Sitting of 12 May 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o' clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    London Transport (Fares)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any representations from London Transport concerning the current legislation affecting London Transport fares.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): My right hon. Friend has discussed the whole position with both London Transport management and unions. It is now two months since he asked the GLC to prepare urgently a balanced plan for meeting London's transport needs more effectively and cheaply within the substantial resources available. When this has been done he will be able to consider whether the implementation of such a strategy requires any clarification in the law.
    Mr. Dubs: Is it not a fact, however, that London Transport has made the strongest possible representations to the Secretary of State because, as a result of the Law Lords' decision, it is unable to exercise its present management functions? In particular, London Transport does not know whether it would be legal to make capital investment at present. Therefore, is it not utterly frustrated and desperate for legislation?
    Mr. Eyre: There is a misunderstanding. As I made clear in the recent debate on London Transport, its position is secure. Considerable resources are available to the GLC, and it is up to the GLC to produce the balanced plan to which I have referred. Large fare increases or large service cuts are not necessary.
    Mr. Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members are becoming fed up and impatient with the GLC's failure to react to the Secretary of State's invitiation? Will my hon. Friend assure us that if action is not taken soon by the GLC, my right hon. Friend will step in and take action himself?
    Mr. Eyre: I fully understand my hon. Friend's comments. There is widespread support for removing responsibility for London Transport from the GLC.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Where?
    Mr. Eyre: We have been examining urgently a number of ideas. My hon. Friend will know that we are awaiting the report of the Select Committee on Transport, which is expected soon. My right hon. Friend is determined to have a better deal for London, and will act as necessary.
    Mr. Jay: May I remedy this misunderstanding? Is it not clear that by sitting around and doing nothing while London Transport sinks into chaos the Secretary of State for Transport is failing to carry out the job for which he is paid?
    Mr. Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate the responsibility that rests on the GLC. My right hon. Friend wrote again to the leader of the GLC on 10 May reminding him of the need to produce for London this realistic and balanced transport plan that takes account of the substantial resources that are likely to be available, and to provide better bus and tube services by targeting resources more effectively. My right hon. Friend said that he would be glad to hear from the leader of the GLC about how work on the plan was proceeding. Now it is up to the GLC to respond.
    Mr. Wheeler: When did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last meet the leader of the GL C to discuss London Transport, and when will something be done about the overmanning and inefficiency that lead to high fares which London people find quite unacceptable?
    Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I cannot reply exactly to the first part of his question, but thy, last meeting took place about six or seven weeks ago. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the importance of the correspondence that my right hon. Friend has had with the leader of the GLC. All the matters to which he has referred with regard to the conduct of transport in the city are matters for London Transport, on which we are urging it to discharge its responsibility fully.
    Mr. Booth: Will the Under-Secretary confirm that London Transport has estimated that the fare increases it has been forced to make will result in a 17 per cent. drop in bus passengers and a 12 per cent. drop in tube passengers, and that that points to London Transport being forced to operate only a skeleton transport service for a largely stay-at-home London population?
    Mr. Eyre: Fares are too high, but that is the fault of the GLC for the crazy circumstances that it has produced. The reports of loss of patronage and services from the GLC are exaggerated, because it is mainly bringing scheduled services into line with those needed.

    Petrol (Lead Content)
    Mr. Jim Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many recent representations have been made to him expressing concern over the use of lead in petrol.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The Department received 82 letters in the first four months of 1982.
    Mr. Marshall: The Minister will appreciate that I am somewhat surprised at the small number of letters received, but I am sure that she is aware that there is immense public concern over this issue. Is she able to give an assurance that her Department will support: the complete removal of lead from petrol if the three surveys commissioned by the Medical Research Council, at the Government's request, support the view that even low lead levels in petrol are dangerous to children?
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand and fully appreciate the concern about lead in petrol, but we must take account of

    733
    the fact that by 1985 we shall have reduced by two-thirds the current level of lead in petrol. That is the greatest reduction that there has ever been, and no other European country is going further than that.
    We shall look most carefully at the research being done by the Medical Research Council as well as at all the other research. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the cost of going below 0·15g per litre of lead in petrol is not only very high but will require a complete change—not just a change in the manner of refining—with which our motor car industry and many other aspects of industry will find it exceedingly difficult to cope. We must look into the whole position, not simply straight reports.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Is it not a fact that in the United States an option is available? Consumers there can use leaded or unleaded petrol, and the cost argument does not seem to carry the same weight with the American authorities as it does with this Government? Are not the Government held captive by the representations of the oil companies?
    Mrs. Chalker: No. The position is different in the United States, as I think the hon. Gentleman is aware. First, for many years the American Government have sought to deal with pollutants other than just lead in petrol. About half the petrol sold in the United States is lead free, and the average amount of lead in their petrol is 0·13g per litre. In dealing with other forms of pullutant, the United States car manufacturers have completely changed their exhaust systems in a different way from our manufacturers, and that is why this is much more complicated than hon. Members sometimes suggest.

    Heavy Lorries
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the Armitage committee report proposal on heavy lorries.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): I hope to do so shortly.
    Mr. Foulkes: An essential element of the Armitage report was the speeding up of bypass construction and the creation of new bypasses. In written replies to me the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that there will be no such speeding up in Scotland and no new bypasses in the Scottish programme. If the Secretary of State for Transport is foolish enough to allow these juggernauts on to the roads of England, will he ensure that they stop at the border?
    Mr. Howell: The overall commitment to more bypasses has substantially increased——
    Mr. Foulkes: Not in Scotland.
    Mr. Howell:—and during the next two years more than 220 new communities will be bypassed with projects now about to start. I believe that that is part of the Armitage approach, as are steps to ensure that vehicles are improved, and that there is improved control over where they go, to keep them away from villages and high streets, and improved enforcement. Those changes are widely needed and they will be welcomed by those who suffer from the effects of heavy goods vehicles.
    Mr. Adley: Does not my right hon. Friend sometimes feel that those who have studied Armitage least are most
    734
    vociferous in their objections to the overall proposals? Will he take every opportunity to stress that there is an overall package in Armitage that has substantial environmental advantages for our people as well as the oft-quoted disadvantage of heavier lorries?
    Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely correct. The Government and the Armitage report propose that a serious problem—that of the impact of heavy goods vehicles on the environment—which has got worse over the years, should now be gripped and tackled comprehensively by improving the vehicles, improving the control over where they go, improving enforcement and by other measures. I am sure that that is needed. It should have been done before, and I believe that it is overdue.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister satisfied that, along with the move towards heavy lorries, if that is inevitable, safety standards will be maintained? Has he concerned himself with braking standards for these larger vehicles; with under-run guards side and rear; and with the fact that it will be far more difficult for a young driver of 21 to move straight to 38-tonne and 40-tonne vehicles?
    Mr. Howell: I am concerned with all the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. As to the heavier payload on existing containers, I know the hon. Gentleman realises that we are not talking about, nor would we tolerate, larger trailer containers. We are talking about a larger payload on the existing trailers, but with improved braking and standards for side and under-run guards. I believe that that is very necessary.
    Mr. Moate: Why should it be necessary, in terms of competition, for the United Kingdom to have heavier lorries or heavier axle loadings than West Germany?
    Mr. Howell: In practice, axle loadings throughout Western Europe are similar. Indeed, in many countries they are higher than here. If there is to be a heavier payload on existing trailers—we certainly shall not tolerate larger ones—it is better spread over five axles than over four.
    Mr. Stott: Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) said about the important recommendations in the Armitage report, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in their written submissions to him the local government organisations have not changed their view despite the publication of his White Paper? Will he also confirm that their view is that the British road system is already pathetically inadequate to cope with the existing number of heavy lorries and that his proposals to increase lorry weights will seriously worsen an already bad situation?
    Mr. Howell: The local authorities have developed their views and recognise the urgent need to tackle the heavy lorry problem, not to duck it as the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting and which I believe would be wholly wrong. Heavy goods vehicles damage roads and bridges, but there will be no question of additional damage in any heavier payload or any heavier maximum weight. Nevertheless, the damage from heavy goods vehicles already exists, and that must be tackled vigorously.

    Passenger Transport Executives (Efficiency)
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he uses to assess the efficiency and

    735
    productivity of passenger transport executives in major conurbations; and how London Transport compares in these respects.
    Mr. David Howell: Detailed comparisons of relative LT performance would require large-scale analysis, but I understand that in 1980 LT bus costs, for example, were 40 per cent. higher than those of the passenger transport executives, and its vehicle miles per staff employed were far and away the lowest compared with PTEs, municipal operators and the National Bus Company.
    Mr. Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is all too easy to talk about cheaper fares and increased grants without too much thought about where the cash will come from? Will he ensure that in any conclusions he reaches on London Transport the highest priority is given to the control of costs and an improvement in efficiency, otherwise public subsidies will be no better than in a bottomless bucket?
    Mr. Howell: Fares in London are certainly too high, but my hon. Friend is correct. There is ample scope for the GLC to get fares down and to increase efficiency, given the very large subsidy that it already receives, and has received in the past, and given the enormous opportunities, one of which I have indicated in my answer, for cutting costs and increasing efficiency. Having recently visited various European cities to see their transport systems, I am absolutely convinced that the GLC has plenty of opportunity to cut costs, increase efficiency and reduce fares if only it takes that opportunity.
    Mr. Dobson: We understand from press statements that the Secretary of State is considering the possibility of, in effect, renationalising London Transport and taking it away from the GLC. In those circumstances, does he intend to fund and subsidise London Transport in the future entirely from the taxpayer so that, unique among all the conurbations, the ratepayers of London would no longer make a contribution to keeping fares down?
    Mr. Howell: A number of proposals have been made, including ones by the chairman of London Transport, for a reorganisation of the relationship between the GLC and LT and possibly a divorce between the two. I have indicated that the Government are also considering those proposals and the possibilities of a new transport structure. However, the first requirement is that, instead of merely asking for the law to be restored and rates again to go up, the GLC should get on with the opportunities available to it. If it does not, as was said earlier, more fundamental changes will have to be considered.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Do not these figures demonstrate that the GLC is incapable of running London Transport? Is it not essential not merely to take London Transport away from the GLC, but to abolish that ridiculous body?
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend tempts me on to wider questions. The issue of whether there should be a separate transport authority, possibly both rate and tax-funded, or whether it should continue to be part of the GLC, is now on the table. The Select Committee on Transport is looking at this, and I look forward with the greatest interest to its proposals.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Get rid of the GLC. That is the answer.
    Mr. Booth: If the Secretary of State feels strongly about the efficiency of the London Transport Executive, as compared with other transport authorities, will he fairly acknowledge that on the test of passenger journeys made per mile, operated, on the latest figures available. London Transport is more efficient than any metropolitan county? Is this not a much more appropriate way of examining the efficiency of authorities than the sort of yardstick quoted by his hon. Friends?
    Mr. Howell: One has to examine the passenger cost per mile, which is £1·97 in London compared with £1·42 in the other PTEs and £1·26 in the other municipal bus companies. One has to examine low bus miles per staff employed. A number of indicators need to be examined, but whichever way the right hon. Gentleman turns them—upside down or sideways—he will find that, basically, London Transport is relatively inefficient and that there is substantial room for improvement.

    Motorway Repairs
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will study the efficiency of motorway repair arrangements with the aim of reducing the length of motorway lane not in use and the associated accidents.
    Mrs. Chalker: We are constantly reviewing repair techniques and methods of traffic management during motorway maintenance work to minimise the risks and delays to road users and to obtain the best possible value for money.
    For example, we have recently changed the crossovers so as to improve safety and reduce delay at those points.
    Mr. Roberts: I welcome the steps that the Minister is taking, but does she realise that the road transport industry, while accepting the need for repairs and for the safety of those involved in the repair work, feels genuine concern about some of the costs and accidents that may arise from our complex repair system?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's facts, but it is important that we take those steps by lengthening the coning and the crossover—measures that bring safety. The hon. Gentleman is right, in that the cost of accidents is one of the heavy costs that would otherwise have to be borne.
    I am looking further at the speed limits that are deployed at the approach to coned-off areas during motorway maintenance work. I hope that we can reach a more appropriate solution than we have. We have always at the forefront of our minds the need to try to protect, and to have the greatest safety at these changing points.
    Mr. Higgins: Is my hon. Friend aware that problems arise not only on motorways? On Monday 2 May, al the junction of the A20 and the A222, hundreds of cars and thousands of people were held up by a dozen or so cones. They reduced the traffic from two lanes to one, although there was no need for them, and they could have been removed and replaced in a matter of two minutes. Will my hon. Friend hold a full investigation into the case, and in particular into why Sidcup police station did nothing? Will she treat this as a typical example of the unnecessary delays that occur?
    Mrs. Chalker: I shall look into the incident that my right hon. Friend has described, but of which I did not have

    737
    notice. There are obviously occasions when something stupid happens, as in the incident described by my right hon. Friend. I shall make sure that all steps are taken to reduce human error, whether it is the failure to indicate use of the hard shoulder, or something else.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that drivers between London and Leicestershire gloomily contemplate one long stretch of roadworks as they drive along the M1? Will my hon. Friend particularly consider the occasional occurrence when long stretches of road are coned off although no work is going on, no plant or materials are stored and there is no indication of any intended activity?
    Mrs. Chalker: There are probably two reasons for the frustration that every motorist feels, as I do, on driving up the M1. First, we are extending the two-lane section to three-lanes, and the work on that is proceeding on target. Secondly, lanes appear to be, but are not, coned off unnecessarily. Often when no work seems to be going on on the motorway the carriageway is drying out after repairs. It would be a waste of taxpayers' money if we were prematurely to allow traffic back on to it. It would simply mean further repairs to those sections well in advance of when they should be necessary.

    Road Construction
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new road construction in the past three years at constant prices.
    Mrs. Chalker: At average 1980–81 prices, motorway and trunk road capital expenditure in England was £440 million in 1979–80, £407 million in 1980–81 and £452 million in 1981–82. The corresponding figures for local roads are £414 million, £429 million and £343 million. In both cases the 1981–82 figures are estimates.
    Mr. Knox: As it is the Government's aim to improve the competitiveness of British industry, and as a better road system would contribute to that, does my hon. Friend not think that we should be spending far more on new road construction than we have in recent years?
    Mrs. Chalker: In 1981–82 we carried out far more work than was anticipated, because of the lower tendering prices, and in 1980–81 we opened 75 miles of motorway and 97 miles of new trunk roads. In the past two years we have started 62 miles of new motorway and 91 miles of new trunk roads. We shall do all that we can within our budget to make sure that motorway and trunk road building goes ahead as speedily as possible.
    Mr. Eastham: While the Minister is busy trying to pat herself on the back for the success of the road programme, is she aware that in my home city of Manchester road maintenance in 1981–82 was cut by 22·5 per cent. in real terms as against 1975, and that the roads are falling to pieces? When will the Government find some money for the roads in Manchester?
    Mrs. Chalker: Many local authorities last year underspent the money that was allocated to them for their road programmes. It is up to individual local authorities to decide their priorities. Overall, the transport supplementary grant was highly favourable to most local authorities, and some had a 100 per cent. grant.
    Mr. Dykes: What has happened to the idea of using private money for road construction?
    Mrs. Chalker: We are discussing that further, and there are excellent possibilities. We may be able before long to use private capital in road building.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is yet in a position to announce a decision on the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement on the Channel tunnel.
    Sir Albert Costainasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement about the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. David Howell: The joint Anglo-French report has been submitted to both sides. Discussions with the French Government are continuing.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call first the three hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is no near or projected need for a Channel tunnel and that none of the groups that have put forward schemes has done so without wanting some direct or indirect subsidy, guarantee, or indirect support from British Rail, the Common Market or the British Government? Will my right hon. Friend at least give an assurance that British taxpayers' money will not be used to support this white elephant, which seems to be supported only by contractors, consultants and fanatical supporters of the Common Market?
    Mr. Howell: I can give my hon. Friend the firm assurance that the Government are committed to private finance. The Government believe that if a decision is taken in principle to go ahead with a Channel fixed link, it should be done without recourse to public funds.
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that he gives due weight, and nothing more, to those who, for political or even commercial, reasons, are mounting campaigns against the Channel tunnel? In the light of his discussions with the French Government, does my right hon. Friend feel able to assure them that when and if Her Majesty's Government reach a decision to proceed, they will be able not only to carry the House with them but to sustain the project? To make this possible, and in order to avoid the problems that occurred on the last occasion, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it would be advantageous to have political support as broad as possible across the political divide when he makes his decision?
    Mr. Howell: Any giant project, particularly one based on agreement between two Governments, requires broad political support. I accept what my hon. Friend said. The first matter to be decided is whether there is to be a fixed link and, if so, which type.
    Sir Albert Costain: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that had the previous scheme not been cancelled by the then Labour Government, the tunnel would have been open next year at a cost much less than is estimated for a single-bore tunnel? Is he aware that Folkestone in my constituency has had to put up with indecision for 15 years? Has not the time arrived for some finality?
    Mr. Howell: I recognise the need not to repeat the long delays and uncertainties of past years when this issue was being discussed. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that uncertainty benefits no one. It leaves ferry operators or those who would invest in a fixed-link, if there was one, with doubts about the decisions that they should take. I recognise the need to reach a decision. I shall try to meet it.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Secretary of State aware that this would be another piece of grandiose lunacy like Concorde, which never produced anything? I put to the right hon. Gentleman the suggestion that I made to his predecessor: that the parts of the tunnel already dug should be blocked with a Concorde at each end and cemented over.
    Mr. Howell: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's broad approach to this project.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Irrespective of whether one is for or against the project, can the right hon. Gentleman supply me with information about the dangers should the tunnel be blown up by terrorists? I seem unable to obtain this information from his Department or any other Department. I am especially concerned about the possibility of the flooding of Dover and the surrounding area. No one seems able to say whether it would be easy to send a car loaded with petrol into the tunnel and blow it up or to estimate the damage that would be caused.
    Mr. Howell: Any final decision, if there were to be a project and construction of a tunnel, would have to take account of safety and defence considerations. The relevant Departments would be responsible for seeing that they were enforced.
    Mr. Moate: Is it not of immense significance that the Cairncross report, commissioned by the Government to advise them, concluded that there was no overwhelming case for a fixed link? Does my right hon. Friend not detect the distinct odour of a very dead duck? Would it not be better to forget the whole project before wasting more time or money upon it?
    Mr. Howell: All odours and sentiments and, of course, the economic analysis and report of Sir Alec Cairncross have to be taken into account by the two Governments and by those Governments individually in reaching a final decision in principle.
    Mr. Bagier: Without going into the merits or demerits of the argument, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain)? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman reached a decision? Does he agree that every conceivable argument has been put forward and that the prevarication that he seems to be practising is not fair to the House?
    Mr. Howell: I hope to reach a decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that uncertainty is causing great anxiety in the county of Kent, especially in respect of the completion of the M20 road link? People do not know whether they are coming or going. Does he agree that the delays and uncertainties of the preliminary work on the road link are most unsatisfactory? Will my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that the people of Kent are less worried about
    740
    the possibility of a Channel tunnel fixed link now than at the time of the previous proposals? Is he aware that British Rail and the other consortia have put forward their plans much more thoughtfully and tactfully?
    Mr. Howell: I note my hon. Friend's assurances. He is correct in saying that the uncertainty connected with a great project of this kind, when it is first brought forward, is debilitating. That is why I am anxious that we should reach a decision.

    British Rail (Subsidy)
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has recently discussed the amount of subsidy for British Railways in the current year with the chairman of the British Railways Board.
    Mr. David Howell: I meet regularly the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss this and other matters of mutual interest.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State realise that the complete inadequacy of investment in the railways by this Government is bound to run down the railways and that it seems to be deliberate policy by the Government to get rid of the railways? Does he think that we can stand idly by while this is happening? Many areas—it is certainly the case on the line between St. Pancras and Sheffield—suffer with old rolling stock, late trains and all the inadequacies that flow from low investment. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is bound to cause trouble among railway workers? All the excuses put forward about, flexible rostering and so on are completely inadequate when one considers the serious lack of investment.
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's remarks about Government policy towards the railways are without foundation. It is the board that decides on investment. The considerable resources made available to the board by the Government or the resources that it can generate internally provide the finance for investment. If the board can control its costs, get rid of restrictive work practices and make its inter-city business profitable, it will have the investment to proceed towards building the modern railway that we all want to see. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join everyone else in wishing to see that progress achieved. However, this depends a great deal on the railways and the unions.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the size of the PSO grant depends to a great extent on the size of the total network that the railways are asked to operate? Is the size of the network one of the matters under consideration in the current review of British Rail?
    Mr. Howell: The review that I have announced, which is being led by Sir David Serpell, will look at the options and finances of British Rail. It will also consider whether the very large grant, which is £100 million more in real terms than at the end of 1980 will buy a worthwhile return for the taxpayer in terms of the services that the taxpayer and the ratepayer want for this large sum of money.
    Mr. Cook: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that during the past couple of months he has announced two separate cuts in the PSO grant, one of £15 million in real terms and the other of £6 million in real terms? Does

    741
    he further recognise that there is no point in putting a passenger service obligation on British Rail to maintain the present size of the network if he then denies it the money to run trains on those lines?
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is wrong. The passenger service obligation grant for 1982–83 is £100 million more in real terms than the original application for grant for 1981. It is correct that during 1981 a unique record-high increase in the social grant was made to British Rail. The figures for 1982 maintain very nearly that unique high level. Any suggestion that there has been a massive cut in the grant is wholly wrong.
    Mr. McNally: Is the Minister aware that it is shabby of him to shuffle off responsibility on to the unions and the British Railways Board? Is he further aware that in my region the north-south bypass at Manchester, which would link Scotland and London via Manchester, and the link into Manchester international airport are imaginative projects that could go ahead with a fair wind from the Department?
    Mr. Howell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not condoning the continuation of restrictive practices that are damaging to British Rail and are widely recognised to be damaging by many of those working on the railway. If the hon. Gentleman has the interests of a modern and well-invested railway at heart, he should approach the matter in a slightly more even-handed way than he has with his supplementary question.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend give the taxpayer the comfort of an assurance that he will not consider giving any more grants to British Rail unless and until it accepts at all levels, both management and workers, that it must adopt modern working practices? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the taxpayer is heartily sick and tired of being told that the workers are prepared to work only on their terms?
    Mr. Howell: I believe that the British Railways Board, many responsible people working on the railways and the unions recognise that it is essential to achieve higher productivity and to adopt modern practices. The Government wholly back the board and all other interested parties in achieving those changes.
    Mr. Stott: Is the Secretary of State aware that 2,000 constituents of mine who work in the Horwich locomotive works have contributed to productivity agreements, the like of which the railway industry has not seen? Is he further aware that the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) and for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) have done exactly the same thing? The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that if he and the board close those railway workshops, with job losses of 5,000 and the deaths of three towns, the Opposition and the industry will not be prepared to put up with it. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and of British Rail to ensure that sufficient finance is forthcoming to keep those workshops open.
    Mr. Howell: The loss of jobs through closures is a serious matter for all the communities mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Everyone must recognise the social implications when these changes occur. The decision to close the workshops and to rationalise railway workshops generally is for British Rail. The board has reduced its orders for wagons—an example that will interest the hon.
    742
    Gentleman—not because it cannot afford them, which would be the implication of giving more money for investment, but because it does not need them. Modern wagons last longer, can be moved faster and can carry more freight than old wagons. The demand no longer exists for these workshops. It is with great regret, but nevertheless with realism, that British Rail has decided to take that course. I believe that it is right to do so, but I fully recognise the social and unemployment implications.

    Motorway Construction
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of dual three-lane motorway were in the course of construction at the latest available date.
    Mrs. Chalker: About 44 miles are at present under construction in England.
    Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Lady satisfied that we have sufficient road mileage to meet the country's needs? Is she aware that there are many unemployed road construction workers? Will she look into the quality of roads? Are we to have more roads, such as the M1, on which every day many miles are being repaired and motorists have to use the hard shoulder because there are only two lanes open, and sometimes only one?
    Mrs. Chalker: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but the House and the country must recognise that the M1 and other early motorways were built over 20 years ago with a life expectancy of 20 years. The greater volumes of traffic now mean that those motorways must be resurfaced in a structural way so that they will last longer. We are strengthening the motorways that are being repaired to give them another 20 years of life.
    Repairing motorways cannot be avoided. Every country has to face the problem. We must make sure that, as the hon. Gentleman said, we have good quality roads that will last longer and cause less disruption. I am devoted to doing that.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Is my hon. Friend aware of the need to connect the Midlands with the ports to give our industries a chance to compete? What is being done to bring forward the construction of new connecting motorways?
    Mrs. Chalker: I believe my hon. Friend knows that we had hoped to start work on the important M42 Bromsgrove section before the end of this year. This now depends on the successful outcome of a legal challenge on the side road orders. I assure my hon. Friend that, whether it is his section of the M42 or any of the other sections that connect Birmingham with the ports, we shall move as quickly as we can. However, the public consultation and inquiry system is a safeguard in road building that we should not lightly give up.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the Minister tell the House how many miles of cycleway are under construction? Does the fact that she recently gave me £1 to join the all-party friends of cycling demonstrate the importance of this subject? Will she transfer some of the considerable resources from three-lane motorways to cycleways in view of their great importance to cycling in this country?
    Mrs. Chalker: I fully accept the importance of cycleways. Some very imaginative new schemes have

    743
    come from the consultation paper issued by my predecessor some months ago. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact mileage, for which I apologise, but I can assure him that, where local authorities share my acceptance of the importance of cycleways and forward sensible recommendations in their transport policies and programmes, we shall do our best to assist them in the building of cycleways.

    Paddington-Reading Line (Electrification)
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet received proposals for the electrification of the Paddington-Reading railway line.
    Mr. Eyre: No, Sir, and I would not expect to receive any before the British Railways Board submits its 10-year programme of schemes for the electrification of potentially profitable main line routes.
    Mr. Durant: Bearing in mind the age of some of the diesel units on this line, will my hon. Friend do his best to speed up development, because it is important that such key lines have capital investment as soon as possible? At the same time, will my hon. Friend urge the train drivers to accept Lord McCarthy's proposal so that we can at least have more efficiency in the railway system?
    Mr. Eyre: I understand that there has recently been a major programme of refurbishment on the diesel units.
    The principle applying to this line and to other main line routes is that, if the main line from London through Reading is potentially profitable and the board can demonstrate a sound financial case for electrification, I should expect it to be included in the 10-year programme that I hope to receive in about two months.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a constituency question.

    M3 Motorway
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be in a position to make a decision on the route of the final section of the M3 motorway.
    Mrs. Chalker: Consultants are investigating the improvement of the trunk route south of Bar End, Winchester, and I expect their report by the end of this year. We must then allow time for the further statutory procedures that will be needed, but I hope that we can reach a decision in 1984.
    Mr. Mitchell: Does the Under-Secretary accept that her reply shows a sense of complacency and that we shall have a marvellous motorway that ends in the middle of nowhere? Is the hon. Lady aware that the Winchester bypass is completely blocked, that it has become a danger spot, that it cannot cope with the existing volume of traffic and that there are massive hold-ups? Will the hon. Lady speed things along as quickly as possible?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am anxious to speed this matter along. The hon. Gentleman knows that the M3 Popham to Bar End part of the work will proceed in the autumn of this year. But a problem exists in the section known as the Bar End to Compton section. This difficult route, which runs between meadows and a chalk hill, is now being investigated by independent consultants. We are
    744
    investigating all possible solutions, but the hon. Gentleman will know that this is the most difficult part of the whole route. There have been considerable protests at the public inquiry. We must get the right solution as soon as possible.
    Mr. Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the motorway box formed by the M3, the M27 and the A3(M) is vital to the planning of all road networks in Hampshire and crucial to all who travel in the county? As substantial progress has been made by the Government, will she continue to give the M3 top priority?
    Mrs. Chalker: After the M25, the M3 has one of the highest priorities. I fully accept the difficulties in completing those sections of motorways in the South. We shall take remedial steps in the meantime to improve the Hockley crossroads and so on, but we cannot proceed faster than we are permitted to do by the public inquiry and the difficulties ensuing from that final section of road that I mentioned to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell).

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Trade Union Discussions
    Mr. Canavanasked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects she expects to discuss at her next meeting with trade union representatives of the Civil Service.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Manpower reductions in the non-industrial Civil Service.
    Mr. Canavan: Has the Minister seen the report in The Guardian today of a leak from the Megaw committee of inquiry to the effect that the principle of pay comparability between civil servants and those doing similar jobs in the private sector should be eroded and the suggestion that the role of trade unions in pay negotiations should be reduced? If that report is true, will the Minister tell Megaw to ditch such provocative proposals now, otherwise we will be heading for a confrontation like last year's Civil Service strike?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I have seen those purely speculative reports, but I will certainly not intervene in any way on the basis of them.
    Mr. Eggar: Can my hon. Friend confirm that time off for trade union duties in the Civil Service is currently costing the country over £14 million a year? Has he noted the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service that more control should be exercised over how trade union officials carry out their duties in Government time? Has he any additional statement to make on that matter?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I have, of course, noted the Select Committee's recommendations, and I can confirm to the House that a new agreement has been made with the trade union side of the National 'Whitley Council which defines this whole area more precisely than did the previous agreement. It also provides for greater overall control and for the accountability of union representatives for their time spent on industrial relations and trade union duties and activities. Therefore, the agreement takes account of the Select Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Alan Williams: In view of the worrying points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), will the Minister tell us when he expects to receive the Megaw report? When the hon. Gentleman next meets the trade unions, will he explain to them why the Top Salaries Review Body report, which was received on 1 April, was not implemented at the same time as the recommendations on the pay of doctors, dentists and the Armed Forces? That seems to imply that the Government are considering a modification of the recommendations. If so, will the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that he and his fellow Ministers will discuss the situation with the unions before announcing any final decision?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on purely speculative reports about the work of the Megaw committee. As far as I am aware, the committee is on schedule to make its report by midsummer. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making an announcement on the TSRB report very soon.
    Mr. Marlow: While the majority of right hon. and hon. Members would be happy to accept a pay increase of only 4 per cent., they would be very reluctant to do so if senior civil servants, such as principals and assistant secretaries, were to receive an increase above that level. Can my hon. Friend assure the House that senior civil servants will not be offered a pay increase of more than 4 per cent., thereby increasing still further the differential between them and hon. Members?
    Mr. Hayhoe: It would be wise for my hon. Friend to await the report of the TSRB. However, in view of his comments, it is worth noting that the TSRB group is receiving about 5 per cent. in cash below the level of the 1980 award, whereas hon. Members are receiving the full value of that 1980 award.

    Redundancies
    Mr. Cryerasked the Minister for the Civil Service how many redundancies among staff for whom she is responsible have occurred in the past 12 months.
    Mr. Hayhoe: More than 3,000 industrial and non-industrial civil servants were made redundant in 1981.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it not disgraceful that the Minister has taken responsibility for putting 3,000 people in the ever-swelling dole queues created by his Government? Is not that attitude symbolised by the sacking of 26 prizewinning, film-making civil servants in the COI? Is not the Government's attitude to sack them, come what may? The Minister will have seen that the director of the COI film and television department, Mr. Arthur White, has said that the decision to sack those film makers would have been made whatever the position. Is that not a complete and utter disgrace?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I have frequently acknowledged the quality of the work done by the directors, production assistants and editors at the COI who have been made redundant, but the hon. Gentleman and the union concerned, the ACTT, have been involved in a campaign of deliberate deception and misrepresentation about this matter. Privatisation will save about £100,000 a year, and it makes good management sense. The hon. Gentleman knows the facts. I hope that he will abide by them and will cease misrepresenting the position.
    Mr. Chapman: As the Civil Service's annual percentage turnover, measured by those who leave the service on reaching retirement age or voluntarily transfer to non-Civil Service jobs, is in double figures, can my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the planned reduction in the number of civil servants by 100,000 over five years can be achieved with no, or at least very few, forced redundancies?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall be seeking to achieve our manpower targets with as little redundancy as is required. I can give him the news that the reduction in the size of the Civil Service now amounts to just under 66,000, which implies a full-year saving on the Civil Service pay bill of just under £½ billion. That is a very substantial achievement.
    Mr. Alan Williams: But is not the figure of redundancies given by the Minister a severe underestimate? Is not the real redundancy level being concealed by the enforced retirement at 60 of specialists and professionals who entered the Civil Service late in their careers on the tacit understanding that they would be able to stay until they were 65? Will not the Government's policy make it more difficult for us to have the exchange of experience between industry and the Civil Service that all previous Governments have declared is required?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I acknowledge that a number of people between 60 and 65 who wish to stay on in the Civil Service have been asked to retire. That is fully in accordance with the terms and conditions of their employment.

    Dispersal Policy
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Minister for the Civil Service what further proposals she is considering with regard to Civil Service dispersal from London.
    Mr. Hayhoe: None, Sir.
    Mr. Foulkes: In relation to the transfer of 1,400 jobs in the Ministry of Defence to the Anderston site in Glasgow, can the Minister confirm that the building will be ready by the end of 1985 and that by that time the Ministry will have identified the jobs that are to be transferred?
    Mr. Hayhoe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is primarily a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I assure him that, following the Select Committee's recommendations, when it became clear that the use of the Anderston site instead of the St. Enoch site would make the dispersal possible a year earlier, it was proceeded with. Although it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the posts are, as far as I am aware, being identified and that dispersal will go ahead as planned.
    Mr. Anderson: In view of the changed and much worse employment conditions, is it not time that the Government reconsidered their dispersal policy as part of the total regional policy? Areas that have come to expect a supply of Government jobs are not receiving them and there is no other source for meeting the major employment needs of those areas outside London.
    Mr. Hayhoe: A dispersal policy is expensive and the need to contain public expenditure prevents any further initiative in that direction. However, I assure the hon.

    747
    Gentleman that when it comes to the location of new Government work, or the relocation of work for operational reasons, the pressing needs of particular areas will be given full consideration.
    Mr. Dormand: In view of the disastrous unemployment situation in the Northern region, why does the Minister not transfer Civil Service jobs to the North? The Government frequently tell hon. Members who represent Northern region constituencies that they must wait until there is an upturn in the economy. Is not this one way in which the Government can act direct to provide jobs for the region?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The Government announced their dispersal plans and programme on 26 July 1979. We are sticking to those plans, and it is right that we should do so, despite considerable pressure from the Departments and individuals concerned.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after the statements.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business tomorrow will now be a debate on the Falkland Islands, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Following representations through the usual channels, the Chairman of Ways and Means has agreed that the opposed private business due to be taken at 7 o'clock tomorrow, that is, the Greater London Council (General Powers) (No. 2) Bill, may be taken at 10 o'clock.
Sir Hugh Fraser: It is a mistake to arrange a further debate on the Falkland Islands when the country and the Government are entering a period of extremely delicate negotiation and when there is clearly a movement of our troops and the task force. To indulge in a debate without a specific statement of policy being demanded of the Government must be a major mistake, and I hope that the Government will reconsider the question.
Mr. Biffen: I hear what my right hon. Friend says. The House might like to reflect upon the fact that it is almost two weeks since we last had a debate on the Falklands crisis. The constructive way in which the House has attended the subject in the four debates hitherto has been central to the national debate which must take place on this matter.
Mr. John Silkin: The Opposition are grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging the debate. It is right that the House should be able to express its opinion at reasonable intervals on what is after all a fast-moving picture.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will have an opportunity tomorrow to express their opinions on whether there should have been a debate. Therefore, I shall call one more hon. Member from either side and move on to the next statement.
Mr. John Stokes: I have frequently told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that constant statements and debates do not help our diplomatic efforts and are probably tiresome and offensive to those in the task force. Today I hear rumours that Downing Street is full of cameras and talk of a sell-out. If there is a sell-out, no debate will be necessary; something much graver will be required.
Mr. Biffen: I obviously cannot comment on my hon. Friend's latter remarks.
Once again, I should like to share with the House the observation that since the original debate on the Falklands
750
crisis we have had four debates and eight statements over five to six weeks. I think that we have struck a reasonable balance.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his intention to have the debate on the motion for the Adjournment? Will he give those hon. Members who have grave misgivings about the Government's policy an opportunity to express them on a substantive motion?
Mr. Biffen: There are situations in which words are as significant as votes.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: All these issues can be raised tomorrow.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer to an earlier remark that you made? As always, it was made with all sincerity and honesty. You said that hon. Members would have an opportunity to express their opinions tomorrow. With the greatest respect, I know that it is always a difficult task to select speakers. I have no interest to declare. I do not want to take part in the debate. I never have taken part in debates on the Falklands crisis. Such debates affect the constituents of all hon. Members and yet, because of custom, Privy Councillors are invariably called first. They make their speeches, walk out and do not return until the closing speeches. The same regulars take part.
May I ask the Chair to bear in mind that in such national debates Mr. Smith, Mr. Black and Mr. Brown are entitled to speak. [Interruption.] This is not a joking matter. I do not want to take part. Constituents ask why they always hear Mr. X or Mr. Y but not their own representatives.
Mr. Speaker: I am fully cognisant of the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises. I shall bear them in mind and do my best, as I always do. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will help me, because I want to move on to the next statement.
Mr. Lewis rose——
Mr. Speaker: I shall take this point of order because it arises out of the earlier statement.
Mr. Lewis: May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by asking you not to call those who have taken part in each of the previous debates? I emphasise that I do not want to take part, but I ask you to call those hon. Members who have tried to speak in the four previous debates.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can now do credit to ourselves as a House and move on. There will be a debate on the Falkland Islands tomorrow and I shall try to call those who have not spoken in previous debates. It is true that there are some who have spoken in every debate. That is because they are spokesmen for their respective parties. That applies not only to the major parties in the House but to the minority parties.

Council of Agriculture Ministers
3.38 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the House about the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting in Brussels on 10 to 11 May.
The Council continued its discussion of the Presidency proposals on a number of major elements in the 1982–83 price fixing. After further Commission proposals, all member States that had previously maintained reserves withdrew them, with the exception of the United Kingdom.
In the absence of further improvements, the United Kingdom maintained our specific reserves on parts of the package in addition to our overall reserve that the agricultural and budget elements of the mandate of 30 May must be agreed in parallel. I explained why important British interests were involved in this and that we could not agree to take decisions on this matter except by unanimity.
The next meeting has been provisionally arranged for 17 May.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I welcome the statement by the French Foreign Minister that the support for Britain over the Falkland Islands has no relation to our support or otherwise of the common agricultural policy's budgetary proposals. The Minister will be aware that we shall support him in resisting a further price increase. We opposed the 9 per cent. increase because it was too high. The figure now talked about is 10·5 or 10·7 per cent. We oppose that also.
Will the right hon. Gentleman deny the widespread belief that he would accept the price increases if a satisfactory solution were found to the total budgetary package? I hope that he will accept that we believe that agricultural problems—like the Falkland Islands—are a separate issue? Does he accept that? Finally, I assure the Minister that, like him, we would not accept a price policy imposed on Britain by a majority vote.
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He has welcomed the French Foreign Minister's statement that there is no link between the Community's attitude towards the Falkland Islands and the negotiations. My colleagues in other Councils of Ministers have not met any Minister from any Community country who has mentioned, inferred or implied that there should be such a link. It would be monstrous if the Community's foreign policy were to be affected by other negotiations. In probably the toughest and most detailed part of the negotiations, no Minister, of any description, has ever suggested that there is any such linkage.
As regards overall price fixing, we continue with a number of reserves. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 10·5 and 10·7 per cent. The current average is probably 10·6 per cent. The figure varies greatly from one commodity to another. Ultimately, the overall package will be decided by what we consider to be in the interests of the British consumer and the British farm industry. We shall have to decide the final form of the package on a combination of those two.
The hon. Gentleman pledged his party's support to the principle that it would be wrong to impose on Britain, or
752
any other member State, an agreement that was considered to be against its national interest. I welcome that support. The Community has operated on that basis since 1966 and it would be disastrous to depart from that practice now.
Mr. Buchan: I think that the Minister has omitted to deal with one point. Will he give an assurance that he will on no account accept the figure that he has now defined as 10·6 per cent. merely to gain agreement on the total budgetary package?
Mr. Walker: No, I shall not give that assurance, because it depends on the total balance of the package and on what we obtain, to the benefit of British consumers, on such matters as the butter subsidy and the beef and sheep premium schemes. Like my predecessors, I shall have to judge the total balance.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have indicated their wash to ask questions. We shall then move on.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Minister be extremely careful about the official Opposition's warm embrace for this tiny statement? Is he aware that there will be considerable dismay in the farming community over the fact that there is still no settlement: of agriculture prices? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that this Bench would not accept trying the wider budgetary problems to this settlement? Does he realise that there is a feeling among our European partners that, having renegotiated the terms of our membership once, we appear to be determined to do so annually?
Mr. Walker: I am shocked and surprised to hear that the Liberal Party should be happy to agree a price fixing—with all its costs—without any idea of Britain's contributions to those costs. That is an utterly irresponsible policy. In the 30 May mandate statement our Community partners agreed that the agriculture and budget policies should be agreed in parallel. Therefore, the United Kingdom is not demanding something to which all the other Community countries have objected. The United Kingdom is demanding that Community countries should keep to the agreement of 30 May. I was interested to hear that the Liberal Party would agree to a price fixing without any knowledge of Britain's costs.
Mr. John Spence: From what date will the new prices apply to British farming? Will they apply from the beginning of the financial year, or from the date of agreement?
Mr. Walker: All previous Presidents—and presumably the same will happen this year—have made the date of application the date of the agreement, and it is not backdated.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister confirm that the reserve procedure that he mentioned is not a Treaty provision but comes within the Luxembourg arrangement of yore? If so, does he agree that the recent proposals from various quarters that we should revert to pure Treaty majority voting should be resisted by the Government?
Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Treaty did not envisage that situation. It arose in 1966, when the Community came to a standstill.

753
Nothing happened for six months, until the agreement was thrashed out. Since 1966, and, therefore, prior to Britain's membership of the Community, that has been the basis of operation. Several other member countries strongly share my belief that it would be disastrous to move away from that situation.
Mr. Peter Mills: Given the Council's sometimes difficult stance on such matters, will my right hon. Friend make it clear in Brussels that he must be free to adjust, change or reserve his position?
Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Yesterday the Commission suggested that as nine countries had agreed that should be taken as what is described as an agreed point and that it should be approved or disapproved at a subsequent meeting. That would mean that one could either approve or disapprove of the package, but one could not open it to discuss the individual items. Naturally, the United Kingdom strongly resisted that. No such approach had previously been made in the history of the Community. However, I am glad to say that as a result of our resistance the Commission dropped that proposal.
Mr. Ron Leighton: This year, will the Minister adhere to the promises made in the Conservative Party's election manifesto by not agreeing to price increases for those goods in structural surplus?
Mr. Walker: I notice that the Labour Party's current position on the price fixing is that it desires a nil increase in all areas with a surplus—throughout the Community and not necessarily in the United Kingdom—and a 4 per cent. green pound revaluation. If the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) had been taken up, it would have meant a reduction in British farm incomes of one-third of last year's figures. That would have been disastrous for employment prospects in many of our industries.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As the House is full of admiration for my right hon. Friend's robust defence of British interests so far, and as it is also full of admiration for and awe at my right hon. Friend's clarity of expression, and as the Conservative Party and Government gave a commitment to the British people that they would not accept from Europe price increases for commodities in structural surplus, will my right hon. Friend explain—beyond doubt and peradventure—what that means? Does it mean no price increase, no price increase above the average European rate of inflation, or no price increase above the British rate of inflation? Over what month is that calculated?
Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend has taken an interest in these matters and will know that under this Government prices in Europe for items in surplus and not in surplus have not increased in real terms. Throughout Europe there have been substantial reductions in farm incomes because in the past four years—including the proposals for this year—the average increase has been 6·5 per cent. That is way below the inflation rate in Europe.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that Social Democrats share the concern expressed by the leader of the Liberal Party—[Interruption]—about the undeniably adverse effect on farm incomes of indefinite delay in reaching a price
754
settlement, particularly for commodities that began their marketing year on 1 April? As the farming community has suffered a massive loss of relative income under the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship and that of his predecessor, will he at least give that aspect of the matter some attention? Will he also tell us the position with regard to the clawback in the sheepmeat regime?
Mr. Walker: After last week's local government election results, I welcome the growing support of the Social Democrats for the Liberal Party. I am equally surprised that the Social Democrats join in alliance on the question of price fixing, saying that Britain should agree to price fixing without knowledge of the budgetary cost. I consider such a policy completely irresponsible. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that by mentioning the impatience of farmers to have price increases he gains some political advantage, I am glad to say that the leaders of the farmers unions show much more responsibility than he does.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My right hon. Friend will not want to reveal his bargaining hand, but will he tell the House, in this desperately important constitutional matter, what options are open to the Government? If Ministers ignore the Luxembourg compromise and go ahead with a farm price increase by a majority vote? What is the sense of having further substantial increases for some commodities, such as sugar, where there is wild over-production?
Mr. Walker: I remember the latter point being put to me the year before world sugar prices rose to levels way beyond Community prices. This is an area in which stability of supply is important, and the years show violent variations.
As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I believe that if that were to happen it would be very much against the interests of Europe and the Community. In my period as a Minister at the Council of Ministers I have seen France, Italy, Greece, Ireland and Denmark—almost every country in the Community—protected by the Luxembourg accord, whereby one cannot impose upon any member State something that is against its national interests. I believe that it would be dangerous for the Community to depart from that position.
I am not prepared to speculate on how the Government might react if it were to do so. I believe that after reflection and thought the Community should not and would not embark on that course.
Mr. David Myles: Following the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Think and Malton (Mr. Spence), does he realise that farmers both in this country and the Community find it intolerable that they, who have not held up negotiations in any way, should be denied retrospective payment, while trade unionists, possibly by obstructive attitudes, can obtain retrospective payments?
Mr. Walker: I believe that the difficulty both of administration and of backdating throughout the Community is understood. There have been many occasions when farm prices have been fixed after the end of the previous marketing year. It is possible for Ministers to consider the fact that prices will be available for only nine or 10 months as opposed to 12 months. Backdating of payments would be impracticable and I do not believe it could be done.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Is the Minister aware that it is monstrous that the Council should suggest that the agricultural price package should be carried by a majority vote? There are no circumstances in which the Government could accept that. Is he aware also that, even with a satisfactory budget statement, the proposed price increases are wholly unacceptable? For example, an increase of about 11 per cent., taking into account the reduction in the co-responsibility levy for milk, where there is a structural surplus which costs the Community over £2,000 million annually, is ridiculous. If the Minister accepts the price proposals, does that not mean that the Government have abandoned any hope of reforming the CAP during the lifetime of this Parliament?
Mr. Walker: The one person from whom I shall not accept that sort of statement is the hon. Gentleman. As a Minister in a Government who increased prices on average by far more than I have done, and who saw surpluses reach record levels and the cost of the agricultural budget soar to new heights, I will not take lectures from him on that topic. He knows that milk is one sector where the price mechanism tends to result in people trying to get higher yields and increasing their dairy herds and not reducing the surplus. As he knows, the price of liquid milk is not affected by the settlement.

"Treachery" (Parliamentary Use)
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the notice given to the Clerk Assistant and the Clerk of the House and the references given to you, Mr. Speaker, relating to November 1956 and the decision of Mr. Speaker Morrison in relation to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Brain), I wonder whether you have any observations on the parliamentary use of the word "treachery"? It seem, to some of us that the nearest we have come to meriting the tag of treachery is to ask questions about the advice given on the Falklands in relation to the chief of the air staff. Such questions do not constitute treachery even if they be generalised. As you realise, in the light of the present atmosphere and what was said generally, the tag of treachery has been attached to those of us who have asked questions about the air staff.
Mr. Speaker: I have had a very careful look at Hansard. It has completely confirmed my view that no personal charge of any kind was made against any hon. Member in the House yesterday. Although, of course, I agree with Mr. Speaker Morrison's ruling in 1956 which led to a great deal of argument, it has no relevance to what happened in the House yesterday. I invite hon. Members to read Hansard.

British Rail (McCarthy Report)
Mr. Leslie Spriggs: May I raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, with a view to obtaining your advice concerning the impossibility of BackBenchers raising matters relating to the recent McCarthy report on flexible rostering? You will appreciate that we did not reach question No. 12. May Back-Benchers expect to be able to deal with that report in relation to flexible rostering?
Mr. Speaker: With regard to questions today, Back-Benchers could have helped themselves. There were some very long questions and sometimes there were long answers. I allowed a good run of questions on financing for British Rail because there was considerable interest in the subject on both sides of the House. I can only advise the hon. Gentleman, who is well experienced and who has been here a long time, that there are various avenues open to him to raise the matter of the McCarthy report. I know that he will avail himself of one of them.
Mr. Spriggs: Had I raised the matter of the McCarthy report during Question Time I am afraid that you, Mr. Speaker, would have ruled me out of order.
Mr. Speaker: I was not suggesting that. I was suggesting the various means that are available to hon. Members without stating them—or the hon. Gentleman may think that I am making a promise to him. There are various ways in which he can raise the matter.

Questions to Ministers
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During transport questions you ruled that question No. 10, in the name of the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant), concerned a constituency matter. I do not put the question to you in any critical sense, but I wondered on what basis you so ruled, as the question related to the passage of a rail line through nine parliamentary constituencies. It also dealt with the question of electrification, which affects every constituency, because electrification has a specific effect upon the investment programme of British Rail.
Mr. Speaker: Not on that question, it did not. The question dealt with the electrification of the Paddington to Reading railway and I was dealing with the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). Obviously his constituents were the people mainly concerned. I do not often explain my reasons, but those were my reasons on this occasion.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal further with that point.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Stallard.

Fuel Standing Charges (Exemption for Pensioners)
4 pm
Mr. A. W. Stallard: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt pensioners from payment of standing or other fixed charges in connection with the provision of gas, electricity and water.
A number of attempts have been made to bring to the attention of the House the need for further assistance with fuel and water bills for elderly people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) tried to amend the water charges provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) tried earlier this year to inititiate a debate on these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) introduced an Opposition debate on fuel bills in January this year, and many other points were raised in a further Opposition debate on fuel charges and pensioners on 4 February last. In addition, on 25 January, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), promised to look again at standing charges. The House awaits with interest the outcome of the joint review by the DHSS and the Department of Energy.
This Bill is another attempt to deal with the problem, but for a clearly defined group of people who are suffering more hardship, particularly in winter, from the heavy burden of standing and other fixed charges. It is well known that many pensioners over-economise on fuel. A report by the Electricity Consumers Council about elderly consumers towards the end of last year found that
"it seems likely that they are not heating their homes to an adequate standard."
We know that more than 600 pensioners die annually from hypothermia-related complaints, but the number who die from other cold-induced illnesses may well run into thousands. The report also stated that pensioners often spend less on fuel in winter than other consumers spend on it in summer, although we know that pensioners need more fuel than most. They are less likely to have insulated homes or central heating. Lone pensioners have less money than couples, but their heating requirements may be just as great as they still need to heat one living room and one bedroom. Moreover, there are more lone pensioners who are very elderly, and they probably need even more heat than the others. They are also more vulnerable to the lack of liaison between the various fuel boards and the DHSS and the various other authorities involved in fuel schemes.
It may help if I mention a few examples. Citizens advice bureaux throughout the country and certainly in London monitor such cases very carefully. They cite the following instance:
"Client, aged 69, accrued large electricity bill which he could not pay. Supply disconnected. Board would accept nothing other than full payment."
There should have been liaison before disconnection took place. There should also have been information about alternative methods of payment, but there was none. Another case is described as follows:
"Client is 66 years old pensioner with an income of £40 a week, including Supplementary Benefit. Electricity bills normally paid by weekly voucher payments. Recent payments not sufficient to meet consumption and so left owing £16·25. At
760
the end of March she was issued with a threat of disconnection, but no attempt was made to inform her of alternative payment arrangements."
The London CAB mentioned a pensioner recently disconnected for arrears of £52, although she had successfully applied to the DHSS for fuel-direct assistance. The London Electricity board was unaware of that arrangement. Again, there was a lack of liaison. Although £5·20 per week was being paid from her pension, the supply was disconnected. As the House knows it takes a month to obtain reconnection, often resulting in the DHSS, the electricity board, the CAB and even the Member of Parliament becoming involved in the argument. Those instances show how vulnerable pensioners are. None of us has any doubt that the position will be worse next winter, in view of the price increases that we know are about to be imposed.
The position on water charges is even worse. It is not even understood in the House, let alone outside. because there is a confusing variety of systems of charging. Different rates are charged in different parts of the country and varying methods of payment are available in different areas. As yet, there- is no agreed code of practice for the water industry. There is also no rebate in the existing repayment scheme. Low-income consumers are particularly badly hit by the direct billing of water charges because of the lack of rebate under the scheme.
I am told that some water authorities offer the option of metered water, but the cost of installing the meter must be borne by the consumer and may be between £30 and £80. The consumer must also find the plumber, which may be an onerous task. Then there is still a standing charge—as yet unspecified—and the unit charge, which is also not clear. The National Consumer Council has said that pensioners and others in need may find their bills rising as a result of switching to meters, so there is not much joy to be had from pursuing that.
We know, too, of the many thousands of citizens who are in trouble with the water board and have been cut off due to misunderstandings" big bills or confusion about charges. One such example was reported in a Wessex newspaper when there was a furore about the issuing of 13,000 summonses at the end of one quarter for nonpayment of water rates. One in 23 of all ratepayers received a summons, after which they had to pay not only the water rates but £14 in costs due to the summons. This occurred because the water authority had changed the format of its final notice. Previously, the final notice had been printed in red, as elsewhere, but the authority had changed the notice so that there was no real intimation except in the small print that this was the last notice and thereafter the consumer would be liable to further action. When this was pointed out, after the hon. Member for Dorset, West (M. Spicer) had raised the matter, a spokesman for the water authority was quoted as saying:
"We do recognise that it might have been better if the notices had been printed in red. We now recognise that it was probably wrong to print them in blue, but we were trying to be as gentle as possible. Next year we will print them in red."
I imagine that it was examples of that kind that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) had in mind when at a recent Tory Party conference in Brighton he expressed his anger and concern, saying:
"One of my big conceals is that those entrusted with representing the interests of the community are faceless and anonymous".

761
The right hon. Gentleman went on to develop that there, and I hope that he will support this Bill and other attempts to do something about the problem.
The purpose of the Bill is therefore to amend the Gas Act 1972, the Electricity Act 1947 and the Water Act 1973, so as to exempt pensioners from paying standing charges and other fixed charges. It provides that boards and authorities should give special treatment to a particular section of society—elderly people, who really need it. I do not ask the boards and authorities to find the money, as clause 4 empowers the Secretary of State to refund to the gas corporation, the area electricity boards and the water authorities the cost of exempting pensioner households from standing charges out of moneys provided by Parliament.
There are those who say that we simply cannot afford this. I and many of my hon. Friends would dispute that. We believe that we must get our priorities right, and many other countries make themselves afford it. We need look no further that our near neighbour the Republic of Ireland which makes exemptions similar to those sought in the Bill.
The Irish Government provide a free electricity allowance of 300 units for every two weeks of the six winter months and 200 units for every two weeks of the six spring and summer months, as well as exemption from standing charges and free television licences. No one could say that that is a far richer economy than ours. Therefore, we should examine that scheme and perhaps copy it.
Mr. David Winnick: It is about time that we did.
Mr. Stallard: If time permitted, I could give scores of examples of hardship that have been brought to my notice over a long period. A consumer in Bolton had a bill of £1·76 and a standing charge of £6·40. Another consumer, in a case raised by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson), had a bill of £8·79 and a standing charge of £7. Every hon. Member could raise examples from his or her constituency.
I pay tribute to those voluntary organisations such as Age Concern, Help the Aged, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, Child Poverty Action Group and others who are pressing for a comprehensive fuel scheme. The purpose of my Bill is to bring action now before consumers have to climb the next rung in the ladder of fuel and water charges threatened for next winter. The Bill seeks to relieve pensioners of three great fears. They are the fear of the big bill, the fear of the summons and the fear of being cut off from a necessary and vital service. I hope that the Bill will receive the unanimous support of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. George Foulkes, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Frank R. White, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. David Winnick and Mr. Frank Dobson.

FUEL STANDING CHARGES (EXEMPTION FOR PENSIONERS)
Mr. Stallard accordingly presented a Bill to exempt pensioners from payment of standing or other fixed charges in connection with the provision of gas, electricity and water: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 May and to be printed. [Bill 127.]
Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice Bill
  As Amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Criminal Justice Bill
    New Clause 29

      REDUCTION OF SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT BY PERIODS SPENT IN CUSTODY
      'In section 67(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (computation of sentences of imprisonment passed in England and Wales) after the word "arose" there shall be inserted the words "or by reason of his having been so committed and having been concurrently detained otherwise than by order of a court".'—[Mr. Mayhew.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.12 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      This new clause gives effect to our undertaking to remove an anomaly in the counting of periods spent in custody on remand towards the length of prison sentences. We had this in mind before the introduction of this Bill and the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) prompted discussion of the point in Standing Committee.
      The anomaly arises in this way. Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides for periods spent on remand in custody by order of a court before trial or sentence to go towards reducing the length of any prison sentence imposed. However, the terms of section 67 mean that if the prisoner is subject at the same time to remand in custody and to detention under other powers, for example, those under the Immigration Act 1971, the period on remand covered by such detention does not automatically count towards a reduction of sentence. That anomaly, which arises simply from the restricted wording of section 67, has been dealt with up to now case by case by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy where appropriate. That is a cumbersome and unsatisfactory method of dealing with the problem and in accordance with the commitment that I gave in Committee, we now bring forward this clause by way of an amendment to section 67 to ensure that remand time, whatever other detention may be in force concurrently with it, always automatically reduces the sentence imposed. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I welcome this new clause, which provides that time spent in custody on remand by a defendant who has been recommended for deportation should count towards any later custodial sentence. It brings the law into line with what happens in all other cases of defendants remanded into custody.
      As the Minister has pointed out, the new clause has been brought forward today following the assurance that he gave me in Committee, in response to a similar clause that I had tabled. I recognise the anomaly and I am pleased to see that the Minister has also recognised and tried to eliminate it. I warmly welcome the fulfilment of the commitment that he gave in Committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the sill.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not raise this point at the beginning of the debate on the Bill because I realised that Mr. Speaker was leaving the Chair and that it might be confusing. I should be grateful if you would allow me to do so now. On the Order Paper you will find new clause 41, tabled by me yesterday, which relates to the appointment of special coroners. Since that clause was tabled only yesterday, it would, of course, be unheard of for it to have been selected for discussion today. However, may I draw to your attention that recent events in the past week make that subject matter especially important? If time permits, may I ask that consideration should be given to including that new clause in the list of those that might be discussed at a later stage?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for selecting the new clauses that are debated on Report. However, I should warn him that, after a quick consideration of his new clause, I believe that it is out of order. I shall examine the matter and speak to the hon. Gentleman about it later.

    New clause 30

      RESTRICTION ON IMPOSING CUSTODIAL SENTENCES ON PERSONS UNDER 21 NOT LEGALLY REPRESENTED
      `(1) A magistrates' court on summary conviction or the Crown Court on committal for sentence or on conviction on indictment shall not—

      (a) make a detention centre order under section 2 below;

      (b) pass a youth custody sentence under section 4 below;

      (c) pass a sentence of custody for life under section 6(2) below; or

      (d) make an order for detention under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, in respect of or on a person who is not legally represented in that court, unless either—

      (i) he applied for legal aid and the application was refused on the ground that it did not appear his means were such that he required assistance; or

      (ii) having been informed of his right to apply for legal aid and had the opportunity to do so, he refused or failed to apply.

      (2) For the purposes of this section a person is to be treated as legally represented in a court if, but only if, he has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor to represent him in the proceedings in that court at some time after he is found guilty and before he is sentenced, and in subsection (i) and (ii) above "legal aid for the purposes of proceedings in that court, whether the whole proceedings or the proceedings on or in relation to sentence; but in the case of a person committed to the Crown Court for sentence or trial, it is immaterial whether he applied for legal aid in the Crown Court to, or was informed of his right to apply by, that court or the court which committed him.—[Mr. Mayhew.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following:
      New clause 3—Legal representation of persons under 21 (custodial sentences)—
      'No court shall pass any custodial sentence on a person under 21 years of age who has not been legally represented unless it appears to the court that there are good reasons why legal representation is not necessary. In these circumstances the curt should state the reasons for its opinion.'.

      765
      New clause 4—Social inquiry reports on persons under 21 (custodial sentences)—
      'No court shall pass any custodial sentence on a person under 21 years of age unless the court has considered a social inquiry report, that is to say a report about him and his circumstances made by a probation officer or by a social worker of a local authority social services department, unless it appears to the court that there are good reasons why a social inquiry report should not be considered in a particular case. In these circumstances the court should state the reasons for its opinion.'.
      New clause 23—(Legal representation during consideration of sentence)—
      `No court shall pass a sentence on a person under 21 years of age who is not legally represented during consideration of sentence unless the court has first satisfied itself that such person has had the opportunity of being legally represented and has declined to accept such opportunity.'
      New clause 24—(Legal representation during consideration of custodial sentence)—
      'No court shall pass any custodial sentence on a person under 21 years of age who is not legally represented during consideration of sentence unless the court has first satisfied itself that such person has had the opportunity of being legally represented and has declined to accept such opportunity.'
      Government amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
      Mr. Mayhew: During the debate on this issue in Committee, I undertook to see what could be done to secure legal representation for all young offenders who receive custodial sentences. The new clause tabled in my name fulfils that undertaking.
      This provision should not be seen as the young offender's only hope of legal help. It is more in the nature of a legislative backstop for those few offenders who have not, in the ordinary course of events, had any legal representation before they come to be sentenced. A court may grant criminal legal aid where it is in the interests of justice to do so and the defendant's means are such that he requires assistance in meeting his legal costs. Therefore, in practice, the vast majority of offenders who are in danger of losing their liberty are granted legal aid.
      The Government were impressed with the arguments put forward in Committee and share the concern that lies behind the three new clauses tabled by Labour Members. We re-examined the existing provision in section 21 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. That provides that an offender must be legally represented on the first occasion on which he receives each sort of sentence. The Government's amendments remove from the section references to young offender sentences and make fresh provision for them in a new clause.
      Under that clause, a young offender is entitled to legal representation on each occasion on which he receives a custodial sentence, regardless of his previous custodial history. It also extends to juveniles sentenced under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, who have not hitherto been covered in the legislation. The Government are not persuaded that justice or principle demand any wider statutory right to legal representation than is provided for in this clause. Many less serious young offenders, who do not fall within the clause, will continue to be granted legal aid, but there should be some discretion for the courts to decide what is necessary in the circumstances of each case.
      I appreciate the way in which new clause 4 has been drafted, to make allowance for the difficulty that the Government find with amendments on the same subject
      766
      tabled in Committee. The Government are prepared to accept new clause 4 in principle. It is clear that Labour Members have given careful consideration to the need to allow the courts in some circumstances to dispense with a mandatory requirement to consider a social inquiry report. In broad terms, the difference between new clause 4 and the amendment then put forward in Committee is that new clause 4 recognises that there may be special circumstances where that will not be necessary and requires that there shall be a statement of those circumstances if that is the case.
      I made it clear at an earlier stage that the Secretary of State has power under section 45 of the 1973 Act to make rules requiring a court to consider a social inquiry report. I also said that the Government would be prepared to use that power, if necessary. However, it is clear that there is a strong body of feeling in favour of including this provision in the Bill. The terms upon which the new clause is now urged on the Government make it acceptable, and we undertake to give effect to it.
      I cannot advise the House to accept the new clause in its present form, although we have no objection to its substance. A provision requiring the consideration of social inquiry reports would need, somehow, to be reconciled with or incorporated in the provision that is now made in clause 1(6), and we shall seek the advice of counsel as to how that may appropriately be done. We thank the sponsors of the new clause for having taken careful account of what was said in debate at an earlier stage. I hope that in the light of my undertaking, we may proceed accordingly. I believe that that is the best way in which I can help the House.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling new clause 30, which meets most of the points that we raised in Committee about young offenders being sentenced to any period of custody without the benefit of legal representation. The need for legal representation is so obvious that, in view of the Minister's concessions, I need not burden the House with the reasons.
      I am also grateful to the Minister for agreeing to implement the spirit, if not the entire wording, of new clause 4. It is obvious that no young offender should be given a custodial sentence unless the court has had the benefit of the fullest and most comprehensive report available on his domestic and social circumstances. That is why we suggested in Committee that social inquiry reports should be mandatory in sentencing any young offender to a period of custody.
      In Committee the Minister said that there were circumstances when clearly it would be unnecessary and wasteful of resources for the court to contemplate a social inquiry report—for instance, in cases where the punishment is mandatory or where, no matter what the social inquiry report said, clearly on any rational assessment the young offender would have to undergo custodial treatment. That is why we sought in the new clause to enable the court to have some discretion and that, where it considers it appropriate to dispense with a social inquiry report, it should give the reasons.
      There is nothing more that I need say, other than that I am grateful to the Minister for acceding to the wishes of the Committee.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), I am

      767
      grateful to the Minister for going as far as he has gone. I hope that he will not think me churlish if I follow that remark by complaining that, in my view, he has not gone far enough.
      In Committee I said that, particularly when dealing with a young accused person under the age of 21, it is extremely important that, if that young person is likely to be convicted and given a custodial sentence, he should have the opportunity of legal representation, not simply after he has been convicted or pleaded guilty, but from the very beginning of the case. That would enable him to decide whether it was a proper charge to which he should plead guilty or one that he should contest. It would also enable him to prepare his defence.
      I understand that procedural difficulties would be involved in such a rule. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me about the desirability of a person who is at risk of receiving a custodial penalty having legal aid all the way through, if he wishes. I understand the procedural difficulties, in that it may be said "You may not know until all the facts have been brought to the attention of the court whether a custodial sentence is likely, yet you would have to make a decision about legal aid at a much earlier stage".
      I do not believe that would cause any procedural complication that would be impossible to overcome. At a certain stage of the case, when a defendant is not legally represented, the court may realise, having heard the outline of the facts or the evidence of a particular witness, that a custodial sentence may be imposed. At that stage it would be open to the court to say to the defendant "We think that you should have the opportunity of legal representation here and now." In a small number of cases it might be necessary to start again.
      However, that inconvenience is as nothing compared with the injustice that can be done. I am sure that the Minister knows of many cases, particularly in relation to pleas, when people are easily influenced to plead guilty when they might have a perfectly good defence in law. The Minister, like me, will have come across cases in which people, particularly young people, have been advised by well-meaning persons to plead guilty and get it over quickly, when they should not have done so. He will also know of many cases in which the proper preparation of a defendant's case from the beginning—the search for witnesses, and so on—will secure an acquittal, while an unrepresented defendant simply would not know how to get the necessary evidence.
      I take the Minister's point that a court can grant legal aid in such a case in any event. In my view, we should go further and make it equally mandatory to cover the whole proceedings before a custodial penalty can be imposed, just as the new clause provides in relation to a person who is convicted and in respect of whom the custodial penalty is at issue once that conviction has taken place. I hope that the Minister will think again about this issue before it goes to another place.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I welcome my hon. and learned Friend's acceptance of new clause 4 because it gives formality to what is good judicial practice. No judge will sentence a young offender without first seeking a social inquiry report. Obviously if the procedure is formalised the reports will be produced at the earliest possible moment instead of later when there are
      768
      adjournments. There is a great deal of good sense in that. It is no more than I would have expected of my hon. and learned Friend for him to have accepted that.
      I also welcome his approach in the form of new clause 30. I am not sure that I understand why there is the qualification that if somebody is considered able to pay for himself he should not get legal aid. That is unrealistic in this context and I do not think that the proposal could have come from my hon. and learned Friend.
      We are not talking about people who may be wealthy business men. It is highly unlikely that we are talking about people who have made a fortune out of crime and who can afford to pay for their defence. We are talking about young people. To say of young people that they have not satisfied the court that they are in need of legal aid is a little unrealistic; I put it no higher than that.
      Any risks of wasting public money are surely taken into account by the principle that a person who is granted criminal legal aid must make a contribution according to his means. I always say this sort of thing with a certain hesitancy, but if my hon. and learned Friend accepted the proposals in new clause 23 or new clause 3, that would be much simpler and more sensible because the practice of any court with any sense would be to say, "This is a young person. We are considering sending him into some form of custody and he must be properly represented. We will not quibble about whether he should be given legal aid because, if he has the resources, we will be able to claim a substantial part of it back."
      Why should we clutter the legislation with qualifications that clearly do not apply to persons under 21'? My hon. and learned Friend should reconsider that first qualification which does not seem to make a lot of practical common sense. Then perhaps we can move on more quickly to some of the more substantial matters that have to be discussed under the Bill.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) and—if I read him correctly—the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I welcome the Government's new clause 30. Like them, I would also have preferred the Government to go further, at least, for example, to the extent of accepting new clause 3, tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      When we were debating the issue on another occasion the Minister accepted that a custodial sentence is extremely important in the life of a young person It disrupts whatever employment, training opportunities or educational courses young people may be involved in. It can also have a profound impact upon family relationships and their whole social context. In those circumstances any additional safeguards that we can bring in to ensure that a custodial sentence is imposed only as a last resort are to be welcomed.
      Young people who are legally represented are less likely to be given a custodial sentence, or, if given a custodial sentence, are likely to have a shorter one than those who are not represented. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich pointed out, we are talking about the young person being represented throughout the proceedings and, most importantly, in the preparation of the case.
      As the hon. and learned Member for Burton implied, many of the young people we are talking about in this context are not particularly articulate. The Government's

      769
      figures show that about 30 per cent. of those committed to borstal training have a reading age of 10 years or less. Even if they are articulate, they are not skilled or adept at presenting their case in the difficult circumstances of a court hearing.
      In those circumstances legal representation is important for ensuring that proper inquiries have been made about the facts of the case, that there is a clear presentation of the defendant's case, that he has considered the kind of judgment plea that he should make, that his view—if he has one—should be heard, that mitigating circumstances should be brought to the attention of the court, and, in many ways more important, that reports, if they exist, of probation officers or social workers are properly scrutinised and, if appropriate, challenged for accuracy. Of course, if he is convicted, he needs proper advice on applying for bail.
      It is mandatory already under section 21 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 for an offender of any age to be offered legal representation when a first custodial sentence is involved. That recognises that a first custodial sentence is a landmark for any individual. The same considerations apply equally to a further custodial sentence, particularly for a young person. The Government should recognise this and should feel able, particularly in the light of the cross-party support, to accept the new clause tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      I should also like briefly to welcome the Government's acceptance, at least in principle, of the sentiments expressed in new clause 4. Again the point was made forcefully in Committee. The Minister did not accept it then, but he has accepted since that social inquiry reports are important in giving the court a full account of the background, family, employment, education, home and housing circumstances of an offender. Indeed, the Home Office in "Research Study Number 48 Social Inquiry Reports: A Survey", published in 1979, described the benefit that the courts derive in passing sentences from having a full knowledge of the background circumstances of an offender. I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged this and will in another place ensure that it is properly put back into the Bill.
      Mr. Alfred Dubs: I too welcome the new clause which the Minister has tabled. He will not be surprised if I join the other right hon. and hon. Members who feel that it is too narrow and that it does not give the necessary safeguards to the broad numbers of young people who are liable to come before the courts with the likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence.
      In introducing the new clause the Minister referred to the few offenders who do not have legal representation. I wonder what the source of his information is. The various bits of information about legal representation provide few statistics about exactly how many people have legal representation. We have information about those who are granted legal aid, but, except in the case of the juvenile courts, that cannot be related to young people. There is a paucity of information, but one can draw some conclusions from the figures available.
      I doubt whether any hon. Member would advise any young person who is before the courts on an offence, other than possibly a minor motoring offence, that he should not
      770
      have legal representation. What we are saying is that because legal aid is difficult to come by, large numbers of young people without resources come before the courts without legal representation. I am bound to say that there is one law for the rich and one law for the poor. The vast majority of the poor are much more vulnerable in these circumstances.
      Young people do not always come before the courts because their offence is liable to lead to a custodial sentence, but the very fact that they may not have legal representation and are found guilty makes it that much more likely that they will subsequently, when coming before the courts, be given a custodial sentence. So it is the start of a path for young people. Without the safeguards that we would advise them to have if they can afford them, they are much more likely to end up in custody eventually even if the first time they come before the courts they are unlikely on the balance of probability to receive a custodial sentence.
      We all know that when the police pick up young people they use methods of coercion—I do not hesitate to use that word—to get them to plead guilty. If the young people agree to plead guilty there is less need to provide the sort of evidence that would result in acquittal if the young people themselves had the benefit of legal advice.
      In this area of law justice is not always seen to be done. We must bear in mind the fact that for young people this is often their first serious confrontation with the forces of law and order. They may become cynical and believe that the court's decisions are stacked against them and that they are not being given real justice in the sense that we would like it to be given to all people.
      A few figures are available. Statistics have been published on legal aid refusal rates. Some figures produced not long ago in the LAG Bulletin suggest that there are large discrepancies between the refusal rates given by one magistrates' court and another in the London area. In inner London in 1980 the rates varied from 4 per cent. at Hampstead to 26 per cent. at Highbury Corner. For outer London magistrates' courts there was a variation from 6 per cent. at Watford to 36 per cent. at Uxbridge.
      Those wide variations cannot reflect an objective assessment of the entitlement to legal aid for the people who are applying. There must be an element of lottery or gamble over the court in which the person appears. In one court he may have a better chance of getting legal aid than in another. One cannot relate the refusal rates to the age of the offender. We must speculate about that.
      Other figures in the criminal statistics suggest that whereas in Crown court proceedings the majority of people applying for legal aid receive it, that is not so for magistrates' courts proceedings. On the 1980 figures, 62 per cent. of all defendants received legal aid; 70 per cent. of those who applied for legal aid received it. We do not know much about those who did not bother to apply for legal aid. Those figures are for indictable offences in the magistrates' courts. For non-indictable or summary offences we find that of all the people who appeared in 1980, only 2 per cent. were granted legal aid, 3 per cent. having applied for it.
      Entitlement to legal representation does not carry through for the majority of people who appear before magistrates' courts. I fear that we are not doing justice to many of the young offenders who are a subject of the Bill.

      771
      I urge the Minister to think again about some of the other amendments, which would provide further safeguards for the many young people who come before our courts.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful for the words of appreciation that have been expressed, from whatever quarter. We are familiar with the adage:
      "Unto every one that hath shall be given".
      When it comes to Governments at Report stage, there is a variant which says "From those who give ever more shall be demanded". I would not have thought that the speeches that have been made came from those who supported the Government in the past and who did none of the things that are now being demanded, let alone what the clause does.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) said that there should be legal aid for every case that carries a possible sentence of imprisonment or custody in some other form. That was repeated in other speeches, including the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). A small proportion of young offenders face custodial sentence without legal representation. The expense would be prohibitive to make legal aid available throughout. The resources are not there.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk rose——
      Mr. Mayhew: I shall not give way at the moment.
      The resources are not available to meet an open-ended requirement. I agree that the smaller the proportion, the less the expense. The House will recall that the responsibility for funding legal aid lies with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. I cannot enter into an obligation for the use of resources in that way.
      The question is not academic, but is whether the public purse ought to pay highly qualified lawyers to carry out functions for which their qualifications would not be needed. Every court has legal advice available to it from its clerk and power to grant legal aid where it is in the interests of justice to do so.
      The court has a duty to see that the interests of justice are served. If it is dealing with a juvenile, it has a statutory duty to have regard to his welfare under section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. The court should also ensure that the juvenile's parents are in the court. If one looks at the matter realistically, one sees that all those factors direct the court to consider whether the defendant's interests are properly represented. If not, the court should make sure that the defendant has legal representation.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: Everything that the Minister has just said tends to reduce the expenditure of resources that would be required if legal aid were to be made mandatory. He is saying that in many cases the court is likely to ensure that the defendant has legal representation now; certainly in any case where it feels that there is a possibility of a custodial sentence being imposed eventually, assuming that the young person is convicted.
      But the Minister will be as familiar as I am with the sort of case in which legal representation is granted after either a plea of guilty or conviction. When it comes to that point the legal representative says: "This is the sort of case in which the defendant should never have pleaded guilty or in which, on what he or she tells me by way of mitigation, had the case been properly proposed and presented, he would probably never have been convicted." It is no consolation to be told when the damage has been done that
      772
      one can have legal representation. Surely the Minister will agree that the additional cost would be confined to a few cases during which it has become apparent that the case was graver than was thought in the first instance. The court should then decide that because of the possibility or even likelihood of a custodial sentence, it is right to grant legal aid.
      Mr. Mayhew: I regret that I cannot go further thin I have in the new clause. It is a substantial concession, as has been acknowledged.
      I had acknowledged the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Ormskirk before the right hon. and learned Gentleman intervened. The sum that we are talking about may not be large. We do not know. However, I cannot commit resources in an open-ended way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must accept that. He knows that he and his colleagues were not able to do so when they were in Government.
      On the example that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave, if someone has pleaded guilty, representation is granted, and it becomes clear that there is an equivocal plea or that instructions to his representative by way of mitigation are inconsistent with a plea of guilty, it is the duty of the court to direct that the plea of not guilty is entered. Therefore, nothing is lost there. Usually, when the court finds that a case in the course of a hearing or a contested case seems to be acquiring greater gravity, under the ordinary legal aid procedures it is open to it to grant legal aid.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) asked why we had to clutter up legislation with the question of means. The legal aid formula in the new clause is the same as that used in the existing provision, section 21 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, which relates to legal aid before custodial sentence.
      Virtually all young people will qualify for legal aid on means grounds, but these days there is no reason why the age of 21 should be regarded as the threshold in life at which one should have enough money to finance one's own representation. There is no reason why those few who can afford to pay for their representation should not do so. The general test in the Legal Aid Act is that the court should grant legal aid only when the defendant's means are such that he requires assistance. We would not want to depart in this instance from that general principle.
      The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) was asking for legal aid right across the board, whether for imprisonable offences or not, on the grounds that in some cases failure to provide it can be the first step on a path that leads to more serious criminal convictions. The Government accept that some non-custodial sentences can be serious. That is why clause 21 provides for a juvenile to be legally represented before a residential care order is made. But we cannot accept that legal representation should always be guaranteed before a young offender is given a non-custodial sentence. I think that one or two illustrations will explain the force of that. There is no reason why a court should not, for example, give an absolute discharge to a 15-year-old who does not have a lawyer standing by him or impose a fine on a 20-year-old motoring offender. We would also probably have to put an end to the convenient arrangement which allows young adults such as those over 21 to plead guilty by post in some

      773
      circumstances. We hold to the view that it is much better in some cases to leave the question of legal representation to the discretion of the court.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: As I was so generous in my appreciation of the Minister of State's concessions, will the Minister at least come to the House at some stage with an assessment provided by the Lord Chancellor of what the cost would be if legal aid were granted to all young people whether they had pleaded guilty or not, in accordance with the wishes of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin)?
      Mr. Mayhew: I cannot do that because too many uncertain factors go into that calculation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 31

      VAGRANCY OFFENCES
      '(1) Where a person is convicted—

      (a) under section 3 or 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, of wandering abroad, or placing himself in any public place, street, highway, court, or passage, to beg or gather alms; or

      (b) under section 4 of that Act,—

      (i) of wandering abroad and lodging in any barn or outhouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or waggon, and not giving a good account of himself; or

      (ii) of wandering abroad, and endeavouring by the exposure of wounds and deformities to obtain or gather alms, the court shall not have power to sentence him to imprisonment but shall have the same power to fine him as if this section had not been enacted.

      (2) If a person deemed a rogue and vagabond by virtue of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 is thereafter guilty of an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above, he shall be convicted of that offence under section 4 of that Act and accordingly—

      (a) shall not be deemed an incorrigible rogue: and

      (b) shall not be committed to the Crown Court, by reason only of that conviction.

      (3) This section applies to offences committed before as well as after it comes into effect.'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 39.
      Mr. Mayhew: The tabling of new clause 31 fulfils an undertaking which I gave in Committee in response to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). It was the general view on both sides of the Committee that, with one minor exception, the principle of the hon. Gentleman's amendment should be accepted. Accordingly, I undertook to bring forward a suitably drafted new clause on Report.
      The effect of the new clause is to make nonimprisonable—a word for which I apologise—the offence in section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 of wandering abroad to beg and the offences in section 4 of that Act of sleeping rough and beging by exposing wounds. I should perhaps add that if the drafting of the new clause appears somewhat tortuous, as it must, it is because of the peculiar structure
      774
      of the 1824 Act, under which persons may be convicted of the same offence, but under different sections, according to whether it is a first or subsequent offence.
      The only point at which the new clause differs in substance from the amendment discussed in Committee is that it does not apply to a separate offence in section 4 of the 1824 Act of fraudulently collecting alms. I think that the Committee was disposed to accept that this offence, involving as it does fraudulent pretence, is not on a par with the other offences.
      Amendment No. 39 is simply a technical provision to ensure that the 1824 Act will be read in conjuction with the new clause, assuming that the latter is enacted.
      I now turn to the policy considerations underlying the new clause. It is clearly right that Parliament should weigh very carefully, especially in the light of the overcrowding in our prisons, the need to retain a power to imprison in respect of minor offences of this kind. This is particularly appropriate where, as in this instance, the offences were enacted in very different times to deal with problems of a wholly different order.
      Although relatively few persons are sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment for these offences—in 1980 a total of 119 for the main begging and sleeping rough offences—any reduction in the prison population which can be effected without any appreciable risks to the public would be very welcome. Some right hon. and hon. Members—perhaps a good many—will take the view that it is wrong in principle that persons should continue to be liable to imprisonment for minor offences which are rooted in wider social problems. Others may place greater emphasis on the fact that there is little reason to think that a power to imprison serves as a deterrent in the case of persons liable to commit these offences or that prison is likely to help them to mend their ways.
      The Select Committee on Home Affairs, in its third report last Session, recommended that these offences should cease to be imprisonable. Paragraph 26 of the report reads:
      "While we have concluded that these provisions should, at least for the time being, remain on the statute book, we are convinced that imprisonment is neither a necessary nor an appropriate penalty for minor offences of this type. Though we accept that the criminal law must continue to play a limited role in controlling the activities of beggars and vagrants, we consider that it is quite wrong that they should be faced even with the theoretical possibility of imprisonment on these grounds alone, and we therefore recommend that both sleeping rough and begging should cease to be imprisonable offences."
      The Government considered this recommendation very carefully. We did not consider that the case for removing the power to imprison was quite as decisive as the Select Committee had suggested. In particular, we were conscious that the practical effect of such a change would be limited since a good proportion of those currently sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment would end up in prison as fine defaulters instead. We also took into account the views expressed to us by the Magistrates Association and the chief metropolitan magistrate about the need for an effective sanction. The conclusion which we reached—it was fairly finely balanced—was that we did not feel justified at that time in bringing forward legislation to give effect to the Select Committee's recommendation.
      I should be misleading the House if I were to say that these reservations have all been dispelled. It remains the case that the removal of a power to imprison will be of very

      775
      limited effect. I am sure, too, that the reservations about the need for an effective, "last resort" sanction are still felt in some quarters.
      We must also pay attention to a manifestation which has been noted in some reports of an increase in what may be described as aggressive begging. That is an important matter but it must be borne in mind that it would be open to the police, in the light of the circumstances of the case, to consider preferring a more grave charge than mere begging. It may be appropriate in a serious case where threats are made to prefer a charge under section 21 of the Theft Act 1968 for blackmail which consists in the making of an "unwarranted demand with menaces." In a less serious case it may be appropriate to prefer a charge under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1936 which provides for penalising any person using
      "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour"
      in any public place
      "with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned."
      Both those offences carry a sentence of imprisonment which would make it possible for the court to consider a community service order or a detention order in an appropriate case.
      It is a question of weighing in the balance the reservations about the practical difficulties which the removal of a power to imprison might cause in a small number of cases against the general argument, to which I referred earlier, in support of the change. Those are powerful arguments. No one in the Standing Committee said that this change should not be made. In the light of that, the Government see no decisive case for pressing a different view.
      I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As the Minister said, the new clause makes non-imprisonable the offences of begging and sleeping rough. It has been tabled in response to the assurances that he gave to me in Committee on amendments tabled by the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group. Therefore, I welcome the Minister's fulfilment of his commitment. I am glad that he has at last recognised that these offences, these minor nuisances, are not serious enough to warrant the severe, indeed draconian, penalty of imprisonment.
      The change will affect a relatively small number of people and will not significantly reduce the prison population. Only about 100 vagrants a year are subject to a sentence of immediate imprisonment. But, given that the prison population last Friday was 44,169—almost a record figure—any reduction in the prison population is to be welcomed and should be particularly welcomed when the individuals we are discussing should never have been punished for what is largely their social inadequacy and homelessness. They certainly should not have been punished with the severity of a prison sentence.
      It was made clear in Committee, as the Minister has pointed out, that there was considerable support on both sides for these proposals. There was also considerable support for the suggestion that these offences should be removed from the statute book and that we should recognise that we must deal more compassionately and humanely with the few people who must resort to sleeping rough or begging. However, I welcome the Government's commitment and the new clause, and I again thank the Minister for honouring the commitments that he gave in Committee.
      5 pm
      Mr. Matthew Parris: It was said often enough in Committee, and it deserves repeating, that the overcrowding of our prisons is not a reason for making non-imprisonable offences that were previously imprison-able. The overcrowding of our prisons is a reason for building new prisons, and that the Government are doing.
      This change must be justified on its own merits. Is there any point or purpose in sending these people to prison? The Committee was convinced that there is no point in doing so. I am therefore glad that my hon. and learned Friend has moved the new clause, and I wish it a speedy passage.
      Dr. Shirley Summerskill: It is welcome that the Government have decided to treat this as a non-custodial offence. There is much evidence to show that it is not justified to imprison vagrants or beggars, either on rehabilitative grounds or on deterrent grounds. In fact, the National Association of Probation Officers has stated that in its experience not only does prison have no deterrent effect upon these people, but they often emerge facing equal and sometimes greater problems than when they went in.
      The Minister was cautious about creating non-custodial offences. We welcome the fact that he supported, albeit reluctantly, in Committee—when he took a neutral stance—the view that soliciting should now be a non-imprisonable offence. Vagrancy is now to be a non-imprisonable offence, and both those measures are welcome.
      I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not now close his mind to making other offences non-custodial, particularly as the Bill is about to go to another place. He mentioned the fact that not many people will be involved as a result of this measure—only 119 in 1980—but, as I pointed out in Committee, if very few people are involved it could be argued that the measure will not have much effect on the huge prison population. That is true. Equally, if a larger number of people are involved, it could be argued—the Minister probably would—that clearly the courts are using the provision of imprisonment. Therefore, whether the number involved is small or large, it could be argued that an offence should remain custodial.
      The main criterion that should be used is that used by the Home Secretary, who has said that people should not be put in prison for any criminal offence unless they can be seen to be a danger to the public. I hope that, in considering other offences and whether they should be custodial or non-custodial, the Minister will use the Home Secretary's yardstick and try to widen even further the categories of non-custodial offence.
      Mr. Lawrence: By this measure, the Conservative Party can once again be seen as having a human face. Also, it can be seen to have a more human face than the Labour Party, because the Labour Party did not introduce this measure when it was in office. A blot has now been removed. It may not be a large blot, but it was certainly a blot on our penal system. It was always wrong—never more so than in recent times—to imprison people who had done no wrong. It was always a disgrace that some of the cases that came before this House should ever have arrived here because people who could not look after themselves were sent to prison.

      777
      We must now decide how to remedy the problem of those who have hitherto been sentenced to imprisonment for repeatedly and persistently sleeping rough and behaving as vagrants. I hope that the new clause will oblige the present and future Governments to take more account of the need to make proper provision for the misfits in our society who cannot look after themselves. It was never right to throw them upon the police service and to require the police to act as the warders for the inadequates in our society. Most of all, it was wrong to impose that burden on the police. More social provision will have to be made for the inadequates in our society, and I hope that in a small way the new clause will encourage the Government to look at the problem and to try to solve it in a more humane way than it has ever been dealt with in the past.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful for what has been said. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is quite right. The Labour Government did not remove this offence, notwithstanding the publication of the report of the working party, known as the Brennan report, in 1976. However, I must not make too much of that or be too fierce with the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), or she may be reduced to begging by exposing her wounds, an offence that we have left on the statute book.
      I agree that this is not an absolutely open and shut case, because it remains right to give careful consideration to those who have expressed reservations.
      My hon. and learned Friend asked what we would do about people who endlessly made nuisances of themselves. They are liable to control under the machinery of an injunction. If it becomes necessary, an injunction can be obtained to restrain them, and that, in the last resort, is enforceable by imprisonment. However, I am grateful for the reception that the new clause has received.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 33

      POWER TO ALTER THE MINIMUM PERIOD FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR RELEASE ON LICENCE
      `In the Criminal Justice Act 1967—

      (a) in section 60 (release of persons serving determinate sentences)—

      (i) in subsection (1), for the words "twelve months thereof' there shall be substituted the words "the specified period"; and

      (ii) the following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection—

      "(1A) In subsection (1) of this section "the specified period" means twelve months or such period, not more than twelve months, as the Secretary of State may by order provide.

      (1B) An order under subsection (1A) of this section may make such incidental or supplementary provision amending enactments) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate."; and

      (b) the following subsection shall be inserted after section 100(2)—

      "(2A) An order shall not be made under section 60(1A) of this Act unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      In moving the new clause, I am giving effect to an undertaking that I gave in Committee as a result of which the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) was persuaded to withdraw a new clause of his own. That clause was aimed at reducing the minimum qualifying period for parole from one year, as at present, to six months.
      The Government could not accept that proposal as it stood, but we are in sympathy with its objectives. The Government are not opposed to the idea of extending the benefits of parole to shorter-sentence prisoners by reducing the minimum period they have to serve before qualifying, but we must recognise that there are considerable practical difficulties in the way of doing so. Parole is a selection process—it is important to emphasise that—based on a careful assessment of the balance of benefit and risk—benefit to the prisoner and risk to the community. Therefore, selection takes time.
      Successive Administrations, in considering this problem, have found themselves inhibited by the exigencies of the reporting and selection process from recommending to Parliament a reduction in the period that must be available for a proper assessment to be made of a prisoner's suitability for parole. We recognised in the "Review of Parole" published last year that the fact that parole was not available for prisoners serving shorter sentences created anomalies. There is an impressive body of opinion in favour of some reduction in the minimum qualifying period for parole.
      We accept that it would be wrong to regard the 12-month minimum fixed in the 1967 Act as absolute. Any minimum is bound to be arbitrary. The lower it can be made the wider the benefits of parole can be made available. Therefore, we think it right that the legislation regulating the parole scheme should incorporate flexibility. The new clause will achieve that. It will enable the qualifying period to be reduced below—but not raised above—the present 12 month minimum. It would enable the benefits of parole to be extended to prisoners serving sentences of less than 18 months, because the 12-month minimum is the 12 months spent in custody.
      I have to emphasise that we are proposing this power in advance of carrying out the study that will be necessary before any reduction in the minimum qualifying period can be introduced. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has decided to undertake a further detailed investigation to see whether this is feasible. It is important that the success of the parole scheme should not be put at risk by significantly reducing the characteristic of selectivity that is so central to the system. We shall have to consider carefully, therefore, the implications of reducing the minimum qualifying period for the principle of selectivity. The process of parole review naturally requires resources. In considering the minimum qualifying period we shall accordingly also have to consider carefully the resource implications.
      I obviously cannot predict what conclusion our investigation will reach, but another opportunity to amend the 1967 Act to enable the minimum qualifying period to be reduced may not present itself for some time. As we believe that flexibility is desirable, we have accordingly decided to seek a power to reduce the minimum qualifying period for parole by statutory instrument, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. As I said in

      779
      Committee we cannot enter into any commitment to exercise the proposed power. The power will make it possible, in advance of any opportunity that main legislation is likely to afford to reduce the minimum qualifying period if our investigation points to the conclusion that this is practicable. The proposed power will enable this to be done, with the approval of Parliament, without having to wait for another opportunity for primary legislation.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The new clause will enable the Government to reduce, by order, the minimum period that has to be served before an offender can qualify or be considered for parole. As the Minister pointed out, it is a fulfilment of an assurance that he gave me in Committee, when he was responding to clauses tabled on behalf of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group. The clauses that were then tabled by the group would have reduced the minimum period of parole eligibility from the present 12 months to six months and would, on our estimates, have reduced the prison population by about 2,000, not a negligible amount, given the chronic and persistent overcrowding in the prison system. It would be a significant reduction without threat to the safety and security of the public.
      The Minister has fulfilled part of his assurance by tabling this clause. He also undertook to carry out a review to see whether some practicable way could be found of reducing the minimum threshold of eligibility for parole. I acknowledge that he gave no commitment in Committee to exercise the power to be conferred by the new clause, and he has reiterated that point today. The Minister has emphasised that although the power has now been taken by the Government he will not give any commitment as to when or how it will be implemented.
      I hope that the review, which the hon. and learned Gentleman again referred to, will be carried out speedily. I am confident, particularly in view of the support for the proposal from the Parole Board and from the outgoing chairman, Lord Harris, that the result will be that a reduction in the threshold is found to be a reasonably practicable and sensible proposition.
      For the moment, although I want the Minister to exercise the power, I wish the review to be conducted speedily and effectively and for it to come to the conclusion that we all hope and believe that it will. I welcome the new clause. It is a step in the right direction.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), I welcome the new clause. In Committee the Minister said that the Government would take powers to enable parole to be available for short-term prisoners. He has been as good as his word in that respect. However, he will not be surprised when I say that I hope that it will not be long before he can activate the powers that he has given the Government and the Home Secretary.
      The case for making parole available for those serving sentences of only 18 months is strong and overwhelming. I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote the over-quoted remarks of Lord Justice Waller at the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders annual general meeting in 1980:
      "The injustice is best illustrated by this example. Two men are convicted of a serious crime. They are of previous good character. One is the ringleader who gets three years, the other
      780
      taking a relatively minor part gets 18 months. The ringleader gets parole and they are both released on the same day. It must appear unjust to the minor party. There is no parole available for him though, of course, if there were he would be extremely eligible."
      The case for making parole available to those serving prison sentences shorter than 18 months is overwhelming on the ground of natural justice and the grounds put forward by my hon. Friend—that it would result in a considerable reduction in the prison population and therefore a considerable lessening of the overcrowding of the prison system. I am grateful to the Minister for going as far as he has. I hope that he will not reply by saying "Well, you didn't even go that far."
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 34

      PERSONS RECOMMENDED BY COURTS FOR DEPORTATION
      Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule [Amendment of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971] to this Act.".—[Mr. Mayhew.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this new clause it will be convenient to take amendment 77:

      PERSONS RECOMMENDED BY COURTS FOR DEPORTATION
        AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 3 TO IMMIGRATION ACT 1971
        `the following shall be added after paragraph 3—
        AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 3 TO IMMIGRATION ACT 1971

          Powers of courts pending deportation
          4. Where the release of a person recommended for deportation is directed by a court, he shall be subject to such restrictions as to residence and as to reporting to the police as the court may direct.
          5.—(1) On an application made—

          (a) by or on behalf of a person recommended for deportation whose release was so directed; or

          (b) by a constable; or

          (c) by an immigration officer, the appropriate court shall have the powers specified in subparagraph (2) below.

          (2) The powers mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

          (a) if the person to whom the application relates is not subject to any such restrictions imposed by a court as are mentioned in paragraph 4 above, to order that he shall be subject to any such restriction as the court may direct; and

          (b) if he is subject to such restrictions imposed by a court by virtue of that paragraph of this paragraph—

          (i) to direct that any of them shall be varied or shall cease to have effect; or

          (ii) to give further directions as to his residence and reporting.

          6.—(1) In this Schedule "the appropriate court" means, except in a case to which sub-paragraph (2) below applies, the court which directed release.
          (2) This sub-paragraph applies where the court which directed release was—

          (a) the Crown Court;

          (b) the Court of Appeal;

          (c) the High Court of Justiciary; or

          (d) the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.

          (3) Where the Crown Court or the Crown Court in Northern Ireland directed release, the appropriate court is—

          (a) the court that directed release; or

          (b) a magistrates' court acting for the commission area or county court division where the person to whom the application relates resides.

          (4) Where the Court of Appeal or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland gave the direction, the appropriate court is the Crown Court or the Crown Court in Northern Ireland, as the case may be.
          (5) Where the High Court of Justiciary directed release, the appropriate court is—

          781

          (a) that court; or

          (b) in a case where release was directed by that court on appeal, the court from which the appeal was made.

          7.—(1) A constable or immigration officer may arrest without warrant any person who is subject to restrictions imposed by a court under this Schedule and who at the time of the arrest is in the relevant part of the United Kingdom—

          (a) if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that that person is contravening or has contravened any of those restrictions; or

          (b) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is likely to contravene any of them.

          (2) In sub-paragraph (1) above "the relevant part of the United Kingdom" means—

          (a) England and Wales, in a case where a court with jurisdiction in England or Wales imposed the restrictions;

          (b) Scotland, in a case where a court with jurisdiction in Scotland imposed them; and

          (c) Northern Ireland, in a case where a court in Northern Ireland imposed them.

          8.—(1) A person arrested in England or Wales or Northern Ireland in pursuance of paragraph 7 above shall be brought as soon as practicable and in any event within 24 hours after his arrest before a justice of the peace for the petty sessions area or district in which he was arrested.
          (2) In reckoning for the purposes of this paragraph any period of 24 hours, no account shall be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday or any Sunday.
          9.—(1) A person arrested in Scotland in pursuance of paragraph 7 above shall wherever practicable be brought before the appropriate court not later than in the course of the first day after his arrest, such day not being a Saturday, a Sunday or a court holiday prescribed for that court under section 10 of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.
          (2) Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent a person arrested in Scotland being brought before a court on a Saturday, a Sunday or such a court holiday as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above where the court is, in pursuance of section 10 of the said Act of 1980, sitting on such day for the disposal of criminal business.
          10. Any justice of the peace or court before whom a person is brought by virtue of paragraph 8 or 9 above—

          (a) if of the opinion that that person is contravening has contravened or is likely to contravene any restriction imposed on him by a court under this Schedule, may direct—

          (i) that he be detained; or

          (ii) that he be released subject to such restrictions as to his residence and reporting to the police as the court may direct; and

          (b) if not of that opinion, shall release him without altering the restrictions as to his residence and his reporting to the police.".'.

          Mr. Mayhew: This new clause and its associated schedule deal with a matter which was the subject of an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) in the Standing Committee. The Government accepted his amendment in principle and undertook to bring forward their own amendment on Report.
          The new clause and schedule would enable a court, when it convicts someone and recommends him for deportation, to direct that he be released on restrictions while that recommendation is being considered. At present courts have a choice between granting unconditional release or directing that the person be detained. These amendments would give them a further option of releasing the person, subject to restrictions. It would thus, we hope, enable them to direct the release of some people whom they would otherwise consider had to be detained. The restrictions that courts would be able to impose under the amendments are restrictions as to residence and as to reporting to the police.
          782
          During 1981, 134 people were detained pending the making of a deportation order who were given a noncustodial sentence for their offence. This is the group of people the amendment is mainly aimed at. It will make a small but nevertheless important contribution towards reducing the number of people in custody, and will do so in a way that will not impose any risk on the public, which must always be the overriding consideration.
          I need not set out the machinery by way of which this change is made, but in the provisions, power is given to a constable or to an immigration officer to arrest without warrant a person who is in breach of the restrictions or is thought likely to be, and to bring him before a justice. This will mean that minor breaches can be dealt with quickly by the police without their having to bring proceedings under the Immigration Act for an offence of being in breach of restrictions. The procedure set out in these paragraphs is similar to procedures elsewhere in the Immigration Act.
          I should perhaps explain a technical point. Because the Immigration Act extends throughout the United Kingdom, so does the new clause. Various adaptations are required for the different court procedures in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These are covered by paragraphs 6, 7 and 9 of the schedule.
          I should mention two connected matters on which we have it in mind to introduce amendments in another place. One relates to the powers of the Court of Appeal to direct release when it upholds a recommendation for deportation. There is some doubt whether the court has this power and we think it desirable to clarify that. The other point concerns the Home Secretary's power, which is similar to that of the courts, to release a person convicted of an offence who is recommended for deportation. It would be consistent with the objective of reducing the numbers in custody to give the Home Secretary the same power as we are now seeking to give the courts to grant release subject to restrictions.
          Mr. John Tilley: The Opposition welcome the new clause. We also welcome the two commitments that the Minister gave at the end of his remarks. As the hon. and learned Gentleman remarked in Committee, we also hope that the result of the new clause will not be that those who are already being released will now be released with conditions but that in future people who would otherwise be held in custody will be released under conditions. We welcome this minor but important contribution to reducing the prison population. I speak as the hon. Member representing the constituency that includes Brixton prison. I am aware of the problem and therefore of the contribution that the new clause will make towards alleviating it.
          The Opposition also welcome the fact that the Government seem to be mitigating ways in which the immigration law appears to be harsher and more arbitrary in its operation than the rest of the law. We would especially welcome this move if we thought that it was the first of many ways in which the Government intended to reform the immigration law. I fear that it is the last.
          Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The new clause empowers the courts to impose conditions upon those offenders recommenced for deportation in terms of their residence and reporting to the police. It follows assurances given to me in response

          783
          to proposals put forward on behalf of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group. The group would have liked the Minister to go further. Although we welcome the commitment that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave in Committee and his fulfilment of it today, we would have preferred the operation of the Bail Act to be applied fully to Immigration Act detainees. In fact, the presumption of bail and even the power to demand sureties apply in these cases.
          However, the Minister has made a small but significant step in the right direction. It is important in bringing about a sense of justice for the limited number of people detained under the Immigration Act. It is important and not to be derided for its small but important effect on reducing the prison population. At least there should now be fewer people detained in prison under the Immigration Act. That is an important and welcome step.
          Mr. William Pitt: I welcome the new clause with one reservation. It will give comfort to many people arrested for minor offences who are discovered to be over-stayers. It will improve their opportunity to assemble a case for appeal. In truth, however, the whole Immigration Act should be repealed. Like the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley), I hope that this is a small chink in the armour and that we are on the way towards seeing its repeal. My reservation relates to paragraph 7 of the proposed schedule and the powers of a constable. The Immigration Act 1971 is already very unpopular, and justly so, among the minority communities.
          I hope that police officers carrying out their functions under paragraph 7 will act with great caution. "Reasonable grounds" can always be contested. I am not saying that a police officer or immigration officer would use this power deliberately to attack a minority community but I would hate further immigration regulations to be brought into disrepute by a paragraph under a schedule that already imposes a greater penalty on minority communities.
          That is my one reservation. Otherwise, the Government have taken a positive and constructive step towards providing a little relief from the Immigration Act 1971.
          Question put and agreed to.
          Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 35

      BYELAWS RELATING TO THE BURNING OF STRAW OR STUBBLE
      'In section 31 of the Criminal Law Act 1977—

      (a) in subsection (4) (which among other things provides for maximum fines of £200 on summary conviction of offences under certain byelaws and, in paragraph (c), specifies among the byelaws to which it relates byelaws relating to the burning of straw or stubble made by a local authority under section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972)—

      (i) after the word "exceeding", in the first place where it occurs there shall be inserted the words ", except in the case of byelaws to which subsection (4A) of this section applies,"; and

      (ii) for the words "such byelaw", in the first place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "byelaws such as is mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above which is"; and

      (b) the following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection—

      784

      "(4A) Byelaws to which this subsection applies may provide that persons contravening the byelaws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.

      (4B) The byelaws to which subsection (4A) of this section applies are byelaws such as are mentioned in subsection (4)(c) of this section which are made after the coming into force of section [Byelaws relating to the burning of straw or stubble] of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.".'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause increases from £200 to £500 the maximum fine available for offences in byelaws relating to straw and stubble burning. Control over stubble burning is primarily enforced by local authorities under byelaws made under the Local Government Act 1972. The maximum penalty for offences under these byelaws was increased to £200 by the Criminal Law Act 1977. Straw and stubble burning is not only a perfectly proper agricultural practice but a 'valuable one. It must, however, be carried out properly and safely, or danger and annoyance extending over a wide area may result.
      A code of practice, drawn up by the National Fanners Union in 1965, is already in existence. It forms the substance of many of the relevant byelaws. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) for bringing to our notice the representations of the National Farmers Union—or, I should perhaps more strictly say, giving them added emphasis—and of the Association of County Councils, and for pressing, as he has done insistently, /Or stiffer penalties for infringements.
      My hon. Friend has argued the case persuasively and with great persistence. He has brought representatives of the National Farmers Union and of the Association of County Councils to see me and my noble Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The reason is that widespread damage and nuisance was caused after last year's harvest that followed a particularly dry season, not least in Cambridgeshire. Only a small minority of the fanning community is responsible either locally or in other areas. But the National Farmers Union which is conducting a forceful campaign of education within its membership and which is launching a new film this month on the subject is convinced that a much larger financial penalty is needed than the present maximum fine of £200. The Association of County Councils agrees.
      Accordingly, the Government have thought it right to provide for an increase from £200 to a maximum of £500. I recognise that some may have wished the amount to, be higher immediately, but the new maximum fine will be eligible for uprating, together with all fines deriving from the 1977 Act, as soon as the present Bill is passed The Bill, as the House will recall, contains provisions for uprating by statutory instrument to take account of changes in the value of money.
      There is, therefore, the prospect, within a relatively short time, of a further increase if so advised. I am grateful to the NFU, to the Association of County Councils and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for making their representations in such a timely and clear way. I am satisfied that this is an important new clause and that the amount should be increased. The new clause will go a long way to meet the anxieties that have been expressed.
      Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I should like to thank my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for tabling the new clause.
      My interest in this matter began at the end of last August and the beginning of September. Circumstances around Cambridge and in Cambridgeshire caused a volume of correspondence and anxiety among my constituents which was fully shared not only by myself but by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) who, like me, was very much involved with the National Farmers Union in bringing this matter to the attention of the House, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Home Secretary. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I had proposed, with the support of the National Farmers Union, a Private Member's Bill which would have gone rather further than the proposals in the new clause. It would have included fines of up to £1,000 for each offence, the imposition of national regulations and the possibility of banning stubble burning after repeated offences.
      Following the meetings with my hon. and learned Friend and the Home Secretary, I became convinced, as I believe did the NFU, that the Government's proposals met our primary concern to impose a deterrent fine that will affect the small minority of farmers who have been grossly in breach of the code of practice and—it is important to emphasise this—in breach of the Clean Air Act and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, under which they can be fined £1,000 for each offence. My hon. and learned Friend also emphasised that the fine of £500 can be uprated. I should have thought that it almost certainly will be.
      The deterrent effect that the NFU and I wish to impose will be met by the new clause. A clear warning has now been given to that small minority of farmers who have caused immense harm to the relationship between inhabitants of the towns and villages and the farming community that under the byelaws the situation will not be tolerated in future.
      I briefly quote from one of the hundreds of letters that I received from my constituents last September:
      "Vast clouds obliterate what little sun we get; the smell is all-pervasive; it is bad for health to breathe; but most of all, the daily descent of carbon is disastrous—windows must be kept closed on hot days, it covers the furniture.… and ruins the washing".
      One of the advantages of living in one's constituency is that I was also a recipient of all those effects. I felt so strongly about the matter that I brought forward a Private Member's Bill, with the full support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire. Some of his constituents were involved in the difficulties that we had in the city.
      5.30 pm
      I am truly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, to the Minister of State and to everyone involved in this matter. It has been another example of how, whatever party is in office, the concerns of ordinary people can be met. That happened when the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) was Minister in a Labour Government and I introduced a Private Member's Bill that was eventually successful. It is enormously encouraging for Back Benchers when their anxieties are met in this way. I thank the Government most warmly.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: I was intitially mystified by the new clause. Most of us do not suffer from the effects of
      786
      stubble burning, or even know what stubble is. Having listened to the debate I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). One of the enjoyable features of Parliament is that a constituency problem can eventually result in a Bill being changed. We all approve of that. I am the last person to say whether the Minister is right or wrong, but this time he seems to be completely right. I know that a Labour Government did not bring forward such a measure but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the last to make a party point about that. The Opposition welcome the new clause.
      Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I should not like the occasion to pass without saying that although the new clause is of great advantage to Cambridge, the Thanet farmers find no difficulty in burning their stubble without causing offence. Possibly the superb Thanet air enables the smoke to disperse rather more rapidly than in the low-lying Fens of Cambridgeshire or the operation is more ably carried out by the Thanet farmers. I should not want it to be thought that every county suffers from the problem. I have not had complaints from Thanet or East Kent.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 37

      CRITERIA FOR ACCOMMODATION OF CHILDREN IN CARE
      `In section 39 of the Child Care Act 1980 (regulations as to conduct of community homes etc.)—

      (a) in subsection (2), the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (e)—

      "(ea) prescribe criteria according to which different descriptions of children are to be placed and kept in different decriptions of accommodation;"; and

      (b) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection—

      "(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of this section, regulations under this section may contain provisions to ensure that a child may not be placed, and, if placed, may not be kept, in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty unless he appears likely otherwise—

      (a) to abscond; or

      (b) to injure himself or other persons; or

      (c) to damage or take other persons' property'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause paves the way for ensuring that children in care are held in secure accommodation only in the most serious circumstances. During the debate in Committee it was clear that there was considerable concern about the use that can be made of accommodation in community homes, which is designed to restrict the liberty of children. The Government are in no doubt that it is, sadly, necessary to have such accommdation available to deal with difficult and disturbed children. We agreed, however, to see what could be done to meet the concern expressed in Committee, and the new clause fulfils that undertaking.
      It seems right that the law should provide that if children are to be locked up, albeit in a community home, it should be only when that is strictly necessary. It also seems right that it should set standards for when it can be regarded as strictly necessary. That is what the new clause does. In general terms, a child should not be placed in secure accommodation or be kept there unless he is likely

      787
      to run away, to injure himself, or to harm other persons or their property. Regulations made under this measure will make more specific provision of these general criteria. Those regulations, which are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary, of State for Social Services, will themselves be placed before Parliament in due course.
      I trust that there will be general agreement that this is a desirable measure. It operates, as is apparent, by specifying a power to make regulations which will
      "prescribe criteria according to which different descriptions of children are to be placed and kept in different descriptions of accommodation"
      It goes on to specify that
      "a child may not be placed, and, if placed, may not be kept, in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty unless he appears likely otherwise

      (a) to abscond; or

      (b) to injure himself or other persons;

      (c) to damage or take other persons' property."

      In Committee we were agreed that the criteria expressed in imprecise terms were the criteria for a serious offence. It has proved difficult to incorporate that into statutory language and therefore the draftsmen have sought to identify the consequences to the child, or to some other member of the public, of the child being likely to commit a serious offence and to express the criteria in terms of those consequences. I thought it necessary to take a little time to explain why the clause is drafted in those terms.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is not a good principle to say that the proposal is too difficult to put into legislation and that it must be done by regulation? Is it not far better to include the measure in the Bill? However, if we are to have regulations, what consultations will take place and what opportunities will there be for people to make representations? Hon. Members have no opportunity to amend regulations.
      Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman will know that regulations already exist for governing community homes and the new clause sets out a power for further regulations to be made to achieve that purpose. Therefore, while I cannot speak for other Departments, the hon. Gentleman may feel confident that no fewer opportunities for consultation will exist in this respect than have existed in previous regulations.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Am I not correct in believing that the community homes regulations are statutory and that if they are amended the House will have to debate, or at least confirm, the amendments?
      Mr. Mayhew: Certainly; amendments cannot take effect without the approval of the House. If a matter inherent in regulations does not receive the approval of the House hon. Members can reject the regulations and have done so recently, though fortunately not in the case of Home Office regulations.
      The new clause sets out the criteria by which any regulations will have to be drafted. Therefore, it gives some control over the regulations. We need not worry too much about the form of the regulations.
      The new clause is intended to meet an undertaking that I gave the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) in Committee and I believe that it does so in a bone fide way.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The new clause empowers the Home Secretary to make regulations laying down the statutory
      788
      criteria for the detention of juveniles in secure accommodation in the local authority community homes system. The Secretary of State for Social Services has announced that he is reviewing the operation of the community homes regulations that were passed in 1972.
      The new clause follows an assurance that the Minister of State gave me in Committee in response to a new clause tabled by the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group. The Minister has, in effect, laid down some guidelines, perhaps not yet entirely satisfactory, about the sort of principles that we may expect to see enshrined in revised regulations.
      The new clause that we debated in Committee was one of two tabled on behalf of the all-party group, which were designed to increase the safeguards for young people in secure accommodation. The new clauses were, in turn, in response to two disturbing reports from the DHSS which were the backbone of our discussions about juveniles dealt with in local authority community homes.
      The two major research studies sponsored by the DHSS found that secure units in the local authority system are being used for younger and less delinquent children than was the case several years ago. We all know that the reconviction rates from community homes, and particularly from secure units within those homes, are inordinately high.
      I welcome the Government's acceptance of the need for statutory criteria and I welcome the new clause. We have established an important principle, but my colleagues and I in the all-party group will need to examine the new clause carefully. We have already received representations from the Children's Legal Centre, which considers that the terms of the new clause are far too wide.
      The centre believes that young people should be detained in secure accommodation only if their behaviour constitutes an imminent danger to the public or to themselves or if there are no appropriate alternatives. It also believes that the interpretation of those criteria by local authorities should be the subject of judicial review. The centre published on Monday this week an important report entitled "Locked up in Care" and subtitled:
      "A report on the use of secure accommodation for young people in care".
      That report is pertinent to our debate.
      Although I welcome the new clause, my colleagues in the all-party group will want another place to return to the issue and we will certainly want to pursue the points made by the Children's Legal Centre.
      5.45 pm
      I welcome the fact that the Government have taken a step in the right direction and I hope that they will enter into discussions in another place about whether the wording of the new clause is appropriate, whether it will achieve the Minister of State's objectives and whether it will bring about the enforcement of the principles that many of us on both sides of the Committee sought to see established.
      I hope that the Government will bear in mind the fact that the new clause was tabled rather late and will be willing to discuss it at a later stage with a view to improving its operation. We have all accepted, not least the DHSS, that we put far too many young people into local authority residential institutions and into the secure units without adequate preparation, supervision or proper legal control. It does them little, if any, good to be held in those units.

      789
      In the light of the overwhelming research evidence, not least that provided by the DHSS, we should certainly ensure that the safeguards that we erect to prevent young people from being put into secure units are extremely stringent. The Government have gone part of the way and I hope that they will go much further in another place.
      Dr. Summerskill: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) I welcome the new clause, which goes some way towards meeting the points that we made in Committee.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) and I tabled an amendment to delete clause 21 from the Bill. Unfortunately, that amendment was not selected and we hope that the new clause will at least improve clause 21.
      I am glad that the new clause makes it clear that different sorts of children should be placed in different types of residential accommodation, suitable to their needs and appropriate to individual offenders. However, the Minister of State has not taken up my suggestion in Committee that courts should be obliged to consult local authorities about the available accommodation.
      Does the hon. and learned Gentleman feel that courts will seek information from local authorities about the types of accommodation that are available, so that they may be assured that suitable accommodation will be provided? In the vital years of a child's development—three years is the average time for which care orders are made in criminal proceedings—he should be in the right place according to his offence, character and needs. We welcome the safeguards introduced in the regulations laying down criteria. They would lessen the possibility of totally unsuitable children being deprived of their liberty where the offence and their personal circumstances or character do not justify it.
      There is a 70 per cent. reconviction rate for children who have been in local authority homes. That makes one pessimistic about the effect of putting them there in the first place. Labour Members want to reduce the number of offenders receiving both custodial and residential care. We were told in Committee that the cost of new clause 21 to the ratepayer and the taxpayer could be £6 million a year. However, the new clause certainly goes a small way towards ensuring that greater thought and consideration are given before care orders are implemented.
      In Committee the Minister said that the danger of restricting too much the terms of the care order was that there might be a greater use of custodial sentences. I hope that his prediction is not correct. It is only a prediction; he cannot possibly be sure that that would be the effect. On the other side of the argument, residential care orders are expensive and ineffective as a deterrent. There is no evidence that they help the offender or protect society. We prefer that such people should be cared for in the community, particularly as we are talking about young children.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful for the words of welcome that have been uttered. I should correct an impression that the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) may inadvertently have given. New clause 37 establishes criteria, which may be implemented by way of regulation in due course, to govern the circumstances in which a child
      790
      may be held in secure accommodation. The decision as to whether the child shall be held in secure accommodation is not a matter for the court that makes the care order; it is a professional decision made by the local authority in whose care the child is ordered to be placed. We must be clear about that important distinction.
      Anxiety has been expressed that criteria, established with the approval of Parliament, do not exist to govern circumstances in which that professional decision shall be made. That is an important point and it bears upon the point that the hon. Lady was making a few moments ago when she referred to something I said in Committee to the effect that if we restrict too tightly the circumstances in which a court can make a care order, we may find the opposite of what we want, an increase in the number of custodial disposals or sentences made.
      I am grateful for the opportunity to clear that matter up. I believe that the undertaking I gave has been fulfilled and I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      SECRETARY OF STATE TO GIVE REASONS FOR REFUSAL OF PAROLE
      `In section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

      "(1A) If in any particular case the Secretary of State decides that a person to whom subsection (1) above applies shall not be released on licence, he shall communicate in writing the reasons for this decision to the person to whom the case relates". '.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The reason for introducing this clause, tabled by myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), was that we felt that it was time for the House to discuss the giving of reasons for refusal of parole to prisoners. It is a current topic of discussion outside the House, but it is not often discussed in the Chamber. It was not discussed in Committee. We are led to believe that one of the main grievances among prisoners is that they have first to wait for the result of whether they have been granted parole, and, having been told the result, if it is negative they never know why. That is rightly felt by prisoners to be unjust.
      The primary reason for secrecy surrounding the administrative decision about parole, as far as I can see, is that it would be difficult to formulate the reasons clearly and succinctly to the benefit of the prisoner. After all, it is his or her individual liberty and life that is at stake. Disquiet and resentment is caused among prisoners when they are not told. They even invent their own reasons, which can be even worse than being told the real reasons. The present system is open to accusations of favouritism, victimisation and corruption, all of which are created by the fact that prisoners are never told why decisions are made concerning their liberty or lack of it.
      A positive reason for giving a prisoner reasons is that he and his family would then, we hope, try to put right what was wrong. It would also enable probation and prison officers, who are in contact with offenders, working both

      791
      inside and outside prisons, to assist in this process. If none of them knows the reasons for refusal of parole, they cannot even start to put right what was wrong.
      There are precedents for giving reasons in various parts of the criminal justice system. For instance, if bail is refused the court must give reasons. That may be difficult, but they must do it. Under clause 1(7) reasons must be given if a custodial sentence is imposed. However, the most persuasive precedent before us is the mental health review tribunals where a panel of about five people discuss the release of people from a different kind of custody. They normally give reasons and that must be extremely difficult—harder, I would have thought, than giving reasons for someone's release from prison.
      I know that the Home Office and the Parole Board have been looking at this matter for some time. In an experiment, the Parole Board was asked to give reasons—I think, to prisoners. No doubt, the Minister will tell us of that in his reply. We are led to believe that the Parole Board found difficulties in putting succinctly the reasons for not giving parole. It implied that if the prisoner were told the reasons it could lead to court cases or allegations and to prisoners refuting what has been said in the report. However, I am not asking here for an appeal system for prisoners. I am not asking that prisoners should give evidence to the Parole Board.
      6 pm
      Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Lady must recognise that parole is discretionary. Once reasons are given, the prisoner is bound to try to challenge, with the assistance of his friends and relatives, those reasons. To challenge them, he will try to give evidence. If he can bring a court case, he will. If he goes to his Member of Parliament and says that what has been said is untrue, it could lead to immensely long inquiries. Surely the hon. Lady recognises that part of the reason for the discretion is that in very serious cases the length of sentence intended alone may count. Therefore, there are many reasons for the present position.
      Dr. Summerskill: I cannot see much difference between the reasons given by a mental health tribunal and the facts revealed in the psychiatric and probation reports that are laid before the courts. Personal matters are revealed. There is not much difference between the type of information given by mental health review tribunals, which the person is allowed to know about, and the type of information produced by the Parole Board when considering a case.
      I sat in on a Parole Board session. Some of the members consider an individual case. The members give their conclusions briefly to all the other members round the table. In the session that I attended, they summed up their reasons for refusal very comprehensively, without talking for hours and hours. They managed to do it in a few sentences. They had probably spent hours going through the reports on that case, but their final conclusions were summarised fairly briefly. Therefore, the practical difficulties that we are told exist could be overcome. Some form of short summary could be given to the prisoner. The new clause does not ask that the prisoner should be able to give evidence to the Parole Board or that he should be able to take up all the points in the refusal and so on. It simply asks that the prisoner, his family and the probation and prison officers should be able to know the reasons so that they can try to put things right.
      Mr. Lawrence: If a man was looking forward to his release on the understanding that he would return to live with his wife and family, how would the hon. Lady tell him that she knew more about the situation than he did, because he had been in custody? How could that man be told that his wife no longer wanted him back, whatever she may have pretended to him when she visited him? How could he be told that she was living with another man and that even if the prisoner returned, the household would be quite unsatisfactory and he would be so frustrated that he might well be driven into resuming his anti-social behaviour? How can that be explained to a man in such a situation?
      Dr. Summerskill: That man will eventually have to face that disastrous set of circumstances when he is released. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman, we should keep him permanently imprisoned because his wife has gone to live with another man. According to him, we should not allow him to face that predicament. However, he will have to face it some time. A domestic situation alone is an insufficient reason for keeping someone in custody. Therefore, that is not a very good example and does not justify failing to give the reasons for refusal of parole.
      Miss Jo Richardson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the wife will also have been living out a lie and that she must also face that? The sooner the husband and wife get together out of the confines of prison visiting, the sooner the situation can be resolved.
      Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has certainly not given us a good reason for not telling someone why he was refused parole. I hope that the Minister wall produce a better example. I also hope that he will explain the problems apparently faced by the Parole Board when it tried, in the experiment, to explain to prisoners the reasons for refusal. Why did the Minister decide to retain the present system? I hope that he will not say—as he often does—that the Labour Government did not do anything. That is one of his usual arguments.
      This difficult problem causes increasing concern and dissatisfaction not only to prisoners, but to prison officers. With the present overcrowding, our prisons have enough problems and it would help to consider how we might alleviate that additinal burden. After all, it involves everyone in the prison system. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will explain the position.
      Mr. Percy Grieve: I rise briefly to express my appreciation of the way in which the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) moved the clause. Regretfully, I am unable to support it. I say that, because I recognise the truth of what she said. The failure to give reasons may cause resentment to some prisoners. Of course we wish to avoid that. However, I am not sure that giving reasons would not occasion even more resentment.
      The Parole Board must seek its information from all sorts of sources. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, information will be sought from the family, from the home and from those who have custody of the prisoner. However succinctly those reasons were put and even if the sources of information were concealed as far as possible, resentment would arise. As a result, we should institutionalise

      793
      something that, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, is discretionary. Parole is discretionary and is not given as of right. There is a great distinction between giving parole and the cases with which the hon. Member for Halifax sought to draw an analogy. She drew an analogy with bail, but unless there is good reason for not giving bail, the House has rightly said that a man is entitled to the freedom that he enjoys as a citizen. She also drew an analogy with mental health review tribunals. Before entering the House, I had the honour to serve for a number of years on a mental health review tribunal in the Sheffield region. It was one of the duties that was incompatible with the list in the House of Commons Disqualification Act and so, on entering the House, I relinquished it. However, in that case, unless a person is mentally sick, he is entitled to his freedom. That is a different matter from parole. Those who are sent to prison are not entitled to their freedom. They have no entitlement until they have served their sentences.
      If we were to institutionalise a privilege or a discretionary matter because the Parole Board thought that it was safe and reasonable to put someone at liberty long before the expiry of his sentence and his normal release date—having earned his one-third remission—the next demand would be for some sort of appellate process. The prisoner will say "I am not satisfied with this. I want to appeal." There will then be a demand for an appeal from the Parole Board. That would cut at the roots of the whole concept of parole, which is discretionary. It is to give men the chance of enjoying liberty and showing that they can be honest citizens, notwithstanding that the court which tried them determined the length of sentences commensurate with their records, backgrounds and the gravity of the offence.
      Dr. Summerskill: I carefully stated that I am not asking for an appellate procedure. Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there could be a case for giving reasons for refusing parole and leaving it at that? By being given reasons the prisoner can try to right what is wrong.
      Mr. Grieve: Perhaps I did not make myself clear as to the objections that I saw to the hon. Lady's new clause. The first clear objection is that I believe that the giving of reasons would in the end cause more resentment and ill-feeling than the failure to give reasons, and with the Parole Board saying, as it does now "We are very sorry, the time is not yet right."
      The second point is that if we were to say that the Parole Board should give its reasons, having regard to the resentment to which I believe such reasons would give rise, I believe that in the majority of cases where parole was refused—because people would be very loth to accept and face up to the reasons—we would be faced with a demand for some sort of appellate procedure. If there was not that, there would be letters to Members of Parliament. The long-term effect would be a tendency to institutionalise something that ought not to be institutionalised. It is for those reasons that I could not support the hon. Lady's new clause, much though I respect the way in which she moved it.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I have never understood the real difficulty about giving reasons for the
      794
      refusal of parole. I recollect that when Lord Harris, who is now chairman of the Parole Board, was a junior Minister at the Home Office, he was in favour of giving reasons. He changed his mind only when he became chairman. I recollect also that I once had to exercise the power of the Home Secretary in his discretion in relation to immigration cases. I handed that over for a week to Lord Harris and when I returned he said that it was like playing God. Indeed it is, because there is absolute discretion. The discretion is exercised by the Minister. At least the Minister has to write and explain why he has exercised the discretion. Being chairman of the Parole Board one plays God and does not explain to anybody.
      One of the difficulties of the present system is that nobody outside the Parole Board knows why parole has been refused. I do not believe that it would be necessary to have an appeal system but it is a necessary check upon the exercise of the Parole Board's discretion that it should give reasons for its decision.
      I do not accept the main argument that Lord Harris has put forward previously as to why the Parole Board cannot give reasons. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) suggested that there might be something in the prisoner's domestic circumstances which he would not like to be told. That should never be taken into account in deciding whether or not to give parole. The existence of domestic circumstances that the man would not like should not be a reason for keeping him in prison. He may well commit another offence if he returns home and finds that his wife is living with another man. He should be warned of the position before he returns and he should have the opportunity of talking to his wife about it before he is released. It should be explained to him that if he commits another offence he will be inside again. That is not a reason for refusing parole, and the fact that Lord Harris uses that argument so frequently suggests that it is used in refusing parole. It is a very significant factor in his approach to the problem.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is it not most disturbing that many prisoners begin to wonder whether something like that is happening to them when they are refused parole?
      Mr. Lyon: I think that my hon. Friend is right. I have known prisoners who began to suspect that when they were refused parole. It is a wrong premise from which to argue the case, because it should never be taken into account as a reason for refusing parole. That goes to the root of why we need reasons. It is not only that the prisoner should have reasons. Society should know that the job is being done properly. There is no way we can know that because we do not know how the job is being done. The most we can do is say that we have appointed somebody great and good to the job and therefore we must trust them. It would be a great help to know what reasons there are for refusing parole.
      Lord Harris also argued against giving reasons because, he said, it would involve a considerable amount of paperwork which would increase the cost of the system and require more staff. For the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) gave I cannot see why. I have never been in a Parole Board meeting, but I am certain from the nature of the proceedings that by the time the decision is made the reasons are clear and can be stated in a few sentences. Lord Harris said that on

      795
      occasions different members of the board have different reasons. One could give two or three reasons which would only take three or four sentences. That is the most anyone asks. One does not ask for a six-page statement of the arguments, but simply brief reasons as to why it is not possible to release the prisoner on that occasion.
      Another argument that is sometimes used is that the reason he has not been released has nothing to do with his conduct in prison. It concerns the gravity of the offence and the extent to which it excited public emotion when he was convicted, leading the Parole Board to the view that it might discredit the whole system if he were released. He will therefore be kept in custody. That is also an unacceptable reason for refusing parole. There might be a greater division of opinion among hon. Members on that point, but my feeling is strongly that public perception of the offence is not a ground for refusing parole to a man who on every other consideration has proved that he is capable of returning and not being a danger to society. If that is not the case, he should not be given parole. If it is the case, the fact that his offence excited a good deal of public emotion, which has not been forgotten, should not be a reason for refusing parole. He should have lived down his conviction and he should be released.
      For those reasons, therefore, I believe that the new clause is justified. I set in support of it the considerable anxiety that this issue has caused among prisoners throughout the country in many different circumstances. There is no doubt that when a prisoner who has worked hard in prison, has a clean sheet and believes that he is entitled to parole, is refused parole it is a very testing time both for him and for the prison authorities. A great strain is placed on the prison authorities in that he must then be nursed through the feeling of rejection when he and his family had built up hopes of parole.
      It is not right that a prisoner should have to go through that without the reasons being explained to him. If the reasons are explained, he can decide that if he did not do things properly on the last occasion he can work towards eliminating the problems on the next occasion. Alternatively, if the reason given seems to him unjustified by the facts, he can put the matter to the Parole Board. If the Parole Board has got it wrong, which I doubt very much on a question of fact, he is entitled to put his case to it for consideration in due course.
      That seems a perfectly sensible system. I strongly suspect that if the amendment were passed tonight because the Government supporters did not arrive in time for the Division, within two or three years we should wonder why we never gave reasons from the beginning. Indeed, I greatly regret that when I was on the Committee when parole was introduced in 1967 we did not apply our minds to this aspect then, as it would have been highly desirable and would have considerably improved the working of the system.
      Mr. Lawrence: I oppose the new clause, although I understand that it has been tabled for the best possible reasons. If hon. Members had bothered to read my speeches, they would know that I do not like the parole system at all. I should much prefer a points system whereby people could work their way out of prison and none of these problems would arise.
      Given the existing system, however, I shall explain my reasons for opposing the new clause. I shall not repeat the intervention that the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr.
      796
      Summerskill) was courteous enough to allow me—I did not thank her sufficiently at the time, but I think that her response to it was thoroughly unrealistic. As I recall it, she said, in effect, that the domestic problems must be faced sooner or later in any event.
      That is surely a misunderstanding of what parole is. It is not a device whereby a person is entitled actually to suffer only one-third of the sentence that the judge considered appropriate, so that we must look for any means of allowing him out early and it would be a terrible shame if he were refused parole without reasons being given. That is not the purpose of parole. As I understand it, the purpose of parole is this. If it is possible, as a matter of humanity, and if the domestic and other circumstances of the person's life allow it to happen as a matter of humanity, it would be justifiable to let him out early. If the effect of giving reasons would be inhumane and thus conter-productive to the cause of humanity that I understand to be the basis of parole, clearly it would be wrong to do so. That is why I believe that in many situations to give reasons would be inhumane.
      Worse than that, what would inevitably happen is that the authorities would be unable to put into words the precise distressing circumstances that caused them to reach their conclusion, and it would not be long before the prison service was accused of suppressing the truth, misleading by half-truth and perhaps even by falsehood in the sense that it was not conveying the true situation. That would undermine and not strengthen the respect that it is so necessary for the penal system to retain in order to be effective.
      Parole is not like bail. With bail, there is a presumption of freedom. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) has said, one presumes that a person should not be in custody and one therefore bends every possible resource to give him his freedom. When a sentence of imprisonment is being served, however, one presumes that the person should be serving it. One may then bend as much humanity as one can to make that service as short as possible.
      I agree with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) that if cost were a factor it should not be taken seriously into account because this is far more a matter of humanity, but I do not agree with him that it is wrong to repose in the good and the true whom we select to serve on the Parole Board an element of trust and discretion. In the end, that element can be supervised by a Minister who has some responsibility to the House and can answer to an individual Member of Parliament. As Members of Parliament, we all know that when we raise constituency problems with local authorities and with the Home Office, we sometimes receive both the reply that the authorities would like the constituent to receive and a private, confidential reply to the effect that a certain factor has affected the authorities' thinking but that they think that it would be harmful if it were passed on. The Minister or the executive of the district council therefore trusts the Member of Parliament not to pass on that hurtful detail, but the information is given to him so that he may test the Home Office or the authority on it.
      I do not know whether reasons for Parole Board refusals can be passed on in detail to Members of Parliament, but it might not be a bad idea if the Member of Parliament were accorded the same trust in similar circumstances so that he may satisfy himself that the Minister has used his

      797
      judgment correctly and that the Minister is satisfied that the discretion exercised by the Parole Board has been correctly and properly used.
      If Lord Harris changed his mind since ceasing to be a Minister and becoming chairman of the Parole Board, it can only have been because he became aware of the reality of decision-making and the discretionary process. It is that reality that we must continue to repose as a matter of trust in the people involved, knowing that in the end the Minister can test that trust and perhaps, if this does not already happen, Members of Parliament may also test the Minister on that trust.
      Those are my reasons for opposing the new clause. Principally, I believe that the stand taken by the Opposition is utterly unrealistic, bearing in mind the fact that the purpose of parole is not as a matter of policy to reduce the sentence to one-third of that which the judge thought appropriate in all the circumstances.
      Mr. Ronald W. Brown: It is that very trust that is now prejudiced. Over the years I have had many problems with the Home Office. Indeed, when the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) made her speech, I thought that she was reading the submissions that I made to her on at least two cases when she was a Minister, when I argued that my constituents should not have been refused parole. At that time, before Lord Harris came into the picture, the hon. Lady's view was quite clear. She argued that it would be quite wrong to allow any parole examination to be made public.
      The hon. Lady will recall the classic case of Thomas Unstead who, together with six other people, was sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment. When I examined the papers relative to the trial on his behalf, I was satisfied that there was something terribly wrong in the whole case. The case did not appear to be right. It appeared to be fraudulent and my constituent had been put upon. I did much work on that case, as the hon. Lady will remember because we talked about it on many occasions. Each time she had a different argument as to why she could not be helpful.
      6.30 pm
      Dr. Summerskill: May I reply to my erstwhile hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and to the Minister, who made the same accusations about my change of attitude on the imprisonment of maintenance defaulters? If one is a thinking person one might change one's mind occasionally. It is to the credit of politicians that occasionally they might change their minds. I learnt a great deal at the Home Office about how the Parole Board works. If one has had that experience, one's mind should be open and not shut to possible changes. I agree that I have changed my mind, although I was never completely satisfied with the arrangement when I was at the Home Office. Today's debate is to find out the result of the experiment that has taken place since I left the Home Office, but I shall not justify myself any longer.
      Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. My heart is also bleeding. I am delighted that her mind is now open. I regret only that it was not so open in those days, because
      798
      I put to her then the arguments that she put today, using my words. If her mind was closed then, it was closed only to the words that she now tries to use in the House.
      I have used the hon. Lady's words simply to try to understand the problem. The Minister talked about trust. I went through Mr. Unstead's story with her and she, among others, repeated that there was no evidence or proof and that my case was all hypothesis. I saw the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. Finally, through an informant in the underworld, I was given a piece of information which led me to examine the Hampshire constabulary. There was clear evidence of collusion between the Hampshire constabulary and an informer who had never been brought to court. I gave evidence to the hon. Lady, which ended with two informers to the Hampshire constabulary being charged. It is true that my constituent received a sentence of 14 years whereas the informers received only seven years some time later. There was very clear evidence of collusion and if I had not taken up the case and pursued it in the way that I did the collusion would have escaped detection.
      As a result of that, the Home Office was very angry with me, as was the Hampshire constabulary, because I had blown their informers' cover. When Mr. Unstead came up for parole, it was refused out of hand. We began to examine the reasons for that because everyone in the prison—the governor, the assistant governor and "screws" on the landings—argued that he was a model prisoner. His home affairs were also considered and a good report was given of them. One could not see why he had been refused. The governor told me that he did not understand why parole had been refused. I visited the hon. Lady again, who told me that she could do nothing about it because the Parole Board was a separate entity. Sir Louis Petch was then the chairman of the Parole Board.
      Eventually Mr. Unstead came before the Parole Board again and was refused for the second time. I visited the hon. Lady but she said that she could not add much more. When I visited her on the third occasion that parole was refused I asked her why I could not discuss the matter with Sir Louis Petch in her office. She agreed to that but she would not let me see Sir Louis. She saw him, interpreted my question and then gave me his answer to the question that I would have put to him had I not needed to go through the hon. Lady. I then asked the hon. Lady why I could not go before the Parole Board. She said that she would attend a Parole Board meeting to see how it worked. I asked her whether she could ask Sir Louis again to allow me to attend the Parole Board meeting when Mr. Unstead's case came up.
      The House will be interested to know that, under that system, Thomas Unstead had to serve the whole of his time and the Parole Board did not grant him parole. Yet that man's prison work was of the highest order and he had behaved himself in every conceivable way. I have never had a satisfactory answer why Thomas Unstead was not allowed out. I believe that it was because I took up his case in the House and debated it with the hon. Lady, as a result of which sanctions were taken against him.
      Mr. Lawrence: Did Mr. Unstead receive a remission of one-third of his sentence for good conduct?
      Mr. Brown: Yes, of course, but he had to go the whole course for his remission. The object of parole is to encourage prisoners to behave themselves, to be peaceful

      799
      and law-abiding in prison and to help the prison authorities. As a commendation for their good behaviour, they are allowed out.
      My second case is about Mr. Danny Allpress. I now address myself to the Minister instead of the hon. Lady. Danny Allpress has served his time in prison peacefully and has done his work well. He has the approval of the governor, the assistant governor and the "screws" on the landing and his home affairs are in good order. There is no reason why he should not be allowed parole. I ask the Minister why I cannot go to the Parole Board, see Lord Harris and ask him the same thing? I cannot get through to anyone because no one is listening. As the hon. Lady's mind is now open, Lord Harris' mind is closed and we cannot get the two things working together.
      I am seeing Lord Elton tomorrow about another constituent, Mr. Peter Colson, who has been refused parole twice, for no reason. No one understands it. The prison governor, the assistant governor and the "screws" on the landing say that he is a good prisoner. His home report is good. The question must be asked—what is the Parole Board doing? Who is providing the secret information?
      In the case of Danny Allpress I have found one reason that has not been mentioned tonight. A new procedure was introduced when he was sentenced and, because money was involved in the crime, a bankruptcy order was brought against him. Now he is coming up for parole and there is another joker in the pack. The Official Receiver is now involved. When a bankruptcy court official visited my constituent in prison, Mr. Allpress was unwise enough to believe that he had the right to speak to whom he wished and he did not wish to speak to the official. The official said "That finishes it. You will never get out of here."
      When that was reported to me, I did not believe it to be the sort of jargon used by bureaucrats, but he was right. Apparently, the bankruptcy official's report is now preventing Danny Allpress from receiving parole because it has been taken into consideration by the Parole Board. I have just discovered that my other constituent, Mr. Colson, had a bankruptcy order made against him. So now, although we know that everyone in the prison has given a good report of Mr. Colson, the one man who apparently has not done so is the Official Receiver, the bankruptcy official.
      Mr. Grieve: Was he made bankrupt as a result of an order made by the court which tried him?
      Mr. Brown: Yes, and as I say, that started in about 1978. I did not know—the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) may have known—that this was a joker in the pack for parole. If the bankruptcy official, whom one does not even know, gives an adverse report—he can do so for all kinds of petulant reasons—that will affect the man's application for parole. In the case of Peter Colson, there was no reason whatsoever for him not to receive parole, yet it was refused.
      It is interesting that every time that Peter Colson comes up for parole, he is moved about three days before his parole is considered. The person on the Parole Board looking at his papers sees that he has been moved from one prison to another prison within two or three days, and the implication is that it is because of Colson's bad behaviour. After his parole has been considered and refused, he is moved back to the former prison. I keep asking the Home
      800
      Office why he was moved two years running at exactly the same time, 4 May, when his parole was due to be considered on 12 May. I want to know why he was moved back immediately after his parole was considered and refused. It seems extraordinary that just before a man is considered for parole he is shifted from place to place the implication being that he is an unsatisfactory prisoner.
      New clause 2 goes a long way towards achieving what I want—an explanation. It is no good trying to get people to behave themselves in prison, serve their time, and contribute to the peace and harmony of the prison service, if their parole application is refused for no just reason. Of course we must trust, but we must see that that trust is well founded. I selected three cases where that did not happen. There are many other cases that I could have chosen, as the hon. Lady well knows. I could quote quite a few from her time at the Home Office, and some in the time of her successors. As the Minister knows, I am always in touch with him about cases. Indeed, I could mention the case of Mr. Sharp. So there are many cases where it is distressing not to be able to understand why parole is refused. If new clause 2 goes some way to opening this Pandora's box, this cosy position of the Parole Board, tonight's work will have been well worth while.
      Mr. Rees-Davies: I am sorry to disagree with almost every word that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has said. I do so for a few short and simple reasons.
      First, parole is entirely discretionary. Once a person is convicted and goes to prison, whether he ever comes up and has parole is a matter entirely of discretion. In the ordinary way, if his sentence is for seven or eight years, subject to remission for good conduct to which he is absolutely entitled if his conduct is good, he must serve that period.
      The second point on which the hon. Member is wrong is this. The Parole Board is not just concerned with whether a prisoner behaves well in prison. He gets his remission for good conduct for that purpose. It is concerned with whether he has shown that he will be a good and honest character after he leaves prison. Unfortunately, a number of cases that are turned down, without any reason being assigned, are turned down because it is well known that the people are members of a permanent gang of robbers or housebreakers, or are associated with such a community. It is therefore extremely unlikely that, if they are ever released short of the period for which they have been sentenced, they w ill be of good behaviour. There are some who can change, but there are many who cannot convince a Parole Board of that. That is the background to parole.
      6.45 pm
      Those of us who have looked at many of these cases from the other side of the fence accept that usually people who have been convicted, after a couple of years, when they come up for consideration for parole, try to reopen the facts of their case. If reasons were given that related to the seriousness of the case, and therefore to the facts of the case—the facts not only of that case, but of their association with other criminal enterprises at that time—they might wish to have a further trial after the trial. So the post-trial syndrome, if I may call it that—the possibility of regurgitating all the facts and going over them again—would arise.

      801
      That would be highly undesirable for Members of Parliament. Their postbags would be full of letters from criminals who had been convicted and who wanted to try to reopen their cases on the ground that, even if they were not wrongly convicted, there were many matters of mitigation that were never put properly at the proper time to the court. Furthermore, all those facts could be brought forward with a view to seeing whether they could get the case before the Home Secretary. If all the facts were elucidated, the Home Secretary could advise on the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, which he is always entitled to do.
      If what the hon. Member argued is true, it is one way in which one could open up the class of case in which there has been either corruption or perjury. That is certainly true. In such circumstances it may be possible to go back to the facts of the case, elucidate them, and find that there has been some perjury or corruption. To that extent the hon. Gentleman is right, but in my view that is not the right way to do it. I believe, for the reasons that I have given, that it is entirely discretionary, and that it would open up the whole question of a post-trial trial within a trial, and that it is wrong.
      A directly analogous example involved the grant of a gaming licence and the Gaming Board for Great Britain. It will be remembered that, with some reluctance, the House of Commons took the view that the decision whether to grant a gaining licence should be entirely autocratic, and that no reasons of any kind would be given by the gaming board for the grant or the refusal. Many people have objected to that autocratic power. Nevertheless, in my view, it was right. There is no way to prove that there was a possible mafioso element behind the application. If one did, one would be liable to a libel action. Therefore, it was decided to place implicit trust in the gaming board. I do not believe that the gaming board has let us down in that trust, much as I disliked the board. However, we should not forget that not only the present Lord Chancellor, but none other than Lord Gardiner agreed with that autocracy. The same is true here, although here it involves not autocracy, but absolute discretion. In my view, it is far better to leave this board to continue with its good work in its own way, and trust it to carry out its work properly.
      Miss Richardson: I support new clause 2.
      Parole, particularly as it affects families, is a source of great mystery. Members get letters not only from prisoners, but from prisoners' families. I often get letters from young wives whose husbands are in prison, perhaps for a short time, and who cannot understand why their husbands are being kept in when in their view, they should have been paroled. The matter has caused tremendous distress and, the break-up of many marriages. In some cases a wife feels that if her husband's parole has been turned down he is perhaps a worse character than she thought he was. The whole system has to be properly overhauled. This new clause would at least open one chink and throw a little light on something which is shrouded in mystery.
      Three or four years ago I went on a deputation to meet Lord Harris and to discuss with him, as chairman of the Parole Board, how it worked. I came away none the wiser.
      802
      I could not get from him any reason why some indication should not be given to a prisoner why his parole was refused.
      Following what the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has been saying, I have been in correspondence not with a constituent but with one of the Richardson brothers, Charles, whose case is fairly well known to most people. A younger brother is now out of prison. Charles Richardson has been in prison for 16 years. He has applied for parole seven or eight times, on each occasion going through the routine, which the hon. Gentleman so graphically described, of getting reports from various people—from people on his landing, the governor, the prison doctor, the priest and so on. He was always assured that he would be paroled and then he was not paroled. Indeed, he tells me that he believes that the main Parole Board, as distinct from the local parole board, has on three occasions recommended his parole. He can only come to the conclusion—this brings me back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon)—that there is ministerial interference in the decision whether to parole.
      As hon. Members probably recall, Charles Richardson escaped from prison some time ago to make two or three points which were detailed in an article in The Sunday Times while he was free. He went back to prison after the points had been made. One of the points was that 16 years in prison is enough, however violent the crime one has committed. He recounts it to me as two life sentences, not one, because often people on a life sentence get out after about eight years.
      His parole application is coming up for the eighth or ninth time. He feels that if he is turned down on this occasion, again possibly by ministerial decision, he will simply collapse and become a cabbage. He says that his observation of people in prison over many years has led him to believe that after 10 years prisoners become cabbages. They give up and deteriorate mentally. He has managed to keep himself in a fairly alert mental state, and I am sure that there are many like him. He wants to be able to come out and start a new life, to make acquaintance with his grown-up children who were youngsters when he went into prison and to try in some way to make recompense to his mother who has looked after his children during the time he has been in gaol.
      This seems to be the sort of case in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for York said, the Home Secretary may feel that, because a well-known name is involved, it is better to keep the person in prison rather than to risk the difficulties which might attend on him as Home Secretary if publicity were given to the prisoner's release. As has been said before, that is no reason to keep a man in prison longer than is warranted.
      Those are the sort of considerations that we must face. In principle, we must try to work out a system for the future so that prisoners know what part of themselves is still lacking which prevents parole being granted. I am not now talking about spectacular cases like the Richardson case but the more common or garden, run-of-the-mill cases where people do not know, never have known and never will know what they lack which has caused the parole board, locally or centrally, to turn them down.
      I hope that we pass this clause. I do not think that it will perfect the system, but it will go a long way towards it.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I support new clause 2 for two main reasons. The policy of not giving reasons for the refusal of parole has seriously eroded the confidence of prisoners in the parole system and it adds considerably to their sense of grievance on being turned down. To deny parole to a prisoner who has often been waiting anxiously for three months or more, and then to give no explanation why he has been denied parole, increases cynicism and bitterness within the prison service. The procedure of the parole system is brought into disrepute.
      Any hon. Member who has visited a prison and spoken to prisoners who have been refused parole will know full well the great resentment, bitterness and distrust that they have towards the parole system and towards authority and the prison service. The Minister will acknowledge that many prisoners, certainly long-term prisoners, no longer make parole applications because they have no confidence in the system and think that it will not treat them fairly.
      Mr. Rees-Davies: There is an important point which the hon. Gentleman might like to think about later, if not now. Does he think it would be better if we abolished the idea of application being made by any prisoner for parole and merely let the parole board move of its own accord without any such application so that it could consider the matter, so to speak, de novo itself without being approached?
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I would, but would the hon. and learned Gentleman have voted for such a proposal? I would have preferred that. We had the option before us of automatic supervised release on parole. The Home Secretary himself canvassed it as recently as last July. The operation of such a system would have released 7,000 nonviolent prisoners on one-third sentence, one-third remission, and one-third parole.
      A new clause was tabled on behalf of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group and was debated in Committee. It has been tabled again but has not been selected for debate.
      If prisoners are not given the reasons why they have been refused parole, naturally they invent their own reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, often the reasons they invent are much worse than the actual reasons. Like my hon. Friends who have spoken on this point, I believe that it is far more important to the prisoner that he be given the truth, however unpalatable that truth may be, and that we have no right, simply because they are prisoners, to patronise them and assume that they cannot be given the full information about themselves which prejudiced their case and prevented their early release.
      If a prisoner is not given the reasons, to which he has a right, for his failure to obtain parole, it is difficult if not impossible for him to work constructively to attempt to obtain his release on parole in the future. The report of the Parole Board for 1975 acknowledged that when it said:
      "there will certainly be cases where a man can improve his future prospects of parole if he knows why he has failed in the past."
      Yet it is the Parole Board, backed by the Government, which refuses to give the man those reasons and therefore the ability to improve his future prospects of early realease on parole. Surely it is reasonable that a prisoner should be told clearly where he has been going wrong so as to give him an opportunity to put things right before his next parole review.
      804
      The combined effects of the two considerations that I have pointed to was vividly summarised by Peter Waugh, then chairman of the Prison Officers Association, when he gave evidence to the Expenditure Committee on 27 February 1978. He said:
      "One of the problems of parole is not just the disappointment of not getting it; it is not knowing the reasons why they do not get parole. This is a question that people like me face every day."
      He is speaking as a prison officer. He states further:
      "A man comes to me and says 'I did not get parole', and I say 'I know, I'm sorry lad'. Then he says "What did I do wrong?' and I say 'I do not know. We have submitted reports and everybody has submitted reports'. Then he says 'Can you tell me how to put myself right so that I will be more favourably considered?' and I say 'No, because I do not know either'. These are the factors which create the problems, not the fact that a man is disappointed."
      7 pm
      That is the evidence from a man who should know. He is chairman of the Prison Officers Association. He i3 in constant and intimate contact with long-term prisoners who have been disappointed not so much by not getting parole but more importantly by not being given the reasons why they have been refused parole. It may be that the reasons were not good or not true. If the reasons are not given, there is no way that they can be challenged. 'The prisoners cannot amend their behaviour so that they get a more favourable review in future.
      The Home Office's document, entitled "Review of Parole in England and Wales", which was published in 1981, rejected the argument that reasons should be given for the refusal of parole. The document argued that giving reasons would lead to litigation in the courts which challenged the reasons that had been given for refusal. That point was made by the hon. and learned Members for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) and Solihull (Mr. Grieve). Both believed that if reasons were given, that would lead to an appellate system or litigation.
      The document argues that giving reasons would lead to a movement towards a system in which parole was a right to be claimed rather than a privilege to be earned, reinforcing the point that was made by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull. However, if that is true, why do none of those consequences appear to flow from the similar circumstances of the provisions that have been made for the mental health review tribunals? Their reasons are given for turning down an application for release. The tribunals deal with cases that are just as sensitive—in many instances they are far more sensitive—as those dealt with by the Parole Board. That does not lead either to litigation in the courts, which has been suggested as a potential consequence, or to a notion that release is a right rather than a privilege.
      The dangers of giving frank comments about a prisoner's circumstances are more grave for someone in a mental hospital. However, those reasons are given and are available to the patient. I suppose that hon. Members who practise in the courts will know that similar frank comments are made in social inquiry reports, psychiatric reports and probation officers' reports, all of which are laid before the courts and which defendants have a right to see. There is no reason why the same consideration that is applied in those circumstances cannot be applied to giving reasons for the refusal of parole.
      Those considerations are not the powerful arguments against fulfilling this basic requirement of natural justice. The main obstacles to introducing the change that is

      805
      proposed today are not objections in principle. That is the way in which the debate has been conducted. The obstacles are rather two important, purely practical, considerations. The first is resources. The Government do not wish to move to a system of giving reasons for parole because of the resource consequences. "Review of Parole in England and Wales" said in paragraph 74:
      "To amalgamate each member's reasons into a single self-consistent explanation of their collective decision, requiring the agreement of every member who favoured release, would be a substantial addition to the labours of the Board and their staff, which, without the provision of significant extra resources, it would simply not be practicable to impose."
      The review was referring to giving reasonably full statements of reasons and not to the alternative proposal of ticking off items on a standard list of reasons. As the latter procedure would be unsatisfactory from the prisoners' point of view it is right that we should conduct the argument for giving reasons on the basis of fairly full reasons. I accept that that would have resource implications. However, if the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West of automatic release on licence were introduced for a large number of short-term prisoners, that would relieve the parole system of the need to review the cases which would have automatic release. The resource implications of giving reasons in the remaining cases would be limited. The remaining cases that would need to be considered by the parole board would be more manageable than the present large number of cases.
      The second practical problem is one that everyone involved in the system—the Minister, his officials and those in the parole board—knows well, but no one wishes to state in public. It is the fact that although the Home Secretary can have reasonable confidence in the reasons that are given by the Parole Board, he could not have the same confidence in the reasons given by the local review committees. Those committees do not meet so often. According to the Home Office's research evidence they vary considerably in the extent to which they recommend parole in almost identical and similar cases. The Home Secretary and the chairman of the Parole Board are saying that they are not prepared to stand up and publicly defend the publicly given reasons of the local review bodies in which they have no confidence.
      In that case it would seem much easier to introduce this change, which many Opposition Members seem to favour. If, as the conference of chief probation officers and NACRO have proposed, we abolished the local review committees in favour of a smaller number of regional parole boards or a peripatetic parole board, that would make it easier to achieve more consistency between one prisoner and another than the present large number of local review committees have achieved in practice.
      For that reason I am pleased to see that the Opposition are committed to introducing a system of giving reasons for the refusal of parole. I hope that when the next Labour Government are in office and they introduce this reform, they will be prepared to go further and make fundamental changes in the parole system, which will make it easier for a larger number of prisoners to get parole on automatic licence and for those not given parole to be given, in terms of natural justice, the reasons why they have been refused
      806
      and therefore the opportunity to amend their character and behaviour in the hope that they will be successful in future. I support the new clause.
      Mr. Parris: I had not intended to speak on the new clause, but I wish to make one observation. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) made the strongest case that can be made for the new clause. Central to her argument was the point that all that the new clause asks for is disclosure, and that to ask for disclosure is by no means to ask for a system of appeal. However, a few minutes after the hon. Lady had finished speaking several hon. Members were asking, effectively, for a system of appeal. They asked for disclosure because they knew of cases where they thought that disclosure might have shown up wrongful decisions against which, naturally they would have wanted to appeal.
      There is no point in disclosure unless there is a system of challenging disclosures which turn out to be wrong. If we had a system of disclosure, it would be only a matter of months before we were being asked for a system of appeal. It is a cruelty to the prisoner to disclose without giving him the right to challenge. As soon as we give the prisoner the right to challenge, there must be a procedure by which the challenge can be adjudicated. Before we know where we are we shall have a system of appeal. Therefore, the argument must be conducted in terms of an argument for an appeal system and not for disclosure. For that reason, I cannot support the new clause.
      Mr. Pitt: Like the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) I did not intend to speak but I rise briefly to support new clause 2 and take up the hon. Gentleman's point about disclosure. It is true that the new clause asks only for disclosure. The prisoner has the right to have the answers disclosed to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and others have shown that there are faults in the system and that the faults should be discovered and disclosed.
      We should not shun the fact that over a period there might be action to give grounds for appeal. I do not see why prisoners should not have the right of appeal. A person may have been led to believe that there are reports favourable to him from all sectors of the prison—I will not even begin to use the graphic terminology of my hon. Friend. He may have the impression that everything that he has done during his prison sentence has led people to believe that he can make a proper go of it outside in the real world. His family circumstances may be highly favourable. If he applies for parole and it is refused not once or twice but in some cases three times, I believe that that person is entitled not only to disclosure—that is a fundamental right—but to a right of appeal. I would support not only disclosure to a prisoner of the reasons why he cannot get parole but any recommendation to give a prisoner the right of appeal so that he can find out the grounds on which he was refused and make claim and counter-claim.
      Mr. Mayhew: This has been an interesting debate on an important matter. It is an issue that gives rise to a great deal of feeling among prisoners who have been denied parole on application or who fear that in future they will again be denied. Therefore, it is right that we should have taken time to consider this matter. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) for introducing the new clause.

      807
      7.15 pm
      Central to this issue is the nature of the parole system. Parole was intended by Parliament to be a privilege and not a right. That is the basis on which it is operated. Proposals on the lines set out in new clause 2 have been considered and rejected by successive Administrations ever since the parole scheme was introduced. The problems are not new. As hon. Members have said, they were considered most recently in "Review of Parole in England and Wales", published in May last year.
      It never has been the practice to give reasons to prisoners who are not selected for parole. During the passage of the original legislation, parole was clearly seen as a privilege rather than a right. It is significant to remind the House that a prisoner serving a life sentence is not entitled to parole, but there is a system whereby he may be licensed by the Home Secretary.
      The statute that set up the parole system requires reasons to be given to those who have been paroled, whose licences have been revoked and who have been recalled to prison. Those people will have been given their liberty on conditions. If they are deprived of it by a revocation of their licence, it must be right that they should be told the reason. They must have an opportunity of answering the allegations made against them that led to their recall to prison because the presumption is that they are entitled to retain the liberty that has been conferred on them.
      Similarly, in the case of the mental health review tribunal, which has been much cited, although I believe misleadingly in this context, there is a difference in kind between the role of the tribunals and that of the Secretary of State in deciding whether to release on parole.
      In the case of the mental health review tribunals, there is an obligation, in essence, to justify continuing detention because the tribunal is dealing with a patient and not with someone who has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to custody, or, at any rate, not having been sentenced to custody without there having been an element of mental disorder. In the second case, of an applicant for parole, the decision formally resting with the Secretary of State, which is a matter of privilege and not of right, is whether the prisoner should complete a sentence that has already been imposed by a court in the community. The presumption is quite different.
      To listen to the debate and to many of the contributions from Opposition Members has been almost to listen to a condemnation of something that is unjust and which in no circumstances can confer benefit on those who have been sentenced to prison. Essentially we are dealing with cases of those who have committed criminal offences and have been found guilty by the legal system. They have been cast on the criminal justice system, which has prescribed that they shall serve a sentence of imprisonment. That sentence is not indeterminate. The only indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for an adult is life imprisonment, to which parole does not apply.
      A determinate sentence of imprisonment has been passed by the judge. Therefore, the presumption is, and should be, that the sentence will be served, subject to remission for good conduct, which is conferred under the prison rules, which themselves have been approved by Parliament. The presumption is that prisoners remain in custody until their sentence is served, subject to remission for good conduct.
      Anything that is to intervene in that process can only be of the nature of a privilege. It cannot be a right. That
      808
      is crucial. The two cases that I have described—the case of the ordinary applicant for parole who is not entitled to reasons for refusal, and the case of someone who has been licensed as a parolee and then is called back to prison because his licence has been revoked—are different.
      Parliament intended that they should be treated differently for that reason. A prison inmate, when applying for parole, is without liberty. It has been taken away by order of the court. But, in the case of someone who has been licensed and has had his liberty restored, albeit on conditions, and Parliament having shown its intention in the statute, reasons for his recall should be given. That is crucial to this matter.
      I turn to the practical consequences of what is urged in new clause 2. There are great practical problems in the way of giving reasons for the refusal of parole. The financial cost, although I do not neglect it, is not what I put first. The Parole Board and the local review committees meet in panels of four or five members. The system was fully described in "Review of Parole in England and Wales" to which reference has been made. The Parole Board and the local review committees consider all the circumstances of the case.
      The hon. Member for Halifax will recall—she asked what the outcome of it was—that in 1978 an experiment was tried in producing a standardised list of 16 factors that might commonly cause the Parole Board or the local review committee to refuse parole. The idea was that the board or the local review committee could indicate from the list the points that had particularly troubled it f t an individual case.
      The results of this experiment were a disappointment and the idea had to be abandoned. Even after a year had passed, the local review committees that took part in the experiment were finding it difficult to agree upon appropriate reasons from the lists, and where the review committee and the Parole Board had both considered a case, and both were agreed that it was appropriate to refuse parole, they identified differing grounds for refusal in about 25 per cent. of the cases.
      I noted with interest that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that a system of ticking off lists from a kind of pro-forma was not satisfactory, and he did not recommend it. That was the view of the parole board as a result of its experiment. It must follow that one must recognise that the reasons are not only far more various than can be contained in a list of 16 to be ticked, but that individual members of a review committee or the Parole Board may conscientiously and perfectly properly differ as to what reason justifies refusal. That does not mean to say that the corporate decision to refuse is any the less valid or reliable because individual members have selected different reasons.
      If there had to be a statutory right to be told what the reasons were, I have only to mention that circumstance to demonstrate how impractical it would be.
      Another reason of extreme importance is that to adopt such a proposal would induce a situation in which the giving of reasons for refusal to the applicant would involve procedures that simply could not be contained within the framework of the present parole system. To adopt it would be likely to change its whole character and to diminish its value. As I have said, the present system makes parole a privilege to be acquired, and the procedures are flexible and sensitive. If reasons had to be given I can readily

      809
      foresee that refusal would become subject to judicial review, and parole would take on the character of a right to be claimed.
      Those who compile the reports upon which the decision is in part made, and perhaps also those who serve on the board and give the reasons, would feel an inhibition in their respective functions that would certainly not work to the benefit of the prisoners or their families. In fact, I think that it would work in the contrary direction, because I believe that the reports would be much more cautious and less forthcoming, as a result of which fewer people would be paroled.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: How can the judges have judicial review unless we allow them to have it? If we pass legislation that says they do not have judicial review, they do not get it.
      Mr. Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the courts are diligent in finding ways of reviewing the exercise of any discretion. If Parliament passed a statute that conferred a discretion and said that reasons shall be given, it would be easy for the courts to find a means of reviewing the process by which those reasons were acted upon. In my opinion, that is the whole character of the development of the jurisdiction of the civil courts against decisions of the Executive over the past 20 or 25 years.
      That is not a development that I would resent or regret——
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: We should put a stop to it.
      Mr. Mayhew: No doubt that was a feeling widely shared in the last Government, but it is not a development that I regret, still less resent. If we obliged the board to give reasons, with the consequence that I foresee, and which I have endeavoured to describe, of those reasons being subject to review by the courts and the exercise of discretion being subject to judicial review, we must ask whether that is appropriate to what Parliament has always intended to be a scheme conferring a privilege.
      Mr. Lawrence: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will allow me to add another more likely counterproductive result. If instead of being a privilege it became a right that a prisoner could serve only one-third of his sentence, is it not at any rate likely that judges might take that into consideration when imposing the original sentence?
      Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The judges would do their best to apply loyally what Parliament appeared to have intended. However, I foresee circumstances in which the court, having regard to its duty to protect the public from the criminal activities of someone before it, might well feel that if parole developed along these lines it would have to impose a longer nominal sentence.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: Perhaps the Minister will clarify something that I have not quite followed. He seemed to be saying that he welcomes the system of judicial review but that he would not welcome reasons being given because they would be subject to judicial review. I do not follow that argument.
      Mr. Mayhew: Where reasons must be expressed, that lets in the judicial testing of the process by which those
      810
      reasons and explanations have been given. Where that happens, it is but a short step to the process of discovery of the reports and dossiers upon which the conclusions have arisen. All that is opened up, with the inhibiting effects that I have endeavoured to describe on those who make the reports.
      Parliament faced all this in much the same way in the case of the gaming board, which has been described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). It faced the need in this particular and special jurisdiction to repose absolute confidence in the Parole Board, just as it did in the gaming board for the very reasons that we have been exploring.
      As, in my view, the new clause would act against the interests of those whom the Parole Board system is designed to serve, and would lead to fewer rather than more people being paroled, I must advise the House to reject it.
      Question put and negatived.

    New clause 6

      INCREASE OF PENALTY FOR UNLAWFUL EVICTION AND HARASSMENT
      'In section 1 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (Unlawful eviction and harassment of occupier) in subsection (4) for the words "£1,000" there shall be substituted "£5,000".'.—[Mr. Wheeler.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John Wheeler: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The present maximum fine on summary conviction of £1,000 for this offence was fixed comparatively recently by the Criminal Law Act 1977, but it does not reflect the enormous value accruing to landlords who obtain possession through the use of unlawful means. Although it is recognised that the statute enables the matter to be tried on indictment where an unlimited fine or imprisonment for up to two years is available, in practice it has been found that, because of the long delays experienced in bringing cases before the Crown court and the unwillingness to tenants who are more reluctant to give evidence in the more intimidating surroundings of the Crown court, very few matters of this kind can be taken to the Crown court.
      The general rule appears to have been that the magistrates' court could be enabled to impose only a maximum fine of £1,000. There are one or two exceptions to that rule in relation to pollution, fisheries and revenue offences, where it is necessary to deal with the matters speedily because the defendant may leave the jurisdiction.
      7.30 pm
      The Government have recently been persuaded, in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, to breach that rule in relation to offences committed under the new provisions dealing with the licensing of sex shops. In the case of offences of harassment of unlawful eviction, the nature of the offence requires that the prosecution be dealt with speedily. In practical terms, that means through the magistrates' court. However, it is essential that the magistrates have sufficient power to punish offenders so that the maximum punishments available to them reflect the increased value of the property as a result of vacant possession having been obtained or sought by unlawful means.

      811
      I should be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend would look carefully at this new clause, because it is strongly supported by the London Boroughs Association and particularly by the inner London borough councils such as the council of the City of Westminster and the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) here, because his authority also has difficulty in this matter.
      In London, as well as in other cities, we have a particularly difficult problem with bad landlords and vastly increased property values. There is a strong feeling, particularly in London, that some action should be taken to ensure that the law is respected and that the penalties available to the courts, especially to the magistrates' courts, are sufficient to deal with one of the most unpleasant evils that we are confronted with in inner London and some of our biggest cities.
      I recognise that this matter strays, to an extent, into the preserve of the Department of the Environment but, nevertheless, I hope that the opportunity will be found to use the Bill to increase these penalties to deal with a great problem.
      Mr. Martin Stevens: I strongly support the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler). My purpose in intervening is to confirm that in my borough, as in his, the facts are as he states.
      So often, the House passes measures designed to protect the weak against the strong but which, when applied in practice to the day-to-day relationships of ordinary life, simply do not work. We have protected tenants against landlords who arrive at the front doorstep with savage dogs, or who throw bricks through the windows. However, in real life the sort of pressure to which a landlord submits a tenant is not, generally, so ferocious. Harassment tends to take the form of abuse such as letters demanding that the premises be vacated. Many tenants become nervous and upset as a result of this form of intimidation and become anxious to leave under almost any circumstances, even though they know that the landlord has no legal right to enforce his demand for possession.
      When a fine, as in this case, is so low—other than in the circumstances that my hon. Friend has defined—it is, in contrast to the gain in value that the landlord will get for vacant possession of the premises, a flea bite. It is a minuscule tax, not a punishment. The increase in house values since 1977 makes the earlier figure out of date.
      As my hon. Friend said, there is a desire for speed. Without speed, the law is ineffective and that means that in practice, higher financial penalties must be allowed to the magistrates' courts. The old limit has now been breached several times in the general top level of fines that can be imposed by the justices, and is no longer applicable for many offences where the financial stakes are so much higher than they were a decade ago.
      I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister may feel bound to point out that the proposals that we are making would fall more naturally under legislation promoted by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington in urging that if we can possibly cut the red tape in this case and introduce these proposals into the Bill, which will more quickly enable the tenant to
      812
      be aided, as he badly needs, we shall have served the cause of justice between landlord and tenant particularly in the inner cities.
      Mr. Pitt: I support the new clause. I had hoped that we would have chosen a clause with slightly sharper teeth because it is my belief, and I think that of the hon. Members who have tabled the new clause, that whatever sum is substituted for a fine will have to be increased in the end, unless it can be so penal as to rob the landlord of any profit he may make.
      Not only in the London boroughs that have been mentioned, but in the southern part of inner London where I have worked for six and a half years and in my own borough of Croydon, far too many landlords are using the excuses of the law to harass their tenants. I have a large wad of paper with me with details of the case of a Mr. Hallahan, of St. James' Road, Croydon. For the last six to nine months, he has been unmercifully harassed by his landlord, largely within the law. We cannot stop those who are within the law but we can, by the increase in the fines, if we accept the new clause, at least touch the Landlords who go so far that they go outwith the law, and fall within the purview of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
      I wish that we could have had a new clause that gives the Protection from Eviction Act stronger teeth. because we need some strong sanctions to prevent the bad landlordism that is on the increase in inner and outer London. I am content to support the new clause because it will at least give some greater power to stop these people preying on their tenants. The tenants are mostly unsophisticated people on low income, often with no job or a job that carries little responsibility. These are the people who are preyed on and the increase in the fine would assist them in some small way. I look forward in the near future to some legislation that will give—stronger teeth to the Protection from Eviction Act.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) for taking the opportunity presented by the Bill to raise a matter about which he feels strongly. I have particularly noted the support that he has told us exists in the London Boroughs Association and among the inner London boroughs for his proposals.
      New clause 6 would extend the maximum fine for the offences of unlawful eviction and harassment of an occupier from £1,000 to £5,000. My hon. Friend rightly notes, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), that these are matters of policy which fall within the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have an interest, however, in the structure of fines.
      It is important that we retain a consistency, so far as this is possible, in the pattern of maximum fines for one offence and another. That has been established to some extent by the Criminal Law Act 1977 and carried further in the Bill. It is therefore important to avoid the temptation of providing one-off exceptions unless there are overwhelming reasons for doing so. The sum of £1,000 is the maximum financial penalty normally available to magistrates' courts. It represents the normal dividing line between the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and Crown courts and the general limit beyond which defendants should be entitled to jury trial.
      As my hon. Friend has mentioned, these are offences that are triable in two ways. They can be tried summarily

      813
      by the magistrates, in which case £1,000 is the maximum fine; or they can be tried on indictment in a Crown court, in which event there is no limit to the fine that may be imposed upon conviction. The only offences triable either way like this for which maximum fines of more than £1,000 are available on summary conviction by magistrates are those in pollution and merchant shipping legislation where environmental damage can be immense and where it is necessary to undertake proceedings speedily against the foreign vessels concerned before they leave our jurisdiction.
      I have noted what my hon. Friend says about the need for speedy action in the case of harassment. If it was decided to proceed against the accused person seeking trial on indictment at the Crown court, it would be possible, I suppose, once proceedings had begun, for an injunction to be obtained to restrain the continuing action that is complained of and that the injunction could be enforced by way of imprisonment if it was defied. I should have thought that the need for speedy action in those circumstances could be met.
      There has been reference to the provision in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill—what might be called the sex shop provision—for a £5,000 penalty on summary conviction. We have said that steps will be taken in another place to increase that amount. I do not believe, however, that this is on all fours with the present offences. Summary trial only has been provided for dealing with the sex shop offences and unlimited fines would not therefore be available.
      I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington has been in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services. In that correspondence, my hon. Friend has drawn my right hon. Friend's attention to examples of incidents that give rise to concern. My noble Friend the then Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office asked for advice upon these incidents from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The Metropolitan Police have been able to give my officials some preliminary observations on their policy in this area and have undertaken to provide reports on the detailed incidents to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
      Enforcement in this area of the law is not an easy matter. Nor, if there are problems of enforcement, does it necessarily follow that a legislative solution such as this is the answer. What is clear, however, is that my noble Friend the present Under-Secretary of State must be given the opportunity to examine police advice on incidents drawn to his attention before this aspect of the matter can be taken further.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Government take seriously the matters that he has raised and understand his desire and the desire of other hon. Members who have spoken to achieve remedies. Responsibility for general oversight of the Protection from Eviction Act rests with my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am sure that he will pay full attention to what has been said in this debate.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Wheeler: Speed in dealing with this problem is essential and time is passing. There is an increasing number of problems in inner London associated with bad
      814
      landlords, some of whom are foreign nationals with no commitment to the interests of British people who live in London. Many of the people upon whom great ills are perpetrated have a deprived and inadequate background and do not find it easy to go to court and to give evidence or make statements.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment has not been particularly forthcoming in dealing with these matters. There is great concern that the Government generally do not look upon the problems of London with the necessary—care and concern. That is why this opportunity is taken to press the matter. I am afraid that it rests with my hon. and learned Friend to decide whether this new clause should go into the Bill.
      Mr. Mayhew: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I do not challenge his contention that these people are not adept in court procedures and find it difficult to provide statements. That is just as relevant to a trial in a magistrates' court as it is to a trial in a Crown court. There cannot be any fine imposed upon someone accused of these serious offences unless it is the result of conviction in one court or the other. However, the present fine of £1,000 will be eligible under the Bill for uprating to take account of the decline in the value of money in recent years.
      Once the Bill is on the statute book, it will be open to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to place an order before Parliament to increase these maxima and other maxima. It is his intention as soon as possible next year, if this provision is enacted, to use that power. In that event, it is our expectation that the maximum of £1,000 will be increased to about £2,500. If that course of events comes about, it is foreseeable that by the middle of next year the maximum would be increased to half of the sum that my hon. Friend would like to achieve.
      I should like to be able to say more to my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I cannot do so. I understand the way in which he puts the case. I have done my best to explain the difficulties that lie in our way. I have given the undertaking that my noble Friend will be considering the detailed representations made to him by the police about the incidents that have been brought to his attention. I hope that what I have said will be of some, although I recognise not of entire, comfort to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Wheeler: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 8

      INAPPROPRIATE SENTENCES
      '(1) Where any person has been sentenced in any criminal cause or matter the Attorney-General may if he thinks fit at any time within … days of the passing of the sentence at the trial refer the sentence to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal on the ground that it was whether wholly or in one or more particular respects inappropriate having regard to all the circumstances of the case and on any such reference the Court if they think the sentence was inappropriate shall quash it and shall pass such other sentence warranted in law by the verdict (whether more or less severe) in substitution therefore as they think ought to have been passed provided that they shall only have power to pass such sentence as could have been passed by the Court by which the person was originally sentenced and that they shall take into account any part of the original sentence already served.
      (2) On any such reference the Attorney-General shall pay the sentenced person's taxed costs of the reference in any event.'.—[Mr. Alan Clark.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Alan Clark: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The House will recognise that there is great and growing public anxiety about the whole area of what is loosely and colloquially defined as law and order. We accept in the quieter atmosphere of Report stage that it would be inappropriate to cast any stain or to blame individuals or parties. However, public indignation is constantly expressed in one sector. I refer to the inconsistency of sentences for the same offences and the inadequacy of sentences for offences that the public find particularly offensive and upsetting.
      The purpose of the new clause is to give the Attorney-General the power, if a sentence is, in his judgment, inappropriate, to refer it to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. He will set out the grounds on which it is in one or more respects inappropriate. This will give the Criminal Division the chance to correct the defect.
      I do not think that the power would be widely used. There is no question of the prosecution having the right to call for a particular sentence and, if that call is not met, referring to the Attorney-General and pursuing a defendant. The new clause has been drafted to avoid that. It merely gives the Attorney-General the power to respond to a public sense of indignation. He would be the judge of the level of that indignation and the manner in which and extent to which it had been expressed.
      The fact that the power is available will, even if only used sparingly, give great reassurance to the public who have been expressing widespread disquiet.
      I shall not burden the House, as it would be so easy to do, with examples of sentences that, in the view of the layman, have been inadequate and, indeed, offensive. In some cases this year human life has been taken, including the lives of children, but the defendants for one reason or another have walked free from the court, and the sense of public outrage has been extremely marked.
      Every hon. Member, in the course of his service as an elected representative, must have received a number of letters from constituents complaining about sentences awarded either locally or nationally. Hon. Members will know the indignation that is aroused. It is important to go some way towards quietening that anxiety because the frustration arising from inadequate sentences is finding expression in a number of disagreeable and highly dangerous symptons. It is almost impossible to obtain a conviction against a person in a position of authority—a prison officer or a police officer—who has used violence, even to the extent of causing loss of life, against prisoners who are either on remand or have received sentence. Practically no jury will convict in such cases because of an unspoken acceptance by juries and the public that there are many inexplicable cases of really odious crimes. There is a tacit acceptance of rough justice, and of those applying it, when it is applied in unclear circumstances.
      The House knows of many cases where injuries of varying degrees of severity have been inflicted on persons who have been convicted, or are on remand for crimes of various scales. Where that has happened those charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm, or even causing death, have always been acquitted.
      Mr. Lawrence: How will my hon. Friend's new clause affect the situation if the man is acquitted?
      Mr. Clark: Acquittal is the most difficult consideration in these cases. I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend, with his legal knowledge, should ask that question. As he knows, an acquittal is not a sentence and, although the public may feel that an acquittal is inappropriate, arising from a bad verdict, the new clause does not apply. The new clause refers to sentences, not verdicts. If a person has been acquitted, that is that. No one would dream of suggesting that that principle should be interfered with. We are trying to find some way of allaying the widespread and increasing public indignation about inadequate sentences. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that sentence is pronounced only after a person has been convicted.
      The new clause will get rid of a great deal of frustration. People will realise that a measure is available to correct the situation. The sinister and intrusive element—not quite the desire for lynch law—that proper justice under the constitution cannot be, or is not being, applied and that rough justice is, therefore, legitimised by the defect, would be eliminated.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Perhaps my hon. Friend has in mind the fine of £2,000 that was imposed upon a rapist early in the year. There was much public disquiet and many people felt that a prison sentence should also have been imposed. In such a case, who would apprise the Attorney-General of the public's concern so that he could use the new clause to have the sentence reconsidered?
      Mr. Clark: I am flattered that my hon. Friend should be expressing such interest in the new clause. He should only be questioning me about the minutiae of its technicality. I prefer to con lime myself to the text of the clause. However, I remind my hon. Friend that the Attorney-General is a senior Law Officer. He is a political animal and a political appointee. He would be well aware of the scale of public indignation at any given moment. He talks to Government and Back-Bench colleagues and receives a voluminous mail. He has many other sources and contacts from which he should be able to appraise cases in which it would be appropriate for him to make such a referral. Precedents would gradually accumulate.
      Laymen have to tread carefully when they draft new clauses and never more so than when they are seeking to amend a lawyer's Bill. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) will support me and will put the issue in the language of lawyers much more elegantly and persuasively than I could do. However, I am sure that the House would not feel it appropriate that arguments relating to new clauses in legal Bills should be confined to lawyers, much though they would prefer that to be the case. It is natural that hearing laymen stumble their way through legal arguments would offend lawyer's sensibilities.
      8 pm
      I conclude, still in the language of laymen. There is a cosmetic aspect to the new clause. I suggest that it would do great good immediately, because the public would realise that there was a machinery by which inadequate and offensive sentences could be corrected if the senior

      817
      Law Officer of the Crown decided that that was necessary. That would rid us of certain undesirable new symptoms that are starting to pervade law and order issues.
      I shall be satisfied if my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will simply give an undertaking to refer my suggestion to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. Indeed, it would be ungracious of him to refuse to do even that, because the suggestion should be seriously considered. The level of public disquiet is strong and we have available a relatively easy curative measure.
      The House has heard enough from me in lay language and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde will support the new clause in language that lawyers will find easier to understand and more persuasive.
      Mr. Edward Gardner: I support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) and I cannot help but agree with his description of the growing concern in the public mind about over-lenient sentences and the absence of any power for the courts to deal with such mistaken judgments.
      The purpose of the new clause is to identify, and to give the Government the opportunity to consider, what many rightly regard as a serious defect in our appellate system. Harsh sentences can be corrected on appeal, but if by a mischance—fortunately such cases are rare—a judge decides on a sentence that is obviously inappropriate to a particularly serious crime nothing can be done about it.
      In 1965 the Morris committee, which looked at possible ways of improving the appellate system, recommended that the Court of Criminal Appeal should become the Court of Appeal criminal division, with additional and reformed powers. The committee examined the prospect of allowing the new court to retain its power to increase a sentence when someone had come before it on an appeal to decrease his sentence.
      It was decided, for good reasons, that that would be a wholly inappropriate power, which was unfair to the appellant. It was becoming traditional that if the Court of Criminal Appeal decided that an appeal had no merit it could bring the matter to a swift conclusion by threatening the appellant with an increased sentence if he persisted with his appeal.
      The Morris committee decided that the power should be removed from the Court of Appeal, but the removal of that power must not be confused with the proposal in the new clause to introduce a new power for the Court of Appeal to increase sentences where an inordinately lenient sentence has been imposed for a serious crime and it is thought that it should be corrected.
      The proposal in the new clause is not a novel suggestion. Many countries, including Canada and a number in Europe, allow their courts to use the power that we suggest ought to be considered by the Government as a new power for the Court of Appeal.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton dealt with an important matter in reply to an intervention by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about what would happen in the case of an acquittal. I should make it clear to the House that acquittals would not be affected by the new clause which refers only to sentences.
      818
      One should always have in the background when such a reform is suggested the fear that an appellant may be put in double jeopardy, but that fear is removed immediately by the fact that the new clause would apply only to sentences and there would be no question of anyone being put in double jeopardy or of the verdict of a jury being exposed to alteration.
      Mr. Keith Best: My hon. and learned Friend speaks with his usual forceful persuasion. The new clause gives what appears to be an unfettered discretion to the Attorney-General. I do not expect my hon. and learned Friend to try to define how that discretion may be used, but will he tell us what matters he believes would be material in the Attorney-General's mind before he made a reference to the Court of Appeal?
      Mr. Gardner: I would expect the Attorney-General to be moved by considerations of the sort that I suspect move the Court of Appeal when it sees that a sentence has caused a sense of public outrage. It always seems that by some happy coincidence a case soon comes before the Court of Appeal which allows it to make it clear, with guidelines if necessary, how such offences should be dealt with in the future. I hope that the same considerations would influence the Attorney-General in deciding whether a case should be referred to the Court of Appeal.
      Mr. Best: If that is the case, we would almost certainly have a trial of sentence by the media. It would be the editors of newspapers in editorials who would largely determine whether there were such a public outrage that the Attorney-General should feel that his discretion should be exercised in making a reference within the new clause.
      Mr. Gardner: I should be almost as outraged by the Attorney-General acting in that way as I should be by an inordinately lenient sentence. I should like to put my trust in the judgment, experience and wisdom of the Attorney-General. I would have faith in an Attorney-General appointed by either side of the House to exercise that discretion justly. I would fear nothing of the kind that my hon. Friend has anticipated.
      Mr. Alan Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) appears to think that the Attorney-General might succumb to pressure from editorial pages, but there is also the fact that the case will go to the Court of Appeal. My hon. Friend cannot say that it, too, would be influenced by the editorial.
      Mr. Gardner: This power, given to the Attorney-General on a discretionary basis, would in my view be used sparingly and rarely. It would, as it were, be a reserve power which could, in certain circumstances, be valuable and could be used to the improvement of our system of justice. I endorse the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, and through him to the Government, that the problem that is summarised in and solved by this new clause—it is a problem—should be submitted to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. It is all too clear that there are all kinds of peripheral and indeed central, difficulties which attach to any reform of this kind. It would require the careful consideration of a committee such as the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I strongly urge my hon. and learned Friend to help us by telling us this evening that the matter will be submitted to the Criminal Law Revision Committee.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: When I read this new clause I must confess that I was not strongly disposed in its favour. When I listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), I became strongly disposed against it. I regret to say that that disposition has not been much lessened by the persuasive words of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner).
      The clause would allow an application to be made where, in the view of the Attorney-General, the sentence was either too severe or too lenient. It is apparent from what has been said by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde that what they have in mind is that it would be exercised only where it was thought that the sentence was too lenient. There are perfectly adequate powers of appeal that cover circumstances where a sentence is over severe. It would be unnecessary to give such a power to the Attorney-General in that case.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman was right in saying that there are jurisdictions in which the prosecution has a right of appeal against a sentence on the ground that it is inadequate. If one follows the logic of his argument, it is difficult to see why he is not suggesting that precisely that power should be applied in our courts. Why suggest that the power should be one that could be exercised only by the Attorney-General?
      As I understood it, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton put his case on two grounds. First, that there is from time to time—he said, very rarely—a feeling of public outrage about an inadequate sentence. No doubt there is from time to time such a feeling of outrage, whether justified or not. In my experience, in many cases such a feeling is not justified because the public does not know all the facts that the judge knows. However, there may be the odd case where the judge has been unduly lenient. Secondly, he put what seems to me to be the extraordinary argument that when police or prison officers beat up someone in their charge, juries acquit because they think that judges are too generally soft.
      Mr. Alan Clark: I am surprised at the hon. and learned Gentleman employing the device of fore-shortening an argument, expressing in it in a compressed and disreputable form and then shooting it down. I said that the new clause must be seen in the context of a general level of public frustration with law enforcement and sentencing. That level of frustration is so pervasive that it is already beginning to have many undesirable side-effects, of which I gave the example that no jury will convict in cases such as he cited. I did not say that there is a direct link between the two. It is a little unfair to attribute that to me.
      Mr. Silkin: I would be the last person to wish to do injustice to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have heard speaking in Committee on the Bill from time to time. I hope that, when I re-read what he said in Hansard, I will find that I did him an injustice. However, I am bound to say that it seemed to me to be a most extraordinary way to put his case. The hon. Gentleman says that he was simply giving an example of the general feeling of frustration. That feeling of frustration to which he referred arises, it is said, because judges are too lenient, whether in particular cases or generally. If that were the situation,
      820
      and that frustration were justified and general, one comes back to the point that there might be a case for giving the prosecution a general power.
      Mr. Edward Gardner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised an important question. Why not give this power to the prosecution? I do not want to see the prosecution involved in the sentencing process. It would be incompatible with the tastes of our people. There i:, no need for it. The alternative solution, which is part of the new clause, provides a satisfactory way of overcoming the objections that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.
      Mr. Silkin: I am delighted to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that he does not want the prosecution to be involved. It is fundamental to our system of justice and of sentencing that the prosecution is impartial in the conduct of the trial and should not be placed in the position of demanding a particular sentence. We have rejected the idea of the prosecution demanding a sentence—as app lies in some jurisdictions—and of giving the prosecution a right of appeal against sentence for that very reason. Although the case is slightly different, Parliament also decided that it was wrong to continue with a system under which the court used to have a power to increase a sentence when an appellant appealed on the ground of its severity. The whole trend of our thinking on sentences has gone in the opposite direction to that proposed in the new clause.
      The proposed power is to be given to the Attorney-General to get over that difficulty. I do not know how he is to operate that power unless the prosecution tells him the facts of the case. Is it suggested that he should read newspaper accounts, or that matters should be brought to his attention by Members of Parliament saying -Look at this terrible case in which someone has been given only six months when he should have been given five years"? Is that the way in which the matter will be brought to his attention? That does not appeal to me and would not appeal to any Attorney-General.
      In recent years, the Attorney-General has been given a power to refer certain matters to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. That power was to apply when he thought that an acquittal by a lower court should be referred because an important question of law was involved. The power was expressly limited so that the name and identity of the defendant were not known and so that nothing that the Court of Appeal did in reaching its decision on the law would have any effect on the acquittal of the defendant.
      Therefore, the power is very much restricted and is quite different from that envisaged in the new clause. Under the new clause, a defendant who had been convicted and sentenced would never know whether the matter was to be raised again. To some extent, the matter would depend on popular clamour and so on. The defendant would be at risk because it would be a matter of chance whether a local reporter heard his trial and sentence and passed on the information to the national press, thus creating a fuss. Justice should not be dispensed in that way.
      When I held the office of Attorney-General I had to operate many difficult powers. The Attorney-General often knows that whatever decision he takes, he will be criticised and attacked. He takes that in his stride, as he

      821
      must. If such a power were given to the Attorney-General, I would regard it as the most distasteful power and would never want to exercise it.
      Mr. Lawrence: There is certainly no agreement on this side of the House that the new clause should be accepted. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) that the provision is thoroughly unacceptable, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will completely and utterly reject it.
      Of course I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) said in his opening remarks. The public are anxious about law and order. There are many things that should be done about that. My hon. Friend and I are in complete agreement about most of those matters and we have often ventilated together our suggestions about what more can be done to improve the criminal legal process to ensure that more of the guilty are caught, convicted and properly sentenced.
      However, the new clause is not the sort of proposal that we should consider. In his frustration at the inadequacy of law and order, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton has proposed a measure that not many of those involved in the legal process will support. The new clause was no doubt tabled with great fervour but as my hon. Friend came closer to moving the new clause, and then while actually moving it, the strength of his adherence to the principle began to wane. Ultimately my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) said, in effect, "Let's throw it at the Criminal Law Revision Committee and let it bite at this bone." That may be a partial solution, but there are more important matters for that Committee to consider.
      I shall deal with some of the most glaring objections to the new clause. First, the Attorney-General's power to refer the matter to the Court of Appeal is the power of the highest prosecuting authority in the land. It cannot seriously be argued that the prosecution would not be taking part in the sentencing process. It would certainly be seen as such. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde, a sponsor of the new clause, shied away from that. It is clear that that change would be contrary to the cherished principles of our English legal criminal system. It is contrary to the historic principle of English law that a person should not be hounded into conviction or into a longer sentence after conviction.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton waxed eloquent in his cause, he began to drift—as was inevitable—into saying that there were acquittals that should not have been made. That was why I asked him how acquittals would be affected by the new clause, which does not deal with them.
      Mr. Alan Clark: I did not say anything about acquittals. The first time acquittals were mentioned was during the extraordinary intervention of my hon. and learned Friend. He asked how the clause would cope with acquittals. The clause is confined entirely to sentence.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Lawrence: I intervened precisely because my hon. Friend was dealing with acquittals. He was talking about juries who refused to convict prison and police officers who had done wrong.
      822
      My second objection is that once we break into that principle and start to reconsider whether a person has been rightly let off by the inadequacy of the sentence, how long will it be before we are driven to consider whether a person has been rightly let off by the insanity or stupidity of the jury? How long would it be before we were invited to consider—as even now there are rumours—whether the jury system itself is wholly adequate to suit the needs of a modern society where terrorism and lawlessness abide?
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: The next course might be not just whether the sentence is inappropriate but whether it is lenient.
      Mr. Lawrence: I am going down another path at the moment. How long will it be before we abolish the jury system and substitute the decision of either single or dual judges? How long before it is considered that some of the rules of evidence which we have consistently embraced as being a fair test of a man's innocence or guilt begin to be eroded? How long will it be before judges suggest that defence speeches are too long and repetitious and that cross-examination is too lengthy? Do I strike some chord of recollection in the ears of hon. Gentlemen opposite who even now recall reading in the newspapers of observations by judges who are frustrated at the inadequacy of the existing system to deal with lawlessness?
      How long will it be before counsel are frightened to take a case? How long will it be before in a particularly obnoxious case a client will not find it easy to get a counsel to defend him? It happens. It happened in the case of Shcharansky in the Soviet Union. It is difficult for counsel who want to enter a plea of not guilty to expect that they will long remain in their chosen profession under a regime which has slipped away into totalitarianism. It is because that is anathema to our system that we should not begin the process.
      My third objection is that the process would savour of vindictiveness and hounding. We are appalled at the prospect of double jeopardy. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde was driven to deny that there was any element of double jeopardy in reconsidering a man's sentence. There are many forms of double jeopardy. It is one form of double jeopardy to retry a man who has been acquitted and it is another to reconsider the adequacy of the sentence. The purpose of reconsidering the sentence would be to impose a harsher one. That would be repulsive to the historic principles of English law. It astonishes me that any hon. and learned Friend of mine could seriously put his name to the matter.
      I could continue but there are other hon. Ladies and Gentlemen who want to speak, and my view is not the only one. It does appear that this new clause is ill-considered in the light of the effect it would have on the historic attitude and processes of our criminal legal system. It appears that it is impracticable to operate, by virtue of the exchanges we have heard. As the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich said, there would be difficulties for an Attorney-General having to call in papers, examine transcripts and deal with the matter by reference to newspapers. We know how unbiased they are in their reporting. We know how much trust we can repose in the media because we have had recent evidence of that, particularly with the BBC. I hope that nobody will blame me for taking the opportunity of getting that matter in.
      Therefore, I hope that the new clause will be dealt with by the House on its merits—that is, no merit at all—and

      823
      I hope that we shall not allow ourselves to be a party to the reversal of any of the traditional, historic, well-established and well-regarded principles that are fundamental to our British legal system.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has painted a gruesome picture of the effects that the new clause could have upon the traditions of the English legal system. I am not sure that I would read quite so much into it, but, from what he has said and from what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) has said with all the authority of an ex-Attorney-General, I believe that it is an illogical and inappropriate way to deal with inappropriate sentences.
      The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), who is experienced in legal matters, knows that he cannot hide behind the fact that the new clause does not seek to involve the prosecution in the sentencing process, because it is inescapable that that will be the ultimate effect. Neither he nor anyone who has pride in the impartial way in which prosecutors present the case would wish that to happen, but it is not logical to suggest that the Attorney-General should have power to remit a case on the ground that the sentence is inappropriate without discussions with the prosecution and without the prosecution having expressed a view upon it. If the prosecution expresses a view upon it, the logical conclusion is that during the trial the prosecution should express a view about the ultimate sentence. If that were to happen, the whole role and tradition of presentation by the prosecution would be changed, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: My hon. and learned Friend is making a very important point. Might not one effect be the prosecution indicating to the judge how the Court of Appeal dealt with a previous similar case in which the sentence was increased?
      Mr. Davidson: That is a possible conclusion. For fear that the judge might pass an inappropriate sentence, the prosecution would seek to introduce as much evidence as possible relevant not to obtaining the correct verdict but to obtaining a heavy sentence. That is the inevitable logic of the new clause.
      The same would apply to the police. The pressure upon them to gather information that would strengthen the court's inclination to lengthen the sentence would be irresistible. There would be a strong tendency, for which they could not be blamed, to bring forward as much information as possible to obtain the longest possible sentence. They would do that because the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde would have achieved the creation in the police and in the prosecution of a personal interest in the sentence, rather than an institutional one as at present. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in my view, cannot really answer that argument.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich spoke of the difficulty that an Attorney-General would feel if he were burdened with this responsibility. We in this House know that successive Attorneys-General, on both sides of the House—I include the present Attorney-General—have the ability to walk that tightrope of being political appointees while exercising fairness and impartiality in their decisions as guardians of the public interest.
      824
      The danger of the new clause lies in involving the Attorney-General, even if he did not wish it, in overall Government policy on law and order. That would be the irresistible conclusion that the public would reach.
      The other conclusion would be this. The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde suggests that if this power were given to the Attorney-General the public would be reassured that inappropriate sentences would be rectified. There is a public concern about that. I accept that, as does everybody else, but I do not believe that that would be the conclusion. In any given case where there was a public clamour in the newspapers for an Attorney-General's reference to be made and the Attorney-General did not make that reference, the public would be even more concerned. They would say that the Attorney-General had not carried out his public duty or even his political duty—the duty which he was elected to carry out. That would dangerously erode the high reputation that Attorneys-General rightly have in the constitution of this country.
      There are other more obvious reasons. It would be oppressive and unfair for any convicted person who has had all the torment and horrors of a criminal trial and who has been convicted and sentenced to have hanging over him the fear that his sentence might ultimately be overturned and a heavier sentence imposed. That may not be double jeopardy, but it is certainly jeopardy and is oppressive and in many ways offensive to all our traditions. It is, as it were, single jeopardy or additional jeopardy, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton rightly points out.
      If the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde feels that this new clause is necessary, I should have thought that he would at least limit it to cases where the judge has got the law wrong, as he certainly appeared to have done in the notorious rape case by his introduction of the strange doctrine of contributory negligence, but that is not provided for in the new clause either. If this new clause were to be adopted, it would be more logical for the Minister to change the nature of the prosecution system by introducing as a prerequisite a national prosecution agency where the prosecution is seen to be an independent force.
      8.45 pm
      The added difficulty, which I am sure that the Minister does not intend, is that there could be a tendency for judges to give a longer sentence than perhaps a case merits, which goes against the whole flavour and intent of the measure.
      In all the circumstances, the House should feel that, although this has been a useful debate, the new clause should be rejected. If it is not, the traditions of our legal system will be changed for the worse.
      Mr. Best: It is clear that the House is against the new clause, but my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) are right to say that there is a sense of public outrage at some of the sentences passed in our courts. However, I am sure that they would be the first to acknowledge that it is wrong to say that there is a general sense of disillusionment with the majority of sentences. The majority are not open to challenge. The new clause is designed to remedy those that cause a sense of outrage.
      We must ask ourselves what causes that sense of outrage. Surely it must be, in the majority of cases, the way in which sentences are reported in the press. Sadly,

      825
      the general public do not have access to all the mitigating circumstances and the details of the trial, or of the offence to which a defendant has pleaded guilty. Therefore—I say it with respect to the general public—they are not competent in most cases to make a definitive judgment as to the validity of a sentence. Those who are competent are the people who sit, in decreasing numbers, in the public galleries of our courts and who hear all the facts and the mitigating circumstances.
      Although I acknowledge that both my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend are correct in their estimation that there is a sense of public outrage, they are incorrect about the remedy for it. The remedy must be a better way of reporting court cases so that the general public can have access to the facts that they would have if they sat in the public gallery. I suspect that many hon. Members would say that that is clearly impractical and that it is impossible to publish verbatim in the newspapers all the circumstances, facts and mitigation in a case. They are absolutely right. If that is the case, it means, even more persuasively, that the new clause is not the way to deal with abuse. If I am correct, it is an ill-founded concept in any event.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best). It is not only impractical, but in many cases it would be completely undesirable, that all the matters taken into account by the judge, including social inquiry reports, should be ventilated in public.
      Mr. Best: The right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) speaks with great force on such matters, as a former Attorney-General, and he is right. The point that I wish to establish is that because the general public feel a sense of outrage at some sentences, it does not necessarily mean that the sense of outrage is well-founded. If only the facts were available to a wider public, many members of the public would realise that the sentence was absolutely right. I accept, however, that that does not entirely dispose of the argument of my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend. Inevitably, there will still be cases where a judge gets it wrong. Just as a judge can get it wrong in law, so the judge can get the sentence wrong in the opinion of those who sit around the court and feel that the sentence should be other than the one that was passed.
      Who is the custodian of the public conscience in terms of sentencing? Is it the judge in the courtroom where the sentence is passed, calling into account all his experience at the Bar and as a member of the Law Society, and all the surrounding circumstances which he understands as a member of the general public as well as a member of the judiciary? Or should the public conscience be, not the judge at the trial, but the Attorney-General in this place? My hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend are saying that the Attorney-General should be the final arbiter of the public sense in matters of sentencing, and that it should be removed from the judge—accepting, of course, that the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal would make the final decision, and not the Attorney-General, on the sentencing.
      How will the Attorney-General gauge whether a matter is one of sufficient public outrage that a reference should be made? Surely it can only be by reading the newspapers
      826
      which express a sense of outrage, either in letters from readers or in editorial comment, and I hope that I have already demonstrated to the House that that is a highly inaccurate way of gauging the true sense of public opinion on a particular case.
      If that is so, it must surely be right that the custodianship of the public sense in terms of sentencing should still rest with the judiciary, and not with a political officer in this House, the Attorney-General.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am completely against the new clause. The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) was right when he said that the practice that used to obtain, of allowing the Court of Appeal to increase a sentence if the court thought that the appeal was inappropriate, was abolished some time ago. He was in favour of that abolition, and said that it had nothing to do with a proposal of this nature. I accept that.
      This is a wholly novel proposal for English law, though it is not the first time that it has been made. It was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) a few years ago, after another rape case. The House voted on it in a Ten-Minute Bill, and rejected it. If there is any possibilty that this proposal will get off the ground, I hope that it will be voted down tonight.
      In introducing the new clause, the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) suggested that they would be happy if the Minister sent it to the Criminal Law Revision Cornmitee. I should not be happy about that. In practice, the fact that it has been referred by Parliament to that Committee gives it a start. Because the proposal has been urged by hon. Members, the Committee thinks that a proportion of opinion in the House is behind it. If that were to happen, simply as a means of getting rid of this new clause, it would be disastrous.
      The Criminal Law Revision Committee and everybody else ought to know that the strength of feeling in the House is almost completely opposed to the proposal. The reasons have been given by several hon. Members. The best reason has been given by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best). There is no such thing as a right or wrong sentence. There is a perception, which is frequently subjective, about whether a sentence was too lenient or too heavy. Where it is thought, by the accused in particular, to have been too heavy he can appeal. The Court of Appeal then takes a view about whether the sentence was too heavy.
      To give the Court of Appeal the right to decide whether a sentence was too lenient is to provide that the Court of Appeal might be able to drag up a sentence rather than drag it down. That flies in the face of the mood not only of the House but of people outside in recent years that sentencing on the whole for offences that were not violent has been too heavy and that there should be some degree of shorter sentencing.
      If we were to pass this clause it would be an indication to the judiciary that we were reconsidering that mood. I do not want to reconsider it. It is highly desirable that we should get towards shorter sentences as quickly as possible. Therefore, I would not be in favour of the new clause.
      Who would be able to estimate whether there was a sufficient head of steam to allow the Attorney-General to intervene? The hon. Member for Anglesey is right. The Attorney-General would decide by reason of the screaming headlines. It would be The Sun or the Daily Express that

      827
      would decide whether public comment was such that the case ought to go to the Court of Appeal. Those who believe, as apparently the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton believes, that judges are not affected by this cannot know what judges are like. Of course they are as affected by criticism in the press as anybody else. The only difference is that those of us in public life who have been subjected to such criticism know better how to bear it. The judiciary feel it strongly. There is no doubt that it makes a difference to their decisions. It has been suggested that after one of these outbursts of public indignation in the newspapers the Court of Appeal can take a certain view; of course it can. It can respond to public pressure through the newspapers. That is not a sensible way to proceed.
      If we take rape as an example, it is not right to say that there should never be a non-custodial sentence for the offence of rape. Rape varies in its enormity from one case to another. It can be the most odious kind of violent offence, but it can also be an offence which is only marginally over the border from a woman saying "Yes" to a woman leading a man to the position where he thinks she is going to say "Yes" and at that stage she says "No". It is still rape and the man is convicted of a serious offence. But anybody who believes that that kind of rape requires a custodial sentence is flying in the face of common sense.
      If in such a case a judge decides that it is wrong to send a man to prison, he may couch his language in the wrong way. It may be that we would take a different view but he is surely entitled to take a view on all the facts that a lenient sentence is desirable. Then all the pressure groups in society who are concerned about rape scream about that decision and ask that the sentence should be revised. If this clause were enacted, the Attorney-General would feel that he was under considerable pressure to send that case to the Court of Appeal. It is in that sort of situation that injustice could be done.
      The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde said that that would not be double jeopardy. I do not know what it would be if it is not double jeopardy. The man has been put before a court and considered for sentence and then he is being sent to another court so that the same facts may be used to justify not a lower sentence, which certainly would not put him in double jeopardy, but a higher sentence, which would. In those circumstances it flies in the face of our whole tradition of sentencing that we should take this kind of step.
      I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government will not go any distance along that road. If he were to say to those who proposed the new clause that it might be considered in future, we should vote to ensure that it is known that we are totally opposed to that.
      9 pm
      Mr. Edward Lyons: We have a phenomenon in political life where every time the Court of Appeal does something which those on the Left do not like, they attack the judiciary as being biased. Now we see a similar emanation in the new clause. Those on the Right, where there is mistrust of judges who do not make sentences severe enough for their taste, seek to call in aid a member of the Executive branch of the Government to act as a sort of interim court of appeal and to act as a quasi-judge who will consider whether the sentence is too low. If it is, he will use all his authority to pass it upwards to the Court of Appeal.
      828
      I deplore what amounts to a vote of no confidence in the judiciary, which is embodied in the new clause. It is a retrograde development to ask a member of the Executive, the Attorney-General, to take a hand in the sentencing process. There is no doubt that when an Attorney-General refers, the Court of Appeal will take the view that he is referring because he thinks that there is something in the charge that the sentence is too low. The Court of Appeal will start from that basis.
      I believe that the judiciary alone should be responsible for sentencing and that the Attorney-General should have nothing to do with it. If one starts allowing members of the Executive to interfere in that way in sentencing, one could open a Pandora's Box of other nasty developments. As far as possible we must try to keep the Executive and the judiciary separate. Where we allow the Attorney-General to intervene, it should be on the side of action that deals with points of law or something in the general public interest.
      The Court of Appeal criminal division has much work on its hands from people appealing against sentences which, in their view, are too severe. To add to the workload of the Court of Appeal criminal division by producing a flow of work from the other direction—appeals against sentences that are too low—would be expensive. More judges would be required if the Attorney-General were active in pursuit of his references. It would also be expensive because of the cost of transcripts.
      An Attorney-General dare not refer unless he has seen a transcript of the case. When a Member of Parliament gets in touch with the Attorney-General and asks him what he thinks of a sentence or when the Attorney-General reads a newspaper proclaiming from the depths of ignorance that a sentence is wrong, the first thing that he must dc to protect himself from criticism is to call for a transcript.
      The shorthand writers will have a lovely time preparing all the transcripts at public expense. The poor old Attorney-General, who is already one of the most overworked members of the Administration, whichever Attorney-General is holding the post at the time, will h aye to read large numbers of transcripts, with the aid of a small staff, to see which of the cases justify reference.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does it not inevitably follow, despite what was said in support of the new clause, that the Attorney-General would have to ask those who prosecuted at the trial whether they thought the sentence was inadequate? Indeed, who will the Attorney-General use to present the case to the Court of Appeal, if not the prosecution?
      Mr. Lyons: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I remember how hard he worked with his small staff when he was Attorney-General. The idea of saddling him with large numbers of transcripts every time the relatives of a victim felt that the sentence was inadequate, or the newspapers or a Member of Parliament decided that a sentence was not appropriate, is horrifying.
      Furthermore, there is an old legal maxim—ut sit finis litium—which means that there should be an end to litigation. That maxim is eroded to the extent that we allow persons whose sentences in their view are too severe to appeal. But we should resile from eroding it still further by saying that the matter should be kept open when the sentence is not regarded by the convicted person as being too high.

      829
      If the new clause were to be enacted, clever people would wait for the judge to pronounce sentence and then say "If we do not get the press here, how can we put pressure on the Attorney-General?" First, those anxious for a higher sentence would get reporters into court, otherwise, they would not be able to get the publicity that is needed to put pressure on the Attorney-General. Therefore, those involved would be running around notifying journalists who are not often in court when sentences are passed, particularly when there are several courts in the same building. They would say to the press "Come on, you had better get here; if you are not here to hear the sentence we have no means of bringing this before the Court of Appeal." The judge, who may be only a simple humble recorder or a new judge, would suddenly see the press coming into court. He would know why they were there. He would think that they were waiting to discover whether the sentence was too low—a pressure on him to give a higher sentence than he would otherwise think right. Therefore, the new clause has nasty aspects.
      Another problem is that the new clause, remarkably and surprisingly, gives an appeal direct to the Court of Appeal criminal division on sentence from magistrates' court. At the moment it is not possible to appeal to the Court of Appeal criminal division on sentence from a magistrates' court. Appeals are made to the Crown court. In cases from the magistrates' court, what should the Attorney-General do? Should he do nothing or should he say that the prosecution has right of appeal to the Crown court and, therefore, in this type of case, he will send it direct to the Court of Appeal? Accordingly, if a sentence is regarded as too high it goes from magistrates' court to Crown court but if it is too low it goes from a magistrates' court to the Court of Appeal. What sort of common sense is that? If this type of new system is introduced, there must be some parity. It is an absurd proposal and I hope that the House will not entertain it for an instant longer.
      Mr. Mayhew: This has been a lengthy debate, although hardly a two-sided one. It was important that so radical a change in our procedures should be thoroughly examined. I note at the outset that it seems to be a radical procedure to make in order to deal with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) described as something that fortunately rarely happens—the sentence that appears to be excessively lenient. I do not underrate the importance of reassuring the public in their anxiety about sentences that appear to be excessively lenient, although I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that such cases rarely arise.
      The publicity that such cases attract, when the ordinary run consistent with the normal pattern and tariff of the sentences naturally enough attracts no publicity at all, gives a misleading impression to the public of the general pattern of sentencing in our courts. The general pattern and tariff of sentencing in our courts is not vulnerable to such criticism.
      If and when mistakes—if they are mistakes—occur, it is right that we should persist with the present practice whereby the Lord Chief Justice usually manages to find an early opportunity to restate the correct sentencing principles. That is what happens. That is our practice.
      830
      When addressing ourselves to the new clause, we must recognise that in practice this will be a right of appeal, admittedly an indirect one, conferred on the prosecution.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde said that it should be for the Attorney-General to be the judge of that public indignation. It is common ground that from time to time public indignation is occasioned by cases of this nature, and we agree that it is a bad thing that the public should be indignant about any feature of our criminal justice system. My hon. and learned Friend said that the Attorney-General should be the judge of that public indignation, but he was anxious to abjure the suggestion that the Attorney-General should be influenced by the newspapers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) suggested that this would be trial by media and that these matters would be dealt with by the publicity that they attracted. Naturally, my hon. and learned Friend was repelled by that idea and said that that would not happen, nor was it the intention.
      If the Attorney-General is not to be influenced by what he has seen in the newspapers or on television or heard on the radio, what will enable him to judge public indignation? The answer must surely be the consultations that he has with the prosecution. That point was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) and my hon. Friend the member for Anglesey. I do not for the life of me see who else he will consult. It will not be the defence, and if he cannot pay attention to what is in the media, it will be the prosecution.
      In those circumstances, I would not blame the Attorney-General for consulting the prosecution, or at least paying attention to what the prosecution says, were he to be given this jurisdiction. However, all of us must have noted what the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich, said about what he regarded as the most distasteful power that could ever be given to him. He said that he would never wish to exercise it.
      One must not conceal from oneself the fact that in practice the new clause would confer, albeit indirectly and through the filter of the Attorney-General, a right of appeal upon the prosecution. There is the additional point, again made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that the Attorney-General, who would be the recipient of this jurisdiction, is, as he described it, the highest prosecuting authority in the land, in the sense that he directs the DPP.
      9.15 pm
      We all agree that the prosecution should not have a right of appeal, direct or indirect. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde was at pains to say that he did not want that because it was wrong. However, there are others who may not see so clearly that this would be, not only a great departure from our practices and traditions but dangerous. I shall explain briefly why I think that.
      The start point must be that it is the judge's responsibility, under our system, to ensure that a balance is kept between the interests of our society and the interests of the offender. Once the facts have been adduced by the prosecution, or have been established by the evidence, the gravity of the offence has been adequately exposed. It is then for the judge to take into account any mitigating circumstances, and any evidence about the prevalence of the offence and then to decide on the appropriate sentence

      831
      in the light of the material before him. We do not give the prosecution, as happens in some other systems, any function other than suggesting, or demanding, a particular sentence.
      As a party in the criminal proceedings, the Crown is only properly interested in the issue of guilt or innocence. It has no interest in the selection of available sentences. As long as the prosecution has no role in the sentencing at first instance, it has no place, and it would be out of place to give it one, in the suggested indirect right of appeal. The judge whose decision was being appealed against would have no opportunity to adduce arguments about why he should have taken a different course.
      To give the prosecutor a right to be heard on the question of sentence would be damagingly to blur the prosecution's position as established in this country. These matters must be left to the courts. No doubt from time to time, they will, if one takes an objective view, get it wrong. I agree that it is very rare that they get it wrong. When that happens, it must be left to the courts to reestablish, through the Court of Appeal, the proper sentencing practice.
      A right of appeal for the prosecution against a lenient sentence would—this has not been touched upon—introduce an unjustifiable element of uncertainty—whether by the prosecution or through the medium of the Attorney-General makes no difference for the purpose of this argument. Let us suppose that somebody has been sentenced to community service, and indignation has risen, although the order and sentence have been served. Months later, following the operation of the system, when transcripts have been sent for and the attorney has considered all the points, no matter how it was brought to his attention, it would be unjustifiable for the Court of Appeal, following a referral by the Attorney-General, to impose a custodial sentence. That would not be justifiable in our criminal justice system.
      Another practical illustration of what would happen is that the police would be regarded by the public as the prosecuting authority. There would be a great deal of pressure to appeal against too lenient a sentence. This would not assist the police in their relations with the public. A filter whereby appeals could be mounted only by the authority of the Attorney-General would not be likely to stem that pressure.
      I am not surprised that no hon. Member who has taken part in the debate—there have been numerous speakers on both sides of the House—apart from the two hon. Members who have put their names to the clause, felt it possible to support it. I accept that in a few cases what appear to have been exceptionally lenient sentences have been passed. That is regrettable. We must all do our best to see how that can be mitigated.
      This has been a valuable debate, for which I am grateful. I am authorised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to say that I have his support in my view that we ought to keep this small number of cases in proportion and to rely on the judiciary for a corrective outside any formal appeal or referral system, whether direct or indirect. I must therefore decline the invitation to commit my right hon. Friend to submit this suggestion to the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I certainly give no such commitment. I am afraid that I cannot do other than advise the House to withold support from the new clause.
      Mr. Ronald W. Brown: The Minister's reply worries me a little. As he knows, am dealing with a tragic case in my constituency where someone was taken to court for misbehaviour and two of my constituents—Mrs. Dodds and her husband—were asked to be witnesses to the occasion. They appeared at court before the magistrates, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Oulton and Mr. Nabarro. The person who was being prosecuted was found guilty. She was fined £50 for having broken her recognisance of an earlier sentence for breach of the peace. The magistrates—these educated, dedicated, idiots—decided to say that they would hind everyone over.
      Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to carry on debating a new clause that has been withdrawn?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): It has not been withdrawn.
      Mr. Brown: I was endeavouring to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that the magistrates, having decided to find the person guilty, attempted to bind over my two constituents. My two constituents decided not to be bound over as they were only witnesses. As a result, they have been sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment each. They were taken down to the cells, stripped, had all their valuables taken away from them and were then brought back upstairs to the court in the afternoon. They have now been bound over on £50 bail to appear at the Crown court on appeal.
      I wish only to put to the Minister of State the argument that the new clause would have helped in that case. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he cannot help me. The Lord Chancellor says that he cannot help me and that it is the Home Secretary's job to help me. The Home Secretary now tells me again that he cannot help me. I have two constituents who were not involved in a case but who were giving evidence as witnesses and who are both under sentence of 28 days' imprisonment. They have to go to the expense of going to lawyers to fight a case in the Court of Appeal. I want to know what sort of society it is when that sort of thing can happen to ordinary, innocent people. The warning must go out to any witnesses that if they go to this court in Old Street, they are likely to find themselves in prison for giving evidence.
      Mr. Alan Clark: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 9

      CONDITIONAL RELEASE
      '(1) A person who is serving, or who after the commencement of this Act is sentenced to, a term of imprisonment other than imprisonment for life shall be released on a conditional release licence when he has served one half of his sentence or seven days, whichever is the longer; or such later date as may be necessary to take account of any forfeiture of remission.
      (2) Any person subject to a conditional release licence shall comply with such requirements, if any, as the Secretary of State may specify in this licence.
      (3) For the purposes of this section consecutive and concurrent terms of imprisonment shall be treated as a single term.
      (4) A person whose sentence is reduced by the operation of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (reduction of sentence of imprisonment by reference to periods spent in custody on remand) shall for the purposes of this section be treated as if any period taken into account under this section were included in his sentence.
      (5) A person shall remain subject to a conditional release licence until he has served two-thirds of his sentence, with the additions of any period for which he may have forfeited remission unless the licence is revoked under subsection (6) below.
      (6) Where a person subject to a conditional release licence commits an offence punishable with imprisonment, a court may order his return to custody for a period not exceeding

      (a) the outstanding period for which the conditional release licence would otherwise be in force, or

      (b) 30 days, whichever is the longer.'.—[Mr. Kilroy-Silk.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The prison population today is again approaching the 45,500 level. There has been an unprecedented increase of 3,500 in the last three months. Those prisoners are occupying space that the chief inspector of the prison service says should be occupied by no more than 37,000 and that the prison and borstal governors say should be occupied by no more than 32,000 in order to meet the objective of ending cell-sharing and slopping-out. About 17,000 of the 44,000 men, women and young people in our prisons today occupy cells built for one in Victorian times. There are two or three prisoners to a cell often for 23 hours out of every 24. They are denied any reasonable access to recreation, leisure activities, association or to training or educational pursuits. For many of them, the conditions are appalling and degrading. The conditions have been described by the chief inspector of the prison service and, indeed, by the director general of the prison service, as dehumanising and brutalising. We have reached the point where the Home Secretary is often forced to use police cells, not just in the Metropolitan Police area but in the provinces, to contain prisoners who would otherwise be held in prison service establishments.
      The Home Secretary and the Minister of State have recognised the appallingly overcrowded conditions in our prisons. The Home Secretary has travelled the country making the case for fewer people to be sent to prison and for shorter times. He has been joined in that campaign not just by the Lord Chancellor, but by the Lord Chief Justice. Everyone accepts that there is a crisis of overcrowding in the prison system and that the solution is to reduce the numbers sent to prison and the time that they are held there. It is also common ground that that can be achieved reasonably and effectively without endangering the public.
      So far, the Home Secretary has relied on exhortations to the judiciary. He has asked that they pass shorter
      834
      sentences and the judiciary has responded, not least in the noteworthy cases of Upton and Bibi. Mr. Faulkner, the deputy director of the prison service, writing in the October 1981 edition of the board of visitors journal conceded that the decrease in the length of sentences, consequent on the Upton and Bibi judgments, has not reduced the prison population, though it may have lessened the rate of increase. As Mr. Faulkner pointed out, welcome though the judgments and the marginal decrease in the length of sentences have been, they are not sufficient.
      Last year the Home Secretary was relying for a significant reduction in the prison population on the widely canvassed and much-supported scheme of automatic supervised release on parole.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I wish to make sure that there has not been a drafting error in the new clause. It provides that the Secretary of State "shall" release a person. In other words, the obligation is mandatory and it is not merely a permissive power. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that is his intention?
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Yes, that is the intention of the new clause.
      The deputy director of the prison service argued in 1981 that what was required was automatic release on parole which, the Home Office suggested, would reduce the prison population by about 7,000—a not negligible decrease.
      For a variety of reasons, the Government have not found it possible to proceed with that scheme. If we are not to get a significant reduction in the length of sentences and if the Home Secretary is not prepared, for one reason or another, to go along the road of automatic release on parole, a bolder step is required and a bold, radical, but common-sense step is proposed in the new clause—a conditional release scheme of 50 per cent., instead of the one-third that is available at present. The scheme was a recommendation of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, of which I have the honour to be chairman, in its 1980 report "Too Many Prisoners" and the new clause has been tabled on behalf of the all-party group.
      Though I have referred to the scheme as bold and radical, it is not new, innovatory or untried. The proposed scheme for England and Wales is no more than an extension of the scheme already in operation and apparently working successfully in Northern Ireland. It will certainly be within the memory of the House and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) introduced the 50 per cent. conditional release scheme for Northern Ireland in 1976. It has operated there for the past six years. Subject to good behaviour, prisoners there are released after serving 50 per cent. of their sentence instead of the previous two-thirds, which still applies in England and Wales. If prisoners in Northern Ireland commit a further offence while on remission they are taken back into custody to serve the remainder of their orgininal sentence as well as whatever sentence may have been imposed for the further offence. Release can normally be delayed only by loss of remission.
      9.30 pm
      The scheme is simple and, easy to understand and works without any great bureaucratic apparatus. It

      835
      emphasises the individual offender's personal responsibility for his actions and for his release date. If he does not commit disciplinary offences while he is in prison, he knows with certainty the date of his release. If he is not released at the 50 per cent. point, he has the reason in the commission of those disciplinary offences. When he is released after serving. 50 per cent. of his sentence, he can live in the community like any other citizen, but subject always to the sanction that if he commits a further offence he will return to prison not just for a period appropriate to the commission of that offence but for the remaining 50 per cent. of his original sentence.
      Ministers with responsibility for Northern Ireland of both parties, not least the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), the Minister of State, Home Office, when he was Private Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have said that this scheme has worked effectively and successfully. The percentage of those released after the first year of the scheme and who committed offences after two years was about 32 per cent. Some hon. Members may regard that as perhaps unsatisfactorily high. In fact, it compares well with the 55 per cent. rate of recidivism under the previous one-third remission scheme. The introduction of a 50 per cent. conditional release scheme has not resulted in a greater recidivist rate among those released than was the case in Northern Ireland and is currently the case in England and Wales. Nor, on the testimony of Ministers with responsibility for Northern Ireland, has the Northern Ireland judiciary responded to the introduction of this scheme by imposing longer prison sentences in order to compensate for the 50 per cent. remission.
      The practice in Northern Ireland over the past six years has shown England and Wales the way in which we can introduce a scheme for the early release of prisoners without endangering the public, without leading to an increase in recidivism, without leading to an increase in the level of crime, and, significantly and importantly, reducing the prison population. In the appalling conditions in our prisons today, when the Government have tried but failed significantly to reduce that population, I submit that the scheme that has been found to work successfully in Northern Ireland can equally work successfully in England and Wales.
      I am suggesting tonight that we should extend good practice in one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom and in doing so reduce our prison population and help towards the creation of a civilised, fair and humane prison system in England and Wales.
      Mr. Grieve: I shall be brief. Although the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) spoke not only for himself but for the group of which he is a distinguished chairman, his new clause is wholly misconceived. At a time of rising crime rates, nothing is more likely to shake public confidence in the administration of justice than a 50 per cent. cut in the sentences imposed by the courts. I shall not go into the crime statistics, but we all know that over the years they have risen appallingly. The hon. Gentleman's provision would interfere with the administration of justice, negate the decisions of the courts and shake public confidence. I hope that the Minister and the House will not accept it.
      I agree that prison conditions are appalling and I am at one with the hon. Member for Ormskirk in that observation. However, at a time of rising crime we should
      836
      deal with that by providing proper modern prison accommodation and not by interfering with the judgments of the courts.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I had not intended to take part in the debate until I heard my lion. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). AL the beginning of his speech he said that we all agreed. What right has he to say that? He may say that he agrees, or and that the all-party group agrees, and he is entitled to express his view. However, he has not expressed my view and my opinion. We do not all agree.
      Do-gooders want to release prisoners and reduce prison sentences. Why release those who have sometimes been convicted of serious crimes when under the Labour Government and this Government 5,000 people have been kept in closed prisons awaiting trial although they have never been convicted of any crime? They are in prison because of the neglect and/or the trade union activities of lawyers, who love to look after their own interests. They delay cases. The cases are not heard and some of those people, believe it or not, have been in prison for more than 18 months, awaiting trial although they have committed no crime.
      His lordship who has committed a crime is sentenced and sent straight to an open prison. Good food and caviare are sent in and he can use the telephone. Ex-commanders of police, such as Commander Drury, are sent to open prisons. The parliamentary all-party penal affairs group and others who want to release convicted criminals should have a go at releasing those 5,000 people, or should arrange for their trials. Are we or are we not Members of Parliament, elected by the people? Are we not entitled to seek the view of the people on the street? Tomorrow morning hon. Members should stop the first elderly couple that they meet—whether or not they are well dressed—and ask them their views. They should walk down some of the London streets in my constituency and ask people whether they think that prisoners should be released and whether they think that they should serve, in effect, only 50 per cent. of their sentences. I read in the newspaper tonight that an old lady of 89 had been raped. I hope to God whoever did that is caught. If he is caught, what will happen? He will get a nominal prison sentence. Why? I do not know.
      Only yesterday we heard that one of our learned judges had remarked how beastly and wicked a skinhead was for knifing and killing an Asian who was standing in the street doing no harm to anyone. The judge said he would be seriously dealt with. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He will get one-third off for good conduct. Fifty per cent. is now suggested. I would shoot such people. I think it wicked to sit here and talk about this when we know that one cannot walk through certain streets in London. Some old people cannot even leave their houses. Some of them are frightened to open doors. I am not talking about the wilds of Africa or the backward, developing countries. I am talking about Westminster, Lambeth, Hackney and my constituency of Newham, where old people are scared of opening their front doors.
      I have read of one case of an old lady who had been attacked eight times and has had to be moved out of her home. What do we do about it? We are all united in cutting down the prison service. When this bloke gets caught—I hope to God he is—he will get three years. It was three years for murder. He will probably not get three years. He

      837
      will probably find at some time in his life he did not have a couple of pounds to buy a packet of cigarettes. We will say "Poor boy, he had a deprived background".
      Do my hon. Friends know that I was born and bred not far from here in the 1930s? There was more unemployment, poverty, starvation and misery. There were none of the clubs and social welfare facilities that now exist, but one could walk at any time of the day or night in any part of London without fear. Ladies could go to the ladies' areas. They did not go to the red patch areas. They could still walk with all their finery. They cannot do it today.
      In those days there were more severe sentences and there were fewer people in prison, because they did not like long sentences. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk ever spoken to some of those vicious, wicked animals and discussed their attitude? Has he been told by them how they despise the sort of people who try to do good for them?
      I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) that prisons are deplorable. Some of them are. I was on the Home Affairs Select Committee and I toured some prisons. I went to some in Scotland and I wish to God that many of my old-age pensioners had such good accommodation and were so well looked after. Many of us have pensioners who do not get enough heat. That does not apply to those in prison. Many of us have pensioners who do not get enought to eat. That does not happen in prison. Many of them cannot afford to have their places cleaned. They, too, have to slop out. Many of them have to go into the back garden to the toilet. Who would have believed that we in the House of Commons would be more concerned with looking after bestial criminals than people who have given 40 or 50 years of their lives to building up money to pay taxes to give those people a relatively good and comfortable life in prison?
      9.45 pm
      Prisoners get meals, clothing, heating and colour television. How many old-age pensioners can afford colour television? How many can even afford the licence? Yet they are to be taxed still more, because somebody must pay for all these services for the poor people in prison. Let us not kid ourselves that the rich, capitalist Tories are taxed the most heavily, because they are not. It is the ordinary men and women who pay. It is the poor, the sick, the disabled and the blind who pay relatively more tax. When they have to pay 15 per cent. on their limited incomes, they pay relatively more than the rich to help provide these conditions for prisoners.
      We need far more severe sentencing. People should be kept in prison far longer. They should be given some——
      Mr. David Winnick: Hang them.
      Mr. Lewis: Yes, if the crime warrants it, why not?
      Mr. Winnick: Flog them.
      Mr. Lewis: Yes, why not? My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) may snigger, but I have more respect for the old-age pensioners who are mugged. I would not like to see my hon. friend treated in that way. Yet what do we do? We must look after these poor prisoners with their deprived backgrounds. Not on your life.
      838
      At Aldgate, not far from here, the Bangladeshis and the Indians now live in the same houses that years ago were occupied by Jews. They never rioted or cut people's throats, because sentencing was more severe. If people did wrong, they knew that they would be caught and punished. Most people knew and accepted that.
      Mr. Tony Durant: Even the criminals?
      Mr. Lewis: Yes, even the criminals. The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but I have spoken to criminals who say that if they go out on a job they know what to expect. If they get caught they will take their medicine, and most of them do.
      Let us make sure that the medicine is strong and that the punishment fits the crime. By no means should sentences be reduced. They should be increased. Let us get back to the 1930s. If we had the sentences that we had then, there would be less crime and bestiality in our society.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Although I would not express my views in quite such dramatic language as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), I entirely agree with his general argument. I believe that the new clause is entirely unacceptable—to the country, to the judiciary and, not least important, to the majority of those who practise in the courts.
      It is important that we should be clear about the purpose of the new clause. It does not merely empower the Secretary of State to order an early release; it requires him to do so. In other words, he has no choice or discretion. He must cut sentences by half. I cannot believe that the House would wish to permit that.
      Many offences require very long prison sentences, for a variety of reasons—to mark society's disapprobation of the offence, to serve as a deterrent and also simply as a punishment. I believe that society has the right to punish. Generally speaking, it is right that terrorists, very serious rape cases and those who embark on armed robbery with shotguns should receive sentences of 20 to 30 years. The idea that those sentences will be reduced by half because of an arbitrary act this evening is nonsense. If the House is ill advised enough to do that, public respect for the law will be greatly undermined.
      Mr. Pitt: We have heard two eloquent reasons to why we should not support the new clause but both of them are completely wide of the mark. It is not the intention of this new clause, as the sponsors see it, to release excessively violent criminals, rapists or terrorists—those who merit sentences of 20 to 30 years because they are violent criminals attacking society. They should not be released until they have expiated their crimes. That is what the new clause does not do. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does".] If hon. Members wish to speak they can do so in their own time.
      The new clause provides a system of 50 per cent. compulsory release, on conditions. It does not mean that a prisoner will automatically be released if his crime or his behaviour while in prison do not merit it. However, it deals with the pressing need to reduce our prison population. I shall give the House some examples. The certified normal accommodation in Birmingham prison is 596. On 30 April 1980 the actual population was 1,003. Brixton prison's certified normal population is 696. Its

      839
      actual population on that date was 975. Liverpool prison's normal certified population is 1,016 but on that date it was 1,608.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) tell me how many prisoners in Brixton or elsewhere are there not because they have been convicted of a crime but because they are awaiting trial? The Home Office will not tell me. Many of those in Brixton prison are unconvicted prisoners and I am more interested in them.
      Mr. Pitt: I agree with the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Lewis), who has made a good point. Most of those in Brixton prison are awaiting trial. Far too many people are awaiting trial in closed prisons and we should also discuss that issue, but it is not included in this clause. The new clause will take from our prisons not the excessively violent criminal or the terrorist but the person who can, having been assessed, take his place in society.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg rose——
      Mr. Pitt: I shall be finishing in a moment and the hon. Gentleman may speak then.
      Mr. Hogg rose——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has made his speech and it is obvious that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) is not giving way.
      Mr. Pitt: A large proportion of those in prison should not have been placed there in the first place. We should try to find methods of sentencing so that people can account for their crimes in the public domain. That is why I support the clause. There is a pressing need to reduce our prison population and we must take radical measures. I take the point of the experiment that has already been successfully carried out in Northern Ireland. I suggest that the House should support the new clause and introduce it into the Criminal Justice Bill.
      Dr. Summerskill: None of those who have opposed the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) have dealt with his point that this measure is already working successfully in Northern Ireland. It has served to reduce the prison population without showing any rise in recidivism among those who have been released after half their sentences and without showing any effect upon public order. It is serving two extremely useful purposes—one of reducing the prison population and keeping it low, and the other of not increasing crime. People who work with offenders agree that a very long sentence is no more effective in preventing recidivism than is a shorter sentence.
      The House should at least consider the merits of the new clause. One of the main aims of the Bill should be to bring about a significant and permanent reduction in the prison population. If we can do that without increasing crime and without increasing recidivism, the Bill will have served a useful purpose.
      I hope that when the Minister replies he will deal with Northern Ireland, where this same measure is operating successfully.
      Mr. Dubs: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), in his speech a few moments ago, spoke about people in prison who were there on remand and who had not been found guilty. I simply say
      840
      on behalf of the all-party penal affairs group that that matter was covered in our recent report, where we said that we should seriously consider adopting the system in Scotland, so that there was a 110-day limit on custodial remands. As far as I can remember, that was also the subject of an amendment Committee. It was also a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee. The proposal contained in this new clause in no way conflicts with my hon. Friend's suggestion that people should not be kept in custody for long periods before being brought before the courts.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for what he says, but I would go one step further. I would prefer to release them, rather than accept this new clause. I cannot support the new clause while 5,000-odd people who have committed no crime are still in prison.
      Mr. Dubs: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying.
      It is not being soft on criminals to say that our prisons are so overcrowded that the situation has gone beyond acceptable limits. Indeed, the Home Secretary has said as much more than once. Moreover, it is not strictly in line with my experience—I have visited a number of prisons—to say that they are soft institutions. Anyone who doubts that should visit Wandsworth prison in my constituency, Wormwood Scrubs, or a host of other prisons, certainly in the London area, which are tough and nasty institutions. They are in no way a soft option for the people inside them.
      Our prisons are bursting at the seams and it is therefore sensible to consider ways in which the prison population can be reduced. After all, we have steadily increased our average prison sentences over the years. Sentences are much longer now than they were in the days when, according to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, they were adequate. We have more people, in prison in this country than in any other country in Western Europe, with the possible exception of Germany—indeed, it might also include Germany. By any standards, we have more people in prison and for longer periods than most other countries with which we could reasonably be compared. The only exception is the United States where there are more people in prison per head of the population than in this country.
      The purpose of the new clause is to bring the prison population down to manageable numbers before there is a serious explosion in the prison system. On that basis I would have thought that the clause was a reasonable way of giving effect to the oft-stated wishes of Home Office Ministers.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Gummer.]
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison): It is with some trepidation that I make my first intervention on the Bill. I should like to reply to the brief but spirited debate that we had during the last half hour or so.
      We accept that on the face of it the scheme which has been put forward has obvious affinities with the conditional release scheme which operates in Northern

      841
      Ireland. However, there are, I understand, significant and important differences. In particular, the scheme in Northern Ireland is not automatic. It may be compared with the scheme for remission for good conduct in that release normally takes place unless there are good reasons why it should not, but it is not automatic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) made clear, the whole point about automaticity—to use a rather ugly word—is of considerable importance.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is the Minister sure that he is correct? What does he mean when he says that it is not an automatic scheme? It is not automatic, of course, in the sense that the prisoner does not get 50 per cent. remission if he has not behaved himself during his time in prison. That is precisely the same condition that applies here. If that is what the Minister means about it not being automatic, he is correct. The same considerations apply to this new clause: otherwise it is automatic.
      Mr. Raison: My understanding is that there is a difference. The new clause is automatic except in certain conditions, whereas in Northern Ireland the scheme is not automatic; it has to be proved that the person is eligible for release. There seems to be a real difference between the two.
      It is important when considering the merits of the scheme to distinguish between its application to those who are at present eligible for parole under current legislation and to those who are not. A large part of the prison population is currently not eligible for parole; and the debate surrounding the desirability of a reduction in the prison population has rightly focused on them because if a reduction is to be achieved it must operate on sentence lengths in that range. It is in that range of sentences that the courts themselves, under the leadership of the Lord Chief Justice, have shown that there is room for shorter sentences in appropriate cases.
      But when we are considering the upper end of the sentencing range, including many of those at present eligible for parole, we are looking at some of the most serious cases—cases where the courts have the protection of the public most in mind. I think it is fair to say that the scheme as proposed could operate only as a direct alternative to parole in such cases. That is the first point at which the Government would find themselves in disagreement with the concept of the scheme.
      The conditional release scheme in Northern Ireland has been successful in providing for early release when there would be special difficulties in selecting prisoners for parole and in supervising them after release. In the wider context of the criminal justice system in England and Wales, I simply do not believe that we could rely on public acceptance of a scheme which offered automatic half remission and a further one-sixth of the sentence to be served on licence in the community without supervision as an alternative to the consideration given to cases prior to release and the subsequent supervision arrangements under the parole scheme. I think that my hon. Friends will support me when I say that that is a fundamental objection. Apart from this objection in principle, a change from parole to the system proposed in this new clause would have little impact on the prison population in terms of its application to such offenders. The parole scheme can,
      842
      incidentally, also be operated more flexibly since in appropriate cases prisoners can be released after they have served one-third of their sentence.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that he is not familiar with the subject, but he is answering for the Government. Will he say why it is extravagant to suggest that we have 50 per cent. remission, although, as he concedes, it operates successfully in Northern Ireland, when only six months ago the Home Secretary suggested that we should have an automatic system of release on parole after one-third of the sentence had been met? The Home Secretary was proposing to introduce a scheme of automatic release after one-third of the sentence had been served, whereas we are being much more conservative and cautious in suggesting only 50 per cent. Why has that system suddenly become not possible in this country?
      Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman knows at least as well as anyone that that matter has provoked a great deal of debate over the past few months. My right hon. and hon. Friends have been persuaded by the argument that this is a better approach. There is an important question of public confidence. My arguments are reinforced by what my hon. Friends have said. Inevitably this is a sensitive area in penal policy. To take steps that the public will not accept does not help us to deal with that problem.
      I turn to the question of prisoners who are not at present eligible for parole. The objections that the Government see against a scheme of the kind proposed are much the same as those that we see against a scheme of supervised release. That matter has been discussed intensively, and I shall not go over all the arguments again. The main point, however, is this. Any scheme—such as the one under consideration—which automatically increases the gap between the notional sentence passed by the court and the effective sentence served may lead the courts to react by increasing the overall length of the sentences that they pass, particularly in cases where they have the protection of the public in mind.
      Any notional savings in terms of the prison population that such a scheme might be thought likely to achieve would almost certainly, therefore, in practice be eroded. But in the Government's view it is wrong to approach the problem of the need to punish offenders and yet to take account of the dreadful situation in our prisons by looking simply at what may or may not be expedient. We believe, as I have said, that the right way to approach the problem is on the one hand to increase the flexibility of the courts so that they can take account of the period of custody to be served when sentencing offenders, which we have done by implementing the power to suspend part of a prison sentence; and on the other hand to open up the possibility that eligibility for parole might be extended to more prisoners.
      We prefer to move forward, not with mandatory schemes, which would be rigid in their effect, but by preserving the discretion of the court when sentencing and the discretion of the Executive in relation to the release of offenders under the parole scheme—and in a statutory framework that offers both more flexibility in the exercise of that discretion. This represents the most sensitive and effective response to the need both to preserve public confidence in the sentencing and treatment of offenders and taking account of the problems of prison overcrowding.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I ask the Minister to deal with a point that was raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and supported by his hon. Friends in triplicate? Is the system mandatory?
      Mr. Raison: My understanding is that it is mandatory. We cannot recommend that the new clause be accepted.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: At a time when the prison population, by all accounts and from the testimony of the Home Office, the inspector of prisons and the prison service, is appallingly high, at crisis point, and when the Home Secretary is going up and down the country calling for shorter sentences and a reduction in the prison population, the Government's response to the proposal has been unsatisfactory. It is no good the Minister and his hon. Friends suggesting that this is a radical or new proposal because it is not. It already operates successfully and effectively in Northern Ireland and it has been doing so for the past six years.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: How many bombs have dropped in Northern Ireland in the past six years?
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Successive Ministers in the present Government as in the Labour Government, have paid public testimony to the efficacy of the scheme, and to the fact that it has not led to an increase in the recidivist rate, to an increase in crime or to a lapse or diminution of confidence on the part of the judiciary. There is a lower level of recidivism among those released after the operation of the scheme than among those released previously in England and Wales under the two-thirds parole scheme. Certainly the judiciary has not imposed longer sentences.
      This is not a particularly radical proposal. After all, it was the Home Secretary who said that he wanted to introduce a scheme of automatic release on parole after the serving of a third of a sentence. It was the deputy director of the prison service, Mr. Faulkner, writing in the journal of the Prison Board of Visitors only last year who said that sentences were becoming shorter but not short enough and that they were relying on automatic release on parole after one-third.
      All we suggest is that there should be automatic release on licence after 50 per cent. of the sentence—subject to good behaviour—had been served. That is needed if we are to deal effectively with the prison crisis. It is a sensible, moderate and reasonable proposal. Given the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's response, I ask that we divide the House on the new clause and urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in supporting it in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
      The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 137.

      Division No. 148]

      [10.11 pm

      AYES

      Allaun, Frank

      Davidson, Arthur

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Atkinson, N, (H'gey)

      Deakins, Eric

      Beith, A.J.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)

      Dixon, Donald

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dormand, Jack

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Eadie, Alex

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Eastham, Ken

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Crowther, Stan

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Cryer, Bob

      Ewing, Harry

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Flannery, Martin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      844

      Forrester, John

      Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)

      Foster, Derek

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Golding, John

      Morton, George

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

      Parry, Robert

      Hardy, Peter

      Pitt, WilliamHenry

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Richardson, Jo

      Haynes, Frank

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Hooley, Frank

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      John, Brynmor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Soley, Clive

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Lamborn, Harry

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Leadbitter.Ted

      Tinn, James

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Wainwright, E.(DearneV)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Welsh, Michael

      McKelvey, William

      Winnick, David

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      McWilliam, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

      Millan.Rt Hon Bruce

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

      Arnold, Tom

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

      Jessel, Toby

      Benyon, W.(Buckingham)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Bevan, DavidGilroy

      Knox, David

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Lang, Ian

      Blackburn, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      LeMarchant, Spencer

      Bright, Graham

      Lester, Jim(Beeston)

      Brinton, Tim

      Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Loveridge, John

      Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Buck, Antony

      Major, John

      Budgen, Nick

      Marlow, Antony

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Mather, Carol

      Carlisle, John (LutonWest)

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

      Mawby, Ray

      Chapman, Sydney

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Cockeram, Eric

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Cope, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Mills, Iain(Meriden)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Crouch, David

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Morgan, Geraint

      Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

      Mudd, David

      Dover, Denshore

      Murphy, Christopher

      Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

      Needham, Richard

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Elliott, Sir William

      Newton, Tony

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Onslow, Cranley

      Farr, John

      Osborn, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

      Parris, Matthew

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Forman, Nigel

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Gardiner, George(Reigate)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)

      Grieve, Percy

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Grylls, Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Gummer, JohnSelwyn

      Renton, Tim

      845

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Rossi, Hugh

      Stevens, Martin

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Silvester, Fred

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Speed, Keith

      Thompson, Donald

      Speller, Tony

      Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)

      Spence, John

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Stainton, Keith

      Waddington, David

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 11

      LEGAL AID FOR BAIL APPLICATIONS
      '(1) In section 28 of the Legal Aid Act 1974, after subsection 5 there shall be inserted the following subsection—

      "(5A) Where a person who is in the custody of a magistrates' court and who has been refused bail by that court desires to apply to the Crown Court for bail, either of those courts may order that he shall be given legal aid for the purpose of that application".

      (2) In section 81(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

      (f) who has been refused bail by a magistrates' court
      and remanded in custody".'.—[Mr. Kilroy-Silk.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause would provide defendants remanded in custody by magistrates' courts with a legally aided right of appeal to the Crown court.
      For many years the system of judicial review of a magistrates' court decision to refuse bail has been allowed to remain in what everyone agrees to be a highly unsatisfactory state. A defendant refused bail at a magistrates' court has a right of appeal to a High Court judge. There are two separate procedures for applying for that bail.
      One procedure is through the Crown Office, with about 500 applications being made each year. In practice, this procedure is usually available only to those who are privately represented, because criminal legal aid is not available for this purpose. Although civil legal aid is technically available, until recently it was virtually never granted. The Law Society has recently made some limited moves to make civil legal aid also available for this purpose, but it remains to be seen how narrowly or extensively it will be granted in practice.
      The second procedure, which is available to defendants without sufficient means to employ a solicitor privately, is an application for bail through the Official Solicitor. Over 5,000 such applications were made in 1980. However, in that year the success rate of applications made to the Official Solictor was 9 per cent., while the success rate for applications made through the Crown Office was 68 per cent. A partial explanation of this difference is no doubt that the Official Solicitor puts all applications before the judge, irrespective of their merits, whereas counsel briefed privately would presumably regard it as his duty to advise the would-be applicant whether the matter was worth pursuing, and therefore acts as a sieve for cases going forward. In spite of that, as the Cobden Trust report "Bail or Custody", published in 1971, observed:
      "It is probable that the wide difference between these figures is fundamentally a reflection of the fact that the applicant who pays for his appeal is represented by professionals who are aware of what aspects of the case are likely to lead the judge to grant bail, and secondly of the most effective ways of presenting information favourable to the defendant."
      In a memorandum produced in 1979 entitled "Bail Applications", the Law Society described the present arrangements for applying for bail to a High Court judge in chambers through the Official Solicitor as "quite unsatisfactory" and observed:
      "The defendant makes his application for bail on a misleading and inadequate form. Any objections by the police to bail are not communicated to the defendant but direct to the Official
      848
      Solicitor. The defendant is neither present nor represented and therefore has no opportunity to respond to objections to bail of which he is likely to be entirely ignorant."
      The "misleading" aspect of the form referred to by the Law Society is that it specifically asks the Official Solicitor to act for the applicant, leading the applicant, the prisoner, often incorrectly to believe that he is being represented in some way.
      At present, a defendant who has been committed in custody to the Crown court for trial or sentence may apply for bail to the Crown court, and the cost of such bail applications is covered by the Crown court legal aid order. However, defendants who are still on remand before a magistrates' court have no right of application for bail to the Crown court. This new clause would give them such a right.
      The advantages of a Crown court application over the High Court procedure are clear. It is more accessible, and therefore speedier, because the fact that Crown court centres in England and 'Wales are often in the same building as the magistrates' court means that a Crown court judge is more likely to be near at hand.
      In 1979, the Royal Commission on legal services adopted a much more positive attitude towards this
      proposal in its final report. It stated in paragraph 14·21:
      "It has been proposed by the Law Society that, when a defendant has been remanded in custody by a magistrates' court, his solicitor should be able to make a single oral application to a Crown court judge in chambers, recovering the fee From criminal legal aid funds … We recommend that this procedure be adopted as an interim measure, and that the system as a whole should be reviewed when the effects of the Bail Act 1976 can be fully assessed".
      It is true that the proposal has financial implications. But against this relatively modest cost must be offset the cost of keeping defendants in prison and producing them in court at regular intervals, as well as the improvement which the proposal would make both to the quality of justice and the appearance of justice which are essential to any system of criminal law.
      When this proposal was discussed in Standing Committee on 18 March, the Minister accepted that the present arrangements for applying for bail to a judge in chambers are "not fully satisfactory" and said:
      "I am therefore able to give an undertaking that we shall give the new clause serious and, as I indicated, sympathetic consideration. We must decide the form in which legal aid should be provided, and we must ensure that the necessary resources are available … But if the hon. Gentleman will accept those assurances I shall undertake to consider the possibility of putting down a Government new clause on Report to give effect tc the principle of his new clause"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 March 1982; c. 668–69.]
      I accept that the Minister gave assurances only to undertake to consider the possibility of putting down a new clause to give effect to the principle of the new clause we were then debating. I do not therefore chide him for not putting down a new clause. We have therefore put down a new clause covering the principles with which the Minister agreed. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, having had an opportunity to consider the matter at length, will feel that he can accept not only the principle but the reality of the new clause.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Mayhew: As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said, I gave an undertaking when a similar new clause was considered in Committee that the Government would consider the possibility of tabling their own amendment on Report to meet the gap.

      849
      Persons in the custody of magistrates' courts can apply for bail to the High Court, either through the Official Solicitor or the Crown Office procedure. The Official Solicitor acts without any means or merits test being applied, but applicants are normally dealt with on the papers alone. For one reason or another, there is a low success rate by that route. The Crown Office procedure involves an oral hearing and civil legal aid is available for it, but that means that one has to satisfy the local committee that there are reasonable prospects of success and that one's means are below the statutory maximum.
      I was persuaded that there was merit in the principle of the new clause moved in Committee. It has not proved possible to complete our examination of the matter in time to do as we hoped, but I can say that a legally aided avenue of application to the Crown court will be provided for persons who have been refused bail by a magistrates'court. We have not yet been able to settle the precise form of the procedure that will operate or how the avenue of application should be formulated in statute.
      However, I can give an unequivocal undertaking that we shall table an appropriate amendment in another place to provide for an application, legally aided—subject only to means—to the Crown court. I hope that on the basis of that augmented and improved undertaking the hon. Member for Ormskirk will not press the new clause.
      Mr. Rees-Davies: I hope that any scheme will provide that an applicant must show a reasonable case. Otherwise anyone will be able to appeal to try to get a further hearing before the Crown court. It is important to recognise that there must be some protection against applications by those with a worthless case.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: In the light of the Minister of State's welcome, clear, unequivocal and generous assurance that the matter will be dealt with in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 12

      POWER OF MAGISTRATES' COURT TO COMMIT OFFENDER TO CROWN COURT FOR SENTENCE FOLLOWING DEFERMENT
      '(1) Where a magistrates' court has deferred passing sentence on an offender under section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, the court may, instead of passing sentence itself, commit the offender to the Crown Court for sentence in accordance with Section 56 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 or any of the enactments to which that section applies.
      (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, the Crown Court may defer passing sentence in accordance with that section on an offender who has been committed to the Crown Court for sentence in accordance with section 56 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 or any of the enactments to which that section applies following a deferment of sentence by the magistrates' court.
      (3) In section 1(8) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, the words "does not extend to committing him to another court for sentence but, subject to that" shall be omitted'—[Mr. Kilroy-Silk.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      850
      The clause would enable a magistrates' court that has deferred sentence on an offender to commit him to a Crown Court for sentence at the end of the period of deferment. It embodies a recommendation of the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group in its report "Too Many Prisoners" and has the support of the Justices' Clerks' Society and the Magistrates' Association.
      Section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1972 gives a court power to defer passing sentence on an offender for up to six months in order to enable it to have regard to his conduct after conviction, including, where appropriate, his making reparation for his offence and any change in his circumstances, such as his impending marriage to someone who may appear to be a stabilising influence.
      The decision to defer sentence contains the clear implication that if, after the period of deferment, the court receives a favourable report on the offender's behaviour in the meantime it will be persuaded to impose a more lenient sentence than it would otherwise have passed. Therefore, a deferment enables a court to give an offender an opportunity to obtain a less severe sentence than it might feel obliged to pass if it had no alternative but to sentence him immediately.
      In 1975 in the Gilby case an 18-year-old youth was convicted of burglary. The magistrates deferred sentence, but when the offender came back before the court the probation officer's report commented adversely on his behaviour in the meantime. Not unreasonably, the magistrates then committed him to the Crown court for sentence with a recommendation for borstal training, and a borstal sentence was passed by the Crown court. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that, once a magistrates' court had deferred sentence, it could not commit an offender to the Crown court for sentence. In 1977 the Criminal Law Act amended section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 in order to put this decision into statutory form. This new clause would reverse that decision.
      In some cases, the choice between a substantial custodial sentence and the clearly bolder, more imaginative step of a probation order is a narrow, fine balancing line. According to those who pass these sentences, there can be a narrow borderline between the imposition of a heavy custodial sentence and the imposition of a probation order. In such borderline cases the magistrates' court may wish to defer sentence instead of committing the offender to the Crown court with a view to the imposition of a substantial custodial sentence to see whether a custodial sentence could be avoided in the light of some likely change in the offender's circumstances or some promised action on the part of the offender, such as reparation. However, the court cannot ignore the possibility that the offender may not live up to his promises, in which case it might consider that a substantial custodial sentence was justified.
      The result of the Gilby case is that in such circumstances the court cannot defer sentence without at the same time losing the option of committing the offender to the Crown court at the end of the period of deferment. Indeed, the Justices' Clerks' Society pointed out in its policy statement "Sentencing in the 1980s":
      "The effect of the present law is to discourage magistrates from deferring sentence in situations when it might have been

      851
      most desirable to do so and to encourage magistrates to commit in custody for sentence forthwith when they might otherwise have wished to take a more lenient course."
      It is of course, possible that the Crown court would decide to defer sentence, but, even if it did, it has now been held that committals to the Crown court should normally be in custody and that period in custody may effectively kill the chances of a successful deferment because it increases chances of the offender losing his job and therefore of losing whatever hopeful future development may have induced the magistrates to consider deferring sentence.
      The only solution for all of those difficulties is to reverse the effects of the Gilby judgment, as this new clause would do. It would allow magistrates to commit an offender to the Crown court following a deferment. That would encourage magistrates to offer a chance of redemption more frequently to offenders on the brink of what might be a substantial custodial sentence.
      When this subject was debated in Committee on 25 March 1982, the Minister said that the arguments for and against retaining the present position were "finely balanced". He went on to say:
      "we should like to give further thought to the matter, and consult again upon it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 March 1982; c. 782.]
      I hope that the Minister has now had the opportunity to make those consultations. I assume that he has spoken to both the Justices' Clerks' Society and the Magistrates' Association, both of which, as I have said, are in favour of reversing the Gilby judgment. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Mayhew: We are persuaded that the balance of advantage lies in giving the magistrates' courts power to commit for sentence to the Crown court after a period of deferment. The opinion of the Lord Chief Justice should clearly carry a lot of weight in this matter. We have consulted him and he has expressed the view that the magistrates should have this power.
      The Government therefore accept the principle behind the new clause, but we should like to give further and more detailed consideration to how this decision in principle should be reflected in the statute. Therefore, I am not able to accept the new clause as it stands or to advise the House to do so. I can give a definite undertaking that the Government will table, at a later stage, an amendment that will give effect to the decision to give magistrates' courts the power to commit for sentence after a period of deferment.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: In the light of the Minister's assurance that the matter will be put right in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 15

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2 OF THE POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS ACT I973
      '(1) In subsection (3) of section 2 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 at the end there shall be added "and for those purposes the Court may in particular require of the offender one or more of the following requirements:—

      (a) to be of good behaviour, keep the peace and keep in touch with the supervising probation officer;

      (b) to report forthwith to his supervising probation officer any change of address or employment;

      852

      (c)to refrain from conduct and/or from associating with people and/or from visiting places specified in the order for such period of the order as shall be specified in the order provided that the conduct, association or visits specified relate to the facts of the offence for which the offender is being placed on probation.

      (d) to report in person to the supervising probation officer at such time and place as required by him, whether in the presence of third parties or not, so that he may pursue his duty to advise, assist and befriend the offender but such reporting shall not be required more than twice in any one week nor for more than one hour at any one time: provided that any instruction given in pursuance of any requirement under paragraphs (c) and (d) above shall so far as is practicable be such as to avoid any conflict with the offender's religious beliefs and any interference with the times at which he works or attends school or other educational establishments; and

      (e) to reside at an address to be specified in the order for such period of the order as shall be specified in the order, but before making an order containing any such requirement, the court shall consider the home surroundings of the offender."

      (2) Subsection (5) of section 2 shall cease to have effect. '.—[Mr. Kilroy-Silk.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this, it will be convenient to take the following:

      New Clause 16—Replacement of section 4 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

      New Clause 17—Amendment of section 57 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

      New Clause 18—Amendment to Schedule 1 to the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

      Amendment No. 38: In page 69, schedule 9, leave out line 34.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The new clauses would reverse the decision of the Divisional Court in Rogers v. Cullen, where it was held that courts could not include a condition in a probation order requiring an offender to attend a clay centre—other than a day training centre of the type that exists in only four probation areas.
      In a judgment last Thursday, the other place upheld the Divisional Court's decision and also cast doubt on the court's power to include any conditions in a probation order that have not been specifically authorised by statute. The new clauses would make it clear that courts have i he power to require an offender to attend a day centre a3 a condition of a probation order, and that they also have l he power to include a range of other conditions in probation orders. If the courts do not clearly have those powers it will damage the credibility of probation orders as a viable alternative to custody. If the probation service is no longer in a position to recommend to courts in appropriate cases that they should make probation orders with suitable conditions, the service will be very seriously hampered in its attempts to provide positive options to custodial sentences. Therefore, the new clauses attempt to return that power to the courts.
      The power to make a condition of attendance at a day centre is particularly important. The potential of thy centres to provide a direct alternative to custody has been recognised in two recent publications of the Home Office research unit. In Home Office research study No. 66, "Persistent Petty Offenders", the researchers stated that their discussions with magistrates
      "emphasised that day centres are potentially useful resources in enabling homeless petty offenders to be diverted from prison … day centres appear to give the probation and after-care

      853
      service a viable basis for containing persistent petty offenders in the community, one that they can present to the courts as a feasible way of substantially reducing the prison population".
      More recently, the Home Office research unit paper No. 4, "Day Centres and Probation", published in 1981, concluded:
      "day centres can constitute a direct alternative to prison".
      It is clear from those two quotations that attendance at a day centre, combined with a probation order, can constitute a viable alternative to custody for a variety of offenders. At a time of high unemployment, when in many areas over 75 per cent. of those on probation officers' case loads are unemployed, day centres of various types—varying from those providing work, training and educational opportunities to those providing simpler forms of occupation and activity—are of particular value and importance in reinforcing probation supervision. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will either accept the new clauses or give an assurance that the Government will introduce new clauses along similar lines.
      Amendment No. 38 seeks to retain the day training centre order. It is extremely important. As it stands, schedule 9 would repeal the power to make a day training centre order. The amendment would retain that power. The Criminal Justice Act 1972 empowered courts to include in a probation order a requirement that an offender should attend a day training centre, which would provide up to 60 days' intensive full-time training for socially inadequate offenders. That power was conslidated in section 4 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. Four day training centres exist, in London, Pontypridd, Sheffield and Liverpool.
      10.45 pm
      The current edition of the Home Office handbook on sentencing, "The Sentence of the Court", says:
      "The centres are directed particularly to the needs of offenders whose criminal convictions seem to stem from an inability to cope with the demands of modern life, and they augment the support provided by a probation order with broad based social education."
      In 1978 the House of Commons Expenditure Committee commented favourably on day training centres in its report "The reduction of pressure on the prison system". It pointed out that the Sub-Committee had visited the day training centre at Grove Park in South London and that it had been greatly impressed. Paragraph 191 states:
      "The offenders themselves expressed the view that, compared with prison, the experience was extremely demanding, though less disruptive of family ties and less destructive. It provides in some cases a breathing space in what has been a steady criminal career during which the offenders can take stock and look at what they are doing to their lives and to others. It is often a very painful process for such inadequate and withdrawn persons."
      It continued:
      "The Sub-Committee believes that these are worthwhile experiments."
      It recommended that they should be continued and encouraged.
      In their representations to the members of the Standing Committee, the Justices' Clerks' Society and the National Association of Probation Officers expressed the view that day training centre orders are a valuable option which should be retained, even though at present they can be made only in those few areas which have day training centres.
      854
      When the issue was briefly discussed in Committee on 9 March, the Minister, while acknowledging that very good work had been done in the day training centres, said:
      "Because regimes have been directed towards a particular type of offender, the centres have been consistently under-used by the courts."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 March 1982; c. 475]
      I hope that the House will forgive me for spending some considerable time on the issue, but the Government's attempt to eliminate that particular facility has aroused a great deal of resentment and opposition amongst the people who run it. Although it is true that in the early days of day training centres the facility was under-used, when all four of them struggled to attract sufficient orders from the courts to maintain their maximum occupancy, that is no longer the case. The Sheffield and Liverpool centres are consistently full, although the Minister gave the opposite impression. Both have waiting lists. The London centre is running at a higher occupancy rate than at any time during the past seven years. The impression created by the Minister during the debate in Committee, that they have been consistently under-used by the courts, is not borne out by the evidence provided from those three areas.
      The South Yorkshire and Merseyside probation services have provided detailed figures for the Sheffield and Liverpool centres. The original capacity of the Sheffield centre was 60 offenders a year. In 1980, the number of offenders dealt with had increased to 90. In 1981, 95 orders were made. In that year, because of the long waiting list, the centre increased the size of the groups of offenders going through the course. The current course is full, and there is a waiting list of 30 offenders on whom probation orders with a condition of attendance at a day training centre have been made.
      The Liverpool centre has been consistently full throughout the past seven years. When it was opened it took 60 offenders in the course of a year. In the last two years it has increased the number it deals with at any one time and it is now starting groups of 40 offenders every 60 days. As one would expect, the cost per head has decreased considerably.
      The Minister quoted the chief probation officer for Mid-Glamorgan as welcoming the opportunity to convert the Pontypridd centre into a day centre to be used on a more general basis for clients of the probation service. If in his judgment, in the light of local circumstances, a day centre would give greater value to the probation service than a day training centre, I see no reason why he should be prevented from altering the function of his centre accordingly.
      The Minister did not mention that the chief probation officers for the other three areas with day training centres—inner London, South Yorkshire and Merseyside—all wish to retain the day training centre order and all have written to me expressing that view forcefully.
      The Minister said that the facilities of the existing day training centres would not be lost but would instead be used as day centres operating for probation service clients on a more general basis. Day training centres, however, are a specific alternative to custody, whereas day centres, although valuable in their own right, are a more general adjunct to the work of the probation service and do not operate specifically or exclusively as an alternative to custody.

      855
      On 5 March, Colin Thomas, chief probation officer for South Yorkshire, wrote to me as follows:
      "About 50 per cent. of the orders are made by the Crown Court. Our judges tell me that they regard the facility as an alternative to custody; I do not think they would regard attendance at a day centre in the same light … local opinion would argue the absurdity of throwing away one of the few alternatives to custody that we have".
      Again, Graham Smith, chief probation officer for inner London, wrote on 4 March:
      "The London day training centre has been seen by the courts and by the probation service as an alternative to custody, and the fear at the moment is that without supportive legislation this may no longer be the case into the future".
      In Committee, the Minister argued that as a result of the Bill the day training centres would be freed from
      "the present rather rigid and strict format."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 9 March 1982; c. 475.]
      As the deputy chief probation officer, Mr. R. T. Adams, wrote to me on 30 March,
      "it is this very strict format that is appealing to the courts, and encourages the use of day training centres as an alternative to custody".
      I am conscious of the time that I have taken and I apologise, but this is an extremely important issue both to the probation areas concerned and as a matter of principle. At a time when the need for an extensive range of alternatives to custody is greater than ever and when both the Minister of State and the Home Secretary constantly acknowledge that we need more—and more credible—alternatives to custody, not fewer, there can be no justification for depriving the courts in those four areas of an option that they have found so valuable unless a suitable alternative provision is included in the Bill.
      I hope, therefore, that the Government will look favourably on the new clauses and, in the light of the expressions of opinion from the four probation areas, will feel able to retain the day training centres and the day training order.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful for the opportunity to deal with the consequences of the case of Rogers v. Cullen, to which the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) referred and the last stage of which was dealt with last week when the House of Lords decided that the courts did not have the power to include conditions in probation orders requiring attendance at a day centre.
      The judgment plainly has substantial implications for the requirements that may be attached to a probation order, but we need a little more time to consider the speeches in the House of Lords before we have a clear idea of the action that we wish to take. I should make it clear that the Governmept are well aware of the importance of the judgment and we fully intend to make any legislative changes needed to restore to the courts the power to include certain types of requirement in probation orders. I should make it clear that both in the Divisional Court and in the House of Lords there was no doubt expressed as to the value of those measures. It was simply a matter of interpreting the existing statute to see whether the words that Parliament had used permitted those requirements to be attached to probation orders. To the Government's regret, it proved not to be the case.
      The probation order is among the most important of our non-custodial disposals and I need not take time to explain why. Nor, within the ambit of this group of new clauses, is it necessary for me to explore the relative advantages and disadvantages of day training centres as opposed to day centres. The matter was touched upon in the brief
      856
      debate in Committee. However, I must say, in support of what I then said about the general take-up of available places in day training centres, that in 1981 in Liverpool the average percentage of places available and occupied was 58 per cent., in London 65 per cent., in Pontypridd 63 per cent. and in Sheffield 62 per cent. I understand that there has been a recent improvement, but that is justification for the point that I made in Committee. However, I do not wish to take up the time of the House, nor would it be profitable to do so, in discussing the relative merits of those two sorts of centre.
      The new clauses are intended to achieve the same purpose as the Government have achieved. I should be grateful if the Government could have further time to consider the matters. I undertake that we intend to carry the work forward as quickly as possible in order to introduce later any amendments that may be necessary. In the light of that explanation of the Government's intentions and with the assurance that we shall carefully take into consideration the new clauses with which we are dealing, I hope that the hon. Member for Ormskirk will withdraw his new clause.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: In the light of what the Minister has said, and especially his attitude towards new clause 16, clearly the loss of the day training centres, although regrettable, would not be quite as serious as would otherwise have been the case. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 25

      ASSAULTS ON CONSTABLES
      'There shall be added to Schedule 1 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 the offence of assaults on constables under section 51 of the Police Act 1964. '.—[Mr. Dubs.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Dubs: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause tries to change the law whereby a defendant brought before a court on a charge of assaulting a police constable does not have the right of trial by jury, and his trial must therefore take place in the magistrates' court. On the other hand, if the prosecution so chooses, the case can be heard in a Crown court before a jury. The new clause wishes to make the offence triable either way.
      It is, by any standards, adjudged to be a serious offence. According to criminal statistics, in 1980 there were more than 12,000 proceedings against individuals accused of assaulting police constables, with 88 per cent. of the men and 86 per cent. of the women so brought before courts found guilty. By comparison 44 per cent. of all men and 35 per cent. of all the women brought before magistrates' courts on charges of common assault were found guilty—a much smaller number. It may not be valid to make a direct comparison between the offence of assault on a constable and the offence of common assault, but it is remarkable that the percentage found guilty of assaults on constables was about double that of the percentage found guilty of common assault.
      11 pm
      The matter was investigated in some detail in a report published in November 1975. That was a report of the interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice James. It was entitled:

      857
      "The Distribution of Criminal Business between the Crown Court and Magistrates' Courts."
      The case in favour of the new clause was made most succinctly in paragraph 156 of that report. I can do no better than to quote it:
      "On the basis of the existing law the offence would fall within the intermediate category and so carry a right to elect trial by jury. In our view, the present position, whereby in effect the prosecution can choose to take the case on indictment but the defendant has no choice, is indefensible. Where the case is contested there is often a straight conflict between the evidence of the defendant and that of the police; if there is such a conflict, it can be said that the prosecution has a special involvment in the case and that therefore it is particularly suitable for resolution by a jury. If the offence is retained, we recommend that it should carry a right to trial by jury unless the maximum penalties are severely curtailed. We must, however, draw attention to the fact that this recommendation, which was strongly supported in the evidence we received, is likely to result in substantially more of these cases going to the Crown Court for trial on the defendant's election."
      I should mention that the James report was concerned with the means of reducing the amount of business going to the Crown court. Nevertheless, that committee recommended that this offence should be such that the defendant could elect for trial before the Crown court.
      I want to mention one other argument. As I understand it, where a defendant is up for an assault on a constable, the Crown court has the right to alter the verdict to one of common assault. This discretion is sometimes used, and it is a useful one. However, that discretion does not lie with magistrates' courts.
      This issue was dealt with by the Standing Committee considering the Criminal Law Bill in 1977. Regrettably, the Committee did not reach the conclusion that I hope that the House will reach this evening.
      Since 1977, we have had the Scarman report. We have had a detailed review of relationships between the community and the police. The whole question of assaults on the police and by the police has come under more detailed scrutiny. It has become a matter of greater concern than previously. In instances where a defendant may be brought before the court because he is alleged to have assaulted a police constable, sometimes the defence is that the police constable had assaulted the person who has become the defendant. Scarman was much concerned with this issue, and it is an issue which is at the heart of some of the difficulties that arise in inner city areas and in the relationships between the police and local communities, particularly the black communities.
      It is my contention, supported by the James report, that the present law is anomalous. The fact that there would be more business before the Crown courts would be a small price to pay for getting rid of this anomaly and ensuring that justice in these difficult and controversial cases is seen to be done. I hope that the House will support the new clause.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) that I cannot advise the House to accept the need for his clause.
      It has to be remembered that the offence in question has never, since its incorporation into the Police Act 1964, carried with it a right for the defendant to elect trial by jury. Prior to 1977, the offence was a hybrid offence. It was open to the prosecution to seek trial on indictment; but it was not open to the defendant to elect jury trial. At the
      858
      same time, the maximum penalties for the offence were considerably higher than they are now. Conviction on indictment carried with it a liability to a penalty of 2 years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. Following recommendations made by the James committee, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the maximum penalty available for the offence was reduced to its present level, and at the same time the option of trial on indictment available to the prosecution was abolished. Since the 1977 Act came into force the offence has been a purely summary one.
      It is clear from the wording of the amendment and from what the hon. Gentleman has said that his concern is not to increase the penalties available for assaulting a constable but to secure for defendants a right to elect trial by jury at the Crown Court. I am afraid we cannot agree that there is any aspect of this offence that could justify confining the sentencing powers of a Crown court to the range of sentences that is available for a magistrate's court after a summary trial, which would be the effect of the new clause.
      I have noted the implication at any rate that the prosecution in these cases has a particular axe to grind. I do not accept it. It is also argued that magistrates are often seen as accepting police evidence too readily and, furthermore, that prosecution of members of ethnic minority groups, and in particular black youngsters, for these offences can badly affect police community relations. I do not think that those arguments are sustainable. I believe firmly that magistrates recognise and fulfil the duty to give to the evidence of a police witness a scrutiny that is no less judicial than that which they must apply to any other evidence. They do not accept the evidence merely because the witness is a policeman or because they see him again and again in their court.
      There is no evidence to suggest that magistrates are more likely to convict a black youngster of the offence because of his colour; I do not think that that was argued by the hon. Gentleman, but it is sometimes suggested. Nor, indeed, do magistrates appear more likely to convict youngsters of any race for this offence than for any other. The 1980 statistics show that in cases of assault on constables 90 per cent. of the defendants in the age range 17 to 20 were convicted and 88 per cent. of defendants over 21, figures which are very similar to the conviction rates of over 90 per cent. for all offences tried in magistrates' courts.
      I think I understand what lies behind the new clause. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a disparity between the conviction rates for assaults on constables and for common assault on people who are not police officers. Whatever the reason for the disparity, in regard to assaults on people who are not police officers, the question of liability and responsibility may well be one of six of one and half a dozen of the other. I do not think that the arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman would justify my advising the House to accept the clause.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 26

      FIREARMS OFFENCES
      'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Firearms Act 1968 any person found guilty of committing an offence under section 17 or section 18 of the Act shall upon conviction be sentenced to a period of 14 years imprisonment.
      On sentencing any person so convicted, the court may at the same time declare the period which it recommends to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which in its view should elapse before the Secretary of State orders the release of that person on licence.'.—[Sir Nicholas Bonsor.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of this new clause is to amend the Firearms Act 1968 in so far as sections 17 and 18 apply to firearms and particularly to lethal firearms. The House will be surprised and probably not a little alarmed to hear that some 15 years ago it was proposed that I might take up a career as a parliamentary draftsman. Had I done so, I hope that some of my work would not have been quite as incomplete as the new clause that I have tabled. I would be the first to concede that the spirit of the new clause and its detailed wording do not agree entirely with each other. Should we divide on this, I hope that the House will grant me the indulgence of voting for the spirit of the new clause and not reject it because of its wording.
      In sections 17 and 18 of the Firearms Act 1968 not only are firearms of a lethal nature, such as a shotgun, a rifle or a pistol included, but also air weapons of any nature and imitation firearms. The purpose of the new clause is to introduce a mandatory sentence of 14 years' imprisonment for having a lethal firearm in order to avoid arrest or to commit another indictable offence. It is not proposed that those provisions should apply either to all categories of air weapons or to imitation firearms. Therefore, I hope that we can consider the spirit of the intended new clause and vote accordingly.
      It would be right to introduce such a mandatory sentence. I say that having given the matter a great deal of thought and being aware that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and many other distinguished and senior colleagues at the Bar and in the judiciary do not believe in the principle of mandatory sentencing and are understandably reluctant to make a mandatory sentence in any form of prison sentence.
      However, two precedents spring to mind. The first and most obvious is murder. If anyone is sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, that automatically means life imprisonment for 21 years, less remission and parole. There is also the provision, which I have incorporated in my proposal, that a judge can recommend the minimum sentence that could be served as the life sentence. In the case of murder, that minimum sentence can go above 21 years. In this new clause it will apply between the minimum sentence that may be served if 14 years is the sentence passed by the court and the 14 years' maximum that may be served if the whole sentence is carried through.
      I can best illustrate why I believe that this is a suitable case in which we could look at extending the principle of mandatory sentencing by comparing the crime of taking a firearm in order to commit a serious offence with that of rape. A great deal of public pressure was put upon the House to extend a mandatory minumim sentence to a
      860
      conviction for rape. I would not have supported that. The reason is that I believe in the principle of allowing, the judiciary as wide a scope of discretion in sentencing as is proper. In most cases that is to give it an absolute discretion, from an absolute discharge to whatever the maximum sentence might be for that offence.
      In the case of rape there is an enormously wide differential between the degrees of seriousness of which the crime may be constituted. Some cases of rape are among the most dreadful crimes that can be committed, but at the other end of the spectrum there are cases of rape in which the mitigating circumstances—the circumstances in which the rape has been committed—mean that a much more lenient view can properly be taken of the offence. However, the distinction between that and the offence that we consider tonight is that I argue that here there is no 3uch minimum degree of responsibility or seriousness in the offence.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. Friend clarify one point? Can he tell the court—[Interruption.] That was a Freudian slip and served me right. Can he tell the House this? He is contemplating a minimum prison sentence of 14 years in respect of firearms? Does he contemplate a lower sentence if the person is not carrying ammunition?
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: At the moment I would not contemplate that, although I appreciate that that point could be debated. The unfortunate victim who will be looking down the wrong end of a 12-bore shotgun will not know whether the weapon is loaded. The fear that is engendered by the use of that weapon is not affected by whether the weapon is loaded.
      The question of the degree of responsibility and of seriousness is not affected by that differential. The intention is there throughout to use that weapon to frighten and terrify anyone who might seek to apprehend the person or anyone who may surprise him when he is going about his crime. Therefore, I do not believe that we can lock at that with equanimity, even if the criminal deliberately has not taken a loaded shotgun. The intention to frighten is present on all those occasions.
      11.15 pm
      This is a case where there is no question of a sudden impulse. This is one of the most premeditated of all crimes. A person who decides to commit some other offence, or decides that he may be in danger of being apprehended by a police officer or a person lawfully attempting to apprehend him, takes a weapon so that he can frighten off Such a threat. It is proper to take a serious view, whether the weapon is loaded or not, if someone has taken a positive decision before going out to commit a crime.
      My second reason for tabling the new clause is that I do not see any other way forward. We failed for the umpteenth time last night to have capital punishment restored. We have failed to increase penalties for serious offences. Successive Governments and the House must share the responsibility for that. We have failed to deter the enormous rise in the increase in crime, which has gone on steadily for more than a decade and which has reached proportions that are unacceptable to the people of Britain and, in particular, to Members of the House. There it no other way forward but to make certain that those who commit this crime know that they will be subjected to a lengthy prison sentence.

      861
      I may be asked whether 14 years is too harsh a penalty for this crime. I have already said that I view the matter seriously. While 14 years' imprisonment sounds a long time, it would be subject to the normal period of remission of one-third of the sentence and the normal parole facility would be available for another one-third of the sentence. Therefore, in this as in many other cases, the reality is that if 14 years is passed by the court, the sentence served may be closer to five years.
      One of the reasons why the Government and the judiciary are opposed to mandatory sentencing is that it fetters judicial discretion. But in this case we have an adequate area in which judicial discretion could be exercised because of the provision whereby the judge can say what minimum sentence should be served for this offence.
      The crime may be such that a comparatively lenient view could be taken—the weapon may not be loaded, or the person at whom the weapon is pointed may know that it is not loaded, or suspect that is it is not loaded, and therefore is not afraid. But even if those matters are taken into account, the person who has been sentenced to 14 years can be let out after four years and eight months.
      Judicial discretion still arises because, under the new clause, it would be open to the court to say that a minimum sentence of any period above that and below 14 years should be the sentence served by the offender before he is released. That is an adequate discretion to deal with this extremely serious crime.
      I believe that the public must be satisfied that this House is determined to take steps to deal with serious crime and, most essentially, to deal with crimes against the person, crimes of violence, and crimes involving firearms. The public must be satisfied that we are not going to allow the rise in the number of offences over a decade to continue unchallenged and unremedied.
      I ask the House to support the new clause, and, I hope, to take a positive step forward in controlling crimes of violence and crimes involving the use of firearms.
      Mr. W. Benyon: I warmly support the new clause, and it is a great pity that it is being discussed so late in the evening.
      In yesterday's debate, the point was made again and again that capital punishment cannot be proved to be a deterrent in the case of hot-blooded crime but that it serves as a deterrent in that it prevents a criminal from picking up a firearm or any other weapon before committing the crime.
      I accept that argument. I voted against the reintroduction of capital punishment and my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) voted for it. I strongly believe that it is incumbent on those of us who voted against to show that we mean business about violent crime. Those statistics have gone through the roof, and my hon. Friend knows that only too well. Something must be done. The public must be reassured. The present situation is a disgrace to a civilised community.
      This House will be judged on what it does. I know only too well that the Home Office and judges do not like the new clause. Frankly, the judges are the problem. Criminals are not fools. They read the newspapers and watch television. They are aware of the sentences that are imposed and the remission that is now being given. In
      862
      those circumstances, is it any wonder that weapons are used more and more frequently in the commission of crime and that our prisons are full?
      I entirely accept that the greatest deterrent of all is the certainty of detection, but almost equally there is the balance between crime and the penalty arising from it. Let me give the House a facetious example. If we imposed a six-month prison sentence for parking offences, there would be no need for parking attendants. I am of the sure and certain knowledge that a minimum sentence for the sort of crime we are now discussing will make criminals think twice. It will also reassure the public.
      The argument that mandatory sentences are wrong has been made over and over again. My hon. Friend has mentioned the life sentence. I draw attention to the penalty for drink driving offences, which has undoubtedly deterred, as it was meant to do. The same applies in this case.
      I strongly repeat my view that those who do not want capital punishment have a duty to put something in its place and to produce some sort of alternative that will prevent these shocking figures for violent crime. The new clause does just that, and I hope that the House will support it.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: The new clause was moved persuasively, and the loss to the Parliamentary Counsel Office has been the gain of this House. However, I cannot accept either of the principles contained in the new clause, notwithstanding the fact that I attach precisely the same importance to the need to deter who would otherwise arm themselves to commit an offence.
      The new clause infringes a number of principles and in effect introduces a totally new principle into our criminal system. The hon. Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor), anticipating the criticism that in certain circumstances it might be too harsh to inflict 14 years' imprisonment, said that in effect the sentence served would be very much less—only a third of that under the parole system.
      By accepting this principle, we should be introducing into our law the principle that some American states have, of a minimum and maximum sentence for a particular offence. I feel that to do that would be inevitably to set a precedent for other types of offence. In supporting the new clause, the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that there were already one or two other circumstances in which a mandatory sentence could be imposed.
      The attention of the House was also drawn to the idea that a mandatory sentence should be imposed for rape. We should be edging open that much wider the door towards mandatory sentence, and be setting a precedent. If we are to do that we must ask ourselves whether that is a desirable precedent to set.
      In taking the view that it is not, I am not understating or underemphasising the gravity of committing offences armed with firearms. I take the point about whether the firearm is loaded, and that there may be mitigating circumstances other than that the firearm is not loaded. I ask myself whether it is so much graver an offence to commit robbery armed with a firearm of some kind, or armed with a heavy metal weapon or a knife. If we apply this principle to the firearm, why not to the heavy metal weapon or to the knife?
      The reality is that we should introduce by the new clause a principle that would necessarily fetter the sort of discretion that we always say the judiciary ought, rightly,

      863
      to have. It should have the discretion to examine the circumstances of each offence and decide, in the light of those circumstances, whether the appropriate penalty is the maximum or something below the maximum. We are handing over that discretion in a way that was opposed again and again in Committee when there was any attempt from the Labour Benches to introduce any diminution of the flexibility of the courts. That was opposed on the ground that the judiciary ought to have an ample discretion. The Minister will recall that that was a principle that I always accepted, even though there were circumstances in which I felt that there could be some exception in detail from it.
      The second principle that I should object to in the new clause, as a general principle and as setting a precedent, is in the second part—the introduction of the recommendation. We have accepted that in the case of life imprisonment for murder and for special circumstances which the House accepted as an alternative to capital punishment, which was being abolished at the time. Special reasons prompted the House to do that.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me that, whatever the special circumstances may have been, that has proved to be an invaluable provision and one without which the court would have great difficulty in effectively enforcing the laws relating to murder?
      Mr. Silkin: We had some argument about that in Committee. There are many different points of view about that. I think that I said in Committee—if I did not I ought to have—that many judges do not like that power and do not exercise it these days for that reason. They feel it is wrong, at the moment when someone is sentenced, to determine what his future ought to be, perhaps 10 years or, in this case, 14 years ahead. What should be done depends so much on his reaction to the penalty that is imposed upon him. Indeed, the very fact that such a recommendation may be made at the point of consideration of the offence means that all the valuable work done by the Parole Board in considering the individual circumstances and the time when it is right for someone to be released, looking at the gravity of the crime in addition to all the other circumstances, is vitiated by a recommendation from which it feels it is difficult for it to depart. The Secretary of State is under the same inhibition, as I know from the number of constituency cases with which I have to deal.
      11.30 pm
      I do not see why we should set this further precedent in relation to this offence. I support strongly the view that carrying a firearm should be regarded as a very serious offence. There has been ample legislation over the years making it more serious. I cannot, however, agree with what is proposed in either part of the new clause.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Despite my great respect for the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) I must support the objections put forward by the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin). The arguments that the right hon. and learned Gentleman put against the new clause are compelling.
      The object of the new clause is to deprive the courts of effective discretion and to stipulate a mandatory minimum
      864
      sentence of 14 years in respect of offences under sections 17 and 18 of the Firearms Act 1968. I regard than as objectionable. The precedents are extremely limited. They are murder and drunken driving. There may be others but they are not significant. I am very much opposed to extending the precedent. We should not remove from judges the discretion that they now possess. If one is to have a system of criminal law that imposes substantial prison sentences it is important that the sentences reflect the degree of culpability of the defendant. A sentence that does not take account of the degree of culpability on the part of the offender means that the system is defective.
      As the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich pointed out, and as my hon. Friend for Nantwich rightly stressed, most cases involving firearms are serious and should attract a very long prison sentence. At the same time, I can conceive of other situations when the degree of culpability is less. I should like to put to my hon. Friend and Member for Nantwich the possibility that an offender would not be carrying ammunition. I would regard that as a factor that greatly reduced the degree of culpability. There are other instances. For example, a relatively young offender might be prevailed upon by a forceful companion to carry a weapon. I would regard that as mitigation.
      We should not take away from the judges the power to impose a sentence that reflects as accurately as possible the degree of culpability. If however, that is done—this is the purpose of the new clause—one brings the criminal into disrepute.
      Mr. W. Benyon: My hon. Friend is voicing—I intend no disrespect—a typical lawyer's argument. How does he suggest that we deal with the present problem? How do we seek to deter criminals using these weapons?
      Mr. Hogg: That is a fair question and I shall respond to it. I am not opposed to heavy prison sentences. As ray hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) probably knows, the maximum sentence that can be imposed for offences under sections 17 and 18 of the 1968 Act is only 14 years. There is something to be said for increasing substantially the maximum sentence that can be imposed. I am opposed to a minimum sentence. We must have a system that reflects culpability, and if we do not we shall destroy respect for the law. That will be the result if excessive sentences are imposed in some cases.
      Sir Albert Costain: My hon. Friend is using legal language and those of us who are not learned gentleman use practical language. We want to deter. If a criminal knows that the is bound to get 14 years' imprisonment for certain offences, will not that stop him from carrying a firearm?
      Mr. Hogg: There was anxiety that I should be brief and I was given four minutes. To intervene in my speech to prolong the exercise seems a slightly curious performance. As I said earlier, I think that in certain circumstances the courts should impose very long sentences. However, I am against very long minimum mandatory sentences that do not take account of the blameworthiness of individual offenders. If such sentences are made mandatory, we shall destroy respect for the law.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: With great respect, I think that my hon. Friend is missing the point that was made so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir. A. Costain). Surely it is the certainty of the length

      865
      of the sentence that will constitute a deterrent. My hon. Friend will know as well as I do from his experience in the courts that the criminal is by nature a born optimist and always thinks that the judge will be lenient with him until he discovers too late in the day that he was over-optimistic.
      Mr. Hogg: That is a fair point. However, I do not believe in the deterrent theory of punishment to the extent that my hon. Friend does. I believe in long prison sentences but not necessarily because they will serve as a deterrent. There are many other good reasons for imposing long sentences, but my hon. Friend should not harbour the belief that such sentences necessarily act as a deterrent. If the law is to be effective, it must be respected. If we impose sentences that are disproportionate to the degree of blameworthiness, we shall destroy the public's respect for the law.
      Mr. Best: My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) has said that the criminal is a born optimist and believes that he will always be dealt with leniently. Surely he believes that he will never even be caught. The criminal that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and I see in the courts is the unsuccessful one. We should be interviewing the successful criminals whom we never meet.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with him entirely. I do not want to persist with this line of argument because I have already occupied a good deal of the time of the House.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is clear that there will be no need for a ministerial reply in view of the extent of my hon. Friend's speech. My hon. Friend says that he does not accept the deterrent theory. If that is so, what is he doing supporting the possession of Trident missiles and other nuclear weapons?
      Mr. Hogg: I shall not embark on a wholly different subject. We can discuss that issue on another occasion.
      If we impose a minimum 14-year sentence for offences under sections 17 and 18 of the 1968 Act, it will be wholly out of balance with other prison sentences, and that will be unacceptable. If we impose a sentence for the simple possession of firearms that is disproportionate to an offence of serious rape, for example, we shall bring the law into disrepute. The effect of the clause is unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Parris: May I, with my customary brevity, spring to the defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)? My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) accused him of using a typical lawyer's argument. I do not think that it was a typical lawyer's argument and, as one who is not a lawyer, I should like to support what I believe to be the commonsense argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.
      We cannot know the possible range of crimes involving firearms that may be committed. Many may be serious, but many may have strong mitigating circumstances. We have to leave it to the judiciary to order punishments that fit the circumstances. It is imponderable what sort of crimes will be committed and it is not for us to tie the hands of the judiciary. That is not a lawyer's argument; it is a commonsense argument.
      Mr. Nicholas Lyell: I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) that severe sentences for armed robbery are important, but I support my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) in saying that it is wrong to fetter the discretion of the judiciary to decide what sentences to impose in individual cases.
      If the public saw a 14-year sentence being imposed on a young man who had been forced to carry a firearm that he may never have used——
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Oh, come on!
      Mr. Lyell: Let us assume it for a moment. The public might think that such a sentence was extremely unjust. Cases of manifest injustice bring the law into disrepute and lower the deterrent effect and good effect of severe sentences in appropriate cases.
      We need to establish that we deeply disapprove of the carrying of firearms and that we have the will, through the judiciary, to impose severe sentences in appropriate cases. It is no good my hon. Friends saying that the judiciary does not have the will. I do not believe that. Those who take part in armed robberies are usually severely dealt with, and they certainly ought to be, but it should be for the discretion of individual judges. When a long sentence is imposed and is not cut short by the Home Secretary or the Parole Board, that has good effects.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: May I take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the judicial career on which he is shortly to embark? I am sure that those who appear in a court that he is administering will get their due deserts.
      Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that what he has said about the possible unfairness of a mandatory sentence applies also to the life sentence for murder and the driving disqualification in breathalyser cases? Is it not right that the public interest should override the occasional unfortunate case?
      Mr. Lyell: In only the rarest of cases should we have a mandatory minimum sentence. We need a long maximum sentence available, but we should leave it to the judiciary to impose that in appropriate cases and we should show that we expect long sentences in such cases.
      Mr. Mayhew: We all understand the concern that lies behind the new clause and every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has expressed his horror of offences in which firearms are used. We all seek to reduce that aspect of crime, along with all others.
      I hesitate to speak, in view of the strictures about lawyers' language from my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain), but I must say that the new clause is unacceptable to the Government.
      There was a flaw in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) when he said that he would not support mandatory sentences for rape, although he acknowledged that it could be one of the most serious offences. He gave as his reason for opposing such mandatory sentences the wide degree of culpability that was to be found. I think that he would find that to be a fairly controversial view in certain quarters, but I accept the argument for the purpose of what I wish to say.

      867
      11.45 pm
      I believe that most people would regard there as being a wide degree of culpability in offences committed by somebody carrying a firearm. There must be a wide difference in the blameworthiness of someone who goes out to rob a bank armed with a Luger with the appropriate ammunition, and somebody who goes out carrying an imitation gun or an air pistol, with no possibility, if he is panicked, of doing any harm to anybody. That must be accepted as pointing the need in this type of offence, as was acknowledged in the case of rape, for a recognition of different degrees of blameworthiness.
      I agree with those hon. Members who say that the law should provide for heavy maximum sentences for this type of offence but should not be so rigid that it cannot distinguish the appropriate sentence for the less blameworthy as distinct from the more blameworthy criminal.
      Many people talk as though judges are unable to pass long sentences of imprisonment for this type of offence. It should be known more widely that section 17 of the Firearms Act 1968 prescribes two offences, first, using a firearm with intent to resist arrest with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment—which, incidentally, would be abolished by this new clause and for which 14 years would be substituted—and, secondly, possessing a firearm on arrest for or in the commission of a scheduled offence which has a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment. Section 18 contains the offence of carrying a firearm with a criminal intent, which is also subject to a maximum sentence of 14 years.
      Those are hefty maximum sentences, and rightly so. It is said that the judges do not impose sufficiently high sentences. However, in an organised robbery where a premises or a vehicle is attacked by men armed with weapons such as a sawn-off shotgun with the objective of stealing large sums of money and valuable property, the ordinary penalty is 15 years' imprisonment, which is a year more than would be mandatory under this clause. Robbery, of course, carries a maximum of life imprisonment and that sentence is frequently awarded. On occasion determinate sentences of longer than 15 years are imposed for that offence.
      Therefore, although it is widely held that soft sentences are passed, I suspect that that is because people have noticed, because of publicity that has been given, a case where, no doubt for special reasons, a relatively low sentence has been passed. The special reasons do not come over in the publicity, which instead leads people to suppose that that is the normal pattern for such offences. The norm does not come over.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept that of the 15,000 robberies recorded in 1980, 1,149 involved the use of firearms? Will he not also accept that in those circumstances, whatever sentences courts might hitherto have been passing, they have not proved adequate to deter?
      Will my hon. and learned Friend accept, too, that although 15 years is longer than the mandatory 14 years, the provision enabling the judge to ask for a minimum sentence to be served would make it a significantly more dangerous penalty for the criminal than 15 years under the present system?
      Mr. Mayhew: By definition, in those 1,400 or so cases the existing sentences that have been passed have not been
      868
      adequate to deter. The offences would not have occurred had those responsible for them been deterred from committing them.
      An important point that is not generally understood is that in 1980 the proportion of all robberies in which firearms featured was 7·7 per cent., almost identical to the proportion 10 years earlier in 1970 which was 7·6 per cent. There has been little variation in the intervening years. The increase in the use of firearms—worrying though it is—has gone hand in hand with the general increase in crime. It has not overtaken it. The question therefore is whether we are confident that by imposing a mandatory sentence of 14 years' imprisonment we will deter. I believe that the disadvantages of breaching the principle of not imposing mandatory sentences far outweigh the possible advantages that form the basis of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich.
      The idea behind the provision for licences, which forms the second limb of the new clause, comes from the mandatory life sentence scheme for murder whereby a minimum term may be declared by the trial judge. That provision has not been used to any great extent. Only about 8 per cent. of life sentences for murder include any recommendation. The expectation would be that the declaration would be used more frequently for the offences we are now talking about, both as mitigating the harshness inherent in a mandatory sentence of 14 years which would have to be imposed, for example, in a case of criminal damage committed even with an air weapon, and for marking the gravity of some offences.
      How in practice would the power to recommend a minimum term be exercised? As drafted it would be discretionary. It would be used in some cases and not others. Given the wide variety of cases there is a real danger of inconsistency of approach. Should the minimum term be subject to appeal thereby giving it the status of a sentence in its own right? What implications would that have for the nature of the recommendation when it came to the question of release on licence? I believe that these are important questions to which anyone advocating the imposition of mandatory sentences of imprisonment must address himself.
      Mr. Best: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Is not the real test by which my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) stands or falls whether in the past mandatory sentences have proved to be a deterrent? Will my hon. and learned Friend say whether any argument has been advanced to show that existing mandatory sentences have proved to be a deterrent? Has it proved to be the case with drinking and driving?
      Mr. Mayhew: I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) relied upon the analogy of the mandatory disqualification for drinking and driving. I do not have those statistics. All I know is what I have frequently read, that it has not proved to be a deterrent. Initially, the numbers dropped but they have very rapidly increased. I do not know whether it is a deterrent.
      Mr. W. Benyon: Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that if there were not a mandatory sentence in drink and drive cases there would not be a large increase in those incidents? Can I ask him about the statistical argument? Seven per cent. of a much higher figure of total offences must mean that the number RS increasing rapidly?
      Mr. Mayhew: My hon. Friend misunderstood me if he supposed that I did not say that the number was increasing. We all know that the numbers have gone up. My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich has quoted the numbers. The point that has to be made is that the proportion of offences in which firearms have been carried has remained over the past decade at between 7 and 8 per cent. I do not say that long sentences cannot be expected to have a deterrent effect. They plainly have. They keep people out of circulation, but I do not believe that a legal system that imposes mandatory sentences for offences other than murder is one that we should support. I well respect and understand the contrary arguments. I understand those who say "We have not gone for the death penalty so let us go for something really swingeing." For the reasons that have been given I am afraid that once we did it in this case we could not distinguish knives, blunt instruments or any other weapon, and we would then be on the road to mandatory sentences and away from the judges' discretion.
      My argument will not improve by repetition. I must advise the House that, however sympathetic one must be towards its intent, this is not a new clause that should be accepted.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 98.

      Division No. 148]

      [10.11 pm

      AYES

      Allaun, Frank

      Davidson, Arthur

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Atkinson, N, (H'gey)

      Deakins, Eric

      Beith, A.J.

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)

      Dixon, Donald

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dormand, Jack

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Dubs, Alfred

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Eadie, Alex

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Eastham, Ken

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Crowther, Stan

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Cryer, Bob

      Ewing, Harry

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Flannery, Martin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      844

      Forrester, John

      Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)

      Foster, Derek

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Golding, John

      Morton, George

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hamilton, James(Bothwell)

      Parry, Robert

      Hardy, Peter

      Pitt, WilliamHenry

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Powell, Raymond(Ogmore)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Richardson, Jo

      Haynes, Frank

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Hooley, Frank

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      John, Brynmor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Soley, Clive

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Spearing, Nigel

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Lamborn, Harry

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Leadbitter.Ted

      Tinn, James

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Wainwright, E.(DearneV)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Welsh, Michael

      McKelvey, William

      Winnick, David

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      McWilliam, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

      Millan.Rt Hon Bruce

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

      Arnold, Tom

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Atkinson, David(B'm'th, E)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Benyon, Thomas(A'don)

      Jessel, Toby

      Benyon, W.(Buckingham)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Bevan, DavidGilroy

      Knox, David

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Lang, Ian

      Blackburn, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      LeMarchant, Spencer

      Bright, Graham

      Lester, Jim(Beeston)

      Brinton, Tim

      Lewis, Arthur(N'ham NW)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Loveridge, John

      Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Buck, Antony

      Major, John

      Budgen, Nick

      Marlow, Antony

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Mather, Carol

      Carlisle, John (LutonWest)

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

      Mawby, Ray

      Chapman, Sydney

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Cockeram, Eric

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Cope, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Mills, Iain(Meriden)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Crouch, David

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Morgan, Geraint

      Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

      Mudd, David

      Dover, Denshore

      Murphy, Christopher

      Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

      Needham, Richard

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Elliott, Sir William

      Newton, Tony

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Onslow, Cranley

      Farr, John

      Osborn, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

      Parris, Matthew

      Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Forman, Nigel

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Gardiner, George(Reigate)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Price, Sir David(Eastleigh)

      Grieve, Percy

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Grylls, Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Gummer, JohnSelwyn

      Renton, Tim

      845

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Rossi, Hugh

      Stevens, Martin

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Silvester, Fred

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Speed, Keith

      Thompson, Donald

      Speller, Tony

      Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)

      Spence, John

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Stainton, Keith

      Waddington, David

      Wakeham, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Warren, Kenneth

      Watson, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Wheeler, John

      Wickenden, Keith

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Division No. 149]

      [11.54 pm

      AYES

      Beith, A. J.

      Marlow, Antony

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Penhaligon, David

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Carlisle, John (LutonWest)

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Cockeram, Eric

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Grylls, Michael

      Mr. W. Benyon and Mr. Vivian Bendall.

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      NOES

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Gardiner, George(Reigate)

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

      Gummer, JohnSelwyn

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Blackburn, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wichW)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Bright, Graham

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Brinton, Tim

      Knox, David

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Lang, Ian

      Brotherton, Michael

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Brown, Ronald W.(H'ckn'yS)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Budgen, Nick

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Butcher, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      McKelvey, William

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

      Major, John

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th.S'n)

      Marshall, Michael(Arundel)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Mather, Carol

      Cope, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Cryer, Bob

      Morton, George

      Davidson, Arthur

      Mudd, David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Murphy, Christopher

      Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

      Needham, Richard

      Dover, Denshore

      Nelson, Anthony

      Dubs, Alfred

      Neubert, Michael

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Newton, Tony

      Elliott, Sir William

      Osborn, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

      Parris, Matthew

      Forman, Nigel

      Pitt, William Henry

      870

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Renton, Tim

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thompson, Donald

      Richardson, Jo

      Waddington, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Watson, John

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Wells, Bowen

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wheeler, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Wickenden, Keith

      Sims, Roger

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wolfson, Mark

      Speed, Keith

      Speller, Tony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

      Stevens, Martin

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 39

      CURFEW ORDER
      `(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a person under 17 but not less than ten years of age is convicted of an offence which is punishable with imprisonment in the case of a person aged 21 or over, the court may make an order confining the offender to his place of permanent residence for such hours of any day and for such day or days of the week as they think fit; provided that:—

      (a) the offender has consented to the order;

      (b) where the offender resides with his parent or guardian such parent or guardian has consented to the order;

      (c) where the offender resides in the care of any other person or authority such person or authority has consented to the order;

      (d) having regard to the circumstances of the case it considers the requirement necessary for securing the good conduct of the offender or for preventing repetition by him of the same offence or the commission of other offences;

      (e) the court has the benefit of a social inquiry report upon the offender.

      (2) An order under this section shall be known as a curfew order.
      (3) The periods within a day within which confinement may be imposed under this section shall be:—

      (a) Mondays to Fridays—6 p.m. until 6 a.m. on the following day;

      (b) Saturdays and Sundays—noon until 6 a.m. on the following day.

      (4) The maximum duration of such an order shall be three months. The maximum number of days within such a period of three months shall be 42.
      (5) An offender subject to a curfew order shall, at the request of a person acting as an officer of the court or a police officer who calls at his place of permanent residence to which he has been confined during the hours prescribed by the order, present himself to such person in order to establish his presence; and failure to do so shall constitute a breach of the order.
      (6) Where such an order has been made and it appears on information to a justice acting for a relevant petty sessional area that the offender has been in breach of the order, the justice may issue a summons requiring the offender to appear at a place and time specified in the summons before a magistrates' court acting for the area or, if the information is in writing and on oath, may issue a warrant for the offender's arrest requiring him to be brought before the court.
      (7) If it is proved to the satisfaction of the magistrates' court before which the offender is brought under this section that he has without reasonable excuse been in breach of the order then that court may:—

      (a) impose upon the offender any sentence or make any order which it might have imposed or made for the original offence of which he was convicted;

      (b) commit the offender to the Crown Court for sentence.

      (8) A magistrates' court which deals with an offender's case under subsection 5(2) of this section shall send to the Crown Court a certificate signed by a justice of the peace giving particulars of the offender's breach of the order together with

      871
      other particulars as may be desirable, and a certificate purporting to be so signed shall be admissible as evidence of the breach before the Crown Court.
      (9) Where by virtue of subsection 5(2) above the offender is brought or appears before the Crown Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that he has been in breach of the order the Court may impose upon the offender any sentence or make any order which it might have imposed or made for the originial offence of which he was convicted.
      (10) Nothing in this section shall prevent a court imposing an order under this section in addition to other penalties that it is empowered to impose save that where the offender is subject to a supervision order any such confinement to his place of permanent residence shall be imposed as a condition of that order and not under this section.
      (11) In proceedings before a Crown Court under this section any question whether there has been a breach of the order shall be determined by a court and not by the verdict of a jury.
      (12) An offender who is in breach of a curfew order shall be liable to arrest by a police officer.'.—[Mr. Lyell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Lyell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      It is getting late—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and this new clause was fully discussed in Committee. I note that the lowing herd is not wholly absent. I move the new clause now because, despite the Minister's friendly and encouraging words in Committee and the fact that the matter is being considered seriously with a view to bringing it forward in an acceptable form, I have made some changes to the original clause and I wish to mention briefly its objects and provenance.
      The object of the clause is to add what I believe would be a valuable weapon to the courts' armoury of non-custodial sentences for dealing with juvenile crime. The House is well aware of the rise in juvenile crime, and I am sure that we all agree about the importance of parental responsibility in trying to curtail juvenile offences. We recognise that in some cases the parent or parents simply cannot control their youngsters and I do not suggest that the clause is appropriate for such cases. However, many offences occur when a young person goes out late at night, drinks rather too much, causes criminal damage or gets into trouble at a bar, disco or on the streets. If he could be restrained and kept at home on appropriate days, such as Friday or Saturday—or kept away from a football match where he might have got into trouble—by order of the court, enforceable and supported by such a clause, he could be greatly benefited. Not only would the disapproval of society be marked by an appropriate penalty but the youngster could be saved from himself.
      The idea for the clause was not mine. The kind words of the Minister should go to the Magistrates' Association, which passed a resolution saying that it would wish such a non-custodial option to be added to the sentences that magistrates could impose, especially on juveniles. That has been reinforced by the views of the inner London juvenile court panel, which is in an especially good position to know the sentencing needs for such offences. I have had discussions with many magistrates. Although the original clause does not have the blanket support of all organisations, I have received much support from chief probation officers and directors of social services, including those from my county of Hertfordshire, where the idea for the clause arose.
      The objects of the clause are to enhance parental responsibility and to make provision for another non-custodial sentence. There is a growing realisation in Britain that we have something to learn from the
      872
      Americans in the wide range of non-custodial options that they make available to their courts, especially for juveniles. We should be ready to go down that wad.
      As I wish to be brief, may I move on to deal with some of the changes that appear in the present draft of the clause compared with the draft before the Committee. The principal point raised by those who voiced objections—I recognise that some of them were valid—was about enforcement.
      In Committee I made the point that is valid in many cases, but not all, that to a great extent a curfew order would be self-enforcing, in that if the young person on whom it was imposed broke it that person would rapidly go back to old haunts and habits, and thus rapidly come to the notice of the police again and be brought back before the court for an alternative penalty or some other suitable punishment—non-custodial, one hopes. However, that is not always the case.
      I agree with the criticism that there should be a check-up system. Consequently, subsection (5) suggests that a person subject to a curfew order should be ready to make himself known to someone who comes to check up. That should not necessarily or normally be a police officer. The form of words is
      "a person acting as an officer of the court".
      We have this in the fines enforcement officer who is used by some courts. If the offender were ordered to remain at home between certain hours, it would be possible for a person acting as an "officer of the court" to come at random and do a spot check—not to enter the dwelling, because I am sure that the House would think that that was unnecessary and unjustified, but to come to the door. There would then be an obligation on the offender to make his presence known.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am fascinated by my hon. and learned Friend's interesting idea. What will the officer of the court or the police do if he arrives at the house, rings the bell, and there is no answer? If the bell does not work, what does he do?
      Mr. Lyell: I did not want to read the whole of subsection (5). Failure to present himself would constitute "a breach of the order", and a summons would then be issued and the offender brought back before the court. If there was a reasonable excuse—for instance, that he was ill and unable to get out of bed—there would be no breach because of the way in which the clause is drafted. II the bell was not working, that would be a reasonable excuse, and no offence would be committed. That is covered by the clause. It is important to have a check-up system that does not fall on the police.
      I want to thank senior members of the Association of Chief Police Officers with whom I have had an opportunity to discuss the clause since the Committee stage, and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, from which I have had a number of constructive suggestions which are included in the clause as drafted. I am also grateful to the other bodies which have made submissions which, where possible, have been taken into account in the present form.
      There is a second point about enforcement. If a police officer should recognise someone as being in breach in the street, it is obviously right that there should be a power of arrest. That was not originally included, but is now included.

      873
      I do not envisage that the general method of enforcement should be by trawls by the police in the streets. The police do not want that. It would be unnecessary in local communities outside the great conurbations, and it would be impractical within the great conurbations. It is not proposed. Thus, one of the potential difficulties of the new clause has been avoided in the new draft.
      The second point made was that it is important that the court should use such an order in appropriate cases. It was pointed out that in certain cases the parents would be quite inadequate or the young person would be wholly out of control, and that in such cases the courts should not use such an order. I accept that. First, there is a change, in that the consent not only of the parents but of the young person is now required. Secondly, the new draft provides for a social inquiry report. Thirdly—and here I am grateful to NACRO for the suggestion—it provides that it should be imposed only in cases where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the court
      "considers the requirement necessary for securing the good conduct of the offender or for preventing repetition by him of the same offence or the commission of other offences."
      That is a rigmarole used in other sentencing options. It is highly appropriate to this order because it is exactly for those objects that the order would in any event be imposed by a court. One sees embodied in the clause its whole purpose.
      12.15 am
      This could be reinforced by a Home Office circular. When there is a new sentencing option, particularly one which to some extent breaks new ground, it is desirable that the kind of circumstance in which it should be employed should be made known to the justices, although, since the idea emanated from the magistrates, I take the same view as was taken by the Minister in Committee that the courts can be trusted to use it in appropriate cases. In so far as safeguards are needed, they are embodied in the clause.
      A third point which was made was that the restrictions which would be imposed by such an order should not be in conflict with a supervision order. I recognise the force of that. For that purpose, where a supervision order is either to be imposed for the same offence or is already in force and one wishes to avoid a conflict, the clause as drafted provides that the keeping in which would be required by the order should be imposed only as a condition of the supervision order and not as a separate matter, thereby avoiding the conflict which might come from two distinct and possibly, though not likely, conflicting penalties.
      Mr. Lawrence: Why would not the end that my hon. and learned Friend seeks be achieved by having a supervision order when the curfew could be supervised?
      Mr. Lyell: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I was coming to that point. I hope that we shall get the supervision order law into such a form that that can be done.
      As the House knows, the probation service is under considerable stress. I have the greatest respect for the kind of intermediate treatment that is to be found in schemes such as the Medway close support scheme and schemes which emanate from ideas from the University of
      874
      Lancaster and other ideas which are put into effect in different areas. But these intermediate treatment schemes, excellent as they are, are highly intensive and require a great deal of probation officer time.
      What we are seeking to do is in appropriate cases to harness the good will and efforts of parents. There is a large number of juvenile offences. I am not suggesting—and I do not think the magistrates have put this forward—that this order would be used in a huge number of cases, but it could be used in a significant number where intensive use of the probation service would not be appropriate. That is one reason why the magistrates are anxious to have the provision. That is why it is desirable to have it as a curfew order separate from and additional to a supervision order. The suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is sensible, and I hope that we shall see that achieved, but in a significant number of cases it is right and proper to seek to go further.
      I have made it clear in my opening remarks that it is not my intention to divide the House. This is a new non-custodial option and a new sentencing option. I hope that it will be considered constructively by the House. I know that it will be examined constructively by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister. I hope that before the Bill completes all its stages an opportunity will be found, perhaps in another place, to bring the clause forward in a polished form that will have the approval of the other place and, in due course, of ourselves. It may thereby find its way on to the statute book to be of that benefit to the courts in the sentencing options which we know that magistrates seek.
      Mr. William Pitt: This new clause is a considerable improvement on the one that we discussed in Committee. However, I cannot support it wholly. I have some reservations about its efficacy and the ability of people to carry it out.
      Under subsection (1)(a), the offender must consent to the order and under (1)(b) the offender's parent or guardian must consent to the order, if the offender resides with him. That would be admirable if that consent were both given and accepted all the way through the currency of the order. I am worried that the offender may consent to the curfew order at one moment—perhaps to get himself off the hook—but two or three weeks later when the curfew order started to bite, the offender might decide to remove his consent. He may say to himself "Blow this, I am going out and I shall face the consequences."
      I am concerned about how, especially in the large conurbations, which is where the curfew order would be used most, if it were put into operation, anyone could find the young offenders who were breaking the curfew order other than by making large police trawls of the streets or—dare I say it in the Chamber?—by making people carry some form of identification. That would be impractical.
      I would accept the order if it were part of a supervised activities order. However, it is not considered in the clause that it should be part of a supervised activities order. I can see no other reason why young people should be curfewed in this way. It reminds me of sending children to bed with no tea. It is not a creative way of performing a non-custodial sentence. I have used the word "creative" several times in Committee and in the House when talking about the matter. We should be looking for the creative use of

      875
      a young offender's time, to make him aware of the crimes that he has committed, of his debt to society and that he has to do something constructive to expiate those crimes.
      Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the word "creative", which he used ad nauseam in Committee. Does he agree that denying an offender the pleasures of freedom is creative, by confining him to his home for that length of time?
      Mr. Pitt: I agree that denying the offender the pleasures of freedom has a certain appeal. However, this method of denying the offender the pleasures of freedom is coupled with nothing else and depends upon the offender being on his honour to stay at home. In times of financial hardship and when there are Government cuts, where will we find the court officers to knock up those people and find out whether they are responding to the curfew? Will we allow policemen to knock on people's doors to find out? The offender is restricted on his honour and that of his parents. What happens if the parents decide to go out one evening to enjoy themselves, and leave the boy or girl at home? The boy or girl is tempted to clear off——
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Chain them to the sink.
      Mr. Pitt: Indeed. I shall use the word that I have used ad nauseam—I would not call that a creative use of curfew.
      While the order has a superficial attraction and while I can see that the new clause is a marked improvement on the original one tabled in Committee, I still feel that unless the order is part of a supervised activities order and a general trend to use that person's time in properly expiating his crime, it is an impractical proposition. I cannot support it.
      Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to support new clause 39, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell). I pay tribute to him for the amount of work and time that he has put into the clause, and for his eloquence this evening and in Committee.
      The question has been rightly raised by my hon. Friend and learned Friend and by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Pitt) about the enforcement order. Although that point would worry the police and is acceptable, I feel that if the principle were applied to those offenders we would have gone some way to giving the courts an additional weapon and form of deterrent that they have—entirely at their discretion—the ability to use. Some form of curfew already exists in the orders that can be made preventing football hooligans from attending a game on a Saturday, and making them report to a centre. Where they are enforced, there have been problems, but on the whole they have been extremely successful.
      I suggest to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West that if the clause puts parents and the offenders on their honour, that is a part of the clause that we should support. But the main thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, like the spirit of the Bill, has been to put responsibility back with parents for the actions of their offending children.
      Most hon. Members, certainly Conservative Members, would agree that we have gone too far down the road which gives that responsibility to others and which blames the State, the school and the social worker for children's offences. This small measure, which has been well
      876
      thought out by my hon. and learned Friend, will begin to correct that and begin to put the responsibility back with parents so that they have to make the decision.
      With regard to enforcement, I do not envisage, and my hon. and learned Friend does not envisage, a large force of snooping court officers or policemen going around a district. If an offender is made subject to this type of order, he will think twice about breaking it. Under the new clause, an offender who breaks the curfew can be brought back to the court and punished for that offence.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman is making a great point of parental responsibility. How does that arise other than in the initial grant of consent by the parents? Surely, once that has been granted, the parents do not come into the matter. They have no continuing responsibility for ensuring that the curfew is enforced.
      Mr. Carlisle: That is rather an unfortunate path to take, because the spirit of the Bill is to try to make the parents more responsible. It would go against the spirit of the curfew if the parents, even under the terms of the Flew clause, relinquish that responsibility to the courts. It is another form of deterrent which would be a useful weapon for the courts. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will look at it sympathetically, possibly under the new draft—I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the changes that he has made—and even if, in another place, some other form of new clause is tabled, we have today established a principle which must be continued.
      Mr. Lawrence: We must avoid at all costs non-enforcement of this proposal so that young hooligans cock a snook at the law and just laugh at the decision of the magistrates when an order is made. Therefore, everything turns on its enforceability. While I do not wish to derogate from the sensible view which has been expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell), and which has been persuasively presented and argued, the fact remains that unless this proposal can be properly supervised, we shall continue one of the themes of the breakdown of order in our society—the complete lack of respect for authority which young people have developed. We cannot rely on the responsibility of parents to put everything right just because we might introduce a new clause in the Bill.
      Unless my hon. and learned Friend can give an assurance that the police and the other forces of law and order will be able to enforce this provision, I must repeat the question that I asked: is not the best way of bringing this about by way of supervision orders? Then the little thugs and hooligans will not treat the law with the disrespect which is the foundation of later criminality.
      12.30 am
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I rise briefly to make one or two comments on the new clause. I shall not take long in view of the hour.
      For a considerable time I lived in Oldham where at that time there was great parental responsibility. Parents often imposed a strict curfew on many of the young people and it all worked well until the traditional Wakes holiday when the parents went away and left the young people at home, often with great misgivings that they were to look after the house for the fortnight. One was amazed at the amount of mischief and mayhem that occurred at all the parties that were organised at those houses while the parents were away.

      877
      The police often found it harder to control what went on in many of those houses than they did when the young people went to recognised places of entertainment, because at least most of the people running those places wanted them to be orderly and well run and wanted to discourage any disorder or mischief. In addition, the police were able to supervise them.
      Some of those young people will accept the order but will quickly become bored by the imposition of a curfew. They will encourage others to visit them. As I understand the new clause, that would be perfectly all right. As a result, a lively party could take place with no restriction at all on the person on whom the curfew had been imposed. It might well be a considerable inconvenience to other people in the neighbourhood, but there is a big difference between an inconvenience to the neighbours and an issue on which the police can intervene. That is at least one of the areas that must be looked at.
      This is an attempt to find a new punishment, and there are strong arguments to support the view that we should be looking for new ways of persuading people that they have a duty to conform to the law rather than behaving in an irresponsible way. However, not enough thought has been given to the new clause. Far too many people would quickly be able to demonstrate that it did not work. It would be laughed at and brought into disrepute.
      The organising of parties in the homes of those under a curfew order is one example. The problems of enforcement are another. Grave difficulties would be involved in knocking on doors well into the evening and being certain that the person coming to the door was the person on whom the curfew had been imposed.
      I can think of several teenagers in my constituency in respect of whom it would not be easy, especially on the doorstep in the evening, to tell whether it was brother A or brother B.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Or whether it was a boy or a girl.
      Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend may have that problem, but in my constituency the difficulty would be to identify two brothers, particularly if the person checking had not met them before.
      Police officers have told me that quite often they have difficulty trying to arrest a young person, and are sometimes not certain whether they have got the right brother. Therefore, enforcement could well prove difficult. Once one starts to get into difficulties, having to knock at the door, wanting to go into the house to be certain that one has checked up and seen the person on whom the curfew order was imposed, one again begins to cause difficulties. I suspect that one would not be very popular with the neighbours if there were a row or something of a disturbance because of an argument about whether the right son was there.
      This would be particularly the case as some parents at that time of night may not be in the most sober of minds. They may be rather more inclined to jump to the protection of their son than they would be the following morning in the cold light of day, when they reflect that the son was breaking the order and should not have been doing so. In many areas it would be true to say that there would be quite a few parents who would not answer the door in the calmest and coolest of ways, and might quickly get into
      878
      a dispute. It is amazing the number of times when a discussion on the doorstep in this sort of area in the evening——
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: It is not an easy thing to do.
      Mr. Bennett:—can lead to a situation in which tempers can become frayed and what is a small incident becomes a major one.
      There are many snags in the new clause. Once those snags are demonstrated, the law in total comes into contempt because one part of it is seen not to be working effectively.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I do not want to be difficult, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) has spent a great deal of time in writing out the clause, but I hope that the Minister will not, with his usual kindness, give a commitment to implement this because it is probably one of the most ridiculous ideas that we have seen for a long time.
      How on earth will the checking up be done? In the present state of lawlessness, not only is it unusual for large numbers of people to answer doors after 7.30 pm, but any parent would be well advised to tell their children, particularly if alone in the house, not to answer the door.
      Apart from that, have we thought of where responsibility would lie if there was no answer? What is the situation if a youngster is out breaking the curfew if he has been instructed to do so by his parents? Is there a liability on the parent, or on the youngster?
      As far as I know, there is a law that makes it unlawful to leave a child under 14 years of age by himself. If the parents are going out because they want to go out, or because there has been a sudden call, because granny has been taken ill, or they have to go to see someone urgently, what is their responsibility in relation to a child of 10, 11 or 12, who could be covered by the curfew?
      Mr. John Carlisle: I cannot see how that could possibly be any objection. The law is, as my hon. Friend says, that a child under the age of 14 should not be left alone. The law would not be any different. The parents should not be going out in the first place.
      Mr. Taylor: All that I am saying is that sometimes, due to unusual circumstances, perhaps because of a sudden phone call, a mother has to go out. Does she take the child with her, breaking the curfew, or does she leave the child at home and try to avoid the problem? Next, how will the identification take place? Will someone go around and try to identify the individual? Finally, is it fair and reasonable?
      Mr. Parris: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) on the cautious and careful way in which he moved the new clause. If some of my hon. Friends had listened more carefully to the way that it was moved they would have realised that my hon. and learned Friend was careful in his description of his aims. The principal impediment to its passage into legislation has been the way that it was oversold, not by my hon. Friend but, particularly, by the press. It has been described as a draconian and all-purpose new clause, applicable in all manner of circumstances to all manner of young offenders. That is not what is proposed. This is an alternative to custody that would be applicable in certain cases, which would be few in number. It is necessary only to accept that there will be

      879
      some cases in which this penalty might be considered suitable and that the courts will be able to distinguish them.
      I do not agree with the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that the crucial test of the new clause is its enforceability. If he had listened more carefully, he would have understood that this is essentially not an enforceable measure. Its success will depend upon the willingness of the offender and his parents to try to make it work. It could not be enforced against the will of the offender or his parents any more than is the case with supervision or probation orders. The measure would work only where everyone agreed to give it a try. There are circumstances where it might be a suitable punishment. It is worth trying. I commend it in the hope that the Government will be able to implement something of this nature.
      Mr. Edward Lyons: I am unhappy about this proposal. I feel that magistrates will be tempted to impose the new sentence on a child aged 11 or 12 when they might otherwise impose nothing at all. If the child who is expected to exercise adult self-control at home then decides to go out because some of his friends have called round, he can be brought back to the court a second time. He is already becoming familiar with court procedures. An extra strain is imposed on the time and resources of the court. This seems an unfortunate path to pursue with youngsters of that age.
      It is also necessary to consider one-parent families. I know of a case in my constituency where a man works on night shift and has to leave a boy aged 10 at home on his own. If a child of that age is to be subject to this sort of order, who will police the child? This proposal implies that parents should police their children. Sometimes the parents are not there to police their children. Sometimes the parents are not so law-abiding as to want to police their children. Sometimes they have no control over their children.
      There is a distinct possibility that youngsters will be brought back repeatedly before the court and that they will become almost criminals simply because they cannot resist at a young age, dashing out to play with their friends. Those youngsters at the top end of the scale, say those aged 16 and 17, might be tempted to play ducks and drakes with the curfew order to show they are not frightened by it. Their friends might dare them to break it. If that happens, they are back in court.
      It is all very well to say that a reasonable excuse for the youngster not being at home will be accepted by the magistrates as a reason for acquitting. Often, however, the explanation will be tested only in court. In other words, court proceedings have to take place before the young person can be acquitted. A boy might be deaf. That is not so unusual. A boy might not hear the knock at the door because he is at the back of the house or in the bathroom with the radio playing. However, because a policeman has come to the door and received no reply, that young lad is back in court. How can that be a sensible way of proceeding?
      12.45 am
      I am against a curfew innovation that is capable of expansion. Curfews are enforced for adults in places such as South Africa and totalitarian regimes. Once the public are used to the idea of curfew orders, a Home Secretary
      880
      in about five years' time will be able to say "The scheme has worked rather successfully and we shall extend it to persons up to 21 years and to adult offenders."
      Mr. Parris: If the hon. and learned Gentleman regards the curfew as such a draconian measure, how does he characterise open prisons?
      Mr. Lyons: The open prison is a different concept because it is a custodial sentence. A curfew would put a substantial strain on those who would be called upon to police themselves. If a person is placed on probation, he can go where he pleases for the most part, provided that he does not commit crime. He knows that crime is wrong. A person who is subject to a curfew will not feel that going outside his home is a criminal offence or is wrong. We shall be making a crime of something that for most of us is a completely innocent activity—for example, leaving one's home to play a game of football.
      If we want youngsters to become slaves to the television set, the curfew will be a marvellous provision. The Lord Chief Justice says that youngsters are slaves to the television screen. That is exactly what will happen if this proposal is accepted. Youngsters will have to stay at home, and for most of the time they will be gazing at the television screen. If a child is in an unhappy home in which the parents fight and squabble and he wants to get out, he will, none the less, be forced to stay in that unhappy domestic atmosphere and witness domestic squabbles, which will do him no good.
      If the child leaves his home and is subsequently returned to the magistrates, will he be expected, in the presence of his parents, to give a truthful explanation? Will he dare to say "I had to get out because my parents were fighting. My father was hitting my mother. At times my father was getting drunk and I knew that there might be violence at any moment'? Will he dare to say that in court in front of his parents?
      There are many difficulties about this proposal and I hope that the Government will think again. The law should not be brought into disrepute. Laws should not be passed that are so tempting to break and when those who will be subjected to the discipline that is proposed will be so young that they will find it difficult to adhere to it. This proposal should be dropped.
      Dr. Summerskill: Several of my hon. Friends in Committee and tonight have drawn attention to the practical difficulties that will be faced by families, be they one-parent or two-parent families, if the proposal is operated. The scheme relies for its success upon the full co-operation of the young offender and of his parents or guardian. That is something that we hope will materialise, but in practice it probably will not. The young offenders who will be involved will already have been convicted of an offence that is punishable with imprisonment if committed by a person aged 21 or over. The new clause lays much emphasis on the role of parents and so have As supporters laid such emphasis. They have stressed that they want to see more parental responsibility, but they have not mentioned the role of the police in the enforcement of the clause.
      I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) and the Minister of State have consulted the police about their role, but they will be involved in surveillance following an offender's court appearance, and that is a new concept. Do the police have

      881
      the manpower or desire to operate the arrangement? Has the Minister even consulted the police about their enforcement role? If the provision is not enforceable and effective we should not put it on the statute book.
      Mr. Mayhew: I offer my congratulations to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) on his constructive and helpful contributions to our debates in Committee and on Report. I welcomed the new clause that he moved in Committee as an original and promising addition to the options available to the courts for dealing with young offenders without having to send them to custody. That is one of the themes of the Bill. The other is that there must be custodial sentences, in suitable gradations and variety, for those whom the protection of the public requires should go into custody.
      We have consulted widely on the proposals. I said in Committee that we would have to listen carefully and pay attention to what was said about them. I have certainly consulted the police and have received comments from a number of organisations to which I am grateful. The volume of comments that we have received illustrates the importance of the proposals.
      I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not think me discourteous if, as the curfew tolls the knell of passing night, I do not take as long to reply as the subject justifies.
      From the consideration that the Government have given to the curfew and from the discussions that we have had, there have emerged three main areas of concern and possible difficulty. The first is the enforcement of a curfew, and I have noted, without surprise, that that is the major concern of those who have expressed anxiety about the new clause. The second possible area of difficulty is the proposal's impact on relations between the police and young people, and the third is its possible effect on relations between young offenders and their parents.
      Many organisations have emphasised that young offenders often suffer from personal difficulties at home, and many come from difficult family circumstances, with such problems as one-parent families and inadequate accommodation. It is widely felt that an order that, as a punishment—as distinct from a constructive package of supervision requirements—confines a young offender to home for long periods in such circumstances would worsen family relationships rather than reinforce parental responsibility and control.
      The courts would certainly have to use such a power with great discrimination, but that ought not to be beyond them, especially as the new clause provides for a social inquiry report, as well as for the consent of both parent and offender to the making of an order. Therefore, I am not too discouraged on that aspect.
      The most crucial difficulties that a curfew would raise relate to enforcement. If enforcement were left to the detection of breaches on the streets, the curfew could be ignored with a high degree of impunity, which would undermine the credibility of the order. The police would not be able, in the normal course of policing, to identify offenders who broke curfew, particularly in areas of population concentration like the inner cities and large towns where the crime problem is most acute. That has been forcefully represented to us on behalf of the police who feel that it would have an adverse effect on respect for the law generally.
      882
      It is proposed in the new clause that there should be reinforcing provisions enabling the police to arrest a juvenile whom they think is in breach of a curfew, which would also confer a power to arrest on reasonable suspicion and would enable checks to be made at the offender's home to ensure that he was there. I fully appreciate that the power to check up at home does not amount to a power of entry and that it is proposed that such checks might somehow be carried out by someone, other than the police, described as "an officer of the court" in the clause.
      The prospect of requiring juveniles to present themselves, even at the doors of their own homes to satisfy a curfew inspector if their presence during the night, on pain of prosecution for breaching the order, raises some difficult practical questions, some of which have been touched upon tonight, as well as the question whether a random check is right in principle.
      One asks who would carry out the checks. The police do not have the resources to take on additional duties of this kind, and it is questionable whether they should do so. It is clear that they do not want to. The courts too do not have the staff for that purpose. I do not overlook the fact that if a curfew order were used as an alternative to custody, savings would result from the reduction in the population of detention centres or youth custody centres, for example. However, I expect, if custody were seen as possibly appropriate, that a supervision order rather than a curfew order would be made.
      The new clause also proposes that the police should have power to arrest the young offender who is out in breach of curfew. I am sure that that would be necessary if it were to be enforceable. It will only rarely happen that the police unmistakably recognise on the street a juvenile whom they are certain should be at home under curfew at that time on that date. Their suspicions will usually be much less certain and checks will need to be made. That raises serious and uneasy questions about the influence which attempts to enforce suspected breaches of curfew might have on the ability of the police to establish and maintain the relationships that they need with young people in their areas.
      I have consulted my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead about these objections. I was anxious that the original idea should have the best possible chance of success. Following the Standing Committee, and as these comments and misgivings were made known to us, I naturally consulted my hon. and learned Friend. I acknowledge the effective and ingenious way in which in the revised new clause he has sought to meet some of those objections. There are much more promising prospects for the concept of a curfew as a condition of a supervision order. However, as a free-standing power of the nature of a penalty, the Government have come reluctantly to the conclusion that a separate curfew power would not be an effective addition to the powers available to the courts to deal with young offenders.
      I say that with great regret, because the new clause is clearly intended to provide a helpful and imaginative extension to the powers of the courts. Many of the objections that have emerged might well be overcome if a curfew condition were included in a constructive package of requirements contained in a supervision order under clause 19 to be monitored as a whole by the supervisor nominated by the sentencing court. That

      883
      solution is hinted at in subsection (10) of the new clause. It is my hon. and learned Friend's initiative that has prompted us to look urgently to see how clause 19 may be adapted to provide this as an additional option for the courts if they should wish to avail themselves of it.
      Mr. Dubs: The Minister talks of linking a curfew order with a supervision order, but is he aware that the National Association of Probation Officers is concerned about this because it feels that a curfew order would prejudice and alter for the worse their relationship with their clients?
      Mr. Mayhew: I am aware that that is the view of the National Association of Probation Officers. I am also aware, as is my hon. and learned Friend, that there are probation officers who see that in a proper case it could be a useful addition to a supervision order. I am also aware that although the Association of Directors of Social Services has serious reservations about the proposal in its present form, it feels that its prospects would be much more promising if it were to form part of the constructive package of supervision that would come with a supervision order, widened as clause 19 proposes. I hope that that will prove practicable. If so, we shall endeavour to provide for it in the other place.
      1 am
      Therefore, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead will not feel that I have poured too much cold water on the new clause. I think that he knows that I am anxious to see whether the measure can be made a success. It is with reluctance that I have felt obliged to say that we cannot accept the new clause in its present form. However, there is a prospect for the idea as part of a supervision order, and I hope that we shall find that that is a practicality.
      Mr. Lyell: With the leave of the House, may I say that I understand what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said and I am grateful to him for the diligent way in which he has continued to consider the new clause?
      I should point out that 25 per cent. of all Metropolitan Police arrests are of young people between the ages of 10 and 16. That shows more clearly than anything else what a big problem the young offender represents for society, how many offences must be dealt with, and how vital it is to get the parents involved whenever that is possible. Enforceability is one of the major points to consider in the curfew clause. I reiterate my gratitude to the senior members of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Those to whom I spoke had enormous knowledge of the major conurbations and of the particular difficulties that might occur. However, I do not think that I misrepresent them—they will make their own further representations—when I say that they did not see overwhelming difficulties in the check-up provisions. Indeed, they considered the matter more constructively and positively than that. They saw no serious difficulty in the check-up provisions.
      A new clause of this nature can be brought forward only after serious consideration. I am glad that that consideration will continue and that some measure may be introduced in the other place. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      CONSECUTIVE TERMS AND AGGREGATE PERIODS OF DETENTION.
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 9, leave out from 'shall' to 'effect' in line 10 and insert—

      '(a) make a detention centre order in respect of an offender who is subject to another such order; or

      (b) give a direction under subsection (1) above, if the'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 5 to 8.
      Mr. Mayhew: These are drafting amendments. The necessity for them is self-evident and I commend them to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 5, in page 4, line 13, after `court', insert
      'makes such an order or'.
      No. 6, in page 4, line 14, leave out 'term' and insert
      'aggregate of all the terms of detention in a detention centres to which he is subject'.
      No. 7, in page 4, line 16, after 'court', insert
      `makes such an order or'
      No. 8, in page 4, line 19, leave out from 'all' to end of line 21 and insert
      `the terms of detention in a detention centre to which lit is subjece.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

    Clause 10

      ACCOMMODATION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS AND DEFAULTERS ETC.
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 9, leave out lines 11 and 12.
      The amendment would ensure that all male offenders sentenced to youth custody are detained in youth custody centres, and not in prisons, for the whole of their sentences. It is inappropriate for offenders as young as 15 or 16 to be in adult prisons. Youth custody centres should be providing work, educational and recreational activities and rehabilitation and training for young people and not simply incarceration.
      Therefore, if there is to be a new youth custody sentence, it should be accompanied by a new, improved regime, and not just by the existing borstal regime. One assumes that if there is a new sentence with a new name the young people will be submitted to a different and better regime. In Committee, the Minister said that there would be about 30 youth custody centres for young men and boys, but there would be parts of the country without one. Perhaps the Minister could say whether there are any more planned or whether he feels that 30 is the required number? I am not sure how he arrived at that figure. Does he feel that it will be sufficient to accommodate young people for many years? The improved facilities and regime which they offer should prepare them for life outside. We hope they will prevent them re-offending in a more effective way than the present borstals or their presence in grossly overcrowded adult prisons, which are certainly not the environment for 15 or 16-year-old boys.

      885
      The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a sentence of youth custody literally means a sentence in a youth custody centre.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill). Clearly the Government are making provision in the Bill for the new youth custody centres and for what they regard as the new and more positive and constructive regime that will exist in those centres. In those circumstances it seems to me only reasonable and appropriate that the Government should guarantee a place to every juvenile who is sentenced to a youth custody centre.
      We regard that as important when one considers that the alternative to that guarantee is for the juvenile to be incarcerated in a local adult prison. Conditions in local adult prisons are the most appalling in the whole of the penal system. They have the highest level of overcrowding, with two or three prisoners to each cell. The sanitation is the most inadequate and outdated, and if young boys are to be held, for however long a period, in adult prisons instead of youth custody centres they will not get the specialised facilities that would otherwise be at their disposal. They will not get the training, the education or the vocational guidance that would be appropriate and that one would expect them to receive in a youth training centre.
      For those reasons, I believe it to be incumbent upon the Government—introducing a new sentence and new youth custody centres as they are—to come to the House and say "We have this new sentence and these new centres. We are introducing this new positive regime for young male offenders and we can guarantee that every young offender will have a training place." I should regard it as being highly inappropriate for young boys to be held in adult prisons. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept my hon. Friend's amendment.
      Mr. Mayhew: This amendment seeks to delete a provision that the Government would prefer not to have had to put in the Bill. It provides that places in a youth custody centre, with a proper training regime, can be guaranteed only for those with sentences of over four and up to 18 months. It would have been much more satisfactory if we had not had to restrict the guarantee in that way, but it would have been unrealistic not to do so. it will be the Government's objective to extend the sentencing range to which the guarantee applies.
      Young offenders serving sentences of four months or more are at present in diverse accommodation, ranging from detention centres, borstals and separate young prisoners' centres to young offenders' wings or sections of adult prisons.
      It would have been possible to call all of those places youth custody centres simply as a matter of nomenclature, but that would have been misleading. The Government therefore decided that an establishment should be designated as a youth custody centre for the purpose of a youth custody sentence only if it provided a constructive training regime. Not all of those places can provide such a regime and they cannot all be brought up to standard quickly. It is important not to disguise that fact. It will simply not be possible to hold all the young offenders in youth custody centres as defined in the Bill. The courts
      886
      must be made aware of that so that they know in broad terms to what types of establishment the young people whom they sentence will go.
      That is why clause 10 takes an admittedly somewhat complex form. The provisions that the amendment seeks to delete are, in a sense, a sad but necessary acknowledgement of the long-standing shortcomings in the accommodation available for young offenders. Clause 12(1)(c) provides power to delete those provisions. As I have said, the Government will pursue that objective and nothing will please us more than to be able to use that power as soon as possible.
      The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) asked whether any more centres were planned, why we chose to provide 30 and whether that number would be sufficient. The 30 are so placed as to provide a reasonable geographical spread throughout England and Wales. More are planned in that we plan to bring up to standard the institutions and establishments used to house offenders in this age group but which at present cannot provide a training regime of the sort guaranteed to those serving sentences of between four months and 18 months. We cannot yet say whether the number will be sufficient, as for a long time the courts have been unable to impose determinate sentences of between four months and 18 months on young offenders. As the hon. Lady knows, section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 prevents the courts from imposing determinate sentences of between six months and three years. Instead, they have had to give the indeterminate sentence of borstal training. That restriction will be repealed by the Bill, but we shall have to wait and see the numbers involved before we can say whether 30 will be enough.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I understand, with regret, that due to the lack of resources the hon. and learned Gentleman is not able to guarantee a training place for every young offender, but is it not more important to guarantee training for those receiving sentences of more than 18 months, as they will be separated from their families, their friends, their environment, their jobs and so on for a longer period and run a greater risk of becoming institutionalised? Does the Minister agree that a constructive, positive, training regime may therefore be more important for them than for those with sentences of four or five months?
      Mr. Mayhew: A choice must be made between the two categories. I believe that it is most important that the younger end of the market, if I may so put it, should be protected from the admittedly adverse influence of adult prisons. It is undesirable for any offender under the age of 21 to be placed in such an establishment, but, if a choice must be made, I believe that it is preferable to exclude the younger end of the market and those serving shorter sentences. It should not be imagined, however, that those serving longer sentences will be excluded from training. It is our purpose, and it will be open to us, to provide training to one degree or another in the other establishments. However, the guarantee will exist for those serving a shorter period of custody, which will mean younger people.
      1.15 am
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is undesirable that the Government cannot give a training guarantee to all young people. To what timetable is the Minister working and when can he give us that guarantee?
      Mr. Mayhew: Hope springs eternal and we travel in hope. We believe that if we are permitted to pursue our present economic policies there will be a much better chance of the resources being available to accelerate those matters. That is something that all reasonable people will share as an objective.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 11

      CONVERSION OF SENTENCE OF YOUTH CUSTODY TO SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 11, line 3 after 'conditions', insert 'mentioned'.
      This is a drafting amendment and its purpose is self-evident.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Stevens: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 11, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
      The amendment relates to a young offender who has been "starred up" while in custody. The term "to star up" means that a young offender has been transferred from that status to adult status. That may occur either because he has reached the age of 21 or, under section 2(b), because he has been deemed disruptive.
      No one objects to the starring-up procedure, but the crux of my case is that once the prisoner is deemed to be an adult he should be treated as an adult on release. Subsection (3) states that once the changed status prisoner has been released, he should revert to the status of young offender for the purpose of clause 14 of the Bill, and that he should be under supervision until the end of the supervision period.
      My hon. and learned Friend will tell us that the purpose of the supervision order is to ensure the welfare of the young offender. From the point of view of the offender, he has been treated as an adult while in prison and has thereby forfeited a number of advantages, if not privileges, that he would have enjoyed as a young offender. On release, he suddenly finds that he has reverted to his original status, and must be under supervision for a period of under 12 months. He usually regards supervision as an extension of the punishment.
      It follows that young prisoners on release in those circumstances have a renewed sense of injustice, which I share. They take up a great deal of the time of the probation service, but are in no mood to co-operate.
      There may be young offenders who have been starred up and released from detention and who wish to have the benefit of the probation service for a period after release. That benefit should not be denied them. However, when a young offender who has been treated as an adult in prison, suddenly finds on release that he is treated again as a young offender, he feels that he is being punished again. Unless he seeks probation facilities, he should not be required to serve out a supervision order on release. For the young man about to be returned to the street, it is a case of once an adult always an adult.
      We in this country believe in fairness—fairness in its common meaning, not the esoteric fairness of the legislature—and it does not seem fair that the young person should revert to this former status and suffer what he regards as a continued penalty.
      888
      I have spoken to my hon. and learned Friend about this matter privately, and I know that he is sympathetic to what I am saying. I therefore hope that he will meet me over the amendment.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) for the way he moved the amendment, and for the way he put the case when he came to see me recently about it. I understand the concern that underlies the amendment.
      The purpose of clause 11 is to ensure that an offender can be held in circumstances appropriate to his age or his behaviour. An offender sentenced just before his twenty-first birthday might be a mature married man with a family. He might well be more at home with adult prisoners than with young offenders, and it would be more appropriate to treat him, under clause 11, as if he had be en sentenced to imprisonment. However, the same might not be true of an exact contemporary of his, who would be better off in a young offender establishment. It does not seem right that one should be liable to supervision on release, and that the other should not.
      Supervision is an integral part of a young offender's sentence and it should not be dispensed with simply because the offender is, for what are essentially management reasons, treated under clause 11 as if he had been sentenced to imprisonment. I see the point that my hon. Friend makes about fairness and the way that is normally understood in that it tends to be equated with equality. The argument can be advanced just as well in support of the proposition I have attempted to put forward.
      The same argument applies with perhaps even more force to a young offender whose sentence has to be treated as one of imprisonment because he is such a bad influence in a young offender establishment, or disrupts the regime there to the detriment of the other inmates. In such a case, it is the offender's own bullying or uncontrollable behaviour which leads to reclassification.
      That brings me to another point that needs to be made. Young prisoners can now be reclassified as adults under an administrative scheme that operates on rather wider grounds than those set out in clause 11. This does not affect their liability to supervision. It is often the case that young offenders positively prefer to be treated as adult prisoners. They might therefore seek reclassification under clause 11 with, if this amendment succeeded, the added incentive that they would then be free of supervision on release.
      Having spoken to my hon. Friend, I appreciate that many young offenders do not particularly like being supervised and that, if they are resentful of it, the supervising officer does not have an enviable task. All the same, young offenders are, on release from custody, vulnerable to bad influence. They need help with finding accommodation and employment and in managing their affairs. We continue to see the value of supervision for people of that age, however they may have been classified and for whatever reasons special classification may hive occurred.
      While nobody could have put the case more fairly, comprehensively or persuasively than my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in these matters, I am afraid we cannot agree that some young offenders should not be supervised simply because they were, while in custody, treated as if they were sentenced to imprisonment.

      889
      Accordingly I must ask the House not to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Stevens: I greatly regret my hon. and learned Friend's response. The point he omitted was that the circumstances in which a person convicted as a young offender serves his sentence after reclassification, for whatever reason, are more onerous than the form of detention suffered as a young offender. It would not be practical for me to press the amendment. I hope to return to the fight at a later stage. Perhaps it may be taken up in another place.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 13

      RELEASE ON LICENCE OF YOUNG OFFENDERS
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 12 in page 12, line 12 after 'offenders)' insert—

      '(a) the words "subject to subsection (5B) of this section" shall be inserted at the beginning; and

      (b)'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to take Government amendment No. 13.
      Mr. Mayhew: These are drafting amendments. I think that their purpose is self-evident.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 12, line 20 at end add—
      '(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after the said subsection (5A)—

      "(5B) The date specified in a licence granted to a person falling within subsection (5A)(b) of this section shall not be later than the date of the expiration of his sentence."'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

    Clause 16

      ATTENDANCE CENTRE ORDERS
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 14, leave out lines 24 to 31.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it is convenient to take amendment No. 15, in page 14, line 31 at end insert
      'unless it appears to the court that there are special circumstances (whether relating to the offence or to the offender) which warrant the making of such an order in his case'.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Amendment No. 14 repeals the prohibition on making an attendance centre order if an offender has previously served a custodial sentence. It embodies a recommendation in the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group report "Too Many Prisoners". Amendment No. 15 is a more restricted version of the proposal which would permit a court to make an attendance centre order on someone who had previously served a custodial sentence if there were special circumstances which would justify this course of action.
      In general, as the Minister knows, I welcome the provision in the Bill concerning attendance centres, in particular the extension to the Crown court of the power to make attendance centre orders. I also welcome the Government's apparent positive attitude towards the expansion of the concept of attendance centres. They
      890
      provide a simple, straightforward and easily understood penalty which does not have the undesirable side effects of custody. They are also extremely cheap to administer. The average cost of an attendance centre order in 1979–80 was as little as £35.
      1.30 am
      Although I warmly welcome the expansion of the attendance centre system, I consider that the centres could be used more flexibly and effectively by the courts if the current prohibition upon using them for young people who have already served a custodial sentence were repealed. That is also the view of the Magistrates' Association. It considers that the question whether an attendance centre order would be appropriate for an offender who had previously served a custodial sentence should be left to the discretion of the courts.
      As the Minister will be aware, the Government have often stressed their view that the courts should be given greater flexibility in sentencing. Logically, therefore, I should have thought that the Government would welcome the proposal, especially as the removal of a fetter on the courts would enable them to use attendance centres more often as a genuine and specific alternative to custody.
      The principal argument that traditionally has been advanced against making attendance centre orders available for those who previously served custodial sentences is that they might contaminate the less delinquent offenders attending the centres. I do not accept that that is a sufficiently strong argument for ruling out this option in every case where an offender has previously had a custodial experience.
      At present the majority of juvenile offenders sent to detention centres have two or fewer previous convictions. Under the Bill the courts will be able to make a detention centre order for as little as three weeks—two weeks with full remission. I do not believe that anyone, certainly not the Minister, would seriously suggest that a young offender appearing in court for a second or third offence who has served two weeks in a detention centre—and no more than that—will inevitably be so hardened that the courts should in no circumstances impose an attendance centre order upon him. I do not accept that. I do not believe that anyone could accept that as reasonable or fair, yet unless the amendments are accepted and the present law is repealed that will continue to be the position.
      When the proposal was discussed in Committee on 25 February, it received strong support from hon. Members on both sides. The Minister, replying to the debate, said:
      "I accept that there may be circumstances in which somebody, notwithstanding that he has a custodial sentence, would be a suitable candidate for an attendance centre order."
      He also stated:
      "There is probably a way of expressing this thought, perhaps through the concept of special circumstances or special reasons. I emphasise that the general rule must remain, but I give an undertaking to look with care and sympathy at the possibility of giving guidance to courts so that they will realise that, while the general rule must be as I have stated, there may be special circumstances which warrent a departure from that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 February 1982; c. 280–81.]
      Those were sympathetic remarks by the Minister. I suppose that they would be a sufficient answer to the amendments. I hope that the Minister will go further and accept the principle of both amendments. I see no reason why he should not do that. In view of the remarks that he made in Committee and the undertaking that he gave, I

      891
      hope that the Minister, having thought about the matter at greater length, will accept at least one of the two amendments.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) for the fair way in which he has moved the amendment. The restriction that is now contained in clause 16(3), which amendment No. 14 would remove, has applied since attendance centres were introduced in 1948.
      In Committee the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Government's much more positive attitude to attendance centres compared with that of the Labour Government. We remain opposed to the deletion of subsection (3) because it serves an important function.
      Junior attendance centres take children from the age of 10 and some centres now take girls. We must ensure that, in general, they do not mix with older and tougher offenders. The welcome expansion of attendance centres that has been achieved in the past three years, particularly the extension to cover offenders up to the age of 21, means that special care must be taken to ensure that only suitable offenders are sent to attendance centres. They are not designed to offer elaborate provision. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they are staffed in the main by police officers in their spare time. The capability of looking after widely differing categories of offenders is not open to them. It is important that, in general, we do not allow offenders with experience of custody of one form or another to go to the attendance centres.
      However, after consulting those concerned, I am glad to be able to say that we agree that there is a strong case for introducing an element of discretion in the application of the principle. We believe that there should be a presumption that an offender who has had custodial experience is unsuitable for an attendance centre. That ought to be the presumption, but we agree that the courts can safely have a discretion in this matter. We therefore agree that the courts ought to be able to impose an attendance centre order on a young offender, despite the fact that he has already served a custodial sentence, when the court considers that there are special circumstances which make this appropriate. Amendment No. 15 meets this purpose admirably. Therefore, I am glad to be able to say that we are content to accept and we hope that the House will do so.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 14, line 31, at end insert
      `unless it appears to the court that there are special circumstances (whether relating to the offence or to the offender) which warrant the making of such an order in his case. '—[Mr. Kilroy-Silk.]

    Clause 19

      REQUIREMENTS IN SUPERVISION ORDERS
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 19, line 10, leave out 'paragraph' and insert `subsection'. This is a drafting amendment. Its purpose is self-evident.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 20, line 19, at end insert 'and—
      892

      (d) it is satisfied, after considering a report by a probation officer or by a social worker of a local authority social services department about the offender and his circumstances and, if the court thinks it necessary, hearing a probation officer or a social worker of a local authority social services department, that provision can be made for the offender to participate in any activities specified in the requirements '

      This amendment would require a court, before imposing supervised activities requirements on a young person, to satisfy itself in the light of a report either by a probation officer or a social worker that provision could be made for the offender to participate in those activities. The power to include supervised activity requirements in supervision orders, which is contained in clause 19, is designed to increase the courts' confidence in intermediate treatment schemes as a constructive alternative to custody or residential care for juvenile offenders. The Opposition strongly support that aim. However, if the arrangements are to work well, that will depend greatly on good cooperation and communication between the courts, the probation service and the social service departments which will be supervising young people's activities.
      This was recognised in the White Paper "Young Offenders", which was published in 1980. In paragraph 50, it states:
      "The Government proposes to give the courts a specific power to order a juvenile offender under supervision to undertake a programme of specified activities … which has been agreed between the supervising probation officer or social worker and the court as being suitable for that particular child or young person".
      The clause as it stands merely requires courts to consult the supervisor before including the supervised activities requirements, and not to agree the programme with him as the White Paper proposed. The reasons for that are understandable. The Minister said in Committee on 28 February, that to require a supervisory agreement
      "would be to place the supervising officer over and above the courts."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 Febn ary 1982; c. 289.]
      That seems fairly reasonable and acceptable. Nevertheless, if the provisions are to work successfully, it is clearly essential to ensure that the partnership between the courts on the one hand and the supervising officers on the other in drawing up the programmes of specified activities is in practice effective.
      Doubtless, the consultation between the courts and the supervising officers will generally be realistic and effective, but it is important that we should now take the opportunity to do everything that we can to ensure that that is always the case, since if 'the consultations are merely of a token kind, and if the supervisor's recommendation; as to the desirability or practicality of imposing certain requirements are unreasonably disregarded by the court, it would seriously detract from the effectiveness of these powers.
      To implement a supervision order effectively and with enthusiasm, the supervisor must be committed to the nature of the order. If not, there is a danger that the requirements might be implemented in a half-hearted way; the supervisor might not be inclined to teach juveniles who do not comply with the requirements; or if the supervisor considers the requirements impractical, he may make: no serious effort to implement them at all.
      If that happened, even if only in a small, limited number of cases, it would seriously undermine the confidence of magistrates in the ability of the probation officers and social workers to provide effective

      893
      supervision for juvenile offenders in the community. Labour Members do not want that to happen, and I am sure that the Minister and the Government share our concern.
      Therefore, the amendment would require the court to consider a report from a probation officer or social worker before imposing supervised activities requirements, and in the light of that report to satisfy itself that it is practical to make arrangements for the young offender to participate in the particular activities specified.
      Similar provision already exists in the case of community service orders and is contained in section 14 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. The wording of the amendment is similar to that provision. I believe that the amendment reduces the risk of the undesirable circumstances that I have mentioned and would reinforce the intention of the clause, which I support, to increase the confidence of the courts in community-based alternatives to custody.
      I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to extend his common sense and the co-operation that has been evident in our proceedings so far and again accept the amendment.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I am able to accept the amendment in principle. He rightly said that the purpose of clause 19 is to try to restore the confidence of courts in the supervision order in areas where there is some evidence that it has sagged in recent years.
      Accordingly, the purpose of the clause is to give the courts some say in what will happen to the offender under supervision. One of the reasons why the clause is already very complicated is that we have built into it all sorts of safeguards. There are limits on various things, including the number of days on which requirements can be imposed, the facilities that can be used and so on. Of course, the court must consult whoever will be the supervisor before settling upon the package that will form the supervision order.
      The court must be satisfied that the requirements are necessary for specific purposes. There is, therefore, a wide area of overlap between what is proposed in the amendment and the existing provision.
      I appreciate that the purpose of the amendment is to make quite sure that a supervision order will not be made which will, for example, require the offender to do something for which provision does not exist in the area in which he will live or work so that it would either be a nullity or a great difficulty, thereby detracting from the quality of the supervision he receives and the effect of the supervision order generally.
      Therefore, I am happy to accept the principle of the amendment. However, there are defects in its drafting that prevent me from accepting the clause in toto. We are anxious to get clause 19 right, and in accepting the spirit of the amendment we undertake to amend the clause to incorporate a provision that will give affect to its purpose. I hope that that assurance will enable the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: It is marvellous what one can get done at this time of night. There seems to be a prevailing attitude of co-operation and of a well intentioned spirit. In
      894
      the light of what the Minister has said, and the assurances that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 20

      PROVISION OF SUPERVISION FACILITIES
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 21, line 19, leave out 'and after-care'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will convenient to take Government amendments 19, 20 and 21.
      Mr. Mayhew: These are drafting amendments. Their purpose is self-evident.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 21, line 45, leave out 'and after-care'.
      No. 20, in page 23, line 7, leave out 'and after-care'.
      No. 21, in page 23, line 8, leave out 'and after-care'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

    Clause 25

      PRISON SENTENCE PARTLY SERVED AND PARTLY SUSPENDED
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 27, line 32, leave out '"part", in the second place where it occurs,' and insert '"that"'.
      The purpose of this amendment is no less self-evident than the previous four amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 26

      EARLY RELEASE OF PRISONERS
      1.45 am
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 28, line 26, leave out 'imprisonment for life' and insert—

      '(a) imprisonment for life; or

      (b) imprisonment to which they were sentenced—

      (i)for an extended offence;

      (ii)for attempting to commit such an offence;

      (iii)for conspiracy to commit such an offence; or

      (iv)for aiding or abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of such an offence;'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take amendment No. 25, in page 28, line 26, after 'life', insert—
      'unless that sentence was imposed for a crime involving violence'.
      and Government amendments Nos. 44 and 47.
      Mr. Mayhew: These amendments relate to clause 26 and to the provision in the Bill for the early release of prisoners.
      In the course of the Committee proceedings much anxiety was expressed by my hon. Friends. They felt that the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had given, to the effect that the provisions in clause 26 for early release would not be used for those who had been convicted of offences of violence, might not, perhaps, be as watertight as they would like in the event of another Government taking office.

      895
      Accordingly I gave an assurance that I would see whether we could incorporate in some schedule a list of those offences of violence that would be exempt from the provision for early release contained in clause 26. That has now been done and the schedules and accompanying amendments form the substance of this group of amendments. That was a matter of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) and I have reason to believe that his anxieties will be met by the amendments.
      The group of amendments relates to that part of our transactions in Committee on clause 26. They now meet the proper anxieties then expressed. I understand the reason for the anxieties and I am glad that they were pointed out. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North will feel that the cause of his anxieties has been removed.
      Mr. Bendall: I was extremely concerned about this matter in Committee. I am grateful for what the Minister has said. The comprehensive lists in the schedules that have been provided adequately cover the point that I made.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 44 in page 28, line 32, at end insert—

      '(1A) In this section "excluded offence" means—

      (a) an offence (whether at common law or under any enactment) specified in Part I of Schedule [Offences excluded from section 26] to this Act; and

      (b) an offence under an enactment specified in Part II of that Schedule.

      (1B) No person may be released under this section if—

      (a) he is subject to more than one sentence of imprisonment; and

      (b) at least one of the terms that he has to serve is for an offence mentioned in subsection (1)(b)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) above. '.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 29, line 20, at end add—

      `(b) the expedient procedure conditions are satisfied.

      (7A) The expedited procedure conditions are satisfed if—

      (a) the order does not provide for the release of any persons before one month earlier than they would otherwise be released; and'.

      This amendment also relates to what one might call the urgency or the expedited procedure. In the shorthand that is appropriate for this hour of the morning, I can perhaps say that anxieties were expressed about the provision that permits the Secretary of State to make an order for the release of prisoners within a certain category to be specified in the order which normally has to be laid before Parliament but which, in the case of urgency and where the order itself specifies or certifies that there is an urgent need for release to take place, can be done without the prior approval of Parliament.
      The Government recognised the validity of those anxieties. The effect of the amendment is to restrict the Home Secretary's power of release without the prior approval of Parliament in urgent cases to prisoners who are not convicted of violent offences and to prisoners who have no more than one month of their period in custody still to serve. This matter was argued in Committee by in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor). It is in response to his representations and to those of the Magistrates' Association that the application of this expedited procedure has been drastically cut down. I am glad to have had the opportunity
      896
      to consider the matter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich for raising it. I believe that his anxieties will be greatly, if not wholly, allayed.
      It is essential to have this safety valve which would be called into use in circumstances of some urgency during the Summer Recess when Parliament was not sitting. The safety valve will continue to exist, but its size will be reduced considerably. I hope that the proposal will be accepted by the House.
      Mr. Parris: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister recalls correctly that a number of hon. Members, principally my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor), were concerned about the proposals. We were concerned not that the Government might wish to take action of this kind but that such action might be taken without the sanction of Parliament. I understand from the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend that the type of prisoner who will be released without the sanction of Parliament is greatly reduced in scope and that such a person could be released in any case only one month before his sentence was due to expire. That is satisfactory to me. I assume that it is also satisfactory to my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 29

      THE STANDARD SCALE OF FINES FOR SUMMARY OFFENCES
      Mr. Roger Moate: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 31, line 30, at end insert—
      '(4) For the purposes of subsection 3(a) above, "Act' includes a harbour revision order, a harbour empowerment order and a harbour re-organisation scheme (coming into operation after the passing of this Act) as respectively defined by sections 14,16 and 18, of the Harbours Act 1964 and, accordingly, those sections shall be construed as enabling such an order or scheme to provide that a person convicted of an offence under that order or scheme shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine (not being a daily fine) not exceeding a specified level on the standard scale other than level 5".
      I hope to present the case briefly. I am encouraged to be brief by the hope that the amendment will be acceptable to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister or that it will at least evoke a sympathetic response from him. I acknowledge immediately that the authorship of the amendment belongs to the British Ports Association, which represents all the ports of commercial significance, and other ports, in the United Kingdom. It has played its role with considerable professionalism and responsibility, especially since the demise of the National Ports Council.
      The object of the amendment is to try to reduce certain serious anomalies that could be created by the Bill in its present form. The House will be aware that the Bill provides for the increasing, standardisation and indexing of fines that may be imposed under Acts of Parliament, including local Acts. However, in its present form the Bill does not provide similar indexation or standardisation of penalties under harbour revision orders and schemes that may be made under the Harbours Act 1964. This is despite the fact that it seems always clearly to have been the intention that all orders and schemes made under that Act should achieve exactly the same objective as full Acts, of Parliament, and full local Acts which may have been introduced by port authorities.

      897
      As I understand it, it was intended that the object of harbour revision orders was to render unnecessary the more expensive alternative of promoting local Acts of Parliament. Port authorities have been actively and consistently encouraged to promote such orders and schemes in preference to local Acts of Parliament. They have been assured that all such orders and schemes are in all respects equivalent to full Acts of Parliament. Prior to 1964 the penalty provisions were contained in full legislation. They will now be subject to the inflation-proofing provisions of the proposed legislation that is before us.
      Orders that are introduced after 1964 will, in effect, be downgraded by the effect of inflation. I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that that is an undesirable anomaly. Harbour authorities might well be encouraged to proceed by way of local Acts in future rather than by orders or schemes under the 1964 Act. I cannot believe that that is something that the Government wish to encourage. The object of the amendment is to try to ensure that schemes and orders under the Act can be inflation proofed.
      I am advised that there are strong technical difficulties in trying to inflation-proof penalty provisions under existing harbour orders, but the amendment provides that future harbour orders will be inflation proofed, which will ensure that future schemes will not be inferior to a local Act.
      It may seem that this is a technical and complex matter. There may be technical difficulties in the way of proceeding in the manner suggested. However, I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that the standardisation of subsidiary legislation of this sort in the manner that I am suggesting could produce considerable advantages to the Government and considerable savings of time and expense in the- preparation and updating of subsidiary legislation. Those who, like me, have served on the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments will welcome anything to reduce the volume of statutory instruments. I suggest that the amendment offers one way forward. It would save much time and expense.
      I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can offer some hope for progress in this area generally, and specifically in regard to harbour revision orders. There is a strong and unique case for dealing with these orders in the manner suggested in the amendment. I hope that at this stage, or at a later stage, my hon. and learned Friend will be able to incorporate this provision or a similar one into the Bill.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for tabling this important amendment and for the way in which he moved it. As he knows, there are technical and practical difficulties in attempting to apply the measures in the Bill to maximum penalties in subordinate legislation.
      I appreciate that there would be some advantage to those concerned with the management of ports if we were able to make an exception in relation to harbour revision orders and similar instruments that have been brought into effect in the interests of convenience. I am generally sympathetic to the objectives that underly the amendment.
      2 am
      We cannot take the amendment on board—to use a suitably nautical metaphor—in the Bill, but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall take the matters that he has raised
      898
      into account in the further work that the Home Office and other Departments will be undertaking on penalties in subordinate legislation.
      We are grateful for my hon. Friend's efforts. I think that they will bear fruit in the work that we have to do. I hope that that assurance will justify the trouble that my hon. Friend has taken and will enable him to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Moate: I welcome the prospect of further study of the subject and, in the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Bendall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tabled amendment No. 27, in clause 32, page 34, line 27 at end insert—

      '(7A) Notwithstanding subsections (5) and (7) above, the specified amount in respect of any bye-law made by virtue of section 9 of the Airports Authority Act 1975 relating to the selling or distributing of anything, the offering of anything for sale or hire or the making up of any offer of services by any person without permission of the British Airports Authority, shall be increased to Level 4 on the Standard Scale.'.

      I have been in correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State on this matter and he has given me assurances that it could be considered in another place. There are one or two anomalies about which I am still a little unhappy, but in view of the assurances I do not wish to move the amendment.

    Clause 40

      REVISION OF PENALITIES FOR SUMMARY OFFENCES AND OF CERTAIN OTHER SUMS
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 40, line 9, after `subsections', insert '(1A),'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 49 to 59.
      Mr. Fletcher: Part IV of the Bill includes provisions in clauses 39 to 41 that are applicable only to Scotland. It has been necessary to draft separate provisions for Scotland because of differences in how the changes in fines are affected by the Criminal Law Act 1977 and are applied to the different jurisdictions and, in particular, because the Scottish provisions in the Bill are, like those in the 1977 Act, to be inserted into the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. The amendments are, therefore, of a drafting or technical nature.
      Mr. George Foulkes: It has been a long night and we have at last reached something that is relevant to Scotland. However, I am not too happy about that, because I cannot understand why the Government did not introduce the amendments into the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill in 1980. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us why they appear in this dog's breakfast of a Bill.
      Clause 54, which outlines the extent to which the measure applies to various parts of the United Kingdom, is one of the most complicated such clauses that I have ever seen. Those of us who know and respect the difference in Scots law and in the administration of justice in Scotland do not like legislation for Scotland being packed into what are principally English Bills. If we have legislation which applies only to Scotland and if we have

      899
      Scottish Standing Committees to deal with it, it is wrong that it should be squeezed in as a codicil to a basically English Bill.
      Many of my colleagues who are unable to be here this morning agree with me. [Interruption.] One is enough to put the case on behalf of many, as the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) knows only too well. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) may wish to add something or express his support from a sedentary position.
      Scottish legislation, as much in the criminal field as any other, should be dealt with separately by separate Scottish Standing Committees so that it can be discussed by Scottish Members who know what they are talking about. I say that with no disrespect to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench who discussed these matters efficiently and elegantly. However, it is more appropriate for these matters to be dealt with in a Scottish Standing Committee.
      What makes the position even more ludicrous is that on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill—I am open to correction—there was not one hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency. Part IV of the Bill, with a substantial number of clauses concerning Scotland, was passed in Committee without any Scottish Member having an opportunity to discuss it and to put the points of view that should be put in the consideration of such matters.
      I would also like to talk about the amazing provisions on page 48 of the Bill which affect certain enactments concerning the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, but I would be out of order. However, that demonstrates what a real dog's breakfast of a Bill this is.
      I would like to put on record a strong protest on behalf of many Scots Members of the fact that Scottish legislation is being dealt with in so perfunctory and cavalier a manner by the House.
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: There is no excuse for the indignation of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). He knows as well as most hon. Members in the House this evening that Scottish legislation, particularly of this kind, is dealt with separately. A United Kingdom Bill is being made use of—as is occasionally done by both parties—to update legislation. He will know that the purpose of the Bill is to provide, among other measures, for a broad uprating of the maximum fines for summary offences, together with powers to provide for subsequent increases in line with inflation. No fundamental change is being made to Scottish legislation, but we are taking the opportunity presented by the Bill to bring the fines in Scottish legislation into line with inflation.
      The hon. Gentleman is being unnecessarily critical of what is a convenient legislative opportunity that has been taken in respect of a very small part of the Bill which applies to Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that the then Solicitor-General for Scotland attended the Committee on these and other matters.
      Amendment agreed to:
      Amendments made: No. 49, in page 40, line 22, at end insert—

      '(1A) Where any Act—

      (a) provides or confers a power to provide for a penalty or a maximum penalty which would, but for the operation of section 289C(5) of this Act, be different in the case of a second or subsequent conviction from the penalty
      900
      or maximum penalty provided for or for which provision may be made in the case of a first conviction; and

      (b) otherwise fulfils the conditions of subsection (1) above; this section applies to that penalty or maximum penalty as if the amount referred to in subsection (3)(a) below were the greatest amount to which a person would have been liable or could have been made liable on any conviction immediately before the commencement of the said section 289C.'.

      No. 50, in page 41, line 15, leave out
      'of, or not exceeding, a specified amount'
      and insert
      `or a maximum fine of a specified amount, or a fine Or a maximum fine which shall not exceed a specified amount,'.
      No. 51, in page 41, leave out line 21 and insert—

      `(i) section 289A of this Act;

      (ia) section 289C of this Act (except where section 239E (1A) of this Act applies);'.

      No. 52, in page 41, line 39 leave out from 'for' to in' in line 41 and insert
      , on conviction of an offence triable only summarily, a fin; or a maximum fine of a specified amount, or a fine or a maximum fine which shall not exceed a specified amount,'.
      No. 53, in page 42, line 17, leave out
      `of, or not exceeding, a specified amount'
      and insert
      `or a maximum fine of a specified amount, or a fine or a maximum fine which shall not exceed a specified amount,'.
      No. 54, in page 42, line 21, at end insert—

      `1972 c.20.

      (bb) sections 40(5) and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972;'.

      No. 55, in page 43, line 14, at end insert—

      '(2A) Any reference in the Criminal Justice Act 1982, or in any enactment passed or made after the passing of that Act, to a specified level on the standard scale (including such a reference inserted by that Act or any such enactment in an earlier enactment) shall be construed as referring to the amount which corresponds to that level on the standard scale referred to in subsection (2) above.'.

      No. 56, in page 43, line 21, after 'amount', insert
      ", or a fine or a maximum fine which shall not exceed a specified amount, corresponding to an amount'.
      No. 57, in page 43, line 30, leave out from 'or' to end of line 32 and insert
      `confers a power to provide for, on conviction of an offence triable only summarily, a fine or a maximum fine of a specified amount, or a fine or a maximum fine which shall not exceed a specified amount,'.
      No. 58, in page 43, line 39, leave out 'or'.
      No. 59, in page 43, line 40, at end insert
      ';or

      (c) so much of any Act as (in whatever words) makes a person liable or provides for a person to be made liable to a fine or a maximum fine or a specified amount, or a fine or a maximum fine which shall not exceed a specified amount, for each period of a specified length during which a continuing offence is committed.'.—[Mr. Alexander Fletcher.]

    Clause 47

      ABOLITION OF IMPRISONMENT FOR LOITERING AND SOLICITING FOR PURPOSES OF PROSTITUTION
      Amendment made: No. 46, in page 47, line 16, at end insert—

      `(2) The subsection substituted by subsection (1) above for section 1(2) of the Street Offences Act 1959 shall have effect in relation to offences committed before, as well as after this section comes into force.'.—[Mr. Mayhew]

    Clause 48

      CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES TO STATUTORY MAXIMUM"—ENGLAND AND WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND
      Mr. Alexander Flethcer: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 47, line 26, at end insert—

      `(2) In any provision of this Act or of any enactment passed or made after the passing of this Act (including any provision inserted in an earlier enactment by such a provision) "statutory maximum", in relation to a fine on summery conviction in Scotland of an offence triable either summarily or on indictment, means the prescribed sum within the meaning of section 289B(6) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (£1,000 or another sum fixed by order under section 289D(1) of that Act to take account of changes in the value of money).'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 65 to 74.
      Mr. Fletcher: The new subsection achieves for Scotland what is already achieved for England, Wales and Northern Ireland by clause 48. The other amendments to the schedule are consequential.
      Amendment agreed to.

    New Schedule
      OFFENCES EXCLUDED FROM SECTION 26
        PART I

          GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF OFFENCES
          1. Manslaughter.
          2. Rape.
          3. Kidnapping.
          4. Assault (of any description).
          5. Riot.
          6. Affray.

        PART II

          ENACTMENTS
          1. MALICIOUS DAMAGE ACT 1861. (c. 97)

          Section 35, 47 and 48 (criminal damage).

          2. OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861. (C. 100)

          Section 16 (making threats to kill).

          Section 18 (wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm or to resist apprehension).

          Section 20 (wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm).

          Section 21 (garotting).

          Section 23 (endangering life or causing harm by administering poison).

          Section 28 (burning, maiming etc. by explosion).

          Section 29 (causing explosions or casting corrosive fluids with intent to do grievous bodily harm).

          3. Explosive Substances Act 1883. (c. 3)

          Section 2 (causing explosion likely to endanger life on property).

          4. Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. (c. 34)

          Section 1 (child destruction).

          5. Infanticide Act 1938. (c. 36)

          Section 1(1) (infanticide).

          6. Sexual Offences Act 1956. (c. 69)

          Section 12 (buggery with a male under the age of 16). Section 12 (buggery with a male over 16 without consent).

          Section 17 (abduction of female by force).

          7. Firearms Act 1968. (c. 27)

          Section 17(1) (use of firearms and imitation firearms to resist arrest).

          8. Theft Act 1968. (c. 60)

          Section 8 (robbery)

          Section 10 (agrivated burglary)

          9. Criminal Damage Act 1971. (c. 48)
          902

          Section 1(2)(b) (criminal damage, including arson, endangering life).

          10. Hijacking Act 1971. (c. 70)

          Section 1 (hijacking).

          Section 2 (violence towards passengers).

          11. Road Traffic 1972. (c. 20)

          Section 1 (causing death by reckless driving).

          12. Protection of Aircraft Act 1973. (c. 47)

          Sections 1 to 3 (offences relating to aircraft).

          13. Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

          Section 85(2) (shooting at naval or revenue vessels).'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Schedule
      AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 3 TO IMMIGRATION ACT 1971
      `The following shall be added after paragraph 3—
      AMENDMENT OF SCHEDULE 3 TO IMMIGRATION ACT 1971

        Powers of courts pending deportation
        4. Where the release of a person recommended for deportation is directed by a court, he shall be subject to such restrictions as to residence and as to reporting to the police as the court may direct.
        5.—(1) On an application made—

        (a) by or on behalf of a person recommended for deportation whose release was so directed; or

        (b) by a constable; or

        (c) by an immigration officer, the appropriate court shall have the powers specified in subparagraph (2) below.

        (2) The powers mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above are—

        (a) if the person to whom the application relates is not subject to any such restrictions imposed by a court as are mentioned in paragraph 4 above, to order that he shall be subject to any such restriction s the court may direct; and

        (b) if he is subject to such restrictions imposed by a court by virtue of that paragraph or this paragraph—

        (i) to direct that any of them shall be varied or shall cease to have effect; or

        (ii) to give further directions as to his residence and reporting.

        6.—(1) In this Schedule "the appropriate court" means, except in a case to which sub-paragraph (2) below applies, the court which directed release.
        (2) This sub-paragraph applies where the court which directed release was—

        (a) the Crown Court;

        (b) the Court of Appeal;

        (c) the High Court of Justiciary; or

        (d) the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.

        (3) Where the Crown Court or the Crown Court in NorthernIreland directed release, the appropriate court is—

        (a) the court that directed release; or

        (b) a magistrates' court acting for the commission area or county court division where the person to whom the application relates resides.

        (4) Where the Court of Appeal or the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland gave the direction, the appropriate court is the Crown Court or the Crown Court in Northern Ireland, as the case may be.
        (5) Where the High Court of Justiciary directed release, the appropriate court is—

        (a) that court; or

        (b) in a case where release was directed by that court on appeal, the court from which the appeal was made.

        7.—(1) A constable or immigration officer may arrest without warrant any person who is subject to restrictions imposed by a court under this Schedule and who at the time of the arrest is in the relevant part of the United Kingdom—

        (a) if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that that person is contravening or has contravened any of those restrictions; or

        (b) if he has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is likely to contravene any of them.

        (2) In subparagraph (1) above "the relevant part of the United Kingdom" means—

        (a) England and Wales, in a case where a court with jurisdiction in England and Wales imposed the restrictions;

        (b) Scotland, in a case where a court with jurisdiction in Scotland imposed them; and

        (c) Northern Ireland, in a case where a court in Northern Ireland imposed them.

        8.—(1) A person arrested in England and Wales or Northern Ireland in pursuance of paragraph 7 above shall be brought as soon as practicable and in any event within 24 hours after his arrest before a justice of the peace for the petty sessions area or district in which he was arrested.
        (2) In reckoning for the purposes of this paragraph any period of 24 hours, no account shall be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday or any Sunday.
        9.—(1) A person arrested in Scotland in pursuance of paragraph 7 above shall where-ever practicable be brought before the appropriate court not later than in the course of the first day after his arrest, such day not being a Saturday, a Sunday or a court holiday prescribed for that court under section 10 of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.
        (2) Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent a person arrested in Scotland being brought before a court on a Saturday, a Sunday or such a court holiday as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above where the court is, in pursuance of section 10 of the said Act of 1980, sitting on such day for the disposal of criminal business.
        10. Any justice of the peace or court before whom a person is brought by virtue of paragraph 8 or 9 above—

        (a) if of the opinion that that person is contravening has contravened or is likely to contravene any restriction imposed on him by a court under this Schedule, may direct—

        (i) that he be detained; or

        (ii) that he be released subject to such restrictions as to his residence and reporting to the police as the court may direct; and

        METROPOLITAN PUBLIC CARRIAGE ACT 1869 (c.115)

        Offences under section 7 (use of unlicensed carriages)

        Section (7)

        (a) First offence

        £20

        £500

        (b) Second and subsequent offences

        £50

        £1,000'.

        There have been discussions in connection with the amendment and I understand that the Minister is thinking of making suggestions in the other place. Perhaps I could have that assurance.
        Mr. Mayhew: I am happy to confirm what I have told my hon. Friend privately.

        'HOUSING ACT 1957 (c. 56)

        Offences under section 27(1) (Permitting premises to be used in contravention of a Closing Order).

        Section 27(1).

        £100 and £20 per day following conviction.

        £1,000 and £50 per day following conviction.'.

        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it is convenient to discuss the following amendments:

        'HOUSING ACT 1957 (c. 56)

        Offence under Section 16(6) (using or permitting the use of premises in contravention of an undertaking).

        Section 16(1).

        £20 and £5 per day following conviction.

        £1,000 and £50 per day following conviction'.

        No. 78, in page 52, line 25 at end insert—
        (b) if not of that opinion, shall release him without altering the restrictions as to his residence and his reporting to the police.".'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 2

      MAXIMUM FINES TO BE INCREASED BY MORE THAN THE GENERAL INCREASE
      Mr. Bendall: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 51, leave out lines 13 and 14.
      The amendment deals with the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. The hour is late and I hope for some assurances that this matter will be further considered.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am most grateful to my hon. Frimd for the considerate way in which he has moved the amendment. We have had conversations about it. Detailed points are referred to in the amendment. My hon. Friend has my assurance that his amendment merits, and is being given, close attention. We shall do what we can to meet his concern—which he has carefully explained to me—within the bounds of drafting possibility. I know that he appreciates that. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that he will find it possible to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Bendall: On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Bendall: I beg to move amendment No. 32., in page 51, line 16, at end insert—
      Mr. Bendall: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Wheeler: I beg to move amendment
      No. 78, in page 52, line 25 at end insert—

      'HOUSING ACT 1957 (c. 56)

      Offences under section 22(4) (using or permitting the use of premises in contravention of a demolition order).

      Section 22(4).

      £20 and £5 per day following conviction.

      £1,000 and £50 per day following conviction'.

      Mr. Wheeler: In view of the hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I seek the permission of the House to include amendment No. 34 for discussion with this group.

      'LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1962 (c. 50).

      Offences under section 4 (failure to provide a Rent Book or prescribed information in a Rent Book.

      Section 4(3).

      £50 on first conviction £100 on subsequent conviction.

      £500'.

      Mr. Wheeler: Section 27 of the Housing Act 1957 created the offence of permitting for human habitation the use of premises that are subject to a closing order. Premises may be subject to a closing order for one of two reasons: either because the premises are statutorily unfit for human habitation; or because they form part of a house in multiple occupation which is not provided with means of escape in case of fire, usually because it is impracticable to provide one. I refer, for example, to attic rooms in large houses. The present maximum penalty for permitting the use of such premises in breach of a closing order is £100 with the possibility of a further maximum fine of £20 for every day on which the use continues after conviction. Those penalties, which were set in about 1910, were last revised by the Criminal Justice Act 1972 when they were raised from £20 and £5 respectively.
      2.15 am
      The principal reason for advancing the amendment is in connection with closing orders made in the interests of fire safety. The arguments equally apply in the case of the use of unfit premises. Under the provisions for the general increase of fines under the Bill those penalties would rise to £200 and £25 respectively. Those penalties are grossly inadequate to deter unscrupulous landlords who can charge rents which provide more than that sum in two weeks. If unscrupulous owners are to be deterred from using unfit premises, or premises which have not been provided with a means of escape in case of fire, the penalty should reflect the rent yield from such a house.
      There is also an argument based on consistency. One should compare the penalties under section 27 with similar legislation. For example, section 7 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 imposes a maximum penalty on summary conviction of £1,000 for persons using premises without a fire certificate. It is submitted that the use of premises in breach of a closing order is not dissimilar and should be therefore subject to the same maximum penalty.
      I go on now to consider amendment No. 34. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1962 imposes a duty on the landlord of any weekly tenant to provide a rent book or other similar document. The Act also provides that the rent book shall contain specified information, including the name and address of the landlord, particulars of the rent, other conditions of the tenancy and such matters as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
      The maximum penalty for non-provision of a rent book or the information required to be provided therein was set by the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1962 at £50 for a first conviction and £100 for a second or subsequent
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As it is the wish of the House, we shall also discuss amendment No. 34, in page 52, line 25 at end insert—
      conviction. Those penalties have remained unchanged. Under the general provisions of the Bill for increasing fines the penalty would rise to £200. Enhanced penalties for a second or subsequent conviction have been abolished. There is evidence that the Act is being flouted on a fairly wide scale particularly in the City of Westminster. That evidence has been gained by environmental health officers and tenancy relations officers. When investigating those matters they ask to see the tenant's rent book and they are invariably told that it does not exist. The existence of a rent book is important in the enforcement of the general housing and public health laws. Most of the provisions dealing with the service of the notices requiring works to be carried out authorise such service on persons who are defined as receiving rent. The rent book is the simplest and most effective way of determining who that is.
      There is, again, the argument of the need to be consistent in specifying maximum penalties for similar offences. Two similar offences come to mind, the first under section 121 of the Housing Act 1974, under which provision is made for a tenant to require a landlord to disclose his identity. The maximum penalty for failing to comply was then fixed at £200, and by the Housing Act 1980 was increased to £500. Secondly, section 7 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 enables any person to serve notice on an agent named in the rent book or any person who receives rent, requiring that person to disclose the full name and address of the landlord. In schedule 2 the Government propose to increase the penalty for failure to give that information to £500 from the present level of £5. It is submitted, therefore, that on the grounds of consistency and deterrent effect the penalty for non-provision of a rent book should be similarly increased.
      Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 are largely consequential on amendment No. 33 which seeks to increase the fine for using or permitting the use of premises in contravention of a closing order. It is submitted that if that amendment is accepted these amendments should also be accepted in the interests of consistency. Historically, all three offences have their origin in the Housing Acts passed shortly after the turn of the century. These were subsequently consolidated in the Housing Act 1936 and again in the Housing Act 1957. All of them provided for a penalty of £20, to be followed by a fine of £5 for each day following conviction.
      Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, which I believe was inserted as an amendment by Lord Stow Hill as a result of representations from, among others, the

      907
      London borough of Islington, raises the penalty in respect of the closing order offence to £100 and £20 per day. No action was taken at that time, however, to deal with the two similar offences. It is submitted that if the penalty is now to be changed, it is opportune to deal with all three.
      The two offences referred to in amendments Nos. 78 and 79 are, respectively, the breach of an undertaking given not to use unfit premises for human habitation and the use of premises in contravention of a demolition order, such order having been made by reason of the unfitness of the premises for human habitation.
      I should perhaps mention that it is possible procedurally, when the environmental health department gives notice that it considers premises to be unfit for human habitation, for the owner or any person having an interest in the premises to make representations as to why a closing order should not be made and to give an undertaking not to use the premises for human habitation. Such an undertaking is registrable as a land charge just as though a closing order had been made. Thus, for all practical purposes, the effect is identical.
      This group of amendments arises from the serious situation that persists in central London and follows the experience of Westminster city council in endeavouring to enforce the law. It is strongly held that urgent action is required to improve the penalties. Westminster city council has the support of the London Boroughs Association in urging that the amendments be made.
      Mr. Stevens: Once again, I wish briefly to give the fullest possible supoort to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler). I wish to make two points.
      I do not remember the last time that I saw a rent book that had been properly filled in, although, like other hon. Members, I see many in the course of a year. That is the prime defence of a private rented tenant and it is up to the House to ensure that the penalties for non-compliance with the law are such that landlords, especially larger landlords, should be minded to comply with the legal requirements.
      I do not wish any hon. Member to suppose that my hon. Friend and I are pursuing a vendetta against private landlords. The contrary is true. The proposed increased penalties are maxima, and the minority of landlords who exploit their tenants would be subject to them. However, it would not necessarily mean that the courts would be obliged to impose those penalties in every case. For the tiny number of bad landlords, who are mostly to be found in the centres of our great cities, the present penalties are manifestly too low.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) and for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) for the way in which they have spoken to the amendments. They relate to maximum penalties for a number of offences under housing provisions. My hon. Friends will know that the responsibility for underlying policy in such matters rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      I understand that if a local authority is satisfied that a house which is unfit for human habitation cannot be made fit at a reasonable cost the owner is given the opportunity to submit proposals for making the house fit or for its use for some purpose other than residential. The authority can accept an undertaking from the owner that he will carry out the necessary works within a specified period or that the house will not be used for human habitation until it is
      908
      made fit and the undertaking is accordingly cancelled. If the owner is not prepared to carry out the necessary renovation works, the local authority can make an order under part II of the Housing Act 1957 requiring him to demolish the property or, in certain circumstances, a closing order.
      Furthermore, under schedule 24 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, local authorities can deal with houses in multiple occupation that do not possess adequate means of escape from fire. If the means of escape would be adequate if part of the house was not used for human habitation, the authority could make a closing order in respect of that part. Enforcement and other consequential provisions in part H of the 1957 Act are applied to such closing orders on part of a house in multiple occupation. The fines for contravention of a closing order also apply here.
      It is an offence to use a house knowingly in contravention of an undertaking that it will not be lived in or knowingly to permit such use. The present fine of £50 and £5 a day for a continuing offence under section 16(6) of the Housing Act 1957 was increased by the Criminal Law Act 1977, as was the fine for knowingly entering into occupation of a house subject to an operative demolition order under section 22(4). The Government remain of the view that there is no immediate need for those fines to be increased beyond what was provided in the 1977 Act, although my hon. Friends will know, as I have;aid already, that each of those fines will be subject to an increase when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State exercises the power conferred by this Bill to alter, by order, the levels of the standard scale in line with changes in the value of money. That power will apply to this maxima and can be expected to be exercised early next year.
      The penalty for contravention of the closing order under section 27(1) of the Housing Act 1957 was not, however, put up on the 1977 scale by the Criminal Law Act. It was instead specifically uprated by section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, because there was evidence to suggest that in some areas it was not sufficient to deter landlords who could pay the fine and continue to make a good profit. Section 30 will now ensure that it is put on the 1977 scale. The penalty of £100 will increase to £200.
      The amendment is concerned with the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1962, which makes it an offence for a landlord to fail to provide a tenant whose rent is payable weekly with a rent book containing prescribed information. A landlord found guilty of that offence is liable to a fine of £50 for a first offence and £100 for subsequent offences. The Bill already provides for these fines to be uprated to £200 for a first and any subsequent offence. That uprating is in line with our proposals for other fines currently at similar levels.
      I accept that it is important that landlords should obey the law and be punished if they do not do so. It is equally true that other laws should be obeyed and that people who contravene them should be punished. Landlords are no exception. I do not accept that there should be a special increase in the fine for this offence. However, I emphasise that these matters are within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I have no doubt that he will want to give careful consideration to what has been said by both my hon. Friends tonight. I do not doubt that he will be happy to

      909
      consider these matters in the context of a review of housing provisions, which many be regarded as a more appropriate vehicle for uprating of fines than this Bill.
      2.30 am
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: When my hon. and learned Friend puts these points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will he also stress than non-compliance with the obligation to provide a properly completed rent book often prejudices the civil rights of tenants?
      Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend will read in the Official Report what my hon. Friend has said.
      I realise that what I have said is not what my hon. Friends would like, but I hope that they will understand the basis of my arguments. In the circumstances, I hope that they will feel able to agree to withdrawal of the amendment.
      Mr. Wheeler: I know that my hon. and learned Friend always tries to be helpful, and, in view of the hour, I do

      Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12)

      Offences under section 39(2) (newspaper reports indentifying juveniles in court proceedings).

      Section 39(2).

      £500.

      £1,000

      Offences under section 49(2) (newspaper reports identifying juveniles in juvenile courts).

      Section 49(2).

      £500.

      £1,000.

      I was grateful to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) for focusing the Standing Committee's attention on these two provisions. Sections 39(2) and 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 concern the unauthorised publication of newspaper reports identifying juveniles involved in court proceedings. These provisions apply to juveniles taking part as witnesses and victims as well as to those involved as defendants. They also apply to sound and television broadcasts under the operation of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963.
      The present penalty is £500, in line with the penalty in section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 for publishing or broadcasting material likely to lead to the identification of complainants in rape cases. The section 4 penalty will increase to £1,000 under the general

      RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1948 (c. 37)

      For the words from "twenty pounds" to the end substitute "

      (a) for a first offence, £50;

      10A. Section 8 (1) (obstruction of person exercising power of entry).

      level 4 on the standard scale".

      (b) for a second or subsequent offence, £100.

      £500

      For the words from "one hundred pounds" where first occurring to "one hundred pounds"

      (a) for a first offence, £100.

      10B. Section 8 (3) (other summary offences under Act).

      where secondly occurring substitute "level 4 on the standard scale"

      (b) for a second or subsequent offence, £100 or 3 months or both.

      £500 or 3 months or both.

      As well as amending penalties in purely Scottish legislation, schedule 6 effects for Scotland amendments to penalties in Great Britain or United Kingdom Acts which are effected for England and Wales by schedules 2 and 3.
      not propose to take more of the time of the House other than to say that these are matters of the greatest urgency and importance. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will cease to be slothful, will look at these matters, and will learn from the evidence and opinion of the council of the City of Westminster and of the London Boroughs Association that there is a problem that needs to be dealt with and that it should not be pushed to one side.
      On the assumption that my hon. and learned Friend will do his utmost to convey this information to the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 3

      SPECIAL INCREASES OF MAXIMUM FINES
      Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 55, line 9, at end insert—
      uprating provisions of clause 30 of the Bill. The penalties in sections 39(2) and 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which were increased from £50 to £500 in the Criminal Law Act 1977, will not increase unless they are included in the list of special penalty increases in schedule 3 to the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 6

      SCHEDULE TO BE INSERTED AS SCHEDULE 7D TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1975
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 59, line 26, at end insert—
      By virtue of an amendment made in Committee, schedule 2 effects for England and Wales increases in the penalties for certain offences under the Radioactive Substances Act 1948. This amendment is designed to effect those increases for Scotland also.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 8

      AMENDMENTS OF MAGISTRATES' COURT ACT 1980 RELATING TO REMANDS IN CUSTODY
      Mr. Edward Lyons: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 67, line 31, leave out `fourth' and insert `second'.
      In the Bill there is a major change in court practice in that instead of accused persons being brought for remand to court every eight days they can, under certain conditions, be brought to court every fourth week. That change means that an accused may remain in prison and not see the light of day, or should I say the light of a court, for four weeks.
      The purpose of the amendment is to change that situation. It is accepted that because of the strain on prison resources and on prison officers it is difficult to keep to the traditional system of bringing people to court every eighth day. On the other hand, it has never been explained satisfactorily, even in Committee, why the Government have jumped from eight days to a maximum of 28 days.
      While I concede that there should no longer be a need to bring prisoners to court every eighth day, they should be brought every second week. That goes some way to meet the Government's case, but it would be better than bringing them to court every 28 days.
      Although the consent of the accused is necessary for this procedure, those accused who are not professional criminals and who do not know the ropes are more likely to give their consent. Once a person is in prison he may not be visited regularly by his legal adviser. Accordingly, he may not be granted bail as early as might otherwise be the case. Information may reach him in prison which, if the magistrate were told of it, might result in bail being given. Because the information does not reach the solicitor or because the solicitor does not act on it immediately because of other pressing problems, the person may be kept in prison a week or two longer than would otherwise be the case. That is my major objection to the proposal, which would lead to our prisons being filled up even more.
      There are other objections. Lawyers may forget prisoners when they are out of sight. It is advisable that lawyers should see their clients regularly. This is one way of ensuring it. I hope that the Government will listen to the arguments in favour of the amendment.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: I support what the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Lyons) has said. I expressed my views forcefully in Committee, so I do not need to go into detail now. As I said in Committee, it is a thoroughly retrogressive and unnecessary step for the Government to do away with the present system of the accused appearing in court every eight days. That has been a safeguard over the years in ensuring that no one suffers unnecessary and unlawful imprisonment. The reason that the Government gave for that radical change was one of administrative convenience and not of substance. A change as important as that should not be contemplated unless there are real reasons of substance.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal that instead of the accused appearing only once every 28 days he should at least have the benefit of appearing once every 15 days seems a sensible compromise, which has my
      912
      support. The Law Society, members of which I spoke to only last week, still maintains its opposition to the removal of the necessity for an appearance every eight day s. It does not regard the system set out in the schedule as workable.
      The arguments in favour of a regular court appearance every eight days are these. I shall put them shortly and simply. If the debate had taken place earlier in the evening, I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would have had a great deal to say about this serious change. There is no doubt that the presence of the accused ensures, and is the only way to ensure, that his case is properly presented. That cannot be left solely to, the legal representative. It certainly cannot be left to the courts.
      That is the right of the accused. We are dealing with people who have not been convicted and who might be found not guilty. It is the right of the accused to ensure that he has an opportunity properly to instruct his solicitor, particularly about any change of circumstances that may have taken place since he last saw his solicitor. If the accused is held in custody he is at a severe disadvantage because he does not see his solicitor as frequently as he should, not only to give him adequate instructions but to ensure that his case is prepared properly and witnesses are traced, and, above all, to ensure that his solicitor puts his case properly in court.
      The interests of justice will not be properly served by this radical change in what has been an important safeguard for the liberty of the subject. I do not see how any court can ensure that an accused person has given his consent and agreed not to appear in court every eight days, and has continued to give that consent. That is certainly the Law Society's fear. As well as the Law Society, the Legal Action Group, the Society of Labour Lawyers and the National Association of Probation Officers are strongly opposed to these proposals.
      2.45 am
      I do not intend to say anything more, because earlier we had a long debate on the subject. I was unable to carry all my hon. Friends with me, but I carried some. However, I strongly urge the Government to accept this sensible proposal—on which I compliment the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West—even if they are not prepared to go the whole way and scrap a damaging, dangerous assault on civil liberties in general.
      Mr. Mayhew: I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson), at this hour in the morning, is able to assemble and deploy sufficient enthusiasm to describe this proposal in such extreme terms. His view is not shared by the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, of which we have heard so much, nor by the Home Affairs Select Committee, each of which suggested a period of 21 days between appearances. Apparently they failed to observe the great inroad into basic civil liberties that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been describing.
      That is not surprising, because we are talking about a provision whereby the court may authorise the non-appearance of someone on bail only in circumstances in which he is over 17, in which he consents to this procedure, in which it is satisfied that he continues to consent to it and in which he is legally represented throughout. Even so, every fourth week he must be brought before the court. Therefore, there is a certain element of hyperbole in what the hon. and learned

      913
      Gentleman has said. After all, the amendment is the only proposal that has been selected. The principle of the schedule has not been selected for debate as it was thoroughly debated in Committee, where the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments did not find favour.
      The amendment is defective in any event if the purpose is to secure attendance every two weeks, because it would apply only to the explanation that the court is required to give a defendant before he can give his consent, and it does not affect that part of the schedule that deals with the periods in question.
      I recognise that there can be differing opinions about the length of time that can best be left between appearances in court in these cases. I mentioned the preference of the all-party penal affairs group and the Home Affairs Select Committee. However, the Government feel that, given all the safeguards that we have built into this scheme—the prisoner must consent, he must be legally represented, he may at any time change his mind about being brought to court—a period of four weeks between appearances is not unreasonable. It is neither so long that it could be argued to affect adversely the rights of the individual concerned to know at intervals how his case is proceeding—if he is not visited in prison by his advisers—nor so short that the police and prison service which can be expected to gain from not having to escort prisoners back and forth between prisons and courts lose all advantage that the present scheme offers.
      Incidentally, it is not right to say that this is simply a matter of administrative convenience. When I last visited Brixton prison, I saw large numbers of prisoners lining up early in the morning to collect their kits—everything that had been taken from them on admission to the prison—because they were going off on remand. At present that must happen every eight days, but because it is possible that on every occasion their application for bail may be granted they must take all their stuff with them. This elaborate and extremely tiresome procedure of everything being meticulously booked out only to be booked in again when they come back is extremely unpopular with the prisoners and is a source of considerable stress.
      There are considerable advantages, it was made clear to me, in not having to do that. I therefore urge the House to resist the amendment, because the period of four weeks, coupled with the safeguards that I have mentioned, is entirely adequate to meet the needs of justice. In those circumstances, I trust that the House will permit the period to stand.
      Mr. Edward Lyons: I have asked for a 14-day period. The Minister, in defence of the Government's proposition of 28 days, has quoted two organisations that have suggested 21 days. Twenty-one days strikes me as being equidistant between 14 and 28. Therefore, I do not understand how that argument supports him rather than me. Perhaps he divines some benefit in the argument he adduced.
      The hour is late. There will be an opportunity for this important matter to be raised again in the House of Lords, and I have no doubt that it will be because to have such a major change go through at 2.50 am is rather unsatisfactory. The very least the Government should have
      914
      compromised by moving towards the suggestion of the two organisations quoted by the Minister with approval. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 9

      PROBATION AND AFTER-CARE
      Mr. Stevens: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 69. line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
      This is a slightly more complex issue than some of the others that have been raised. It relates in particular to the four day training centres at Sheffield, Pontypridd, Liverpool and London which were introduced in 1972. They were introduced in order to provide specifically an alternative to custody for petty persistent offenders who had become recidivists. Unlike many attempts at providing such alternatives, they appear to have been successful. They enjoy the respect of the National Association of Probation Officers.
      The proposal in the schedule would have the effect of including these four day training centres with others in a more flexible way, and in such a way that they would lose the status which now distinguishes them. They provide an alternative to custody which hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to see.
      In Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister suggested that one reason why these four day training centres should be rationalised within other day training centres operating in a different way is that they have been under-used. During 1981, 59 out of the 60 maximum places at Pontypridd were used. In a more recent letter to me, the Minister seemed to suggest that attendance figures were not available for the four special day centres and, therefore, it was not possible to establish a comparison of occupancy with the other centres to which this schedule refers.
      I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that to change the status of the four special day centres would be a retrograde step because they provide—I say it again because it is important—an alternative to a custodial sentence, as should community service orders.
      In Committee the Minister stated that the chief probation officer of Mid-Glamorgan supported his view in respect of Pontypridd. It is fair to remind the Minister that the South Wales branch of the National Association of Probation Officers supports my view. It fears that the use of the centre by the surrounding probation areas would decline and the centre would not survive if it ceased to fulfil its original purpose.
      Mr. Mayhew: The amendment has already been debated, when it was grouped with new clause 15, but I am grateful for a further opportunity, if it is in order, to say something on the same subject and would wish to do so out of courtesy to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens). I appreciate that the amendment is intended to retain in use the four existing day training centres. I assure my hon. Friend that arrangements have been made with the four probation areas concerned for the centres to continue in use as an alternative to a custodial disposal by the courts. In other words, that role will continue.
      Repeal of section 4 will enable the centres to be used more flexibly as day centres and for a wider range of

      915
      offenders. Section 4 limits attendance to 60 days. It will also enable the facilities of the centres to be available to courts from a wider area. Our intention is that the courts will have the power to require offenders to attend the day centres, with their consent, including the four existing day training centres as a condition in a probation order. I explained that new clauses 15 to 18 are to ensure that the courts have that power. When examining the judgment of the House of Lords in the Cullen case the Government are aware of the concern that has been expressed to the effect that the courts will be less inclined to make use of these centres when they become day centres. However, the Government do not share that view. Until the Cullen case arose, courts in 11 probation areas had been making probation orders with a requirement to attend a day centre. Once it is clear that courts have the power to require offenders to attend day centres, there should be no difficulty.
      There is nothing to be read into the proposal that is intended to be slighting in any way of those who serve in the day training centres. They have been invaluable. It has been the case that they have not been as fully used as the day centres have, and that may owe something to the restrictions on their use that I have tried to describe. If we have them as day centres they will be more flexible and should be more widely used. We are grateful for the work that they have done and they are an important asset. They will continue to be used as non-custodial alternatives and I do not doubt that their work will be extremely valuable. I hope that that is something of an assurance for my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Stevens: I am sorry that, owing to the way in which the new clauses and the amendments to the Bill have been selected for debate, my hon. and learned Friend should have been obliged to refer twice today to the topic that I raised in my amendment.
      I take my hon. and learned Friend's point that the Government have had to introduce their own new clauses following the Cullen case in the House of Lords the other day. However, there seems to be an extraordinary element of doubt as to whether these four day centres are now being fully used.
      3 am
      To discuss and decide on the changing of their status without knowing the level of occupancy of the four centres seems to me to touch on the bizarre. However, as other hon. Members who have brought cherished propositions before the house at a time that is subsequent to the witching hour have not troubled the House by dividing it, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 11
      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 39 in page 88, line 4 at end add—
      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

        'Vagrancy Act 1824 (c. 83)
        In the Vagrancy Act 1824 the words ", subject to section [Vagrancy offences] of the Criminal Justice Act 1982," shall be inserted—

        (a) in sections 3 and 4, before the words "it shall be lawful"; and

        (b) in section 5—

        (i) before the words "be deemed an incorrigible rogue; and

        916

        (ii) before the words "it shall be lawful".' [Mr. Mayhew.]

        Mr. Mayhew: I beg to move amendment No. 75 in page 90, line 20 leave out 'subsection 11 of".
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 76.
        Mr. Mayhew: This amendment deals with the relationship between release on parole under sect ion 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and the partly suspended sentence under section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. In new clause 33, we proposed that the Home Secretary should have the power to lower the minimum threshold for eligibility for parole. If that power is exercised, it would mean that people who are subject to a partly suspended sentence could be released on parole before the expiry of the initial custodial part ordered to be served in prison. That, in turn, would mean that for a period they would be liable, on the commission of a further imprisonable offence, to both restoration of the suspended part of the sentence and revocation of the licence.
        There is no difficulty of principle. Dual liability arises in other contexts. But if the court ordered restoration of the suspended part but the licence were left unrevoked—that would be the result in the magistrates' courts, which Lave no power to revoke—there could be the untidy result of the offender subsequently being released on completion of the restored part, which removed all further liability as regards the partly suspended sentence still being subject to a licence that, in practice, could have no practical effect. We therefore think it right to secure automatic revocation of the licence whenever a sentence is restored in these circumstances. I ask the House to accept this minor consequential amendment, which I am sure is as clear as daylight.
        Mr. Stevens: I venture on treacherous ground. I wish to take advantage of the amendment moved by my Lon. and learned Friend to slip in a question that is not directly related to it. I can deal with the matter in 30 seconds. I was talking to a man who served a two-year sentence preceded by six-and-a-half months in custody on remand. How is it, in arriving at the date when a defendant can be considered for parole, that the period spend in custody on remand is not taken into consideration?
        Mr. Mayhew: "Because the statute so provides" is the answer that I would give immediately. If I find that it is inaccurate, I shall write to my hon. Friend.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 76 in page 90, line 2 l, at end add—

        '(a) in subsection (7), after the words "sentence)," there shall be inserted the words "then, except in a case to which subsection (7A) of this section applies,";

        (b) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection—

        "(7A) Any such licence shall be treated as revoked where—

        (a) the offender—

        (i) was sentenced to imprisonment with an order under subsection (1) of section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (sentences partly suspended); and

        (ii) was released on licence before the expiration of any part of his sentence which he was required to serve in prison under subsection (1) of that section; and

        (b) by virtue of subsection (3) of that section a court restores any part of the sentence held in

        917
        suspense, and subsection (9) of this section shall apply to the offender accordingly."; and

        (c) in subsection (11).'.

        No. 41 in page 92, leave out lines 19 to 22.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

    Schedule 12
      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS SCOTLAND
      Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 97, line 24, at end insert—
      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS SCOTLAND

        'Electric Lighting Act 1882 (c. 56)
        A1. In section 12(3) of the Electric Lighting Act 1882 (incorporation of certain provisions of Clauses Consolidation Acts), both as enacted in the said Act of 1882 and as set out in the Appendix to the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899, for the word "thirty-eight" substitute the word "thirty-nine" (this amendment having effect also for the purposes of the said Schedule as incorporated with the Electricity Act 1947 or any other enactment).'
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 63 and 64.
        Mr. Fletcher: The purpose of this group of amendments is to increase the penalties in Scotland for interfering with electricity meters and to consolidate and clarify the relevant offence provisions in electricity legislation. The South of Scotland Electricity Board has recently estimated that annual losses from meter interference are running at over £4 million with over 40,000 consumers in its area involved. The existing level of fine of £5, which has been unchanged since 1956, is no longer realistic and cannot be regarded as a suitable deterrent for this type of offence. The amendments would increase the fine to £200 for wilfully interfering with meters and to £50 for the less serious offence of failing to report accidentally damaged meters.
        The amendments also update and bring' together in clearer form the relevant statutory provisions governing all forms of meter interference. The present provisions date back to the nineteenth century and are very diffficult to use. I emphasise that no alteration to existing law is involved apart from the increase in penalties. The amendments represent a sensible rationalisation of the present situation without altering the existing law or creating any new offences.
        Mr. Foulkes: The comments that I made about the provisions that were introduced earlier by the Under-Secretary of State apply a fortiori to these amendments. The Minister said that one of the provisions with which we are dealing dates back to the nineteenth century. Clearly the Government have had sufficient time to introduce a Scottish Bill to deal with what is purely Scottish legislation and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] It is all very well for hon. Members to say "Oh". That may be the appropriate reaction of English Members, but it is an inappropriate one for the Under-Secretary of State. He knows that on both sides of the House there is a desire that Scottish legislation should be dealt with properly. There should be Scottish Bills that should be considered by Scottish Standing Committees.
        The Minister has said that we are merely increasing the level of fines to match the level of inflation. That is clearly not so when there is to be such a substantial increase in the
        918
        fines that will be applicable. I agree entirely with the substance of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Those who are found to be tampering illegally with meters should be dealt with appropriately because otherwise the honest consumer has to pay for the electricity consumed by the dishonest consumer. I support the substance of the amendment, but I regret that it is to be inserted in an English Bill and not in a Scottish Bill.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 65, in page 97, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert 'statutory maximum'.
        No. 66, in page 98, line 26, leave out from first 'the' to 'or' in line 28 and insert 'statutory maximum'.
        No. 63, in page 98, line 32, at end insert—

        'South of Scotland Electricity Order Confirmation Act 1956 (c. xciv)
        5A. For section 51 of the South of Scotland Electricity Order 1956 as set out in the Schedule to the South of Scotland Electricity Order Confirmation Act 1956 there shall be substituted the following section—

        Injury to electricity lines, meters, seals etc. and interference with meters.
        (1) If any person—

        (a) wilfully, fraudulently or by culpable negligence—

        (i) injures or suffers to be injured any electric lines, meter or fittings belonging to the Board;

        (ii) alters the index to any meter; or

        (iii) prevents any meter from duly registering the quantity of electricity supplied; or

        (b) wilfully—

        (i) injures or detaches or suffers to be injured or detached any of the sealing or locking devices attached to any sealed or locked receptacle, meter or apparatus affixed by the Board to any electric line within a consumer's premises; or

        (ii) opens or suffers to be opened any such sealed or locked receptable, meter or apparatus; he shall (without prejudice to any other right or remedy for the protection of the Board or the punishment of the offender) be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

        (2) The prosecution of any such offence shall not prevent the Board from recovering the amount of any damage caused to them by the offence, and, if the offence involves wilful or fraudulent injury to or interference with any electric lines, meter or fittings belonging to the Board, the Board may also, until the matter has been remedied, but no longer, discontinue the supply of electricity to the person so offending (notwithstanding any contract previously existing).
        (3) The existence of artificial means for causing an alteration of the index to any meter or preventing any meter from duly registering the quantity of electricity supplied, when the meter is under the custody or control of the consumer, shall be prima facie evidence that the alteration or prevention, as the case may be, has been fraudulently and wilfully caused by the consumer using the meter.
        (4) If any person—

        (a) accidentally injures or detaches any seal or locking device referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section; or

        (b) accidentally opens any sealed or locked receptacle, meter or apparatus referred to in that paragraph; he shall within 48 hours of doing so notify the Board in writing.

        (5) Any person who fails to comply with subsection (4) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.".
        5B. In section 55 of that Order (penalty for interference with works) for the words "five pounds" substitute words "level 3 on the standard scale".

        North of Scotland Electricity Order Confirmation Act 1958 (c. ii)
        5C. For section 36 of the North of Scotland Electricity Order 1958 as set out in the Schedule to the North of Scotland Electricity Order Confirmation Act 1958 there shall be substituted the following section—

      INJURY TO ELECTRICITY LINE, METERS, SEALS ETC. AND INTERFERENCE WITH METERS
      (1) If any person—

      (a) wilfully, fraudulently or by culpable negligence—

      (i) injures or suffers to be injured any electric lines, meter or fittings belonging to the Board;

      (ii) alters the index to any meter; or

      (iii) prevents any meter from duly registering the quantity of electricity supplied; or

      (b) wilfully—

      (i) injures or detaches or suffers to be injured or detached any of the sealing or locking devices attached to any sealed or locked receptacle, meter or apparatus affixed by the Board to any electric line within a consumer's premises; or

      (ii) opens or suffers to be opened any such sealed or locked receptacle, meter or apparatus;
      he shall (without prejudice to any other right or remedy for the protection of the Board or the punishment of the offender) be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

      (2) The prosecution of any such offence shall not prevent the Board from recovering the amount of any damage caused to them by the offence, and, if the offence involves any wilful or fraudulent injury to or interference with any electric lines, meter or fittings belonging to the Board, the Board may also, until the matter has been remedied, but no longer, discontinue the supply of electricity to the person so offending (notwithstanding any contract previously existing).
      (3) The existence of artificial means for causing an alteration of the index to any meter or preventing any meter from duly registering the quantity of electricity supplied, when the meter is under the custody or control of the consumer, shall be prima facie evidence that the alteration or prevention, as the case may be, has been fraudulently and wilfully caused by the consumer using the meter.
      (4) If any person—

      (a) accidentally injures or detaches any seal or locking device referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section; or

      (b) accidentally opens any sealed or locked receptacle, meter or apparatus referred to in that paragraph;
      he shall within 48 hours of doing so notify the Board in writing.

      (5) Any person who fails to comply with subsection (4) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale. '.
      5D. In section 40 of that Order (penalty for interference with works) for the words 'five pounds' substitute the words 'level 3 on the standard scale".'
      No. 67, in page 99, line 19, leave out from 'words' to end of line 20 and insert -the statutory maximum";'.
      No. 68, in page 99, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert -the statutory maximum'; and'.
      No. 69, in page 99, line 34, leave out from 'words' to end of line 35 and insert "'the statutory maximum".'.
      No. 70, in page 99, line 44, leave out from 'the' where first occurring to end of line 46 and insert 'statutory maximum; and'.
      No. 71, in page 100, line 7, leave out from 'words' to end of line 9 and insert -the statutory maximum".'
      No. 72, in page 100, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert `statutory maximum".'.
      No. 73, in page 100, line 17, leave out from 'words' to end of line 19 and insert -the statutory maximum"; and'.
      No. 74, in page 100, line 24, leave out from 'words' to end of line 25 and insert -the statutory maximum".'.—[Mr. Mayhew.]

    Schedule 13

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 64, in page 101, line 9, at end insert—

      '62 & 63 Vict, c. 19.

      Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899.

      In the Schedule, section 38 of the Gasworks Clauses Act 1871 as set out in the Appendix (this repeal having effect for the purposes of the Schedule as incorporated with the Electricity Act 1947 or any other enactment.'.

      No. 42, in page 102, line 9, column 3, at end add—

      'In section 21, in subsection (1), the words "Borstal training or detention in a detention centre" and subsection (3)(c).'—[Mr. Mayhew.]

      Bill to be read the Third time this day.

      Ordered,
      That Mr. Giles Radice be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance).—[Mr. Brooke.]

  Wallacetown Engineering Company
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[[Mr. Brooke.]
  3.9 am
  Mr. William McKelvey: When I applied for this debate it never crossed my mind that it would take place at 3.9 am. Nevertheless, that does not detract from the importance of what I have to say, and it is important to me and to my Labour colleagues in Ayrshire, my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), that we ensure that the record is kept straight and that the history of the events surrounding the occupation of the Wallacetown foundry is recorded in Hansard.
  I should like to give the House a brief history of how the occupation came about. The Wallacetown foundry is a subsidiary of Simplex General Electric and has been completely owned by the multinational General Electric America since January 1980. The foundry is part of the Simplex electrical division and is one of three main factories, the others being situated in Brighton and Blythe Bridge. The foundry produces sophisticated electrical equipment, including specialist switchgear for the National Coal Board.
  In May last year the employees at Wallacetown were engaged, through their union the AUEW, in the annual round of wage talks. At that time, there were 765 employees. During the wage discussions, the management intimated to the trade union that there were to be redundancies, and a notice of intent was issued. That is not a unique feature in negotiations between managements and trade unions, but it is worth noting that that pressure was applied on union representatives while wage negotiations were taking place.
  The union did not oppose the redundancies and enough volunteers came forward to satisfy the management's requirements. The work force was reduced to 678.
  The company has been profitable since 1975. Its main customer has been the NCB, and in 1981 more than two-thirds of sales went to the board, totalling about £12 million—a substantial order. The order book at the end of March this year was 2 per cent. above the expected level. The work force has co-operated over the past two years in achieving complete flexibility and there has been a good record of industrial relations. There seemed to be no great problems in that area.
  It came as a big surprise to me, my hon. Friends from Ayrshire, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in whose constituency the foundry is located, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that the developments that I am about to outline happened as quickly as they did.
  During this year's round of wage negotiations, on the anniversary of the previous redundancies, the management again announced while the trade union was discussing wages that there were to be redundancies. The union had thought that that device might be used, but there was a sinister change in the application of the managerial technique, which took the form of the management arguing that it could not see that the number of volunteers who might have come forward would satisfy the management's requirements and they were, therefore, calling for compulsory redundancies.
  As the foundry is under the convenorship of the engineering union, it is important for the House to know
  922
  that at national level the AUEW does not accept a policy of compulsory redundancy. However, the management of the firm was aware of that. During the discussions with the shop stewards in which some 14 volunteers had come forward, the management rejected 11 of those and broke the normal negotiating pattern by issuing a list naming those who were to be made redundant. To the dismay of the workers, the shop stewards convenor, Alex Baird, appeared at the top of the list. He is a man who is much respected by workers in the factory and by trade union members in the Ayrshire district. He sits on the district committee of the AUEW.
  It became patently clear to the workers of that firm that in seeking the redundancy the management were using it as an excuse to neutralise an effective leader of an effective trade union organisation. The workers felt that the management should withdraw the list. The management refused, and the workers unanimously decided that they should occupy the factory—a technique that has become somewhat commonplace in the difficult industrial relations in Scotland at the moment. On 1 May—an appropriate day—the workers occupied the factory. They have occupied it since, and are still in occupation.
  At the divisional level, through the good offices of Willie Aitken, the trade union managed to have some informal discussion with the management yesterday which lasted some seven hours. At the end of that seven hours, I regret to say, the management was intransigent in its attitude to the list. The redundancy hit list was to remain and the workers said that they would stand firm and that the occupation of the factory would continue.
  We see in Ayrshire an extremely serious development. First, the firm has previously had a good record of industrial relations. We see a changing pattern which we imagine is the influence of the multinational General Electric. There is certainly a feeling abroad in the factory that there is more to this redundancy operation than meets the eye. Perhaps the Minister will have some answers to my questions.
  My hon. Friends the Members for South Ayrshire and Central Ayrshire will have points that they wish to underline and amplify if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before replying to some of my questions, the Minister should consider first that I and my hon. Friends are completely committed to support the workers in their action. Secondly, the AUEW national policy will be to support the workers who are fighting the management's compulsory redundancies.
  Since the management was bound to know that the AUEW's national policy would be to resist with the maximum use of whatever force was available to it—it must have known—why did it continue with this line? Can it be, as some of the workers have asked us, that it has jumped the gun in introducing its "get tough" policy, prior to the Employment Bill becoming law. That is now so infamous in Ayrshire as to be referred to as the Tebbit Bill. If it has jumped the gun it is an extremely dangerous ploy. Why is it continuing? What effect will the loss of production have on the National Coal Board? What is the commitment of General Electric to the Ayrshire plant? Does it want to continue it in existence or is it possible that the Ayrshire plant is to be put up for sale? If that is the case, and the General Electric company is disposing of its

  923
  firms in the electrical division, would it be more profitable to neuter a trade union organisation within it so that it might appear more attractive to a potential buyer?
  Those are the questions that the workers are asking us. They are convinced that the root of the matter is an anti-trade union move by the firm to remove an effective, efficient shop steward. I pose those questions to the Minister in the hope that he has an opportunity to answer them.
  3.21 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) and to the Minister for the opportunity to intervene in support of my hon. Friend. My constituency is seriously affected because a number of my constituents work at Wallacetown. It is an important source of employment because it is the type of industry one would expect to spearhead the industrial revival about which we hear from the Under-Secretary. It has had a good record of industrial relations until recently, and I ask the Minister to speculate as to why matters have deteriorated over the past few years. Is the management muscle flexing? Is it part of the United States management style because of the General Electric company involvement, or is it the effect of the encouragement that the Government are giving to some managements to be more belligerent with their trade unions? If that is the case it is a sorry example that we find at Wallacetown.
  As my hon. Friend said, last year during the wage negotiations redunancies were announced. Two months ago I went out of my way to see Jim Pickering because I was worried about potential redundancies. I was assured by him that no redundancies were envisaged for at least six months. I was rather surprised and somewhat annoyed and disappointed when 40 redundancies were announced a couple of weeks ago.
  Again, it was during the wage negotiations, but this time the difference was, as my hon. Friend said, the victims were named. I used the word "victims" advisedly. It was no surprise to some people that the chief shop steward was included. The Minister must not underestimate the workers' great respect for Alec Baird. They are 100 per cent. behind him. He showed that he could not be bought off on a previous occasion. He is an effective advocate for the men he represents. That is why my hon. Friend and I are suspicious that something fishy is up. Wallacetown is the only visible plant which Simplex General Electric has in its electrical division. It may be hiving it off. It may have some plans for it that it is not divulging. It wants to soften up resistance in advance by getting rid of the person most able to fight anything that would be detrimental to the workers.
  If the Minister knows what is up he should come clean. The management knows what is up and it should come clean. As my hon. Friend said, he, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) and I support the work force wholeheartedly. The present occupation is entirely the result of heavy handed management. I have respect for some—but not all—of the managers involved. There is no doubt that if the management has the sense to withdraw the hit list and to agree to voluntary redundancies—which would go a good way towards achieving the management's aims—the occupation would cease.
  924
  I ask the Minister and, in particular, the Secretary of State for Scotland to urge the management to think again. They have the power of Government and can influence the management. I ask them to urge the management to reconsider the matter so that the men at Wallacetown can get down to the work that they do so well. Our country needs the talent and expertise of such workers.
  3.25 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are as concerned as the hon. Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. McKelvey) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) about the additional redundancies that the company is now being forced to seek. Redundancies and job losses are always a serious matter. It is a particular matter of regret to my right hon. Friend, because the company is in his constituency of Ayr and many of the workers involved are his constituents.
  However, we are even more deeply concerned that the sit-in might put at risk investment decisions and future plans for the company. We have kept closely in touch with the situation at Wallacetown throughout the past few weeks. On 26 April, my right hon. Friend met the managing director to discuss the situation and that was just prior to the start of the sit-in. As a result of the sit-in the situation has become much more serious and we have been in frequent touch with the company during the past week to assess the position.
  Following the meeting that my right hon. Friend and I had on Tuesday with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and his colleagues, we passed their points on to the managment. Obviously it was right to do that. However, that is a far cry from interfering in the direct negotiations that are taking place between management and workers. Indeed, they can only take place between management and workers. I cannot see that the dispute will be assisted by raising the matter in the House tonight. I have no objection to responding to the points raised, but a dispute that can be settled—in any factory—only through the agreed procedures is not helped by such a debate.
  In such situations, it is easy to make judgements a; an outsider and to level criticism, but that is counterproductive. In the first place, management must be left to manage. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock will not dispute that. In the second place, negotiations must be between management and the work force and the representatives. They are the people who will have to live with the decisions that they make and they have a shared interest in achieving an outcome. For any of us to seek to interfere in that process—particularly in such a delicate situation—would be highly risky, and might be irresponsible.
  Mr. McKelvey: Of course, we accept that management has the right to manage, but it does not have the right to mismanage, particularly when unemployment in Ayrshire fluctuates between just below and just above 20 per cent. That is why we have raised this matter. We are seriously worried that this issue could develop and spread.
  Mr. Fletcher: That is all the more reason for management and unions sticking closely to agreed procedures when attempting to settle such a dispute. I cannot imagine that there is anything in the agreed procedures that requires a dispute that management and

  925
  workers are trying to settle to be raised in the House or that requires interference from Members of Parliament or Ministers at this stage. Despite our interest in the matter and our concern about the unemployment rates, the last thing that we want to do is to lecture the company or its workers on how to conduct their affairs.
  My information, incidentally, is that the procedures are not being followed and that there is a dispute about procedures in the company. If hon. Members have any influence with the workers, I hope that they will do their utmost to persuade them to stick to the negotiating procedures that have been agreed and practiced over the years. I understand that informal discussions have been taking place involving the employers Federation and full-time union officials aimed at getting proper discussions with agreed procedures under way between management and union representatives at the factory. Every effort should be bent in that direction.
  In my capacity as industry Minister in Scotland, part of my job is to see that promotional tours are undertaken and investment encouraged to come to Scotland. I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's criticism of multinational companies. In Scotland generally, we are very happy to have a number of highly successful multinational companies creating many thousands of jobs, bringing the latest technology to Scotland and providing great opportunities not just for their employees but for subcontractors and others involved in Scottish industry generally.
  Attracting investment to Ayrshire and other parts of Scotland requires the maintenance of the best possible industrial relations record. As I said earlier, the investment decisions and the future of the plant are affected by a dispute of this kind. As I think I advised hon. Members informally, until recently the Department has been involved with the company, not with a view to any takeover or any rubbing of noses into the ground because of trade union legislation. On the contrary, my Department has been involved with the company in the consideration of Government grant for an expansion project which would create more jobs. That is now on the shelf, following the sit-in.
  In my view, a sit-in is the worst kind of industrial dispute. From the point of view of bad publicity, it is worse than a strike. I know that sit-ins have become fashionable and one or two of them may have achieved some success as a result of the publicity, but I would say to any work force contemplating such action that it is easier to obtain notoriety than good publicity in such a situation. Moreover, the publicity is not confined to the dispute itself or to the company. It contaminates industrial reputations in the area and in the country generally. We all have a great interest in trying to avoid that.
  As I understand it, because proper procedures have not been followed, there is now a sit-in. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, there seems little hope of a settlement at this stage. I hope, therefore, that when he and his hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire talk about giving full support to the workers they will do so objectively, with a view not just to taking sides but to finding a solution to the dispute and to the problems faced by the workers themselves and the damage that they may do to their own
  926
  job prospects if they are not prepared to deal with the problem in the correct manner through proper negotiating machinery with the management.
  Mr. Foulkes: I assure the Minister that my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) and I are prepared to say to the workers that they should end their occupation and get back to work on the clear condition that the management withdraws not the redundancies—let it keep the redundancies, however regrettable they are in an area of high unemployment—but the hit list of compulsory redundancies. That is a simple request. If the Minister and his colleagues are willing to ask the management to do that simple thing, we in turn will ask the men to end their occupation so that they can get back to work.
  I hope that the Minister will give the assurance that I ask of him, just as we have now given the assurance that he asked of us.
  Mr. Fletcher: The information that I have about the so-called hit list is that the management has not been asked to withdraw the list of names. On the outside looking in on such disputes, hon. Members on both sides of the House must ensure that they are fully aware of all the facts and the problems. Frankly, I do not see how we can be fully aware, sitting here in Westminster. It is extremely dangerous to pass judgment on the matter, and the best thing that we can do is to urge the management and the workers to stick to the agreed negotiating procedures in trying to find a solution to their problem.
  I have already referred to the fact that the new investment about which the company talked is currently on ice because of the present position. I hope that it can be revived, but clearly it will not help the reputation of the holding company, General Electric of America, if the position is reported, as it must be because the sit-in is in its second week. That cannot be good news for investment plans, because such a large company or any other multinational always has a choice of locations for investment. We should remember also the risk that was taken with Wallacetown and the fact that it has been characterised as having a stable work force. Until this dispute, it had a strike-free record that was second to none in the United Kingdom group of companies. That is the message that we wish to get across to investors at home and abroad. I hope that this is a one-off position that will soon be resolved.
  It does not help the position not just to try to solve the problem from a distance but to indulge in kite flying or even spreading rumours about plans for a takeover or for repression of the work force and trade unions. Those were the sort of noises made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire a few moments ago. They are not justified. I have no information other than that the company wishes to pursue its business in Ayr in the best possible way and seeks the full co-operation of the work force. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock should try, like my right hon. Friend and I, to encourage management and workers to resolve the dispute. The ball is firmly in their court. They are adults and they know the problem better than hon. Members or me. The best message that we can give them tonight is that they should sit down together and resolve their differences.
  Mr. McKelvey: I assure the Minister that the information that came directly from the shop stewards' convenor and from the divisional organiser of the AUEW to us as Members of Parliament was that if the firm were to withdraw its list of names and return to negotiations on the question of redundancies—on who was to go—the dispute would be over instantly. That is the fact that will be recorded in Hansard.
  Mr. Fletcher: It can be recorded in Hansard, to which one has no objection. If it is recorded in Hansard 100 times, it is no substitute for the fact that workers and management must sit down and resolve the dispute. I hope that that will be the case first thing tomorrow morning.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Four o'clock am.

TRADE
  Roadside Advertising Services
  Roadside Advertising Services
  Laid-up Tonnage
  Laid-up Tonnage
  Mr. B. E. Calvert
  Mr. B. E. Calvert
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
SCOTLAND
  Salmon Fisheries
  Salmon Fisheries
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Law, Order and Protective Services (Expenditure)
  Law, Order and Protective Services (Expenditure)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Assaults by Pupils)
  Teachers (Assaults by Pupils)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
  Pupil-Teacher Ratio
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Departments (Sexual Harassment)
  Government Departments (Sexual Harassment)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members (Pay)
  Members (Pay)
WALES
  Plutonium Waste (Cancer)
  Plutonium Waste (Cancer)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Stations (Lay Visitors)
  Police Stations (Lay Visitors)
  Jury Panels
  Jury Panels
  Wormwood Prison (Television Film)
  Wormwood Prison (Television Film)
  Post Office Act 1969
  Post Office Act 1969
  British Citizenship
  British Citizenship
  Immigration
  Immigration
PRIME MINISTER
  Top Salaries Review Body (Report)
  Top Salaries Review Body (Report)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  European Community (Surplus Wine)
  European Community (Surplus Wine)
  Northern Wales (Radioactivity Levels)
  Northern Wales (Radioactivity Levels)
  Margarine
  Margarine
  Intervention Board (Disposal Policy)
  Intervention Board (Disposal Policy)
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Harmonisation Agreements
  Harmonisation Agreements
  Butter and Cheese
  Butter and Cheese
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Land Registry
  Land Registry
  Input Costs
  Input Costs
  European Community (Finance Council)
  European Community (Finance Council)
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
ENERGY
  Hydroelectric Generating Plants
  Hydroelectric Generating Plants
  Domestic Heating
  Domestic Heating
  North Sea Oil (Depletion Policy)
  North Sea Oil (Depletion Policy)
  Marcoule Nuclear Reactor (Leakage)
  Marcoule Nuclear Reactor (Leakage)
ENVIRONMENT
  Public Information Films (Industrial Action)
  Public Information Films (Industrial Action)
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Elderly Persons Dwellings
  Elderly Persons Dwellings
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Nature Conservancy Council
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  Architectural Competitions (Exhibitions)
  Architectural Competitions (Exhibitions)
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Priority Estates Project
  Priority Estates Project
  Greater London Council (County Hall Roof Display)
  Greater London Council (County Hall Roof Display)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Warren Spring Laboratory
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Photographic Museum (Bradford)
  Photographic Museum (Bradford)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Depo-Provera
  Depo-Provera
  Claimants (Ormskirk)
  Claimants (Ormskirk)
  National Health Service (Land Sales)
  National Health Service (Land Sales)
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Consultant Treatment (Waiting Time)
  Consultant Treatment (Waiting Time)
  Kidney Patients
  Kidney Patients
  Medical Graduates
  Medical Graduates
  St. Helens and Knowsley Community Health Council
  St. Helens and Knowsley Community Health Council
  Bust Enlargement Operations
  Bust Enlargement Operations
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Terminally Ill Patients (Staff Training)
  Terminally Ill Patients (Staff Training)
  Effective Prescribing (Report)
  Effective Prescribing (Report)
  Benefits
  Benefits
EMPLOYMENT
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Visiting Orchestras Consultative Association
  Visiting Orchestras Consultative Association
  Plymouth Engineering Training Centre
  Plymouth Engineering Training Centre
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
TRANSPORT
  British Rail (Chairman)
  British Rail (Chairman)
  London Transport
  London Transport
  Rail Closures
  Rail Closures
  British Rail Finances
  British Rail Finances
  MOTEC Livingston
  MOTEC Livingston
  British Rail (Branch Line Investment)
  British Rail (Branch Line Investment)
  British Railways Board (Asset Sales)
  British Railways Board (Asset Sales)
  New Dock, Falmouth
  New Dock, Falmouth
  Royal Docks
  Royal Docks
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Businesses (Licensing)
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Businesses (Licensing)
  Burscough Bypass
  Burscough Bypass
  Cornton and Bridge of Allan (Level Crossing)
  Cornton and Bridge of Allan (Level Crossing)
  British Railways Board (External Financing Limits)
  British Railways Board (External Financing Limits)
  Settle-Carlisle (Rail Services)
  Settle-Carlisle (Rail Services)
  Holyhead
  Holyhead
  Public Transport Grants
  Public Transport Grants
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  Road Building (Private Finance)
  Road Building (Private Finance)
  Road Resurfacing
  Road Resurfacing
  Road Damage (Severe Weather)
  Road Damage (Severe Weather)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Evasion)
  Vehicle Excise Duty (Evasion)
  British Railways Engineering Ltd.
  British Railways Engineering Ltd.
  Trunk Road Contracts
  Trunk Road Contracts
  Roads (Construction and Improvement)
  Roads (Construction and Improvement)
  "Roads, &c. England" Vote
  "Roads, &c. England" Vote
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
  Road Investment (Returns)
  Road Investment (Returns)
  Economic Research Projects
  Economic Research Projects
  Airedale Route
  Airedale Route
  Road Construction and Maintenance
  Road Construction and Maintenance
  Parking
  Parking

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

Metropolitan Police Commissioner: Appointment
Lord Gridley: 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 have any comment to make on the press report that the chairman of the GLC seeks the right to make the appointment to the post of Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, the commissioner is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen under Section 1 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1829 and the Government have no intention of altering that arrangement. I must, however, say that I deplore the remarks made by the chairman of the GLC about the recently announced appointment of Sir Kenneth Newman to succeed Sir David McNee as Metropolitan Police Commissioner next October. Sir Kenneth has a long and distinguished record of service with the police and I believe he is entitled to look to leaders of the community for their goodwill and support in the exacting task he will face.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer and recognising that it is part of the campaign by Mr. Livingstone to get control of the police, may I ask whether he would assure the House that there is no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to change the present arrangement whereby the Home Secretary is responsible for the Metropolitan area? Secondly, would my noble friend not agree that, at all times, and particularly in the present crisis, the police must be seen to be performing their duties under the law without party political interference or manipulation and that these facts should be carefully underlined?
Lord Sandys: Yes, my Lords, I am happy to give the assurance that my noble friend seeks. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has repeatedly made it clear that the Government do not intend to alter the arrangement relating to the Metropolitan Police. Successive Governments of all complexions have consistently taken the view that arrangements for London are justified by the nature of the problem of policing the capital city and seat of government, and also by the fact that the force provides a number of services on a national basis.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, while agreeing wholeheartedly with my noble friend that it would be disastrous
214
if the chairman of the Greater London Council were to be given the right to nominate the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, may I ask whether he is not also aware that it seems strange in these days that the Greater London Council is the only local authority at that level which has no statutory standing at all with the policing of its area? Is he not aware that modern thinking should encourage Ministers at the Home Office and others to work out some way whereby all the good in the present situation is kept, while we modify the present arrangements which leave the Greater London Council in an entirely different position from every other comparable authority?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, while recognising that my noble friend has considerable knowledge in this area, I should like to draw his attention to a very recent document; the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on the subject of the Brixton riots, in which he made specific reference to the appointment of the Metropolitan Commissioner. I draw my noble friend's attention to page 130 of the report and ask him to note the words of the noble and learned Lord, who says:
"In London, I do not recommend any change in the law substituting some other body from the Secretary of State as police authority ".
Then he goes on:
"I do, however, recommend that a statutory framework be developed to require local consultations between the Metropolitan Police and the community at borough or police district level".
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in that report is that there should be some element of local authority consultation in relation to the police? Is it not the case that some of his noble friends do not mind local authority domination of the police so long as it is Conservative Party domination?
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has got it quite wrong. This question referred to the appointment of the commissioner and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is making an addenda to his comments.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there is as much danger from an ultra Right-wing leader of the Greater London Council as from an ultra Left-wing leader of the Greater London Council?
Lord Sandys: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend has got it right. This is why the independence of the police authority, be it at county or metropolitan level, is the one thing which is sought.

State-Owned Corporations: Privatisation
2.40 p.m.
Lord Lee of Newton: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Jacques, may I apologise for his

215
absence and ask permission to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would now agree, having regard to the report of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, that the Opposition are justified in their criticism of the way in which Her Majesty's Government are disposing of parts of state-owned corporations; and what action they are going to take to minimise the risk of further large profits being made at the taxpayers' expense.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the report in question is a report of a committee of another place. The correct procedure, therefore, is for Her Majesty's Government to reply in another place in due course. This is the procedure we propose following. Meantime, I would only say that a primary objective in all cases has been to secure the return of the organisations in question to the private sector. That has been successfully achieved.
Lord Lee of Newton: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that the comments of the Committee form a complete indictment of the manner in which the Government are disturbing publicly-owned industries and converting them to privatisation? Could he comment at least on one of their recommendations:
"We recommend that they "—
that is, the Treasury—
"should re-examine carefully what steps could be taken in any future sales to minimise the risk of further large profits being made at the taxpayers' expense".
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the merits of the case are concerned, this was debated at length in your Lordships' House on 21st April. I am sorry if the noble Lord was not able to be present on that occasion. But a very full reply was then given by my noble friend Lord Bellwin. So far as the Question on the Order Paper is concerned, the Public Accounts Committee is a committee of another place and the Government propose following the correct procedures in this matter.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, are we to understand from the noble Lord's initial reply that privatisation is an over-riding or paramount objective of the Government quite irrespective of the terms on which it can be achieved and the net cost involved to the nation in doing so?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, may I suggest, with respect, that the noble Lord reads my reply with more care than he listened to it? We have never said that privatisation is the one and only objective. It is an important objective and it has been successfully achieved.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that privatisation is more important than competence and efficiency?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, there are many matters which need to be balanced. The noble Lord is now trying to re-open a debate on the merits of this case, which were dealt with at great length in the debate in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is it not perfectly possible to listen to a lengthy discussion, especially involving the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, and still find—because he is so stimulating—that there are other questions that one wishes to ask afterwards? One cannot limit debate by saying that the subject has already been discussed. Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord to be a little careful in inferring that people are unable to understand what is said at the time? I think his reply to my noble friend required a little consideration.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, so far as the point of the noble Baroness is concerned, I have never attempted to limit debate in your Lordships' House on any matter. Nevertheless, if your Lordships have spent a great deal of time discussing a matter it is, I suggest, perfectly legitimate to refer to the fact that it has been discussed. The precise words that I used—and this was not a long reply because I take great care not to give long replies—were,
"a primary objective in all cases".
This does not mean that it is an objective to the exclusion of all other considerations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm that it is also Government policy to dispose of those parts of state-owned corporations—and I am quoting from my noble friend's Question—which are making a profit and to leave the ones not making a profit in public hands?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper deals with a report by,
"the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee".
The noble Lord will remember from his previous membership of another place that the correct procedure is for the Government to deliver their reply to a report of the PAC in another place. This is what the Government propose doing. I am sorry if this means that the noble Lord will have to wait with some patience until that reply has been delivered.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am always patient in relation to the noble Lord and I am prepared to be so. Of course, one has to agree with what he said about the procedure in relation to another place. But in his reply he referred to the policies of the Government as adumbrated in their manifesto. Therefore, it is perfectly proper for supplementary questions to be put to him on the policies to which he referred.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord may have observed that I have replied to every supplementary question that was put. The fact that the noble Lord does not agree with the reply is not at all unprecedented.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will the noble Lord admit, on the question of time, that in this House time is

217
entirely relative and that short times sometimes seem to be very long times?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Lee of Newton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the report quoted in the question is now public property and it is quite wrong to segregate, as it were, the proceedings of this House from those of the other place? Is he further aware that, although I do not wish to quote at length, other quotes could be made showing the point I made, namely, that in fact the privatisation scheme is taking place at enormous cost to the public? Is he aware that quite a number of eminent Conservative Members of Parliament also signed that report?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, with respect, the Government's reply also will be public property.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is really two questions separated by a semi-colon. While as regards the first part of the Question the noble Lord's reply that it is for the Government to respond or reply to the Public Accounts Committee in another place was entirely right and proper, none of this excludes Members of this House from asking what action the Government are proposing to take to minimise the risk of further large profits being made at the taxpayers' expense. Nothing in any of the noble Lord's replies dealt with this point.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the second part of the noble Lord's Question arose out of the first part, and it is perfectly correct and proper, therefore, that the reply to the second part should arise out of the reply to the first part.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the noble Minister this question: when he is asked about larger profits being made at the taxpayers' expense when nationalised industries are sold off to private industries, has he in mind the sale of the Amersham company, which resulted in very large profits being made by private investors?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am very well aware of the allegations to which the noble Lord refers. They are in fact part of the substance of the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and that is why I say that the correct procedure is for the Government to reply to that report and that reply will then be available to the noble Lord.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the example of the Amersham company and the big profits it allowed private speculators to make will not be repeated in other cases?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we have said repeatedly that any lessons to be drawn from what has happened on previous occasions will be drawn.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, in connection with
218
the noble Lord's last reply, I wonder whether he recalls the words of Bernard Shaw, spoken many years ago, when he said:
"The only thing some people learn from experience is that they never learn anything from experience"?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am very well aware of that statement, and it is one which might be taken to heart in many parts of the House.

The Personal Social Services: Expenditure 1978–81
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the increases in expenditure in real terms on the personal social services in England and Wales for the years 1978–79, 1979–80 and 1980–81.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, net expenditure on the personal social services in England and Wales increased in real terms over the previous year by about 4 per cent. in 1978–79, about 4½ per cent. in 1979–80 and about 2½ per cent. in 1980–81. Budgets for 1981–82 suggest that personal social services net expenditure will be at about the same level in real terms as in 1980–81.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he explain a rather perplexing position? In view of the fact that the figures for expenditure on personal social services have risen in real terms, how is it that in some—though not all—local authorities there has had to be a cut-back in the services provided?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend is of course that the figure I gave was an average one. In a few cases local authorities have seen fit to reduce expenditure on these services because they have apprehended greater priorities elsewhere; but it is also true to say, of course, that some local authorities have increased their expenditure at rates greater than the ones I gave.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—and the noble Baroness has to some extent underlined this—that statistics do not necessarily disclose the cold facts of life? I do not agree with the noble Lord when he says that "some" authorities—indicating a very few of them—have reduced services. I should like to know from him, if not now then at some future date, what in real terms has been the reduction in personal social services in most areas due to the Government's imposition of severe restraints on local authorities? In many areas the vital social services affecting the elderly and the handicapped have been cut, and Kent is one of the worst examples of the lot.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of

219
course, right when he says that services have been reduced in a few areas, but if mathematics is correct the majority—that is to say the average from the figures that I gave—have in fact increased their total provision on these services in real terms, in accordance with the percentages that I gave in the original Answer.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will not the noble Lord come straight at some time or other and, instead of playing around with statistics and percentages, give us the actual facts of the cuts that have been imposed in the various vital services?—because it is a fact that these have been imposed and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has more or less agreed with me on the point.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not denying that services have declined in some areas, and of course the noble Lord has put his finger on a particular area where a particular service has been reduced; but the House will appreciate that local authorities have a wide range of discretion as to the order of priorities which they apply to the different services they provide in their particular area. In some areas where the total expenditure over all the services may have increased, it is still possible to see one particular service which has been reduced for probably very good local reasons.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but is it not the fact that these cuts have been actually imposed? The real trouble is the Secretary of State for the Environment and the way he has treated local authorities.
Lord Trefgarne: No my Lords; we certainly have imposed global restraints upon local authority expenditure with which the noble Lord and the House will be familiar; but of course it has been necessary to contain the very sharp rate of growth of local authority expenditure which we inherited when we came into office.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he has read the reports on research done by the Association of Directors of Social Services, where they set out very clearly the number of cuts that have taken place? I suspect that the noble Lord has not read them: otherwise he would not use the word "few".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to confess to your Lordships that, having only recently come into my present responsibilities, I have not yet been able to catch up with all the reading that I should have done but I hope to do so before too long. The fact is that some local authorities, for perfectly proper political reasons, draw attention to certain cuts that they have had to make, but they sometimes fail to mention the growth in other areas.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that the figures relating to a particular service have no relevance, since, in the nature of the financial relationship between central and local government, the local authority is free to spend money not on the service for which it was intended to be allocated?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would not agree that any particular figure has no relevance. It certainly does have relevance in the context in which the figure is prepared, but it is true to say that figures can sometimes be used for purposes other than those for which they were intended.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that, whatever the situation, cuts or increases, it would be right to emphasise the very good work done by those who work in the social services and who sometimes suffer from adverse comments?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would certainly endorse what my noble friend says. The work that is carried on by people working in these services is, in almost every case, exemplary.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think it might be helpful if, with the leave of the House, I could say a word about the two debates this afternoon standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. As your Lordships are aware, the House has already agreed that these two debates should be under the short debate rules, limiting each to 2½ hours.
It is a generally accepted practice on these shorter debates that the mover should be entitled to approximately 15 minutes if he wants it, that the Minister should rise to reply not later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, and that the winder-up from the Opposition Front Bench should have a slightly more generous share than the rest. If my arithmetic is correct, par for each of these two courses is something of the order of nine minutes.

World Population
3 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek Lord Davies of Leek rose to call attention to the problem of world population growth and the need for development policies to include national population programmes aiming at a proper balance between population and resources and making family planning freely available, and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate. I notice, also, with gratitude that pretty well 15 people have put down their names to speak. There is expertise behind me, and among other noble Lords who are to speak, and each one of us could speak at length. But since the Chief Whip has given us that caveat, I shall endeavour not to exceed 12 to 15 minutes, despite the fact that I am opening the debate. I shall endeavour to do that, because I am fully aware that, if I omit something, there are so many experts who will speak after me that they will probably dot the i's and cross the t's which I may have forgotten to do in the brief time that I take to introduce the debate.
What am I going to talk about in moving this Motion? I want, first, to show what is the impact of

221
population growth upon the world's resources and the limits of those resources. I want to show the pressure on individual human beings and the psychosomatic effect of the terrific increase in the world's population on our overcrowded cities. Most noble Members of this House have visited many parts of the world and today, in all the simple things of life that are being destroyed, the psychosomatic effect of over-population is evident. I shall ask the Government a question or two on overseas aid expenditure. Also, I believe that we have to face the phrase "family planning", and not sneakily think that it is a dirty one. Family planning will be needed if we want civilisation to succeed in the future. Time permitting, I shall mention in passing a sentence or two of the famous Ottawa Declaration on the problem of world population. Having said that, I had better get on to the main parts of my speech.
The interest that we all have is due to the impact. All kinds of figures are given, which are all near the truth, and the facts are more or less obvious. The current world population is around 4 billion people. By the end of this century, there will be between 6 billion and 7 billion people who will be parading around and living on this beautiful old world of ours. Thirty-five out of every 100 in the world today are under 15 years of age; in the less developed parts, which most of us here have visited, 39 out of every 100 are under 15 years of age; and in Africa, one of the continents with the highest population growth, 45 out of every 100 are under 15 years of age.
In passing, I want to utter a little warning. When we talk of over-population, we tend to forget the old and those who have served society for even more than three score years and 10. So we should also consider the help that is needed by the aged, and there is a famous organisation which works specifically in this area of population problems; namely, Help the Aged. They point out to me that, by the year 2000, there will be nearly 600 million people in this world who are over 60 years of age. They will be presenting a world charter on ageing to the United Nations World Assembly in 1982. I wish that I had time to deal with that in depth. Nevertheless, it is a question which has to be looked into.
Every noble Member of this House, being an acute citizen of this little old country, knows of the Brandt Report and the present staggering growth of world population which is therein pointed out. The report calls it one of the strongest forces shaping the future of human society. Because of the young age structure in less developed countries, the decline in fertility, which has already started, will make little difference to the numbers on this earth by the end of the century. In 1981, 125 million babies were born, 50 million died and humanity increased by 75 million people. When I have spent one minute speaking to your Lordships, 142 more children will have been born.
Many facts and figures are given in the National Policy on Population. Time will not permit me to quote from it, but to most noble Lords who are joining in this debate those facts are well known. It took 35 years for the worlds' population to rise from 2 billion to 4 billion, and the next 2 billion are likely to be added in the next 25 years. Can the world stand this? Can we cultivate the necessary food and educate people,
222
as well as give them a good standard of life? These are problems of world population. Mortality is declining, while current fertility is high. The marriage age in developing countries is still low, populations are young and the number of women who are in, or are about to enter, the child-bearing years is growing rapidly. All these factors combine with the improvements in hygiene and medicine which tend to increase the population.
Consequently, to sum up, while rapid economic growth helps to slow down population growth, the availability of family planning services is also important. Effective family planning programmes both convey the message that family size is a matter of choice, and provide the means to make the choice effective. I think that it is the bounden duty of mankind to make a choice on the size of family. There is now widespread agreement—in churches as well—that appropriate forms of social and economic change and the diffusion of the means of birth control are necessary to reduce fertility.
Many valuable human development-related initiatives such as bio-medical research on reproduction, contraceptive development and health and family planning projects, lack support. For example, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities is making, a change in its approach which I fail to understand. Probably all of your Lordships know that that fund is cutting its family planning assistance to India—the world's second most populous country—because of China's needs. Is this an indivious choice? Like most noble Lords here, I have been to both of those countries, and some of us have been there several times. But both nations need that assistance and, at the moment, the Chinese seem to be practising family planning more than those in India.
According to the report Global 2000, which was presented to President Carter, the world in the year 2000 will be different from what it is today. I do not want to exaggerate what it said and we may question it. But four-fifths of the world's population will live in the less developed countries and they will have lower standards of life. I could qualify that in depth, but time does not allow that. Therefore, let me pick out a sentence that is vibrating with life; namely, that
"population growth will be 40 per cent. higher in 2000 than in 1975."
That sentence will have to cover a whole lot of boring statistics, which would stop noble Lords from listening to me if I quoted them.
Let me now take the limits of resources which will occupy three or four minutes. We have a finite world, with a population that is elastic. The impact of population growth on our finite world can be seen in three important areas: in fish, grasslands and forests. The biological underpinning of our world economy is often overlooked when we are studying population problems. Lester Brown, the President of the World Watch Institute in Washington, points this out in his book, from which I will now not quote. It is entitled Building a Sustainable Society and it is available in your Lordships' Library. To take the three items—forests, fish and grasslands—in 1950, one-quarter of the earth's land surface was covered by forest. By 1980, this had dwindled to less than one-fifth. I gather that each week an area equal to almost

223
the whole of Wales is cut down for timber and for printing newspapers which are often not worth being printed.
The waste by mankind is absolutely forbidding. Each year this earth's inhabitants—all of whom are users of wood products in one form or another—increase by the equivalent of the population of Mexico and Central America, combined, and each year the afforested area of the world shrinks by an area the size of Hungary. That is another figure of speech for noble Lords to pick up. By 1964, the world production of wood had expanded more rapidly than the population, but after 1964 population outstripped timber production, which led to a decline of one-tenth in the supply of wood all over the world.
I turn now to fish. In many parts of the world the fish catch grew from 21 million tonnes in 1950 to 74·5 million tonnes in 1979. Today, overfishing has become the rule, not the exception, in oceanic fisheries. The critical point in the world fish catch was reached in 1970 when the world population reached 3·6 billion. Since then, the fish catch per person has fallen by 13 per cent., or over 1 per cent. per year.
Finally, the grasslands support ruminants—cattle, sheep and goats—which play an important part in the world's food economy. They are equipped to digest the roughage and to convert it into food that we can eat: milk, meat, cheese and butter, and to provide fuel, fertilisers and industrial materials. Believe me, my Lords, with this rapid, uncontrolled increase in population, the things which we cherish, the philosophies which we love, the music and the poetry of life, will be destroyed unless an intelligent, human approach is made to overcome the problem.
The clock shows 13 minutes. I shall take two more. The effect of population pressure, Lester Brown showed in his books, means that the labour force in the less developed parts of the world will probably reach 780 million by the year 2000. Work has got to be found for these people. I come now to my final piece—I shall skip the other pages—in this short introduction. What I call the psychosomatic effect is shown by vandalism in the great cities of the world. I find it terrifying—it is a Welsh exaggeration but I use it—when I see what can happen to inner cities because of the destruction taking place by vandalism. I find that to be the case in all the great cities of the world and I believe that we are paying too big a price for this conglomerate which we call cities. Some countries have tried to keep down their city populations. We are failing. I think—I am now on my last sentence—that it is important in a noble House like this, including men of all kinds of abilities from all parts of life (I am not making a party speech today), to say that it is important for this country to take a lead in trying to do something about population the world throughout. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers. Fifteen minutes exactly!
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, after that panoramic view of the problem which has been put before us by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I wish, if I may—boringly, perhaps—to concentrate on one or
224
two narrow but quite important points. From the figures which the noble Lord has given us, may I pick out one which perhaps crystallises the case. Every day world population increases to the extent of 200,000 persons. The noble Lord did his arithmetic. I will do mine. If I stick to my 10 minutes as well as the noble Lord stuck to his 15, over 1,300 people will have been added to the size of the globe between the time I got up and the time that I sit down.
The problem, and its implications, is so horrific that we tend to brush it away, not wishing to think about it and all its implications. We comfort ourselves with the thought that Malthus got it wrong so far as this country is concerned and that therefore we can say, comfortably, that in other countries, as they develop, their population will decline as prosperity rises—on the assumption of course that prosperity will rise. Even if it does, it does not prove that because Malthus got it wrong for this country he will get it wrong for other countries. There are many other forces at work which might mean that in these instances Malthus may prove to be right. So there is no comfort to be found there. If we had longer, the wider implications of this problem would take us very far—would take us most certainly to the Brandt Report and to a range of economic and social policies. But I do not wish to go into that field today. There is not time. There are other matters to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention, and particularly the attention of the Government.
I must declare an interest at this point. I am a trustee of an organisation called Population Services which concentrates on family planning and which has developed a number of initiatives in developing countries. It is I think the only voluntary organisation in this country which is working on family planning clinics in developing countries. So I speak with the experience and the interest of that organisation very much in mind.
The point I want to put to your Lordships' House and to the Government is this. Surely when considering aid to developing countries (to which we are, after all, committed—some of us think we should be more committed than we are but we have a commitment to aid) and the way in which aid should be distributed, contributions to efforts for family planning and the control of population should rank very high indeed in the allocation of resources for aid to developing countries. Of course—this is certainly the policy of the organisation with which I am connected—we should give aid for family planning only when countries have asked for it. It would be intolerable for us to force family planning provisions on to countries which do not want them. But there is abundant evidence that there are far more countries seeking aid than there are resources to meet the requests for aid. So that objection need not effectively be raised.
What I am asking your Lordships' House to do is to reverse the tendency to put resources for population control at the end of the list for expenditure on aid and to give it a priority position when we are distributing resources in developing countries. There are surely a number of reasons for doing this, both economic and social reasons. It must be the greatest possible discouragement and disincentive to economic effort in developing countries to find, again and again, that as

225
their productivity increases, as they have with difficulty made changes in their production methods, and as they have found resources for investment, so do those increases get swallowed up by the extreme increases in population, which overtake the increases in productivity. That must be a disincentive to the kind of effort without which these developing countries can never really reach the standard of living which we all wish to see for them.
Secondly, it must make a tremendous difference to individuals in respect of their ability to make a contribution to the economic development of their countries—individuals who are struggling with excessively large families and weighed down by the sheer difficulty of keeping to anything recognisable as a subsistence level. What effort can such people really put in to the development of their countries in an economic sense? So, if we are helping with population control, we are also helping indirectly with economic development. Thirdly, for countless women in the developing countries, what does must this mean? If we do not have population control and voluntary family planning in these countries, thousands and thousands of women will have the stark choice between amateur abortion on the one hand or a lifetime of pregnancies on the other. If there was no other reason for pushing family planning provisions to the very head of the queue for aid, that by itself would be sufficient.
Do the Government accept that the need for provisions for population control should be a primary purpose of aid to developing countries? Will they give a commitment to that in general terms? If so, what will they do to reverse the trend to reduce the proportion of aid that has been going towards population control, from 1 per cent. of overseas aid in 1980 to only ·75 per cent. in 1981? Also, what is the total amount which the Government are prepared to see devoted to these purposes? Finally, with regard to the ODA joint funding scheme with non-governmental organisations, which involves voluntary organisations working in this field, is it or is it not true that the money available through this scheme has been exhausted for the year 1982–83? I do not pretend that this is a matter of particular concern to the organisations with which I am connected, but, if this work is to go ahead, such organisations do need to know where they stand financially, and it is being said that these resources are drying up.
3.23 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I am sure that I share the general feeling of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for initiating this debate on such an important subject, which has so many aspects which concern us greatly and which perhaps concern us in a different way from the developing world but are still of vital importance to us, and are problems that we cannot afford to brush away. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, referred
to the need for family planning and I would wholeheartedly support him in that. I would also support the plea made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for increased aid for family planning. My concern is that family planning should be on the right basis. My aim in taking part in this debate is to urge that in matters of population control and family planning the encour-
226
agement of a responsible attitude to sex. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and to see what can go wrong we have to look at what is happening in our own country.
For example, in the case of sex education the Minister for schools the other day rightly drew attention of the other place to certain highly irresponsible books which are to be found in our schools—books which have been recommended for use in schools by the Health Education Council. I have read one of them, called Make It Happy. Its attitude to sex is that anything goes provided that you enjoy it and provided that you take the right precautions. Such an approach inflicts great harm by playing with people's emotions at the deepest level. It is not just a question of taking precautions.
Contraception, while having a valuable role in married life and in population control, is not the all-embracing answer. It is, for example, disturbing that in our own country, again, children under the age of 16 should be prescribed contraceptives without the knowledge of their parents. I was sorry to see that this policy was reported in the Daily Mail on 1st May as being given conditional endorsement by the new Minister of Health.
Still on the subject of safeguards, what we have to guard against at all costs is the idea that abortion is any part of population control or family planning. It might seem unnecessary to say this, but unfortunately some people involved in these fields—only some, of course—do think that this is so. An example of what can go wrong and what can happen if a sense of proportion is lost is seen in the proposals made way back in 1969 by the President of the International Planned Parenthood Federation for reducing fertility in the United States. These proposals included abortion on demand, payments actually to encourage abortion, and the compulsory abortion of out of wedlock pregnancies. While this is obviously an extreme attitude, it is worth noting that IPPF's own publication, IPPF News, reports the federation's interest in legislative changes on matters of abortion and that in this country, despite the requirements of the 1967 Act, it is clear that some abortions are carried out for which there is no medical reason.
I believe that the Christian approach to abortion is that life comes from God the Father, God the Creator, and that for men to intervene in what is His prerogative is to take on a very grave responsibility for which account will have to be given in due course. It cannot be said often enough that sex education should encourage responsible attitudes and prepare men and women for parenthood. It was disappointing therefore to read in the Daily Telegraph on 22nd April that the Health Education Council, again, had rejected books on sex education published by the Responsible Society and by the Order of Christian Unity. These books advocate chastity outside marriage and a responsible attitude to sex. It is to be hoped that the Government will urge the Health Education Council to revise its list of books approved for sex education in schools without delay.
My Lords, by all means let us support and encourage the provision of family planning as part of population control. However, let us be on the watch for any extension or distortion of family planning that en-

227
courages dehumanising immorality and which works against the family. Let education in this field encourage responsibility and a respect for the value of human life.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if I may say so, I do not think that the warnings given by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, are relevant to the problem of over-population in many countries of the world. Certainly they are not as relevant there as they may be to the alleged evils of Western civilisation.
There are two reminders that we ought to have in mind as a background to this debate. One is that this is Christian Aid Week. This week we are reading in the newspapers appeals for money and support resting on widespread poverty, sickness and malnutrition in families throughout the world. Also this week there is a conference in Nairobi of the United Nations Environmental Programme, where 100 nations are gathered to consider the ecological problems of the world, which they last did at a conference in Stockholm 10 years ago. The President of Kenya, who opened the conference, and Dr. Tolba, the Director, gave the world the gravest warnings about ecological disaster looming ahead unless Governments act now. We all know the underlying cause of these gloomy predictions.
I have long maintained that to have an economic policy without a population policy is a mistake. It is what we have in this country, and although I think it is harmful in its consequences it is not yet disastrous. But in some countries it can be disastrous. Of course, for a Government to have an economic policy is common form throughout the world. Political parties put it in their manifestoes; authoritarian Governments put it in their five-year plans, and so on. But a population policy is more difficult to formulate, and in some countries is almost impossible to apply. There are many obstacles. I mention a few; ignorance, squalor, lack of communications, lack of technical services, to mention only four. But I do not think we should overlook another, which is religion.
Religious beliefs, doctrine and teaching, are never far away when discussing birth control, and birth control is what we have in mind when talking about population control. Of course it is; it is bound to be. In this context we cannot ignore the moral conflict between right and wrong which surrounds family planning and advocates of population control in every Roman Catholic community in the world. Wherever artificial contraception is condemned as sinful there are obvious difficulties in the way of family limitation and population control. The extent and consequences of this factor are rarely open to investigation and discussion. Take, for example, the Catholic or the Vatican contention that economic, social and political injustices are the cause of poverty and starvation in today's world. That is, unfortunately, valid enough, at least up to a point—an advanced point. But it is not enough, I suggest, to call for a reorientation of the world order, because it will not be brought about in time.
The horrifying fact is that some 10 million human beings enter this world every year without the slightest possibility of a good life or of achieving the human
228
dignity or the human rights which Pope John Paul so rightly proclaims. His strong and repeated condemnation of contraceptives means that more mothers are likely to have more children that they do not want, and that they will not be able to look after properly. This in turn will mean that living standards for whole communities or even nation states may continue to be deplorably low.
This is a matter of deep regret—that the literally crying need for a strict and effective programme of family limitation appears not to be recognised by the Roman Catholic Church. If they could change their position on this and join with other religious leaders in facing the grim realities of the modern world, there would be more hope for mankind. As the New York Times, said on 14th July 1980, after Pope John Paul's visit to Brazil:
"The world would profit if John Paul would find the words that harmonise old doctrines with new and desperate needs."
But he did not find those words, not even three and a half months later as the Synod of the Bishops ended, at which we understand he was under considerable pressure to do so. Nor has he found them since. That is the great pity of the matter.
It is fortunate for the world that religion is not an obstacle to population control in China. The Chinese Government are trying to introduce on a vast scale the first one-child family state, with the limitation of population which they hope will keep within 1·2 billion in the 21st century. China is the most populous country in the world, and if they can achieve that it is a most hopeful sign of what might be acomplished elsewhere. There is a bonus, too, in Mexico where a state family planning service has been introduced, almost under the very nose of the Catholic Church. It will be a grave mistake if we listen in silence to a good man giving bad advice.
In an article by Conor Cruise O'Brien in the Observer on 14th October 1979, he spoke of his own experience of the power of love in a Catholic community. He wrote:
"All the more need then for that power to be brought to bear on the world's suffering".
I will not quote the end of that article, because he used some very harsh words indeed about the attitude of the Catholic Church. I ask, when shall we hear from Pope John Paul what enlightened and compassionate opinion throughout the world is earnestly waiting for?
3.37 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, it is not necessary to repeat the figures to prove that the world population is increasing, but increasing it is. But I think it is useful to repeat the problem of the resources. There is likely to be a 50 per cent. increase in the population in the next 20 or 30 years, and the income disparity between North and South is going to increase rather than decrease. In 1970 there were approximately 2·6 people getting their living off each hectare of the world's cultivable surface. By the year 2000 it will need to be four people for each hectare. The fishing is being over-fished already and there is little increase likely to come in the harvest. The energy will be scarcer and there will be no relief from the energy problem. Water itself will be an increasing problem to the larger population. Pollution will become a very

229
much greater problem, particularly in some of the less developed countries where it is not being taken seriously at the moment.
There will be an ever-increasing demand for land, which, taken with the demand for timber, is forcing forestry down at the rates we have heard. My own particular simile is that the equivalent of half of California is being taken down every year. By the year 2020 all accessible forestry will have been felled. The price will be rising and this will particularly hit the third world, which of course uses wood for fuel. There is a grave danger that the lack of forestry will destabilise the soil, the temperatures, the rainfalls, the nutrients, of all the countries where the forestry is taken down, and particularly of course Africa and South America, and large areas of presently fertile land will become barren.
In addition to this, there is a very real threat, which is not understood, of the liability of the increase of carbon dioxide, which will create the greenhouse effect which we have all heard about, which again could create catastrophic results. It is estimated that the result of a very high population will also lead to the extinction of many thousands of animals and plants. The scarcity of land in the underdeveloped countries will also lead to migration which will destabilise the developed countries.
However, all is not bad because fertility is supposed to be decreasing. While the population will certainly rise to the year 2000, thereafter it could stabilise. Education has been a very large factor in this regard as well as in respect of encouraging later marriages and the understanding of family planning methods. Also, the provision of better food and better health and other services has led to the view that children will have a better chance of survival and that, therefore, it is not necessary to have so many children as has been the tradition in the past.
But where there is gross inequality and gross poverty then a high increase in population must be expected. Those countries where there is a very great increase, will increasingly experience problems as regards jobs, health and food in catering for the large numbers of young people of disproportionate age groups. The cost of urbanisation in some of the African countries will also become a severe factor. Longevity, which is a factor at the moment and which will account for the increase to the year 2000, will be another factor which will mean that there will be more people to be supported by a smaller working age group.
What can be done? There was an extremely good report from the Parliamentary Conference of July 1981 in Nairobi. That highlighted the problems and made some very good recommendations, and we should do what we can as a country to support those recommendations. Many countries are tackling the problem and we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, about China. I think one could say that China has, in crude figures, a rate of population of 234 people per square mile. China has a quarter of the population of the whole world. I know one English lady who had three children but would not have a fourth because she had heard that every fourth child was a Chinaman! If the Chinese are worried with their 234 people per square mile, how worried should we be with our 594 people per square mile—well over
230
double? I find it difficult to believe those figures, but I have taken them from The Times Atlas.
Most families in Britain are controlled. We are not a country which has big families. However, just like in the third world where the large families occur in the less-educated and poorer countries, so in the United Kingdom the increase comes from the poorer socio-economic groups. The less educated the parents in this country, in many cases the more children they have. Those who have sat as magistrates will well know that, of the young lads and children who come before the courts, many of them are from families of 10 children, or whatever the number may be. They started life with hardly a chance of staying out of the courts and they have a very difficult time. Indeed, it is difficult to educate them because so many of the less educated families find it difficult to educate themselves. That results in the crowding of schools and the worst conditions in this country.
We have all read about the problems in our crowded schools. Many of these children probably grow up with little education and they in turn have large families. It is these groups—and I think that we have all come across them in our home towns—who probably live on the dole and have to be supported by a smaller proportion of people who are working and who are well-educated with reasonably sized families. That leads to overcrowding in the poorest areas and like the noble Lord who opened the debate, I am sure that it is responsible for many of the riots and muggings in the poorer areas.
Society is blamed, but society does provide schools, hospitals, houses and services of that kind, yet they are not made full use of. However, just as in the third world countries, they will become increasingly difficult to provide in this country. We need a population policy in our country just as we need a world population policy. If we are to try and keep down large families or reduce the number of big families, then it must be recognised that here is a thorny problem and one that is difficult to put across without being objectionable. However, it must be faced.
We should give more publicity to contraceptives and to family planning policies, and we should try particularly to help those who are in need—for example, those wives who are least able to sort out the problem themselves. We ought also to try to encourage more sterilisation, particularly for those people who are probably least capable of managing their own families. Education is certainly the main factor that seems to have succeeded in other countries. We must decide on our desired rate of growth and aim for that rate. We must also understand the problems of zero growth because that itself has problems; for example, there would be a situation of disproportionate ages, with few people in work looking after a great many others who are retired. Unless we deal with population growth there will be much greater crowding in our cities; there will be much greater pressure, much greater crime, for example, riots and mugging—indeed, there will be an increase of everything that we want to do away with.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I have been making speeches in your Lordships' House on the subject of population

231
for the last 10 years. The first occasion was in 1972, when I introduced a short debate suggesting that there should be a population policy for the United Kingdom; and the last occasion was in the debate on the Brandt Report last month.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I should begin by declaring an interest, because I am chairman of the trustees of the Birth Control Trust, and I am also a member of the executive committee of Population Concern. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for giving us this opportunity of discussing the situation yet again this afternoon. I often wonder why it is that those of us who think as I do have such difficulty in persuading others—and by "others" I mean successive Governments and the media—of what to us is crystal clear: that is, that the exceptionally fast rate of population growth in the world since 1945, which is continuing at an ever faster rate, diminishes the quality of life for all of us living on this planet. That is the important point that I want to stress. It is not just a question of whether we can feed the 12 billion to 15 billion people forecast for the middle of the next century—perhaps we can, I do not know. But the point is, what sort of a life will those 12 billion to 15 billion people have, knowing that so many of the 4½ billion today live in such abject poverty? If one raises these matters one is so often criticised as being a doomwatcher, or what have you.
In the last debate the noble Lord, Lord Soper—who is not here today—described my remarks as "apocalyptic". One is told that human ingenuity will find a way of solving these problems; that it is merely a question of improving the standard of living in these countries and, sure as sure, their birthrate will fall. One is told that the theory of Malthus was disproved in the last century by the prosperity flowing from the Industrial Revolution, which enabled Western countries to absorb the huge increase in the population of that period, and that it will be disproved again with development in the third world. I wonder.
The situation in the third world today is very different from the situation confronting the Western nations at the beginning of the 19th century, and there are also no spare continents available on which the surplus population can be put. No, these countries must come to terms with reality and persuade their people, by one means or another, to limit the size of their families. This should go hand in hand with a programme of economic development and education, and particularly education of women. We in this country can only encourage them and help them. The question is: are we doing enough?
In the course of a short speech I should like to suggest a five-point programme of what additional steps the Government might take. First, no development aid of any kind should go to countries unless they have vigorous and effective family planning programmes, otherwise the aid is wasted. Secondly, we should increase the present 1 per cent. of overseas aid devoted to family planning to 2 per cent., and even a doubling of our aid in the family planning field would still not be a very generous proportion. Thirdly, we should reestablish and strengthen the Population Bureau, which was set up to advise our own Governments and foreign Governments and to do research into population prob-
232
lems, and which the present Government have not exactly destroyed but have absorbed into the ODA. Inevitably, that leads to a diminution of the importance which we, as a nation, attach to population matters, and, incidently, it is in contradiction to what Sir Ian Gilmour, the Lord Privy Seal, said in, I think, 1981.
Fourthly—and in some ways I think that this is the most important—through the educational system we should make our own young people aware of the damage which is done by excessive population growth and of the importance of limiting the size of families. Lastly, we should take a close look at our own population level in the United Kingdom in the light of our changed economic circumstances since the last century. What a marvellous thing it would be if we in this country, with—as the noble Lord who preceded me said—one of the highest population densities in the world, set an example to the rest of the world by actually reducing our populaton from its present relative level of stability.
In the last 20 years a series of scientists and laymen of different kinds have warned of the very real dangers involved for our planet if the present indiscriminate and growing rate of population increase continues. I simply do not accept that the people who give these warnings are doomwatchers. They are asking world leaders to look ahead to the next century and to exercise a reasonable amount of prudence and foresight, and that is what I am asking the Government to do this afternoon.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Noel-Baker: My Lords, I offer an apology that I shall be obliged to leave the debate before the end in order to attend an emergency meeting on the danger of war in the South Atlantic. I should like, respectfully, to support what the noble Lord who has just sat down proposed about our rate of aid. I wish, indeed, that his proposal could be adopted and that our economic aid for the development of the backward countries could be raised to 2 per cent. of our GNP. It would not be more than the generosity and the riches of the British people would justify.
Statistics have been offered about population; I offer only one statistical fact which illustrates the main point that I want to make. In 1900 there were 11 cities in the world with a population of more than one million; in 1985 there will be 173. Population has increased and is increasing at an alarming rate, and the population is being urbanised at an even more alarming rate. The people are not growing their own food on their own land. Far too many of them are congregating in towns where they will find it extremely difficult to find useful employment. That means that the problem of hunger will undoubtedly confront our descendants within a fairly early future, and long-term planning by all Governments for the increase of food resources, farming of the seas, the expansion of agricultural land, the improvement of farming methods, and all the other measures that can be taken to increase long-term food supplies, should now be under the most urgent study.
But I want particularly to draw your Lordships' attention to the problem of starvation and poverty which we have today. It is not generally realised by the people in the affluent countries that the poverty of the

233
developing countries is a very grave scandal to mankind. There are at least 2,000 million people who have no adequate shelter, who live in mud huts or shanty towns. There are hundreds of millions who are victims of preventable disease every year—malaria, trachoma, yaws, leprosy—diseases which we used to have and which we have forgotten, diseases where there is no clinical problem but where it is merely a matter of resources. The resources are not provided, with the consequent burden of human suffering and economic loss on a great scale.
There is the problem of the people who cannot read or write. The worst form of poverty, poverty of the
mind, which closes the path to economic, social, political, cultural progress of any kind. There are 1,200 million people and 400 million schoolchildren for whom there are no schools. There are a great number of people who are on the verge of starvation. It is estimated that 800 million people never have a solid meal from the cradle to the grave. This is a scandal which should be dealt with.
It was put in its proper proportion and first considered by Governments in a paper which I have called the greatest paper in human history; the final document of the first special session of the General Assembly of the United Nations devoted to disarmament in 1978. That document pointed out that more than half, perhaps two-thirds of the human race suffered the poverty of which I have spoken. They point out that 500,000 million dollars a year are spent on armaments, and 149 Governments in that special session pledged themselves to the policy that the nations of the world must carry through a treaty of disarmament. Disarmament, general and complete, down to the level at which no Government keeps more armaments or forces than it needs to maintain internal order and to make a manpower contribution to a United Nations peace force.
The document pointed out that the expenditure on arms would enable the problem of poverty to be dealt with if the wealth were reallocated away from destruction to human development instead. I am hoping that our Government will take the lead in the second special session of the General Assembly which meets in New York in two or three weeks' time. I am hoping that our Government will take the lead in putting forward a plan for a world treaty of disarmament which will demilitarise the society of nations; which will transform that society from warfare to welfare, and that our Government will propose that the wealth now given to armaments shall be given instead to improving the lot of the countless millions who are suffering the poverty which I have described.
4.3 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for introducing this important Motion in his usual robust way. In my view, there can never he too much discussion about these problems. I find the statistics that we have heard today, especially recently from the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, rather mind-numbing. I was looking at the debate in 1979, in which I spoke, about population and development prior to the Columbo Conference to see whether things had improved since then. I feel slightly more optimistic, at least in that
234
broadly ground has not been lost, though perhaps not much has been gained. In this field standing still is something of an achievement. That is the measure of the problem.
May I give the example of India, which has had selective pockets of success. As I understand it food production and resources have increased, but relatively so has the population. The awful dimensions of the problem are still there, but it has been prevented from becoming a worse problem. One of the main difficulties, particularly for politicians dealing with this subject, is the long delay between cause and effect. If the actions of today do not present problems until 10 or 15 years later, politicians find them easy to ignore. I would hope that especially in this House we should be able to focus more readily on the longer-term problems presented by the pressures of population.
As well as endorsing the various practical and financial appeals made today to the Government for the devoting of a higher proportion of aid to population programmes, I would emphasise the enormous amount of persuasion of minds and beliefs that is also required. There are indeed moral problems in trying to influence other countries to new attitudes, but we also know that people of many countries would willingly take up any increased help on population programmes that we could give.
If I may generalise, the World Fertility Survey has found that among women who want no more children, half are typically unprotected. As a member of the British Parliamentary Group on Population and Development one gets sent the excellent quarterly magazine, People. When one reads the articles on different problems and successes of various countries, one cannot help being aware of the enormous complexity and diversity of the problems facing them. One realises the considerable sensitivity and understanding needed to make any impact on the diverse needs of less developed nations. There are no simple answers.
The magazine, People, is very much part of the collective progress that is being made in changing people's minds and prejudices, and in spreading a high level of knowledge on this subject throughout the world. The magazine is part of the excellent work of the IPPF—the International Planned Parenthood Federation. I hope that the Government will continue to support their work fully and whole-heartedly in the future, and also that they will safeguard their contribution to other international bodies. Finally, I hope that the Government will respond positively to the suggestions that have been made in this debate.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, I have had the opportunity, the privilege, of working for 20 years or so in, or for, the United Nations. During that time there have been three main international enterprises to which the effort, the time, and the determination of the United Nations as a whole have been given. The first was the question of economic development and the search for a fairer balance of the resources of the world between rich and poor. The second was the long effort to arrive at a better provision regarding the wealth of the seas; to make the wealth of the seas the common heritage of all mankind. The third was

235
the effort to adopt an international policy on questions of population.
It is indeed sad, if it is not shameful, that the first two enterprises have come to grief for lack of support from the Western world, particularly from the United States but also from our own country, and that the present Government reduced the contribution to the development fund of the United Nations as one of their first acts from £28 million to £15 million. When it came to the almost unanimous report on the Law of the Seas, the United States decided to oppose and the United Kingdom to abstain. The work of nearly 20 years on those two main international purposes has been set aside.
I am glad to say that in relation to population growth the effort is not over. However, there has been a further reduction in our contribution, from nearly £5 million a year—not a particularly high contribution in a matter of such enormous consequence—to about £2½ million. But even at that rate, which I regard as a somewhat miserly contribution to a world effort of that kind, the work continues, and it is encouraging to be able to report that in the past 10 to 15 years there has been considerable progress. Twelve developing nations came to the United Nations and demanded that their population problem should be tackled—that they were not content with the UN decision at that time that nothing should be done—and I am glad to say that following the demand by those 12 nations for action from the United Nations in 1966, they got action.
What has been achieved under the leadership of Raphael Salas, head of the United Nation's Fund for Population Activities, in the past 10 to 15 years is something of which the world can be proud, with the response of one country after another, each with its own problems. I will mention only a few of those countries. One has been Mexico, and I was reading only yesterday of Indonesia rallying urgently to the support of the United Nations enterprise. They have plenty to worry about in Egypt at this time, not least the fact that their population increases by about 1 million a year, and that, in relation to the economic troubles of Egypt, is a terribly large figure. When years ago, I was in the island of Jamaica, we thought, having discovered bauxite then at last we had the opportunity for economic advancement, but the population of Jamaica has doubled since I left, and that is creating problems in the island and it is difficult to see how they can be solved. One country after another, be it Bangladesh or Sri Lanka, has made a great contribution.
It is worth noting that the smaller territories have often done the best, no doubt because they find it easier to communicate; in a country like Bangladesh it is difficult to communicate with people compared with, say, Sri Lanka, where they have had a marked success in their efforts in this sphere. We look round the world and see there has been a rallying to international leadership in this matter, with one country after another saying to the United Nations, "Give us the best advice and leadership in the world and we shall be glad to take it, and with it we shall go forward". The time has come, therefore, when this country, instead of reducing our contribution to such a main cause, should be prepared to consider a substantial increase.
236
The purpose we have in mind is that of giving freedom to the individual, of making a family a blessing instead of a burden, by creating a situation in which people have some hope of going forward to economic independence; and it is admirable that my noble friend Lord Davies should have given us this opportunity to look at the problem, welcoming the fact that we have continued to make our small contribution to this international effort and hoping that we can now take a lead in the enterprise, even if we are failing shamefully in others.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Davies, to whom we are grateful for initiating the debate, and others have provided a number of statistics on population and the degree of poverty in the world. As a result, I need not, with the exception of a few additional points, go deeply into those matters. We must never lose sight of the fact that one-fifth of the world's population is today under-nourished and very hungry. We must also keep in mind that the estimated increase in population over the next 25 years is as great as was the whole population of the world in the early part of this century. That shows the degree of the population increase.
The increase of population in the less developed regions is nearly three times that of the developed countries. The highest average annual rate of increase of any region occurs in Africa, where it was 2·1 per cent. in 1950 but 2·9 per cent. in 1980, and it is estimated to grow by 3 per cent. annually until the end of this century. A report from the Food and Agriculture Organisation covering 1970 to 1978 showed that food production in 1978 in the developing countries grew more slowly than did their rates of population increase.
It is encouraging to note developments in the population limitation sphere; that some 35 developing countries in the third world have officially adopted family planning programmes. But I understand that the United Nations Fund for Population Activities is able to meet only two-thirds of the requests made to it for assistance. Although there have been encouraging trends, such as those in China to which my noble friend Lord Houghton referred, let us not forget that even at their present decreased rate China will have a massive increase by the year 2000, from about 1 billion to—the very lowest estimate—about 1¼ billion.
Despite those encouraging trends, the developments must be regarded as insufficient because the population figures continue to rise and, as has been stressed, some countries still refuse to adopt official family planning programmes. The experience of various programmes is that family planning services succeed far more when they are linked with general improvements in education, health and the development of community responsibility; that where there is a proper movement forward for higher living standards, family planning is liable to succeed much more. We have much scientific knowledge; we have knowledge to improve food production and examples such as Israel, where they can make the deserts bloom, but still we have appalling mass poverty and insufficient funds for health, family planning and agricultural development programmes. When chatting to a friend the other clay, he observed that many countries were able to buy massive amounts

237
of arms, yet seemed unable to provide general sewerage services and water supplies for their people.
That brings me to the theme of my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker, and I must remind the House that total world military expenditure is approaching £250 billion a year. Figures of that magnitude roll off the tongue, so instead of expressing it in billions, let me say that world expenditure on arms is now running at £250,000 million. Compared with that, spending on official development aid is only £11 billion, less than one-twentieth of what the world is spending on arms. The World Health Organisation, with its programmes to abolish malaria, trachoma and other diseases, is short of funds; those programmes would eventually cost only £250 million, one-thousandth of what the world is spending on arms. Arms sales from the North to the South account for about 70 per cent. of all arms exports. One of the gloomiest statistics is the expansion of military budgets in third world countries. In constant prices the poor nations have expanded their military spending by 400 per cent. since 1960, and between 1974 and 1978 the average yearly increase was 25 per cent.
Many people think of the United Nations only in terms of the Security Council; many people are cynical of the United Nations. Little is known of the work of its agencies: UNICEF, the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, and so on. I believe that the media, and perhaps even the Government, could do far more to let people know of the activities of these agencies and of the fact that they are short of funds to do the vital work which must go hand in hand with family limitation.
I should like to echo the plea of my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker. In a few weeks' time there will be the second Special Assembly of the United Nations on Disarmament, and it is a chance that must not be missed. In my view, tackling the problem of world disarmament and the massive build-up of arms must be linked to giving confidence to the nations of the world in a security system and to releasing funds, first of all from the strong nations, the industrialised West, so that they can give far more in the way of positive aid. Furthermore, the under-developed countries must be enabled not to spend a massive figure on arms when their own people need it for development. It is an opportunity which must not be missed. We have not yet had a proper lead given by the Government, but I hope that they will listen to the pleas this afternoon and link them to the general question of development of the under-privileged nations.
4.22 p.m.
Viscount Barrington: My Lords, I am the last back-bench speaker in the debate, and I shall relieve your Lordships by saying that I only put down my name at the last minute. I intended to be brief, but I shall be even briefer because everything that I intended to say has been said—in particular in one speech—much better than I could say it. I think that everyone has already thanked the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for introducing this extremely important subject. I agree with everything that the noble Lord said and what has been said by most speakers, with one reservation; that is in the part of the noble Lord's Motion which refers to the extension of family planning. This is not be-
238
cause I am against family planning—I think that it is absolutely essential—but I believe that it is a term which is in great danger of being misused. Reference has been made to family planning associations. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned one of them, and so long as she is a member of it I should have great faith in it. There are also a few family protection groups, of a less international kind. There is even a Child and Family Protection Group, and indeed even an Unborn Child Protection Society, of which I had the privilege of being a founder member at the time of the 1967 abortion debate.
I have always wondered why it is so difficult to persuade people that a child is already a member of a family before it is born as well as after. I think that there is less excuse for that now since there are some amazing films being shown, or films which can be shown, showing what an unborn child looks like at the age of one month and how it behaves. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, rightly mentioned several times the word psychosomatic. No one has ever doubted that a foetus is "somatic", but they have doubted that it is "psycho" in the sense of having a soul, or mind—however one interprets the term. I think that the reason for that is that most people have not seen one, except those who operate on it.
To quote St. Paul, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, did, I would say:
"The things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal".
Personally, I have no doubt—and this is only a personal view—that the common motion that taking unborn lives on the massive scale on which it is being done is one of the most reputable as well as easiest ways of reducing population is based on the fact that it is not seen. Obviously there is not time to go into that point at length, but it has been made very well and made clearly.
Abortion is no more a part of contraception than destroying a town is part of planning it. I can quite understand not wanting to build a town of a certain size on the Wiltshire Downs, but if once started it is not part of a "plan" to knock it down halfway through or even a quarter of the way through.
I have already spoken for three minutes, but nine is a square number, and I shall not go on to number six. So I think that the quickest way that I can emphasise the point is to mention that at the time of the 1967 debate I tried to reduce the arguments which I was opposing to a rational form in verse, and it did not come out very well. With your Lordships' permission I should like, if I can, to quote from memory the first eight lines or so and possibly the last two. It was on the general attitude to a foetus, and it went:

No creature so invites our scorn

Than one that dies before it's born:

Not less so when from sheer goodwill it

Is our unwelcome task to kill it.

What is a human foetus? We

Need only look at one to see.

The one thing we can all be sure

About it; it is Immature.

It lacks to start with—at the start—

The semblance of a human heart;

Which would itself invite derision

Should it appear on television.

239

When later, (if allowed to grow)

It graduates from the embryo,

The change is purely one of name.

Essentially the thing's the same.

At three weeks old no Foetus knows

That it has fingers, feet and toes;

There being, as one must presume,

No education in the womb.

Though it has ears it cannot hear

The plainest Message of Good Cheer

True, it has eyes: but cannot see

And recognise its own MP.

Feet has it? Well, it doesn't walk

It dangles on a sort of stalk,

A formless, gormless, gumptionless

Epitome of helplessness,

With no Diplomas, no IQ,

No Civic Central point of view,

No Sales-talk—in effect no throat—

And (more important still) no Vote.

I think that last is one of the main reasons why the foetus has been neglected. I believe that it should have many more rights than it has, and more and more people are beginning to realise that. They realise the enormous way in which the Abortion Bill has escalated—to use a bad word. That is all that I shall say on this subject. I am afraid that I have already taken up two-thirds of my time.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, the noble Viscount is not, I fear, the last speaker, nor indeed, I understand, am I. I had not intended to intervene in this extremely important debate because of the constrictions of time, but having heard some of the speeches that have been made, and realising that perhaps we have a few minutes left, I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I make one or two comments on some of the things that have been said.
I regard this as a most important debate. I think it is terribly sad that it should be taking place in this very low-key way, and in the shadow of perhaps greater topical events elsewhere in the world. I think that the question that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has raised will continue to be perhaps the most important single international problem that we have to face long after we have forgotten what is happening in the South Atlantic.
We have heard a great number of statistics this afternoon, all of them interesting, and some of them very sombre. I think that most demographers now agree that between now and the end of this century the population of the world will increase, as other noble Lords have said, from where it is now, which is about 4½ billion, to about 6 billion, and there is very little that anybody can do to alter that. I wonder whether it is absolutely clear in our minds what that means; they are just figures. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, it means that between now and the end of this century we shall increase the population of the world by a figure equivalent to what the total population of the world was in 1930. It is increasing the world in the next 20 years by the equivalent of 20 new countries the size of Bangladesh, and they will be 20 new countries as poor as the people of Bangladesh are now.
240
I think what we have to understand even more clearly is that 90 per cent. of that massive growth will take place in the low-income countries of the world, in the poor countries of the world. African women, in the course of their child-bearing life, now bear an average of six children. In South Asia it is five children. In one country in Africa, in Morocco, the average woman during her fertile life bears seven children. That is the average in Morocco. The result of all this is that any economic gain, any increased food output, any growth in the third world, is totally cancelled out, and more than cancelled out, by population growth.
So the fact, often repeated, that there is a gap between the North and the South, and that that gap is growing, becomes almost a cliché, because of the difference in population growth. In the years 1960 to 1980, the last 20 years for which we have figures, there was an increase in population in the whole of the industrial world of 200 million. In the developing world, the third world, there was an increase of 1·2 billion, compared with the 200 million in the industrialised world. This, of course, is where the problem lies. The population explosion is not in the industrialised world: it is in the developing world, in the poorer countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Baker, talked of urbanisation, of the impact of population growth on urban conglomerations. That is not a problem for the industrialised world; it is a problem for the third world. If population growth continues at its present rate, Mexico City and San Paulo will have a population of 13 million by the end of this century; and Teheran, Cairo and Karachi will all be somewhere around 14 to 16 million. Baghdad and Lima, which had populations of only about half a million people, 600,000 people, in 1950, will have 11 to 12 million by the end of this century. That is what is happening in the third world.
I mention these figures, not to add to the apocalyptic nature of the whole of this debate, but simply to point out that while we might with some justification make great play with the terrible starvation, disease and deprivation which is going on in the third world, I think we should be careful not to imply too great a sense of guilt for this in the industrialised world. It is not entirely our fault that this is happening.
We have heard those Members of this House with long experience of these things talking of the expenditure on armaments. Much of the expenditure on armaments in the world is caused by purchases of armaments by third world countries who could be using their resources in other ways. It is, I think, easy to point the finger at the arms-exporting countries who sell military equipment to the third world. They could not sell that equipment if people did not want to buy it; and if those countries that bought it would divert their resources to the kind of things which would improve their quality of life more, then perhaps the arms-exporting countries would not have such a jolly and successful trade.
I think that we must obviously agree that the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has introduced is one of absolutely primordial importance. This is the problem that we are all going to have to solve in the years ahead, when our little local difficulties are over. I do not think, however, that we shall

241
approach this problem very sensibly if we approach it from the point of view that it is the rich, industrialised countries of the world which are entirely to blame. It must be for the third world countries to do something about the explosion in population that is taking place in their midst. Even if they were to start now they probably could not do very much about it before the middle of the next century, such is the nature of a demographic curve based on the enormous populations that we already have in the world.
But I believe, with other noble Lords, that it perhaps ought to be among the first priorities of the Government of this country and of all other civilised countries in the world to attack this problem. It will be no good, my Lords—I say this in all sincerity—trying, even if we succeed, to solve the problems of food, of water and even of disarmament if we cannot at the same time solve this basic problem of the explosion in the population of the world.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, at this hour I do not rise to make a speech but to make one point only, and I would not be doing this except that I was a member of the British delegation to the World Food Congress in 1963. In fact, I was the leader. What I should like to say is this. The speeches we have heard here today reflect very closely the speeches which I heard made in Parliament shortly after that congress in 1963, with one difference and one difference only, and that is that we can all speak openly about family planning, whereas then everyone was rather furtive about it, whatever he might think.
But, having said that, I should like to emphasise that the main problem today, which we have again just heard summarised, remains as it was in 1963: that the increase in population in the world is outrunning any increase that we can see in food production. I make one plea, my Lords: that we keep that problem ever before us. I hope that more will be achieved in the coming 20 years than has been achieved in the 20 years just past.
Lord Oram: My Lords, we have had a notable series of speeches, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek must be gratified, as indeed we all are, that he chose to introduce this subject of such importance and that it has led to such an important and fascinating debate. Whenever I contemplate this problem to which he has directed out attention, like other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I like to start with some simple arithmetic—not that when talking about billions, as we are, it is easy to keep the arithmetic simple.
We have had some graphic illustrations from both the noble Baroness and Lord Chalfont, from Lord Davies himself and from my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker; but there is one sequence of dates and numbers that impresses itself particularly on my mind in this connection, and it is as follows. It took the literally thousands of years of human existence up to about the year 1830 for the first billion mark to be reached; but it took only 100 years after that for the second billion to be reached; it took only another 30 years for the third billion to be reached; and then it took only 15 years for the population to have increased to
242
4 billion. That, to me, illustrates more graphically perhaps than any other series of figures that the rate of growth is accelerating dramatically—and, as successive speakers have pointed out, not only dramatically but dangerously.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to make one point? What he has said is very interesting. I was recently working on a book, and then I found that if you assume that homo sapiens have had a life of about 50,000 years, most of the homo sapiens who have ever lived or are living are my contemporaries.
Lord Oram: Yes, my Lords; I thank my noble friend Lord Paget for underlining the kind of development that I was pointing out.
My Lords, the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek calls for "a proper balance between population and resources". In my view, that is the only sound approach to this problem. It would be a mistake to take only a negative attitude to it and to put all our emphasis as family planners or birth controllers on contraception and on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, highly important although they are. We also need to be positive. We need to ensure that the world resources are not wasted or, as so many of them are, polluted or destroyed. We should see that they are developed and increased so that the world's more numerous men, women and children, as they come to be born, can lead more adequate and satisfying lives; in other words, the new billions which have been forecast must not be condemned before they are born to a miserable lot on this planet. Let us make no mistake about it, those new billions will be born. Just as surely as the sun rises on every new day, those billions of children will be born.
As has been pointed out, there are probably now 4½ billion human beings and a large and dominant proportion of that 4½ billion consists of young people, of young potential parents. According to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights those young potential parents have the right:
"to marry and to found a family".
And I am sure that that is something which we would all endorse and, even if we do not, we can be sure that those young potential parents will marry and will found families. Therefore, it is predictable that, however much we spend on family planning programmes—I am one, like others, who advocate that we should spend much more—and, however much success attends that expenditure, those new parents are going to produce children faster than the grandparents die. That is why the demographers, not with a view to alarm us but with a view to approaching this problem in a purely scientific way, can forecast with absolute certainty that the world population at the end of this century will be at least 6 billion.
Surely that presents to us all a tremendous and overwhelming moral obligation, both to do all that we can to lower the birthrate and to increase the resources (as I have said) for feeding, clothing, housing, education and, perhaps above all, for employing and maintaining in health not only the 4½ billion people at present living on this planet but the 6 billion who will be living on this planet—short of a nuclear holo-

243
caust, which is scarcely imaginable. What should we do? I think that essentially—perhaps this is an easy simplification—there are two things that we should do. The first is to try ourselves to understand, and to get more and more people to understand, the real nature of the problem. I noted in the short intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that he was pointing over the last 10 years to a remarkable improvement in the situation of people realising the nature of the problem and being able to talk about it more frankly. That is certainly my experience, too. When I first went as a junior Minister to the Ministry of Overseas Development we had to talk more delicately than is necessary now.
I should like to identify perhaps four aspects of the problem which seem to me to have been brought out during the debate. The first is common knowledge, but it is worth making the point, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made it quite vigorously; namely, that the problem we are talking about is overwhelmingly a problem of the developing countries. This does not mean to say that countries with advanced economies like our own do not need to have a rational approach to the size of the population. This was a point made forcefully by my noble friend Lord Houghton and by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and—although I do not think he was advocating a population policy—by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakbridge, whose remarks related more to the problem of a developed economy. Certainly, we in the developed world need to think about these things in relation to our own economic development, but it still remains that it is the poor countries of the world which have an excessively high growth rates—something like twice the growth rate of the developed countries—and, therefore, as we look at the future, it is the countries in South-East Asia, Africa and Latin America whose populations will form the bulk of the huge population that we expect.
Another point that was made, again by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is that it is in the developing countries that the bulk of that huge population will live. It is estimated that by the year 2000 something of the order of 85 per cent. of the world's population will be living in the developing world. This means that the strain on our resources will greatly increase in those very regions where the strain is already insupportable. It is in those regions where there is dire poverty (except for the privileged few) where, unless we make gigantic efforts to change the facts which have been deployed in this debate, the growth of population will cause more hunger, more disease, more homelessness, more unemployment and more ignorance. In a word, it is in those regions of the world that we shall suffer more human degredation.
It is there in those developing countries that this population problem expresses itself not in the bare statistics that we use in the debates here, but in a whole series of complex human problems. A major one is food. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek pointed out, already our fisheries, forests, grasslands and crop lands throughout the world are coming under mounting pressure as populations grow. If we look at it, as many of us have had the opportunity of doing, at the village level where the people are actually
244
living, we know that each family has a tiny plot of land on which to produce the food to keep itself alive. It is inescapable logic that if there are more and bigger families, then those tiny patches of land will be tinier yet. The problem comes through essentially in the food problem.
But let us take education. As we have said, the child population is increasing faster than the population as a whole. This means that the demand for school places is outstripping the supply of those places. This in turn means that although we can take some satisfaction from the fact that today in the world there are more people who can read and write than at any other time in human history, it is also true that the number of illiterate people is increasing, and increasing at a still faster rate than the number of the literate. So when we talk of numbers of people, we need, as I have stressed, to talk about their lives, the lives of the individuals. That logic comes through not just in food, education and literacy, it comes through in housing, jobs and health services. They all come under pressure from increasing numbers of people.
The next aspect that seems to me to have been brought out by one or two speakers which is worth summarising—and it was particularly noted by my noble friend Lord Noel-Baker—is that this population problem is getting worse and worse because of the process of urbanisation. It is not just a question of numbers of people, it is a question of where those people live and where they are seeking to live. It was a point again that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, brought out.
May I illustrate this from my personal experience? He quoted a number of cities and the figures of their growth. It so happened from my personal experience of travel in the 1960s and early 1970s that I visited a number of the cities to which the noble Lord referred. I will give only two by way of illustration. Bogota in 1960 had a population of 1·7 million people. Fifteen years later it had doubled. In Lagos in 1960—not much before the time that I visited it—there were fewer than 1 million—some 800,000—people. But in 1975 there were over 2 million people. I could quote other figures comparable to those which have already been noted.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way for one second? Another figure which precisely bears him out is that 70 years ago more than two-thirds of the urban area of the world today was open fields. That is one lifetime.
Lord Oram: My Lords, again, I am grateful to my noble friend for underlining the point that I was making. Here again, I want to get away from the figures because the picture that is in my mind of those teeming towns, as I look back over those travels—which many of your Lordships have equally made—is not of the city centres, not the offices, factories and hotels, but the shanty towns on the outskirts of these cities. They are vast obscenities of geography. They are masses of shacks made out of tins, cardboard and wood which, to the bulk of the human race, are home. It is one of the most frustrating sides of this problem that we are debating that we see people from the countryside in a process of futile migration to the towns. I say "futile" because they go there in the

245
hope of finding a job and a better life than they had in the village. What they find when they get there is no job and a worse life than they had in the village. That we can think of in terms of individuals; but, when we think of it in the massive terms in which we need to think of it, it is an overwhelming human problem.
The next point that I should like to make was not made during the debate. We are accustomed in this kind of discussion to think, as we have been thinking today, in massive, global terms. My noble friend Lord Caradon, with his experience, referred to the building up of the United Nations organisations like the fund for population activities; and in the voluntary field there is the IPPF and other organisations. They now comprise a huge network of organisations which have a massive and global approach to this situation. But I suggest, on the other hand, that while necessarily taking that view, we also need forever to be conscious that when we are thinking of human procreation we are thinking of one of the most personal, intimate, private and individual of human experiences. The very great conundrum that faces all of us in this matter is how to reconcile the massive global public social need in these matters with the individual human personality.
It follows from all that I have said that family planning must go hand in hand with measures of economic and social development. One hears the argument that all we need think about is economic development; that if living standards, particularly of education, are raised, then, just as happened in the developed world, this problem of population control will go away. I thought that my noble friend Lord Vernon put that argument in order to destroy it, and he destroyed it most effectively. I would only add to what he said, that economic development is painfully slow and the population explosion is alarmingly fast. Therefore we need both approaches. We need family planning programmes of increased effectiveness, and we need to tackle with far more determination than hitherto this mind-boggling problem of world poverty.
This brings me, in a very brief conclusion, to a direct point to the Government and to the Minister—not in any detail, because particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked some pointed questions in her speech. I merely echo them and I hope that the Minister took note of them and will be able to respond to them.
My noble friend Lord Vernon, not in the form of questions but in the form of suggestions, put forward some other most important points. I believe that it is important—vital—for the Government to take note both of the questions that were asked and the suggestions that were made, and to ask themselves whether the policies and expenditures which they are pursuing are adequate in answer to those questions and in response to those suggestions. I know the answer will come, "It will cost a lot of money". I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is shaking his head. I shall look forward all the more eagerly to his speech. He will agree with me that when we discuss these questions of overseas aid it is a negative reply in terms of expenditure that we so often get.
Whether we agree or not, I want to make that point, that all that I have in mind—all that my noble friends have in mind—will cost a very great deal of money. Controlling the world's population increase is a colossal
246
task. It is also, as I tried to suggest, not only a difficult but a very delicate task, and if disaster is to be avoided I suggest to the House that it is a task which the nations of the world, including our own, dare not neglect.
5 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, on two things. At the risk of infuriating one noble Lord, and of your Lordships castigating me for being contrary, I should like to start with the second one. Since your Lordships started short debates nine years ago they have proved to be a most valuable addition to the routine of your Lordships' House, but they were limited to one day a month. Speaking as a minor capillary, I suppose, among the "usual channels", I am delighted that the noble Lord has helped to persuade his colleagues that a day set aside for a main Opposition Back-Bench debate should be split into two parts so that we can debate two most useful subjects in place of the usual one. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will see that today a precedent has been set—one which we on this Bench would like to see repeated in the not-too-distant future.
Turning now to the debate itself, the first thing upon which I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is his choice of subject and the level of debate he has achieved. It is not platitude to say that this is an important subject and one to which your Lordships devote far too little attention. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, would agree with that. After all, world population and its growth is something which concerns every single one of us whether, by accident of birth, one lives in the western or the eastern hemisphere, the north or the south. The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, said that he has made this point regularly to your Lordships since 1972. I can tell him that I wrote that last sentence before this debate started without reference to any of his previous speeches, but I must point out that this is not the forerunner of a new SDP Alliance.
I have listened with great interest to the views which have been expressed here today and I am bound to say that the Government freely share the concern which has been expressed. As noble Lords have said, the scale of the problem of population growth is truly vast. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is obviously very conscious of this. Indeed, the addition to the world's population over the next 20 years will be roughly equivalent to the total global population which existed in 1930; and that has already been remarked upon. The noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Oram, are equally conscious of the geography involved in this particular problem, and I shall have more to say about this shortly.
Going back to the figures for a moment, by the year 2000 the number of souls upon this earth will probably exceed 6 billion. I would, however, take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, on the demographic certainty of this. It is easy to overlook in these figures the wide variation that exists between different regions of the world. My noble friend Lord Gisborough drew attention to the physical results of the increasing population in varying parts of the world, and I must say that I agree with him.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, would my noble friend give way? He says that he doubts the certainty of the increase by the year 2000, but surely it is not a question of the birth-rate increase up to then but the longevity of the people now existing which makes it certain?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I agree; but what I was trying to say was that a lot can happen in the space of 15 years and, as various speakers have pointed out, a lot has happened in the space of the last 15 years. The noble Lord, Lord Paget, referred to the last 70 years; so we are talking about a time-scale all the time, and I think that should be borne in mind. But there has been progress, particularly in the last 10 years, in reducing the rate of population growth. Fertility rates have fallen in a wide spectrum of countries with substantially different cultural, social and religious settings. This slackening in the rate of global population growth at the end of the 1970s represented an achievement on the part of developed countries, international aid agencies and non-governmental organisations working in the population sector. But most of all it was an achievement on the part of those developing countries which saw the threat that increasing populations presented to their economic and social development. My noble friend Lord Gisborough, and indeed the Motion itself, as the noble Lord, Lord Oram said, put flesh on the bones of this rather bald statement which I am afraid I do not have time to elaborate upon. The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, said there was some ground for optimism since he had last spoken shortly before the Colombo Conference. I agree that there is some ground for optimism, but there is still a great deal to be desired.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does the noble Lord have in mind what happened to poor Mrs. Gandhi when she tried to do something practical about it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I will come to the practicalities a little later in my speech, if the noble Lord will be patient with me. We cannot, however, afford to be complacent since the trend towards lower growth rates needs continuing reinforcement and assistance. I suspect that we may have seen success in only some of the areas which are easier to address and that major difficulties remain in tackling effectively the more intractable problems. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the older generation and I know that the idea of an old-age pension in third world countries is being considered. However, I must emphasise that whatever scheme is decided upon—and I address this directly to the noble Lord, Lord Paget—must be right for a particular country at a particular time.
We should be prepared to accept the challenge, understand the differences between regions and cultures and try to help whenever we can with commitment and sensitivity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, about religion, even though Her Majesty's Government can hardly be expected to respond to the Pope. However, ultimately the responsibility for population policies must lie with national Governments —that is, in those "host Governments", as they are
248
called in aid terms. Developed or donor countries are willing and able to help, but our assistance is worthless without the political, moral and financial commitment of the countries concerned. Perhaps the invidious choice between aid to China and aid to India which was pointed to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, might be judged in terms of this last remark of mine and so indeed might the chat with his friend that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, told us about. It is for all Governments to decide on their own priorities, both the host Governments and the donor Governments.
What should be the role of the international community? Clearly the action which is taken in the
next 20 years will significantly affect the ultimate size and distribution of the world's population. We have been much encouraged by the prominence given to population matters in the Brandt Report and in the summit meetings in Ottawa and Cancun, which all drew attention to the implications of world population growth in terms of the demand for food, raw materials and energy. They echoed many of the fears which had led to the convening of the World Population Conference in Bucharest in 1974. At that meeting the World Population Plan of Action was adopted and it recognised, among other things, that family planning information and services were basic human rights and that population and economic and social development were inextricably mixed. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, was concerned about this. These two ideas have gained national and international recognition in the past decade, and over 100 developed and developing countries how acknowledge that natural increase in population can act as a deterrent to national development.
We in this country are active in these advances. The Government have attached, and continue to attach, great importance to population activities within the aid programme. Our assistance started in a modest way in the mid-1960s and has grown markedly since. In 1971 we provided about £1 million in assistance, but by 1980 this had increased to over £7,500,000. Behind the expenditure of these sums is a strong belief that, although family planning is important, it is only part of a population policy. The size, structure, rate of growth, distribution and movement of population are all linked with development.
Providing family planning services alone will not entirely solve the problem of world growth. It is necessary to create in the developing world a social framework which is conducive to fertility regulation. This means helping the developing countries to relieve poverty and raise their living standards; it means reducing infant mortality rates so that parents can be sure that their children will survive; it means educating people to understand the advantages of family planning and to be able to make informed decisions on how many children they want, how to space them and what contraceptive method to use; it means improving the status of women, and it means improving the quality and quantity of managerial manpower in the developing world, to ensure that population programmes are well run.
For these reasons, the aid which the Government give to population encompasses a broad range of activities. Our aid programme is not allocated by sectors, so there is no fund for population aid as such, but

249
population activities are represented in all the major types of assistance that we give. As my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced last September at the United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, we have increased our contributions to multilateral agencies dealing with population to £5 million in 1981–82 and to £6 million in 1982–83. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities, to which we have pledged £2 ·4 million in 1982–83, works with Governments to develop and run population programmes. The international Planned Parenthood Federation, to which we have also pledged £2·4 million in 1982–83, works at the grass roots level, providing family planning services through its affiliated family planning associations. These are the major multilateral agencies that we fund—
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, would the noble Lord again be very kind? Would he recognise that he has just told us that our total contributions to the most important of all the factors in the world is slightly less than the cost of a minesweeper?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord is pre-empting me again. I wish he would not, and would let me finish my speech in my own way. Then, if he would like to cross-question me, I should be delighted to respond. On the bilateral side—I was not talking about the bilateral side before—we hope to spend £4·3 million on population during this calendar year. This, I think, is a partial answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. But I must tell her and the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, that we have done more. In 1981, about 0·6 per cent., or £6·47 million, of the gross aid programme's estimated expenditure is likely to have been spent on population as such. It is too early to provide a percentage for 1982, but we expect the expenditure to be in the region of £11·3 million, including a rise of some 25 per cent. on bilateral aid.
I am sure that noble Lords will welcome this as a mammoth stride in the right direction. Her Majesty's Government do not enjoy the cuts any more than anybody else. However, we take a little pride—perhaps not as much pride as we should—in being brave enough to make them for as long as is appropriate in each case. When the economic situation improves, as indeed it is beginning to do, then—to use a phrase of a noble Lord who spoke yesterday—we shall be in a completely different ball game. I hope that noble Lords will recognise this in the context of what I am talking about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me a specific question relating to NGOs. I can confirm that the funds available for the joint funding scheme are now fully committed for 1982–83, although of course they are not yet spent. So any applications for these schemes would have to he considered for the following year, and not for 1982–83. In practice, these figures, including our spending on bilateral population activities, is dependent on requests from recipient countries. But my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has directed that all new projects financed from the aid programme should, wherever appropriate, take account of, and if possible include, a population element.
250
In the past year, we have continued to work with the voluntary agencies under the joint funding scheme. Population is a development sector in which much can be, and in some countries is, being achieved by non-governmental organisations. The House will know that I have been a major fan of non-governmental organisations ever since my arrival in your Lordships' House. In this context, the importance of NGOs—both local family planning associations and more general charities—in the provision of family planning services has been widely recognised. As an indication of our support for this sector, population projects under the joint funding scheme receive 100 per cent., rather than the 50 per cent. maximum assistance which is applied in all other sectors.
I hope I have demonstrated to your Lordships that this Government do indeed attach a high degree of importance to the problem of world population growth, and that we are continuing to give population activities a high priority within the aid programme. We look forward to playing an active part in the forthcoming 1984 United Nations World Population Conference. Although expenditure forecasts are always liable to be proved wrong, we have strong expectations that 1982 will see a substantially increased level of total expenditure on population activities compared with last year, with much of the increase arising from bilateral projects. If these plans are realised, I think your Lordships will agree that this represents a considerable achievement, particularly given the pressures on the overall aid programme. I am indeed grateful for the opportunity which has been given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, this afternoon, to explain our attitude and activities, and for the large measure of agreement that has been shown in many parts of the House.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I put five suggestions to him. I did not give him notice of them, so I do not expect an answer today. But I wondered whether he would be willing to write to me about them.
Lord Skelmersdale: Most certainly, my Lords. I omitted to say that I knew there were various points that I had missed, and had not had time to reply to in my speech. I will most certainly write.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate. I am tempted, because I made copious notes, to mention each one in reply. I shall not do that, because various noble Lords who made constructive points during this excellent little debate have been mentioned from both Front Benches, and it would be wrong of me to go through them again.
I want to mention merely one point. My Motion asked for family planning, and it has been pointed out two or three times that an endeavour should be made to balance population with natural resources in various parts of the world. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, asked that we should not dehumanise humanity in family planning. That kind of stir was going right around your Lordships' House. Of course we are not talking about family planning in those terms, and

251
procreation and life should be talked about with dignity, understanding and humanity.
I shall not give the figures relating to bilateral and multilateral aid. They are to be found in this little blue book. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, since the report on population was published about two years ago, to consider supplying Parliament in the near future with a new set of statistics based upon it.
This has been an excellent debate, and I thank everybody who has taken part in it. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Child Upbringing and Social Influences
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs rose to call attention to the difficulties currently encountered by those responsible for the upbringing and care of children at home, at school and at leisure; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I must first emphasise that it is with a very real sense of humility that I am introducing a subject into your Lordships' House which I know commands so much of your Lordships' knowledge and expertise when at the same time I myself do not have a great deal. I do it for two reasons. I do it, first, because of a genuine concern that we should keep our priorities relating to the needs of children in the right perspective and, secondly, because of the perpetual reminder to me of youth, provided by the constant presence of my own three teenagers, plus all their friends, not to mention the ensuing state of debilitation which this brings on. Therefore I hope to present the scenario of childhood, comprising its three major components of home, school and leisure. Through the examination of these different areas, perhaps we can then better assess whether our present social, economic and educational policies are maintaining the necessary balance. It will then be for other noble Lords who are more expert and experienced than I in children's affairs to put forward practical adjustments. I should simply like to conclude by making general comments and suggestions.
What does constitute the background to the life of a child in the 1980s? It is conventional to talk about a rapidly changing society. I expect noble Lords did so in the previous debate, which I did not hear. Indeed, it is clear that the rapid change which is now with us shows no sign of abatement in the immediate future. These include, first, the demographic changes leading to a decline in the birth rate, a reduction in population growth and an increasing proportion of old people—also the arrival in Britain of a large African and Asian population, with the consequent build-up of a multicultural society. Then there is the movement of population from the inner cities to the suburbs, leading to the appearance of whole areas of urban blight and decay. Next there are the technical changes which lead to the decline of old industries—and, we devoutly hope, the start of new ones—and the present monetarist policies which are bringing about heavy unemployment.
252
Lastly, there are the cultural changes which not only are widening the generation gap but which are even creating a division between siblings. These changes have led to a decline in the acceptance of traditional moral values and to the establishment of a permissive society.
These are issues which have often been examined in your Lordships' House from social and economic viewpoints; but what is not so often discussed, but which seems to be so relevant today, is the question of their combined effect on those three components of a child's life which I have chosen as the focal points of this debate; namely, the first element in the life of a young person growing up being his family and his home. Then, as he goes through childhood, his whole attitude to life and the way he spends his time will be profoundly affected by the other two great areas of experience: the world of school and the facilities provided for leisure. There can be no doubt at all as to the total interdependence of these three areas. Thus, if through changes in society one of these areas is weakened or threatened, it is for one or both of the other two to try to take up the strain. So I should now like, very briefly, to outline the pressures, as I see them, weighing on each one of these areas in order to ascertain which is currently being most threatened.
First, there is unequivocal evidence that there is a grievous strain on the home and on family life. The staggering increase in unemployment in Britain has brought not only poverty into many more homes but also tension arising out of the despair of enforced idleness—of probably the father and head of the family. This poverty has been accentuated by the unprecedented rise in the cost of basic living essentials. Many homes will contain young school-leavers showing signs of apathy or delinquency at their failure even to enter the employment market. Many homes contain but a single parent, and many more are working mothers either representing the sole breadwinner or engaged in the chase after more and more consumer goods, something which our present values urge her to do. Either way, it means more and more latch-key children. Through the diminution of the extended family and through the lack of provision for any adequate childminding service, such children will often be in the care of disinterested babysitters. Then the reduction in the level of social services means less care for the casualties of the community: those who are most in need of help and those who can be most destructive to society. Finally, there is increasing violence in the home, and continuing environmental health hazards. That is the plight of the home.
Next, what are the pressures on the second world in a child's existence—that of his school? Here it roust be categorically accepted that school represents a very powerful component, because it is a major area in a child's upbringing that is supervised and monitored by society. Children in fact can be virtually invisible until they attend school, as the domestic home can be a closed unit, with even the social worker and the health visitor requiring a magistrates' order to enter it. In my view, one of the pressures felt by a child at school is his feeling of imprisonment within the present examination system, coupled with his feeling that many of the subjects taught are irrelevant, and his scepticism that either the teaching he is absorbing or the passing

253
of examinations will gain him a job at the end of it all. The pressures on teachers come from high teacher-pupil ratios and a breakdown of discipline in hard-pressed inner city areas—as we have tragically seen in recent times. The teacher may also suffer through lack of support from parents, and in many areas he or she is grappling with the complexities of dealing with classes made up of children who come from different cultures.
Lastly, before examining the third area—that of leisure—we have, first, to redefine the word itself. To the old conventional concept that leisure is the use of spare time consisting of entertainment and rest must be added the more recent concept of enforced leisure, brought on by lack of jobs, especially in the case of school-leavers. This, tragically, must be recognised as a major, growing element of life which in some degree may well be here to stay. The pressures on the deployment of leisure, both conventional and enforced, are various. First, we are lacking a true infrastructure for its deployment. Not enough resources are being put into the types of centres where the young can use their extended leisure periods in enjoyable and constructive ways. Furthermore, the constructive use of time is being undermined by commercially motivated activities such as, to mention but a few, space invaders, football hooliganism and television. It is indeed a sobering thought that the average child in this country today will watch between 21 and 35 hours of television a week. I wonder whether the television services really face up to the incredible responsibility which they bear. I rather fear they do not.
In conclusion, I should like to suggest to your Lordships that of the three areas making up a child's life it is undoubtedly his home, the family unit, which is the most undermined, bearing as it does the brunt of so many of the social changes through which we are living. Following my theory that when one area is threatened the other two must take up the strain, may I make a few suggestions as to how the child's school on the one hand, and the community and youth services on the other, could lighten the burden on the family?
First, the school. There is, I know, an ongoing curriculum debate and I do not propose to enter into it. But while believing that in this high technology society children need the relevant academic preparation, and in any case academic subjects are part of a life training, nevertheless with the breakdown of the family in mind there seems to be a very real case for accentuating additional areas of learning. A course in future parenthood for both boys and girls is one example.
Statistics reveal that, on the one hand, young people are getting married earlier and earlier or that, in lieu of marriage, there are disturbing signs of very young girls becoming pregnant merely in order to become eligible for higher allowances, a place on the housing list and, most tragically of all, literally to create a job for themselves. On the other hand, there is unequivocal evidence that violence in the home is increasing. It is reported that in this country, 3,000 to 4,000 children are battered each year. Examination of the parents reveal that the mothers who harm their children most are those who bear their first child at an age well below the average.
A course at school on future parenthood would not only give children an idea of what it is like, but it
254
would also help them with the intrinsic problems of running a home efficiently and economically. With the increase in the number of professional working mothers, it is of equal importance for boys as well as girls to follow such a course.
On another point, it is felt by many in the community and voluntary organisations that a curriculum revision requires the very definite participation not only of the education authorities, teaching professions and careers officers, but increasingly of youth development officers and representatives from industry. In order to create a curriculum truly relevant to the needs of today's labour market and to the current ingredients of life, the thinking of all those involved with the young must be concerted. Furthermore, the present school curriculum includes little political education, which would give young people some understanding of the economic and political background which has brought on their problems. Many children continue to find basic everyday communication difficult. There is little in the curriculum to help them with this. Finally, in my view, there is a need for more skills training, in order to help the student in every way to become more self-sufficient.
On another aspect, it seems extraordinary that school buildings are little used, or used not at all, between the hours of 3.30 p.m. and 9 o'clock the next morning. Activities involving the child, parents and teachers in a truly community setting, of which the school can be the centre, seem to be vital in lightening the strain under which the family is tottering. I would have thought that at the end of class times, school buildings could be used increasingly by community and voluntary organisations for their schemes.
We now come to the point of examining whether the Government of the day are maintaining the correct priorities to ensure that children's interests are not being jeopardised by society's changing circumstances. I would like to bring my remarks to an end by addressing the following comments and suggestions to the noble Lord the Minister. First, does he think that the Government are really doing enough to relieve the circles of deprivation in which some of Britain's larger and less privileged families live? As I understand it, the 1982 child benefit allowance represents a reduction in real terms of more than 20 per cent. on that of 1955. When one sees how a family lives in a deprived area of Belfast, the true facts of poverty are brought home. In fact, social workers in Northern Ireland are convinced that, even if the violence ceased there tomorrow, few of the children's problems would change as they would continue to suffer under the devastating effects of extreme poverty.
Secondly, would the Minister not agree that with the present strain on the family it is the voluntary organisations, including community and youth workers, who are admirably suited to helping the very young with the problems of their time, but that their work needs enormous resources and support, and that volunteers cannot also be fund-raisers? Indeed, why should they be?
Thirdly, is it not true that the time is approaching for a reappraisal of the long-accepted views of the British education system? After all, the Education Act 1944, admirable though it was, came into being before the majority of today's teachers were even born. On another point, do the Government honestly

255
think that they are doing everything possible to avoid environmental health risks to children? Would the Minister not agree that, to cite just one example, medical evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact that lead in petrol is undermining children's health?
Fifth, does the Minister not feel that there should be concern about our methods of dealing with young offenders? We in this country lock up more of our young people than does almost any other European country. Does the Minister not feel that the failure of this system is unequivocably proved by the fact that, of those released from detention centres, 73 per cent. are reconvicted after two years, and that borstal reconvictions account for a figure of 81 per cent? Does this not indicate that some of the £70 million spent on these centres would be better redirected to youth and community organisations who, through trying to uncover the root causes of delinquency, are succeeding in reintegrating some youthful energy for the common good?
Sixth, should the Government not try to help single-parent families a little more? These are rapidly increasing in number and are fast approaching the 1 million mark. One area in which the Government could well help would be to be more supportive in their attitude towards child minding. Finally, would the Minister not agree that the time may be arriving when a final look has to be taken at the infrastructure and machinery for dealing with all these problems? There is a lot of talk about having a commission for children, or indeed a children's ombudsman. I believe that either could well oversee all these different forces which are involved in looking after children.
I would like to thank all noble Lords who are contributing to this debate. I believe that we should do all we can to sharpen our focus on the true needs and priorities of children today. Not only do they deserve this, but they are to my mind, from my knowledge of them, incredibly original, generous and idealistic—and I would hate to think that any of our mistakes might jeopardise those very great qualities. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the whole House will be extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for having chosen this subject for debate this afternoon and for having introduced it in such a very comprehensive way. In particular, I believe that the remarks she made and the questions she posed towards the end of her speech are going to repay more detailed re-reading and understanding than we have been able to give in a short time, because the noble Baroness asked some very deep and searching questions to which all of us—and not only the Government—would do well to pay attention.
The noble Baroness has attracted a number of eminent speakers who know a great deal about this subject. In particular we are extremely pleased to see on the list of speakers as a maiden speaker the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter. The incumbents of that See have always had a reputation in this House for learning and for the incisiveness of the views which they have brought to your Lordships' discussions—not least the immediate predecessor of the right reverend
256
Prelate. Although it has taken the present right reverend Prelate four years to bring himself to address us, we look forward to him doing so often in the future.
At some time in the last six months there appeared a little cutting in The Times—I think it was mainly a news item reported by Dr. Tony Smith, the medical correspondent of The Times—which produced a really extraordinary piece of news. It said that since 1976 measurements of children's heights in Sweden have shown no difference between social classes; every child grows to its full genetic potential. My Lords, the mention of Sweden usually turns off quite a large number of people anyway in the field of social welfare. It is one of those words which, quite unjustifiably, is considered to usher in a sort of conventional one attitude approach to social welfare. But it was an extraordinary achievement. It is very doubtful, I think, whether ever before in the history of the world a country has actually managed to level out the differences in health between the various classes of its children. It is an achievement towards which, we must praise the Swedes on what they have achieved, every single country must also try to move; and particularly this must be so in the advanced countries, in economically advanced countries like our own, which have absolutely no excuse for not moving in that direction.
It cannot be done overnight. There is no hope that we in Britain would achieve such an aim probably in under 20 or 30 years. It takes almost a generation from when you have very nearly achieved that kind of equality to achieve it in your children, because quite clearly the effect of the differences among parents will affect the children. It is a gradual matter. The most that we can do is to see that we are moving in the right direction and to see that these differences are being narrowed. And that is not only the most that we can do, but it is absolutely and fundamentally the least that we can do too. If we are not moving in that direction, we are not fit to call ourselves a civilised country.
My Lords, we are not moving in that direction, or there are very grave doubts as to whether we are. Sir John Brotherston, in his Galton Lecture in 1975, said:
"The gaps remain as wide apart as a generation ago, and in some instances the gaps may be widening".
There are many of us in this Chamber who have seen the gaps narrow a very great deal, the difference, for instance, between the pre-war children and the post-war children. If you look at the photographs of slum children in Picture Post, or, as I remember, children in the village that I grew up in, the difference between their health and their appearance then and the appearance of children after the war, and in the whole period of prosperity we have more or less enjoyed since, has been very great. But as Sir John Brotherston said, in the last generation it is probable that there has not been much movement, and indeed at the moment we may even be moving backwards.
The last Labour Government very rightly—and I think they deserve all praise—set up an inquiry into inequalities in health, and in 1980 the Black Report on inequalities in health duly came out. It was received with marked lack of enthusiasm by the
Government, who admitted that they could not find any money to do anything about any of its recommendations, and the Secretary of State said:

257
"I cannot, therefore, endorse the group's recommendations. I am making the report available for discussion but without any commitment by the Government to its proposals".
That, my Lords, is the understatement of the century, it seems to me. Not only there was no commitment to its proposals, but the Government have actually moved in a reverse direction.
Among the recommendations that were regarded by the authors of this report as absolutely essential were, for instance, a non-means-tested free milk scheme, universal, a commitment of the Government to the health in education scheme, larger child benefits, an increase in maternity grant, non-means-tested school meals. If you look at that list and you tick them off one by one, you will see how much we have failed to do anything about what should have been done, and which was quite rightly pointed out by Sir Douglas Black and his colleagues.
It is not only in this particular area of health that the Government have failed to respond to the challenge that is posed to them. In the recent Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill we from these Benches, my noble friend Lord Banks, and Members of this House in various parties, urged on the Government that there should be an addition for children in the administration of sickness pay, and this was rejected by the Government. It was a step which was quite clearly necessary. This is not just an Opposition or a Liberal Party recommendation; in another place the Social Services Select Committee called it a shift in public policy entirely in the wrong direction.
In these short debates we do not have much time to go on with a catalogue of what is wrong and what has been done which is wrong over the last few years, but before I sit down there is one more field that I would like to talk about. That is education. Here there is another damning report produced by an official body, and this is the report by Her Majesty's inspectors on the effects of local authority expenditure policies on the education service in England, 1981. I had occasion to quote this only the other day in your Lordships' House, but I will certainly quote it again and it cannot be quoted too often.
The HMI's point out the difficulty that exists now
because of the shortage of money in providing remedial teaching, or responding to pupils with a range of special learning needs. They particularly pull out for examination and for condemnation the increasing incidence of subjects being taught by teachers who do not hold appropriate specialist qualifications. They also pull out for examination the number of subjects which have to be dropped which particularly help those children who are academically less well equipped. All these economies—and I will close on the vexed subject of economies—show that a discrimination is happening which makes it harder and worse for the poorer children and for the less clever children, whether it is in health or in education.
There is, of course, an economic crisis. But there are resources; there are teachers out of work who could be doing this teaching. We have got our economics wrong; we have got our way of administering them wrong, and the Government are, in my view, a prime culprit. It is a shame that, on a day when we want to be talking in a wide way about the whole of the future of our children, one or two of us—and I hope that there
258
will be one or two others—have to concentrate on the troubles that are occurring and the damage that is being done by the Government's present policies. But I say to the Government that their economics cannot be right. Indeed, their economics cannot be right not just because they are diminishing our capital, not just because they are keeping able-bodied people out of work, but because they are putting at risk the future of our children and particularly the future of our poorer and more disadvantaged children. Until they find some way of rejigging their economic policy to put this situation into reverse, they will not be doing their duty.
5.51 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, by initiating this debate the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has given us scope to consider the complex and changing problems that beset the parents of today's children and teenagers. The noble Baroness herself has given us vivid and very useful descriptions. In asking your Lordships to look at the case of the parents of mentally and/or physically handicapped children, I do so with a wish to be realistic and certainly not to be sentimental. This problem is somewhat different from the others—it refers to situations where a family can be diminished by the anxiety, the distress and the tedium of having to give long-term support to what can be the ugly burden of coping and caring for a child who cannot keep up with the fun and games of able-bodied children. However much they may wish to include the disabled child, if, for instance, he or she is covered in splints or is in a wheelchair et cetera, it can be very difficult.
Many is the time as a child that I sat by the swings and the seesaw, by the tennis court and the skating rink where, before polio, I had played a leading part, knowing that now all that I could do was to pretend that I did not mind. One saw others having a high old time and because mine was a wonderfully supportive family the effect of this on me was fairly negligible. But it was quite enough to make me know the desperate need of the chance for this type of child, coming from a less happy background than mine, to get rid of these fetters and to be able to let off steam.
When I first came upon the Handicapped Adventure Playground Association it seemed as though by magic all these sadnesses had been realised and put right. Of course, it was not by magic but by the inspiration and hard work of the late Lady Allen of Hurtwood who had determined, through play opportunities, to make up for the deprivations suffered by handicapped children. Now there are five of these handicapped adventure playgrounds in London—I am sure that many of your Lordships will know this well—and the children who go to them may be hearing impaired, partially-sighted, spastic, paralysed and in many other ways handicapped. But there they are and they can be found having a marvellous time. Whether it be on the swings and slides, or the inflatables, on rafts on the pond, playing with bonfires and cooking, or just looking after the pet rabbits and sloshing about with paint, by ingenious methods it is made possible for them to be involved. The improvement in the confidence of the children who attend is immediately noticeable and I have known parents, particularly those living in very restricted quarters, who can hardly believe how their

259
child has blossomed in these circumstances. So with our wish to integrate today it is excellent that able-bodied friends and families are now welcomed to the playgrounds during holidays so that all can have a good romp together.
Many of the playgrounds cater for 500 children to visit each week and the imagination and devotion of the play leaders and of the voluntary committees whose work is beyond praise, is one of the much more encouraging aspects of today's life. They are rewarded to see their charges becoming self-sufficient and resourceful. Indeed, I think that there is one case that might interest your Lordships. It is the case of a boy who in the term-time attended a boarding school for mentally handicapped children. While he was there a fire started and because of his experience of controlling bonfires at the handicapped adventure playground, he was a leader in stopping that fire from spreading in the school. That shows the kind of experience that is given and the addition to their resourcefulness that is gained by allowing and enabling these children to let off steam and find their own level.
London is very lucky to have this coverage of handicapped adventure playgrounds. It may be worth mentioning that Lambeth's adventure playground, which will be opened this autumn, is to be called the Charlie Chaplin Playground, for pretty obvious reasons. But it seems to me so very suitable that somebody who gave such pleasure to so many children during his lifetime shall be now remembered in this way. There are a few other urban and county areas who bravely launched out into such a scheme. But there are still very many areas where the unfortunate parents of these children are still deprived of these progressive methods. I obviously could not recommend too highly that such schemes be supported at every level—education authority and voluntary organisations working together to obtain the ear and the purse of the funding bodies.
There is no doubt that, when a child has been hospitalised repeatedly, or just splinted, the psyche can and does suffer and then the parents are saddled too with a difficult child. The problems may be quite different from those of other strapping and healthy young people, but they are problems that deserve to be thought over and catered for if only to prevent psychiatric trouble at a later date.
Many parents of mentally handicapped children, parents whose hardship surely is among the worst in our society, are greatly helped today by the Toy Libraries Association. That helps to keep the child constantly amused and occupied by expensive toys that it would be beyond the scope of the parents to buy continually. They receive a flow of toys and equipment through this excellent association which gives a service of great mercy and therapy.
I know that this aspect of parents problems is only a very small corner of the many which abound today. Indeed, it is a family problem which only in recent
years has come to he shared in the community. Now that these methods have been found not only to alleviate the private sadness of the parents, but to enable the children to have the whale of a good time, it seems right that we should press on. I can only hope that my
260
noble friend the Minister will see that these schemes deserve every possible help.
5.59 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, this is the first occasion upon which I have had the honour to address your Lordships. Precedent leads me to hope that I may be favoured by your Lordships' forbearance and indulgence. I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for providing the opportunity for this subject to be debated, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the expression of his personal expectations.
In such a debate it would be easy for us to over-assess the difficulties with which we are faced. Difficulties there are indeed. However, we should be thankful for the fact that there are blessings to be counted. Within the recall of some present in your Lordships' House there was in this country underprivilege and deprivation on a huge scale; real poverty, hunger and undernourishment that led to infant mortality and serious impairment of health; bad housing, not just inadequate but almost inconceivably unacceptable by today's standards; a brief schooling in cramped and unsuitable conditions; exploitation of teenage children at work; cruelty and brutal chastisement at home; curtailed horizons that dictated the fixing of the limits as to what a child might aspire both to be and to do in later life.
Thank God that a great deal of that is in the past. For the most part, our children and young people know nothing of hunger. Their homes, their clothing, their health and their schooling are all to a standard that would have astonished our grandparents, even our parents. Children are mobile and free to travel both in a physical sense and in a social sense. If vestiges of the bad old days are still seen to be a matter of concern, it is because we recognise those days and ways to be bad and, therefore, to be eradicated.
The difficulties encountered in our time are of a different calibre. They spring from new pressures. First, there is the chipping away of the moral base which is essential to the wellbeing of society. I would be the first to admit that Christians do not hold the monopoly on morality. Certainly Christians are not alone in contending that what a man does springs from what he believes. Some might say—possibly with justification—that the Christian Churches themselves have contributed to the chipping away process. The fact remains that whereas 50 years ago a child at least knew the difference between "good" and "bad" and "right" and "wrong", nowadays those words have all but disappeared from his given vocabulary. They have been replaced by such words as "appropriate" and "acceptable"—"appropriate conduct", "acceptable behaviour". The first can be made to mean anything or nothing. The second can loosely be interpreted as meaning: If enough people are doing it, or will let you get away with doing it, then it is "okay"; it is not "right", not "good", but "okay". What a seedbed is there!
Secondly, by way of new pressures on the successful nurture of the young is the trend towards adult disengagement from the nurturing process. Comparative affluence takes its toll. Even with 3 million unemployed many children grow up in homes in which

261
both parents are in fulltime work. The temptation on the part of those parents is to attempt to provide for their children materially from the fruits of their own hard work, and to think that they are thereby absolved from providing the demanding personal involvement with their children's development and control. This trend has a cogent spillover into the lives of those parents who are teachers and perhaps, more significantly, those adults who have the potential for voluntary work among children and young people. Arising out of this is a third pressure—that occasioned by the evident withering of the concept of the family as the nuclear cell of society. This is a complex matter. I shall refer to it only in microcosm.
I do not think that I am alone in having benefited from what I was given, as a child, at the family table. Sitting at table with both parents and brother and sisters, one received nurture as well as nourishment. There, at the table, was gained a sense of the fitness of things—what was "on" and what was not, the knowledge of how to recognise and value others, how to receive the regard of others, how to take advice and sometimes correction. Is it generally known that in most family households in this country today it is, to say the least, unusual for the whole family to sit at table together for more than one meal in the week? Such is the way we are organised in our daily living that the family is not only not given a chance, but also its responsibilities and obligations are in danger of being usurped.
The fourth pressure point is less precise. I speak of the impact on the life of children and young people of pressures that arise from the fact that they live in a society that is affluent and technologically highly-developed. I allude only to one or two manifestations of what I mean. First, children now constitute a profitable market as children. From the earliest age their vulnerability is exploited by
those who see them as buyers. One of the first things they learn from television advertisements is the message: To succeed is to get and to have. They go on to learn from the television programmes themselves not to be too fussy as to the methods they use in the getting and in the having. Most young people, too, have had some sort of taste of the so-called "good life". They look on it, rightly or wrongly, as the norm. So caught are they in what might be termed the "affluence-trap" that, when hard-times come, the pressures are on them to take by illicit means those things they have been led to believe are theirs by right.
Again, the last two or three decades have seen a steady growth in what might be called, "giantism". For a concern or agency to be efficient in the productive sense it must be on a large scale. If this philosophy is applied to the field of education, as often as not it is at the expense of the true nurturing of the children. Most primary schools are, thank God, comparatively small. In such a school you will find a secure, relaxed atmosphere in which young children are known and valued and in which they can grow in wisdom and in stature in a remarkably heartening way. I only wish that I could say the same of children who receive their secondary stage of education in vast establishments—so big that even the staff are not known to each other. If that is true of the comparatively lightly-populated regions of the far south-west of England, I dread to
262
think what the conditions must be like in the vast urban areas. Small may not necessarily be beautiful, but "giantism" has an ugly face when it looks upon children.
In a maiden speech I must not detain your Lordships longer. I conclude by asking a question to which I venture to give an answer. What are children for? Are they "living dolls", brought into being for the pleasure and indulgence of their parents? Are they, essentially, potential "hands", potential voters, potential ratepayers—the "stuff" of the future? If that is all they are, we shall treat them as such and they will scrape through as best they can in a hostile, dangerous, shifting world in which the rat-race is the norm.
Children are not, essentially, for any of those ends. I must say that children are for God. They come from the Good Lord, they belong to the Good Lord and they are going to him. Each one of them is infinitely precious in His sight. It is the privilege of those of us who have survived to adulthood, and even to old age, to play some part, in spite of all the difficulties, in providing a background against which all our children may be helped to deploy to the full all the gifts with which a gracious and loving Creator-Father has undoubtedly endowed them.
6.10 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am delighted to be the first to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on his most moving and enlightening maiden speech. I am sure your Lordships will endorse my wish that we hear him more often. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for instigating this debate.
"Society is to blame for the ills of our generation"—or so we are told by those who claim to know. But it is a lame and threadbare excuse, made boring by repetition. The first and last responsibility for children, as it has been since the dawn of creation, must—I repeat, must—lie fairly and squarely on the shoulders of their parents. Because it is they, and no one else, who make the decision to have a baby and who initiate the process whereby it is brought into the world to become part of the great community of life. Having taken that decision, it becomes the bounden duty of all parents to bear the responsibility of ensuring that their children are properly prepared to become responsible and useful members of society.
Despite all the facilities provided by the State and other organisations to guide parents, there are still too many who do not prepare themselves adequately for the enormous responsibilities of parenthood. I have come to the conclusion that the rearing and training of children is not instinctive. Certainly I have found, as I am sure you have, those who are more capable, often considerably more capable, than others at coping with the difficulties which beset all parents. The vast majority of parents can, and do, adapt to social change but whatever these changes have been, are, or will be in the future there are certain fundamental qualities which must be learned both directly and by example from an early age. Among them, respect for other people and respect for property, which I take leave to mention because they seem so singularly lacking in certain categories of youngsters today.
How can a child be expected to become a responsible,

263
articulate and useful adult, valued by the community if he, or she, has no yardstick against which to measure the standard of his conduct, the value of his work, and the use of the contribution he can make to the common good? I am sure when we consider the problem we are happily agreed that it is only a minority of parents who find the difficulties and problems in the path of parenthood insuperable, and that fortunately the majority of youngsters are well disciplined, eager to learn and keen to do well in life. This would indicate that the difficulties that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has so properly brought to the attention of the House can be overcome. The purpose of the debate is to evaluate the difficulties and presumably to search for the means to overcome them.
I can only begin to scratch the surface of this complex subject, for there are so many factors which affect our children. For example, there are generations of low intellect families, few of whom ever rise above the vicious circle of low income, poor housing, inadequate nourishment, and who, because of continuous changes in housing and employment policies, are removed from their wider family. Their children are a burden to them and to society. They are turned out on to the streets to fend for themselves, and almost inevitably they will find themselves in trouble. The social services network has been set up to try to prevent some of the worst situations arising, but they cannot hope, however well intentioned are the social workers, to cover all the needs of those with difficulties.
Unemployment still carries the stigma of inefficiency and incompetence, and the man who, through no fault of his own, has lost his job must be shown that it is vitally important that he retains his self-esteem and the respect of his children. There are pre-retirement classes held by many firms and organisations. Could not similar classes be given to the unemployed to enable them better to understand their situation, and to enlighten instead of antagonise their children? Then there is the effect the media have in the propagation of ideas. We have always in this country prided ourselves on the freedom of our media, but surely true freedom must know some bounds. There are certain irresponsible elements who seem to positively encourage open rebellion against authority, aggression and violence, without the caveat that it is irresponsible and wrong. It is extremely difficult for parents to explain to their children that not all they see and hear from supposedly responsible institutions is right or indeed true. Particularly if the parents have difficulty in expressing themselves.
Time does not permit me to develop further the problems of the inner cities, cultural differences between our ethnic groups, the pressures on children to attain beyond the limits of their own ability, communication failure within the family, and a myriad of other points which present difficulties. It is said that for every problem there is a solution, but this must be based upon the supposition that resources are unlimited. We have a great fund of practical experience and knowledge in this country. We need to encourage a return to the concept of family responsibility, backed up by education both inside and outside our schools and colleges. Children should be encouraged to discuss problems, both their own and those of others
264
they observe, with those responsible for their upbringing. It is amazing how many difficulties can be resolved simply by talking about them, thereby increasing the understanding of adults by children and vice versa. This is a subject which has for long held my attention, and I wish again to thank the noble Baroness for enabling me to speak in this debate.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I now have been in your Lordships' House for six years, and on only one other occasion in those six years has there been a debate in your Lordships' House on the needs of children and their families, and that was during the International Year of the Child. Therefore, we are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for initiating this debate today.
May I take up one point. In such a short time one can only cover perhaps one small sector of interest. The noble Baroness talked about the children in this country in custodial care, and all that that implied. I have looked up the figures and it is true that in this country we have more children in custodial care than any of the other EEC countries. We have been dealing with juvenile delinquency, and it is on this that I wish to talk today, albeit for only eight minutes. We are not succeeding in our treatment of juvenile delinquency. Is the time not coming for us to look at a completely new structure of help, care, control and discipline for those children who infringe the law?
In the Health Service the health visitor sees all children under five and is able to help those children and those parents where one child is particularly in need of medical help. By the same token, every child goes to school, and therefore it seems to me that it is in the school that we should develop a system of assessing which particular children need help in a particular way, and who their parents are and what help they need and want.
I know that we have put a lot on to our teachers. We are now asking them much more in the light of the new Education Bill. We have done away with the eight handicaps, and we have now said that the children who should be particularly helped are those with learning difficulties. Children who have the ingredients of
delinquency, children who have the ingredients of personal problems and personal difficulties, are known to every teacher. It seems to me that perhaps our education system, to which I really do pay tribute having visited a number of schools in the last year, nevertheless should have an administrative structure by which the most difficult children, those showing signs of real problems, those showing signs of delinquency, should be helped.
If a child is in very real difficulties and nothing is done about him and he ultimately comes before the juvenile court, he steps straight into the penal system, and in that system there is a ladder. First he appears before the court; perhaps a supervision order is made, and often a custodial, or care, order is made. The child then mixes in custodial care, away from his home and family that he loves; maybe they were not very good to him, but he loves them just the same. He may then go into a community school with education, then graduate to borstal and from there go to prison. The figures show that to be so.

265
Should we not try to stop children from going into custodial care? I submit that preventive work is far better than cure, particularly in this instance when the cure does not work. Would it be possible for the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security together to work for a formula and strategy within the schools so that help may be given before the crash comes? If one sees a difficult child exhibiting real problems, one may visit the home and take the parents into partnership; in the home, if they are too fearful of coming to the school, as many of them are, or at the school, and they can be offered a choice. One can offer to do alt one can to assist the child at home, or give assistance in a day centre (many of which are now being set up) or, if life is impossible, to offer the choice perhaps of a boarding school. It is then the parents' choice, and the child and parents should be involved. I can say from experience that I have never known a parent to refuse help; they have been only too glad to have it.
Consider the reverse of the coin. If the child appears before the court and he enters the penal system by order of the magistrates, one has then lost the help of the parents—because they are feeling inadequate, or guilty or that their responsibility has been taken from them—and if the parents have to appear before the court, they are diminished. It should be possible for the two ministries to work together for a new scheme and structure. I am well aware that in our schools a number of "disruptive" units have been set up and that many teachers are doing an excellent job, but there is not a formalised structure.
I would draw the attention of the House to the report of the Barclay Committee, a working party on the role and task of social workers, under its chairman, Mr. Peter Barclay, who is chairman of the National Council of Social Service. The committee has produced an astonishingly good report. We do not agree with all of it, but the committee has done a great service to the country. I will quote only one passage from the report:
"There is no generally established tradition of collaborative effort between social work and other services. … The Association of Chief Education Social Workers suggested to us that the existence side by side of two social work services for children was anomalous and inefficient, and that these services should be concentrated within education departments".
The committee, however, did not agree with that, feeling that the social services offered a family service, but added:
"The National Union of Teachers proposed joint liaison committees between education and social services".
I return to the question of custodial care. In The Times on Tuesday, 11th May, the chairman of the Council of Barnardo's, Gillian Wagner, wrote:
"The first resort should be prevention".
And of Barnardo's she wrote:
"We do not pretend that … Barnardo's … can offer a panacea, but we know that the work we do can go a long way towards keeping would-be young offenders out of the courts altogether. … This, surely is the right way ahead".
Many social workers are working towards that and many are doing a good job. Nevertheless, there is not a formalised structure and I plead with the two Secretaries of State to take hold of this real difficulty of the differences between the two services.
266
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for his speech, and I wanted to close my remarks on the same note, but my effort will be very inadequate compared with his outstanding speech. During the 1930s I lived and worked in the slums of Birmingham. The right reverend Prelate will remember the back-to-back houses and the filth, poverty and unemployment. Yet the number of children in care and appearing before the courts was minute compared with today's. One can never condone poverty and had conditions, but one diminishes children if one always makes an excuse of their circumstances, and with that in mind I would quote one case, that of a boy who "lived it up" at a hotel for a week. He pinched a Balliol tie and then pinched a Balliol suitcase, and had the bill sent to me. I somehow knew who it was and I contrived to meet him. When I told him, "I think it was you and it was your bill", he replied, "Of course it was, but I had a very difficult background and difficult home circumstances". I said, "Did you know it was wrong to do it?" and he replied, "Of course, but my background and circumstances were so difficult".
We diminish children and young people if we do not, despite all the difficulties, stand for moral values. I therefore conclude by saying that religions have laid down values and standards and have pointed out principles for the guidance of human life, and therefore I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his maiden speech.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I wish at the outset to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on a magnificent maiden speech. I was relieved to hear that practically everything he said confirmed what I have believed for many years, only he said it in a far more efficient and easy to understand way. I was particularly glad when he emphasised the importance of recognising the difference between good and bad, something which seems to escape the notice of so many psychological reformers these days.
I was particularly interested to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on the question of delinquency, which is a very real problem in our society today. I have the firm feeling that one of the major causes of it is a preliminary sense of insecurity in the home. One of the greatest providers of security for a young child is love, love of the parents for the child and love of the child for its parents. Young people who are about to be parents, about to produce children, should take a responsible attitude towards the matter, and realise what their duties towards their children are going to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, spoke of the Swedish attainment of equal height among its children. I do not think that there is a great deal in that. I am 6ft. 2in, but nearing the end of my life, and looking back, I realise that I have not achieved a great deal, and I can look around the House now and see many to whom I could give several inches who have achieved a great deal more in about half the period. So I do not think that there is a great deal in that particular point.
The noble Lord also stressed considerably the Swedish attitude towards bodily health. But of course that has always been one of their manias. I should be

267
one of the last to say that physical health is unimportant in attending to children. Of course, it is important. But those who campaign so energetically for free milk are a little apt not to realise that physical health is far less important than mental health.
The family background is of the greatest importance. A child should be able to trust its parents and should be able to go to them for any information or protection that it might need. That is security, and a child must have security, or else when it goes out into the world by itself it will go wrong.
Education in true values—that is to say, good and bad, as the right reverend Prelate expressed it—begins at home; there is no doubt about that. Children cannot pick it up at school. It begins at home, and it is the duty of the parents to give that education from the word go. The trouble today is that so many parents do not themselves have a great deal of sense of the difference, and therefore they cannot pass it on to their children. But I believe that with a little guidance young married couples could be shown that that is one of the most important things that they must do.
One of the things that are most important in a child's life is that he must be able to feel that his parents are there for him to depend upon. It is absolutely fatal for a child to come home from school to find both his parents out. Parents should not both have whole-time work at the same time. I do not think that one can ever achieve that situation by any form of legislation, but it should be one of the most important points to emphasise to young prospective parents.
Finally, I wish to say a few words about broken homes. They do of course have fatal results, and it is true that divorce is very easy today. Young things get married at a very early age, before they have had any experience of life or of the problems which marriage involves, and the result is that so often it ends up in a smash. I think that something could be done in the way of education councils to give young people some form of coaching in what they really must learn to face if they are going to marry. I do not say that it will always work; human nature being what it is, naturally it will not. But it is an important point, and I think that every one of your Lordships will agree that marriage is more than just an experiement; it is something that should last for life.
6.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I, too, should like to express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for giving us the opportunity to debate these matters which are of such importance to our country and to our children. I should also like to congratulate my brother bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Biship of Exeter on his splendid maiden speech, and to say how very much I welcomed what he actually said. As a bishop I spend a good deal of time during my pastoral visits to parishes in visiting families in their homes, children and teachers in schools, people in their places of work, and clubs for young people. Not infrequently when on those visits and walking through the parish late in the afternoon I come upon groups of children trying to amuse themselves while waiting to be let in to their homes.
When I talk to the parents and teachers—and those
268
who come to speak to me are not necessarily Anglicans, or Christians, or of any religion—I have noticed that so often they do not speak to me about some physical or material problem which they are encountering, though they may have grave ones to face. Again and again they speak to me about the difficulty that they experience because of the climate of opinion in which they have to try to bring up their children, or teach the children, in the case of teachers in schools.
Diminishing resources for education, unemployment as a prospect for many young people on leaving school, inadequate housing, lack of space and resources for leisure, the effects of easier divorce (to which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has just referred) all serve to intensify the difficulties and to make them more acute. But—and this is why I was so glad to hear what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter said—behind them lies the climate of opinion which presses upon us all, but particularly upon parents, teachers and others responsible for the upbringing and care of children. I want to develop a little of what the right reverend Prelate said in his speech about these pressures upon us.
Great stress has been laid in recent times upon the freedom and rights of the individual. No one, least of all a Christian, should want to question this. But that freedom must be exercised with responsibility and with a willingness to accept the consequences of one's actions and decisions. Exercising that responsibility is an essential part of bringing up children, but just as important is helping the children themselves to learn to be responsible. However, learning to be responsible ourselves and helping our children to be responsible is something which is unfashionable today.
I should like to pick up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, made a few moments ago in talking about responsibility. She referred to not bringing young offenders into the penal system. A week or so ago I spent some time at one of our largest police stations in London meeting those who run there the juvenile bureau, which is a means by which children can be dealt with without being brought into the system. I was greatly encouraged by the results of which I was told and by the magnificent work through which those in charge were succeeding in bringing some responsibility not merely to children, but to parents, too.
As I say, we live in an age in which the general attitude is that a person must be free to do what he or she wants, but that he or she must be freed from the consequences. One phrase of T. S. Eliot haunts me continually. He speaks of those who
"Constantly try to escape
From the darkness outside and within
By dreaming of systems so perfect
That no one will need to he good".
I believe that in the kind of debate we are having today we need to remember that no system will ever make us good. This is why I am speaking about the climate of opinion: because I believe that in all our planning legislation and administration we have to take into account the effect that the climate of opinion is going to have on the way it will actually operate, the way it will either foster that climate of opinion or help to correct it.
That leads me to my second point, which is that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter has said, we live in a climate of relativism—that particularly

269
insidious and false idea that one selects values or moral positions as if selecting goods in a supermarket. I am not going to develop that point because my brother Bishop has already spoken about it. I would, however, just agree with him that the Church is not exempt from this charge. We have all been affected by what is called "situation ethics", in which moral norms are minimised or abandoned and the individual becomes judge in his own cause.
Thirdly, I should like to mention that we live in fact under the pressures of desires for immediate results, for getting things quickly and without cost. It is one of the things that we suffer from as a result of living in a consumer society; and I believe that advertising has a very powerful effect in giving us wrong values and in expecting us to get things quickly and without cost. This has the effect of putting a premium on the value of material objects to satisfy human desires. No one would wish to decry the immense increase in physical living standards, and I would endorse all that has been said earlier in this House about that. But man does not live by bread alone, and there are human needs that cannot be met by material things and which cannot be bought quickly and without cost. We do not see advertisements to enable us to acquire fidelity, integrity or honesty, partly because these qualities are not for sale but partly because they cannot be acquired in a moment and they need time to grow. I believe that one of the problems we face today is living under this pressure of wanting instant results.
The last point I want to make is that we live in a climate where equality is equated with identity; in other words, that if people are to be regarded as equal they must be regarded as being the same. This leads to a neglect of the proper and distinctive roles that individuals have; and when you minimise those distinctive roles you are reducing the possibilities of co-operation. Furthermore, if everybody regards everybody else as able to do the same things, then nobody in fact takes responsibility for anything. I believe we need to recover the distinctive roles of teachers, of parents and of social workers, and only when we have recognised that there are distinctive roles which are all equal in terms of their contribution to solving the whole problem will we get the kind of co-operation which we seek.
I want to make one last point, as I see time is pressing on, which is this. I believe that there is a case for some form of public recognition by the Government of the needs of the family at the present time. As has been said, the family is under fire. Many people are concerned in one way or another with the family, but I believe we need some public recognition of the fact that the family is the fundamental unit—not necessarily the nuclear family of western type, but "the family", and all that is meant by that. I believe we need some means by which all those who are concerned with the family in one form or another—planners, teachers, those concerned with housing—can in fact be encouraged to take the family into account when they are making their decisions in a way which I do not believe happens at the present time.
Whether the way is perhaps to have a Minister of the Family, as some people have suggested, or perhaps a Royal Commission on the Family, I do not know.
270
What I do feel very strongly is that there is a need on the part of Her Majesty's Government to recognise the needs of the family and in a public way, and through that recognition, to give an impetus to the co-operation between all those excellent bodies and authorities which are in one way or another concerned with the family. I believe it will do much to encourage parents and teachers and those who are most directly and daily concerned with children.
6.46 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I am very lucky indeed to find myself speaking after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, with whom I so very much agree, and after listening to the excellent maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter; and I must thank the noble Baroness for giving me a chance to speak in this debate. The reason I am speaking is because on one occasion I found myself running a youth club, in a state of complete ignorance as to how I ought to be doing it, but with one great advantage—that I knew I knew nothing. That is a very valuable point from which to start. I therefore listened to people.
It was a children's boat club on the water, and when it started as a club there were 30 children. I started off by listening to the children, who were my customers. Unless I ran the thing the way they wanted, they were not going to turn up. I had no way of compelling them to turn up; I had no way of making sure that they ever turned up again. They came because they wanted to come. Then I had to listen to the parents. Boating is a dangerous occupation; the parents knew it; and unless I did things the way the parents wanted, they were not going to let the children turn up. So I had to listen to them. Then I had to listen to the Inner London Education Authority, who provided quite a proportion of our cash. Sometimes I disagreed with them, but mostly I thought they talked sense. I also had to listen to the club committee.
Between them I slowly, I think, gathered wisdom. I certainly gathered members. I ran that club personally for six years before handing it over to others to run; and that possibly my opinions were right I gathered from the fact that my membership during the time I ran it rose from 30 up to 1,650. I had some 4,000 children through my hands; they put in 7,000 attendances, and we never had an accident.
Some things I thought I discovered from all of that. Your Lordships may disagree with me, but these were my conclusions and I give them to the House. When a child is born he has no fear. He does not need fear; his parents do absolutely everything for him. A very young child can be taught to swim in deep water because he is convinced that his parents will look after him; and, in the same way, a small child in front of a fire, if he is not watched, seeing the nice bright flames will crawl straight into them. He has no fear. When he starts to fear, that is the beginning of growing up. It is the start of his feeling that he has to do something for himself. At that moment he is aware that he has to do something for himself, and he is also aware of large forces outside his powers which he is unable to cope with and from which he must be protected.
Such a child needs two things—a safe area and a

271
protection round it. He wants a high, thick, solid curtain wall enclosing a safe area; and not only high, thick and solid but it must be visible, plainly visible, to him. What the child needs at that stage is certainties, certainties in the protection that surrounds him. This is not a time for giving the child ifs, buts and maybes; it is a time to give "Yes" and "No". Also inside that curtain wall the child needs an area of liberty, of freedom, where he can get on with the important business of building himself. Child's play is of enormous importance—and not merely child's play, but child's play of a kind that gives a child confidence and initiative, aware that he is his own captain. One of the advantages of my boat club was that I could send small captains out in all directions, each of them confident that he could handle his own little boat, confident inside a circle of regulations which kept the children safe but within that general framework, gave them the freedom to be their own captains.
That is enormously important. I do not think we are doing it enough. I think that the mistakes that we are making now are, first, that the protective curtain wall is not high enough, not strong enough, and above all, it is not visible enough. The child cannot see the protection around him. The other mistake, I think, is not to give them sufficient room for personal initiative inside those curtain walls and in the safe area. If we do not give them that room for personal initiative, we will do what is so often done with small baby animals brought in from the wild. They have been put in a protective cage and fed and then, at some moment when they are grown up, the person who has nurtured them opens the cage and expects them to go out and become wild animals. They cannot, they have never learned how.
Those, I believe, are the two mistakes that we are making: the curtain wall, the protection of parents, of schools and everything else is not "Yes" and "No" enough, not solid enough, not visible enough; and the area inside the curtain wall must he a safe area where the child must grow himself up. That is really what he has to do. We are not giving the children of our land enough of this freedom of initiative. If I could say nothing else in this debate—and I will leave the rest of the debate to others who know far more than I —then those are the two messages which I would give the House.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Exeter on an excellent and most moving speech. I know that we all look forward to hearing him many times. Next, I must thank the noble Baroness for initiating the debate and, at the same time, I must apologise to the noble Baroness, to the Minister and to Members of the House because I am already "under the whip" and I am afraid that immediately after I conclude I must run for I have a most important engagement.
I am concerned about the out-of-school play and recreation of children and young people and the problems which face the modern generation of parents. All generations have faced problems in bringing up their
272
children and have looked for solutions. We have to find solutions for the problems which parents face today. The changes which have taken place in our country over the past 50 years and the accelerating pace of social and technological change have created severe difficulties for parents, changes beyond the scope of ordinary individuals to cope with, without the help of outside forces.
The results of changes in work patterns, in the environment, in leisure patterns, in education and in the home can be seen on the streets of our inner cities, in the rising tide of vandalism and delinquency, and in the decreasing motivation of children in our schools. Like so many of our problems, the reasons for this are so numerous and varied that there is no one simple solution, no universal panacea to solve all our ills. But we can take one small but very significant step towards providing part of the solution for the difficulties facing parents today. That is to provide real play opportunities for our children in their leisure time.
The most effective way of achieving effective change is through the mobilisation of parents and other adults in the organisation, management and provision of play facilities. We must encourage active involvement by parents in the out-of-school lives of their children. Not only will this help to create play opportunities for children but it will encourage participation in the community. Furthermore, it is a vital element in parents' communication with their children, and visible proof of their caring. Finally, it will help create a climate in which children are held to be important. Parents cannot do it on their own. The complexity of modern society means they need help and we need to create a real partnership between parents, the voluntary sector and the state in all its manifestations. We must make effective use of all our resources: use of material resources by opening up our schools, playing fields, community buildings, sports halls and transport systems for use by children; use of the resources of people by helping them to use their time, skill and effort in the most effective way. To help people do this they must have the tools to do the job. That means providing them with information and on-the-spot advice.
Traditionally, advisory services have been provided
by central and local government, but today it is becoming increasingly apparent that this type of service can be more effectively carried out by the voluntary sector. Central and local government recognise the advisory role as important—the Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Sports Council, the Rural Community Council all have strong advisory functions and Government support. The out-of-school play and recreation needs of children do not receive recognition to the same extent. Only paltry finance is provided for the advisory role of organisations concerned with children's play. What is needed is to provide the voluntary sector with the comparatively small amount of funding necessary to enable them to provide this service, so that they can make the most of developing the greatest use of our most untapped resource, which is people.
My Lords, it is only through the linking together of Government and people that we can provide play opportunities for children. The voluntary organisation is the cement which links these two parts together.

273
If only we can come to recognise this, and take the necessary action, one problem that faces parents will be greatly eased. And we will have happier and healthier children—both in body and mind—and that surely must be something we are all striving for. It cannot be said too often that on the way children grow up and develop our future depends.
6.59 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to join other noble Lords in contratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for initiating this debate this afternoon, particularly because her late husband, with whom I had the privilege of serving in the Diplomatic Service, was a person of warm and sensitive personality and deep concern with human problems—qualities which the noble Baroness, as all noble Lords will agree, shares to a great extent. It was the greatest privilege to serve with the late husband of the noble Baroness.
Looking around us today, we see a sordid catalogue of evils which affect so many of our children. This is particularly apparent to someone like myself who has served for so many years abroad. I must not exaggerate, but we find our children now confronted with the evils of drug-taking, excessive drinking, permissive sex and so on. Such evils are particularly harmful to a class of person in whom I have been interested over many years—and I speak of those overseas students who come to Britain. What terrible things I have seen and heard! Only the other day, for example, I heard of a young student who came from a remote part of Africa who, completely unused to drugs, was persuaded to take LSD. Shortly after that, he jumped out of a window thinking that he was a bird. That is not an isolated example.
If—as happens sometimes—these students are nurtured in a religious background, whether Christianity or Islam, and if such students are unable to resist the temptations that they see around them, how great their fall from grace; how terrible their inner torments of conscience!
I should like to touch on only one aspect of this problem this evening. It is one of great importance to most of us—at any rate, to those who are parents—and it is of particular interest and importance to the parents of Moslem children. I refer to the unfortunate effects of certain types of sex education in our schools. This matter was raised in a Question in another place on 16th March in which the Minister was asked whether parents who objected to such education had a right to withdraw their children from such classes. The Minister, in his reply, indicated that the policy of the Government was to encourage the fullest co-operation between the education authorities and parents in the choice of material used. He also indicated—and this is very important—that some of the material available in our schools was "repulsive". He also said that some of this material had been withdrawn.
What he did not say—and this is a very important point—was that there was a statutory right for parents to withdraw their children from such classes. We must of course be grateful to the Minister for withdrawing some of this material—and I will not, of course, describe it to your Lordships—but it is extreme and repulsive. It is not so much the material itself that
274
so many of us would find repulsive; it is the moral teaching behind it: the kind of teaching which is enshrined in a recent book designed for teenagers called, Make It Happy—What Sex is All About, in which not only is free love encouraged, but also various horrible deviant forms of sexuality.
The best criticism that I have ever come across of the so-called permissive approach to education was contained in a recent number of the Family Bulletin, and if your Lordships will forgive me, I will quote it to you:
"Under the guise of scientific impartiality, the progressives are seeking to impose a one-sided ideology on our educational system. This ideology, which has no place for self-discipline and little enough for self-respect, is based upon a psychological fallacy. Even the facts of life on which it claims to rest are not the same as the reality. It is not a case of replacing the joys of sex with joyless sex; it is a case of restoring a sense of proportion to the sex debate and, above all, emphasising that only by relating sex to the higher emotions and to a moral ideal can it yield its full satisfaction, its true meaning and even its rapture".
I much regret that to many of us the so-called "progressives" are not preaching moral progress but moral retrogression.
Here I should like to say how strongly those Moslem parents who have children here feel about such education. In a debate in your Lordships' House on 26th March, I dwelt on the teaching of Islam with its emphasis on discipline, dignity, decorum and decency. One finds the most amazing examples of such discipline in young Moslem children. I have seen them sit for hours in their father's assemblies, silent and motionless. I have seen young children running shops; I have seen children of 10 or 11 entertaining foreigners on behalf of their fathers. Such children enjoy a degree of firm discipline coupled with deep warmth which I fear few of us in the West give to our children.
I am sure that we must congratulate the Inner London Education Authority on providing guidelines for Moslem parents, dealing with such subjects as nudity, providing special places for children to change, and so on. Also—an important point—providing Moslem parents with the right to withdraw their children from sex education. But that right, as I understand it—and I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister—applies to Moslem children only.
Perhaps I may conclude by giving two quotations from the Koran which are particularly relevant:
"Just as a bird lowers its wings in the presence of its elders, so must children show respect to their parents".
Secondly, referring to the parents themselves:
"And when they have reached the age of puberty, let your children still ask your leave as their elders do".
I join with many others in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on his splendid maiden speech. Since he has so rightly ended on a Christian note, let me quote to you from Psalm 127:
"Lo, children and the fruit of the womb: are an heritage and a gift that cometh of the Lord".
7.10 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I, too should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech and to thank my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs for introducing this debate. There have been some really quite philosophical contributions to the debate. I would say that my speech is going to have a more

275
practical flavour. Mrs. Thatcher has claimed that the Conservative Party is the party of the family. Much was made of this before the 1979 election. Mr. Patrick Jenkin, then shadow spokesman for Health and Social Security, proposed a family council which would eventually produce family impact statements. Since the election we have had no word of family councils nor of family impact statements. What has happened? Because of Government policies families are suffering more than at any time since the war.
I would ask your Lordships to look at family income support policies. The tax burden has shifted so that more households on low incomes are brought into the income tax system and the tax load has increased fastest for taxpayers responsible for children. The proportion of income paid in tax and national insurance by families with dependent children has risen by more than three times as much as for a childless couple over the last 20 years. A childless couple on three-quarters average earnings have seen an increase of 122 per cent., but for a couple with two children the increase is staggering—381·8 per cent. If you take the last three years, the increase was 1·3 per cent. for the childless couple, but 11·6 per cent. for the couple with two children.
Under the famous tax cuts in Chancellor Howe's first budget only £8 million out of a total of £4,600 million tax cuts went specifically to families by way of an increase in the addition to child benefit paid to single parents. Most of that £4,600 million helped those with incomes of £10,000 a year and above. Child benefit, brought in by the Labour Government—and I am all in favour of it as a means whereby the money is directed to the child—is the only means the Government have of boosting the incomes of working families. All families need it, but particularly it is the best way of helping low-paid families, as it forms a larger proportion of their income. There was no increase in November 1979. The increase of 75p in November 1980 represented a cut in real terms of 40p, since it should have gone up by £1·15 to keep pace with inflation; and the 50p increase last November has not begun to catch up to recover the position.
Patrick Jenkin explained in 1977 why his party was committed to child benefit. He said:
"First, because that is the way to restore the position of families. Secondly, it is the best way to ease the poverty trap. Thirdly, it is the best way to help poor families in work. … Fourthly, it is the best way to reduce the nonsense of people being much better off out of work. Fifthly, it is the best way of reducing the dependence of families on means-tested benefits".
But there was a complete turn-about since the Tories came to Office. They think it is an expensive way of helping families and that it is better to increase family income supplement and the child benefit premium for single parents. But an increase in that premium helps only about 4 per cent. of poor families in work—and if the single parent has two children, as more than half of them do, he or she is doing worse than if the real value of the benefit had been restored, as the premium goes to the first child only. It is a pity that the Government have forgotten what they said in Opposition—that the cost of higher child benefit should be accounted for in the same way as a reduction in direct personal taxation and not as public expenditure at all.
276
I have dwelt on this because money, or the lack of it, is one of the reasons why families are having increasing difficulties in bringing up their children. Poor housing, inadequate space for play, lack of playthings and books, clothes and shoes can grind down even the most loving parent. I am not denying for a minute that there are a lot of marvellous, happy families who are poor, but poverty takes a lot of getting over. A Government committed to the family and to the child, as this one said they were, should do something to redress the balance. My suggestion is that there should be a large increase in child benefit as the best way. Child benefits are the most cost-effective way for the Government to boost child support. One way to pay for this would be to abolish the married man's tax allowance which subsidises all married men to the tune of £4·44 a week. That could be used to put £3 per week on child benefit and still leave nearly £1¼ billion to raise the tax thresholds for all taxpayers.
But I fear that the Tories really do believe that woman's place is in the home. To quote Mr. Patrick Jenkin again, he said that family life was changing as a result of the number of married women working, and implied that this was not good. He said:
"There is an elaborate machinery to ensure that women have equal opportunity, equal pay and equal rights; but I think we ought to stop and ask: where does this leave the family?"
He suggested greater tax incentives to encourage mothers to stay at home looking after the children. Then:
"The pressures on young wives to go out to work devalues motherhood itself. Parenthood is a very skilled task and it must be our aim to restore it to the place of honour it deserves".
That is what he said. Well, keeping women at home also keeps them off the labour market, which is useful in times of high unemployment; but if married women did not go out to work the number of families living in poverty would increase four-fold. I believe that the achievement of women's equality and the elimination of family poverty are compatible goals.
What helps young parents most is some provision outside the home for the pre-school child. The chairman of the committee which launched the Headstart programme in the United States argued:
"There is considerable evidence that the early years of childhood are a most critical point in the poverty cycle. During these years the creation of learning patterns, emotional development and the formation of individual expectations and aspirations takes place at a very rapid pace. For the child of poverty there are clearly observable deficiencies in these processes which lay the foundation for a pattern of failure and thus a pattern of poverty throughout the child's entire life".
What is being done here to help the pre-school child, and particularly the child of poverty? The provision is very patchy and inadequate. Mrs. Thatcher in her 1972 White Paper, Framework for Expansion, said that in order to reduce inequality she made her aim for attendance at nursery schools 50 per cent. of three-year-olds, and 90 per cent. of four-year-olds. This aim was to have been achieved by 1981. What had happened by 1981? Twenty-eight per cent. of three-year-olds and 69 per cent. of four-year-olds were in maintained nurseries and primary schools—woefully below target. The Labour authorities have a much better record in this than the Tory ones. Every Labour London borough has over 54 per cent. of its three and four-year-olds in nursery or infant classes;

277
of the 14 Tory boroughs, 10 are below that figure, with Sutton at 16 per cent. winning the booby prize. Looking at the Tory counties, the picture is similar. Gloucestershire makes no provision at all; Dorset has no full-time pupils; Kent has five and Norfolk nine. And it is not that they make it up in part-time provision, either.
There is no doubt that children do benefit from this provision, and recent research in Oxfordshire has shown that the children who had had nursery provision were likely to do much better when they got to their primary school: they would engage in more challenging play, and they chose to spend more time than those who had been to play groups on formal education activities such as writing, looking at books and playing number and educational games.
But it is not only nursery provision that is needed. The working parent, and particularly the single working parent, needs much more. The estimated number of single parents in 1980 was 920,000, and they were bringing up over 1½ million children. Surely we want them to have the opportunity to work and provide for their families. The increasing number of children experiencing short or long periods of care and the increase in juvenile delinquency should frighten us into providing more and better facilities for those who cannot cope with their children, for whatever reason, or those who need to work to bring the family income up to a reasonable level. In 1980 there were only about 50,000 children in full-time day care. Registered or unregistered child minders accounted for another 120,000 or so, but almost certainly less than 5 per cent. of the children under five.
There are other ways than day nurseries or child minders to cope with the problem. The Americans have made several experiments. They have started "family day care"—working-class women taking about six children into their own homes. Then there is the "follow through" programme, which is a follow up of the "headstart" programme, involving parents and using schools. There is the extended school day, with schools opening early and closing late. This has already been mentioned by, I think, my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs. Activities are organised so that the working mother can do a full day's work and the buildings and equipment at the schools are made use of for more than a seven-hour school day. So there are other possibilities, and all very much cheaper to work and to run than keeping a child in residential care at a cost of £188 per week at an observation and assessment centre, or £175 per week at a community home with education.
Whatever the provision, and whoever provides it, there should be far more co-ordination and cooperation between the different agencies—DHSS, DES and Home Office and, similarly, at local authority and local health service level. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has mentioned this point so I shall not enlarge upon it, but I should just like to endorse what she said. But I should like to ask the Government what progress has been made as a result of Section 26 of the 1980 Education Act, which allowed local authority teachers to work in day nurseries. Is there much co-operation and are many authorities making use of the possibility?
Born to Fail is a pamphlet based on the National
278
Child Development Study, which is following the progress of all children born in the United Kingdom in one week in March, 1958. The latest information is on the children at 11. The comparisons show, accurately and reliably, the conditions in which children are growing up today. The disadvantaged children are those in low income families with poor housing, and either in big families or with only one parent. The difficulties which the parents of these children have are colossal, and the use that they make of the various services bears witness to this.
Among all families with children, the families of the relatively small disadvantaged group—one in 16—accounted for two-fifths of all those who called on the social and probation services. Families of the large ordinary group—two out of three of all children—accounted for one-sixth of callers on the same services. Thus a reduction in the numbers of disadvantaged could have a great impact on the social services. Even if 2 per cent. of children were no longer in the disadvantaged group, we could expect a reduction of 11 and 14 per cent. in the number of calls on the probation and social services. Of course, the health service is used very much more by the disadvantaged group, too.
Accidents are another problem. There are 140,000 children admitted to hospital as a result of accidents each year, and 2 million attend accident and emergency departments each year—one-third of all attendances. In 1980, 360 children under 14 were killed on the road and 9,088 suffered serious injuries. There are many accidents in the home—burns, scalds, poisoning. Think of the cost of all this, not least in human misery. Of course, accidents in the home are often caused by bad
housing. Where the housing is bad, they are more likely to suffer accidents because of overcrowding and lack of space, than are the more fortunate group. If you are in a home with no hot water, the kettle has to be boiled more often and the chances of knocking it over or getting scalded from the steam are that much greater.
This brings me to housing. Bad housing and inadequate space not only restrict the child's opportunity for investigation and exploration, for secure but independent play, but also put extra strain on other members of the family, with consequent effects on their attitudes and behaviour to each other. In Born to Fail—the book to which I referred—one in six of the disadvantaged children were, at age 11, living in a family without the use of a hot water supply; one in six without a bathroom and one in four without an indoor lavatory. More than 90 per cent. of the disadvantaged shared a bedroom, compared with less than half of the ordinary group; over half the disadvantaged shared a bed and, worse, one in 22 of them both shared and wet their bed—this at age 11. Think, my Lords, of the danger of cross-infection, of disturbed sleep and the effect on general health and ability to cope.
Not only will the disadvantaged have far worse conditions at home, but their opportunities for play and leisure activities are far less. As the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, spoke of this, I shall not enlarge upon it. But I should like to ask: Is it fair, is it wise, to be so mean on children's play and recreation? The National Playing Fields Association and Fair Play for Children received £100,000 in 1981–82, whereas the Sports Council,

279
whose work is primarily concerned with adult leisure, received £21 million. It seems out of proportion. And pennies spent on children in this way could save pounds on making good vandals' work and on borstal and detention centre places.
I hope I have shown that the Conservative Party has not proved itself to be the party of the family. Indeed, many families, and therefore children, are in very dire need and, certainly, worse off than they were three years ago. But the Government's attitude, I fear, is that problems which beset all families must be solved individually, rather than collectively. The idea is embedded in their official thinking. Self-help is part of their ideology. Increased privatisation, at the expense of collective provision, underlines the economic strategy which is threatening the very existence of the health service, the social security system and municipal housing. The same approach applied to the family is neglectful and restrictive for all but the best-off, and indeed conflicts with individual choice.
Anthropologists have talked of the difference between being poor and being part of a culture of poverty. In the squatter cities of Peru, Turkey, Athens, Brazil and India there are millions of poor, but little sign of a culture of poverty. I fear very much that, in some of our inner cities, we have slums of despair rather than of hope and that in those cities we have distinctive signs of a culture of poverty, which I think is both very worrying and very dangerous.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have a good deal of material to get through in the next 25 minutes or so and, therefore, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I proceed rather more quickly than I normally would. I am, of course, delighted to have been given the opportunity to take part in this debate this afternoon, particularly because that debate has been enhanced by the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, which I found both stimulating and inspiring.
Our children are our future, and it is a foolish and a heartless society which does not do all it can to give children a happy childhood and to prepare them properly for adulthood. If children are not given a good start in life, how can we expect them to grow up to live useful lives and to make a worthwhile contribution to society? The family lies at the core of the way we bring up our children. There is no doubt in my mind that the love, security and values which a family can give to a child provide the very best foundation for life.
Of course, we should not be too starry-eyed about family life. When people are living closely together, there will sometimes be friction and disagreements. But no one has yet devised a better way to bring up children, nor are they likely to. And, of course, the very closeness of relationships in a family helps to develop important qualities of consideration and toleration for others. I am not one of those who foresee the imminent collapse of the family as the cornerstone of our society. But it is subject to increasing pressure and change. Some of those changes certainly complicate the job of being a parent. Nobody doubts that it is a much harder task to bring up children
280
on your own, for example, than in partnership with your husband or wife.
There are also factors in society outside the family which complicate the task of parents, and of people such as teachers who are concerned with the upbringing of children and youngsters. We live in a society where serious crime is on the increase, and where authority commands far less respect than it used to. We also have greater family mobility, so that families with children can be isolated from their extended family. But, again, we should not allow ourselves to be persuaded that all the changes in society are for the worse. Far from it. Although the economy has been going through a difficult patch, we should not forget that the average family is much better off now than it was, say, 20 years ago. We have also seen the development of a whole range of community groups which help people with common needs to join together in meeting them. A number of these are of value to families with children. The Government believe that these groups perform a most useful role and we do all we can to encourage them.
I know that parents, and especially lone parents, often face problems in making arrangements for their children after school hours and during school holidays. This point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I welcome the efforts which parents have made in many areas to set up imaginative local schemes to provide children with somewhere to go which will be safe and welcoming. Schemes of this kind, which can draw on local community resources, seem to me to offer the most imaginative and constructive means of helping the so-called "latch-key" children. Children need an attractive alternative to the seductive temptations and dangers of the streets. That is why I am pleased to announce that the Department of Health and Social Security is to make a grant of £30,000 a year for the next three years to the National Out of School Alliance to help with their work of encouraging local community and self-help projects.
Another trend which I welcome is the growing recognition by the professions which work with children of the need to involve parents in the services, to work in a way which helps parents to feel more competent and assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities for the welfare and upbringing of their children. The Government do all they can to encourage this trend. The Education Act 1981, which the Government hope to bring into force in the 1982–83 school year, places health authorities under a duty to inform education authorities if they think any young children may have special educational needs. They must, however, discuss this opinion with parents before informing the education authority. They must also tell parents about any voluntary organisation which they think could give them help or assistance.
May I now turn to some of the specific points which have been raised in the debate this afternoon. I shall cover as many as I can, and those which I fail to deal with, for whatever reason, I undertake to deal with afterwards in correspondence. First, may I touch upon the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, when she opened the debate and referred to the question of child benefit, which was in the minds of a number of your Lordships. In 1982–83, we shall be

281
spending about £3,800 million on child benefit for 13 million children in 7 million families. In November, child benefit goes up by 60p. to £5·85 a week for each child, and one-parent benefit goes up by 35p. to £3·65 a week. This means that they will maintain their value in real terms.
While on that topic, may I deal with a related matter which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in connection with the married man's allowance. There has been a suggestion about converting that allowance into a more generous child benefit. This was one of the subjects touched upon in the recent Green Paper on this matter. The Government are still considering the various possibilities mentioned in that Green Paper and a substantial number of comments have been made since its publication. This will be primarily a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Naturally I cannot anticipate anything which he may want to announce in a future Budget, but I can say that the matters to which the noble Baroness referred are being considered.
If I may return again to her opening speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the question of school curricula. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has said:
"I believe that the most promising basis for future developments will be a curriculum which will provide a broad programme of general education but with a practical slant and will develop young people's personal attributes, such as a sense of responsibility and the capacity for independent work, and, finally, help them to discover what kind of job they might expect to tackle with success".
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, also referred
to youth unemployment. Again this is an area in which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is particularly active. The Government are determined to tackle youth unemployment and to provide young people with as comprehensive a range of opportunities as possible to help them find suitable permanent jobs. On 15th December of last year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced the Government's plans to introduce a new training scheme for the young unemployed which would provide courses lasting a full year from 1983—also that the quality of the Youth Opportunities Programme provision would be developed towards the new scheme during 1982–83.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, also asked me about lead in petrol. The Government have announced their intention greatly to reduce the level of lead in petrol in the next few years. I hope that will go some way towards satisfying the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness and, indeed, other speakers raised the question of the preparations which ought to be made for parenthood. I certainly agree that such preparation is important. Much valuable work is already going on in schools and in ante-natal clinics and by health visitors and voluntary groups—not least the Church. All of us who have been married, at least in the Church of England, remember full well, I imagine, the instruction that we received from the vicar before we entered into that state. We need to build on this to ensure that all parents—fathers as well as mothers—understand how to care for their children and are able to meet their social and emotional
282
as well as their physical needs. The document on the school curriculum which the Department of Education
and Science published in 1981 acknowledged the importance of preparation for parenthood. A variety of approaches can make a contribution. I hope that the project which my department is funding at the National Children's Bureau will provide some useful pointers for future initiatives.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, also referred
to the pupil-teacher ratio in our schools. The fact is that the number of pupils in our schools is declining and that the pupil-teacher ratio is at least being maintained at present—if not enhanced in some cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised a number of points in his speech. Could I refer to the Black Report which made a number of recommendations, among them the suggestion that meals in schools should be provided without charge. To provide all school meals free of charge would cost up to £1,370 million per annum, depending upon the extent to which pupils availed themselves of the facilities. Expenditure of this magnitude could not be contemplated in the present economic circumstances and would run counter to the Government's objective of eventually halving the net expenditure on the school meals service. Plans for 1982–83 assume a net expenditure of £325 million.
On the question of a non-means-tested scheme for free milk which it is suggested should be introduced—another of the Black Report recommendations—we accept that milk is an excellent source of nutrients, essential for the normal growth and well-being of infants, young children and mothers. We remain convinced of the benefits which the current welfare milk scheme brings to those most vulnerable. However, to extend the welfare milk scheme to all expectant mothers and to children under the age of five would increase its cost to at least £300 million per annum, and the noble Lord will not be surprised when I say that unfortunately the resources are not available at present.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, referred to toy
libraries. I wonder whether my noble friend saw the Written Answer in the other place on Monday last of my honourable friend Mr. Rossi to a Question from Mr. Peter Bottornley—another of my honourable friends. I shall not read out that Answer. It is in Hansard and the noble Baroness can read it at her leisure.
The noble Baroness also asked me about mentally handicapped children. The majority of mentally handicapped children grow up among their own families. I should like to pay tribute to their parents whose immense efforts make this possible. Support services are essential if parents are going to be able to manage. I am glad to say that more of these services are being introduced and developed by health and local authorities and by voluntary organisations. These can provide short-term care for children—if necessary, health care and developmental programmes. There is also a growing number of self-help groups for families with a handicapped member and clubs providing recreational facilities and holidays. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, in a most valuable and thoughtful speech to which I have already referred,

283
drew attention to the problem of parents who do not properly fulfil their responsibilities towards their children. This is a very real problem which will not be easy to overcome. I believe that efforts by community groups and statutory services to involve parents in activities for their children represent one way forward.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull, made a number of important points in her speech. I am not sure that I am in a position to reply to them all, but she did in particular draw attention to the Barclay Report on the role and tasks of social workers. We are very grateful to the Barclay working party and to the National Institute for Social Work for this thorough report. Many of its broad conclusions are consistent with our policies for the development of personal social services. We will be seeking urgently comments from interested bodies and will then consider what action the Government need to take. My noble friend Lady Faithfull also suggested that there are more children in custody in this country than in any other country.
Baroness Faithfull: Than in any other country in the EEC, my Lords.
Lord Trefgarne: My noble friend reminds me that she was referring particularly to the EEC. I fear that my noble friend is probably correct. It is the Government's intention to reduce the number of custodial sentences made and to develop the facilities necessary for effective community-based disposal. I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred to the possibility of a Minister for children or for the family. The Government's view is that the appointment of a separate Minister for such purposes would not be the best way of serving children's interest's. The main objection to establishing such a Minister is that if there was a separate Minister looking after children and families, then other agencies might well take less seriously their own responsibilities for matters affecting them. Policies for children in any field—for example, health and housing—cannot be divorced from the more general policies for these services. It is essential that they should remain the responsibility of the major departments of state concerned, although the Government recognise the need for and seek to ensure close collaboration between them in matters of shared concern. I know that this matter concerned my noble friend Lady Faithfull as well. So far as a specific Minister for children is concerned, there is also the problem of appearing to shift responsibility away from parents, relatives, neighbours and the community on to the state.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, might I remind the noble Lord the Minister that I was not referring to children, but specifically to the family? It was precisely because, as he said, policies for housing and other matters have to be divorced from the family that I want to bring them into the family. I feel that what the noble Lord is saying about the difficulties for a Minister of children not really relevant to what I suggested in my speech.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunder-
284
stood the right reverend Prelate, but I think that the arguments about a Minister for the family are really very similar to those in respect of a Minister for children, and I was certainly directing my remarks at both.
The right reverend Prelate also referred to the possibility of a Royal Commission on the family. There is already a Study Commission on the family, which is an independent body established in 1978 with the support of the Leverhulme Trust. That commission has published a number of interesting papers and I would like to pay tribute to its work. If the right reverend Prelate has not seen those papers, perhaps I can arrange for copies to be sent to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, in a speech of rather different tone to most of those we have heard this evening (and I make no complaint of that), raised a number of questions concerning specific Government responsibility at the present time, and she called for massive increases in the provision for child benefits and other areas. If I may say so to the noble Baroness, without belabouring the point, the one important fact which became apparent to this Government but which apparently escaped the previous one was that money does not grow on trees. When we came into office we found that there were a number of claims upon resources and that resources were simply not available to meet them—very desirable though many of those claims were.
Baroness David: My Lords, when I asked for a massive increase in child benefits I did suggest the means of achieving that without any increase in overall expenditure.
Lord Trefgarne: I accept that in that specific context the noble Baroness, Lady David, was referring to the removal of the married man's tax allowance, with a possible redistribution of funds and the resources thus made available. I said earlier that that is a matter which forms part of the Green Paper proposals on which consultation is now being undertaken.
I have spoken of the importance of the family and of providing the right sort of environment and services to bring up children. With your Lordships' permission, I now wish to draw attention to some of the many positive steps which the Government have taken to achieve this. We seek to do this in a way which does not detract from the responsibilities of parents nor imposes the straitjacket of state provision upon families. The Government place great value on individual freedom, and in this context we are anxious that services should not encroach on the prerogatives of parents themselves. But there is a long and honourable history of public provision for families with children in education, health, housing and social services—as well as important financial support through the social security system.
Turning now to the question of education, the task facing schools is very difficult when links between home and school are not well developed. This Government have done much to involve parents in education. We have introduced new and improved arrangements for choice of school. There is now provision for parents to be represented as of right on school governing bodies, and local authorities and schools have to give parents information about what the schools are doing

285
and seeking to achieve. It is encouraging to see the development of a number of parent support schemes in inner city areas, sometimes with urban programme funding, which aim to build on parents' own knowledge and abilities and provide information and advice where needed.
Turning now to health services, the community-based pre-school and school health services have a key role to play in monitoring children's health and helping parents to understand how to care for their children. Health visitors visit families soon after a baby is born and give information, support and advice to parents until the child goes to school. Health visitors and community doctors keep an eye on children's development and try to ensure that vaccination and immunisation are offered at the appropriate times. On the question of handicapped children, over the last decade or so Government policy has been directed towards enabling children with special needs to live at home with their families. This can be satisfactorily achieved only if a wide range of support services are made available to families and if professionals fully recognise the vital role parents have in helping their children to reach their full potential.
Turning now to the question of children under five years of age, day provision for under-fives always provokes debate. Some people believe that the state should do much more to provide day care places. While I welcome discussion on these matters, it has to be accepted that while resources are scarce they must be used to give help to those who need it most. One of the first priorities of the statutory authorities and voluntary bodies working in this field must be to meet the needs of those families with special social or health needs for day care. Day care services are often criticised for being too diversified, but to my mind diversity has great advantages because new ideas can be tried out and services developed to meet the needs of individual communities. For example, we are beginning to recognise that traditional day nurseries are not necessarily the best form of care for young children. Increasingly, parents are becoming much more closely involved in the care of their children and day nurseries are developing into family centres to the benefit of both children and parents.
My Lords, I sec that time is running out. I have a lot more to say but I am not going to get through it all. Perhaps I might just refer to the question of delinquency, which I know was on the minds of a number of noble Lords. The level of juvenile delinquency is a major concern to the Government. The problem demands two responses: a response to the underlying causes and a response to the symptoms. Research suggests that delinquency is most likely to occur where there is parental criminality, ineffective supervision and discipline, family discord, and weak parent/child relationships—and it is therefore important to develop services to families in the way I have described so as to prevent delinquent behaviour from developing.
The Government therefore attach particular importance to the question of intermediate treatment facilities. I had intended to speak on this subject at some length but I fear time precludes me from doing that. What I hope I have demonstrated tonight is the Government's real concern to help those responsible for the care and upbringing of children and the many steps we have taken
286
to demonstrate this concern with practical action. I am grateful to many noble Lords and Ladies for putting forward a number of interesting ideas about more that we could do, and I shall undertake to look carefully at all those that fall into my area of responsibility and will pass on to my colleagues in the Government those which fall elsewhere.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I know that we have very nearly reached the end of our time, so I think I only have time to thank all those noble Lords and Ladies who have been so very good in making extremely valuable contributions to this debate. I would like to congratulate the maiden speaker that we heard. I was particularly touched by what he said about the absence of parents and the lack of nurturing. I would also like to congratulate the Minister on going at such a huge speed; I know that he was promising even more which we shall have to take for granted. I would like to thank him for what he said about the extra provision for the latchkey child. I hope what he said was true about the real value of the child benefit scheme remaining; I am not quite sure if that is true.
I would particularly like to thank my noble friend Lady David for reminding us that this was a Labour Party debate, and for representing the interests of the less privileged children in this country in such a very succinct way. As there has been a great deal of talk about the absent parent and the latchkey child, I remember that my own child got back from school about four hours ago, so I shall now beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Children's Homes Bill
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this Bill is the protection of children and a very particular group of vulnerable children. I am referring to those children in the care of a local authority who are sent to live in privately run children's homes. Unlike all other kinds of accommodation for children in care, it is an astonishing fact that these private children's homes escape control of any kind. Most of them provide a satisfactory, and in some cases excellent, standard of care. But it is scarcely surprising that over the years there have been a number of disturbing incidents affecting children who live in them, incidents usually involving their exploitation in one way or another or dubious standards of accommodation or staffing.
This has not been a great problem, but even if one child or two children suffer, action must be taken. The situation has caused me concern, which I feel certain will be shared by noble Lords. Honourable Members in another place have been disturbed at incidents brought to their attention from time to time and their response to this Bill has demonstrated unanimity of purpose. We might all congratulate the honourable Member for Hartlepool for promoting on this subject a Bill which is long overdue.

287
To give your Lordships some facts, there are about 170 such privately run homes, operating mainly on a commercial basis, although I understand that one or two are run by charitable trusts. Some 2,500 children in the care of their local authority live in these homes. One problem is that these homes are concentrated in comparatively few areas, mainly in the South and West, while the children who are sent to live in them come from some 50 or more local authorities all over the country, especially the big cities. Most of the children are, therefore, a considerable distance from their home areas and their own social workers are not within easy reach.
These homes fulfill a very useful function in accepting children for whom there would otherwise be no suitable accommodation. But, it is surely quite wrong that these homes should be subject to no sort of statutory regulation or control. I understand that the local authorities, the professional interests and the bodies representing these homes all agree that some form of control is long overdue. I would stress that the independent Children's Households Association themselves welcome this bill.
The Bill now brought before the House sets out a system which I trust will command general approval both inside and outside the House. Briefly, I would describe what is proposed. Clause 1 defines the type of children's home to which the Act will apply, and except for certain independent schools, excludes institutions already subject to some sort of statutory control. Clause 2 will prevent local authorities from placing a child in their care in an unregistered home and make it an offence punishable by a maximum fine of £1,000 for an unregistered home to accommodate a child in care.
Clauses 3 to 6 provide that these homes must apply for registration to the local authorities in whose areas they are situated. The authority may grant or refuse an application or grant it subject to conditions. While the application is being considered existing homes will be allowed to continue in operation. Each home's registration will be subject to an annual review. The registering authorities will be empowered to charge a fee for both the initial registration and the annual review. This fee will cover the cost to them of the inspection and administration necessary in operating the registration scheme. It is expected that the homes will pass on the cost to them of the registration fee in the form of a small increase in the weekly cost charged to the placing authority for each child. A rough estimate is that these weekly fees will need to rise about 75 pence.
If it seems to a registering authority that a home is not operated in accordance with the provisions of the Act it may cancel the registration. A home that has had its registration refused or cancelled may not apply again for six months. Clause 7 deals with the way a home may appeal against adverse decisions made by the registering authority; namely, a refusal to register, conditions imposed on registration, and cancellations of registrations. Such appeals may be brought to an appeal tribunal especially constituted for the purpose whose decision will be binding on the registering authority concerned.
Clause 8 deals with the sort of regulations to be made under the Act. One set will be concerned with the
288
registration procedures, the form in which the application for registration must be made, and so forth. The second set will deal with the way in which these homes must be operated and the provision that must be made for the welfare of children living in them. These regulations should include such matters as the standards of accommodation, staff, equipment to be provided, arrangements for the medical, psychiatric and dental care of the children and so on. They should also require homes not to exceed numbers of children accommodated as notified by the registering authority, and that proper records are kept in respect of the children.
Clause 9 gives the registering authority the power to enter and inspect the home and the children accommodated in it. Anyone authorised to do so would, if required, need to produce evidence of his authority to exercise this power. Clause 10 debars people who have been convicted of offences against children from being involved in the management of registered homes or being employed in them.
Taken together these provisions will, I believe, provide a simple and workable system of controlling these privately run children's homes without imposing too great a burden either on the registering authorities or on the homes themselves. But, more importantly, they provide a much needed degree of protection to the children who are sent to live in them. It is quite wrong that, because of the gap in our present arrangements, a small group of children may be consigned to establishments which escape any regulations. In the expectation of general agreement with the intention of the proposals that I have outlined, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Faithfull.)
8 p.m.
The Countess of Loudoun: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has said, there is a great deal of disquiet over the legislation, or rather the lack of it, for private children's homes, as it stands at the moment, so I very much welcome this Bill. It will protect children from those who use these homes purely for monetary gain, as well as regulate how such homes should be run and the minimum standards of care that must be provided in them. There are many of these homes throughout the country. Along the south coast alone there are about 170 private children's homes. Many of them are satisfactory, but others have caused considerable concern about the welfare of the children living in them. The position at the moment is that the local authorities do not, in general, have the right to inspect them and the Secretary of State has no power to close any private home or to require changes to be made.
County social services lack powers to inspect and regulate the general standards and running of privately-owned children's homes, which provide care only for children placed by local authorities. At present, qualifications of proprietors of private homes are not commensurate with the responsibilities they undertake. Children should be visited at regular intervals, but the caseload of social workers, especially in the London area, is such that regular visits become impossible, children being in private homes spread throughout the whole country.

289
It is only in crisis situations that the local social services departments might step in, and then only on an informal basis on behalf of the local authority which originally placed the child in the particular home. Many of these children are very young and more often than not they are psychologically disturbed and educationally retarded. In this state they are often placed in private homes run by unqualified staff. So I very much welcome Clause 3 of the Bill dealing with the registration of children's homes, with the attendant regulation on the conduct and inspection of these homes. I also hope that there will be a minimum child care qualification requirement before there is any registration acceptance.
There is only one question that I should like to ask, which is about the timing of registration. Has registration to he immediately prior to a home being opened, and for those homes already in operation is there a specific time limit within which they must register? I should be grateful for clarification on this point. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I very much welcome this Bill which goes some way to allay the anxieties of many of us with the interests of our children at heart.
8.5 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to welcome this Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I rise to speak because I was fortunate enough to be connected with one or two children's homes and I would like particularly to take this opportunity to praise the really splendid work done by so many of these homes all over the country. I am speaking, of course, of homes run by organisations like Dr. Barnardo's the Church of England Children's Society and other organisations, and I am sure, also, that your Lordships will agree that many of the smaller homes, whose proper regulation and control we would all of us so warmly support, do really splendid work.
Perhaps I could put to your Lordships one or two aspects of the contribution that these homes make to our society. In the first place, as I see it, they give children a sense of identity. The children who are accepted, as many of your Lordships will know—particularly those of us who have had experience of social work—come to the homes battered in mind and in body, and I think that many of us will agree that it is the mental aspect that is almost more important than the physical. They come to the homes suffering from various types of physical and emotional disabilities, behavioural problems and so on. Above all—I am sure that the experience of the noble Baroness in this field is much greater than mine—they suffer from rejection. It is in these homes all over the country, whether they be large or whether they be small, that these children are able to find themselves.
Secondly, I would say that these homes provide a very, very valuable service in bringing out latent talent in children. It is rather like the vegetation, the grass and the flowers that spring from the desert after the rain. The seeds, long dormant, suddenly flourish under the impact of the spring and winter rains. In the same way the qualities and the artistic and other talents of the children, which no one would have imagined existed, and which have lain dormant for so long, are remarkably discovered and developed.
290
Like the plants in the desert these children's talents blossom and flourish.
Perhaps it might interest your Lordships if I tell you about a very few of the children whom I used to visit at one of these homes something like 25 years ago. One of them, largely through his own efforts but undoubtedly under the stimulation of splendid guidance and help from the people who ran the home, managed to get to Sussex University where he took a degree in sociology. Another became a banker and when I last knew him he was an assistant bank manager. He may well be a hank manager by now—a very remarkable achievement. Another did very well in the sphere of printing. Another went into publishing. Two more went into the services. One served with distinction as a petty officer. Yet another became a lieutenant commander, which is really a remarkable tribute to the influence of these homes.
The third aspect of these homes that I would like to put to your Lordships is that they do provide a very valuable meeting point for people of all races, creeds and colours. It is the cement of adversity which throws these children, who come from these diverse backgrounds, together. They feel that they have to help each other out because they all suffer from one or more disability. In that context I am reminded of that wonderful saying of King Sobhuza II of Swaziland, a country which perhaps some of your Lordships may have visited. King Sobhuza, who I did not have the pleasure of knowing, was I think a great pianist and he said that the blending of black and white was like the harmony produced by playing the black and white keys of a piano. So I think that those of your Lordships who have had first-hand experiences of such homes, as I have, will agree that they provide a very valuable service indeed.
The aspect of this Bill which strikes me most—and I gather from the noble Baroness that it will not be discussed in detail as it is not likely to be opposed—and the aspect of it which is of greatest concern to all of us and which has already been mentioned, is the choice of staff. It is not only a matter of eliminating staff who misbehave, and most of us will have heard of tragic examples of that in the past few years; far more important—I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree with me—is the selection of people of right calibre at the outset.
Those of us who were concerned with education would, I am sure, agree that the selection of schoolmasters is of paramount importance, but to my mind the selection of staff to run these homes is of even greater importance, because such staff act as parents. They assume the full responsibilities of parents and, indeed, in many cases—as I have seen myself and as perhaps other noble Lords have also seen—they even exceed what most parents in our country would do. They provide warmth; they provide discipline. That combination of firm discipline and deep warmth—qualities which I referred to briefly when we were discussing the Motion initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs—are of tremendous importance.
What I think is most interesting is that over the years that I have known these homes the attitude towards the staff has somewhat changed. I should add that the homes I knew have now all gone. They were not closed because they were inefficient; they were

291
closed because—and this is an important point on which I am sure the noble Baroness will bear me out—the policy now in the country is to take children away from homes wherever possible, and either board them out or provide adoption at an early age.
But the policy towards the staff of these homes has changed. When I first knew the particular home about which I am speaking, the staff who ran it were always addressed as master and matron—a somewhat harsh and perhaps almost Dickensian approach. But over the years that has changed and now the staff are always known as uncle and auntie, reflecting a very beneficial change. I shall not detain your Lordships any longer, but in supporting this admirable Bill, I would most sincerely express the hope that the work of these splendid homes throughout our country be more widely known and more generally recognised.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for giving such a clear explanation of the Bill and to say at once that we give it all our support. The only surprise is that it has taken so long to have this Bill. I gather that it has taken 10 years to set it up; a working party was set up in 1972 by the DHSS, and Bills have been drafted, but nothing has come of them. So I hope that this Bill will have a swift passage through the House.
I want to ask a very few questions on the Bill. Clause 3(5) seems to be rather curious. Apparently, if a local authority pays no attention to an application for registration, after 12 months the home is deemed not to be registered and, therefore, would have to close. It seems rather curious that by a local authority doing nothing and being lazy, a home can suffer. Perhaps I have not seen the point of it, and maybe the noble Baroness will be able to explain it.
Clause 8(1), dealing with the regulations, says:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the registration of children's homes, as to the conduct of registered homes, and for securing the welfare of the children in registered homes.
(2) Regulations under this section may in particular…
(c) make provision for children accommodated in registered homes to receive a religious upbringing appropriate to the religious persuasion to which they belong".
I just wondered what happens to those children who do not belong to any particular religious body and how one decided what to do about them.
I also want to know on what date the Act would come into force. Clause 16 says:
"This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint…".
It is very nice to have got this Bill this far, but if it is only to sit waiting, it seems rather a pity. What will be the reasons for not bringing it into force at once? We are told in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that the expenditure will be £100,000 and possibly 10 or 11 extra staff, but, on the other hand, it says in the Bill that this money will be recouped by higher charges. So I just wonder why we are to delay the Act's coming into force once it is an Act.
I have one or two questions on what is not in the Bill. The first concerns the question of secure accommodation and corporal punishment. The use of measures restricting the liberty of young people and the
292
use of corporal punishment are not covered by the Bill. The DHSS Legal Aspects Working Party in 1981, among others, expressed misgivings about the use of secure accommodation as a means of control, even in homes subject to approval and regulation under the Community Homes Regulations 1972. There is no statutory control in voluntary and private homes on this matter and I should like to know what are the intentions.
As regards corporal punishment, Regulation 11 of the Administration of Children's Homes Regulations 1951, governs the use of corporal punishment in voluntary homes and the Community Homes Regulations 1972, which replaced the 1951 regulations in respect of community homes, does not mention corporal punishment specifically. Over the years, various statements have come from the DHSS and a circular in 1972 states:
"There has been a decline in the use of corporal punishment and it is hoped that the trend will continue".
In 1978 the Secretary of State held the view that corporal punishment was neither desirable nor proper. However, a recent report, Caring for Children, showed that there was a good deal of it still going on. But even if it is banned by local authorities in their own homes, they cannot control it in voluntary or private homes. Is there any intention to do anything about this?
Those are the questions that I should like to have answered, either by the noble Lord the Minister or by the noble Baroness, but I wish the Bill well.
8.19 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Baroness has fired about eight barrels at us this evening. In the six seconds since she sat down I am afraid that I have not been able to marshall all the answers, but I shall cover as many points as I can and write to her with pleasure on any points that I omit. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Faithfull may well wish to deal with some of the points when she comes to reply.
I am pleased to be able to respond to this debate, which has introduced such a worthwhile Bill to your Lordships. My noble friend's "pedigree", if I can call it that, gives particular reason for her views to be accorded considerable weight. My noble friend has devoted her professional career—and indeed a great deal of her time in your Lordships' House—to pursuing the wellbeing of children, especially children at risk or in public care. Throughout her career as a children's officer in Oxford, where, I am told, she knew personally every child in her care, subsequently as that city's Director of Social Services, and now in this House, she has given her time and energy unstintingly to pursue what, from her long experience, she believes to be right for children and young people.
It is therefore particularly appropriate that she should have chosen to promote this Bill before your Lordships. The purpose of this Bill is to provide protection for a vulnerable group of children for whom, as a result of an anomaly in the existing range of legislation, there are at present inadequate safeguards. This Bill will meet a need about which there has been agreement among all parties, both inside and outside the House. If your Lordships will permit me, I will outline a little of the background. As my honourable

293
friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health explained when he spoke in another place, it was as long ago as 1972 that a working party was set up to consider the registration of all residential homes. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to this. There had been some disturbing accounts at that time about conditions in a number of private children's homes. Two years later the working party reported in favour of a registration scheme for children's homes. The necessary consultations with the local authority associations and the professional bodies concerned were then put in hand. By 1978 agreement on the broad details of a system of registration and control had been reached. The problem then, and subsequently, has been to find space for this desirable measure within the crowded legislative timetable. This is a problem from which this Administration was not immune, nor indeed was the previous one.
Perhaps I could enlighten the House by saying something about children in the care of local authorities, and how they come to be placed in these homes. As my honourable friend outlined, the accommodation of children in care is governed by Part III of the Child Care Act 1980. Local authorities may provide accommodation and maintenance for children in their care in a variety of ways, such as boarding them out with foster parents or placing them in community homes (which they run themselves or in association with a voluntary organisation). They can also accommodate them in voluntary homes or, in certain circumstances, in special establishments like a youth treatment centre or a hospital. All these ways of providing for children in care are subject to regulation or control of one kind or another, intended to safeguard the welfare of the children.
In addition, however, local authorities have the option of placing children in their care in privately-operated children's homes. Some of these homes are run simply as a business; a few are registered with the Charity Commissioners. Some also provide education on the premises. As far as we know—and there are no centrally collected figures on this—about 2,500 children in care are so placed. Alone out of all types of establishment providing for children separated from their parents, these homes currently escape any kind of statutory regulation.
My Lords, local authorities who place individual children in these homes do have a responsibility to ensure that they are suitable for the child's needs. They are required to satisfy themselves regularly about the child's continued welfare and that the home provides a stable and affectionate climate in which the child can grow and develop. However, although each child is the responsibility of a particular local authority, no single local authority has the power or responsibility to inspect or monitor the standards of the home as a whole.
Now, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State does have certain powers in respect of these privately-run homes. Under Section 74 of the Child Care Act 1980 he may authorise the inspection both of the premises where children in care are accommodated and of the children. However, where he finds conditions at a privately-run children's home to be unsatisfactory, he does not have power to require the home to institute changes of any sort, to require the removal
294
of children or to prevent further admissions. The Bill plans to remedy matters by giving appropriate powers, not to my right honourable friend, but to the local authority in whose area the home is situated, and this seems entirely appropriate.
We hope that a close association—not purely a regulatory function—will be built up between the registering authorities and homes in their area. A decision, as provided in the Bill, to cancel the registration of a home will, I hope, rarely need to be used. By informal as well as formal contact and discussion with the staff of a home, standards can be influenced and the quality of care offered can be maintained and improved.
My Lords, the scheme proposed in this Bill seems practical and workable, and we envisage only a marginal effect on public expenditure. The costs of running the registration and inspection procedures will be incurred by the few local authorities where the homes are sited, but they should not be out of pocket, for they will recoup those expenses from the registration fees they charge the homes. The costs will actually be met by the much larger numbers of placing authorities, by way of a small increase in the weekly charges they pay to these homes for each child accommodated.
Essentially, therefore, this will be a control system run on behalf of local authorities generally by the few authorities, particularly in the South of England, which act as host to the privately-operated homes. When my department consulted the local authority associations and the professional bodies concerned about a possible registration system, it was a scheme of this sort that was favoured, and so I hope that the proposals in this Bill will be generally welcomed.
May I just touch on one or two of the points that have been made: first, by the noble Baroness, Lady David, about secure accommodation. Children's liberty may be restricted only in accommodation approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State. It is not the intention that such accommodation should be provided in the private children's homes to be approved under this Bill. The noble Baroness also raised a question about Clause 3(5). If a home has not received approval to register after one year the appeals procedure comes into effect and the authority's delays can thus be challenged. It really was for the benefit of the homes that that provision was provided.
On the question of religious upbringing, if a child has no religion then I am assured that none will be imposed on it. I should like again, if I may, to thank my noble friend for introducing this Bill into your Lordships' House, and indeed the honourable Member for Hartlepool in another place. Between them they are promoting this valuable Private Member's Bill; the Government fully support the measure, and I hope that it will soon be on the statute book.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, may I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. In answer to Lady Loudoun's questions, homes will need to apply for registration from the date that the Bill commences. The registering authority then has a period of up to 12 months to come to a decision. During this period homes may continue to operate. After the commence-

295
ment of the Bill any new home will need to apply for registration before it starts to operate.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, that we should pay tribute to the staff who work in children's homes of all kinds. Equally I should say—and I agree with him—that it is the intention of both the statutory and the voluntary services, so far as is possible and practicable, to keep children within their own families. Where that is not so, we seek to place children in foster homes and give them substitute homes, but reality forces us to admit—well, not forces, but makes us admit—that there are some children who need the care and the surroundings of a children's home.
May I also at this point pay tribute to the Residential Care Association who, over the last five years, have sought to raise the standard of the staff in children's homes. There was a time when very few of the staff in residential accommodation were trained. Now there are many more trained—perhaps not as many as we would like—and I think we must pay tribute to the Residential Care Association who have lifted both the status and the standing of those who work in children's homes.
As an ex-practitioner, I can say, in regard to religion, which was always a difficult matter, that we always subscribed to the regulation that a child should be brought up in the religion in which he was baptized. That sometimes led to difficulty because obviously children went to different churches, had different religions and had different instruction, and often the child who had nothing felt deprived and would say so. But we would never send a child to church or to any form of religious activity without consulting the parents and the child, and it was my experience that when we did that the parents usually said what they wished, and those wishes were carried out. If the parents said specifically, "I do not want my child to have any religion at all", one would abide by those wishes. I must say, in fairness to all parents, that that did not often happen, partly because the children did not want it.
I think my noble friend replied to the noble Baroness about secure accommodation and corporal punishment. Regarding the coming into force of the measure, the date of commencement will depend on negotiations with the local authorities and other interested parties.
Baroness David: I do not think I had a reply about corporal punishment, my Lords. My attention may have slipped momentarily, if there was a reply, but I cannot recall receiving one from the Minister.
Baroness Faithfull: In that case, I will answer the noble Baroness on that matter. Article 10 of the Community Homes Regulations 1972 does not do away with corporal punishment—this applies to local authority homes—and states that corporal punishment may be maintained on the basis of personal and professional relationships. That means that we have not done away with corporal punishment, although that is the effect of it because, with problem and difficult children, it is dangerous to give them corporal punish-
296
ment. From the point of view of good practice, therefore, good residential staff know that corporal punishment is not the way mostly to help the children. Therefore, although corporal punishment has not been forbidden, it is not very much used. I would draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the fact that the homes are inspected by the local authority and that each child has a child care officer. If corporal punishment were used in a way in which it should not be used, I am sure it would come to the notice of the registering authority.
On Question, Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Iron and Steel Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
  CRIMINAL APPEALS
  CRIMINAL APPEALS
  NATURALISATION: APPLICATIONS AND REFUSALS
  NATURALISATION: APPLICATIONS AND REFUSALS
  PEERS' ALLOWANCES
  PEERS' ALLOWANCES
  THE TOP SALARIES REVIEW BOARD: RECOMMENDATIONS
  THE TOP SALARIES REVIEW BOARD: RECOMMENDATIONS
  WILD BIRD PROTECTION: EEC DIRECTIVE
  WILD BIRD PROTECTION: EEC DIRECTIVE
  WESTERN ISLES: WILD BIRD PROTECTION
  WESTERN ISLES: WILD BIRD PROTECTION
  ROTHIEMURCHUS LAND: SSSI STATUS
  ROTHIEMURCHUS LAND: SSSI STATUS