceptions, and that they think that if this amendment is accepted some local councils may misuse these powers and designate houses as old people's houses to prevent them from being purchased. If that is the case, why do they not say so? As it is, the position is highly unsatisfactory. It is doing great damage for no apparent good reason whatsoever.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, was at some pains to try and make out that what we had decided at the Report stage—decided by a majority—should not be applicable. Of course, you can always make small changes in an amendment that is defeated at Report stage, but if, on that basis, you arc going to bring it back here, you are surely at variance with the Standing Orders of this House. The noble Lord makes a grimace, as if he thinks this is trivial, but it is not. It is not by any means so. Our Standing Orders are expressed in very mild terms, but they are nevertheless binding as the practice of the House, and are generally regarded so. I share this experience with the noble Lord because shortly after I first came to this House—a year after—I was on the Opposition Benches, and I, too, was taken to task for trying to use Third Reading to reverse a decision that had been taken on Report.
Your Lordships will be very familiar, I am sure, with the provision in the Companion to the Standing Orders. On page 127 it says:
"It is considered undesirable that an issue "—
not an amendment, but an issue—
"which has been fully debated and decided upon a previous stage of a Bill should be re-opened on Third Reading".
The noble Lord may have thought that my noble friend was concentrating on the wording, which was said to be ambiguous. This very often is an element in resisting amendments, but it was certainly not understood by me, and I doubt whether it was understood by other Members of your Lordships' House, that that was what we were being asked to vote upon. We were voting on the issue.
1198
I submit to the noble Lord that the issue is perfectly clear. The issue has been brought up at the previous two stages of the Bill and concerns dwelling-houses being designed or specially adapted to make them suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age. This has been fully argued. I am not certain that it has yet been appreciated by the House that we are, in this Bill, in a different position from the position in the English Housing Bill, because not a great deal of stress has been laid on Clause 4(4), under which it is open to the landlord,
"…in the case of a dwelling-house which has facilities which are substantially different from those of an ordinary dwelling-house and which has been designed or adapted for occupation by an elderly or disabled person whose special needs require accommodation of the kind provided by the dwelling-house."
Then, the landlord may make a condition in the sale. The condition will obviously be that that particular dwelling-house, if it is thought fit, should be offered back to the landlord on the death of the new owner. I see no great difficulty about this but it makes a very considerable difference as between the Scottish Bill and the English Bill.
Does it really matter if an elderly person purchases the house which has been specially designed and adapted for an elderly person and in which she or he is living, and it is provided that in this case the landlord can make a condition that the house should be offered back to the landlord on the death of the new owner? This may have been a little obscure in the drafting, but it is obvious that it can be done, and if the house then goes back to the landlord on the death of the elderly tenant, surely that covers everything that is required for the protection of houses specifically adapted or designed for the elderly. If it does not cover all, then it certainly goes a long way to do so; so that on the merits I feel certain that this House should stand by the decision it reached on Report.
Nobody could pretend that the changes that are made in the amendment that we now have before us as compared with the previous amendment are very far-reaching. The noble Lord himself said that it made the situation crystal clear. I do not think he used the word "crystal", but that it made it clear. On the facts on

1199
which we reached our decision at Report stage and the fact that we have this Standing Order, that this was an issue that was decided on Report stage, and on the contents of the Bill itself which do offer the chance for a landlord to reenter into possession of such houses, I hope the House will reject the amendment.
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. He has read the Standing Orders of the House dealing with the question of the amendment submitted by my noble friend Lord Ross. He himself reads the Standing Orders and tells us that it is "undesirable". There are many things I do which my wife says would be undesirable but she does not prohibit me from doing them. The question is whether one is entitled to interpret the word "undesirable" as something which cannot be done.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that he will find in many places in our Standing Orders and the Companion to Standing Orders that a certain thing is to be considered undesirable. In my experience, that has usually been enough for your Lordships.
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, coming from a different atmosphere into this one and having sat in the Chair in the other place, one could not argue there on a Standing Order. That may be the practice here; but it does not prohibit one. The noble Lord himself went on to argue the case. He ended by arguing that my noble friend Lord Ross was wrong in submitting it. He gave reasons for saying so. He himself was doing something contrary to what he alleges to be the Standing Orders. However, the point is that if it is out of order, then somebody must rule that it is out of order. Somebody should do that, if that is the attitude.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, could the noble Lord repeat the last few words?
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, I said that somebody should rule that it is out of order and that that will finish it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, surely it is for the House to rule it out of order. The House is the custodian
1200
of its own rules. Generally, we find that once the rule is pointed out and the interpretation that is placed on the rule is explained, then appropriate action is taken. I suggest that it would be wise and reasonable for the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in the light of my explanation now to withdraw his amendment.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I should have been delighted to consider that if the noble Lord had made his point succinctly; but then he proceeded to argue that I was wrong in the general principle. He proceeded to examine another clause altogether, which was a justification given by the Government in respect of that and other amendments. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. It was very undesirable, I think, of him—and he would have been ruled out of order elsewhere—when he strayed from the actual amendment and proceeded to tell us about something entirely different. It took him far longer to tell me about my undesirability than it took me to move the amendment, and we should probably have been finished with the amendment by this time but for his intervention.
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, if the noble Lord the Chief Whip is prepared to rule that it is out of order, I will abide by the rules. If he is prepared to rule that "it is undesirable" means that you cannot discuss it, I will accept that decision. What I am trying to get at is the meaning of the word "undesirable".
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, there is no particular Standing Order on this. The Companion to Standing Orders is a guidance for your Lordships. It is only a guidance. It has been the generally accepted feeling of this House that it is a protection for the House, not a protection for the Government, that these matters should not be raised again at Third Reading when they have already been decided upon. There is no question of ruling people out of order. This House does not have firm rules of order It has guidelines; and these are generally adhered to.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip to look at columns 771 and 772 of the noble Earl's reply as to why he could not on

1201
behalf of the Government accept the amendment at Report stage? There, he will see that the main reason why he could not accept it has now been changed by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ross. Surely, therefore, it is permissible now to be put to the House?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, the Companion to Standing Orders talks about an "issue". It is an issue that your Lordships are being invited to change. There was an occasion earlier, on a previous Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested at Report stage that he would allow a particular amendment to he negatived and then would revert to it at Third Reading. I got up at that point and interrupted the noble Lord, who kindly gave way, and I pointed out that if he allowed the amendment to be negatived at Report stage he would not be able to revert to it at Third Reading. So the noble Lord did not allow it to be negatived but withdrew it so that he could refer to it at Third Reading.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think we are not going to resolve this by merely discussing the rights and wrong of the matter and by noble Lords on both sides giving their points of view. I think the only way we can resolve it, if noble Lords opposite feel very strongly about the rightness or wrongness of the action, is to move accordingly or to let my noble friend conclude without further intervention and dispose of it in the normal way. This could be the quicker procedure.
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, all I wanted to say is that, if we consider the circumstances, this amendment is largely as a result of the contribution made by the Minister during the debate. He said that the earlier one was in conflict with Clause 4. It was put to him from several parts of the House that we could easily get rid of Clause 4 if that was his only problem. We think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has this afternoon produced an amendment that would be acceptable. In my opinion, that is what the Minister was seeking.
12.20 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has moved his amendment and
1202
he has not seen fit to withdraw it. Therefore I must answer it on its merits. If I say a word or two about what I think should happen at the end of my remarks, they will be in a different context. In truth and in fact, this amendment is a slight variation, both in its drafting and in the effects that it would have on the Bill, upon what we discussed three days ago on Report. The only difference to the situation which this amendment would make is that if the amendment were accepted a local authority would not be able to refuse to sell a house to the tenant on the ground that at some time in the past it had been let to a person of pensionable age.
Before I discuss the amendment in detail I must repeat, I am afraid, some of what I said three days ago about the background to our deliberations. I stressed the importance of ensuring that the legislation will, in operation, reflect the wishes of Parliament, and I reminded the House that we are dealing here with legislation that a number of local authorities which, between them, act as landlords to more than half of the public sector tenants in Scotland, have pledged themselves to frustrate and distort at every opportunity. I drew the House's attention to the fact that those authorities have gone to the lengths of meeting together to plan the means by which they will defy the law, a state of affairs which I think I remarked to the noble Baroness, Lady David, is peculiar to Scotland so far as I know. I perhaps did not emphasise as fully as I might have done that these authorities have not been talking about straightforward defiance of the law but about searching the Bill for loop-holes and for ambiguities which can be exploited to deprive more people of the right to buy than Parliament intended. I ask the House to bear in mind the avowed intent of those authorities to trample over the spirit of this Bill and to stretch the letter of the law to the limits of credible interpretation in their doctrinaire opposition to the will of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, referred to the words "specially adapted", and he disagrees with the meaning and ambiguity which I put upon them on Report. I have to say that there is nothing, for instance, about his definition which would exclude the one-bedroomed

1203
house. The Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities expressed the view to the Government during consultations that the definition which the noble Lord put into his amendment might well cover minimal adaptations and link them to the elderly. On the last occasion we talked about grab rails, and so on.
My Lords, continuing with my theme, I also ask the House to bear in mind that those authorities have made it clear that, where they cannot succeed in denying a tenant the right which Parliament has conferred, they will delay its exercise for as long as possible in the hope that they can demoralise and discourage those whose legal rights they cannot take from them altogether. I mention this because I believe that we must recognise that these authorities are seeking confrontation and will seek to deny the right to buy in many cases where there is no justification for doing so purely for the sake of daunting tenants from exercising their rights.
This sets the scene. There are one or two other points to which I should like to return to reinforce what I said on Report. Dealing with the amendment, first, it does not require that a house should be substantially adapted for occupation by the elderly. So far, as I explained in Committee, a house could be excluded from the right to buy because of insignificant and comparatively minor features such as a grab rail or hand rail. Such features will not only occur in houses which do not genuinely fall into the category of special needs housing but could well be installed in any house at minimal cost by authorities bent on frustrating the purposes of this legislation.
Secondly, the statement that houses are designed for the elderly will still, as I said at Report stage, apply potentially to all one-bedroom houses which make up 15 per cent. of the public sector housing stock but also, to some of the 460,000 two-bedroom houses in the stock. It is, as I explained, a matter of fact that many local authorities do reserve their smaller houses and flats for the elderly, and it would be very easy for those who do not already do so to change their allocation policies in order to take advantage of this provision. Once again I stress that these are not special needs
1204
houses, they are quite ordinary houses which happen to be let to the elderly.
What I said, I believe to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was that the effect of the last amendment would be to provide a gateway through which a recalcitrant local authority could drive a coach and horses to destroy the provisions and the principles of this Bill. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to narrow the gateway slightly. It would not stop a well-directed coach from being driven through the gap.
This amendment would be much more candid if it said that persons of pensionable age are not to have the right to buy. That is really what we are talking about—the exclusion of the elderly, not of houses for the elderly—and that is the crux of our difference of opinion with the Opposition. The noble Lord seeks to deny everyone the right to buy; but because they cannot do that he makes a pretence of accepting the principle of the Bill and, from the cover of that pretence, seeks to take the right to buy away from a group that comprises about 30 per cent. of public sector tenants.
The Government's view, as I have said all along, is that the elderly have as much right to the benefits of this policy as anyone. We accept that there will be some who do not wish to buy their home, and we believe that it is those elderly people who are most likely to be sufficiently infirm to be occupying genuine special needs housing. However, we believe that the rest of the elderly should be allowed to decide for themselves whether home ownership is a sensible step at their time of life.
Throughout this Bill, noble Lords opposite have made it clear that they simply do not understand the desire for home ownership and they cannot conceive of choice about housing tenure except in terms of money. We believe that most people see the benefits of home ownership in quite different terms. They see it as a source of security, of independence and of freedom from interference; and I ask your Lordships whether you would accept for a moment that elderly people do not value these things as much if not more than other people. I certainly do not accept that, and I think that it would be unconscionable to deprive elderly tenants

1205
of the chance to spend their retirement years in a house which they can call their own.
My Lords, may I, possibly for the benefit of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth—and I do not say this offensively—and any other noble Lords who may not have been present at our previous deliberations and may not realise how much this Bill differs from the English Bill (and has differed ever since it came to your Lordships' House), say this? The Bill provides, we think, a balance between the rights of individuals and the needs of the public. It excludes from the right to buy all sheltered housing for the elderly and disabled, because we believe that the sale of such houses could cut across the interests of other people in the same group of houses who did not wish to buy; and in looking at the interests of other tenants the restriction to grouped housing is clearly essential. The sale of houses which are not grouped cannot affect the immediate interests of other tenants as long as the elderly people who rent them continue to live in them. However, we fully recognise that once these elderly people cease to live in a house, the community does have an interest in what happens to it, if it is genuine special needs housing, which may be in short supply. Consequently, we have taken the logical step and put in a safeguard of the community interest which operates when the elderly tenants have ceased to live here. That is contained in Clause 4(4) of the Bill which gives landlords the right of preemption—which has no time limit—and this comes in where houses are significantly adapted for the elderly or the disabled. We have heard much of the comparisons with the Housing Bill, but I must remind your Lordships that the Housing Bill as at this moment does not contain the right of pre-emption which I have mentioned and which is a well-known feature of the Scottish law of real property.
It has been suggested, I think, by noble Lords opposite that this Bill does not protect the special needs housing for the elderly, but I must dispute that. It simply is not the case. It gives ample protection to the community's interest where that interest is genuine. What it does not do is to deprive the elderly of the same rights that the Bill gives to every other tenant, where the community does not have a
1206
genuine overriding interest. The elderly are those who have suffered most in Scotland's past and they are the ones who have suffered most over the lack of choice for decent housing in their youth and middle age. They are the people who need and deserve a choice now.
Finally, may I remind the House of the immense care which has been taken as this Bill has wended its long passage through both Houses. In Committee in another place—I have already referred to this—there was a most constructive debate on the part of both Government and Opposition speakers, and amendments were inserted into the Bill without any need for Divisions. The Opposition reserved its right to come back to the matter on Report if it should so wish, but in fact no amendments were debated in a long Report stage, by the standards of the other place with a time-table which is even more crowded than ours. In two full days and part of the night, there was no return to this question of housing for the elderly. On Third Reading, which was a very brief stage, no mention of the matter was made by either of the two Liberal spokesmen who put their point of view and concerned themselves quite genuinely with housing in rural areas; so the House received this Bill, I suggest, in a way which has paid attention to the various principles which we have tried to set into the Bill.
We had two debates on this subject in Committee: one initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, who withdrew his amendment; and the other on a very similar amendment which was introduced by the Liberals. That was debated and rejected on a Division. We then had another very full debate three days ago on this issue and, if noble Lords will bear with me, I should like to concentrate on the word "issue". That finally received the House's decisive verdict only on Tuesday, and now we come back to the matter again on an amendment which I know is slightly different in form, but which raises no different issue—and that is the word I stress—which has not been ventilated before. Matters have already been brought to your Lordships' attention about our Standing Orders and the fact that we do not have a Speaker or anybody who can rule anything out of order in this House.

1207
May I say this in conclusion. I have not been in this House as long as many other noble Lords, but I have been here now for a few years—long enough to gain very considerable respect and, indeed, affection for the way in which the House conducts its business by a habit of self-regulation and self-discipline. If we are going to revive issues on Third Reading which have been as well-ventilated as this one has and which have been decided on only three days before, it will open a door really to a quite radical departure. It will in fact mean that in future the door will be open for your Lordships' House to consider matters on a totally different basis; in other words, issues which have been decided on Report being revived on Third Reading. Speaking purely personally, I think that it would be a pity if this departure came about without very full consultation by those who, as it were, look after our procedures behind the scenes.
My only task is to persuade the House if I can—and I address myself particularly to the Liberals and the Cross-Benchers, and indeed to everybody who loves the procedures of this House as I do—on the merits of the case that we have gone as far as we possibly can in this Bill to provide balanced provisions for the interests of the individual and for the public interest. If the noble Lord, Lord Ross, on reflection, is not prepared to withdraw his amendment—and I do really, for so many reasons, beseech him to—then I must ask the House to vote it down.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether the star which is placed against this amendment means that it only appeared before the House for the first time this morning? Is that really the position?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: No, my Lords; it appeared yesterday after luncheon. I do not criticise the noble Lord so far as timing is concerned.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his last remarks, and in relation to the last point, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, of course follows our proceedings very well. I do not know whether he tried to get a
1208
copy of the Bill reprinted after Report yesterday—he probably got it today; so did I. It was not available yesterday, and when one waits until one gets the up-to-date information on the Bill which one seeks to amend and discovers the Bill is not there, he should be the last person to complain about the lateness of amendments. We finished the Report stage on Tuesday, and the Hansard was available on Wednesday. I put in these amendments as soon as I could, having waited and hoped to get an up-to-date copy of the Bill. Usually one waits until the Bill is reprinted before putting forward amendments. I do not blame anyone for that, except the rush there has been to get this through. It is very seldom, I believe, that a Third Reading in this House follows within two days of the Report stage.
I am very glad that the noble Earl admitted that this amendment was different; he said it was not very much different. But when one bears in mind—and the Report is here in front of me—that column after column of the speech that he made was related to the drafting difficulties and what would happen in respect of these drafting difficulties, I thought it was incumbent of me to tighten up the thing and present what was a different amendment.
Of course, it still deals with the same group of people, but the noble Earl should appreciate that Parliament, including this House, has laid responsibility upon local authorities to meet the needs of those people. One of the biggest problems that a local authority has is to meet the real needs of the pensioners and the elderly; and, with all due respect, after they have stopped earning pensioners are not the people who will enter most readily into the purchase of a house. I think my noble friend Lord Galpern mentioned that the people who will reap the benefits—if benefits there be in this—are the youngsters that are left behind.
The fact is that there is a long waiting list everywhere, in cities, in towns and in the countryside, of old people who are waiting to get into these houses and if they are sold to the pensioners what will happen? They are the places where there will be the biggest amount of change, because they will die quickest. That is a natural fact. The people who will sell the houses are their executors, and I hope that the noble Earl will look at the clause

1209
in relation to executors and the freedom they have in relation to sales, which is different. They do not need to wait for five years and to pay back any of the sale price in respect of these houses. That is covered in other clauses, but I just want to keep to the amendment. It has always been my parliamentary practice to try to keep in order.
The fact is that there are far more old age pensioners waiting to get into this type of house, than there are old age pensioners in them. What should dominate: a right that is not likely to be exercised by a great many of them who arc actually in the houses, or the rights and needs of those who do not have that type of house? That is all we have been trying to get across to the Government and I make no apology for continuing to do that.
I had no intention of forcing another vote, and I shall not force another vote, but I want the Government to appreciate that not all local authorities should be met with this suspicion and fear. If we are blinkered by fear as well as by prejudice, then we shall get a very bad Act of Parliament. It is because I consider, from my own knowledge as Secretary of State and from my own knowledge oflocal authorities, that the Government are doing wrong, that I certainly will not apologise for having brought the amendment before the House. But I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.43 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 36, leave out from ("Crown"") to ("and") in line 41 and insert ("has the same meaning as in section 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Report stage my noble friend Lord Selkirk introduced a fairly long and very welcome amendment, as I said at the time, on Case 17. Under that, there was a definition of the "regular armed forces of the Crown". I pointed out at that time that there was already a definition of the "regular armed forces of the Crown" in Clause 1(12) of the Bill, and suggested that the Case 17 amendment should be brought into line with what was already in the Bill.
It has been suggested to me—obviously, there was not time to consider it then—that it would be better to do it the other way round and to bring the definition in line 36 of page 5 into line with the definition that my noble friend Lord Selkirk included in his amendment, and that is what this amendment does. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for putting down this drafting amendment, which certainly makes the different parts of the Bill more consistent than they were before. I am pleased to accept it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Succession to secure tenancy.]:
12.46 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 18, line 25, leave out from ("below") to end of line 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 goes with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, so as to make sense of the business, and it seeks to give to people in public sector housing the same privilege as exists in private sector housing. A new security of tenure has been given to tenants in public sector housing, but the rights of succession allow only one change. After that one change, the house reverts to the landlord for allocation. In private sector housing, there are two changes.
I said in Committee when we discussed this matter—we did not vote upon it—that it would be very unfair indeed if the daughter or unmarried son of an elderly couple had to get out, because, first, the father had died and then, after the house had passed to the mother, she had died. To my mind, that is not the kind of security that is required. I think it was the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless who, in a letter to some of us, drew attention to the fact that they had quite a number of distressing cases of single, middle-aged people who, for the first time, have had to leave home and seek hostel or institutional accommodation. I do not think this is right. It would be

1211
offensive to most people and, I am quite sure, to your Lordships.
I know what the answer will be. The answer will be: Trust the local authorities; the local authorities will not throw them out. But after the noble Earl's explanation of the kind of local authorities we have in Scotland, conspiring to frustrate the law, hating every line in this Bill and doing everything to destroy it, he cannot adopt the attitude that they are all-caring, all-wise and that we can leave it to them. If he is really giving security of tenure, and matching the security of people who are under a private landlord —thanks to the statutory protections that are given to a tenant—then he should make this change.
I have been hoping for better things, and this is about the noble Earl's last chance. If he seeks to do something really good in this Bill, for which I could applaud him, then he should make this change. That is the only effect of the amendment. I have not been conspiring with anyone to see how we could undermine the whole Bill. I am seeking to give that additional protection and I have tried to follow through the consequences of the idea. Hence, the three amendments. My Lords, beg to move.
12.50 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the effect of Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 would be to grant a right of succession, without end, for any family allocated a house.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, a qualified right.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: No, my Lords, the effect of the amendments would be just that. In other words, a house, once allocated, could be passed down through the family for generation after generation, regardless of need. There cannot be any objection to a house passing through several generations of a family, where appropriate. Indeed, it is common practice for local authorities to allow this to happen. But we believe that every once in a while the landlord should have an opportunity to review the allocation of houses against the background of its responsibility to manage the housing stock
1212
in the interests of the community as a whole. It is rather extreme to provide a statutory right in effect to perpetual succession.
The Bill at present seeks only to provide a minimum safeguard of one succession, but public landlords arc usually more generous than this, and I do not think that they really need compulsion to be so. Even when they do ask someone to move, following the death of a tenant, they almost invariably rehouse them elsewhere —perhaps in a house of a size more appropriate to their needs where a single person is left in a large house. I think that this answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, about the single daughter who has devotedly looked after her elderly parents until their death and is perhaps then left in a public sector house which would be much more suitable for family occupation. In this respect, public sector tenants are at much less risk than private sector tenants whose landlords may wish to sell and who are unlikely to be offering alternative accommodation. That is one of the reasons why we have provided a right to one succession in the public sector rather than the two, to which private tenants are entitled.
These amendments would give public tenants far greater rights than the two successions which are allowed to private tenants. The only representations which we have had from local authorities about this clause have been to seek reassurance that it will not stop them from allowing a member of a tenant's family to stay on in the house after his or her death if there has already been one succession. After it was explained to them that they would remain quite free to grant the tenancy of the house to such a person in such circumstances, they were content. Their concern on this point underlines the fact that they are very unlikely to refuse to let a member of a tenant's family stay on without good reason for refusing.
Nevertheless, in cases where the authority's wider management responsibilities give ground for a move, they ought to have scope for requiring such a move. Where this happens, subsection (6) grants the person involved a temporary tenancy of up to six months. I appreciate that an amendment has been tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, which relates to this period, but that is the period contained in the Bill. Its

1213
purpose is for the landlord to consider rehousing the tenant and for there to be time for discussion between them. So people will not be put out in the street after the first succession. Whatever the noble Lord may say, I think that most people are of the opinion that local authorities behave reasonably. At the same time, we say that it would be wrong to deprive the landlord of all say in the allocation of houses over several generations. On the basis that deep down I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, trusts the local authorities, as I do, he may see fit to withdraw these amendments.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I have certainly highlighted the fact. The noble Earl suggests that this would open up the way for an endless succession of tenants. For the purposes of this subsection, a "qualified person" is defined. The person who is left and who is part of the family is a qualified person. If it had been a mother and a son, the automatic translation of the first succession would be from the mother to the son—or to a daughter. There is a definition of "qualified person" which itself provides a limitation.
I am sorry indeed that the noble Earl has not had second thoughts about this matter but I shall not press it to a Division. I sincerely hope that the new-found faith in local authorities being reasonable people will persist in the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.56 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 18, line 36, leave out ("paragraph (a) or (b)") and insert ("subsection (1)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple amendment. In the case of a qualified person being denied the right by the local authority to stay on in the house, they are certainly not thrown out on the street. They are given six months before any change is made in their position. I suggest that they should be allowed to continue in the house for one year. If, as the noble Earl says, local authorities are so reasonable, the need—
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the Deputy Speaker is talking about Amendment No. 4.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I apologise. I thought we were doing what is done in another place where amendments are taken together and discussed together, and if an amendment is not moved then it is not moved. In those circumstances, Amendment No. 4 and Amendment No. 5 are not moved by me.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 19, line 30, leave out ("6 months") and insert ("one year")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already given the explanation of this amendment, and I do not want to add a single word to it. If local authorities are as reasonable as the noble Lord says, we shall not need to operate this, but where there are some unreasonable local authorities who might enforce it, I suggest that instead of six months we should give the tenant a year. We must remember that "not exceeding" does not mean that they will be there for a year. It may be for six months and six days or six months and seven days. This latitude is desirable, and I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said, the effect of subsection (6) is that where a tenant dies and leaves either a spouse or another member of the family living in the house in circumstances where they are not entitled to succeed to the tenancy, because the tenant himself had inherited by succession, the Bill grants the person left in the house a non-secure tenancy—that is, a tenancy which does not attract any of the rights set out in the Bill. This is for a period of up to six months. The period is to allow a reasonable time for both the public sector landlord and the tenant to decide about the future. As I said when speaking about Amendment No. 2 and the others, the present practice, some suggest, is that in almost all cases the landlord will be quite happy to grant the survivor the tenancy of the house. In virtually all other cases, if, for reasons of space, which I illustrated, the landlord wants the house

1215
for a larger family, he would offer rehousing elsewhere, perhaps in a smaller house.
In these circumstances, which are totally dissimilar to those in the private sector, I believe that six months is long enough for such decisions to be made. I do not think it is in the tenant's interests that it should be possible to provide him with the rights which this Bill provides for secure tenants for a further six months. If the period were extended to 12 months—or any other period, for that matter—it would expose tenants to delay and uncertainty and I really do not think that would be desirable.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, I have no desire to prolong the agony. I never expected that at this late stage there would be a change of heart on the part of the Government. I think my toll of accepted amendments is one or one and a half, but I am not complaining about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK Lord ROSS of MARNOCK moved Amendment No. 7:
Insert the following new clause:
("Grants for provision of fire escapes
After section 10A of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(10B) Subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order make the local authority shall make a grant in respect of work for the provisions of a means of escape from fire from a building which, or part of which, is let in lodgings".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns grants for the provision of fire escapes. I tabled this at the behest of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who felt very strongly about it—feelings which I share. At the Report stage I asked the noble Earl whether it was true that there was provision in the English Housing Bill to make it possible for grants of up to £5,000 to be expended on such houses which are in multiple occupation, but I did not get an answer. This is his last chance to answer publicly as to whether that was right or wrong. There is a keen sensitivity about mentioning what is in an English Bill and what is in this particular Bill, and perhaps
1216
that is something of which we have not heard the last.
I think everyone knows the reason for this amendment. These institutions have been the subject of very considerable attention following disastrous fires. They are prone to fire, and elderly and sometimes infirm residents are particularly susceptible, and of course they cannot readily escape. The nature of these places is such that I think we should leave nothing undone that can be done to provide adequate fire protection and means of escape.
I believe there are no definitions in Scotland in regard to multiple occupation, but there are definitions in respect of hostels and lodging houses and that is why the amendment is so worded. I hope the noble Earl will look at this amendment sympathetically. I know it raises a terrible thing—it raises the subject of money. When I see the noble Baroness, Lady Young, sitting there, I can never think of her saying "No" to everything because money is involved. That is the sacred principle at the present time: if money is involved, the answer is "No". Let the noble Earl shake himself loose. Here is a chance for him to so something for Scotland. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is in London today or not, but let the noble Earl strike a blow for freedom in Scotland and accept this particular amendment, even though it means a certain measure of Government expenditure. I beg to move.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I have sat here for an hour and a half and listened with fascination but in silence to this very interesting debate, but in view of the fact that this is an amendment for which my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie has great enthusiasm I really must say a few words. In case your Lordships feel that I am about to embark upon a long speech on this matter, I must express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for the way he introduced this amendment. He said that he agreed with and supported the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, for this amendment and therefore, in view of his great support and his emotional appeal, that at last, at the end of the day, the Government should accept an important amendment of this kind, I

1217
will not go into details, but merely ask the Government to support and accept this amendment on this occasion.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, one reason why I cannot accept this amendment is due to a sin of omission by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. During the year 1974 there were in fact two Housing Acts—one for England and one for Scotland. The English Housing Act introduced a grants scheme for houses in multiple occupation in England, but the Housing (Scotland) Act of 1974, as I have said, during a period when the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was the distinguished tenant of old St. Andrews House, did not include the same provision. Therefore we in Scotland have no equivalent to the English special grants system which applies to houses in multiple occupation. I am afraid that remains the position.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, as a constitutional lawyer, would not want to be a party to any constitutional impropriety, even in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. The House authorities, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, have advised that this clause is outside the terms of the Money Resolution, therefore I cannot recommend it for acceptance. Even if, over my head, the House was determined to do just that, I have to advise your Lordships that I think the other place might sink back on their insistence that they deal with questions of finance.
But being positive, if I may say so, about this matter, there are considerable powers in Part VI of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 to deal with such houses. Section 107 of that Act enables local authorities to require the provision of a means of escape from fire and they can do that, where appropriate, in consultation with the fire authority. Although I have said that there is no specific grant aid available for such work, we are of the opinion that local authorities could use their general powers under Section 69 of the Local Government Act 1973 to give assistance where they consider it appropriate. Then, under Section 109 of the 1966 Act they might also do the work themselves and exercise their discretion in relation to recovery of the cost, so that in effect there could be a grant there.
1218
More generally, as I said on Report, the whole question of control over houses in multiple occupation is being reviewed within the Scottish Development Department and our present powers, which are based closely on those in England, may well not be the best way of dealing with the very different type of house used for this purpose in Scotland.
For the reasons that I have given, this amendment would not be a very proper or satisfactory basis for dealing with a problem which rightly causes grave concern. I hope that I am the first to acknowledge the good intention of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the other sponsors of this amendment, but I am simply not allowed to recommend your Lordships to accept it.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, that is the best reason I have had yet for the turning down of any amendment of mine, that it conflicts with a Money Resolution. If the noble Earl is interested in the proceedings in another place and he seeks to get a volume devoted entirely to Money Resolutions, he will find many a speech of mine on the subject of the Money Resolution, which was always taken after a Second Reading and which we always insisted upon having available to us before we started the Committee stage. If it is outside the Money Resolution then nobody can do anything about it—except blame the Government for drawing the Money Resolution so tightly that such a desirable amendment would not be in order to be put forward and accepted in another place and, of course, here. Irrespective of how the other place occasionally treats this House and the disrespect which it showed the other day, we treat them with due respect so far as Money Resolutions are concerned and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.10 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In moving this Motion I am entitled to say a few words, and they are going to be very few. I had a splendid speech drafted and typed out. The noble Lord says he heard a bit of it; that was another one. But I am not going to give vent to it, because this Bill has been most thoroughly

1219
scrutinised in your Lordships' House. We have debated it for many hours and I make no complaint about that. We have gone to the heart of the Bills' principles time and again. I do not think it would be profitable to go over some of the provisions which are written into the Bill, nor indeed some of the amendments which have been made in your Lordships' House, which go to improve the Bill.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for providing still more opportunities for the Government to consider this Bill. I am grateful to him because it has demonstrated, at least for me, that whatever anybody may say about devolution and assemblies and anything like that, the fact of the matter is that the Scottish Office is able to frame, draw up, draft its own legislation, consider it with its own Law Officers and its own Ministers, can produce a Bill which goes through the other place and arrives in your Lordships' House markedly different from the English version, can continue to debate it in this House and give Government consideration to all its stages. I can assure your Lordships. that my honourable friend who is functionally responsible for housing in Scotland and I have had many conversations on the subject of this Bill and the representations which noble Lords opposite and noble Lords on the Cross-Benches have made to us. In the end it still, as it passes, I hope, finally through your Lordships' House, remains a Scottish Bill and quite different from the English Bill which has already gone forth. To that extent my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is quite sincere.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, who, as I said at an earlier stage, we were so pleased to see had made such an excellent and quick recovery, he also played his part. I should like to thank in their absence the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who, lucky people, have got to Scotland a good deal earlier than the rest of us who have to take the low road. I should also like to thank noble Lords on these Benches who from time to time have made their contributions. I think for my part that the Bill has been an experience and an education, and it leaves your Lordships' House better than when it came into it.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord GALPERN: My Lords, may I first of all thank the Minister for his kind reference to my health. I hope I have not, by virtue of regaining some of it, unduly disturbed the activities of the House in what is happening this afternoon, saying that probably somebody should rule me and my noble friend Lord Ross out of order because of something which is contrary to the Standing Orders. I must say I have enjoyed very much indeed my first participation in a Bill of this kind at all the various stages.
May I very briefly say this. The Minister will recall that we had a debate on Tuesday and at column 749 I asked him:
"Am I right in concluding that what he has just told the House is that the main attraction for the sitting tenant of a public sector house to buy the house which he occupies, which he rents, is in order (and I hope I have the words right) to bear a greater share of his housing costs?"
The Minister said:
"My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that of course that is not the main gain to the individual tenant, and I did not say it was. What I suggest the noble Lord does is to read the Official Report tomorrow …"
I read the Official Report the next day, and at column 747 I find that what he said was:
"What we are doing is to encourage tenants to bear a greater share of their housing costs …"
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord wishes to be fair, and if he is going to quote me in column 749 perhaps he would continue to the end of the intervention.
Lord GALPERN: Yes, my Lords, certainly:
"…then he will see what is the gain to the tenant about which I pontificated at length—that he will have something to call his own and something to pass on."
I was not referring to that. The noble Earl said that after I had made my comment. At column 747—I can read the whole column if he wishes, and I do not find anything that he said subsequently in his later intervention—he said:
"What we are doing is to encourage tenants to bear a greater share of their housing costs than they do by renting and, by buying their home, to relieve the taxpayer and ratepayer of the burden which they presently bear."

1221
I studied the Conservative Party manifesto which was put before the Scottish people at the last general election and it says:
"…to give council, new town and SSHA tenants the legal right to buy their homes."
There is no mention there of the fact that they will be doing their duty by relieving taxpayers and ratepayers of a burden by
"encouraging tenants to bear a greater share of their housing costs".
I hope when the Minister comes to discuss the consequences of the passing of this Bill he will have a word with the local authorities to suggest that when they receive an application from a sitting tenant of his desire to purchase the house they will send, together with the application form, the Minister's remarks upon what he will be doing for his fellow taxpayers and ratepayers.
Buying a home, as the noble Earl knows, is one thing; meeting the expenses out of income is quite another. Many of us sometimes fail to budget for the cost of maintenance. The cost of repairs can be very heavy indeed. I have already dealt with that and I am not going to go into it in detail this afternoon. But repairs will have to be carried out. I think it is only right that together with the application form there should be a booklet sent to the possible purchaser with a list—not of the things that my noble friend Lord Ross said the tenant should indicate he knows he is entering into, but a list should be sent, together with the application form, by the local authority, which would illustrate exactly what sort of responsibilities he undertakes. There is nothing novel in that because smokers when they buy a packet of cigarettes are told on every packet
"Her Majesty's Government Health Department warning. Cigarettes can seriously damage your health".
A pamphlet that would illustrate what could happen to the prospective purchaser's financial stability could easily be incorporated in a booklet of that kind.
There is one factor which has not been mentioned. What is the difference between the renting of a house and the purchase of that house? In Glasgow, the figures are that for a three apartment modernised semi-detached home in Knightswood, the selling price of which
1222
would be about £14,000 and the net price £8,400, the present monthly rent is £29·28. The monthly mortgage repayment would become £60·90. There is a difference of almost £31 that a tenant, who is perhaps not so well aware of the factors involved, will have to be sure that he can budget for and maintain.
At present we have steep unemployment figures, and a survey was published the other day by the Frazer Institute, associated with Strathclyde University, indicating that by the end of the year the number of unemployed in Scotland will be 250,000 rising in 1981 to a much higher figure. Therefore, if at all possible we should try to assist someone, who is not accustomed to dealing with these matters and who does not have much knowledge of the situation in which he can land himself, with the serious matter of purchasing a house.
Finally, the noble Earl has told us during the course of our debates that he read the Sunday Post. It is a great pity that he did not read the Sunday Mail last Sunday. It would have done him the world of good, because I think that it would have softened his attitude to some of the amendments that my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock proposed during our discussions. It says there quite clearly:
"In Glasgow—where the regional unemployment rate is 12·8 per cent. —12 people per month approach the district council with the intention of selling their homes."
Those are not people who are in local council houses: they are people who are in privately-owned houses who know all about housing and who now find themselves unable to meet the cost. They illustrate the situation and have done careful research on the matter. It says:
"Most shattering result of unemployment is losing the family home. Since mortgage interest rocketed … earlier this year, families have been approaching local housing authorities saying they must sell their property because they can no longer keep up payments."
It goes on to refer to the experience of most local authorities in Scotland.
Therefore, my appeal is as follows: If we cannot do anything about the Bill, let us postpone bringing it into operation for five years which will may be give us a more stable period of employment and greater security for the individual who

1223
elects to purchase the house which he is renting at present. If that is not possible, then I think that the local authorities somehow or other, despite the clauses in the Bill, should be allowed to deal with the situation—of which they have firsthand knowledge, far better than any sheriff, lands tribunal and so on—of those who wish to buy their houses and at least protect their interests in the case of unemployment.
1.23 p.m.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, this is more or less the last lap on this Bill and it may well be the last Housing Bill in which I shall participate. I have participated in every Housing Bill since 1945 on the committee, and when I was not on the committee I was the person behind it who took responsibility for it. I do not think that we shall have another one in the lifetime of this Parliament unless things are very bad indeed.
First, I should like to thank noble Lords for their patience in listening to me. I had the impression at one time that well, they had spent a long time on the English Bill, so could we not hurry up with the Scottish Bill. Their Lordships were the people who wanted the affairs of Scotland to be debated here in London—they are the last people to complain. However, everyone showed patience and I am very grateful for the help of my colleagues. At times it was not so much a debate that went on as a dialogue that went on for quite a period. I express appreciation for the fact that the noble Earl was able to sustain himself so well during that period. As they would say in Scotland, "He's paid for it". That is his job.
I am glad the noble Earl said that it has been educational. He did not advance whether he had education as regards the new Opposition or whether education in respect of the Bill. However, I always gave advice to my junior Ministers that the Bill was more important than their speech and they must be careful that in their speech they did not rouse the Opposition to unnecessary oratory. The other thing I felt in Opposition is that if a Minister did not know the Bill at the start of proceedings, then if the Opposition were any good he would know the Bill
1224
by the time it was finished. I think I agree that this has been an educational experience for the Minister and for those who sustained their interest throughout.
It was an educational experience for myself, too. I am glad that we found a Minister who was frank, who told us plainly and clearly not once, not twice but three or four times—and did it within the space of five minutes—the purpose of the Bill. I know that we heard impassioned speeches about owner occupation. I thought of an old lady of 83 living in a council house, how her heart would surge at the thought that now she could buy that council house and get a loan that she could repay over the next 25 years. How out of touch can the Government be to think that even the people of Scotland will fall for this kind of thing! But when I get a Minister coming along and saying:
"… public sector tenants are a financial burden on the community. What we want to do is to lighten it, and to impose on those tenants … heavier share of the cost of their housing. This is what this is all about."—[Official Report, 29/7/80; col. 748.]
Thanks to the Minister for his frankness. It is all about money. He said:
"What we are doing is to encourage tenants to bear a greater share of their housing costs than they do by renting and, by buying their home, to relieve the taxpayer and ratepayer of the burden which they presently bear … council tenants … were a charge—a burden, if you like—on the taxpayer".—[official Report, 29/7/80; col. 747.]
You can give grants to agriculture—that is an investment. You can give grants to industry—that is an investment. You can give relief to owner-occupiers—that is an investment. But people who cannot pay the economic rents are told that the help they get, or the local authority gets to build the houses, to clear the slums, to get rid of overcrowding—that is a burden on the taxpayer. We were not talking here about housing, but about people, about tenants. We were talking recently about old-age pensioners. Now we can proclaim to the old-age pensioners why this is being done—because you are a burden on the taxpayer. I do not know what the Minister is worrying about. That is what he said: "This is what this is all about." He must live with his words.
I am interested in housing. The fact of the matter is that the Government are cutting down the amount of money that would create hew houses. They are

1225
cutting down the amount of grant that should be going to support local authority housing. Here we are giving this gloss in order to pass the burden over to other people. "This is what this is all about says the Minister. So, we shall have fewer houses built, we shall have fewer houses available for the local authorities to rent to meet a still growing need, and we shall have higher rents for local authority houses and higher rents for public sector housing. Oh!, but the Secretary of State is going to intervene, not to phase it out, but just to say what the maximum will be in any one year.
The outlook is bleak, even in terms of controlling inflation, because if we increase the cost of housing, be it rented or be it owner-occupied, then I am afraid that it is contrary to the type of battle that people are fighting elsewhere or which the Government say they are fighting elsewhere. I think that this is a wrecking Bill. It is wrecking decent local authority democracy and it is wrecking the housing plans that have been built up by local authorities of Labour, Conservative and Liberal complexion over the last 70 years. I do not think for a minute that the Government appreciate the consequences that this will have—the change in attitudes that this will lead to in respect of house allocation. Practices that have been in existence for a long time will disappear because now every person who is allocated a house will have the right to buy.
There is no choice. One has the right to buy only the house in which one is living. But I can assure the noble Earl that in local authorities there will be very considerable pushing and shoving to get into the desirable houses. I hope he realises the kind of field that this opens up. As I said the other day, people are not objective about housing; they are very subjective. This will be worse than jury vetting—vetting who got that very good house that they are now buying. It will affect people. It will affect attitudes. It will affect the ability of the local authority to carry out the statutory responsibilities laid upon it by this House.
It is not a simple Bill. It is a slogan that, translated into a Bill, will wreak considerable damage upon the housing outlook in Scotland. We have tried our best to deal with the elderly, to deal with the rural areas and to deal with the question
1226
of the private tenants as well—all to no purpose. The Government have been inflexible. A Government who will not bend will break. That is the lesson that I take from the handling of this Bill. If they carry on in this way, if this Government do not bend—not just in respect of housing but in respect of industry—they will either break or be broken.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
1.33 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. This Bill contains a number of different provisions, but at this stage I do not intend to deal with them at any length. Those that have attracted most attention—the structure of the Health Service, fund-raising and private practice —are three on which I shall say just a few words, although there are other very important parts of the Bill.
At the beginning I should very much like to thank my noble friends Lord Cullen and Lord Sandys, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay for their great help in the earlier stages of this Bill, and to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the helpful way in which we have been able to deal with the business, and to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley.
I am pleased that the House has been able to make a positive contribution to the Bill, and that there have been included in it amendments giving an enabling power to make payments to doctors' wives and, of course, a later amendment on the inclusion of representatives of district councils to be included on the list of those who may be local authority representatives on district health authorities.
First, on the future structure of the National Health Service, I believe the use that we shall be making of the powers in these clauses is widely welcomed as a way of providing a better and more efficiently managed Health Service, more

1227
quickly responsive to local needs. Secondly, I come to fund-raising. We have debated this provision at some length and I hope that although we may not have persuaded all the noble Lords opposite that this provision is not to be feared, we have at least explained to them that what it allows is no more than the sort of activity carried on by a whole host of perfectly respectable fund-raising bodies. It is a useful but modest extension of existing powers. Voluntary funding is not an alternative way of funding the National Health Service; it is a supplement, small in national terms but helpful locally.
Finally, I come to private practice. I hope that we have made our policy on private practice quite clear. We believe that private provision should be allowed to develop subject only to the condition that in doing so it does not prejudice the National Health Service. We have applied this principle to both private practice in the National Health Service and in the private sector, and it is effected by the legislative and non-legislative safeguards which we have discussed. Our encouragement of private practice in no way undermines our commitment to the National Health Service. Indeed, as we have explained, we support private medicine because it helps the National Health Service by relieving pressure, filling the gaps where the National Health Service is relatively weak, and bringing in pay bed income. We believe that it adds to the total resources for health care in the country and we believe that nothing but good can come of co-operation between the two sectors. They are not incompatible.
I should like to conclude by repeating something which my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne said at the end of the Second Reading debate:
"If we can achieve that consensus view, then I believe that we shall have performed a valuable service which will allow the NHS and the private sector together to get on with their proper job, which is to provide the best health service possihle."—[Official Report, 23/6/80; col. 1433.]
I hope that your Lordships will now agree that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª. —(Baroness Young.)
1.36 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for her opening comments, and I should like to say how much I and my colleague Lord Wallace of Coslany are grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, for always being available if we wanted to see them to discuss any matter with them. We have found this of considerable, and, I think, mutual, value. It was my intention to raise a number of points this morning, but in view of the fact that we have had the intervention of a very long Government Statement on this Friday and that other matters have taken much longer—and if I am perfectly honest with the House, I have a train to catch at two o'clock if I am fortunate enough to do so—I propose to be much briefer than I had intended.
We are really concerned with three of the clauses which are the major clauses so far as we are concerned: Clause 8, which deals with the repeal of provisions relating to the withdrawal of pay beds and the dissolution of the Health Services Board, and Clauses 9 and 10, which cover the treatment of private patients in National Health hospitals.
As your Lordships will know, we were glad to see that in Clause 1 there would be a major change in the structure of the National Health Service. The more we have read the Bill—and some of us on this side have read it several times—and read about the Government's intentions as regards linking private medicine with the National Health Service, the more we have become concerned. It is perhaps not generally recognised that the National Health Service, as a separate service from the private sector in this country, has always been of supreme importance to the Labour Party. It has not been just one of the sacred cows; it is, in fact—and I think will always remain—the most important sacred cow in the Labour movement.
I was particularly concerned yesterday —less than 24 hours ago—when my attention was drawn to a circular issued by the Government some weeks ago—but, understand, not publicly released—urging health authorities to involve the private sector in planning the pattern of local services and calling for far-reaching co

1229
operation between the National Health Service and the private sector, and the loosening of the present limitations on contractual arrangements. I informed the noble Baroness the Minister yesterday about this circular, although I have not seen it, but I am well aware of its contents. It seems to me from what I know of the circular that there will be a very real incursion by the private sector into the National Health Service.
I want to ask the noble Baroness—and I do not necessarily want replies today; she is pressed in much the same way as I am pressed at the present moment—whether the circular also suggests that health authorities might offer financial assistance to private companies to help maintain or develop independent companies. This is what I understand is in the circular, and I understand that comments have been requested from the administrators of the regional health authorities, the administrators of the area health authorities, and the secretaries of the boards of governors of the postgraduate teaching hospitals.
It seems to mean that the National Health Service will be allowed to make contractual arrangements with profit-making hospitals and nursing homes, I think for the first time. I see arising from that that, if used by the National Health Service, it is going to be involved in exorbitant fees. We are concerned at the suggestion of using non-national health facilities as a proper way of providing services. As I understand the situation, it is suggested that where National Health Service patients are dealt with in the private sector—and I am quoting from a circular which I admit I have not seen—they could be charged for optional amenities which are not part of the hospital provision. Does this mean that national health patients could get certain private patient facilities over and above what they would have got under the National Health Service, provided they pay for it? My friends and I are concerned at the way the Government are, if my information is correct, proposing to let the private sector play such an important role in the provision of health facilities.
I think that all this amounts to an attack by the Government on public health. It is clear they are planning to
1230
make the private sector a much more important part of health care in this country. I do not have to tell the noble Baroness the Minister that private health in this country is a growing and expanding industry, and it can only grow, and it can only expand, at the expense of the National Health Service. I believe that the Government are already conducting a long-term survey of the possibility of extending private medicine by insurance schemes. This seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction, because it rather looks as though we are moving not towards a real National Health Service but towards a National Health Service where people will be expected to pay, where they will be encouraged to undertake private medicine by insurance schemes; and unless we are careful we shall return to the system of voluntary hospitals.
I became aware of this circular only yesterday, and it is one which gives rise to a great deal of concern. I would say to the noble Baroness the Minister that if any Government department—and particularly in this case the Department of Health and Social Security—is going to issue circulars of any kind during the passage of a Bill through this House and the circulars are going to be concerned with the content of the Bill, it would be a good thing if shadow Ministers were given an opportunity of seeing them so that they could comment on them before the Bill has been passed.
1.44 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I too should like to express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lords, Lord Cullen and Lord Sandys, for their courtesy and the fair manner in which our representations have been met. True, differences of opinion still exist, but that is expected in a true democracy such as ours. I would go further and, so far as Clause I is concerned, congratulate the Government on realising the major error in a previous Conservative Government's reorganisation, and acting so promptly to put matters right. I only wish that the Government had the same courage to put right many of the bureaucratic errors made in the local government reorganisation by the same previous Government headed by Mr. Heath.

1231
The reorganisation proposed in Clause 1 will involve great responsibility on those involved in the inevitable staff changes. Some promising officers will be lost to the service, and some careers blighted. This will no doubt be the most worrying and agonising situation created by the Bill. We shall watch the position closely. In the meantime, one can only hope that the maximum understanding and generosity will be shown in handling such a difficult and, to some, painful operation.
The Government's attitude and action on pay beds are regrettable. One can only hope that this will not create difficulties among staff. In the main, the only section that welcomes pay beds in the National Health Service is a majority of consultants, and it would appear to me that this is mainly for financial reasons. I am glad to be assured by the noble Baroness in a courteous letter that amenity beds will continue undisturbed in National Health Service hospitals, provided that there are National Health Service patients who require the privacy of a small room or a bed in a small ward, at a cost of £3 or £1·50 per day depending on the type of accommodation provided, as against pay beds for private treatment at about £57 to £113 a day. I fully accept that people have a right to choose private or public service. All I can say from personal experience is that my family have every reason to express very sincerely our gratitude for the skill and care given—and still being given—to us by the National Health Service medical staff, doctors and nurses, over a long period. To us the National Health Service has been the greatest social change in our lifetime.
At various stages of the Bill I have expressed doubts about the necessity of Clause 5 and the fund-raising efforts implied. However, the decision is taken. Those of us involved in voluntary effort will, I am certain, do our utmost to ensure that in any effort involving voluntary spheres of activity, co-operation will be fully given to ensure maximum success. A recent fine example has shown that anyone with large capital resources can give generously of personal finance to the National Health Service. Those of us not so generously endowed can continue to give voluntary effort and co-operation. There is plenty of scope and room for
1232
voluntary effort in the National Health Service.
Finally, my Lords, I would say this. Miracles cannot be achieved overnight. The new reorganisation will of necessity take time, and a great deal of patience will have to be exercised. On all sides of the House we must exercise all the influence and example we can to ensure the success of Clause 1. The principle of a National Health Service available to all irrespective of colour, class or creed, is a great ideal. It must be preserved at all cost, and protected from clashes of political ideologies.
1.49 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Wells-Pestell and Lord Wallace, for what they have said about the arrangements as this Bill has proceeded through the House. I would, as a new issue has been raised, like to reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on what he has said. To myself and my noble friends it is a matter of regret that he should continue to feel that anything that we may have said about private patients is in any way designed to take away our support for what is done in the National Health Service. This is clearly the most important part of the health services of our country and we stand by it; we support it, and we are great respecters and admirers of what it does.
That said, I think we would all recognise that it is helpful at a time of economic difficulties that we should make the best use of all the resources that the country has, and, above all, that in anything we do we would be putting patients first and not some kind of principles about private practice or National Health Service as a way of helping sick people. The letter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was sent to health authorities by the Department of Health and Social Security on 30th June. A similar letter was sent to professional and private sector bodies. The last part of the letter deals with contractual arrangements and other forms of co-operation between the National Health Service and the private medical sector. It covers a draft circular on the subject on which health authorities have been asked to comment.

1233
The circular sets out revised guidance on contractual arrangements—arrangements whereby the National Health Service uses private sector facilities as a way of providing services to the National Health Service patients. I should make it clear that there is nothing new about this sort of arrangement. As the circular points out, since its inception the National Health Service has entered into contractual arrangements, and this is a recognised way of providing services. About 3,000 private beds are used in this particular way.
The noble Lord asked about contracts with profit-making bodies. One of the things we have done is to lift the administrative bar on contracts with profit-making institutions. This seems to us to be an unnecessary restriction. There may be circumstances where buying a service on a contractual basis and including an element for this may still be the best option to a health authority. Our aim is to secure the best use of resources, and if such a contract is the best use then we see no reason why it should be prohibited. The noble Lord also asked about optional extras and payment. The sort of situation that we envisage is where a National Health Service patient is in an NHS-used bed in a private hospital and asks for an extra amenity such as a colour television. The patient pays for this in exactly the same way as he would pay for it if he were in an NHS hospital bed. The fact that this is a contractual NHS bed in a private hospital makes no difference at all to the arrangements.
The noble Lord also asked about assistance to private hospitals. The body of the circular deals with contractual arrangements between NHS and private hospitals. The NHS is able to help such private hospitals, but only to the extent that this is of benefit to the NHS patients using the private facility on a contractual basis. Finally, if I may just comment on this point, there is nothing in the draft circular that depends in any way on the content of the Bill before the House. The power to use non-NHS facilities for National Health Service patients is in Section 23 of the 1977 National Health Service Act, quite unaffected by this Bill.
I have covered very briefly a number of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, raised. At an earlier stage, when there were a number of issues
1234
like this, we did feel that if this was a matter which the House would like to discuss further a debate on these matters could always be arranged through the usual channels when we return, in another Session. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I am glad that we agree on both sides of the House about private fund-raising. The fact that all of us have taken part in this from time to time—I know the noble Lord does a great deal in this respect to raise money for hospitals—means that we are both agreed on the value that this can be, and I should like to give a last assurance that we are not by these means suggesting that the National Health Service should be financed in this way. At an earlier stage of the Bill we debated very fully the question of staff, and I hope I have been able to give the noble Lord the assurance that we are as concerned as he and his noble friends are that the interests of the staff will be safeguarded in any reorganisation.
On Question, Bill read 3ª, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

CRUISE MISSILES: CONTROL SYSTEM
1.56 p.m.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will arrange with the United States Government that the cruise missiles to be deployed in this country shall be under the double key system, as earlier generations of United States strategic missiles deployed here have been.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to its staff for keeping them, for even a few minutes, at the end of one of these exceptionally busy weeks. I do so for a particular reason. It is that the cruise missiles which are the subject of my Question were announced in December of last year—that is eight months ago—and during all that time the country has not yet received an absolutely clear picture of the command and control arrangements for those missiles. Meanwhile, American politics are going on. They are entering an election period, and a period during which it would be harder for Her Majesty's Government to hold

1235
meaningful conversations with the American Administration. Therefore, I thought it would be justifiable to detain the House for a few minutes before the Recess.
I speak as one who, over 15 years, in season and out of season, in this House and in print, has insisted upon the quite special danger of the build-up in Western Russia of intermediate-range nuclear missiles, first the SS 4s and 5s, and now, of course, the far more modern SS 20s. I therefore accept—this is all an introduction—that NATO had to do something. I do not wish to enter into the question whether the relative priorities as between the new weapons deployment, on the one hand, and the new arms control proposition with NATO, on the other hand, were correct. I do not wish to dwell on the question whether the choice of the cruise missile was correct. I accept that all this was reasonable and I do not oppose Government policy in any way in having come to the arrangements they have; I merely seek clarification.
Twenty years ago, the last time we had American strategic nuclear missiles on the soil of Britain—those were the Thor missiles—there was a dual key arrangement; that is to say, it was perfectly clear and fully understood by all that not one of those missiles could be launched in any circumstances whatever without the consent of the British Government—the specific and detailed consent to that launching at that moment. Then there came a long period when there were no American missiles on British soil, but only American bombers carrying American nuclear weapons on British soil. During that period the dual key system gave way to outright American control. We are now back, or we shall be back in two years' time, with the cruise missile, to the stationing on British soil of American nuclear missiles of strategic range. My Question, therefore, concerns whether it is right to continue with the arrangements found appropriate for bombers by Governments of both parties now that we are back in the age of American missiles on our soil.
The distinction is a real one. Any Government can ask—even order—their ally to remove aeroplanes from their airfields within a few minutes. They
1236
can simply fly to another country. Not so with missiles. Even the fairly small cruise missile will be mounted on a pretty hefty vehicle, and obviously one cannot fly a cruise missile off the soil of a country to another country with peaceful intent. This is an absurdity. So presumably the removal of cruise missiles would entail those enormous vehicles rumbling along our roads to a port, where there would have to he a ship ready to receive them to take them somewhere else. This is not a thing that could be required of an ally within a few minutes; it might take days. Perhaps the Minister will be able to comment on that aspect. Prima facie, therefore, it would he appropriate to go back to the dual key system with an undoubted British veto on each and every launch, whatever the circumstances.
The Government have returned slightly different answers when quizzed about this at different times and I wish briefly to review them. On 17th June in the House of Commons, Mr. Pym said:
"On the question of use, I confirm absolutely and have no hesitation in saying that the political decision requires a joint decision by the two Governments. —[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/80; col. 1345.)
Mark the phrase "political decision". On the same day, the noble Lord the Minister, who is to reply to this Unstarred Question, said in this House:
"… these missiles will be under single key, but the arrangements which have obtained for many years will continue and the matter will be subject to a joint decision between the United States and the United Kingdom.—(Official Report, 17/6/80; col. 992.)
Note the phrase "the matter". On. the same day, the same noble Lord also said:
"The actual firing of the missiles could not take place without the necessary political authority under the same arrangement as has obtained ever since 1952". —(Official Report, 17/6/80; col. 998.)
Note the words "political authority". On 20th June, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, again:
"The use by United States forces of bases in the United Kingdom in an emergency is a matter for joint decision …". —(Official Report, 20/6/80; col. 1314.)
Mark the use of the word "bases". On the same day Lord Strathcona again:
"My Lords, these are single key systems … The United States, like the United Kingdom, have committed themselves to consult with their allies, time and circumstances permitting, before releasing their weapons for use".—(Official Report, 20/6/80; col. 1316.)

1237
Mark the phrases "time and circumstances permitting" and "before releasing their weapons for use"; not "releasing their weapons" but "releasing their weapons for use".
On 13th June, Mr. Hayhoe in the House of Commons said:
"The United States …has committed itself to consult its allies, time and circumstances permitting …".—(Official Report, Commons, 13/6/80; col. 1095.)
The same reservation. And most recently, yesterday, in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, answering a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, used two key phrases:
"My Lords, it has been said many times that the matter of the control of these bases is a question of joint decision between the two Governments …The bases may not be used without such a joint decision".—(Official Report, 31/7/80; col. 1040.)
The question is, precisely what is the arrangement? Could the Government be rather more frank than they have yet been? We know that the use of the bases, in the sense of the stationing of the weapons on the bases, has been the subject of a joint decision. We also know that the cruise missiles will not be fired from those bases; they will be removed from them by road anywhere up to a distance of 50 miles—I quote the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona—and will be fired from elsewhere (from a roadside, a wood or a farm) and not fired from the base. What we are talking about, then, is not the arrangement for the control of the bases but the arrangement for the control of the firing of the missiles.
Since we are a sovereign and democratic state, and since the preservation of our sovereignty is infinitely important to us because of our democracy, I believe it is wrong to allow another sovereign state—even a democracy, even a friendly democracy and even our closest friend in the world—to have untrammelled decision over the launch of weapons, which would of course involve the total destruction of our society, from our territory without our having a veto. I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, can tell us we have that veto. My first question, therefore, is whether we have it, and I believe he will have to answer, "No, we do not".
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to repeat that specific question?
Lord KENNET: My specific question, my Lords, was: when the American cruise missiles are deployed in Britain, shall we have an undoubted veto in detail over each and every single launching of any such missile from any site whatever in Britain? I believe the noble Lord will not be answering "Yes" to that question.
My second question is based on the fact that it is not too late to seek such a veto. Answering the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, yesterday, the noble Lord gave a reason why we had not yet obtained such a veto. It was that it would cost us some money because we should have to staff, service and possibly even purchase the missiles themselves, as opposed to their warheads, whereas at present we have not purchased them and do not intend to purchase them or service them. This has been negotiated between the Government and the American Administration. Maybe such an arrangement is convenient to the German Government in their relations with the United States and in their perception of how the Soviet Union will react to their relations with the United States. I can therefore understand that it is a suitable arrangement for the Germans.
Is it suitable for us? Is it really the case that this Government have tried to obtain the veto, which I believe they should have, from the Americans and have been told point blank, "You cannot have it unless you buy the missiles outright"? If that has not happened, then I urge on the Government the desirability now—it is not too late by any means; we have two or three years to go—of putting this possibility, in friendly terms and in private, to the American Administration, and of our Government basing themselves in doing so on the arguments which apply in this country where, goodness knows!, it is hard enough to get public consent to defence expenditure without incurring almost wilful difficulties like this.
2.8 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am sorry that the debate is being held at this time,

1239
and I wish that we could have had a proper defence debate, though I am not blaming the Government about this. I have expressed my views to my noble friend. I understand his enthusiasm, and he is perfectly right in doing what he wishes—
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, will my noble friend give way for a moment? I have come into the Chamber specially. This is a vital debate. It is concerned with the whole issue of control. We are giving away some of our sovereignty. I am all for strength, but I am not for provocation of the Russians. I want to know the position. I hope that we shall be able to have a proper debate on this matter later. A Member has the right to call a debate at any moment he wishes, and I should not want in any way to interfere with that right, but I am sorry that the Chamber is almost empty this afternoon for this vital debate.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I hope that we can have a debate on this issue when the House is meeting under different circumstances. We arc near the end of a Session, and unfortunately very few of our colleagues are present. This is an important matter. I tried to use my influence on my noble friend in regard to the debate, but of course I recognise that he has a point. The Question is concerned with the double key system, and whether our sovereignty is affected, and so forth. I do not disagree with my noble friend on this, and I do not think that the Government will. On the other hand, I do not want to get involved in a major defence debate, because we shall come to this later when we come back after the recess, and I should prefer to see that we deploy arguments of another kind.
Apart from that, I consider that my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek is absolutely right, and I take the view that we should be thinking in terms of getting together. There is too much jingoism on each side. I say this because the Government's admirable defence paper contains an historical account of the signing of SALT II in Vienna by President Carter and President Brezhnev. As the paper says, it was
1240
"an important step in the long process of limiting strategic arms. Following the movement of Soviet into Afghanistan at the end of 1979, however. President Carter asked Senate leaders to delay the ratification debate on the Treaty".
I hope that today we can be told what progress has been made in this direction. SALT II was important. It is a complex agreement, as was said in the White Paper; but I believe that it is the only way. We must have détente in the best sense; otherwise both sides will build up arms, including nuclear weapons, when really the world cannot afford it. I am a multilateralist in defence; I believe in defence. I am certain that the main issue is not merely the double key system. Rather, the main issue is whether or not we can use our influence to get talks going on an international level, and I hope that the Government will be able to say something about that.
2.11 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, it is easy to understand the anxieties and the concerns that have been expressed here today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and like other noble Lords, in a sense I regret that this should be the occasion on which we are addressing such an important problem, but of course, we have addressed it before. As the noble Lord said, we addressed it yesterday to some extent in a Starred Question, and it has been referred to on a number of occasions in various debates.
It sounds trite to say this, but the question of the control over any nuclear weapons deployed in this country or in other parts of NATO clearly is a matter of literally the utmost importance. In addressing the question I shall be seeking to allay some of the fears expressed by the noble Lord with regard to the terms upon which United States ground-launched cruise missiles arc based in this country.
The noble Lord asked me certain very specific questions, and I should be in some difficulty if I attempt to examine those questions with a lawyer's microscope and go into some of the semantics involved in them. However, I shall do my best to make clear both the Government's commitment and position. I believe that at various times there have been some misunderstandings and a certain amount of

1241
muddle about this issue. I shall have to check the references that the noble Lord mentioned. The noble Lord quoted some references in which he tried to show that the position has changed, and in that regard it is possible that we are not totally comparing like with like, nor addressing the same problem. I hope that that will emerge from what I am going to say in the next few minutes.
I should like to try to put some of this in historical perspective first, because it is relevant and it is important. The deployment to which we are referring at the present time is part of NATO's long-range theatre—and note the word "theatre", my Lords—nuclear force modernisation programme, which was agreed by Alliance Ministers in Brussels last December. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that he did not invite me to rehearse all the arguments for that modernisation programme. That is not what we are discussing, and I am thankful to him for recognising that this afternoon. Nor, I think, do I need to emphasise the Government's wholehearted commitment to the execution of that programme—and this is important in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said in parallel with the arms control discussions with the Soviet Union. We believe that this combined approach is at last showing some signs of being taken serously by the Russians, but that is all I am going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, about the question of SALT discussions, which I think are not strictly speaking relevant to this fairly narrow point which the noble Lord is raising.
The deployment of the ground-launch cruise missile, or GLCM (sometimes called "Glickam", I am sorry to say, but as I might slip into calling it that later I had better admit to it now) will involve 160 missiles in the United Kingdom, and it is part of the alliance-wide defence arrangement. Here is a case of NATO acting in concert in the face of a common threat. The Government's position has been widely debated, both in Parliament and by the press, and by the public at large, most notably since the announcement of the location of the cruise missiles at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth, and I believe that the programme has widespread support. But any discussion of the question of control has to be placed in its wider
1242
context. The deployment to bases here of US forces, both nuclear and conventional, is not, of course, in any sense new. For some 30 years US aircraft and missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons have been based in the United Kingdom. These have included the B29, the B47 and the F111 bombers, and the Thor, Polaris and Poseidon missiles. Successive United States and United Kingdom Governments have made appropriate arrangements to cover the use by the United States of these bases.
Following discussions between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Truman in January 1952, the official communiqué stated—and I quote:
"… under arrangements made for the common defence, the United States has the use of certain bases in the United Kingdom. We reaffirm the understanding that the use of these bases in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government in the light of the circumstances at the time".
That understanding has comprehended subsequent US basing arrangements in the United Kingdom, including the cruise missiles, which will start to arrive at Greenham Common in 1983.
My Lords, the concept of dual key, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred, has sometimes been misinterpreted. However (and I think he said this), correctly understood the term applies to physical means of control over the weapon system; but sometimes commentators have loosely referred to dual-key when in fact they mean dual-control or joint-decision. Only one US nuclear missile system based in the United Kingdom has been governed by a true dual key, and that was the Thor intermediate-range ballistic missile, based here from 1958 to 1963.
A direct comparison between that intermediate-range ballistic missile system and the United States ground-launch cruise missile is misleading because of the important difference that the Thor missiles came into United Kingdom ownership while the ground-launched cruise missiles will remain US-owned and operated. In both cases, the warheads remained under ultimate US control. The Thor missiles were manned and operated by the RAF, although any decision to launch the missiles—and this

1243
was made clear in Command Paper 406 published on 22nd February 1958—would have been a matter for joint decisions by the two Governments. The other US nuclear missile systems which have been based in the United Kingdom—the US Polaris boats at Holy Loch—were not operated under the dual-key arrangement although the Truman-Churchill provisions for joint decision still apply. Therefore, I think that the noble Lord will see that he is incorrect in implying (in his original Question, anyway) that earlier US nuclear missiles deployed in this country were all under a dual key system.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, may I interpose at this point? I may have been correct since the Polaris and Poseidon missiles were not deployed in this country. The noble Lord said that the only US missile system to have been deployed in this country to have been under dual key was Thor. The point is that this is the only one that has ever been deployed on the soil of this country—and it was dual key.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I had better check exactly what the noble Lord is saying to me and what I have said to him. If I am wrong, I will write to him. I will grant him this. Clearly, the Polaris and Poseidon missiles are not deployed on the soil of this country, since they are submarine-launched systems, but they are deployed from bases in this country; and that is an important point.
There is another point. All the ground-launched cruise missiles that we arc now discussing are not strategic systems in character. They are intended as a modernisation of the ageing, land-based, long-range theatre nuclear forces which NATO at present deploys—that is, the UK Vulcans and the US F.111s. Their bases, like those for the US F.111s, are already sited in the United Kingdom, and they will be subject to the same arrangements for joint decision by the two Governments. The Government arc wholly satisfied with the arrangements that will govern the use of the ground-launched cruise missiles in an emergency. As the noble Lord rightly said, I sought to explain yesterday to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that a dual key system
1244
would entail the United Kingdom acquiring the cruise missile system—that is, without the warheads—and providing the manpower to operate and maintain them. Dual key procedures already apply to United States warheads intended for use by United Kingdom-owned aircraft and artillery systems based in this country and on the Continent.
The US Government has made it clear to us and to other European countries who are accepting basing of the Pershing II and cruise missiles that they would be willing to sell us missiles for operation on a dual key basis. However, as the Government are satisfied with the current arrangements for control over ground-launched cruise missiles to be based in this country, we do not believe that a dual key system would be a sensible use of our limited defence resources. Unlike our independent strategic and theatre nuclear forces, a United Kingdom dual key would add little to deterrence. The Russians would know that the weapons could not be used without a decision by the United States Government, and their perception of the likelihood of its use would he no different from that under the current arrangements for "joint decision".
I doubt whether I have satisfied the noble Lord. I have done my best. May I try to sum it up by the simple point that, on a dual key basis, we would have to find a lot of money to indulge in the luxury of the pride of ownership, without gaining any greater control over the use of the weapons. That is our position.

  LEAVE TO REMAIN IN UK
  LEAVE TO REMAIN IN UK
  REFUGEE STATUS: REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION
  REFUGEE STATUS: REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION
  APPLICANTS FOR POLITICAL ASYLUM: INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT CONTACT
  APPLICANTS FOR POLITICAL ASYLUM: INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT CONTACT
  VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY: POLICY
  VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY: POLICY
  "WILLIAMS AND GLYN'S BANK v BOLAND AND BROWN"
  "WILLIAMS AND GLYN'S BANK v BOLAND AND BROWN"
  MOTOR-CYCLE NOISE: LEGISLATION
  MOTOR-CYCLE NOISE: LEGISLATION
  TEACHERS' PAY: PUBLICATION OF REPORTS
  TEACHERS' PAY: PUBLICATION OF REPORTS