Sitting of 28 June 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MINERS' AMNESTY (GENERAL PARDON)
  Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Bob Clay, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Martin Flannery, Miss Joan Maynard, Mr. Bill Michie, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Martin Redmond and Mr. Dennis Skinner, presented a Bill to provide for a general amnesty for all those who were fined, imprisoned or otherwise punished by the courts, the National Coal Board or others, for acts done or offences committed during the 1984–85 strike by the National Union of Mineworkers; to secure that full pardons, reinstatement at work and compensation shall be offered to all the persons involved; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday 1 July and to be printed [Bill 172.]

Policing (London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]
9.36 am
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): I am very pleased that the House today has the opportunity for a full debate on the policing of London. This is the third successive year that the House has had such a debate, and this is a welcome development. The policing of the metropolis is always difficult, frequently sensitive and sometimes controversial. The magnitude of the task, and the professionalism with which the police tackle it, have been particularly vividly illustrated by the events of the past few days. It is right, therefore, that the House as a whole should have the opportunity to debate the policing of London, but that I should precede that debate by once again paying a warm tribute to the special work of the Metropolitan police in combating IRA terrorism.
This debate is important, however, as part of a cycle of events, following the publication of the Commissioner's strategy report, which underlines both the accountability of the Commissioner to me as police authority for the metropolis, and my accountability to Parliament for the way in which I discharge that duty. Following discussion with me, the Commissioner published his strategy report last January. The report reviewed how far the goals set for 1984 had been achieved, and set a new force goal for 1985. I sent copies of the report to all right hon. and hon. Members for constituencies in the Metropolitan police district, and subsequently met many of them to discuss it.
I promised to take up personally with the Commissioner a number of the points raised at those meetings, and I met him for this purpose at the end of March. I was then able to write last month giving the Commissioner's detailed and constructive response to the comments made. To complete this round of discussions, I hope shortly, together with the Commissioner and his policy committee, to meet the local authority associations.
I rehearse this sequence of events to underline how real the lines of accountability now are. Compare this process of rational consultation and discussion with some of the antics of the GLC police committee. How can a body which produces a disgraceful piece of propaganda like its recent video expect to be taken seriously as a commentator on police affairs? The so-called police monitoring groups, most of them funded by the GLC, are even worse. They trade in rumour, smear and innuendo. They do not care about improving the policing of London. All they want to do is to drive a wedge between the community and the police.
Before looking at the Commissioner's plans for 1985, I shall review briefly the record of 1984.
Mr. Harry Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned the GLC anti-police video. I am sure that he has seen it, like a number of right hon. and hon. Members. Does he agree that it is so serious and so damaging to policing in London, and therefore to people's freedom before the law, that the film should be withdrawn immediately if the GLC has any pretence to a genuine interest in the welfare of Londoners?
Mr. Brittan: I have publicly expressed my horror of the film, which I have indeed seen. The GLC would rescue at least a scintilla of its reputation for objectivity if it withdrew that film.
The Commissioner set his force four goals in 1984. The first was to maximise performance through the most effective use of manpower. The strength of the Metropolitan police, both police officers and civilians, has increased significantly since 1979. The Commissioner now has considerable manpower at his disposal and it is right for us to look to him to use this to the best advantage.
This means, above all, ensuring that police officers are not behind desks doing jobs which do not need police powers, skills or training. The measures that the Commissioner has been taking to achieve this have had considerable success. In the year ending in April, the work done by nearly 150 officers was taken over by civilians, so that those police officers were freed for operational duties.
The second goal was to minimise criminal opportunity through crime prevention, public contact, involvement and co-operation. Nobody living in London can fail to be aware of the enormous amount of effort the Metropolitan police have put into this in the last year. There has been a profusion of new schemes and initiatives. To pick out two impressive statistics, at the last count, there were 1,282 neighbourhood watch schemes in operation, with 515 more planned, and there are 21 crime prevention panels.
The credit for that lies of course with the members of the public involved, as well as the police. Their role will increase in importance. Experiance suggests that, while the police can apply the energy to get a neighbourhood watch scheme or a crime prevention panel going, only the public can supply the stamina necessary to sustain it. The latest British crime survey, which will be published shortly, shows that nearly 90 per cent. of people nationwide believe that neighbourhood watch schemes would work, and about two thirds of those questioned would themselves be prepared to take part.
The Commissioner took as his third goal the enhanced detection of certain criminal offences — robbery, burglary and auto-crime — by the use of advanced detection techniques. Overall, there was an increase of 9 per cent. in the number of offences recorded in 1984, roughly in line with the national increase of 8 per cent. This figure is obviously disappointing, particularly when set against the decrease of the previous year. But it should not be allowed to obscure some real achievements.
The number of offences cleared up rose by 9 per cent. The clear-up rate — the House will know of the reservations widely held about the value of clear-up rates as a measure of police effectiveness—stayed constant at 17 per cent., despite the increased demands made on the police. There have been notable successes with some of the specific offences targeted by the Commissioner. The number of burglaries cleared up has increased overall by 15 per cent. and the number of domestic burglaries cleared up by 28 per cent. This has resulted in a slight increase in the clear-up rate for burglery. It is also encouraging to note that the number of burglaries recorded in the first quarter of 1985 was 9 per cent. lower than in the first quarter if 1984, and that there was a 4 per cent. drop in burglaries in England and Wales as a whole.
Where success has been achieved — the Commissioner would be the first to recognise that it has
1200
not been universal—it has not been due to fluke or good fortune. It has resulted from the application of sophisticated analytical and detective techniques. The Commissioner will be looking to improve these techniques further, particularly in the gathering and analysis of intelligence.
The fourth goal was to improve the management and organisation of the force. The major development here has, of course, been the force reorganisation, with which I shall deal in some detail later. But the Commissioner has taken a number of other initiatives, independently of the reorganisation, to hone the management of the force. For example, a ready reckoner of costs was issued to districts, divisions and certain headquarters branches. This will help senior officers to identify the costs of different courses of action, and to instil generally a greater cost consciousness.
One factor had a profound effect on the Metropolitan police last year—a factor which could not possibly have been foreseen when the Commissioner drew up his strategy. That is the miners' dispute. The aid supplied by the Metropolitan police to other forces was of enormous importance. Over the period of the dispute, the Metropolitan police supplied an average of 810 officers per week for periods of up to eight days to meet requests from chief officers of other forces.
The Commissioner sought to minimise the impact of the dispute on London by maintaining essential cover as far as possible. A measure of his success was that the number of arrests made for notifiable offences increased by 5 per cent. last year. Training, on the other hand, was postponed, and many desirable activities, such as crime prevention and community relations, had to take second place.
Part of the strain was taken up by the Metropolitan police special constabulary. The specials had to take on many demanding duties in support of their regular colleagues. They responded to the challenge magnificently. Their contribution is a fine example of public-spiritedness. All special constables deserve our gratitude and respect.
Ultimately, the impact of the dispute fell on individual Metropolitan police officers—and their families. They had to spend long periods away from home, performing duties which were always arduous and sometimes dangerous. I wish to place on record my gratitude for the tremendous contribution that they made to the policing of the dispute. They can look back with pride to the part they played in the policing operation. Their efforts helped to secure the preservation of a basic liberty—the freedom to go to work.
I come to the Commissioner's plans for 1985. First, I will state the position about the resources available to the Metropolitan police for this year. There have been no cuts in their budget. In fact, the Metropolitan police have more resources than ever before. Let us examine the record. When we took office in 1979, the establishment was 26,589. It now stands at 27,165. More important, in May 1979, the strength was 22,225, 4,364 below establishment. At the last count, the strength was 26,699. The total strength — civilians as well as police officers — has increased by no fewer than 5,850.
To put it in perspective, the increase in police strength is roughly equivalent to the entire force in Merseyside, one of the largest provincial police forces. The budget for 1985–86 is £763 million, 5 per cent. higher than the equivalent figure for last year. These are considerable

1201
resources by any standards. Of course, anyone running the force would ideally like still more, but the Commissioner accepts that resources are finite and that the existing resources must be put to best use.
The Commissioner has made it clear that the force, like everyone else, must live within its means. Like any other large organisation, there is scope for increased efficiency in the use of resources. Last year, for the first time, I decided that the Metropolitan police budget should be cash-limited. There is nothing new or unusual about cash limits. This year, 62 per cent. of Government public spending is cash-limited. Almost all defence spending, for example, is cash-limited, as in my Department is the prisons Vote.
The introduction of a cash limit does not mean a reduction in expenditure; one can increase expenditure enormously and still need a cash limit. The point is, rather, that a cash limit is a healthy discipline and a spur to increased efficiency. It means taking budgets seriously. Indeed, the Commissioner makes the point clearly in his annual report that the cash limit underpins all his other efforts to sharpen up the efficient management of resources.
It is against the background of increased resources for the Metropolitan police that the recently announced reduction in planned expenditure should be viewed. After the cash limit was set in February, it became apparent that there would be unforeseen increases in parts of the budget. Therefore, properly and prudently, the Commissioner took stock of the situation and decided on compensating economies in other areas. But, as he has pointed out, many of these are simply a matter of good housekeeping. The strategy for 1985 remains fully in force.
That strategy consists this year of a single goal—to improve the quality of service to the public—and that goal will have four elements. The first — carried over from 1984—will be the reduction of opportunities for crime through crime prevention initiatives and fostering contact, involvement and co-operation with the public. One of the main aims will be the further development of community-police consultative arrangements. These arrangements have been on a statutory basis since the beginning of this year, when section 106 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 came into force. The Act places a duty on the Commissioner to establish consultative arrangements throughout the Metropolitan police district, taking account of the guidance that I issued on 25 January. To date there are arrangements broadly conforming to the guidance in 26 of the 40 boroughs and districts. The Commissioner will be doing all that he can to fill the gaps as quickly as possible.
The Commissioner is—as he is required to do under the Act — consulting the local authorities concerned. Some are still considering their response. Others, such as Hackney, have said that they will not take part in any arrangements which are not based on their police committees—committees which purport to hold the Metropolitan police to account. I have two comments about that position. First, their approach is contrary to the law that Parliament has laid down. Secondly, there can be no justification for these boroughs trying — for purely political reasons—to block the setting up of consultative arrangements which would be of inestimable benefit to those living in the boroughs.
These attempts will not succeed. Consultative arrangements will be established in those boroughs. The
1202
Commissioner and I would both greatly prefer that the borough councils take part, but if they refuse they cannot be compelled to do so, and arrangements will have to be set up without them.
The second element of the goal for 1985 is, again, the enhanced detection of specified target offences. The Commissioner has added to the list two areas which have rightly caused profound concern over the past year: drugs and racial attacks.
London has suffered more from the menace of hard drugs than any other part of the country. The Commissioner is fully aware of the gravity of the threat that they present. The central drugs squad has been committed to the investigation of large-scale suppliers and manufacturers of drugs. This has had results. The amount of heroin seized has quadrupled. In the force as a whole, there were more drugs seizures in 1984 than the year before. 25 kg of heroin, 3·7 kg of cocaine and 747 kg of cannabis were seized. Arrests for trafficking rose by 31 per cent. At the local level, district commanders have taken a wide variety of initiatives, many of them as part of a co-operative effort with other local agencies. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary visited a very encouraging project in Southwark last January. More, much more, remains to be done. The Metropolitan police will be taking a full part in the national police commitment to deal with drugs crime.
I am sure that the House will also welcome the increased priority attached by the Commissioner to eradicating racial attacks. It is intolerable that whole communities in the east end of London—hard-working and law-abiding communities—should have their lives blighted by the fear of racist violence. My hon. Friend the Minister of State visited Tower Hamlets in February to discuss the situation with community representatives and the police. What he saw left him in no doubt that the problem is a grave one, but one which is being tackled with a will. The police cannot solve it on their own, but the Commissioner intends to ensure that they respond promptly and effectively to attacks; and, in the wider context, to develop a multi-agency approach to the problem, which I think is what is needed.
The force reorganisation is the principal part of the third element of the force goal for 1985 — the effective, efficient and economical use of resources. This is probably the most fundamental reorganisation that the force has undergone this century. Careful and thorough research pointed clearly to the conclusion that the present structure is too centralised and has to be changed.
After discussing this with me, the Commissioner announced last November a number of fundamental changes, which have my full support. The size and scope of headquarters will be considerably reduced. Some officers working at headquarters will be freed for operational duties. One tier of territorial command will be removed by abolishing the present four areas and 24 districts and putting eight new areas in their place. Responsibility and accountability will be devolved downwards wherever possible. The division will become the fundamental unit of policing. These basic principles of the reorganisation are now settled, but many important questions on how these principles will be implemented are still up for discussion and decision. The process of implementation will take about two years.
I know that there has been concern that there was not consultation before these changes were announced. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have told me that

1203
they regretted the absence of prior consultation. Some community-police consultative groups have also expressed their disappointment. I entirely understand these feelings. But the Commissioner judged—and I agreed—that the changes were so essential that extensive consultation would have caused only damaging delay and uncertainty. The morale and efficiency of the force would have been at risk. But, as I have said, the changes announced so far—this is the key issue—amount to no more than the bare bones of the reorganisation. The Commissioner is committed to widespread consultation with all concerned as the flesh is put on these bones.
This is true, above all, of the effect of the new force structure on community-police consultative arrangements. I know that several consultative groups, in the inner London boroughs especially, are worried that the loss of district commanders will undermine their borough-wide basis. The Commissioner is keenly aware of these concerns. He is determined to find answers to these worries, so that the invaluable work done by consultative groups is not impeded.
In line with the general aim of the reorganisation, the Commissioner hopes that groups will come to regard divisional chief superintendents as the focal point for consultation. Many of the issues discussed in consultative groups are essentially local, affecting only one division, or even part of a division. The divisional chief superintendent, the officer with direct operational responsibility, is often best placed to respond to them.
But the Commissioner fully accepts that problems may arise particularly in boroughs such as Lambeth which cover three or more divisions. Consultative groups in these boroughs may well feel the need for a more senior officer, with wider responsibilities, to attend meetings. The Commissioner therefore accepts that it may be useful in these cases for a commander — or even the deputy assistant commissioner—from the new area headquarters to attend meetings, if the group so wishes.
Neither the Commissioner nor I is advancing this possibility as a blueprint for adoption by all groups. It must be for each group to decide, in consultation with the police, how consultative arrangements can best work under the new force structure. Surely the important thing now is for each group to sit down with the local police and work out acceptable arrangements. I am very pleased that the Lambeth group—in a characteristically constructive and forward-looking fashion—has already started to do this.
The reorganisation is by no means the only strand in the Commissioner's efforts to improve—
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In touching on a fundamental matter, the Home Secretary has been both reassuring and perhaps disappointing. He has not made it clear whether the figure of eight new areas has been set in concrete without the consultation to which he referred and without paying attention to the strong, serious and formal representations which were made to the Commissioner, or whether it is for further consideration and that it might conceivably be increased.
Mr. Brittan: I would not be presenting an accurate picture if I led the hon. Gentleman to think that it is at all likely that the figure will be changed.
Mr. Spearing: It is entirely unsatisfactory.
Mr. Brittan: I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said and I am grateful for his acceptance that on other issues I have given a measure of reassurance. The reorganisation is by no means the only strand in the Commissioner's efforts to improve efficiency and economy in the force. As police authority, I naturally take a close personal interest in this part of the strategy. There are a number of areas to which I have asked the Commissioner to pay special attention.
As manpower absorbs nearly 80 per cent. of the force's resources, the handling of it must be the prime object of the Commissioner's efforts. The aim is simply to free as many officers as possible for operational deployment. There are two specific areas on which I have asked him to concentrate. First, the force reorganisation will enable him to move police officers from administrative jobs at headquarters to operational jobs on the ground. I have asked the Commissioner to maximise the number redeployed in that way. I have said that I wish a minimum of 200 officers to be redeployed by the time that the reorganisation is completed. The second area is civilianisation. I have already mentioned that nearly 150 posts were civilianised last year. I have told the Commissioner that the search for further posts must continue. I shall agree with him targets for further substantial civilianisation when we discuss his strategy for next year; and I shall expect to see them reflected in his strategy report. To help in this, I have just agreed to an increase of over 40 in the civil staff specifically for civilianisation, on top of the increase of 132 posts that I announced last October for this year.
Equipment too is a major area of expenditure, especially vehicles. The Metropolitan police has a fleet of over 4,000 vehicles, which costs about £20 million a year. A joint review of the fleet is being carried out by the Home Office and the Metropolitan police to ensure that it meets the needs of the force as economically, efficiently and effectively as possible. The Home Office has engaged a consultant to advise the review body. As well as looking at the size of the fleet, the review will examine how the fleet is managed and the scope for contracting out. Pending the completion of the review, I have placed an upper ceiling on the total size of the Metropolitan police vehicle fleet of 4,150 vehicles.
At my request, the Commissioner and the receiver are also examining whether it would be more economical and efficient to contract out a variety of functions presently performed in house. Cleaning services have been contracted out in over 200 buildings. Further studies are in progress—for instance, on vehicle removals, wheel clamping and car pounds. My officials will be examining carefully the findings of those studies. I shall expect the Commissioner in his next strategy report to give an account of the results achieved, and to set out a programme of further studies.
The fourth element of the force goal is to develop corporate and personal professionalism. The main initiative here has been the new handbook of policing principles and guidance for professional behaviour. It is divided into two parts. The first—the policing principles of the Metropolitan police—is the first attempt to set down comprehensively the duties of the Metropolitan police since that made by Sir Richard Mayne, one of the first Commissioners, in 1829. The second part — the guidance for professional behaviour — gives individual officers the guidance they need in carrying out their duties

1205
from day to day. It devotes considerable attention to the concept—crucial to police work — of discretion. In a very practical, down-to-earth way, using a wealth of helpful examples, it analyses the problems which officers face and points the way towards sensible solutions.
I warmly endorse the aims of the handbook. I am sure that it will have great declaratory value, but it will have practical value as well. Discussions about the handbook will be held at every level of the force. The aim is to encourage officers to come to grips with, and to reflect in their behaviour, the high standards of professionalism that it enjoins. Although directed primarily at the younger officer, it should challenge and stimulate also the most senior and experienced.
The handbook assumes all the more importance in the light of the findings of the Policy Studies Institute report. The report made a number of serious criticisms of the behaviour and professionalism of the Metropolitan police. The Commissioner was candid in his acceptance of many of those criticisms, and has been energetic in taking remedial action. For instance, he set up a working party to look at racism in the force, which has come up with many practical recommendations. Much more remains to be done. The handbook underpins those efforts.
There is one consistent theme in all the many changes that the force is undergoing—the effort by the Commissioner to make his force more purposive. The ability, energy and devotion to duty of Metropolitan police officers have never been open to doubt, but greater efforts are now being made to direct those energies effectively. Priorities are being laid down. Targets are being set. Systems are in place to review the priorities and to see whether the targets are being met. That helps the Commissioner to ensure that the force is being used to best effect, and it enables me to see whether the Commissioner has achieved the agreed goals set out in his strategy report.
All that implies a greater need than ever for the views of the public about policing to be expressed. Before drawing up his strategy, the Commissioner needs and wants to know what concerns Londoners most, but he and I also need to know the views of this House. That is why this debate is so important for the policing of London.
10.5 am
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: If there is one paragraph in the report of the Commissioner, which was published a few days ago, which symbolises the finest qualities of the Metropolitan police it is the paragraph on page 72, which refers to Police Constable John Gordon, the dog handler who was critically injured in the bomb attack at Harrods. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I visited some of those injured at Harrods, it was difficult to believe that Mr. Gordon could ever return to active service, yet, as a result, not just of dedicated medical attention, but even more of his own superb determination, he was back at work less than a year after he sustained his fearsome injuries.
In paying tribute to Police Constable Gordon, we pay tribute to all members of the Metropolitan and other police forces who have been injured in the pursuit of crime. In the light of the staggering complacency of the Home Secretary's speech, one would never think—
Mr. Tim Smith: The right hon. Gentleman wrote that before he heard the speech.
Mr. Kaufman: I wrote it in just now. I shall happily pass the text of my speech across to the Home Secretary for his further enlightenment when I have completed my speech.
In the light of the Home Secretary's increasingly staggering complacency, one would never think that this debate was taking place againt a background of unprecedented public confrontation between the Government and the police. In recent weeks, fierce attacks have been made on the Government by several chief constables in their annual reports, and a vote of no confidence in the Government was carried unanimously by the Police Federation. The Police Federation conference also saw fierce barracking of the Home Secretary.
Following the publication of the report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, there have been further critical statements from the Commissioner, leading to an ill-tempered response from the Home Secretary and, never to be outdone when shrill declarations are being made, by the Prime Minister. In many ways, the Commissioner's report, which we are considering today in the context of this debate, carries these controversies further, for while we are debating policing in the metropolitan area, many of the lessons can be applied to policing and to law and order problems throughout the country.
The report is extremely disturbing in many ways. The Opposition remain worried by the unsatisfactorily low proportion of women in the Metropolitan police. Last year, in the annual debate, the Home Secretary got into a great state about allegations that the Metropolitan police were operating a 10 per cent. quota of women in the force It is, therefore, just a little uncanny that 12 months after that debate we learn from this year's report that the proportion of women in the force is 9·3 per cent. Is that a quota, or a coincidence?
I would also welcome an explanation of why last year 13 per cent. of male applicants to join the force were accepted, compared with only 7 per cent. of women This might, of course, have something to do with the information contained in the report that 23 per cent. of male applicants were interviewed, but only 14 per cent. of women applicants. We should also like an explanation of that matter.
We share the Commissioner's concern that fewer applications for membership of the force have been received from members of the ethnic communities. At present, it seems that only about one half of 1 per cent. of the nation's police officers come forward from these communities. Part of the explanation may derive from a view contained in the annual report of the Commission for Racial Equality, which was also published a few days ago, which stated:
"There is ample evidence to suggest that black people generally believe the police to be fundamentally hostile to them."
The CRE report goes on to suggest:
"The prospects of a truly multi-racial police force may ultimately depend upon the vigour with which the police get rid of racism in the force".
In the light of that statement, and in the light also of the recognition of racism in the force by Lord Scarman, by the PSI report, to which the Home Secretary referred, and by the Home Secretary himself in the final debates on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, it is, to say the least, disappointing that the Commissioner's report contains not one word on that important subject. The subject is all the

1207
more important in view of what the report itself says about the disturbing number of racial attacks in London as well as in other places.
Those worrying statistics are only a part—although a highly disturbing part — of the grim and frightening picture provided in the Commissioner's report of the appalling crime wave that afflicts London in common with the rest of Britain. It is a crime wave the existence of which one would never guess from the half-hour speech to which we have just listened.
In the seventh year of this Conservative Government the crime figures are rising remorselessly, and the story told by the Commissioner's report, as by the figures for the whole country, is extremely alarming. Last year in London, crime rose by 9 per cent. to a new record level. Theft was up by 6 per cent., violence against the person was up by 7 per cent., robberies were up by 13 per cent. and burglarly was up by 10 per cent. Two thirds of burglaries took place in private homes, and those crimes were up even more than the average, by 11 per cent.
Not only has crime risen to historically high levels, but the ability of the police successfully to combat crime remains extremely unsatisfactory. Last year in the Metropolitan police area the overall clear-up rate for crime remained at a lamentable 17 per cent. The increase in the number of arrests, at 5 per cent., did not keep pace with the number of those who should have been arrested. Indeed, the actual arrest rate fell. The clear-up rate for theft was only 16 per cent., and for burglary only 10 per cent.
In his speech the Home Secretary made some selective comparisons about police strength now compared with when the Government took office, so let us look at the picture of crime in London now compared with what it was when the Prime Minister, who represents Finchley, and is therefore a London Member, first stepped through the doors of 10 Downing street in 1979.
Mr. Richard Tracey: In the context of crime in London, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the Greater London council's video on policing in London and its effect? Will he repudiate the words in that commentary that communities must rebel, because that sort of thing must be significant in considering this subject?
Mr. Kaufman: When I listen to the hon. Gentleman, I feel that in fighting crime the real Dick Tracy would be more convenient for us.
Mr. Tracey: Answer the question.
Mr. Kaufman: By talking about the effect of a video which I and most people have not seen, the hon. Gentleman must not shuffle aside the crime rate that is afflicting London, information about which I shall now give to the House.
Mr. Brittan: Will the right hon. Gentleman help us? I appreciate that he is busy and has not had time to see the video, although much comment has been made about it. Will he agree to see it and express his views when he has done so?
Mr. Kaufman: If I have the time, I shall watch the video, but during the past couple of days I have been helping to win the Brecon and Radnor by-election. We have other preoccupations. If only the Home Secretary
1208
would devote himself to dealing with London crime rather than with one video cassette, perhaps the statistics that I am about to give the House would be more central to the issue.
It is absolutely typical of the Home Secretary, when we are facing the worst crime wave that this country has ever known, and the worst crime wave that London has ever known, and when he is the police authority for London, as he so satisfiedly told us, that, instead of telling us about crime for the past half hour, he devoted a section of his speech to a video which I, most of the country and most people in London have not seen, as well as to the miners' strike, to which I shall refer.
Let us hear about the crime over which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is presiding. Last year, 716,545 serious offences were reported as having been committed in London. That was a 26 per cent. increase on the 1978 figures. Violence against the person in London, under this Government, is up by 34 per cent. Burglary in London, under this Government, is up by 38 per cent. Criminal damage in London, under this Government, is up by 54 per cent. Let us look at the number of crimes committed per 1,000 of the population, again comparing the situation now with what it was when the Government came to office. All crime is up by 41 per cent. Violence against the person is up by 51 per cent., burglary is up by 54 per cent. and criminal damage is up by 71 per cent.
When the Government took office, 65 serious crimes were committed every hour in the Metropolitan police area. Now, 82 are committed every hour. When the Government took office, in the Metropolitan police area there were 39 crimes of violence every day. There are now 52 crimes of violence every day. When the Government took office there were 183 cases of criminal damage every day in the Metropolitan police area. There are now 281. Since the Government came to office, burglaries have risen from 336 a day to 461 a day. Since the Government came to office, thefts have risen from 888 a day to 1,022 a day.
When the right hon. Lady became Prime Minister, a serious crime happened somewhere in the metropolitan area every 56 seconds. Now, one takes place every 44 seconds. Is that less important than a GLC video? What is more, the fight against that disturbing escalation in crime is faltering. Again, during the right hon. Lady's period of office the total clear-up rate in the Metropolitan police area has fallen from 21 to 17 per cent. The clear-up rate for theft has fallen from 20 to 16 per cent. The clear-up rate for criminal damage has fallen from 14 to 11 per cent. The clear-up rate for burglary has fallen from 11 to 10 per cent.
As the Home Secretary said, the number of police has risen, but the number of crimes per policeman has risen faster — by 5 per cent. The clear-up rate per police officer has fallen by 16 per cent. under the Government. That is a devastating picture of crime in our capital and its surrounding area. It is provided by the Commissioner himself in the report before us.
The report reveals a particularly disturbing rate of crime among young people. Half of those arrested for notifiable offences were under 21 years of age. Of those arrested for robbery, 63 per cent. were aged under 21. Of those arrested for burglary, 62 per cent. were under 21. Of those arrested for motor cycle theft, over 70 per cent. were under

1209
21. What is more, not only were those arrested for crime predominantly young, but the victims of crime were often young, too.
Old people are understandably fearful of crime. We all know from our constituencies of the fear which prevents many old people from venturing out of doors or even from opening their doors to callers. That apprehension is real and must be taken seriously by all of us—I know that it is. The revelation in the Commissioner's report, however, is that only 3 per cent. of victims of violence against the person last year were over 60. Mugging victims are much more likely to be young people — 20 per cent. were schoolchildren. Those facts make a depressing picture.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the clear-up rate for offences about which the public are most worried is at least in part related to the trust and co-operation between the police and the public? Does he further agree that the GLC video, of which he was so dismissive, undermines some of that trust and co-operation?
Mr. Kaufman: If that little box contains all that the Government have to say about the crime rate, we are faced with a lamentable state of affairs. Trust between the public and the police is mentioned several times in the Commissioner's report and I have something rather more relevant and rather less trivial to say about it.
All of the facts add up to a depressing record, which is even more depressing in view of the complacent untruth in the Conservative party manifesto for the 1983 election. That misleading document said:
"already street crime is being reduced and public confidence improved in some of the worst inner-city areas.".
That was the dishonest claim which was made only two years ago. The Metropolitan police crime statistics show that, since the Government were elected, there has been an 8·5 per cent. increase in fraud and that the clear-up rate for that crime has fallen badly. Although the crime figures for fraud must now be increased by adding this gross case of fraud to them, I can at least direct the police towards the culprit.
Why are we suffering from this unprecedented crime wave? The Home Secretary is laughing at his own election manifesto. Does he stand by it? Does he say now, two years after being elected on the basis of that fraud, that street crime is being reduced? Is he still saying that public confidence has improved in some of the worst inner-city areas? Would he like to come to the Dispatch Box and endorse what was in that manifesto and say that the same is true today? No. Perhaps the Home Secretary will now take the smirk off his face and listen to what is happening with crime in the metropolis, for which he, as he has told us, is personally responsible as the police authority.
Why are we suffering from this unprecedented crime wave, which disrupts the community in so many ways? The 1979 Conservative manifesto said:
"The police need more time to detect crime".
It promised to ease the burdens on the police. That is another broken promise. The police themselves are now complaining about the extra, and often unnecessary, burdens being put on them which interfere with, or even disrupt, their principal duty of fighting crime. The Government are misusing the police in many ways. In so many ways, they are making the police either reluctant instruments, or even victims, of controversial Government policies.
1210
Page 109 of the Commissioner's report shows that he is apprehensive of the extra burden that will be put on the police by the Government's policy of privatising public transport. The report contains some pretty sharp comments for a non-political document. When discussing privatisation of the National Bus Company as it will affect operations in London, the report says:
"nothing has changed police views on the control of routes, termini and stopping places and the need for their adequate supervision, together with strictly enforced levels of maintenance."
Implementation of the complexities of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will undoubtedly distract the police from their most important duties.
In his recently published report the chief constable of Staffordshire said:
"Looking forward to 1985, I foresee continuing additional demands on our manpower resources should the NUM dispute continue. In addition, our manpower availability will be further depleted because of the extensive programme of training for all officers of the Force in preparation for the implementation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act."
That worry was echoed by the chief constable of Warwickshire, who, in his annual report, said:
"My biggest fear is that we will not be able to complete this very necessary training before we are obliged to commerce training of the whole Force on the changes in law and procedure resulting from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984."
Complaints were made at the recent Police Federation conference about the damaging effects on police efficiency of the Government's cuts in rate support grant and their grant penalties on local authorities. Police Constable Paul Middup, the chairman of the constables' section of the federation, said that, with other local government services, the police were forced to bear their share of spending cuts. He continued:
"Central government cannot duck the issue any longer. It is fast turning into a public scandal which is entirely of their making. They cannot blame the local authorities any longer."
The anxiety is stated most comprehensively in the Commissioner's report. I shall quote it at some length. It says:
"There are clear signs already that demand has outstripped our capability to supply a comprehensive service"—
we did not hear any of this from the Home Secretary—
"and we have been forced to concentrate upon partiular priorities within the totality of demand. The moment that an organisation begins to choose amongst corporate priorities, so follows inevitably the recognition that desirable goals will be left unpursued or, at best, given less weight from amongst fixed resources. Rigorously enforced cash limits are a challenge to our professionalism in matching our available resources against increasing demand. In seeking to operate responsibly within these limits we shall inevitably find ourselves less able to meet all of our commitments towards the general public in the way that we would wish. If we rise, for example, to a centrally counselled drive against drugs, which brings heavy demands on manpower through round-the-clock surveillance, then the existence of finite ceilings to manpower will dictate the removal of officers from other duties. The delicacy and sensitivity of the work requires the deployment of experienced officers, who are also in demand for other key areas of operational work — such as anti-robbery or anti-fraud duties."
Nowhere is that misuse of the police against the inclinations and instincts of the police more clearly shown than in what the Commissioner says about the impact on his force of policing the miners' strike—an unnecessary dispute which was provoked by the Government for their own partisan purposes, as the public now say in all of the opinion surveys that we get.
Nobody knows exactly the financial cost of policing the miners' strike, but, for the country as a whole, it is almost

1211
certain to be £250 million, if not more. All of that money could more usefully have been used to fight crime in our villages, towns and cities. We know, however, that the cost to the Metropolitan police was £16·5 million and that nearly £7 million of that remains to be reimbursed. We know also that the Metropolitan police had to make cuts of £8 million in expenditure, which has not been reimbursed.—[interruption.] The local authorities did not want that to be done, but wanted the money which was provided for policing purposes to be spent on fighting crime, just as the Metropolitan police did.
Mr. Brittan: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, faced with a dispute of that kind, conducted in that manner, riotous mobs should be allowed to go unchecked?
Mr. Kaufman: The trouble and the confrontation were of the Government's making. The police did not want to be involved. They wanted to be back on their beats fighting crime. They would have been fighting crime had it not been for the Prime Minister and the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He stoked up the dispute in a way that no Home Secretary has ever done before.
Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman is ignoring the fact that a third of the miners continued to work and wanted to continue to work. They were able to do so against organised thuggery only because the police were there to protect them. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny rights to those trade unionists who wanted to go to work but who were not allowed to express their view in a ballot?
Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a member of a Cabinet which denies the right to work to 4 million people who want to work. He is complacent about that. Let us hear, not what the Home Secretary in his heated moments, trying to prove his virility to the Prime Minister, says about this, but what the Commissioner says about the effect on his force of the Home Secretary's provocative policies. The Metropolitan police have had to make spending cuts of £8 million because of the costs of the miners' strike, which have not yet been reimbursed.
Assistant Commissioner Dear wrote a letter to The Times, in which he pointed out that the Metropolitan police had provided up to a quarter of all the additional police manpower during the dispute — up to 2,000 officers each week, and over 250,000 individual tours of duty. In his report the Commissioner said:
"The manpower commitment to the miners' strike throughout the past year has resulted in a considerable reduction in the attendances at training when compared with the previous year."
Let us hear what the Commissioner says about the result of those absences:
"Recorded crime has increased and, although crime figures are notoriously resistant to accurate analysis, the absence of so many officers looks persuasive when we try to explain the increase … The mutual aid supplied to forces directly concerned with the miners' dispute inevitably reduced the number of officers available for duty in the metropolis during the last three quarters of 1984. The effects of this reduction on some police activities can be illustrated by a number of statistics; it is likely to have been a major cause of the comparative reductions in both the number of arrests and the number of stops made by this Force during the period of the dispute. The effects of the dispute on offences committed and offences reported by the public cannot be satisfactorily estimated."
There were only two weeks when no Metropolitan officers were sent to the coalfields, and the distractions
1212
from the necessary work of the police are demonstrated by the reference in the report, unprecedented so far as I can ascertain in any report by the Commissioner, to the role during the strike of the national reporting centre. This is not properly a subject for a report by the Commissioner, since it is an ad hoc body. It is not under the Metropolitan police or any police force. It is under the trade union of chief police officers, the Association of Chief Police Officers. The activities of the national reporting centre during the year of the strike have so discredited it that it is not being used for the co-ordination of the work against the IRA bombers which the Home Secretary announced on Tuesday, which might be regarded as a proper reason for the activation of a genuine national reporting centre.
We have an unprecedented crime wave and a police force which, despite its best endeavours, is too overstretched and too distracted by other tasks adequately to tackle the crime wave. Moreover, these distractions are unfortunately tending to undermine the confidence in the police among the public, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, which is essential for a successful attack on crime.
In his report the Commissioner repeatedly emphasises the need for public confidence. On page 1 he refers to the need for
"a police service which sees itself firmly rooted in a consenting community rather than as a police force imposed upon an unwilling people."
On page 7 he says that the work of the Metropolitan police
"rests upon the exercise of authority—and occasionally force where necessary — and the legitimacy of that authority rests not only on the fact of the law but also on the will of the community: remove either and the police become oppressive."
On page 14 the Commissioner makes the frank admission:
"Great emphasise has been laid in my strategic approach to the policing of London upon the requirement on Metropolitan Police Officers to observe the rule of law — to police within what has been called the 'due process'. This requirement is unequivocal and always has been; if police officers do not abide by the law, then any credibility they seek in requiring or persuading others to do so in a consensual society is put in jeopardy. Police officers have not always risen to this demand. On occasions they have, quite wrongly, behaved in ways suggesting that they were anticipating — and pre-empting — failures of the judicial process to deliver what they would have viewed as justice."
That is not a GLC video, but the Commissioner admitting to shortcomings in his own force which he believes should be put right.
It is not the role of the Commissioner to discuss in detail the causes of crime, but it is essential for the House of Commons to do so. We can see the causes all about us. Cuts in public transport mean that more people are alone on the streets at night. Cuts in the housing programme mean that there is more derelict property, a prime target for vandalism and a haven for criminals to lurk in. Cuts in local authority finance reduce road maintenance and street lighting. Cuts in Customs and Excise staff mean that drug runners have an easier time.
Mr. John Wheeler: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have just increased by 50 the strength of those responsible in Customs and Excise for investigations. The chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue says that he is perfectly satisfied with the strength — about 250 — of his investigation force. This has nothing to do with customs officers generally.
Mr. Kaufman: Following the hon. Gentleman's comments after the publication of the Select Committee's report and that creep-like intervention, he must be well in line for the knighthood that he is seeking. A tiny increase now does not compensate for the massive decrease under this Government. The hon. Gentleman had better get his Select Committee to look up the figures before he comes here with his usual crawling remarks from the Back Benches.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent about face by the Government and the appointment of 50 new customs officers should be put into perspective? Customs and Excise deployed more than 40 officers to raid and read the books taken from the "Gay's The Word" bookshop.
Mr. Kaufman: It is a question of priorities, and the Home Secretary gives his priorities to the House of Commons. The cuts in VAT and Inland Revenue staff —[Interruption.] The Home Secretary had better tell us whether he regards books sold by "Gay's The Word" as a greater narcotic than the kind of drugs that we are seeking to fight, against which the Government's fight has been faltering since they came to office. The cuts in VAT and Inland Revenue staff not only affect the fight against drug pushers but give an easier passage to fraud. Fraud means loss and even financial ruin for its victims.
Another ingredient is the increase in unemployment. Unemployment in Greater London is now three times higher than it was when Labour left office. For young people it is nearly four times as great. This was curtly dismissed as a crime factor in a recent interview given by the Home Secretary to the Financial Times.
Mr. Wheeler: Quite right.
Mr. Kaufman: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman said that. The interviewer said:
"The Home Secretary, who was relaxed, confident and clearly enjoying his portfolio … said Home Office research suggested that the general perception of a link between unemployment and crime was unfounded."
That view was not shared by one of the Home Secretary's predecessors, who said:
"If we can nip in the bud criminal tendencies in people then we would be going a long way towards easing the pressures on our police … Undoubtedly, economic mismanagement … where that leads to high levels of unemployment, especially amongst young people, also contributes considerably to increasing the number of those tempted into a criminal life."
That was Lord Whitelaw speaking when he had the responsibilities that I had as a Minister. True, he went on to make a joke about it, saying:
"The only real remedy for this situation is a vigorous pursuit of Conservative economic and social policies."
As was so often the case, Lord Whitelaw understood the cause, even if he was wrong about the remedy.
As we approach the time when the Labour party will be asked to accept responsibility for the government of our country, we shall not make the Tory mistake or commit the Tory deception of offering gimmicks and platitudes or pretend cynically that it is simple to deal with a profoundly difficult social problem.
We commit ourselves to taking action that will help to create conditions which will make it easier for the police to do their job and more difficult for criminals to do their worst. We will seek to remedy some of the conditions that foster crime and create criminals. We will make it more difficult for criminals to get hold of guns, by restricting
1214
their availability. We will tackle the problem of shotguns falling into the hands of people with no good reason to possess them, while safeguarding the rights of those with a legitimate use for one in work or sport.
We will take urgent action against the drug traffic, and will increase the resources available to all those involved in fighting the drug traffic. We will do everything possible to ensure that drug dealers are detected, convicted and given sentences appropriate to the seriousness of their crime. We will tackle the social and economic factors that help to make people, especially the young, vulnerable to drug abuse. We will put an end to the Government's penal policies against local authorities. We will seek to improve life in the areas that are most crime-ridden, where despair leads to alienation and alienation turns into criminal behaviour.
We will give a high priority to restoring local services. Cuts in those services have meant fewer caretakers, park keepers and public servants, whose presence can deter crime and vandalism. A better housing programme and improvements in the environment can tackle certain types of crime at their roots.
Seeking to remedy these problems is not easy, cheap or quick, but it is easier, cheaper and quicker than dealing with the dire results of social neglect. The crime wave is one of the results of social neglect with which our people must live.
When he was shadow Home Secretary, Lord Whitelaw said:
"A Government that cannot protect its own citizens from attack in the streets of its towns and cities, that cannot protect property from damage, or homes from intrusion, has failed to live up to the basic duties of Government."
By their own standards, and on their own tests, this Government have failed. Their departure, which is ever more likely, will give the nation a new chance to combat the crime wave which will be the Prime Minister's grim legacy to the nation which she has so ill served.
10.44 am
Sir Philip Goodhart: Connoisseurs of hypocrisy will find a great deal to treasure and savour in the speech of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I am sure that I shall read with pleasure one astonishing passage when he commented, with evident approval, on a chief constable who was complaining about the additional manpower requirement that would be imposed on his force by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. There will be additional requirements, some of which will be excessive. In so far as they are excessive, it is because my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was perhaps unwise in accepting the amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee and on Report.
Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman did not serve on the Standing Committee. If he had done so, he would have known that the Home Secretary did not accept anything. He was there for only 3 per cent. of the Committee's 147 hours.
Sir Philip Goodhart: Connoisseurs of hypocrisy will look at that statement as well. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not bring himself — although one gathers that he has completed his reselection process — to condemn the savage attacks perpetrated on the Metropolitan police by the GLC and that he was not able

1215
to dissociate himself from the attacks, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary described as divisive, deliberate attempts to turn the community against the Metropolitan police.
Mr. Dobson: Have any people, other than a series of Conservative Members of Parliament, received this GLC video?
Sir Philip Goodhart: I was not referring to the GLC video. I have not had the misfortune to see it. During the past year, like every other hon. Member representing the metropolis, I have received, and occasionally read, a vast amount of damaging, libellous and false literature from the GLC attacking the police.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the video is "damaging, libellous and false", should he not make arrangements, first, to see it for himself and, secondly, to go to the GLC, buy a copy and have it placed in the Library so that other hon. Members may see it as well?
Sir Philip Goodhart: The hon. Gentleman, who is one of the leaders in the assault on the police and who is deliberately attempting to stir up a dislike and distrust of the police, refers to the GLC video. I am not referring to that video.
Mr. Corbyn Mr. Corbyn rose—
Sir Philip Goodhart: I am referring to the mass of propaganda put out by the GLC, of which this video may have been one of the worst aspects.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Philip Goodhart: I shall not give way to the gentleman whom I must refer to as honourable.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The person who is on his feet has just—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—ascribed a number of remarks to me. Would he care to inform the House when those statement were made, so that the House may have a correct record?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have heard nothing so far which is out of order, although I have heard a great deal of discourtesy.
Sir Philip Goodhart: At some later date I would gladly go through the hon. Gentleman's record on that point both inside and outside the House. However, I wish to move on to regret that the right hon. Member for Gorton in his adroit speech was, alas, unable whole-heartedly to recommend the ethnic minorities to join the police force. Nothing will do more good for ethnic relations with the police than to increase ethnic recruiting. I am sorry that he was unable whole-heartedly to recommend a substantial increase in recruitment from the ethnic communities.
I am also sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seemed incapable of paying whole-hearted tribute to the work of the Metropolitan police in past years to improve their relationship with the community as a whole.
I was delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was able in his admirable speech to pay tribute to the role of the special constabulary in past years.
I am delighted to find in the Commissioner's report that the increase in recruitment to the special constabulary is
1216
continuing, and to note that in the first month an extra 125 recruits joined the special constabulary. However, more can be done, in particular by Home Office Ministers, by increasing the specials' allowances. That will have a substantial and beneficial effect on increasing recruitment. The Commissioner has imaginative programmes for the deployment and use of the specials.
I regret that in the speeches of both my right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Gentleman there was no reference to traffic accidents and road safety. They made a great many references to violent crime in the capital. Violent crime undoubtedly worries a great many of my constituents. During the past 12 months many people have been killed and injured because of it. But even in our violent capital city the average citizen is three times as likely to be killed or injured by a motorist than by a criminal.
In my London borough of Bromley in 1984 no fewer than 1,639 people were injured and 15 killed in road accidents. That is three times the number who suffered death or injury at the hands of criminals. Therefore, I regret that in the past couple of years the Commissioner has seen fit to move officers from the traffic section, which is responsible for road safety, rather than to increase and strengthen it. There are 27,000 Metropolitan men and women police officers. The strength of the traffic branch was 1,000—less than 5 per cent. of the force—but the Commissioner has reduced that by some 200. That is a mistaken sense of priorities. My constituents are becoming increasingly worried about road safety and the way in which our traffic laws are ignored.
At the end of last year I visited the state of Victoria in Australia. In the 1970s as a result of a campaign by the press, local politicians, doctors and the police, the state was able to halve the number of road fatalities. I learnt that the state put 20 per cent. of the force on traffic safety. No police force here comes within half that figure. We should give the subject a higher priority.
My right hon. and learned Friend and the right hon. Gentleman made scant reference to fraud and white collar crime, yet this year fraud in the City and elsewhere has been increasing substantially. The saga at Lloyds is a reminder that we have not got this aspect of policing quite right. In this matter, although not in many others, we could learn considerably by studying the crime fighting organisation across the Atlantic. The American system of district attorney offices is more effective in combating fraud than our system of the fraud squad and Director of Public Prosecutions. I hope that that can be looked at. I do not cast aspersions on the intellectual calibre of the recruits to the Metropolitan police because one of the best features of the Commissioner's report is his emphasis on their high quality.
Fraud is not as eye-catching a subject as terrorism. Again, we all have reason to pay tribute to the skill and courage of the police, and to single out for praise the antiterrorist squad, which does so much to protect us from the outrages of evil men.
One aspect of the terrorist problem does not often get the attention that it deserves. We see London as a prime target for terrorism, but other countries and other police forces sometimes regard London as a home for terrorists. In considering our problems with the Provisional IRA we are often very ready to criticise the American authorities

1217
for a perceived lack of vigour in tackling IRA support in various cities in the United States. Yet we have the same problem.
I have considerable sympathy for the Sikh community in this country and I recognise that many of its members have substantial grievances in relation to past policies of the Indian Government. Nevertheless, there is substantial concern on the part of the Indian Government that various Sikh groups in this country are giving overt or covert support to terrorism in the Indian subcontinent. The antiterrorist branch of the Metropolitan police cannot be expected to deal with that problem single handed. There should be substantial co-operation between the Foreign Office and the Metropolitan police, which does not seem to exist at present, in the surveillance and control of groups who from time to time seek to foster terrorism overseas. We give an extraordinary latitude in freedom and of speech and action to those who seek asylum here as political refugees, but we must ensure that they do not abuse that asylum. I am sure, however, that in this as in so many other tasks the Metropolitan police will prove yet again that they are equal to the challenge.
11.2 am
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Before dealing with the Commissioner's report, I wish to comment on some of the points raised in the debate so far.
Terrorism is one of the problems that London has to face, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) rightly said, but terrorism arises from those who believe that they are so enlightened and have so much access to the truth that they are prepared to use violence in pursuit of their faith. Causing bodily harm with bombs and rockets catches the headlines, as the distressful events of the past few days have shown, but there are other kinds of violence. I am sorry that the Home Secretary has left, but I hope that he will read my comments.
I refer to exchanges in the House on an earlier occasion about the severe drain on the Metropolitan police caused by the miners' dispute and its profound effect on the morale, activities and attitudes of the Metropolitan police. I believe that that dispute was unnecessary, but Conservative Members laughed out loud when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) dared to suggest that it might have been deliberately precipitated. This is a debating Chamber and I wish to dwell for a moment on that issue because it is a well-known and well-documented fact that five years or more ago a certain right hon. Gentleman advocated certain lines of action for the Conservative party.
A year ago, I wrote to Mr. MacGregor about Cortonwood. I am not a mining Member, but I happen to know something about that issue. I received no reply from Mr. MacGregor, but I received a reply from his deputy. I am satisfied that the action taken at Cortonwood was provocative and ill-considered and may have been designed to precipitate a dispute. I put it no higher than that, but it is certainly no laughing matter. One of the problems in this country and throughout the world is that people dismiss basic points about so many things that go wrong without properly examining the small print.
Mr. Tracey: This is a very serious matter, but does the hon. Gentleman deny the words of Mr. Arthur Scargill and Mr. Ken Livingstone—the hon. Gentleman is probably more familiar with them than I am—as reported in the
1218
Morning Star, that they saw the dispute as an opportunity to bring down the Conservative Government? Does he deny those specific words in black and white?
Mr. Spearing: I am not responsible for the remarks of either of those gentlemen or for what is printed in newspapers, but I am concerned about the laughter that greeted my right hon. Friend's suggestion, because laughter is not appropriate when there is evidence to show that the true situation is very deep.
When the Conservatives talk about violence, their immediate reaction is to escalate policing. I do not blame them for that. That is how they have been brought up and that is how they think. They do not go for the root causes or for earlier action to prevent the violence. In that context, I include constitutional violence. I shall not dwell on GCHQ or the Levene case, which would have had Mr. Gladstone revolving in his grave, but there was certainly constitutional violence in those cases.
On the Commissioner's report and the speech of the Home Secretary, I endorse the apposite comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, who rightly corrected the short, narrow and somewhat lukewarm introduction from the Home Secretary—who, after all, is the Cabinet Minister responsible to the House for these matters. I welcome the wide scope of the Commissioner's report. It gives us a great deal more information than we had before and to that extent the Commissioner is to be congratulated.
I also congratulate the Commissioner on two initiatives that he has taken during the year. The Home Secretary has already referred to the first of these — the official attitude of the police to racial attacks. In the end, of course, what really counts is the attitude of individual constables and station sergeants and the way in which the machinery operates when incidents of this kind or the risk of such incidents occur in any given area.
In this context, I pay tribute to the greater sensitivity shown by the police in my part of Newham—I cannot speak for any other part. These matters depend on sensitivity and local links, which may not necessarily be formal, and on confidence and co-ordination between the police and leaders in the community. That is something for which one cannot legislate and which cannot be created by writing enlightened paragraphs into annual reports or making enlightened speeches on the subject. It has to be worked on, people have to take initiatives, and the police are in a central position because it is they who are able to take initiatives which will count. So I offer my congratulations to the Commissioner in that respect.
The second cause for congratulation is the Commissioner's initiative in respect of membership of those organisations whose members are not readily identifiable. I leave it at that. It was a bold initiative and a correct one. Any person in public life, whether he is a Member of the House, a policeman or an official in local government, should be known to the public if he has any obligations which may affect the discharge of his public duties. In that respect, the Commissioner's action was welcome and bold.
The theme of the report is community policing. The Home Secretary himself laid stress upon the formal arrangements that he hoped to initiate in the boroughs, and referred to some of the less formal ones. I believe that both are important, but even more fundamental is the combination of theory and practice.

1219
What might be called the Newman regime at Scotland Yard has been described by some people as cerebral policing. That is welcome, because the old image of the policeman was that cerebral activity was less marked than some other activities. That bias is welcome, therefore as far as it goes, but it is not enough. We have to think and to discuss, but we have to be practical as well. It is what happens on the street and what happens in incidents as well as what happens in blueprints and theories that makes for success, as it does in all that we do, especially all that Governments do. In that connection, I have some less welcome comments to make, but I hope that they will be regarded as constructive.
The first is in respect of the exercise of new police powers. Under the new Police and Criminal Evidence Act — I cannot remember when it comes into force, but it cannot be very far off — big new powers will be available to police constables on the beat and to the officers who direct them when there are a number together, whether they are whizzing round in white vans or are at large demonstrations.
I shall not go into the merits of that Act, because they have been discussed; in any event my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is in a much better position to speak expertly about them than I am. However, the degree to which those powers are used by individual constables in the first instance and the degree of sensitivity, imagination, common sense, sense of proportion and perhaps sense of humour displayed by those constables are all-important. Incidents can be sparked off by any combination or lack of those and rapidly get out of hand. That is very important in the use of these new powers.
We tend to forget that the discretion of a single constable is at the heart of policing. He does not have to use the powers available to him. Deciding that cannot be legislated for by senior officers. It is up to him, because the powers of constables are vested in each member of the force. We can write as many blueprints as we wish in respect of these new powers, many of which are controversial, but the decision to use them rests with the individual constable.
I touched upon my second criticism when I intervened in the Home Secretary's speech. It has to do with the reorganisation, and it is referred to on pages 25 and 26 of the Commissioner's report. I am sorry to see that everything else in the report is to some extent negatived by what has happened, and I regret the lack of reassurance that I was able to obtain from the Home Secretary. If I was disorderly on that occasion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will understand why.
The Commissioner's report is extremely enlightened, in theory. He is concerned with public perceptions, public preferences and the priorities that the police have to address to meet the expectations in any one community. However, the reorganisation proposals which have been launched and which I am glad to hear have not yet been completed are fundamental in many ways to how those aims are discharged.
It is generally known in London that the reorganisation of the police into three tiers of command was unsatisfactory. The areas themselves were unsatisfactory. Many of them go back to Victorian times and take no account of the motor car, let alone the helicopter and more
1220
recent technological advances. In general, much of what is said on pages 25 and 26 of the report is right. There ought to be larger areas. There ought to be greater scope for senior officers to exercise individual responsibility. It may be that we need to compare some of the new areas with forces outside the United Kingdom for all sorts of reasons, especially bringing in new talent and enabling experienced officers of the Metropolitan police to obtain posts outside. Matters such as that are very important, but overriding all else we have to reflect the needs and expectations of the public, and that is where in one respect there is a grave error.
The Commissioner says on page 26 of his report:
"To date only the broad outlines of the reorganisation have been determined."
The Home Secretary went a bit further and said that it had not been finalised. However, in practical terms it had gone rather further in respect of the allocation of stations, preliminary thoughts about areas, and so on.
One controversial issue that has been around for six months or more is not the principles of the reorganisation, which are generally understood and not too controversial, but the eight new areas which are to be determined.
The theory is that there is to be a petal pattern in London, and I go along with that. There is to be one central area covering the well-understood special needs of Whitehall, Parliament, the Palace, the west end and the City. Round it, there are to be seven other areas going out like a petal covering London. That makes an attractive and common-sense picture. However, certain areas of inner London whose needs are very special will now not be under one unified police command, whatever the quality of police-public relations, but are to be split among as many as three areas.
The single central district is solely north of the river, perhaps with a temporary extension across Westminster bridge if there is a procession. It does not extend to the urban areas of south London.
This will not affect east London greatly, except that in the London borough of Newham there are at present two police districts which are conterminous with broadly different parts of the borough and reflect the different needs and the different things that happen in those areas, some good and some not so good.
The reorganisation in south London which affects the well-being of policing and the community is not oriented to those needs. Worse, there was not adequate consultation before the possibility of an extra area in the south was ruled out. This is a major reorganisation, and the Home Secretary admitted that there was not satisfactory early consultation. I understand that business organisations were consulted, not about their views of the reorganisation, but about administration. However, hon. Members were not consulted.
Many commercial organisations to which the Government urge us to go for expertise have certain qualities but providing a complex service immediately is not their responsibility. Marks and Spencer, McDonald's and other big food companies do not have to stock anything that they do not want to sell. They do not have to be where they do not want to be. Modern business, which is so lauded by Government Members, does not have to cater for complex needs in the same way as the Health Service or the police. Inbuilt constraints and qualities are entirely absent.

1221
The police, like the fire and the ambulance services and local authority social services, which Government Members so often criticise, have to meet difficult and intractable situations. They cannot refuse to meet the demand. Marks and Spencer does not have to stock anything that it does not want to stock. The opposite is true of the police and many other civic services.
The people who are involved in comparable spheres, such as probation officers, social workers, local authority councillors and, indeed, Members of Parliament, must be consulted. I hope that Government Members agree with me, because they know that many problems are almost insoluble and require a great deal of capital effort by them and others before they can be solved. Such problems require the commitment of personal time so that they do not escalate. Communication with others skilled in particular arts is essential. Keen Government Members will have developed a network of communication locally, involving a host of people upon whose advice and co-operation they can rely and which is readily given. Without that, we could not fulfil our function.
Such a network is often related to a civic structure. Everything is centred on the town halls, particularly in London. The statutory structure of local government—what is left of it—is under pressure. Splitting a single London borough three ways for policing will create difficulties. Inner London, with its own historic, social and ethnic problems, is to be split so that the area headquarters and the weight of activity is in the outer areas. That will cause trouble.
I understand that the area of conflagration four summers ago will be subject to such a dissection. Everyone asked then, "What's gone wrong?" We know what went wrong—stop and search in Brixton was used ill-advisedly. There was an escalation caused by the misuse of police powers and the incident got out of control. That was at a time when there was a single police command. Conditions and understanding have improved, but that is all to be changed.
Some hon. Members laughed when I mentioned the Cortonwood example. There has been no proper analysis of the police role, in spite of all the brave words in the report and the excellence of hon. Members' speeches.
Whitehall, Buckingham Palace, the west end and the City are exceptional and need a different type of policing. That area is unique and perhaps experience there will not stand an officer in good stead for promotion in a county or provincial town. However, unless we pay attention to the special needs of other parts of London which are dissimilar to the outer areas and which can have a coherent police presence, whereby all the sensitivities listed in the report can be dealt with as a whole, the rest of the report might as well be forgotten.
I hope that it is not too late. During the Home Secretary's speech, I asked whether he could assure us that we could re-examine the proposal for eight areas. On the spot, he was unable to give me that assurance, and I understand that, but the fact that he could not give that assurance shows that insufficient attention has been paid to that aspect. It is a factor which involves not only the House but the morale of the police. It is a matter for the practical men who understand the problems and know what is required.
I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said. I give two cheers for this enlarged and informative report. I hope that cerebral policing can be
1222
extended to practical policing and that the combination of both will give us a police force of which London can be proud and in which we can have confidence.
11.26 am
Mr. John Wheeler: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I welcome his thoughtful speech. I join him in congratulating the Commissioner on the excellent quality and constructive nature of the report.
Alas, one can only say that the speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was long on invective but short on solutions. The only part of his speech about which the House can unite is that which referred to the bravery and courage of PC Gordon. The House will be aware from the Commissioner's report that many thousands of Metropolitan police officers are injured when on duty. We offer them all our best wishes. We recognise their bravery and courage in the way in which they carry out their duties in London, often under difficult circumstances.
The right hon. Member for Gorton seems to have forgotten the state of the police force before the Conservative Administration came to office in 1979. One of the most urgent and pressing tasks facing the new Conservative Government was to rebuild the police force, which had been neglected for some years and was in serious danger of becoming demoralised. That was affecting public confidence in the police.
As the Commissioner shows in his excellent report, the police themselves are the first to recognise that public support must be won and kept rather than taken for granted. Urgent action was needed in 1979 to boost confidence all round.
As is all too obvious from the newspapers and the media programmes these days, the police face an ever-increasing number of problems. Their priorities must be adjusted to reflect the crimes which worry the public most. As an example, in London the Metropolitan police have rightly made drug abuse, racial attacks and vandalism priorities for 1985 in response to public anxiety.
As a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee since 1979, 1 have taken a special interest in the police and race relations. Next Session the Race Relations and Immigration Sub-Committee intends to carry out an inquiry in the Bangladesh community. We shall examine the policing aspects, especially in the east end of London. It is important that all London citizens should feel that the police service relates to them and that their special problems are being considered.
When considering the extent of police resources, it is important for the House to remember that, since 1979, the resources allocated to the police have more than doubled., from £1·1 billion to £2·8 billion, and that total police manpower in England and Wales has increased by more than 12,000. However, in London, the Metropolitan police force-one of the oldest forces in Europe—has a supremely difficult task. It is responsible for nearly 7 million people who live in the Greater London area, as well as for the millions of people who visit the capita during the year. It also has responsibility for royalty and diplomatic protection, which has increased enormously in this age of terrorism. The fight against terrorism and the provision of special services, such as the central criminal intelligence office, and many other central responsibilities of the Metropolitan police are additional burdens.

1223
To help to counter London's crime the strength of the Metropolitan police has increased by 5,850 officers since 1979, to give it a total strength now of about 26,750. It is interesting to note that there is still scope for finding at least 400 more recruits to join the Metropolitan police today. In addition, the number of civilian support staff has increased by more than 1,250. Many of those civilian employees provide important services in the investigation and detection of crime.
No one pretends that increasing police strength alone is sufficient to beat crime, but without the increase the force, which was well below the recommended manpower level in 1979, simply could not have coped with the range of burdens that it must shoulder in 1985.
One way of making the best use of the resources allocated, which tackles not just the reality but the debilitating fear of crime, is to have more police officers on the beat. I am pleased to say that, since 1982, 942 police officers have been added to the Metropolitan police strength for street duties. That at least provides a reassurance to the public that the police are present.
The right hon. Member for Gorton was highly selective in his use of statistics from the Commissioner's report. The House should know that, in the past year, the Metropolitan police have had an excellent record of clearing up serious crimes. The clear-up rate for homicide was 77 per cent. — few capital cities in the world could equal that. Arrests for drug trafficking increased by 31 per cent. from the 1983 figure to 1,781. The clear-up rate for blackmail and wounding was 55 per cent. Despite those impressive figures, the performance in overall clear-up rate remained at 17 per cent.—the same as in 1983.
That has happened because the vast amount of crime is random and opportunistic and, therefore, difficult to detect. Burglary and car theft occur when the opportunity is given; a door or window is left unsecured and temptation occurs. Such crimes often happen out of sight of a patrolling police officer, and only more community-based crime prevention tactics will help to remove the opportunities.
It is worth considering the true nature of the crime problem in London. Auto crime represents at least 30 per cent. of all recorded crimes in London, while burglary represents almost 24 per cent. and criminal damage represents more than 14 per cent. Those crimes and other thefts represent 95 per cent. of all reported crime in London. The difficulty is that patrolling police officers, however welcome and reassuring they may be, rarely come across such crimes while they are on duty. Since those crimes are often crimes of stealth, they are usually committed in private property or out of sight of any witness.
I especially welcome the efforts being made by the Home Office crime prevention unit and members of the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention to develop strategies to deal with auto crime and residential burglary. The conference which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will hold in November will provide a welcome contribution and a constructive way of dealing with such crimes by involving the public and the whole community. That is the way ahead in dealing with the great mass of property crime. We should not listen to nonsense from the right hon. Member for Gorton, who had no solutions to offer.
1224
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Kenneth Newman, also agrees that tackling crime, specially property and auto crime, requires the involvement of the community. His report clearly shows that the drive to create professionalism in the police service in London is a most important way to achieve a reduction in London's crime problem. He and I share the belief that the key to success is public co-operation, and a major contribution to crime prevention is already being made by local communities. In London, 19 crime prevention panels have been set up, and there are 1,150 neighbourhood watch schemes in the Metropolitan police district, with 400 more being planned. Plans are afoot to extend such schemes to businesses. About 22 police community consultative groups have been established to liaise between the police and the communities.
As hon. Members must know from their constituencies, the neighbourhood watch schemes are producing dividends. One can see the circulars from the police officers responsible for those schemes, which measure the success in the reduction of property crime, which causes so much distress to ordinary people on our large estates and in residential homes. We can see a reduction beginning to take place, and we all have a duty to sustain and encourage such initiatives.
Mr. Clive Soley: I do not wish to discourage the hon. Gentleman, but if he can see a reduction taking place, why is it not reflected in the quarterly statistics?
Mr. Wheeler: As the hon. Gentleman will know from his local authority area, much effort is being made to reduce crime. We are talking about the Commissioner's report for 1984. We must all hope that, when we have this debate in 1986, the efforts of the neighbourhood watch schemes and other strategies will have produced the result which he and I want.
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman knows that he has not answered my point. He is giving circumstantial evidence about how well the scheme is working. I shall have something to say about the schemes in due course. I do not oppose them, but the hon. Gentleman has no evidence for what he said, and the quarterly statistics suggest that he is incorrect.
Mr. Wheeler: I have evidence, because I have seen some of the circulars which the officers responsible for those schemes have issued to the public, comparing figures to demonstrate that there has been a reduction. Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say about the scheme, it is the way forward. It has only just begun, and we must encourage and sustain its momentum and analyse it so that we can encourage it further.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Minister that if the police community consultative groups are to be successful—many dedicated people are involved in them who want to make them successful—they must have some modest funding to provide an infrastructure. If that is missing, the schemes will not succeed. I hope that my hon. Friend will give urgent consideration to this important point.
The police in London have another problem, which is perhaps as wounding and destructive as crime itself. I am thinking of the attacks upon the Metropolitan police by the GLC and by some, although only some, Labour-controlled councils.

1225
Particularly damaging is a recent video entitled "Policing London", to which reference has been made, which was produced at a cost of £35,000 of ratepayers' money and which is already being shown to many schoolchildren in London. The video purports to argue the case for what is called the "democratic control" of the Metropolitan police. What it amounts to is an insidious and vicious attack on the police, hawked around London under the most flimsy of political excuses and deliberately shown to the most impressionable members of the community, our children.
In the film, the police are shown as guilty of every fault in the book. There is, of course, plenty of room for legitimate criticism, and nobody has been more ready to respond to it than Sir Kenneth Newman. He has recently issued a pamphlet entitled "Guidance for Professional Behaviour" to all his officers. It deals constructively with many of the criticisms raised in the report on the Metropolitan police.
I am particularly angry about the cowardice and bigotry that lies behind it all. Just when real efforts are being made to mobilise the whole community in the fight against London's crime, there are now many schools and clubs in London where the police are not even allowed in to meet young people and explain their work in fighting crime and providing protection for us all.
The film's slogan—"Communities must rebel" —is the final straw. If the GLC really wishes to sow problems for the police force in London for many generations to come, it could not do a better job. I only hope that the forces of sense, sanity and responsibility will prevail. It would help if, for once, the right hon. Member for Gorton said, "Having seen that clap trap, I am convinced that it does nothing to advance the wellbeing of the community in London, nor of the efforts of the police", and that he and his party would disown it.
11.42 am
Mr. John Cartwright: I agree with many of the comments of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) and particularly with his major theme—that we cannot tackle the appalling problems of London's crime simply by saying that it is simply a matter for the police and that the community has no responsibility. It is clear that the community has a role in helping to tackle many of the problems of crime that we are debating today.
Because of that, I greatly regret that the Metropolitan police should have become the butt of the sort of political controversy that has surrounded its activities in recent years. It is all very well for people to hold differing views about the best ways of achieving operational effectiveness, but what we have seen in recent years from some on the Left—I stress, only from some—is a constant flow of anti-police propaganda which seems to be aimed at undermining public confidence in the police. From some on the Right—again, only from some—we have total, uncritical and unquestioning support for the police. Neither is helpful in the current situation.
The majority of Londoners value the discretion that the police have, and are opposed to attempts to introduce political control over the day-to-day operations of the Metropolitan police. However, that discretion is a privilege which must be exercised with skill and
1226
sensitivity. The objective must clearly be policing by consent and we must always be on the look-out for new ways of establishing that element of consent.
The police consultative committees are an important way of helping to achieve that objective. They provide a vital bridge between the police and the community. They need time to build up public confidence in theft effectiveness and they need to show real results to convince the doubters, but they have a considerable role to play.
I regret the attitude of some boroughs, mine included, which want liaison with the police solely on their own terms. They do not want more community involvement in a police consultative committee and their objective is much less to do with consultation than with control over the police. If those authorities are adamant in refusing to play a part in the development of genuine consultative machinery, the Home Secretary should not hesitate to bypass them and establish effective grass roots-based community liaison committees and consultative machinery in those areas.
Also important in developing the idea of policing by consent are the hard-pressed inner city areas of London, where greater priority should be placed by the police on operational sensitivity. The hon. Member for Westminster, North said that the majority of crime, certainly in the inner cities, was ordinary, routine, bread-and-butter house-breaking and burglary. The complaint that I most often receive from constituents is either that the police did not bother to come at all, if it was a minor matter, or that they came, showed little interest and went away and nothing more was heard about the incident.
I appreciate the pressures on the police. Routine break-ins are a fact of life and there is little chance of anything very effective being done about them. Nevertheless, For the individual concerned, the person who suffered the break-in, it is a traumatic experience. Greater recognition of that by police officers would go a long way to strengthening relationships with the community.
The same is true of the ethnic minorities. We should recall what Lord Scarman said in his report following the 1981 riots. He pointed out that, in the already deprived areas,
"the black community suffers more severely than the white community from the deprivations found in the inner city, especially in relation to unemployment, educational achievement and housing."
That should be at the forefront of the minds of those concerned with policing in the inner cities.
If I were in a senior position in the Metropolitan police, I should be extremely concerned about the view of many black and brown Londoners that the police are not on their side and form an alien force. We need a greater concentration of skilled police resources in the inner cities to counter that problem. It is no use putting into the inner cities comparatively new recruits who do not have the expertise to deal with these different problems.
Related to policing by consent and the need to develop public confidence is the question of complaints machinery. I appreciate that we should not get complaints against the police out of perspective. I welcome what is being done under the 1984 Act to try to develop conciliation on minor matters so that such issues do not have to go through the plethora of complaints machinery. I also welcome the introduction of the new police complaints authority and its ability to monitor the

1227
investigation of more serious complaints. However, for most ordinary people the idea that the police should investigate complaints against the police is not acceptable. They do not believe that the investigation will be as impartial and objective as it must be to inspire public confidence.
I am glad that, in the report of the Commissioner, considerable emphasis is placed on crime prevention. As the hon. Member for Westminster, North said, there must be greater co-operation between the wider community and the police in, for example, a number of elements in public administration in London.
Housing is one such element. The design of many London council estates makes them a paradise for vandals, muggers and hooligans. They are full of opportunities for criminals to prey on their victims and provide ample ways for offenders to get away rapidly before the police arrive on the scene. More attention to that sort of problem would reduce many of the risks that our constituents have to face.
It is also true that the standard of housing management has an effect on crime levels. If flats or houses are left empty for long periods, if vandalism is not swiftly countered, if lifts are left unrepaired and if bread-and-butter administrative matters are not dealt with properly, a higher level of crime is encouraged. Many of my constituents argue, with considerable justification, for greater investment in the provision of entryphones, in reducing public access to council estates and in providing more caretakers and, in extreme instances, a concierge system. Although it would cost money, the expense must be offset against the cost of repairing the consequences of vandalism and hooliganism. My constituents argue that sensible investment of this sort would be good value for money and cost effective in terms of crime prevention.
The development of neighbourhood watch schemes is encouraging, but the numbers of such schemes are small when compared with the problem of routine crime in London. There is worrying evidence that neighbourhood watch schemes have been most successful in middle-class areas, where it is possible to find people who are prepared to contribute the time and effort necessary. The schemes in these areas have raised the awareness of the need to prevent crime. They have involved the local community in devising initiatives of their own and they have improved relations between the police and the community.
Unfortunately, there has been less progress in the development of neighbourhood watch schemes on council estates. Burglary and mugging is not confined to the comfortable parts of London. The worst examples occur in council estates. Many of my constituents' homes have been broken into twice and three times. We all know that the lone pensioner feels especially at risk on many council estates.
We should ensure that greater effort is directed to encouraging the development of neighbourhood watch schemes on council estates, and the Woolwich police force has been attempting to do so. The Woolwich divisional report shows that there has been some progress. In view of one of the comments made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), it is worth repeating what appears in the recently published report of the Woolwich division. It states:
"The schemes are obviously aimed at reducing crime and there is some evidence to show a degree of success."
1228
The report continues to underline a problem when it says:
"the main element in reducing crime relies on the publicity given in these areas that a neighbourhood watch scheme exists."
A problem has been encountered in Woolwich in obtaining planning permission to display neighbourhood watch scheme signs, and to date none has been placed. I investigated the matter and I found that the difficulty lay more in lack of ability to reach an agreement between the police and Greenwich council than in obtaining planning permission.
The Woolwich police want neighbourhood watch signs to be placed on lamp posts throughout the areas where the schemes operate. Greenwich council says yes, provided that the police pay £40 for every sign that is erected. The police contend that the signs will benefit the community and that the council should therefore meet the cost. The council says no and argues that it costs £40 to erect a sign and that the police must pay £40 before a sign is erected. There is now a complete impasse. I would not mind so much if virtually every lamp post in my constituency did not already bear a sign erected by the London borough of Greenwich. Some of them are reasonable. For example, some signs draw attention to traffic problems and litter problems and other matters of general interest. However, some are political. They refer, for example, to nuclear disarmament, rate capping and other issues of political concern to the council.
The council is spending a good deal of money on lamppost signs and I cannot understand why it refuses to assist the police in areas where neighbourhood watch schemes operate. Surely £40 a lamp post would be a good investment for the borough council.
I take up the remarks that have been made about improved efficiency and professionalism. I am glad that, in the Commissioner's report, there is a considerable commitment to improving both these objectives. The force reorganisation is a step in the right direction but, like others, I regret the lack of consultation before the reorganisation was launched. The Metropolitan police are seeking to strengthen links with the community and it would have been useful to have delayed the implementation of the initial stages of reorganisation while some local consultation took place.
It is important, whatever form of organisation we have, that there are not rapid shifts of key officers. We have frequently complained about the speed with which commanders, for example, have been moved in the London area. If the Metropolitan police are trying through the divisional system to develop genuine links with local communities, it is clearly extremely important that key officers are able to stay long enough in any one area to ensure that personal links are established. That must be a considerable priority.
I welcome the improvements in training that are referred to in the Commissioner's report, but I regret that one of the Lord Scarman's main recommendations seems not to have been accepted. He recommended that there should be a minimum of six months' training for every recruit. That seems to be a reasonable objective, given the situation in London, and I am sorry that the recommendation is not being implemented.
There is a case for far more priority to be given to in-service training, especially in areas that bear on relationships between ordinary police officers and members of the public. Some officers are very good, but others have a good deal to learn about how to handle

1229
members of the public. When there are pressures, as in inner London, in-service training to improve relationships between police officers and the public should have high priority.
The Government can claim genuinely to have provided considerable additional financial support for the Metropolitan police. That is true of improved manpower, better pay and conditions for individual officers and the modernisation of methods and equipment. However, at this stage, Londoners cannot say that they are seeing a genuine return on that investment. They are not seeing a substantial reduction in crime and they do not have a greater sense of security particularly in the inner London area. Given the money that has been invested, Londoners are entitled to look for considerable improvements in the near future.
11.57 am
Mr. Nigel Forman: I apologise at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the fact that I shall not be able to remain in my place until the end of the debate. However, I look forward to reading the Minister's reply in Hansard.
Nearly everyone in the House and in the country will agree that few matters are more important than the maintenance of law and order and the combating of crime by appropriate efforts. That is especially true of my constituents in Carshalton and Wallington who live and work within the Epsom division of Z district in the Metropolitan police area. Perhaps not all hon. Members are aware that the Epsom division is the largest in the Metropolitan police area and the fifth busiest division in the entire Metropolitan police force. Therefore, I make no apology for concentrating on the problems and prospects of policing within the division.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary rightly said at the outset of the debate, the Commissioner has identified divisions as the key policing units within the metropolitan area. I shall become more local by saying that I am acutely interested in the policing conditions of the Wallington sub-division, which is virtually conterminous with the boundaries of my constituency.
The problems of the Epsom division are well set out in the 1984 divisional strategic plan, which is one of the component elements of which the Commissioner, Sir Kenneth Newman, has to take account in formulating his plans for the entire metropolitan area. The clear priorities identified for the division, were, first, the reduction of burglary; secondly, the reduction of auto crime; and thirdly, tackling problems of road safety and traffic management.
I agree that those are all important problems with which the police must deal, but I should like to see an equally high priority attached to dealing more effectively with the problems of vandalism and hooliganism, which the Commissioner identifies in paragraph 52 of his report as one of the top policing priorities for 1985.
In advocating solutions for improving law and order in my part of south London, the divisional report gives priority to the containment, detection and punishment of burglary when people are convicted. It puts great stress on the value of preventive measures such as "neighbourhood watch" as a way of stopping these problems at source. It also foreshadows intensified police action directed to combating auto crime and improving road safety. I stress
1230
once again that more police attention should be devoted not just to those two aspects of policing, but to the related problems of vandalism and hooliganism.
My constituents believe, and many of them have written to tell me this, that such behaviour is anti-social and thoroughly offensive, and causes intolerable fear to and anxiety for many people, especially the elderly, on large estates. It must be a priority to ensure that when detected and convicted those offenders are dealt with severely by the courts and go to prison for long periods.
It has not been easy in recent times for the police to achieve all that they would have liked to achieve, especially as the miners' dispute, which has been mentioned, and the many demonstrations that take place in central London almost every week have placed enormous extra demands on the force. That has been felt by the divisions from what one might call the suburban parts of the metropolitan area., such as my constituency, which have had to supply extra manpower in mutual aid to the centre.
We may still be feeling some of the longer-term effects of those damaging disputes and demonstrations. Police leave had to be shelved at the time of the miners' dispute and it is now being taken up, with the inevitable consequences for police cover in areas such as mine.
I suggest that the answers to the various policing problems that I have identified must be found in a sensible combination of measures. Clearly, we need more police. That is something to which I shall return. We need more of the available police on the beat. In that context, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the paragraph in the divisional strategic plan for the Epsom division, which makes this pertinent comment on public attitudes:
"During the preparation of this year's plan, a number of opinion formers within the community were canvassed by letter in an effort to produce a strategy that also reflected the views of the community. The theme which ran through all responses was that police must be seen. The presence of a policeman in un form in the street is seen to be one factor which reassures the public that crime is being kept under control."
That is what the public want. I believe that the opinion formers were speaking for the public, and I hope that that emphasis will be continued in the policing of the Metropolitan area.
The third element must be to place more emphasis on all forms of crime prevention, as the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) and many others have said. Fourthly, and vitally important, there must be more police co-operation with the public in all appropriate forums and ways.
On that last point, I commend the idea of local police liaison committees. I am familiar with the workings of the police liaison committee in the London borough of Sutton. I should like to see even more fruitful contacts maintained and developed between local officers and schools and many other institutions involving young people.
I have had the good fortune to go out with the police from Sutton in some of their rapid response vehicles, in particular on a Friday evening, which is one of the peak periods for crime. I have also been out on the beat with neighbourhood policemen and local beat officers in the Wallington sub-division. I can vouch for the fact that the combination of those high technology quick-response methods plus the traditional methods of policemen on the beat, on bicycles and in their neighbourhood communities, is a powerful combination and helps the police to do the job as well as possible.

1231
I am, therefore, a strong believer in the preventive advantages of community policing. However, when all that is said and done, still more needs to be addressed. There is no getting away from the Commissioner's recent warning, which has been widely publicised, that without even more resources for the Metropolitan police, it will be difficult to provide the capital with the protection and the reassurance which it needs and the public deserve. As one of my local newspapers, the Wallington Advertiser, put it recently in an excellent editorial:
"The only real answer to increased crime is increased policing. That means more money for the police which this 'law and order' Government should remember if they want to retain the loyalty of areas such as the borough of Sutton."
The Government, whom I support, must face the need to set higher establishment figures for the Metropolitan police, and ones which are truly commensurate with the demands of combating rising crime and lawlessness which unhappily afflict the metropolitan area.
I recognise all that the Government have done and the figures which were quoted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I pay tribute to him and to his predecessors for building up the police in the way that they have done. My constituents appreciate that, but I must make a point about the long-term aspects which I should like my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues in the Home Office to consider carefully.
If we take a longer view and study policing in the metropolitan area back to just before the last war, we find that since 1938 the population of the Metropolitan police district has declined by about 15 per cent., but that recorded crime over the same period has increased by an alarming 660 per cent., while the establishment of the Metropolitan police has increased by only 39 per cent. Even though we now have an establishment of 27,165 officers and an actual strength that is commendably close to that level, the long-term trends to which I have drawn attention should merit the close consideration of Home Office Ministers, in particular in any negotiations that they have with their colleagues in the Treasury.
I believe that we should be prepared to find the necessary extra resources to enable us to meet the higher and more realistic establishment levels that we must attain. I make no apology for stressing that the extra policing responsibilities of the Metropolitan police must be recognised in that way. I suggest strongly that within those larger establishment figures a higher priority should be given to meeting the growing policing needs of the Epsom division and, especially, the Wallington sub-division within it. In that way, more effective action can be taken to deal with crime and lawlessness at source and to improve the still too low detection and clear-up rates for many crimes.
I acknowledge that the most serious crimes have a commendably high detection and clear-up rate, but the House should realise—I am sure that it does—that many of our constituents are equally worried about some of the less serious crimes, such as burglary, which affect them directly.
I wish the Metropolitan police well. I congratulate the Commissioner on his report. I realise that the police have a variety of difficult tasks to perform and that in many ways they are expected to perform social as well as policing tasks, which complicates the position. We must
1232
resolve to give the police the extra resources and support that they need. I am confident that in that way we can make further progress in dealing with the difficult problem of lawlessness and crime.
12.9 pm
Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said that the response to more crime should be more police. To an extent, there has to be an immediate response to protect the community. However, what divides hon. Members is the fact that some of us believe that the response to more crime also has to be more homes, more jobs, more stability and less poverty, because there is an inescapable connection between the degradation and indignity to which many people are subjected in our inner cities and levels of crime. If one correlates the most depressed areas with the greatest indices of deprivation, one sees that they also have the most crime. There is no way out of that problem simply by providing more resources for the police, although I would not disagree that there are circumstances in which that has to be done.
I welcome the open and frank style of the Commissioner in his report. On page 13, one tries to spot one's own constituency. On that page, the Commissioner frankly sets out the problems when there has been drug dealing, when one has to satisfy the demands of the local community which does not want that anti-social activity, while at the same time the police do not want to damage the support that has been built up throughout the whole community, by going in in a rough and unfeeling way. The way in which the Commissioner poses those problems is a frank admission of his difficulties. He is also frank in dealing with some past mistakes, although I do not always agree with his conclusions.
For instance, the Commissioner says that the Vagrancy Act 1824 could have remained on the statute book if it had been more sensitively used by police officers. He believes that we need not have had the Bail Act 1976 if the police had been more sensitive. I have no doubt that it was right to get rid of the Vagrancy Act and introduce the Bail Act, but I do not take credit away from him for recognising weaknesses in the past and building on experience.
We welcome the increasing clear-up rates where they take place, as well as the Commissioner's emphasis upon co-operation with the community. Although overall crime has continued to rise in Lambeth, there have been some dramatic improvements in relations between the police and the public as well as in clear-up rates, as a result of community activity and co-operation between the police and local groups. Part of the success has come from increasing co-operation between the police and the local authority. When one reads what local authorities say about the police and what the police sometimes say about the local authorities, one would not always know that that was so, but under the surface I believe that there is growing co-operation particularly between housing departments and local police forces. The Government must recognise the importance of retaining the link between the police and local authorities, particularly after the abolition of the Greater London council and the end of any strategic authority for London.
The Government must recognise that one day local authorities will play a part in the accountability of the police. Anything that tears apart the relationship between the police and their local authority is wrong. My local

1233
police consultative committee has been disappointed with the Commissioner's plans to break up the districts. Lambeth police had the same boundary as the local authority. We were particularly disappointed because that proposal was made without prior consultation. We were told that the broad framework of the reorganisation of the London police had been established, and there was to be consultaion only on the detail. That was wrong. The closer that the organisation of the police force can grow towards the organisation of local government the better.
One notes from the Home Secretary's remarks that there are now 5,000 more police and civilians on the staff. We all recognise that one of the reasons why we are elected to Parliament is to protect the citizen from violence and theft so that he is safe in his own home and upon the streets. That is our duty, but the Home Secretary has completely failed to discharge that task. There is no evidence in the report that any of the duties that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes upon himself have been discharged.
The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) said that there was a breakdown of confidence in the police in 1979. He welcomed the report and the extent to which it mapped out the success in rebuilding morale since then. However, since 1979 there had been an increase of 30 per cent. in recorded crime in London, yet between 1977 and 1979 there was a reduction in recorded crime. I should have thought that the police would draw more confidence and morale from a reduction in recorded crime than from an increase of 30 per cent. over the past six years.
Even in the past year there has been a failure—crime in London has risen by 9 per cent., which is higher than the national average. That has happened although, as he said, the Home Secretary has added the equivalent of the entire Merseyside police force to the establishment of the Metropolitan police. The clear-up rate in London is far too low. At 17 per cent. it compares extremely unfavourably with other conurbations where the clear-up rate is two to three times better. It is no better in my constituency than elsewhere.
My people continue to be failed. In Lambeth, the chances of being robbed or being the victim of crime are almost three times greater than in the rest of the country. That is not right. There is an insufficient perception about who the victims of crime are. Some people have a sentimental, sloppy view that crime involves a transfer of resources from the rich to the poor, that somehow there is a Robin Hood element in the criminal fraternity that brings about the transfer of resources. That could not be further from the truth. I have always taken such an interest in the policing of my constituency and my borough because I know that the victims of crime are among the poorest in the community. The chances of being robbed on the streets of Lambeth are about 20 times higher than on the streets of Kingston upon Thames or Richmond upon Thames. If one is affluent enough to have a car, the chances of being robbed when one is doing the shopping or of having a chain snatched from around one's neck are far fewer than for those who have to walk home or queue for a bus.
The same is true for the pattern of burglaries. A survey of one of my estates showed that about 40 per cent. of the inhabitants had a personal acquaintance with burglary, either of themselves or of an immediate neighbour. That is an extraordinarily high figure. It underlines the fact that the victims of crime tend to be the poorest and most
1234
vulnerable in the community. Any idea that such crime is directed by poor people against the rich is not true, certainly not numerically.
Despite the growth of crime in London by 30 per cent. in five years, and 9 per cent. over the past year, the Government are responding to the problems of crime in the same way as they do to the problems of housing, health care and so on. They have decided that monetarism is more important than a safe community. They have now announced the cash limiting—the rate capping as it were—of the Metropolitan police, as well as of several boroughs. It is no good the Government pretending that, once they start capping expenditure and resources in that way, it does not have some effect on policing.
A paragraph in the report, quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), makes this clear:
"If we rise, for example, to a centrally counselled drive against drugs, which brings heavy demands on manpower through round-the-clock surveillance, then the existence of finite ceilings to manpower will dictate the removal of officers from other duties."
The moment that one starts limiting the expenditure that the police believe they should undertake, somebody will suffer. We must recognise that the drive against drugs is an extremely expensive and detailed operation. I know that from my constituency, where, over several months, the police mounted a carefully targeted operation to catch the dealers, not the punters. In that way they caught the real criminals and did not alienate those who simply dabbled in a joint or two of cannabis. It was an extremely successful operation, but it cost money. If we are to have expenditure limits on policing a borough such as mine, something must suffer, and I suspect that people will suffer. They will be burgled at home or experience what are called "opportunistic crimes".
More money must be spent on detailed surveillance to tackle the heroin problem. The police have not caught a worthwhile heroin dealer if he is an addict. It is easy to push up the number of dealers who have been caught, to put them behind bars and to parade those statistics, but if only people who are addicted to heroin are being caught, there has been no success.
The pattern of heroin dealing and consumption in south London is rather like pyramid selling. Once somebody becomes addicted to heroin, he can usually satisfy that addiction only by going into crime or by becoming a dealer. Such a person needs 10 or 12 customers to provide enough profit to satisfy the habit. When the addict's new customers themselves become addicts, they will need another 10 or 12 customers, who will probably become addicts, to supply the profit to sustain their addition. Once addicted, people are likely to get caught — heroin addiction rots their brains, among other things.
There must be a much higher level of police surveillance targeted at those who make the real money. That entails resources. It would be ridiculous to cap any such expenditure, whether by reducing the amount of money spent on catching dealers or by reducing expenditure on other forms of policing.
If we are to deal with the problem of heroin dealing and addiction, the Government must consider other aspects of the law. I believe that part of the rise of crime in south London is accounted for by heroin addiction. Somebody who attends a court might find that 10 people are charged with offences ranging from burglary to shoplifting and

1235
taking and driving away a motor vehicle. It is quite likely that none of them will be being charged with possessing heroin or dealing in it, but, digging a little deeper, it might well be found that the substantial cause of almost every crime was addiction to heroin.
A robbery might appear in the statistics as a robbery when it was the consequence of heroin addiction. That means that many people are now beginning to commit crime almost as automatons and they will commit crimes as long as they remain addicted. We must therefore consider much more deeply the treatment of offenders when the prime cause of an offence is addiction.
I have talked exclusively about heroin in this context, but cocaine is an increasing influence. We cannot deal with the problem simply by recourse to the criminal law, to imprisonment and its alternatives. I go as far as saying that people who are hopelessly addicted to heroin should be treated as mentally ill rather than criminal. The result of such treatment would be that their immediate suffering and the constraints on their liberty were greater. The Government must take a much deeper and longer look at the correlation between the criminal law and the law for the mentally ill if they are to deal with the heroin problem.
One of the consequences of escalating rates of crime in south London is a rise in insurance premiums. Insurance companies log burglary claims according to postal districts so that, if crime is especially high in, for example, SW2, SW4 or SW9, the premium becomes prohibitive. The result is that the mixture in a community will get poorer as people with possessions will leave the area if they cannot get insurance cover or find it prohibitively expensive. Poverty and deprivation in some inner-city areas will therefore be intensified. I should like local authorities to run some form of insurance scheme on council estates. After all, people who are "allocated" to an estate deserve the protection and security of insurance.
The number of black applicants to the Metropolitan police dropped from 444 in 1983 to 400 in 1984. We must recognise that there is something seriously wrong. The ethnic minorities are badly represented in the Metropolitan police. I know that this is not scientific evidence, but I should like to give an example of how the perception of black policemen can differ in other parts of the world.
The film "Beverly Hills Cop" has been so successful that it has probably grossed more money than "Gone with the Wind". People have gone back time and again to see Eddie Murphy playing a New York cop on holiday in California. There are enormous queues outside cinemas—I have tried twice to get in. Many of the people who have gone to see the film are black. They love the film and regard the cop as a hero. He is investigating cocaine dealing and is obviously the object of adulation and great humour. We should compare the perception of that black cop with that of his counterpart in the Metropolitan police. I was struck forcibly by the difference of perception when I saw a black policeman guarding the South African embassy recently. It is almost as though somebody was being humiliated.
It would be much better if we saw a few more black policemen in positions of authority. I should like to see more black policemen on the cars—I have never seen a black policeman driving a police car. How many black detectives, how many Eddie Murphys, are there in the
1236
Metropolitan police? That kind of image of the Metropolitan police force among the black community shows that something is wrong.
I am not trying to apportion blame, but the under-representation of the black community in the police force shows that something is seriously wrong. A more imaginative approach should be adopted. The number of black applicants to join the Metropolitan police is 400, but only 30 of the 400 have been accepted. Only a small number of the black people who applied to join the Metropolitan police were even interviewed, which suggests that the employment policy of the Metropolitan police is not sufficiently imaginative.
One of the ways of improving relations between the police and the community and catching more criminals is to have all sections of the community represented in the Metropolitan police. Then there would be more understanding of the mores of the local community and the different cultural groups. I am not suggesting that blacks should be set to catch blacks, or whites to catch whites, but there is something wrong with the present recruitment policy and it must be improved.
I ask the Government not to remain complacent and unctuous about the achievements of the Metropolitan police. No matter how great a gloss the Government put upon the report, the truth is that life in London is becoming less and less safe and people's property less and less secure.
This is having an effect on the inner city areas in particular. For the Government to respond by cash-limiting the Metropolitan police and dressing up the figures in the report as some kind of achievement is nonsense. They need to think again about their responsibility to the whole community.
12.30 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey: This important debate has turned out to be a personal disappointment for me. I have great respect for the intellectual powers of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and I am sure that many hon. Members share my view. However, for him to come to the House and tell us that he has not had time to be sufficiently briefed on a highly controversial video produced by the GLC and that he has been chasing around in Brecon and Radnor is extraordinary and unacceptable.
It is also disappointing that so few hon. Members from London constituencies are to be seen on both the Government and the Opposition Benches. Both this week and last week has seen a notable absence of Opposition Members. We have been facing Opposition motions, so perhaps the absence today of Conservative Members is due to the fact they have been putting in overtime this week and today are catching up with their paper work.
I am also disappointed that the chairman of the GLC, the council which we are told speaks for London, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), is not here today.
Mr. Corbyn: He is working.
Mr. Tracey: It is disappointing that he is not here to give us the benefit of his views and his considered wisdom.
Mr. Corbyn: Where is the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)? Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of absent friends, can he tell us where the spokesman for the Police Federation is today?
Mr. Tracey: I am happy to respond to that question. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) is not here, but I represent the constituency in which the head office of the Police Federation is situated. I maintain a close relationship with the federation, and hope that I shall be able to reflect to some extent its view on the topics under discussion. Ten days ago I was privileged to be on a phone-in programme of the London Broadcasting Company. I was amazed at the extraordinary attitude that some people adopt towards the police. It is destructive rather than constructive, on a matter that must be of concern to all members of society. It is an antagonistic rather than a co-operative attitude towards the police. I am sure that that is spurred on by the propaganda in the GLC's video, and that it is very harmful to society in the capital.
I am heartened by the fact that last year a national opinion poll—
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tracey: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will take the opportunity later to address the House at great length, as he always does.
A national opinion poll last year found that 75 per cent. of the population of the metropolis were quite happy with the way in which policing was going on. Policing would be helped even more if a more helpful community attitude were taken by Labour Members, their colleagues across the river in County Hall and several London boroughs—all Labour-controlled—which have not yet seen fit to adopt a proper police consultative procedure.
I welcome the Commissioner's report. Sir Kenneth Newman is one of the leading policemen and leading authorities on policing in the world. I am sure that that view is shared by his colleagues in police forces throughout the world. They certainly look to his example. His report is sound and justifies many more hon. Members being present to discuss it.
The report's analysis of modern crime was not quite reflected in the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). Much of modern crime in the metropolis is random and opportunist—for example, auto crime and walk-in crime. Of course it is not satisfactory to have a clear-up rate of only 17 per cent., but that is a misleading figure. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) pointed out, the Metropolitan police have a clear-up record of 77 per cent. for homicide, 73 per cent. for crimes involving kidnapping and 55 per cent. for crimes of blackmail and wounding. To bandy about the figure of 17 per cent. as though it represented every aspect of crime in the metropolis is misleading and a deliberate smear on the police.
Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that a non-clear-up rate of about 25 per cent. for murder is satisfactory? Does he think that it is reasonable that a quarter of the murders committed in London go unsolved, when the rate is nearly always 100 per cent. in nearly every other part of the country?
Mr. Tracey: Of course I do not believe that that is satisfactory. Indeed, at the beginning of my remarks on
1238
this section I said that 17 per cent. was not satisfactory. It is right for hon. Members to look at the more successful side of the operations of the Metropolitan police and not to harp on constantly about the less successful figures. That carping by Labour Members dismays Conservative Members.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, the Government have considerably increased resources for the Metropolitan police The budget of £763 million represents a 5 per cent. increase this year. As I understand it, the Government intend to continue putting resources into the Metropolitan police force. Much has been made of one reference in the Commissioner's report to cash limits, about which he is apparently unhappy. I draw the attention of Opposition Members to an article by the Commissioner in the Metropolitan police newspaper Job, which is headlined "Living within our means". He starts by saying:
"The Met now has a fixed income, called a cash limit. Like any family on fixed income, we have to live within our means."
He concludes the article by saying:
"I am confident that the Met will respond to the challenge of living within our means. This is no more than you and I have to do in our private lives. As an organisation we can do it too."
That shows the Commissioner's confidence in himself and his men that they can meet the challenge which the Government have rightly set the force, in the same way as the Government have set a challenge to local authorities, health authorities and other national bodies.
We must take careful note of the fact that since 1979, when the Conservative Government came to office, 4,500 more policemen have been recruited, which, as my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, is as many as there are in the Merseyside police force. Greater emphasis has been placed on efficiency monitoring in all areas of the work. More of the tasks that can be conducted by civilians are being conducted by them. The civilian strength of the Metropolitan police has increased by 1,250.
There is greater scope for such measures. We could consider putting out to tender ancillary services and operations not directly concerned with policing. Obviously, vehicles should be maintained in that way, and services within the Scotland Yard building and other police premises could be dealt with similarly. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has said that that is being studied, and I wish him well in that. There is no doubt that where that has happened in health authorities and in various local authorities in London, including Wandsworth, which is now a historic borough in terms of local government, everyone except a few head-in-the-sand Socialists knows that the ratepayers and the borough enjoy greater efficiency.
Evidence of that in the Metropolitan police would be of great assistance in meeting some of the demands made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman). He seemed to suggest that we should constantly plough more money into employing more and more policemen, but every extra policeman costs about £25,000 or £26,000. Clearly, the Commissioner and those who run the Metropolitan police must strive for the greatest possible efficiency, and that is what is happening now.
In my local borough, the Royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, the police are having great success. Of crimes reported to the police, the burglary rate has been reduced by 20·4 per cent., and serious assaults, robberies,

1239
fraud and indecency have been reduced by 11·7 per cent. during the past year. On-beat crimes reported to the police have fallen by 2·8 per cent. Only in motor vehicle crime, which so greatly inflates the statistics for the Metropolitan police record, has there been an increase of 4·7 per cent.
We are tackling these matters in the Royal borough of Kingston upon Thames. We have a consultative committee known as the "Police and Community Forum" and I pay tribute to the Labour chairman of that extremely hard-working committee, which brings in various strands from all parts of the community—the schools, the churches, the youth clubs, and so on—and gives useful thought to the best way of policing the borough.
Stemming from the deliberations of that committee we now have more than 50 neighbourhood watch schemes out of 1,200 or so in the metropolis as a whole. These schemes have attracted great support from people in the borough, and the reduction of 20·4 per cent. in the number of burglaries reported shows the effectiveness of the schemes. In my mind, and in the minds of people living in the borough, there is no doubt about that and we are pressing on to form even more neighbourhood watch schemes to achieve greater success and to ensure the co-operation between the public and the police that is vital to the policing of the borough, rather than leaving everything to the uniformed police.
The attitude of people in my borough and in so many Greater London boroughs, with the exception of eight Labour boroughs, which seem to refuse to co-operate with the police in that way, contrasts with the attitude of the GLC, which happily will not be with us for many more months. That council chooses to spend £1 million per year on a so-called police committee and on setting up police support groups and other bodies which I fear are no more than anti-police propaganda units.
The GLC also chooses to produce newsheets entitled "Policing London" written in a fashion aimed to detract from the good work of the Metropolitan police, and to spend £35,000 on producing a "Policing London" video, which has already been mentioned in the debate. I was most disappointed that the right hon. Member for Gorton could not find it in himself to repudiate the suggestion in that video that communities must rebel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Has the hon. Gentleman seen it?"] Certainly, I have seen it. I believe that there was an open invitation to all hon. Members to see it some months ago, when we were sent a folder and a poster telling us of
"A 30-minute dramatised introduction to the GLC's policy on the Metropolitan Police".
We have heard today that children in inner London schools are being invited to see this scurrilous stuff which invites communities to rebel. What greater charge can be laid against a council than that it has produced a video which ends with those words? We actually see on the screen a man mouthing the words "Communities must rebel." It is the Greater London council underwriting that advice to children in inner London schools. Why is the chairman of the Greater London council, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, not here to repudiate that?
Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman and other Government supporters have sunk to an abysmal level today. Each of them knows that that quotation is featured in a poem—a man is reading a poem to a group. It no more implies what the GLC thinks than the phrase
1240
"To be, or not to be"
in "Hamlet" suggests that Shakespeare was an existentialist. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense and he knows it.
Incidentally, as the Government propose to abolish the GLC, the police support unit and the others which the hon. Gentleman criticises, does he know that they are the very people who put in the application for money for the victim support scheme, to which the Home Secretary has not yet responded?
Mr. Tracey: I shall certainly respond to the hon. Gentleman's comment about the film. I do not care whether the phrase is featured in a poem or in a playlet in the film. For the producers of the film to put it there is the exercise of dramatic licence gone mad. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the film is to be shown to children in ILEA schools.
I go further. A motion was tabled for discussion at a meeting of the Greater London council calling upon the council to withdraw the video featuring the phrase "Communities must rebel." It was described as being
"tantamount to inciting violence and hatred."
Mr. Paul Boateng, whom we know only too well and who wishes to come to the House as the Member of Parliament for Brent, South following the next general election, tabled an amendment deleting the words criticising the video and saying that the council
"continues to ensure, through all means open to it, including the production of videos like 'Policing London', that information about the policing of London is available in the most graphic and accessible forms to all the people of London."
That is the attitude adopted by Mr. Boateng in respect of that insidious video. In his view, it should be shown to children in the schools of inner London, among them my own children. As a parent, I detest that attitude. But I am not surprised that Mr. Boateng holds the views that he does, because he has gone even further. In The Standard of 18 September 1984, Mr. Boateng was directly quoted on the subject of justices of the peace in London. He said:
"We must now make magistrates accountable to the Party. That doesn't mean they will refer every decision to the Party but the quality of their justice will be measured. They will have to accept the line on Party justice."
That is typical of the attitude of the Greater London council and of the chairman of its police committee. I invite the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to repudiate Mr. Boateng's attack on magistrates and the message that communities must rebel which is about to be put before our children in the GLC's video about the police.
The best way to encourage our children to work with and co-operate with the police in our communities, which is the finest way to bring about effective policing and law and order in the metropolis, is to adopt the course that one finds in some parts of London, where the police go to schools and talk to children and attend other public events. Home beat officers attend events and talk to children and adults about their work. Mounted policemen attend with their horses, as do police drivers and motor cyclists. They try to interest the public in their work. Those events will help to bring about co-opertation and to educate the public properly about the work of the police.
I endorse the comment of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) that the police must be seen on housing estates and that borough councils must encourage the police to come on to estates and to communicate with the public to seek co-operation.
Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman believes that borough councils should have closer liaison with the police, but does he accept that the reorganisation of the Metropolitan police proposed by the Home Secretary will make liaison with any local authority much more difficult? The reorganisation will create huge new police areas, and many local authorities, including Conservative-controlled ones, have objected to it on those grounds.
Mr. Tracey: I do not agree that reorganisation will make liaison more difficult. It will still be possible to have the same format of consultative committees in the boroughs, and the community will still be able to consult the police. I am sure that the police will make it just as easy for councillors and residents' associations to communicate their views on the policing of London. I do not accept that the reorganisation, which seeks greater efficiency, will cut across lines of communication with the public.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have picked up some useful points on the policing of London from this debate. We have a fine Commissioner in Sir Kenneth Newman, who has produced a useful report on policing in the metropolis in 1984. We must constantly seek greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness in the police force, and the important message that should go out from the House is that there should be the greatest possible co-operation between the public and the police in the metropolis.
12.57 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The debate is a travesty of the way in which we should discuss the organisation, control and operation of the police force in London. No one can pretend that it is satisfactory, when an organisation spends £800 million a year, to debate it once a year in the House on a Friday morning, with few hon. Members present and with the Home Secretary present for only part of the time, although he is the police authority for London. There will be no vote at the end of the debate, and we can have no detailed discussion on the way in which the police force is organised in each area.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will concede that there is a glaring lack of democracy in the running of London's police force compared with the system elsewhere in the country. Ministers must accept that, if Londoners are to have any confidence in the running of the police force, they must have an elected police authority. If it is good enough for every other police force to be run democratically, why is it not good enough for London?
Although we are discussing the police force, some reference must be made to the growing influence that the Commissioner and deputy commissioners of police have over the public order legislation framed by the Home Office. They also have growing influence with the media on the way in which public order issues are discussed. The Home Office has produced an ever-increasing framework of control and repression in its public order legislation. These are important matters.
The Home Secretary and police officers call for the control of political activity and dissent. The licensing system for marches, the control of political organisations which wish to march in London and the cost of policing those marches is creating an atmosphere of political repression which will lead to the banning of some political organisations. The Home Secretary's job is to protect political freedoms, not to create an atmosphere in which
1242
political freedoms are denied or might even be taken away. He should address himself to his role in protecting civil liberties rather than appearing on television and radio and making utterances in the opposite direction.
How is it that the Metropolitan police force manages to spend £801 million a year and claims to be an ever-growing force, yet it is always short of staff and its clear-up rate is by far the lowest in the country? It is incredible that the police are seriously considering tagging reported crimes so that they can decide whether they are worth investigating because their clear-up rate is already so inefficient.
I suspect that the Government intend to use the crime figures in the same way as the unemployment figures and to change the basis of the statistics so that they look better than they are. If the police decide that it is not worth following up a housebreaking when the goods lost are worth less than £100, for example, the clear-up rate will look much better. I hope that the Minister of State can assure us that the Government have no intention of introducing a system which would allow certain crimes to be ignored because the police cannot be bothered to clear them up.
Government Members talk about confidence in the police force and attacks on the police, real or imaginary, by Opposition Members and the GLC or borough councils. The Minister should consider the feelings of people in the communities, particularly in inner-city areas such as the one that I represent. Peolle are worried about burglary, damage to property, theft, racist attacks, attacks on women and safety on council estates. When approached locally, the police are often helpful and are prepared to discuss such matters. However, higher up the hierarchy of the Metropolitan police one finds a growing obsession with the need for high technology, highly mobile and heavily motorised policing which does nothing to improve the safety on council estates, and nothing to reduce the incidence of housebreaking, theft or petty burglary. In fact, it does the opposite.
People complain that, when a local policeman is appointed to a particular estate, as soon as he gets to know the area and to understand and work with the community he is moved to another beat. That is unsatisfactory. What does the Minister of State intend to do about that?
The lack of democracy in the police force is underlined by the complaints procedure. II cannot be satisfactory for an organisation to investigate itself when a complaint is made against it. A complaint against local government is investigated by the Commissioner for Local Authority Administration in England. Complaints against the Civil Service or any other public body are not investigated internally. The police tend to investigate themselves, and there is much disquiet about that. Lord Scarman, reporting in November 1981 following the Brixton riots, said:
"There is a widespread and dangerous lack of public confidence in the existing system for handling complaints against the Police. By and large, people do not trust the Police to investigate the Police."
He was right, and all the surveys carried out by independent research organisations support that view.
Fears have been expressed about the reorganisation of the Metropolitan police. Many objections and complaints have been made about the proposal to reorganise the police into larger areas. In my area, the inner city borough of Islington, the unemployment rate is registered at about 20 per cent., but in real terms it is 30 per cent. or higher. For

1243
youth it is higher than that, and for black youth it is higher still. My constituents suffer enormous social deprivation. Our local police force is to be linked with Waltham forest, Haringey and Enfield, so creating a new police area extending from the City of London to Cheshunt in Hertfordshire. These are entirely different areas with different problems and different social attitudes.
What possible reason could there be for introducing that form of reorganisation? When the plans were placed on our desks, we learned that the proposal had come about as the result of management experts discussing with the police the most efficient way, in the view of the management experts, of running the police. The greatest input appeared to have been made by the McDonald hamburger chain. There was no consultation with local authorities, community organisations, tenants' associations and others concerned with the issues involved.
The Home Secretary may say that if we went in for super police areas the local relationship would remain unchanged. I do not believe that. We are likely to have a series of super police headquarters around London. Indeed, one is being planned for Islington. That will lead to the closure of other police stations, which in turn will lead to a highly centralised police force, with one person in charge of the district and responsible directly to the Commissioner, and the local level of consultation will have gone.
Underlying the plan by the Home Office is, in my view, a fear of the growing demand for democratic control of the police. Under the present system there is, in large measure, conterminosity between the boundaries of police districts and the borough councils.
A constituent of mine living in, say, Hornsey road in a council flat can, if wishing to complain about the flat, visit the local council offices or see the locally elected representative on the council. If that person is concerned about something to do with the police, he or she can do little but come to me, and one day once a year, in June, I might get a chance to raise the issue in. Parliament.
A parallel is becoming obvious with the denial of democratic rights as the police force is organised into a larger unit, which denies local authority consultation methods. Indeed, various consultation groups in London met the Minister of State about this issue and then presented him with a resolution. Police-community consultative organisations from Enfield, Hammersmith, Fulham, Harrow, Islington, Kensington, Chelsea, Lambeth, Merton and Wandsworth met on 18 March last and agreed a resolution saying:
"The group expressed its regret that the Consultative Committees were not given any prior notice of the proposed reorganisation … calls upon the Commissioner to amend his proposal to retain the Borough as the consultative unit, thereby also retaining the District as an operational unit under the control of a District Commander … calls upon the Commissioner to retain the Borough-based Community Liaison Officer."
It would be interesting to know how many objections to the plans for reorganisation and, implicitly, the changes in consultation arrangements the Home Secretary received.
It would be interesting also to know how many of those complaints went on to call for a more democratic system of control of the police force in future. The Home Office owes it to the House and the people of London to explain the real motives behind the process of reorganisation. It
1244
has not convinced anyone that the reorganised force will be any cheaper to operate. I am convinced that it is trying to deny the possibility in future of locally elected police authorities, or at least some form of consultation at borough level in the running of the police force.
Many elements lie behind the problems of crime. There are important social elements such as the difficulties of unemployment, the disaffection of individuals and the degrees of alienation that many young people feel towards society. There are problems arising from our physical environment. A system of crimewatch has been established in Islington on the initiative of the London borough of Islington's police authority. The system has the support of the police committee support unit. The object of the crimewatch system is to set up a series of crime prevention working parties in the districts where the crimewatch system operates. The neighbourhood offices — they are part of the council's decentralisation programme—have as one of their jobs the operation of a crime prevention working party, which involves local community associations and tenants' associations. The working party examines the causes of crime, the safety of people walking along the streets and in estates at night, racial attacks, especially those on minority ethnic communities, lighting in council estates and many other matters.
The council has shown a commendable sense of responsibility towards the community in setting up the crimewatch system and involving the local community in it. I hope that I shall hear from the Minister of State that the Home Office is aware of what Islington is trying to do and of the co-operation that it has received from local community organisations. I hope also that he will say that he is prepared to extend the idea to other parts of the country, instead of going along with the Metropolitan police's obsession with public relations, which leads them to remove their contact with elected representatives of the people while they attempt to relate to everyone by means of press releases and media handouts.
The Minister of State will do well if he can tell us exactly what the cost is to be of reorganisation, and especially the cost of the new buildings that will be erected around London.
The debate is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the immense problems which many people face in London. They feel that the police are not responding adequately to their worries and concerns. They do not see the police force in London as a responsive unit. Instead, they consider it to be extremely expensive, inefficient, bureaucratic and undemocratic.
1.13 pm
Mr. Harry Greenway: I was most interested in what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) had to say about the possible relationship—he said direct relationship—between unemployment, bad housing and crime. There is not a shred of evidence to support his views. In my professional career in teaching, I talked to the unemployed and their children. I often found that they were proud people and suffering greatly through not having a job. I found also that the last thing in which they were interested was crime.
One of the great men of our age—I feel that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with me—is Bishop Trevor Huddleston, who is a lifelong friend of mine. He was inspired to become a priest in the Church

1245
of England by Father Basil Jellicoe, whose spiritual campaign, and campaign as the vicar of Somers Town in the 1920s, was based on the removal of slum housing. He argued that it should all be swept away as it was leading to massive social deprivation and crime. Since then, and partly as a result of his great and inspired campaigning, that housing has been completely replaced by brand new housing, but the crime rate now is higher than it was then. Even Trevor Huddleston accepts that there is no correlation between the two. It is easy to feel that there might be, but I do not believe that there is.
I wish to pay tribute to the London mounted police, who have so often been vilified by anti-police elements, including the GLC and members of the Labour party, and others. The police horses of London are among the most gentle horses that one could meet. They have a difficult role to play in policing rough crowds at football matches and also in their long-established role of policing well-behaved crowds.
The wonderful thing is that non-riders can apply to become mounted police officers. Someone with no ability to ride can be taken to lmber Court, taught to ride and trained gradually to handle difficult situations—such as last year's miners' strike, crowds given to violence, those going to and from soccer matches, and massive demonstrations. They do that with enormous competence. We never hear of horses kicking, maiming or injuring members of the public, even when they are terribly provoked. That is a great tribute to their basic training and to the way in which their riders are taught to handle them. Their duties are well done.
Echo was a notable police horse a few years ago. It was present when the IRA blew up and killed 12 soldiers and 7 horses in Hyde park. It survived that and continued with its duties for a short time, but eventually had to be retired because it was suffering from shock. During that period of illness from shock, the horse, by instinct and its training, carried out its duties competently. All those involved in the mounted police branch, mounted or not, should be congratulated on what they do.
The public relations of the mounted branch are good. The horses are taken to public events. The public can meet them, pat them and enjoy being with them. That is evidence of the fact that they are among the most gentle creatures in the world.
Police dog-public relations are admirable. There is a nursery school in my constituency which is 25 years old this month. To my amazement and horror, the police took an alsatian police dog to be with the children one morning. I should remind the House that I experienced being attacked and bitten twice by an alsatian during the last general election, so that, while I am a great dog lover, I take great care when I see alsatians about. That police dog was so well handled by its handler that the children could sit on its back, pat it and play with it, and under the handler's complete control it did extremely well. I am a keen dog lover, and that election incident has not put me off dogs.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said about the Greater London council's anti-police film. I have raised the matter in the House twice this week. The film should be withdrawn. If the GLC is concerned about maintaining law and order in London, and if it wants reasonable relations between the police and the public, it should withdraw that film. I call upon it to do so. Vicious scenes in it are deliberately intended to
1246
show the police in a bad light. The police's basic job is to maintain freedom for all of us before the law. The people who attack the police most and in the most vicious terns are almost always the first to seek their protection if anything goes wrong, so they would do well to remember that they are ill-advised to undermine that thin blue line any further. If they succeed, everyone will suffer seriously, particularly the old and those ill-equipped to defend themselves.
I echo what many of my hon. Friends have said in the debate, that burglary is a substantial problem in the metropolis. There is no question but that even more attention needs to be given to ways of protecting people's homes. The neighbourhood watch scheme is admirable, excellent and going well. However, we cannot sit back and say that that excellent scheme is taking care of the situation. It is doing a lot, but there is still a large amount of burglary on every sort of housing estate and in every sort of area—not only in wealthy areas. Even poor people are being burgled.
Particularly this week, I have heard of people having belongings taken when they are moving into a new home. They might have moved a few belongings into the new house in advance of moving in properly. The burglars watch for that, and they take television sets, washing machines, driers and so on that are put in in advance. That is a new sort of burglary, which requires careful attention and thought.
People on holiday have great cause to worry about their homes. There seems to be no way of securing a home in a foolproof way against burglary, although the police give admirable advice. I recommend everybody to consult the police on how to put special locks on windows, doors and so on.
Local police consultative committees have been mentioned. They are unquestionably valuable forums for the meeting of police and representatives of the public on a regular basis. The police need to have a feel of what people in the community are saying and thinking. Members of the community have an equally urgent need to understand what the police are trying to do. I cannot understand why, in so many areas, the Socialists and the Labour party have boycotted those police consultative committees. They have done so in Ealing. That is to their detriment, and it is sad and disgraceful.
Partnership between the police and the public is essential. It can come only through police consultative committees and other such forums.
Mr. Soley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the police should have consulted local authorities and others on the new management structures?
Mr. Greenway: The police have been in constant consultation with Parliament, the Home Secretary and elected representatives of Londoners.
Mr. Soley: They have not.
Mr. Greenway: I think that they have done the right thing. I myself have had discussions. That puts what the hon. Gentleman said into perspective—
Mr. Soley Mr. Soley rose—
Mr. Greenway: I should like to continue my speech. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later. I can only speak from my own experience.

1247
The only way to cure the social and soccer violence which has so worried the country recently must be to improve religious and moral education in schools. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) seemed to do a double take at that statement, but I am serious. No society can be controlled by force. In the end, people must control themselves. That can come only if people accept a reasonable moral code, which, for me, is based on religious principles, but which may be more broadly based. Such acceptance must come from teaching in schools. However, there is no religious or moral education in our comprehensive schools after the third year. A recent report said that in two thirds of all primary schools those teaching religious education are confused and do not know what they are doing. If they do not know what they are doing, how much chance have the children of grasping the difference between right and wrong and the fact that society must be based on the principle of love thy neighbour rather than on the ability to punch harder than the next man? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use all of his influence to press those who are responsible to improve religious education, including proper acts of worship at morning assemblies.
Police visits are an essential part of the police relationship with the community and of helping children to understand what the police do and their role in society. There is nothing like a friendly talk from a policeman to encourage children not to talk to strangers and to learn how to cross the road properly and safely. Such matters are fundamental to the safety of children. It is disgraceful that the police are excluded from some schools in the metropolis. That is wicked, damaging and unfair to children and their parents. Policemen should not be strangers to children. Children should not be alienated from them by vicious films such as the GLC video, which we have already discussed today.
Schools have a responsibility to keep their curriculums interesting and dynamic and to keep children interested in attending school. High truancy rates in some parts of London present serious problems for the police. In some areas, 30 to 40 per cent. of children are out of school on any one day. If they are out of school, they are running about the streets and getting up to terrible mischief. A few months ago I met a 12-year-old boy who was appearing before the courts for taking and driving away a motor vehicle. He admitted to me that he had taken a Jaguar in the Lewisham area and driven it right across London to visit a friend and then back again. The mind boggles. He also told me that he had been truanting for a long time. He was a nice little boy and obviously had a lot of initiative, but he must be kept in school working and learning, preparing himself for life. That is the true outlet for such initiative, character and determination. He should not be pinching Jaguars, or any other cars, and driving them all over the place.
A terrible term-pigs-is often applied to the police. A substantial number of people, including members of the GLC and the Labour party, refer to the police as pigs. It would be bad enough to do so in a clandestine way, but to refer to the police in such a derogatory fashion is not only grossly insulting to a dedicated and fine body of men and women, but also damages their standing with the
1248
public. We know that that is the intention of those who so describe the police, but the term should be repudiated every time they say it or write it.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is trying to bring some sense into the policing of demonstrations. All those who want to hold demonstrations in London should not be allowed to do so freely every week, at enormous expense to the ratepayers and taxpayers. Demonstrations become a way of life. When I lived in Oxford House, Bethnal Green, a few years ago, a girl who was living in the settlement at the same time went on a different demonstration every week. For most of the time she did not know what she was going to demonstrate about. I asked her, "What is the demonstration tomorrow, Deborah?" and she replied, "I don't know what it is, but we are meeting at such and such a place."
If large numbers of people are demonstrating for sport, we do not want to deny them their sport, but one has to take some account of the huge cost of demonstrations to the people of London. Some kind of control must be exercised over the number of demonstrations that can be mounted by a particular group of people.
1.31 pm
Mr. Ernie Roberts: The police force is supposed to be democratic and is expected to look after the interests of all the people in Britain, irrespective of race, colour or creed, but that is not so in the area that I represent. Black people, and others, are continually in conflict with the police because of the way that they are treated. I have examples here of complaints by my constituents that have been discussed with various Home Secretaries and others over many years.
Some of the cases have dragged on for years. I have met Home Secretaries, Ministers, more than one Commissioner and assistant commissioner, as well as commanders and chief superintendents to discuss the bad policing and the conflict between the police and the community in my constituency. The bad relationships continue.
I have in my hand a copy of a large advertisement that appears today in the local press. Its heading is "The independent committee of inquiry into policing in Hackney." It says that written submissions of evidence are invited. The chairman of the inquiry is the Reverend David Moore. It refers to
"(A)the death of Colin Roach and the surrounding circumstances. (B) Stoke Newington police station. (C) The relationship between the police and the black community."
Those are some of the issues that are to be investigated by the committee. The committee has to do the job because the Home Secretary has refused to do it. Replying to one request, the Home Office stated:
"The Home Secretary has … carefully considered the case for a wider form of enquiry into policing in Stoke Newington generally. He appreciates that there is genuine concern about past events and real anxiety about the future of community/police relationships, but he is not convinced that a wide-ranging public enquiry would be in the best interests of community/police relations in the borough."
The public and their representatives are getting together to look into past and present problems that have been brought to their attention. The Roach case is only the tip of the iceberg. Many demonstrations took place and hundreds of people were arrested during that conflict. The Home

1249
Secretary must appreciate that there is still a demand for a public inquiry to be held into that case, even though several years have passed. The public are not satisfied with what has happened.
The Knight case has dragged on for years. Similarly, there is concern about the infamous White case in 1976 which continued for years and resulted in £51,000 being awarded against the police.
The way in which police in London deal with missing persons is also of considerable concern. The police found Colin Barnard's mother six months after he had been cremated. They later apologised. It is obvious that a proper procedure is needed to deal with missing persons. A campaign is being conducted to discover the whereabouts of the many thousands of missing persons.
I was invited to look into a procedure set up at Scotland Yard to deal with this problem. It must have been impossible to find the names of missing persons in the former system involving numerous filing cabinets and thousands of cards. The system has now been computerised, which I hope will mean that there is a better chance of obtaining information. These matters should not be left until the public complain about the activities of the police in searching for missing persons.
The public are concerned about cases in which black women are put into prison for a week, and then set free. Often, the police pick up people suffering from mental diseases or epilepsy and keep them in prison until their relatives discover where they are and get them out.
I am also worried about stop and search. Young black people out at night are told to stand against a wall, spread their legs and put up their hands. They are then searched. One young fellow told me that this had happened to him three times.
The Hackney Council for Racial Equality has a dossier of 40 cases, some of which have been passed on to me. The council has demanded an independent inquiry into policing in Hackney.
A member of the police force in my area has given me a document of several pages involving complaints against high-ranking police officers. He brought the case to me because, although he had the right, he had been stopped from giving it to the Commissioner. When I put the report in the Commissioner's hands, I said that it was from the sort of young policeman whom the Commissioner wanted in the police force and who should be protected as he was prepared to make allegations about the bad behaviour of his superiors. That was about six months ago, and I have not yet received a reply. I should like to know what has happened in that case, especially to the young policeman. I think that he was a detective who was moved around.
I, like the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), am worried about the relationship between schools and the police. In Hackney the lack of faith in and dissatisfaction at the behaviour of the police is so great that the teachers exclude the police from the schools. There have also been many complaints from parents. I have had meetings with police commanders, deputy assistant commissioners and others about the Finsbury park, Manor park and Brownswood road areas, where young blacks are constantly stopped and searched, and arrested on charges of obstruction. Unemployed young people cannot keep walking, they must stand still sometimes. They should not be moved on for standing on the pavement and talking to their friends, or picked up on a charge of obstruction, if they refuse to move on. The use of the SPG, about which
1250
there were complaints and which has been replaced by the special control unit, still gives rise to concern and complaints.
Our citizens want to see policemen on the estates, the streets and the beat, but not in fast-moving vehicles screaming through the streets. In many cases the police over-react. Such over reactions are recorded in many photographs in the document "Policing London" under the heading "Routine Over-reaction" which states:
"The use of excessive force and routine over-reaction can be understood as a response to boredom."
That excuse is not enough.
We want less policing of the "Starsky and Hutch" variety. I think that the police watch too much televisiion and try to repeat on the streets of London the antics of those whom they watch. It is time that they were taken out of their cars and put on the streets where people want to see them, can talk and complain to them and where, if a mugging takes place, there should be easy access to a policeman.
Hackney borough council has set up a police committee. Over the years there have been constant attempts to get the Home Office to agree to the police being represented on it, or even attending it. Representatives of the community groups and of all the political parties of the council are represented on it. They do not kid themselves that the Committee has any legal authority. It is of a consultative nature, as the Home Secretary knows. However, it could be even more useful in getting co-operation between the community and the police.
It is time that the Home Secretary and the Commissioner looked at these matters more carefully. A consultative committee has been set up in my area, chaired by the chairman of the local chamber of commerce. The two local Members of Parliament are invited to attend. It would be much more useful, however, if the police also sent a representative to the Hackney borough council police committee. There could then be an exchange of views, it would be clear that the council was being treated in a responsible way by the police and the committee would be assisted in its consideration of the problems of policing in the area.
Finally, I wish to make certain demands to the Home Secretary about policing in London. As my colleagues have pointed out, the police need to be democratised. Sometimes individuals need to be protected from police abuse. We need a rearrangement of police functions and internal organisation and new priorities in the deployment and aims of policing in London.
Much police time in London is spent on social work. In my view, the police are not properly trained for that and do not constitute a suitable agency for such work, which is best carried out by the specially trained personnel employed by the social services.
It must be made clear that crimes against the community are more important than crimes against the holders of capital. We need more community policing, more police on the beat and less of the "Starsky and Hutch" type overreaction that so often occurs.
1.47 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: In the first debate on policing in London after the 1983 general election, the Under-Secretary of State spent virtually the whole of his speech boasting that Red Ken's efforts to control the police

1251
had been beaten off for ever. I think that that is a fair summary. The Minister tried to personalise a serious issue facing London. The debate was not about Ken Livingstone. It was, and it still is, about accountability. It is an argument about democracy. Moreover, the Minister was wrong, because the move for accountability has not been beaten off. It is the return of the repressed. The movement has come back even stronger and it is a growing constituency, as the Tories will discover to their cost.
Accountability is still very much a live issue because of the rising crime rate. There have been record increases in crime every year, and I suspect that the figures for the past year will be even higher because London was left to the criminals while the police were taken elsewhere to do the Government's dirty work against the miners. The clear-up rate is also pathetically low — just 8 per cent. for burglaries in my area. The police have been shown to be increasingly ineffective in stopping the rising crime rate. That is why accountability becomes ever more necessary and higher on the political agenda.
It is unfortunate, but true, that the public's alienation from the police runs deep in all sectors of the community, and it is not smoothed over by Tories saying, "The police are doing a wonderful job. Let's leave it to them." As one of my hon. Friends said in an aside, "You might as well give the public a police horse to stroke and all will be well." That approach will not solve the problems.
Police-community relations are at a low ebb, and there are many reasons for it. The police are perceived as a force and not as a service to the community. They are increasingly seen as overtly political. Against the miners, they were put in the forefront of that political role by the Government, and in London we saw them even harassing people who wanted to make collections to support miners' families on the poverty line. They are used politically against blacks and the ethnic minorities. They are used against the Left. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Roberts) did not quote the headline which I have in my possession. Newman said in his last report:
"Our enemies are on the Left."
The police perceive the Left as the enemy.
What is more, the police are often seen by the public as being above the law. There is not an independent complaints procedure. The police investigate themselves. The figure for successful complaints — assuming that people bother to go that far with the procedure, because often many give up without going through it—is a little over 1 per cent. That does not inspire confidence.
People see that they do not have any real say. I remind the House that £400 million is spent on the police by Londoners, but they have no control or effective say. It is because of that lack of democracy that the police are so slow to react to community needs.
The alienation is in all parts of the community, but it is very high amongst the ethnic minorities. Polls taken from those living in ethnic communities show an immense lack of confidence in the police.
In my own Waltham Forest area, there have been calls for vigilantes amongst those groups to defend their communities. I oppose the idea, because those ethnic minorities pay their taxes and have the right to proper police protection. They should not have to resort to
1252
vigilantes. But the calls have been fueled by racial attacks, including some terrible murders in east London, and the police have been slow to realise the racist nature of many assaults and harassments. During this Session of Parliament, I intend to introduce my Racial Harassment Bill under the ten minutes rule with a view to making such conduct an offence and tightening the law. But the police must step up their campaign against racists if they are to get the confidence of the ethnic minorities.
The police need the support of the community. The recently published Leyton police divisional report recognises that. It says:
"There is abundant evidence that police action is insufficient to reduce crime. The aim of gaining the active co-operation of others is imperative."
Efforts are being made. Some are real. Others, I am sorry to say, are token efforts. But the reality is that, because of Home Office negligence and the overall lack of accountability of the police, the opposite is true. There is less public confidence in the police.
Another cause of alienation is the obsession of the police with moving to high tech, which is often not properly thought out and certainly is not cost-effective, instead of getting policemen on the beat, with the confidence and support of the public.
I shall give three examples of high-tech policing and its disturbing implications. The first relates to the tracking bugs which the police can place on cars. In the recent case of Mr. Colin King, it was shown that the police had placed such a device on the car of a man who had no criminal record and who was subsequently acquitted in court. The police officers who used it now await trial for setting up a bank robbery. The case has serious implications, because it is another step in the increasing intrusion into people's private lives and disregard for their civil liberties. The police should not be allowed to track cars simply because they do not like someone or, as in Mr. King's case, his friends. That amounts to harassment and intimidation.
The guidelines on the use of such devices are lax. At least when the police want a search warrant, they must obtain authorisation from a high-ranking officer or, independently, from a justice of the peace. There is no such safeguard here. The Secretary of State must approve any telephone tapping, but he need not approve car bugging. There is no compensation for the victims of unjustified bugging.
It might be said that innocent people have nothing to fear from this high-tech intrusion into their lives. However, people's private lives are not shop windows. If the police themselves were bugged, we would catch many more crooked policemen, but, rightly, there would be outrage from the Police Federation. Civil liberties apply to everyone, not just to the police. The fact that the Home Secretary has no control over the use of car bugs means that it has become much more widespread.
The second example is the automatic fingerpinting machine purchased by the Metropolitan police for £1,654,000. No doubt its running costs are also substantial. However, identifications have increased by only one a day. That is not real value for money, and I do not believe that the Minister can justify it. I know that he sent me a letter on the subject, but I wish to quote the draft Home Office circular of September 1984:
"The AFR system at New Scotland Yard has the capacity to make one million comparisons a day. This is a very substanial figure but is small in relation to the size of the database which the system could hold. For example, only four marks a day could

1253
be searched against an entire collection of 250,000 sets of prints (ie 2·5 million digits). Moreover, if the marks could not be identified as belonging to a particular digit the search could take up to 10 times as long. Preliminary trials with an alternative make of AFR system have indicated that it is faster but less accurate."
The Home Office draft circular shows that the technology is too slow. The police should have anticipated that and should not have spent £2 million on a system only to find out that it is too slow. The Minister has a duty to get value for money from high tech.
The third example is the police national computer. A recent parliamentary question from me elicited the amount of information that is stored from the computer. There are many implications relating to the number of car records on it. The police can obtain someone's name and address immediately by asking the computer. They never used to be able to obtain the address.
The criminal names index with its 5 million names has created a stir. One person in 10 is categorised as a criminal. When the figures were published, one criminologist said that one man in three in his lifetime is likely to be categorised as a criminal. People are being stigmatised. That is serious, particularly at a time of high unemployment, because people might find it more difficult to get a job if their names appear on the index. If the trend continues, Britain is likely to have more criminals than workers. There is a long way to go before we reach that position, but that is the trend.
The increasing number of secret records on individuals has all the hallmarks of police states throughout the world, yet the Home Office is letting it happen. No guidelines have been issued about the names that go on the criminal names index or about their removal. I received a letter recently from a man who was stopped for a car check and the police knew that he had stolen a bottle of milk 22 years ago when he was only 16. That letter is on its way to the Home Office.
How soon does information go on the computer? Does it go on before a person is acquitted by the courts? Access is another problem. Terminals are being set up in police stations throughout the country. What rules govern who can have access to the information? Information could find its way to finance companies or blackmailers. Individuals do not have access to their own records or the opportunity to correct errors. The Home Office has ignored all the serious implications.
The Guardian of 13 June summarised three key issues effectively:
"First, the decision to computerise must be taken properly and openly, after effective consultation and with stringent evaluation of the effectiveness of the investment … Second, computerisation should be confined to proper police functions"
— not rumours and gossip or "so-called criminal intelligence."
"Finally … there must be effective safeguards for the individual."
The Guardian was right in that respect.
High tech has serious implications which have been ignored by the Home Office. Community policing is being ignored in the high-tech drive and the crime rate is rising. High-tech policing is bad value for money. A better job could be done through community policing.
Under the victim support scheme, 587 local referrals have been made since November 1984. The Department of the Environment turned down the urban aid application for that scheme, but the much-despised GLC came to its rescue. The Department of the Environment and the Home Office squabbled about who should foot the bill.
1254
The Government have a responsibility for the social conditions which increase crime in London and throughout the country. They are responsible for unemployment and the cut in services. People who are jobless, who receive no help and are bitter, might well reject the order in society. That might have bitter consequences for Britain's youth. The immigration laws give encouragement to racism, and the Government have a responsibility in that connection, too.
The Tories have fostered a society based on personal acquisitiveness and greed instead of co-operation. That is the main reason why they are the guilty men in terms of policing in London. In the main, it is not a question of the police doing a good or bad job—although the lack of accountability leads to the latter — but of the Government having failed to stem the rising tide of crime. Instead, they are fostering the conditions for crime.
2.5 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: Throughout the Commissioner's report are references to the fact that the police alone cannot deal with the crime rate. That point has been stressed by many of my hon. Friends and, to a limited extent, by Conservative Members. Perhaps the biggest criticism one can make of the debate derives from the complacency of the remarks of the Home Secretary and of some of his hon. Friends.
Twenty years ago there was one police officer for every 602 citizens in the United Kingdom. Today there is one for every 393. Under the Tories, however, the crime rate has been rocketing and there has been continual disorder. The message is clear. The Government cannot introduce socially and economically divisive policies and expect the police to deal with the consequences. That has happened and that is why this, more than any other, Government have exploited the law and order issue. They did it in 1979 and again in 1983, although it back-fired on them. If they want proof of that, they need only read the Police Review, which criticised them during the miners' strike for using the police to enforce their industrial relations policy. A headline to that effect appeared in that publication.
The booklet "Principles of Policing and Guidance for Professional Behaviour", issued by the Metropolitan police, contains some interesting matter which I would quote if there were time. The Commissioner deals on page 2 with the subject of the police not chasing up minor offences. That leads one to think of some of those who have been criminalised and brought before the courts as a result of demonstrations or industrial disputes, of which there are many.
One recognises the dangers that exist in Britain of using the police as the Government's private army. That is what the Tories have been trying to do. The police resent that as much as all firm and committed democrats resent it.
The victim support scheme is dealt with at page 61 of the report. The GLC has been criticised by Conservative Members. I repeat, for the benefit of the hon. Members for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)—I appreciate why the latter is no longer in the Chamber—that the quotation to which they referred from the film came from a man reading from some poetry as part of a poetry reading. Are we to assume that every organisation which films or provides detail of every line of poetry or piece of literature is in some way endorsing

1255
the remarks that are made? Does the Home Secretary believe that one line from a poem represents even the poet's view of the whole?
I have seen the film and I fear that I must tell the hon. Member for Ealing, North that he tried to use it as a propaganda weapon and in a way, frankly, that would have made even Dr. Goebbels feel ashamed. I appreciate that a by-election campaign is in progress and that the Government are worred about that, but that was sinking to a low level.
Mr. Tracey Mr. Tracey rose—
Mr. Soley: I would normally give way, but time does not permit me to do so.
The GLC has been funding the London victim support scheme since 1981 and at present there is an application in for £17,672. That application, which is backed by the GLC police committee and the police support unit, is with the Secretary of State. I believe that the money is unlikely to be forthcoming. I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will announce whether the Government intend to give the victim support scheme that money.
How will his Department fund the victim support scheme after the abolition of the GLC? I challenge him to answer that question today. The Commissioner says in his report that those bodies give full backing to the scheme but that the Government will not finance it. Let us have an answer to that question in the next 15 or 20 minutes.
I urge the Home Secretary to consider again the report of the all-party penal affairs group on prevention of crime among young people. The rate of recorded crime for those aged between 14 and 16 years is higher than that for any other age group. The second highest rate is for those aged between 17 and 20 years. We can do much to prevent crime among those who fall within those age groups, but what has happened? The Government have cut every decent prevention scheme worth its name.
The Home Secretary and other Conservative Members have talked about neighbourhood watch schemes. Neighbourhood watch is the fig leaf with which they try to cover their nakedness on this issue. I am not opposed to neighbourhood watch, but the assumptions that are being made about its success rate are not proven. If they were, I should be cheering along with everyone else. Some evidence suggests that neighbourhood watch works well in certain suburban areas, but there is a problem because it consumes manpower that could be used elsewhere. At the end of the day it may prove its usefulness throughout the country but I suspect that it will prove to be especially useful in certain areas while not providing the complete answer in others.
It has been shown by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders that the safe neighbourhood unit does much better than neighbourhood watch. The unit is funded by the GLC; is that not amazing? The Government appear not to be interested in the unit. It is engaged in crime prevention and the Government appear to take the view that it can go or that it can be funded by others. Who will replace the unit when the Government abolish the GLC?
It is the vandalised and run-down areas that face the major problem. Burglary is a nationwide problem. The chance of being burgled is about 1:40 throughout England
1256
and Wales. It is 1:12 in inner city areas. Neighbourhood watch will not be able to resolve that problem. However, many suggestions are made in the all-party document to which I have referred and in a document which has been prepared by NACRO, which has submitted various schemes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has referred to some of them, which involve the provision of more caretakers, better locks and doors, improved housing standards, the provision of nursery facilities, getting families with young children out of high rise flats and many other matters. Much of this provision and many of these improvements have been cut by the Government over the past few years, or will be cut.
Will the Minister give the House a guarantee that any local authority that introduces a crime prevention scheme of a type of which he approves will not be rate-capped or targeted on the basis of the money that is made available for the scheme? In other words, will he ensure that the money for the scheme is available over and above the financial targets that have been set for local authorities? Let us have an answer to that question as well.
One small action of the Government that will do more to produce crime than any other act by any Minister is the board and lodging scheme. The NACRO surveys and many others show that young people who are homeless and adrift are highly vulnerable to getting into trouble with the police. The board and lodging scheme will keep young people on the move. It will increase vagrancy and drug addiction because a young homeless person is likely to become a runner to get money. He is likely to use drugs in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) described so vividly and so well.
The scheme will lead to alcohol abuse. One of the ways of coping with sleeping out at night is to drink heavily before settling down for a cold night. Alcohol, too, pushes people into crime. The scheme will cause misery for the young people who are part of it and for many others who will suffer the results of the problem.
Which of the recommendations set out in the all-party report on the prevention of crime among young people will the Home Secretary introduce and when will he implement them? I shall be content if the right hon. and learned Gentleman chooses to make an announcement on another occasion. We look forward to his statement at some stage.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North told us that he was consulted on the management issue. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has had to leave the Chamber. As I said in an intervention, he was not consulted. No London Member of Parliament was consulted. I am not even sure that the Home Secretary and the Minister were consulted. They might have been, but everyone accepts that that management scheme is not good in terms of consultation not just because it crosses borough boundaries, as has been said, but because it brings in different areas—the middle class suburbs with the inner city areas. It produces many consultation problems.
There must be democratic control of the police. Anyone who argues against that must be out of his or her mind. In the last century the House had a record of which we should be proud for setting up Select Committees that called evidence. Somehow we lost that in the recent past and had to regain it. The House set up committees to investigate riots, disorders and policing. One of my biggest criticisms of the Home Secretary is that we can have riots in Savernake forest and shootings in the streets of London,

1257
such as in the Baigrie case, and yet we do not have a statement in the House nor do we receive effective replies to the questions that we ask in letters to the Home Secretary. I still have not received a detailed reply from the Home Secretary about what he will do about shotguns and how Mr. Baigrie obtained that shotgun. We have had no answers or thoughts about that. The message that goes out to the British people is that the Government do not believe that those matters are important enough to make a statement about them in the House or in public. That is unacceptable.
I should like an answer today to my next question. I am deeply disturbed about the number of accidents in which the police have been involved. The Minister will know this because he has replied to written questions from me, but it seems that at least 26 police officers have been killed in police driving accidents, yet the police officers' training manual states:
"It is far better that a criminal should escape for the time being than that the crew of a Police Car and other road users should be exposed to grave risk of injury."
I do not believe that this is an unreasonable request, but I hope that the Minister will ensure that the figures are soon available. Our questions have not been answered because, the Minister says, the information is not available. I understand why. It is unacceptable that so many police officers and other road users are killed and that no statement is made to the House or answers given to written questions. I ask the Minister to say that the figures will be collected and a statement made.
On firearms, I notice that page 157 of the report states that there has been an increase in new firearm certificates. When will the Home Office set up some departmental machinery to review the whole subject of guns, replica guns and other weapons and the issue of certificates?
I should have liked to speak about the need to provide compensation for police officers who are killed or injured on duty so that they no longer have to go through the Criminal Injuries Board procedure. I should also have liked to talk about the excessively bureaucratic nature of the new complaints procedure that has been introduced. We should much prefer a system based upon the ombudsman which would be less bureaucratic and therefore release more police officers to do the job that hon. Members want them to do.
The Government's record on law and order is a disgrace. They promised the world and delivered nothing. All that they have been able to fall back on has been the one fig leaf of neighbourhood watch, and vicious, unjustified attacks on the GLC which they cannot substantiate when they are asked. That is not an answer to the problems facing the people of this country.
2.18 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will allow me at least to comment on the fact that a Government who have increased resources for the police from £1·1 billion to £2·8 billion, and have increased the number of police officers by 12,500 in four years, have made a sufficient demonstration of a commitment to law and order.
The crime figures have increased continuously and alarmingly for many years, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) correctly pointed out, but there can be no suggestion of anyone being complacent
1258
about significant increases in crime. It is in no sense a comfort, but the increase in crime in England and Wales between 1979 and 1984 was about 37 per cent. whereas in the Metropolitan police area it was 29 per cent. Crime in London has not increased as alarmingly as elsewhere.
That is the magnitude of the task that faces the Metropolitan police and the Commissioner. That is why every effort is being bent towards seeing that London policing is redesigned to make it more effective in the continuing fight against crime.
Many hon. Members raised different matters in the debate. One of the most significant was in connection with reorganisation. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the areas. I make it clear that the decision on the eight areas is final, but that the decision on the divisions and how that works is a matter for which consultation is still in order. That is the backbone of the reorganisation.
Let us be clear about why this reorganisation is taking place. As the Commissioner says on page 17 of his report, when he considers the rationale behind that major reorganisation:
"the rationale for change lay in:
badly defined roles which resulted in large parts of the organisation working towards their own ends rather than toward a shared purpose;
too much energy and effort being wasted in keeping the organisation going instead of serving the mainline job of policing:
the size and power of headquarters strangling the Force, taking up valuable manpower and placing unnecessary demands on the remainder; and
the tendency for the organisation to try to cope with problems through superficial changes in the bureaucratic system, rather than looking for real solutions."
With such importance attached to it, that a major structural change is subject to the Commissioner's operational decision, in consultation with the police authority. That is the decision that has been made The consequence of that major change in structure will be to provide substantially more resources and, above all, substantially more focus on the boroughs, such as the one that the hon. Member for Newham, South represents—
Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shaw: I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are about nine minutes to go till the end of the debate.
Mr. Spearing: That is not the point. It is not a reorganisation.
Mr. Shaw: The fact remains that about 19 per cent. of the manpower of the Metropolitan police have been involved in the headquarters buildings. Therefore, the change represents an important release towards operational policing.
With regard to the divisions, the hon. Member for Newham, South will know that many boroughs already have cross borders with other police divisions. That has been so in the past. There is nothing peculiar about that. However, with regard to the decision to change from the original figure to eight—
Mr. Spearing: Reply to my point.
Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman can write to me if he wishes, and I shall give him a proper answer. Other matters raised in the debate—
Mr. Spearing: Reply to my point. Read my speech.
Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is beside himself—
Mr. Spearing Mr. Spearing rose—
Mr. Shaw: I shall not give way.
I now refer to other points made by other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), in an excellent contribution, made crime prevention his major theme. Although the hon. Member for Hammersmith does not appear to believe in the neighbourhood watch scheme and does not want to see it encouraged, it is a fact that it is one of the most important developments that the Commissioner has undertaken. About 1,200 neighbourhood watch schemes are now established in the metropolis and about 515 more are planned. That is an important part of the proceedings.
It is a vital part of the Commissioner's proposals that consultation be established throughout the metropolis in the areas in which the new police arrangements will be set. Consultation groups of the kind that the Commissioner has asked to be established under his new guidance will be the vital vehicle, the forum within which all those matters and issues can be discussed. It is important to note that funding will be available under the Metropolitan police budget to ensure that those groups are capable of supporting themselves administratively.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) referred to the Police Complaints Authority, which was also mentioned by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). The Police Complaints Authority, in its new guise, with its independent authority chaired by a former parliamentary ombudsman, provides infinitely greater independence in the handling of complaints, both in the supervision and direct handling of the more serious complaints. That arrangement has been widely welcomed, as it is regarded as a major change of quality and quantity in how complaints will be handled. I do not agree that the Police Complaints Authority should be tarred with the brush that it is not independent. It is substantially independent.
The right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned women recruits to the Metropolitan police. The force is making a considerable effort to improve its recruitment of women officers and to ensure that they are treated fairly. The Commissioner has set up a working party, assisted by a representative of the Equal Opportunities Commission, to undertake an overall review of the recruitment and employment of women in the force. All women who are interviewed for selection are interviewed by a panel which includes at least one senior woman police officer. In view of that, I hope that recruitment will improve. The right hon. Gentleman might wish to know that a woman was recently promoted to the rank of commander. She is the second to be promoted to that rank in the Metropolitan police.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made a thoughtful speech and mentioned ethnic recruits. At the last count, there were 270 ethnic minority officers in the Metropolitan police, 228 male and 42 female, 20 of whom were in the CID. I hope that that answers his question about whether any detectives are drawn from minority groups.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Shaw: At the end of 1980 there were 108 ethnic minority officers in the force, so there has been a substantial improvement, although I understand that it might not be satisfactory to all.
Mr. Corbyn: What about non-uniformed staff?
Mr. Shaw: The main issue raised by some of my hon. Friends was that of increased establishments. Increased establishments have been the order of the day in the rapid growth of the Metropolitan police recently, but I must tell my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), that there has been a significant improvement in cash resources and in manpower. The increase of 4,500 in the uniformed strength is equivalent to the entire police force of Merseyside. That is a major increase.
With the major structural change that is now in hand, the redeployment that it will bring, and with the increased resources now available, there should be a much better chance of more policemen being redeployed into the community and on to the beat, where hon. Members want them to be. Having about 19 per cent. of manpower employed in headquarters is hardly the best way in which to get optimum efficiency out of this huge metropolitan force. Although there is no significant increase in establishment in prospect, there has been consistent growth during the past five years and now, with the redeployment being engineered by the Commissioner, there should be a massive improvement in the number of police on other duties.
The debate has been characterised by the awful problems of dealing with crime and drugs and by the demand for further resources. I think that both sides of the House agree that the most important development is the increased commitment to the community having a role to play in policing. That has been recognised in the Commissioner's report and in the reorganisation.
Mr. Spearing: No.
Mr. Shaw: There will be community consultation—
Mr. Spearing: It is too late.
Mr. Shaw: —throughout the metropolis, which was not established before. Opposition Members should not assume that the borough is the sole gift for community representation when it comes to community policing. The remit of the Metropolitan police and its structure under my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary as police authority requires an all-London basis for consultation. The method of consultation outlined in the Commissioner's guidelines will stretch that consultation beyond the remit of borough councils. That is the intention, and it will be established soon.
With more than 26,000 officers, the Metropolitan police is the largest police force in the United Kingdom, but as this is a metropolitan capital city the force has a national role to play, which includes dealing with terrorism and the protection of diplomats and of royalty. However, its role is based upon the community of London which it seeks to serve. The House will conclude that the Commissioner's report for this year shows clearly how seized he is of these objectives and how determined he is to ensure that during his leadership of the force London will be better policed in the years to come.
It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Further Education Bill [Lords]and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol, etc.) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 3 July, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Hurd relating to the draft Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 with the substitution of half-past Twelve o'clock or two and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph 1(b)of the Standing Order—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Brian Brown
Motion made and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I wish to raise a matter of the greatest gravity, arising out of the suicide of a constituent. This issue has moved me deeply, but I shall try to place it before the House in as dispassionate matter and with as little partisan flavour as possible. I am anxious that when the Minister for Social Security replies to the debate he should do so not in a spirit of seeking to justify what his Government have done but in a spirit of honestly examining the effect of the regulations. His junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, was challenged on this matter last weekend but did not show a willingness honestly to examine the effect of the regulations. He said:
"The whole campaign of opposition to the proposals is no more than political brouhaha … Nobody in need can slip through that net of exemptions. Opposition is coming solely from those individuals who cannot be bothered to look for jobs and prefer to live without effort off the B and B allowance."
I hope that it will be felt at the conclusion of my speech that that view is profoundly mistaken and gratuitously insulting.
The facts concerning my constituent can be briefly cestated and are not in dispute. He was 23 years old. His mother had remarried and lived with Brian's stepfather and stepbrother in my constituency. Brian had a history of psychiatric illness and had been a resident, on and off, for the best part of three years at Bangour village hospital in my constituency. In November he was discharged as fit and, as the phrase goes, returned to the community. He then went into board lodgings in Edinburgh, where he remained thereafter. His medical social worker drifted out of touch with him in January, but he was encouraged by the fact that Brian obviously wished to be independent and was seeking to get beyond reliance on the mental health system.
Brian appears to have lived reasonably satisfactorily for the next six months. Then on 17 May his world collapsed. He received a notice advising him that his weekly benefit would be reduced from £69·50 to £25·75 on 27 May. We know that thereafter he approached the Edinburgh housing department to seek rehousing, but for a number of years Edinburgh district council has built no new council houses and as a result has an enormous waiting list. There was no prospect of it being able to rehouse Brian and it was under no duty towards him, as a single person, under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
Brian was put out of the hotel where he was staying at the end of the week in which his benefit stopped. He was successful in finding accommodation in another establishment for a few nights but he was put out of it on 6 June. He slept rough for the next two nights and was last seen alive in the all-night cafeteria of Waverley railway station. Thereafter, he climbed on to the north bridge and threw himself off it. He went through the roof of the railway station on to the platform below. There is no doubt that he committed suicide and there is no doubt in my mind that it was induced by the state of despair and homelessness to which he was reduced by these regulations.
One of the first lessons to be learned from this case is that it is clear that Brian Brown was in one of the exemption categories but failed to get exemption from the

1263
regulations. The most alarming feature of his case is not that he was an exception but that his experience is all too common among the many other people who fail to get the exemption to which they are entitled under these regulations. Since the news that I had this Adjournment debate became public, I have received much correspondence from organisations and societies. Indeed, I have never had such a large mailbag on any single issue during the 12 years I have been a Member. All those representations frequently returned to the same point—the difficulty faced by those who are exempt in securing that exemption.
The Minister has received a list of such cases from the "That's Life" programme, which had conducted some excellent research into the impact of these regulations. He responded on Tuesday by suggesting that those individuals who were exempt should come forward and claim exemption. There are a number of problems with that approach, and I wish to illustrate them from Brian Brown's case.
The reason why Brian Brown could claim exemption was that he had a history of mental illness. I find it distasteful that anyone should have to seek the right to benefit by disclosure of that type of background. We know from his case that he was trying to get beyond his mental illness and his association with the mental hospital. He may well not have wished to come forward and make a claim for exemption on that basis, knowing that the inevitable effect would be to put him back in contact with the mental health system; otherwise, there was no way in which he could prove his case for exemption. The knowledge that that contact was in prospect may well have triggered a psychological reaction that predisposed him to suicide.
It is possible also that Brian Brown never knew that he was exempt. I have seen the application that he submitted to the housing department. It is clear that Brian was barely literate. I doubt that he read the accompanying literature or, if he read it, that he comprehended it.
There is another possibility—that Brian could have applied for exemption and been refused. It is clear that large numbers of cases that should be exempt have been unable to obtain exemption when they applied. I turn to one case from the "That's Life" programme which was featured last Sunday and which has been put to the Minister. It concerns a girl with severe epilepsy, suffering frequent epileptic fits, who applied for exemption on that basis. I should have thought that no hon. Member would doubt that that was qualification for exemption. By last Sunday, she had received a further letter from the DHSS stating that this did not qualify her for exemption.
There is a wide variation in the proportion of cases getting exemption. In the north-east, 80 per cent. of claimants at one DHSS office have been granted exemption. At one Scottish local office, only 2 per cent. of claimants have succeeded in getting exemption. It is impossible to look at that extraordinary rate of variation without concluding that some people entitled to exemption are not getting it.
There is another unsatisfactory feature of relying on the system of exemptions to make these regulations humane. It places upon these vulnerable young people a strong incentive to remain in one of the exempted categories and not get beyond it. Lothian social work department, at a
1264
time when it is being encouraged—indeed, forced—to reduce its staff, has hired five additional social workers to work with those rendered homeless by the regulations. One reason is the increased number of referrals of young people from the social work department because those young people can thereby claim exemption.
The position of those on probation is more acute. It is becoming impossible for social workers to consider discharging clients who are on probation if the effect of discharging them is to remove them from exemption and thereby render them homeless. What more absurd conclusion could there be to a period of probation, and what would be more likely to predispose them to return to a life of crime?
The Government appear to think that those who do not qualify for or secure exemption should return to the parental home. The problem with that is illustrated by the case of Brian Brown. He was not a youngster, but a man of 23. At 23, I was married and living in my own home. It is not surprising that people of that age wish to live an independent existence and do not readily accept that they should return home to mummy. In many cases, the cosy parental home waiting to welcome them back is a myth. Frequently, the background of homeless young people is broken. A stop-over hostel in Edinburgh which caters for young single homeless people calculated that 70 per cent. of its young people have lost a parent either through death or divorce.
One does need a degree in psychology to understand the tensions and resentment of some young people towards a stepfather who married their mother late in their lives. Sometimes, that is felt by the stepfather towards the children of the previous husband. That does not apply in this case, but it is well known among social workers that one of the main reasons why young girls and women become homeless is the sexual advances or assaults of a stepfather in the house. It is grotesque to suggest that they should return to that risk in the step-parental home because the benefit has been cut. Many of them will not go.
Large numbers of young people in Scotland are now making shift by desperate expedients. One victim in Kirkcaldy took to living in a tent on the beach there. Others sleep in bus shelters. In Edinburgh, a public house serves as a clearing house between young men made homeless by the regulations and homosexual older men who offer them accommodation for a few nights in return for sexual favours. It is incredible that late in the 20th century we are abandoning vulnerable young people to such an existence.
Brian Brown did not have the skills or the psychiatric stamina to survive the circumstances. He killed himself after two nights sleeping rough in the summer. There will be other such cases when cold autumn weather sets in, unless we change the system by then. I shall suggest to the Minister a number of ways to make the system more humane. If he cannot respond to them immediately, I ask him to consider them and to write to me later.
First, if the Minister remains convinced that there is a problem of abuse, why does he not stand the system on its head, and give wider powers to the DHSS to suspend benefit where abuse is suspected, rather than suspend everybody's benefit and oblige those who are not abusing the system to prove that they qualify for exemption? That would put the onus on the DHSS to establish abuse, not on the claimant to establish that he is not abusing the system.

1265
Secondly, the Minister should consider the change, which was made between the consultation paper and the regulations, not to provide exemption for young people living locally. That has created a great deal of difficulty. Had such an exemption existed in the case of Brian Brown, he would not have been caught by the regulations.
Thirdly, on Tuesday the Minister invited organisations working with young people to help them to claim exemption and to notify the DHSS of any cases at risk. If he is serious in inviting that assistance, the DHSS should notify such organisations of those who are likely to lose benefit and to whom notices have been sent, so that they can find out whether the young people are vulnerable and at risk and could claim exemption.
Fourthly, as a minimum will the Minister consider including in the notice to young people reducing their benefit information on where to find organisations such as citizens' advice bureaux and social work departments to obtain the advice, assistance and information that they may need to figure out whether they are exempt under the regulations?
Finally, what is so impressive about the weight of evidence that I have seen this week is that it has arisen so early in the life of the regulations, which came into force only two months ago. The first evictions began only four weeks ago, when the reduction in benefit started to bite on those caught four weeks previously. In London and Glasgow, the regulations came into effect only on Monday and the first eviction will take place this weekend. The appalling crop of cases that has been gathered so far has thus come to the surface without the metropolis even being involved. The regulations are already causing suffering to an extent of which the Minister was warned but which he did not expect when the regulations were introduced. I do not expect him to say so when he replies to this debate, but I suspect that in his heart he knows that I am right.
2.46 pm
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): First, I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for the careful and considered way in which he has dealt with this very difficult issue. I am only sorry that the debate takes place against the tragic background of the particular case which has led the hon. Gentleman to bring the matter to the House in this way. I therefore wish to begin by saying, as I said to the hon. Gentleman in the exchanges that we had when I made a statement on the matter last Tuesday, that I very much regret the circumstances of Mr. Brown's death and confirm the sympathy that I extended to Mr. Brown's family on Tuesday on behalf of myself and the Government.
Like the hon Gentleman, I am in some difficulty about the extent to which I can comment on that particular case today as I am advised that inquiries are taking place with a view to the possibility of holding what I believe is known in Scottish law as a fatal accident inquiry. That places constraints on what can be said in the House. I am therefore not in a position to discuss in great detail the circumstances of Mr. Brown's claim for benefit or any relationship between that claim and his death. I wish to make just one point which is slightly at variance with the hon. Gentleman's account of the benefit history and to explain exactly what the position was from the point of view of the Department early in May.
1266
The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Brown received a letter on 17 May. I understand that the letter was sent out by the local office on 6 May advising Mr. Brown of the changes in supplementary benefit for unemployed people aged 25 or under living as boarders. As the hon. Gentleman fairly acknowledged, the letter referred to the exemption categories. Mr. Brown did not reply to the letter and the local office therefore took no further action. When the notice ran out supplementary benefit would have ceased altogether as Mr. Brown was entitled to unemployment benefit of £28·45 which would have exceeded any supplementary benefit to which he would have been entitled apart from the board and lodging regulations. That is a simple statement of what happened at that time from the point of view of the Department.
I should emphasise—again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put this—that it seems clear that Mr. Brown would almost certainly have been exempt from the time limits had the full facts been known to the local DHSS office. Our staff can obviously only go on the information that they are given.
We have further reinforced the guidance to our offices about the importance of taking all facts into consideration as soon as they are received. We are also reinforcing the terms of the advice that we give to claimants emphasising that they should let the DHSS office know immediately if they think that they fall into an exemption category or there are other special circumstances about which we should know.
As I hope I made clear on Tuesday, that is not a request that we wish to limit to claimants only. We would welcome information on their behalf from relatives, social workers, voluntary agencies and anyone else who may have facts which our officers should know in determining the assessment of any case. Of course, I shall look further at the points on this aspect of the administration of the regulations that the hon. Gentleman raised towards the end of his speech. Next Tuesday, the House is due to debate the amending regulations which I announced last Tuesday, and I shall seek to make some further response to those points then.
Hon. Members will know of the reason for the Government proposing the changes in the regulations which came into effect on 29 April. I shall not repeat the exact figures that I gave on Tuesday about the huge increase in expenditure on board and lodging in recent years and the parallel huge increase in the number of people claiming. But I ought just to emphasise that the increase in the number of board and lodging cases, especially in the under-26 age group, has gone far beyond anything that could be explained by some of the factors sometimes adduced. During 1983, the number of claimants under 26 in board and lodging rose by 60 per cent. I do not believe that anyone could suggest that that rise was explained by any obvious change in social needs, including the unhappy problem of unemployment. As it happens, the number of unemployed claimants rose by 5 per cent. in the same year. That is so far away from the 60 per cent. increase in board and lodging cases that it is impossible to blame it on unemployment.
To a considerable extent, it is clear that significant numbers of young people were being encouraged into board and lodging accommodation by the existence of the previous DHSS benefit rules and the very large sums of

1267
money available under the previous system—up to a maximum of £110 per week in the case of one local office area—to those in board and lodging.
There is no doubt that that was accompanied by a degree of abuse and exploitation of the system, not primarily by young people themselves but by those anxious to make money out of young people by running board and lodging accommodation or moving into the sector and actively seeking to attract DHSS claimants to their establishments. The House is familiar with some of the evidence that I have given on previous occasions about that.
Mr. Frank Dobson: I recognise that there is scandalous exploitation of many young people in this way, but is not it odd to penalise them and not the scandalous profiteers? The Minister lives in my constituency. Why does he think it proper that a young person born and brought up in a council flat on the other side of Red Lion square from where he lives, who falls out with his parents and has to find board and lodging in the constituency should be driven out of the area by a law aimed at those who try to profit from his plight?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should make it clear that I live in my constituency but that I sleep overnight in the hon. Gentleman's constituency during the weeks when I must stay in London.
To respond to his point, the Government have always said that our aim in introducing the new board and lodging regulations was at least as much to curtail exploitation by landlords as abuse by youngsters. It is a balance which we have been trying to strike. Although I do not wish to raise the temperature of the debate, I should tell the hon. Gentle man that we have received a significant number of representations from landlords complaining about the effects of our regulations on them, although we have not received as many representations from landlords as we have from claimants. No one should believe that the regulations are directed solely at claimants whose claims we believe to be unjustified. They are directed also at preventing abuse and exploitation by landlords who were taking advantage of the previous system.
When we introduced the regulations, we took steps to protect those vulnerable youngsters who, in our view, needed to be in board and lodging accommodation for
1268
more than a short time. We produced a long list of exemption categories, including those who were recently in care, those who have children, the disabled, the mentally handicapped, those who are or have been mentally ill, and everyone who is in board and lodging accommodation as part of a programme of rehabilitation arranged by, for example, the probation service. We also exempted, for reasons that hon. Members will understand, people living in homes which qualify as hostels.
The hon. Member for Livingston fairly acknowledged that those exemption categories appear to cover many of the difficult cases that have been brought to our attention. I fully accept that that means that there is a need to ensure, at the very minimum, that the exemption categories operate effectively. That enables me to repeat the point that I made earlier in my speech. We shall welcome any help from Members of Parliament or others in ensuring that circumstances which should be taken into account are taken into account.
As I made clear to the House on Tuesday, we intend to extend the exemption categories in one case that clearly should be covered—of young people who are presently living in board and lodgings with their parents. We have already made ex gratia payments in advance of the regulations in several such cases. We have taken powers further to extend the exemption categories in cases where a clear need can be shown.
In considering what use, if any, we might make of those powers, I shall take into account the various categories of need which the hon. Gentleman has identified from his correspondence and which he raised in the debate today. I emphasise strongly to the House that the Government have taken powers to make it easier for them to respond quickly to cases where a clear need for exemption is shown.
In concluding this brief response to the hon. Gentleman, may I say that no responsible Government could have allowed the escalating cost of the previous board and lodging regime to continue unchecked, but in seeking to check it we are determined to get the balance right and to protect those who need protection. If what the hon. Gentleman has said has helped me to ensure that the balance will be maintained, I shall be even more grateful to him. I shall certainly continue to act in the spirit in which I hope I have approached this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Milk and Cream
  Milk and Cream
  Nurses and Midwives
  Nurses and Midwives
  Surveillance Equipment
  Surveillance Equipment
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Peru
  Peru
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Law Commission Liability
  Law Commission Liability
PRIME MINISTER
  Endangered Species
  Endangered Species
  Government Cars
  Government Cars
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Security Staff
  Security Staff
  Droppin Well Bombing (Remands)
  Droppin Well Bombing (Remands)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  House of Fraser
  House of Fraser
  Telephone and Radio Apparatus
  Telephone and Radio Apparatus
  Common Law Institute of Intellectual Property
  Common Law Institute of Intellectual Property
  Wide Area Paging
  Wide Area Paging
  Competition and Retailing (Report)
  Competition and Retailing (Report)
EMPLOYMENT
  Woolwich Jobcentre (Access)
  Woolwich Jobcentre (Access)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Unemployment Benefit Recipients
  Unemployment Benefit Recipients
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Job-splitting Scheme (Portsmouth)
  Job-splitting Scheme (Portsmouth)
  Retail Prices Index
  Retail Prices Index
THE ARTS
  Arts Council (Funds)
  Arts Council (Funds)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation and Rates
  Taxation and Rates
  European Communities (Finance) Bill
  European Communities (Finance) Bill
ENVIRONMENT
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Civil Defence (Water Authorities)
  Civil Defence (Water Authorities)
  Land Use Planning
  Land Use Planning
  Central Lancashire Development Corporation
  Central Lancashire Development Corporation
  Home Loan Scheme
  Home Loan Scheme
  Rate-capped Local Authorities
  Rate-capped Local Authorities
DEFENCE
  155 mm Nuclear Shell
  155 mm Nuclear Shell
  "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985"
  "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1985"
  RAF Airfields (Noise)
  RAF Airfields (Noise)
  Polaris Transporter (Helensburgh)
  Polaris Transporter (Helensburgh)
  Exercise Brave Defender
  Exercise Brave Defender
TRANSPORT
  Central Safety Barriers
  Central Safety Barriers
  Cyclists (Accidents)
  Cyclists (Accidents)
  Roads
  Roads
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  A20 (Dover-Folkestone)
  A20 (Dover-Folkestone)
  Cyclists
  Cyclists
  A38 (Safety Barriers)
  A38 (Safety Barriers)
  Boeing 747 (Tests)
  Boeing 747 (Tests)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drugs Offences
  Drugs Offences
  Police National Computer
  Police National Computer
  Privately Owned Swimming Pools
  Privately Owned Swimming Pools
  Police Practice (Scarman Report)
  Police Practice (Scarman Report)
  Indian Sub-continent (Visitors)
  Indian Sub-continent (Visitors)
  Police (Manchester)
  Police (Manchester)
  Rubens Hotel, London (Bomb)
  Rubens Hotel, London (Bomb)
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Crime and Unemployment
  Crime and Unemployment
  Racial Harassment (Newham)
  Racial Harassment (Newham)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Funeral Expenses
  Funeral Expenses
  Health Services (North-West)
  Health Services (North-West)
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Specialist Claims Control
  Specialist Claims Control
  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Health Education Council
  Health Education Council
  Health Authorities (Competitive Tendering)
  Health Authorities (Competitive Tendering)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Medical Equipment (Development)
  Medical Equipment (Development)
  Departmental Records
  Departmental Records
  Orthopaedic Treatment
  Orthopaedic Treatment

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

GATT: Proposed Negotiations
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there are any plans to arrange a conference to consider the operation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); and whether they have decided what issues they would like to see on the agenda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are working with their Community partners to get the proposed new round of multilateral trade negotiations launched as soon as possible. The agenda should include all aspects of world trade on which GATT members wish for new or improved internationally-agreed rules.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I should like to ask him whether he is aware of the damaging impact on the British film laboratory industry of the import into this country of used film prints. In the interests of protecting British industry and British workers and jobs, will the Government consider proposing, at any future meeting of GATT, a levy in order to protect vital British interests in a time of recession and job losses?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who indicated to me the area of his concern. I should perhaps remind the noble Lord that negotiations in GATT are usually aimed at reducing rather than increasing barriers to imports. In the particular case which he instances, I am not aware that the British film processing laboratories regard imports of used film print as a problem. Certainly no representations have been made to my department. However, if the noble Lord knows of a specific instance, and will inform me of it, I shall be very glad to look into it.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, as one concerned with the original negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, may I ask the Minister whether he does not agree that there has been a drift away from policies consistent with the GATT principles? In these circumstances, does he not agree that there is a need for a further round of multi-trade negotiations?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the House will of course recall the interest of the noble Lord in this
902
matter some short while ago. I cannot agree with him that there is any drift away from the principles, but I would certainly agree with him that it is necessary to get a new round under way as soon as practicable.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, will the noble Lord take it from me that the last report of GATT said exactly what I have said about the drift away from principles?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that this week there were the British Film Institute awards? Following on what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was saying—and I should like to add that both he and I were present at these awards—Sir Richard Attenborough drew attention to the fact that since the start of British Film Year there has been an increase of 50 per cent. in film attendances, and that the British film industry is making enormous efforts and showing great enthusiasm. Will the Government bear in mind on their side, in any future talks as regards importations of film and video cassettes and so on, that it is necessary to protect this very encouraging momentum in the industry?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for reminding the House of the upsurge in the film industry's business. However, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government are opposed to any protectionist measures. We believe that the reduction of barriers to trade is all-important for world trade, the world economy and indeed our own economic future.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the very worthy sentiments that he has just uttered in practice affect manufacturing industry only? Is he further aware that in fact one of the difficulties in negotiating satisfactory reductions in tariff barriers is the protectionist agricultural policy in Europe, which has forced up prices to the consumer and which is one of the principal reasons why it is impossible for the noble Lord to do anything other than give ground when it comes to ordinary manufacturing industry, trade imports and exports in this country?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I really cannot accept that it is necessary to give ground. The forthcoming GATT round will undoubtedly be concentrating on some of the matters that the noble Lord raises.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, may I say to the Minister that I understand that in any GATT negotiations there can be very sensitive issues, and swings and roundabouts obviously play their part. If in fact the idea of a levy to protect this particularly vulnerable British industry does not commend itself to the Minister—bearing in mind what I think were his hopeful remarks in the final part of his first response—will he be prepared not only to receive representations from me but also to see representatives of the British film laboratory industry in order to see if there are any other ways in which he and his colleagues can assist?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in isolation the matter of levies is not attractive to us. In regard to the second point made by the noble Lord, of course I should be very glad to meet them and to do what I can to help if the problem can be clearly identified.

Remand Centres: Staff Consultation
11.12 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the procedures for consultation with staff in cases where the role of a remand centre is changed to that of a category C prison, as is presently envisaged at Thorp Arch remand centre.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I shall try to be grateful to the Minister for that reply. May I draw the attention of the Minister to the excellent Question that was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on Wednesday, which was responded to so very well by his ministerial colleague, Baroness Cox, and which is a good backcloth to this problem? Will the Minister acknowledge that the experience and expertise of prison officers can play a crucial part in effecting a smooth transition in matters of this kind, and that there is dissatisfaction among prison officers that, very often, their opinions or views on matters of this kind are sought far too late and then ignored? For instance, why is the purpose-built remand centre at Thorp Arch being used as a means of relieving the dreadful problems at Leeds, instead of proceeding with the planned fourth wing at Thorp Arch?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I certainly agree that the experience and expertise of prison officers is useful in any transitional phase, but my right honourable friend's decision on Thorp Arch was a complex one. It involved a number of establishments and various interests, both parliamentary and local, in addition to those of the staff. The noble Lord will be aware that there are many factors to be taken into account with the rising prison population.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister say where they are to put the remand prisoners, bearing in mind that the overcrowding in places where remand prisoners are kept is now notorious?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the proposals involve three prisons, Thorp Arch, Hull and Leeds. It is a rather complex matter, but I can certainly let the noble and learned Lord know the actual movement of people in the case of all of them.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord may have said "Yes" in answer to the original
904
Question regarding consultation. However, is he aware that, when I represented Leeds in another place, Leeds prison was in my constituency, and I have received correspondence and phone messages from people who represent the staff in Leeds prison and who are very disgruntled and disheartened by the lack of consultation in this exercise which the Home Secretary announced?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are disadvantages, in some cases, in going through a period of consultation with the staff in complex areas. I can give the noble Lord examples of other prisons, such as Wetherby, where we had to change plans at the last minute, and this causes a great deal of disruption.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am told that, when his right honourable colleague the Home Secretary in another place made an announcement of changes which affect Thorpe Arch, that statement was made without prior warning or consultation with members of the Prison Officers Association at either national or local level? While I acknowledge what he said in his Answer, will the Minister take on board that, though he may be satisfied that the consultation procedures are adequate, there are others who are dismayed at the manner in which they are being carried out?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, management in this kind of case is essentially a matter for the Prison Department. But the staff and their trade unions were informed immediately a decision had been made and there have been subsequent meetings at prison service headquarters, at which trade union representatives have made their views known. Of course, the noble Lord will be aware that the National Executive Committee of the POA has also put forward its own proposals, which are under consideration.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I would simply say that the Minister has outlined not consultation, but information.

Peaceful Death and the Law
11.17 a.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noted that in a national opinion poll 72 per cent. agreed that medical help should be legally available to ensure peaceful death and whether they will either facilitate legislation to permit this or set up an inquiry into the question.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we have noted the result of the poll and understand the feelings which underlie it. The question of mercy killing was reviewed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in its report on offences against the person, published in 1980. The Government have no plans for any further review or change in the law.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he in a position to say that if the Government will not initiate legislation they will, at least, not oppose it? Is he aware that the wider question of voluntary euthanasia and the rather narrow one of mercy killing are, in fact, two different issues?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, I am not in a position to give that assurance to the noble Lord. The whole subject is a particularly difficult and emotional one and I cannot give the assurance which the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the second part of my question—that he understands that the narrow issue of mercy killing, on which the Government have replied, is a different issue from the wider question of voluntary euthanasia?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, when we get into this area we are also talking about the treatment of patients and the fact that so much of that is a matter for the clinical judgment of doctors. There may be essential differences in the way that the noble Lord describes it, but the Government have no plans for change.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, will my noble friend endorse the view expressed by a very senior doctor in this House, that it is not the duty of a doctor to prolong the process of dying?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that it is possible to agree in general terms, but there is rather more that could be said on this issue and I do not think that this moment is appropriate.

Airline Terrorism
11.19 a. m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the international arrangements for preventing acts of terrorism against airlines; and whether they will initiate discussions with other leading countries of the world in order to pool intelligence in this field and to establish an international body of experts trained to detect and prevent such acts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we can never be satisfied while these wicked acts continue. We are supporting initiatives in several international fora, notably ICAO, and we are pressing for the fullest compliance with the relevant conventions. In the long term the solution lies, we believe, in ensuring that criminals understand that we never give in to demands backed by terror or murder.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. I think the current situation requires that if absolutely innocent people are not to be done away with, we must, somehow or other,
906
negotiate. The very fact that there are so many successes by these appalling terrorists must indicate that, somewhere along the line, we are inefficient. Is the Minister aware that while the top countries have all the advantages of modern science and might be able to improve facilities at airports, these are not available to poorer countries which have airports as well? What are the current arrangements for this country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we clearly need to keep our national arrangements under careful scrutiny at this time. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport yesterday met representatives of the major airlines and airports who attend the National Aviation Security Committee to review security measures at United Kingdom airports. I understand that the committee itself plans to meet "next week.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend contemplate introducing into these important discussions the concept of applying to air piracy what has been international law for centuries in respect of sea piracy, namely that any power able to apprehend the pirates is entitled to take them, try them and, on conviction, execute them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure about the last point. I am persuaded to think that the real solution to this problem is to ensure that the terrorists never get what they want. If we can achieve that, this problem will die away.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, while I fully appreciate the difficulty of dealing with the problem, do the Government think that the vast amount of publicity given to terrorist acts is helpful? Does it not only achieve one of the objects of terrorists but also make the business of controlling terrorism more difficult?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has a point, although I am not quite sure how we get around that difficulty because, in this country at least, we have a free press.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, have the noble Lord the Minister and the Government considered the possibility of taking the initiative in getting as many countries as possible to agree that, in the event of any hijacking or any act of terrorism, no harbouring will take place; that if there is an offending country that harbours or encourages terrorism or hijacking, that country's airlines will not be permitted to land in the countries which have observed this convention; and that, if there is to be no landing at our or those countries' airports, in exactly the same way those countries willl not participate in any airline traffic with the country that offends?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the point of view of the noble Lord in this matter but the problem has always been to ensure watertight international compliance with these conventions. It is our task to see what we can do to improve that situation. That was one of the things in the mind of my honourable friend Mr. Spicer, who is currently attending the ICAO meeting in Montreal which is addressing these problems.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister not agree that it is not impossible that in modern airfields the equipment at the disposal of some of the top flight countries, if I may so describe them, could to a degree prevent the terrorists getting on board the planes? But what seems to be the position is this: the airports that do not have this equipment are where they seem to get on first of all. The conference that I envisage would make certain that even poorer nations or all airfields would have the same abundance of efficient equipment in an endeavour to stop terrorism. Finally, will he also agree that the political answers must also be pursued in an endeavour to eradicate the bitterness and frightful hatred which exists which are created by political situations and which allow sympathy for these people to some extent in parts of the world which does not fully understand the ruthlessness of their behaviour?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the last point may go a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. With regard to the provision of equipment, I fancy that the problem is not so much the provision of equipment (although I must say in parenthesis that there is no technical panacea to these problems) as the will to use it effectively. I fancy that many of your Lordships will have seen X-ray machinery attended by a man doing a crossword. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we will never give in to the demands of these terrorists, and if they come here they will go no further.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that there has been nothing incompatible between the maintenance of a free press and the recently achieved informal agreement among chief constables and editors in respect of kidnapping and terrorism within these islands? Might it not well be worth considering international action in respect of the reporting of such events?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that domestic action of the kind described by the noble Lord is a good deal easier to achieve than international action, which is what is necessary if we are to achieve the end which the noble Lord has in mind in this matter. To achieve a worldwide blackout on events such as the ones we have been witnessing recently is a very difficult thing indeed.

Gaming (Bingo) Bill
11.26 a.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Before bidding this little Bill adieu, I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. This Bill, as your Lordships know, is very much a result of his endeavours. Having been given the responsibility for nursing his baby, so to speak, through this House, I now have a feeling only of relief that I have neither dropped it nor poisoned it. Your Lordships will be well aware that the success of any legislation is in direct proportion to the measure of co-operation between those who administer the law and those who are affected by it.
908
This little Bill is in my untutored view a model of and a reflection of the will and determination of those in the industry to abide with both the spirit and the letter of the law as it affects them. The co-operation evident between the industry and the Gaming Board and not least the Home Office has resulted in what I believe to be a model Bill, a Bill which will accrue to the benefit in particular of an all too often neglected and rather small section of society. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for his warm welcome and for his unfailing assistance in the passing of this measure, and not least Her Majesty's loyal Opposition in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his ever elegant contributions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—[Lord Morris.]
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the face of those extremely comely and appropriate words, may I in turn from these Benches thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I am sure on behalf of the House, for the way in which he has conducted a good little Bill through this House. It helps in the enjoyment of many people, some of them lonely folk, some of them aged folk; and if this House has taken part in assisting in making this game possible for them in an enlarged way I think we have done a useful job.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank my noble friend Lord Morris most warmly for his kind remarks about the assistance we have given to the Gaming (Bingo) Bill and about my own rather limited contribution to it. I wish that one or two other Private Member's Bills, were just as straightforward. I am sure your Lordships will agree that while there has not been any lengthy debate during the passage of the Bill, my noble friend has earned much credit for the care he took in presenting it at Second Reading. I know that the bingo industry appreciates his efforts, just as much as they appreciate the efforts of Mr. Peter Fry in another place.
The Bill makes some important modifications to the Gaming Act 1968, allowing a new form of bingo—called multiple bingo—in licensed bingo clubs. My noble friend explained very clearly on Second Reading why the bingo industry wants to see the Bill enacted. Licensed bingo is in decline. Attendances are falling and clubs are having to close. It will not come as any surprise if I reveal that the annual report of the Gaming Board for 1984, which will be published in full next week, suggests that the pattern of decline is continuing.
As for the next stage of the Bill, I know that my noble friend Lord Morris would like to see the necessary follow up work completed as soon as possible, so that games of multiple bingo may begin very soon. I confirm that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stands ready to introduce regulations to give effect to the Bill; but the precise speed of implementation will turn on the ability of representatives of the bingo industry to sort out their arrangements for playing the game to the satisfaction of the Gaming Board.
In accordance with the Bill, my right honourable friend will proceed with regulations when the board

909
has been able to submit its views on the basis of discussions with the industry. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I cannot resist intervening just to support what has been said by the noble Lord the Minister and also the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I nearly used the words, "my noble friend" in referring to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Morris; I should like to congratulate him also.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Various Foods) (Amendment) Order 1985
11.32 a.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order would, if approved, make four specific and unrelated amendments in two pieces of secondary weights and measures legislation which we approved in your Lordships' House last August. The first two of these amendments relate to provisions for fresh fruits and vegetables which are contained in the Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Cheese, Fish, Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, Meat and Poultry) Order 1984.
That order requires that from 1st July 1985, all produce must be sold at retail by net weight, by number or by the bunch. Hitherto, only a limited number of green vegetables were required to be sold by weight, all other produce being sold by the piece. The provisions of the 1984 order would, however, preclude the growing practice of inviting customers to select their own produce and present it for weighing in a light polythene hag. The amendment proposed in the draft order would permit fresh fruits and vegetables (including potatoes) to be sold by gross weight in a container of less than a certain weight. It would thus allow this popular trading practice, which benefits both consumers and retailers, to continue.
The opportunity has also been taken to correct an error in the same order which inadvertantly exempted packages of fruits or vegetables containing more than 5kg. from certain long-standing provisions designed to protect those buying at wholesale markets. It was not the intention that this protection should be removed, and the second amendment proposed in the draft order would re-instate the buyer's right to request that the weight of his goods be checked.
The other two amendments are to the Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Miscellaneous Foods) Order 1984. Many basic foodstuffs are required to be pre-packed only in ranges of quantities prescribed in Schedule 1 to that order. It is proposed to make two changes. First, the optional imperial range for instant coffee should be discontinued. This has ceased to be used by United Kingdom packers but nevertheless offers opportunities for marketing techniques which could be confusing to consumers. From 1st July 1986 it would be illegal for instant coffee to be sold by retail other than in the metric range of prescribed sizes.
Secondly, small jars of honey, jam, marmalade and similar preserves weighing less than 50 grams should be exempted from the requirement to be made up only in prescribed sizes. Your Lordships may be familiar with small jars of honey, jam, and so on, which are commonly sold in presentation packs of two or more, and your Lordships will appreciate that they do not compete with the everyday products for which the prescribed quantity legislation was designed.
The four amendments proposed in the draft order are not controversial. They have the support of consumers and trading standards officers and were largely drawn up in response to advice from the industry. I believe them to be useful measures which will enable traders better to serve the needs of their customers. Finally, I should advise your Lordships that this order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, but the committee did not draw the special attention of your Lordships' House to it. With that, I beg to move the draft order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th June be approved. [25th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.]
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is true, as the noble Lord the Minister said, that this order has been before the joint committee of both Houses, and that in its view the special attention of either House is not to be directed towards it.
When I was a Member of another place, I was taught always to beware of business that was slipped through on a Friday morning. So, contrary to the advice of the joint committee, I examined this order and have pleasure in informing your Lordships that its views on this matter are quite correct, and that it is not necessary for us to pay detailed attention to the order.
I have only two questions to ask the Minister. The order states that consultations have taken place with the interests substantially affected. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether consultations took place with the National Consumer Council on this matter, and also with the co-operative societies? That is my first question. My second question is this: what is the particular reason for the lower limit referred to in the last paragraph of the Explanatory Note to the order? Why is it that the lower limit is now three times as much as the former limit of half an ounce? Fifty grams are 1·72 ounces and is there any particular reason why the lower limit should now be three times the size of the former limit? On the assumption that the noble Lord will answer those questions satisfactorily, I have to inform the House that I would not wish to detain it further.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, as the Minister is aware, retailers generally welcome this order. So far as concerns fruit and vegetables when they are sold not prepacked, which is very popular with consumers, this order will bring the law into line with practice and is to be welcomed for that reason, among others.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Sainsbury, for their welcome to this order. On Fridays, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and I frequently engage in

911
debates which are sometimes at greater length than I imagine this order is going to take.
The National Consumer Council itself was not I think specifically consulted, but certainly consumer interests were. I cannot confirm that the council itself was consulted, and neither can I confirm that the co-operative movement, separately from the industry's interests themselves, was consulted. As regards the lower limit, that was raised largely for consistency with other prescribed quantity goods and to exempt from control small jars a little below the 5-gram measurement.
I am now advised that both the Consumers' Association and the Co-op were consulted. I am sorry that I did not have that answer readily to hand.
I am glad to have the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, expressed on behalf of retailers. I am quite sure that this order is for the benefit not only of retailers but of consumers and that it will lead to a better service for both interests. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insurance (Fees) Bill
11.41 a.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Fees]:
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, after ("shall") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission, I propose to deal with Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together.
Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("and
(b) set out, within such regulations a statement showing the detailed categories of expenditure to be taken into account in computing the cost referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection.").
In the course of his reply to the debate on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was good enough to say:
"It would not be our wish to let the control of the costs get out of hand to an extent that would have such a marked effect on the premium that the policyholder—who is the beneficiary of the supervisory nature of the work for which we are now seeking payment—would grumble".—[Official Report, 7/6/85; col. 953.]
I fully accept the general purpose of the noble Lord, but I am concerned lest the figure of £2·5 million, which I believe was the figure mentioned as being the total costs recoverable, is a figure that has been taken, as it were, arbitrarily out of the hat.
It would be interesting to know—and this is the reason for putting forward this amendment—just how the Government propose to calculate the costs of the various services comprised within the original Bill: services that the Government department provides in receiving and examining the various reports that it gets under the 1982 Act; costs that are undoubtedly incurred, or should be incurred, in following up information arising from Section 83 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982; costs, I should imagine, which have increased quite appreciably as a result of what we can only term as scandals occurring in some sections of the industry two or three years ago.
I can fully understand the purposes of the Bill. If the Government are put to extra trouble by reason of having extra work they should seek to recover some of the cost, but it is a principle which is open to abuse. After all, Governments are there to govern. Their Civil Service is paid for exercising the functions that it performs in accordance with various pieces of legislation that have gone through both Houses in the past, and continue to go through. It is a service generally provided for the whole of the community. Therefore it is not right as a general principle that where individuals or indeed a company are supervised or, as a result of legislation, have to give information to the Government—and the assembly and giving of information is in itself a costly operation—they should at the same time be charged for the time and the effort of the Government in examining the information and performing their various functions under the Act.
The principle of the Bill has already been dealt with at Second Reading but I venture somewhat into that field again (and trust that the Committee will forgive me for doing so), in order to elicit from the Government just how they arrive at their figures and what kind of costs they intend to include within the ambit of this particular little Bill. I have no intention, of course, of pressing this amendment. As I gave notice to the noble Lord, it is moved only for the purpose of obtaining information and I hope that today the noble Lord will be able to go into a little further detail than, for quite proper reasons, he was able to do at Second Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: I should like very briefly to say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has performed a service by tabling this amendment, although he does not intend to press it. It is important to know precisely what is the burden that it is felt necessary to put on the insurance industry in order to pay for the supervision of that industry. I shall be most interested to hear what the noble Lord the Minister has to say in answer to that important point.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, on two counts: first, for having given me notice of his intention to use the Committee stage this morning as an opportunity to probe a little further into our Second Reading debate earlier in the month; and, secondly, for his explanation this morning of what gives rise to this probing. In the light of this prior notice I have had the opoportunity to prepare a somewhat lengthy reply which I think may be of benefit to the Committee.
We do not think that it is appropriate to include in the regulations material on matters of fact.

913
Regulations are, in effect, the expansion of primary legislation and they are not therefore a suitable means for recording factual material such as details of administrative costs. Moreover, the combined effect of subsections (4) and (6) of the new Section 94A of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 will be that fees payable will have to equal the costs incurred by the Secretary of State in exercising relevant functions; and relevant functions means those functions prescribed in regulations to be made under the Act. In other words, rather more simply put, it will be necessary under the Bill as it stands to state in the regulations the functions in relation to which the charges are calculated. These regulations, as is the case with all regulations made under the Act, will be subject to annulment by the House.
It might be helpful were I to remind your Lordships' Committee that the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible to Parliament in accounting for both income and expenditure. The annual appropriation accounts prepared by the department and signed by the departmental accounting officer and the Comptroller and Auditor General are presented to Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General together with his report. The Public Accounts Committee may call the departmental accounting officer to give evidence before it in connection with the accounts and the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The accounts and the report are of course published, and not only Parliament but others interested can pursue further any specific points that arise from these accounts.
I should say that the Annual Supplementary Estimates presented to Parliament by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury currently state the provision for staff salaries and general administrative expenses for the insurance and financial services and companies divisions. As from the next financial year they will include provision for receipt of fees from insurance companies. At the end of the year the relevant outturn figures are examined and presented to Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General as part of the appropriation accounts. An explanation is provided in the accounts for all variations between provisions and actual expenditures of more than 10 per cent. or £500,000, whichever is the greater.
Turning perhaps a little more closely to the substance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I can give further information on the costs involved in the fees scheme. Currently, the total staff in the insurance division within my department is 84, and at present some 75 per cent. of staff costs for the division are expended on the supervisory functions. Staff costs consist of salaries and general administrative expenses. An allowance is also made for the cost of the computer operations and for the cost of legal and accountancy advisers. Expenditure incurred by the Government Actuary's Department has also been included in the estimate of the cost to be recovered, which, as I said earlier this month, is some £2·5 million annually. Your Lordships' Committee will remember that at that time I also suggested that that would equate to about £3,000 to the companies involved.
I would certainly envisage that the insurance annual report would also state the secretary's functions in
914
relation to which the charges had been calculated. It would then go on to indicate the number of staff who were principally engaged on the work from which those charges arose. I think that it would be an unwise exercise to make guesses during this Committee stage of what all that may amount to.
With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will be assured that there is a control on the costs which are to be transferred to the industry. The estimates will be placed before Parliament; the outturn is equally placed before Parliament. There is then ample opportunity for parliamentarians of both Houses, of course, or indeed other outside interests, to raise questions if they feel that we have the matter wrong.
I add that it would be our intention for information along these lines to be included in the Secretary of State's annual report upon the exercise of his powers under the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Again, this will help to explain how costs recovered relate to costs incurred in applying to insurance the Government's general policy that in cases where a service is provided or an activity carried out in connection with an identifiable group, that group should bear the proper costs involved.
I merely repeat what I said during the Second Reading of the Bill so that there is no misunderstanding as to the Government's policy. I might perhaps remind the Committee that that policy is very much in line not only with the United States procedures but also with those of many European countries, and most particularly in the connection with which this matter is concerned.
With that rather lengthy explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will feel reassured. I thank him for raising the question, and I hope that he will not need to pursue it further.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. In the first part he dealt with some of the safeguards, including, for example, the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Of course I accept that. The only thing is that the attention of the PAC in another place would not in practice be drawn to matters of relatively minor significance of this kind. I very much doubt whether the issues would ever be sufficiently important to be deemed by the Comptroller and Auditor General to be worthy of the attention of the PAC. It deals with billions rather than comparatively small sums of this kind.
Having said that, however, somewhat uniquely for me, I think, I have to express my complete agreement with the noble Lord and my complete satisfaction with the answer that he gave. It will be most helpful to those of us who are interested in following up the detail of these matters. I am most grateful to him. I ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill
11.58 a.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is designed to remove an anomaly—the anomaly in Section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 and in Section 60 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. Under those Acts, if a protected tree is removed from or destroyed in woodland in contravention of a tree preservation order, the local planning authority cannot enforce replanting. However, if a protected tree which stands individually is destroyed the local authority can enforce replanting. That is an obvious anomaly which needs correcting. The Bill before us will serve that purpose. It will ensure that any protected woodland tree which is destroyed in contravention of a tree preservation order will have to be replaced if the local authority considers such action desirable.
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which, as your Lordships will see, is concerned with the protection of trees and woodlands, I should perhaps declare an interest as President of the Men of Trees, which is an international society for the planting and protection of trees, founded by the famous Richard St. BarbeBaker, who sadly is no longer with us. It may not be inappropriate to say that only yesterday I had the honour of planting trees with His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who is patron of that society. We planted trees in Charnwood Forest in memory of St. Barbe, as he was affectionately known. I should also declare an interest as Chairman of the trust which owns quite extensive woodlands on the borders of Hampshire and Sussex.
I should make clear to your Lordships the exact nature of the Bill's central provision. In the context of the original legislation in 1971 and 1972, it will provide for the replanting of any protected tree which is destroyed or removed, "in contravention of the order". However, it will not provide for the replanting of trees which are removed because they are, "dying or dead or have become dangerous". Obviously, it would be unfair to punish a landowner because his trees had been damaged by strong winds, for example. Besides, it is obvious that acts of nature such as wind-damage or death through old age or disease could not be classed as contravention. The word "contravention" must imply human interference.
We do not need to be told that our countryside deserves protection. In Britain we are now seeing the price of our failure to plant new trees over the past 60 years. This certainly does not apply to those conscientious landowners, including many noble Lords in your Lordships' House, such as my father—and even, if I may modestly say so, myself—who have replanted systematically over that period. However, the fact remains that since World War Two, between 30 and 50 per cent. of our ancient woodland has disappeared, which is more than in the past 400 years. Obviously much of this has been for important residential and agricultural development. That of course was very much the case during the Second World War. Nonetheless, it is a sad record.
916
It is not surprising therefore that this modest correcting Bill, sponsored by my honourable friend Mr. Roger Freeman in another place, should have won so much support. It passed through another place without difficulty, and enjoyed all-party as well as Government support. Indeed, it was described as a "great step forward" and my honourable friend is to be congratulated on his initiative and enterprise in bringing it forward and piloting it through another place so successfully.
Among official groups, I can tell your Lordships that the Bill has the full support of the Council for the Protection of Rural. England, which has given much advice and help. It is supported by the National Farmers' Union; the Tree Council, of which the Men of the Trees is a founder member; the associations of county and district councils; the Country Landowners' Association; the Royal Insititution of Chartered Surveyors, and, most importantly, the timber growers organisation of Great Britain.
This Bill comes at an appropriate time. Already county councils have sought to remove the existing loophole for themselves. Such a provision was made in the County of Kent Act in 1981, Section 79 of which formed the basis of the Bill before us today. More recently, the Berkshire Bill, with which your Lordships have recently been dealing, has included a section to extend the replanting provision to cover protected trees in woodlands. Should this Town and Country (Amendment) Bill become an Act, it would replace those individual provisions with one national provision.
Therefore, rather than waiting for each county to seek to change the law individually, which would increase the likelihood of confusing local differences in our law, I believe it is fitting that legislation should be introduced at a national level. That is a sound argument in favour of the Bill before us. The need for this Bill is as unquestionable as the support for it is comprehensive. It is therefore the duty of Parliament to respond to such a demand.
This Bill is not controversial. It should be remembered that it was presented in another place as a ten-minute-rule Bill, and as such it can only address itself to the most immediate problems of tree preservation. It is to be hoped that in the future the need for proper tree and woodland management can be more positively assured. A tree is a living thing, and though a preservation order can save a tree or a wood in the short term, it cannot ensure that a wood will continue to flourish indefinitely. I believe that we should look in the future to replacing preservation orders with some more dynamic form of management protection. For the present though, I hope your Lordships will accept the Bill and welcome it as a useful step in the right direction. My Lords, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Bessborough.)
12.6 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on behalf of the Labour Benches in your Lordships' House, may I say that we certainly do exactly what my colleagues did in another place. First of all, we congratulate Mr. Freeman for his initiative, and certainly I pay full

917
tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, not only for having done what he has done, but for having done it so simply and lucidly.
From the sympathetic noises all round the House, I think he will have detected that this Bill will have as easy a passage here as it had in another place. The noble Earl has assisted in plugging up a loophole. It is quite surprising that legislation in comparatively recent years, which appeared to be watertight, in the light of events is being seen to need amendment. Here we have something which certainly we can all support and for which there is clearly a need.
The noble Earl has reminded us of the crucial importance of woodlands and trees not only to our landscape but also to our economy. We rely upon wood throughout our lives from the cradle to the grave—or certainly to the coffin. The noble Earl has been quite right not only in demonstrating his interests and declaring them in a very pleasant, forthright and honourable way, but also in drawing our attention to the other interested bodies which, it is crucial to understand, welcome the Bill and what it seeks to do.
Those bodies include the Council for the Protection of Rural England; the National Farmers' Union; the Tree Council; the Association of County and District Councils (and here I declare a slight interest as a vice-president); the Country Landowners' Association; the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Timber Growers Association. On a matter of this kind, I do not think there could be better credentials assembled to ensure that we are not discussing merely a form of words but are discussing people who care and, equally importantly, people who have the will and the means to do something about the situation.
I was very interested to hear the noble Earl draw our attention to a disgraceful statistic. That is that in the past 40 years we have destroyed as many or more of our ancient woodlands as were lost in the previous 400 years. Perhaps we can only wring our hands, but perhaps we can do a little more than that. I first came across this dreadful situation when I served in another place during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. Of course, that Bill came through this House and noble Lords present will have been as shocked as I was at the vandalism. We are collectively responsible for the vandalism. I do not blame anyone. Economic imperatives have forced the farmers and landowners to consider having their trees chopped down. Where it is possible to replace trees that are neither damaged nor dying, we are reminded that we have a responsibility to try to make sure that they are replaced.
One reservation that I have—the Minister or his colleagues may be able to help me here—is that the Bill does not appear to insist on the trees being replaced in kind. Replacement seems merely a matter of numbers. In my view, to replace an oak or a beech with a hawthorn or a conifer would degrade the landscape to an unacceptable degree. Yet it could happen, because saplings of the lesser trees are cheaper. If there is any way of maintaining the quality as well as the quantity—it may be difficult, it may not be easy, and we are certainly not in the business of being pernickety—I hope that the Minister will be able to say something on those lines.
918
I was also interested in what the noble Earl said was the genesis of this Bill—a provision in a Private Bill, which became Section 79 of the Kent Act—and also the reference to the Berkshire Bill. I was reminded of my interest, wearing another hat, on behalf of the Co-operative movement, when the Essex Bill was going through the House. I found that something created as a precedent in one Private Bill was automatically assumed to be acceptable in others. Yet, as the noble Earl has pointed out, where it can be clearly seen that what we are discussing is not a localised matter but something of national importance, what we need, as we have in this Bill, is a straightforward Act of Parliament which removes the need to bring forward new private Bill legislation in order to take account of the situation. All told, I believe that we have been very well served today. The nation will be grateful in future for the initiative of Mr. Roger Freeman in another place and, more importantly, to our colleague in this House, the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. We give the Bill a very warm welcome.
12.12 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name on the list of speakers, if, indeed, one can call a document with the noble Earl's name standing by itself in solitary grandeur a list. I should however, like to thank the noble Earl for having introduced the Bill. He gave me a great deal of help when a short time ago I introduced a Private Member's Bill on the protection of trees. I should like to congratulate him and to thank him for this very necessary Bill.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Bessborough has explained, this Bill will empower local planning authorities to enforce replanting of woodland trees which are removed or destroyed in contravention of a tree preservation order, and he has stressed that it will apply only in that particular circumstance. This is clearly a Bill that is uncontroversial. As my noble friend has said, it has attracted support from a wide range of interests; from one of the leading amenity bodies, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, from the farming and landowning interests, represented by the NFU and the CLA, from the local authority associations, from commercial forestry interests represented by the timber growers, and as we have heard, from the Men of the Trees and from the Tree Council which, if I may for once put in a plug for the department, was formed just over a decade ago—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, a wooden plug?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords any sort of plug. It was formed just over a decade ago to promote the planting and protection of amenity trees and my department gives financial support to it. Here endeth the plug.
My honourable friend the Member for Kettering who introduced the Bill in the other place pointed out that the amendments to the Bill introduced during the Committee stage there were the result of parliamentary counsel's drafting on the advice of my

919
department. The amendment which extended the provisions from England and Wales to cover Scotland as well resulted from the initiative of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am pleased to confirm that the Government are genuinely benevolent towards the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Bessborough has referred to the limited purpose of the Bill and has expressed the hope that in the future the need for proper trees and woodland management can be more positively assured. In this connection I would draw the attention of the House to the advice given in my department's Trees and Forestry circular 36/78, that it is better for authorities to seek agreements with landowners for the proper management of their woodlands and for them to use tree preservation orders on woodlands as a last resort.
It is perfectly true to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, reminded us, that woodlands have been causing concern in conservation circles for a number of years. This Bill, as my noble friend Lord Bessborough has pointed out, will help in this respect. But as regards demands for a full scale review of the tree preservation orders system, I would not wish to raise hopes of such a review and further primary legislation in the immediate future, though such a review remains on the agenda for the longer term.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked me a specific question. It was whether the Bill refers to replacement in kind of particular species of trees. My noble friend has already said that it does not refer to dead and dying trees. But it occurs to me that in the possible circumstances of someone having to cut down an elm tree that is alive, it would not be appropriate to replace an elm with an elm because, as the noble Lord well knows, for obvious reasons, no one is replanting elms at the present moment. However, so far as other species of trees are concerned, I can tell the noble Lord that in accordance with Section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the replacement requirement is to plant another tree of an appropriate size and species. So that probably covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I should like to express the hope that the rapid progress which this Bill had in another place may continue in your Lordships' House.
12.17 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend and also the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches for what they have said. I, too, hope that the Bill will become an Act as soon as possible. The question of replacement of trees in kind was not discussed in another place. I am glad, however, that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has drawn our attention to Section 62 of the 1971 Act because I know that those who are replanting trees bear in mind the desirability of planting in kind, especially hard woods. But, as my noble friend has said, obviously we do not want to plant elms unless they are of a new species which are proven not to be subject to the disease. I believe that
920
there are now being propagated certain elm species which might be exempt from the disease.
I am most grateful for what has been said. I do not think that I need mention any other matter, except to say that in another place the Title of the Bill was much discussed. I believe that it is right to keep the Title as it is now. That would be in accordance with precedent in relation to this kind of Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Surrogacy Arrangements Bill
12.19 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "surrogate mother", "surrogacy arrangement" and other terms]:
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
("(9) Any such arrangements are void and unenforceable whether done with a view to payment or not.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I was unable to be here for the Second Reading debate, but perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the origin of this Bill, which is of considerable importance. It has arisen all because of Baby Cotton. A husband and wife in America were anxious to have a child, but the wife was infertile. It may be that she had no uterus or that the Fallopian tubes were blocked or whatever. They went to a commercial agency which then operated in this country, and advertised. As a result a Mrs. Cotton was induced for money to agree to bear a child for this couple. That is what happened. No doubt it was done by artificial insemination. The husband provided the sperm and the doctor or somebody inserted it into the woman's body—Mrs Cotton's body—and as a result she conceived and bore this baby. She did it for money. The baby was immediately handed over to the parents and, after court proceedings, it was taken by them to the United States.
The public were outraged that such a commercial agency should operate surrogacy agreements of this kind. Therefore, the Government have introduced this Bill to deal with that particular evil: namely, the commercial agency for surrogacy. However, the Bill goes further than the Baby Cotton case. The subject is of vast difficulty, indeed, it is one of the items in the Warnock Committee's Report and we shall have to wait for a year or two before legislation takes place as regards that report. Meanwhile, this Bill deals with one or two points beyond the Baby Cotton case, as indeed it should do. That is why I am suggesting these amendments which I hope are not controversial.
The first amendment deals with an ambiguity left by the concluding provisions of Clause 1 which deals with surrogacy arrangements. It says in a very neutral way that:
"This Act applies to arrangements whether or not they are lawful and whether or not they are enforceable by or against any of the persons making them".
I should like to say, and I should like this House to affirm, that all such surrogacy agreements are unlawful, void and unenforceable. To my mind they are completely contrary to public policy because they destroy the bond which should exist in nature between the carrying mother and the child whom she bears.
Let us consider the situation. A man's sperm—of which she does not know the origin—is injected by a doctor or somebody else into the woman's body and then she conceives and bears a child which she is immediately to hand over to some commissioning mother. I say that those agreements are void and unenforceable. Indeed, I am supported in that view by two passages in the Warnock Report. On page 43 it says:
"There is little doubt that the Courts would treat most, if not all, surrogacy agreements as contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable".
That is the position as it stands at the moment. However, in addition, the report goes on to say in black letters on page 47:
"We recommend that it be provided by statute that all surrogacy agreements are illegal contracts and therefore unenforceable in the Courts".
Let me give some illustrations. Let us suppose that the carrying mother has the baby and then the commissioning mother says, "It's my baby" and sues the carrying mother for the baby or for damages for not handing it over. Of course the courts would reject that claim by the commissioning mother and would say that the natural mother, the carrying mother, should have the child. That is one aspect, but there is another. Suppose the carrying mother has the baby and then the
commissioning mother says, "Oh, I have changed my mind. I don't want that baby any more. I am separated from my husband"; or it may be that the baby is deformed or she says, "I don't like the look of it". Let us suppose that the commissioning mother says. "Oh well, I'm not going to honour that agreement. I'm not going to have the child". Can the natural mother sue? Of course she cannot. To me it is a plain as a pikestaff that all these surrogacy agreements are unenforceable and void whether they are done for payment or not. That is why I move my first amendment. I think that it would be a good thing to put that provision into the Bill at this stage and not leave it to the neutrality which the Bill gives, apparently, to all surrogacy agreements at this point. My first amendment says that all such arrangements,
"are void and unenforceable whether done with a view to payment or not".
I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: First, I ought to remark that this is the only amendment which has been tabled on the Marshalled List by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, of which we have had prior notice. All the rest of the amendments are new and I am seeing them for the first time. We evidently do some of our business in great haste and we can hardly get here
922
before seeing amendments that we have not seen before. Out of 14 amendments on the Marshalled List, 11 are new. I make no undue complaint about that, but it means that one has to study this very carefully in a very short space of time before the sitting of your Lordships' House begins.
However, the question which I want to ask is this. Having listened to the noble and learned Lord very carefully, I am puzzled to know in what respect there is a real difference between the subsection on page 2 and the amendment. Does the amendment do something which the original words do not do? When we are amending words in a Bill we want to know the significance of the change. The difference which I seem to notice concerns whether arrangements are lawful or not. I do not know whether or not that has anything to do with the law of contract.
However, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord had a very definite purpose in his mind. I am sorry to say that, having listened to this remarks, I was not very clear about what he had in mind. I apologise for my suspicions, but when dealing with a Bill of this delicacy and with such an emotional background I am always very keen to know what changes mean and what words mean. After all, yesterday we saw some very subtle work going on as regards another Bill which led your Lordships into very serious difficulties after the noble and learned Lord had left us. I hope that he will forgive me for raising this point.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Craigmyle: Is what the noble and learned Lord trying to do really so obscure? The law at the moment is doubtful. The noble and learned Lord has told us clearly what he thinks courts would do. But the Bill as at present drafted talks about
"arrangements whether or not they are lawful and whether or not they are enforceable".
The noble and learned Lord's amendment simply says that the arrangements are "void and unenforceable". It seems to be a perfectly straightforward clarification, and I cannot see the difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, finds.
If a surrogate mother bears a child in spite of the arrangements by which it is done being unlawful, the child, by the next amendment, will be her own, and that will make it clear. This amendment, so far as I can see, is not going to make it unlawful to have a surrogate child, but it will make all the acts concerning the arrangements unlawful. If I have understood the noble and learned Lord correctly, that is what he is getting at.
Viscount Buckmaster: I rise to support with all the strength I can muster, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. My support for these amendments stems from my firmly held belief that the process of creation is a divinely ordered pattern, and if we try to interfere with it we do so at our own peril. Can we, by surrogacy or by other experiments which have been mentioned in other Bills, improve on the divine miracle of creation, whether it be a blade of grass, an elephant or a human being that is created? Can we really, by juggling with genes and in other ways, better the divine plan of creation?
I firmly believe that if we start experimenting in this way with forces which we cannot fully comprehend we

923
shall, like the sorcerer's apprentice, be sowing the seeds of our own doom. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will give support from the spiritual Benches. One could perhaps argue—and I expect that several of your Lordships will think on these lines—that after birth, a child becomes the responsibility of its parents and of mankind at large, but I cannot accept the argument that before birth, in the prenatal stage, which is what this Bill is all about, that argument applies.
The argument I have adduced is of course basically a Christian argument, and I say once more that I look forward to any views that the right reverend Prelate may have; but I should like to say also that, as your Lordships are aware and as I have mentioned on various occasions in your Lordships' House, we are not only a multi-ethnic but a multi-religious society. There are now in this country more Moslems than Methodists: there are one-and-a-quarter million of them. There are a great many Jews. In the view of all three monotheistic religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, such experiments are unacceptable.
To the Moslems, such experiments, and surrogacy, and so on, are totally abhorrent. So abhorrent are they to the Moslem mind that such arrangements could never even be discussed. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will support these amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, bearing in mind that this matter cannot be dealt with in purely secular terms.
Lord Edmund-Davies: I rise briefly to support the noble and learned Lord in relation to this amendment. It has the desirable aim—and succeeds in that aim—of introducing clarity where there is at present doubt. Clause 1(9) reads:
"This Act applies to arrangements whether or not they are lawful and whether or not they are enforceable".
The noble and learned Lord's amendment makes it clear by the provision not that they are illegal, because illegality is dealt with in Clause 2, but that they are,
"void and unenforceable whether done with a view to payment or not".
Therefore, we know where we are. We are not voting on a doubt; we are voting on a clear and certain point. I commend and support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, which is a requisite aid to clarification of the law which Clause 1(9), if one reads if carefully, impliedly recognises is uncertain for the reasons more cogently put than I could put them by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies.
Lord Somers: I too, should like to support this amendment for a reason additional to those spoken of so far. I agree with my noble friend Lord Buckmaster on the ethical side of this process, but there is also the practical side. When the child grows up or grows a little older he may have a feeling of great uncertainty as to who is his real mother. A feeling of certainty is very necessary for any child. To have that feeling of uncertainty in a relationship is very bad indeed. It gives him a bad start to life, and one that we can condemn altogether.
The Earl of Lauderdale: I should like to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. In doing so I should like to say something extra. I cannot think why, when we have had night after night debating a trivial matter of mere local government and of physical arrangements with regard to our society, a matter fundamental to our lives—the creation of human beings—is left to a Friday midday with a very thin Committee. The usual channels have been quite unusually stupid and unworthy of your Lordships' House in so arranging the business that it comes at this time. Having said that—and no doubt the words will have carried to the two Front Benches—I should like to add my word of support to this amendment.
Lord Swinfen: In general, I should like to support the noble and learned Lord's first amendment. However, I am convinced that we need to get this Bill through Parliament, and we are coming towards the end of the summer. There is only about another month left. The Government, as normal, will tell us that they have not got any time at all. Being a Government Bill, I am not sure that I really believe it.
I am not an ex-Master of the Rolls, only the grandson of a Master of the Rolls, and that does not qualify me in quite the same way, but, as I understand the noble and learned Lord's amendment, if he was to withdraw it and come back at a later stage with only its first line, it would leave the Bill clearer but still referring only to commercial arrangements. I feel that to leave the second line of his amendment in brings into the Bill non-commercial arrangements, and that widens the scope considerably and changes the nature of the beast completely. So far as I am concerned, I should like to see this Bill on the statute book in its limited form rather than lost altogether.
Lord Prys-Davies: Although this amendment is moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and has the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, I find that I am persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendment, but I fear that it is too widely drawn, at least at this stage. We agree that all aspects of commercial surrogacy should be unenforceable at law, that they should not be converted into a contract enforceable by the courts. But I am not so sure that every feature of non-commercial surrogacy should be outside the law of contract.
This point has been made in the other place. In the Second Reading debate the Minister drew our attention to one feature which possibly should be enforceable. I suggest that rather than adopt this all-embracing amendment, supported though it is by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning and Lord Edmund-Davies, it would be wiser to wait to see what view the Government take about the role of voluntary surrogacy as an act that can cement a marriage and support a family. I should be extremely cautious before asking the Committee to support the amendment as drawn.
The Earl of Caithness: It is with some trepidation that I rise to debate this matter with such a noted expert as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning,

925
and even more particularly now that he has the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that this Bill arose as a result of the Baby Cotton case. I am sorry that he was not here on Second Reading and I am equally sorry that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale was not here, but I hope he has read the proceedings because they set in context what this Bill is about. I can only reiterate that it was not as a result of the Baby Cotton case that this Bill came forward. Ministers were concerned for a long time before that case about commercial surrogacy arrangements, and that is why we asked the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, to undertake her inquiry. I am glad to see that she is in her place today. I am grateful for the help and useful words of my noble friend Lord Swinfen and of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who set the amendment in its proper context.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I shall set into some context what I have to say on this and other amendments. The Government will keep the points which have been raised and which will be raised very much in mind when, as we aim to do, we introduce a comprehensive Bill to cover aspects dealt with by the Warnock Inquiry. It is clear that these matters remain of considerable public interest even almost a year after the report was published. One only has to read the reports of the debates at the British Medical Association conference this week to realise that opinion is far from settled on these matters. In particular, a debate took place on non-commercial surrogacy arrangements, which this amendment affects. We are very much aware that this Bill is limited in its purpose and scope and I know from the speeches we heard at Second Reading that some noble Lords fee] frustrated about this. Indeed, all the comments we have heard about this Bill have been based on a desire to widen its scope rather than on any criticism about its drafting or what it seeks to do. I hope noble Lords will agree that in the wake of widespread public concern about the possible development of commercial surrogacy agencies in this country we were right to act quickly to try to prevent this. I am sure that had we attempted to be more ambitious, we would not only have had protracted debates on the more contentious issues, but, given the pressure of the government's legislative programme as a whole, we should have risked losing the Bill itself. Given the almost unanimous agreement that this Bill is needed, I am sure that that would have been most unfortunate. I hope noble Lords will bear that in mind today.
12.45 p.m.
I am grateful to noble Lords for being so sparing in the number of amendments they have put down at Committee stage. I reiterate my assurance that the points to be made today will be taken fully into account when we introduce a Government Bill on the issues dealt with in the Warnock Report.
In regard to the amendment there is widespread revulsion that anyone should contract to hand over a child in advance of its being born or even conceived. I am sure we all agree that any such agreement should legally be void and unenforceable. I am advised that this is already the case, for Section 85(2) of the Children Act 1975 provides that:
926
"a person cannot surrender or transfer to another any parental right or duty he has as respects a child".
The courts have already taken the same view where the arrangement is made for reward. In a case in 1978, in which a mother who had entered into a surrogacy arrangement for reward changed her mind during pregnancy and refused to hand over the child, the High Court rejected the commissioning father's application for custody. Mr. Justice Comyn said:
"The agreement between the parties I hold as being against public policy. None of them can rely upon it in any way or enforce the agreement in any way. I need only give one of many grounds for saying this, namely that this was a purported contract for the sale and purchase of a child".
He also described it as a "pernicious" agreement. When the case went to the Court of Appeal it was accepted that there could be no possible question in the circumstances of the father having care or control of the child. In refusing him even access to the child the Court of Appeal paid tribute to what was acknowledged as a very careful and clear judgment from Mr. Justice Comyn and considered that, with one slight exception relating to access which he had allowed, the judge had directed himself in law perfectly correctly.
There can be no doubt that the law will not regard as binding or enforceable the agreement of a surrogate mother to hand over her child to another or others. This is wholly right and proper. I find it hard to accept, as I am sure do most noble Lords, that a woman should bear a child while at the same time she has no long-term commitment to the infant's welfare. This principle that the child's interests should be paramount is central to this Bill and is the guiding principle in all family law.
While I am completely in agreement with the intentions of the noble and learned Lord in moving this amendment, I respectfully suggest that it is at odds with his motives. Apart from duplicating the Children Act provisions, to which I have referred, it would have other serious consequences. A surrogacy arrangement could be much more than an agreement to hand over the child at birth. It could be a lengthy document, as I understand is the case with surrogacy contracts drawn by the major American agencies. It might cover many points relating to the welfare of the mother before and during pregnancy, the attention to be paid to the child's health, and the financial support to be given to the mother during pregnancy and confinement. We can easily envisage a circumstance where a close friend or sister of the infertile woman voluntarily agreed to bear a child for the childless couple. She might, on reliance of a promise of reimbursement, incur considerable expenses as a result of the pregnancy and birth or cease work during the period. The couple might then renege on their agreement. They might refuse to accept the child or to pay medical or other expenses. They might even take the baby and refuse to pay the expenses.
We ought to consider this question: do we want to deny a surrogate mother all legal redress, because that is what the amendment does? I ask noble Lords to consider that question very carefully. It may not be in the child's best interests if agreed maintenance costs are withheld at some stage during the pregnancy. As I have said, I agree with the principles of the noble and learned Lord, but the law is clear on this point under the Children Act and I hope that the Committee

927
will not accept the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Lord Denning: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported me. I do not wish to imperil the passage of this Bill through either House, and, therefore, I propose not to press my amendment today. Speaking not as a legislator, but as an ex-judge, extra judicially it is my opinion that in our law at the moment all these surrogacy agreements are void and unenforceable whether for payment or not. That is extra-judicial. It is not legislative. That may wait for a later decision. In the circumstances, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) A child born to a surrogate mother in pursuance of a surrogacy agreement shall for all purposes be regarded in law as the child of that mother.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am raising a lot of important points. This one is equally important. When you have a surrogacy agreement and when you have the baby born, who is the lawful parent? If it is in a case where another woman provides the egg to go into the body of this woman, is the woman who provided the egg to say that she is the mother when the carrying mother has had the baby since the very moment of inception or implantation up to its birth? I rule out the mother who provides the egg and I would also rule out the man who provides the sperm. What has he done? He has provided the sperm but he has not gone through the essential act of putting it inside the woman's body. How can he be said to be the father? If anyone might be said to be, it might be the doctor who inserts it. That cannot be right. We cannot have him to be the father; neither would I have the man who masturbates and provides the sperm. I would not have him to be the father. Neither of them, in truth, is the lawful father at all.
The only lawful parent for a child so born, to my mind, is the carrying mother who has carried the baby from the moment the organism was there inside her body right through until the time when it was born. She is the carrying mother. I should like to make that as clear as can be. She is the one who has the duty to bring up the child, who has all the rights in regard to the child, and I would rule out all these donors altogether. I would let that mother who has carried the child all the way through be the mother of the child and have all the rights and obligations in regard to it. I am sorry that I did not give my noble friend longer notice. It takes time when one has other things to do. He can speak off the cuff as well as anybody, so let him do so. I can see the objections, or what objections will be raised, but I should like to make the law certain now in this Bill.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, as I would have supported him on his previous amendment. While perhaps I may not dare question my noble friend on the Benches opposite, as I was taught English only in primary schools, I constantly wonder about the good English of many of the Bills that are coming forward.
928
Parliamentary draftsmen seem to be strange creatures who can draw up very curious documents which we are told are good in law, so that one has to accept that. What I should like to ask the Minister is this. Is there any point in our debating these very important amendments at all? He has advanced the argument which, if I remember, I had to advance when I was on the Front Bench. It is a kind of moral blackmail: "If you want this Bill to go through, you must not amend the Bill here".
I would suggest to the noble Earl that some of the Acts of Parliament that we have and which are imperfect have been rushed through in just this way. I should like to know whether he can solemnly pledge that there will be subsequent legislation, before we reject the amendments which have been moved by the noble and learned Lord. We are dealing here with a very important principle, whichever way you look at it. It is horrifying to think that in the 20th century we have to debate a matter of buying and selling children. That is what it is. If we go back to the 19th century, we see that there were then all kinds of legislation. This goes even further, and to a Christian and indeed to a woman the whole of this discussion is horrifying. But I should like to know particularly if there is any point in debating these vital matters which the noble and learned Lord has raised, because he is doing us all a great service.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: As I seek to express a view from the episcopal Benches on this amendment I am aware of the complexity of the issues with which we are dealing. As a Christian, I am profoundly convinced of the wrongness of surrogacy. I would find it difficult to go entirely with the argument that there can never be interference with the processes of divine creation. I would feel that there are occasions on which that divine process may be facilitated by human means. Nevertheless, in this particular case I feel that the separation of genetic parenthood from physiological motherhood is damaging to the integrity of the family and quite possibly damaging to the mother who has to carry the child.
However, I recognise that there are other views, and my view as a Christian and as a Bishop is not necessarily shared by others in our society. The members of the Warnock Committee were divided in their view on surrogacy, as were the members of the BMA who took part in the debate earlier this week. I therefore ignored in general the decision of the Government to bring forward legislation on the basis of what is generally agreed; and there is no doubt that we are all agreed upon the outlawing of commercial surrogacy arrangements. However, I want also to say that, whatever my own personal feelings about surrogacy, it would seem to me that we ought to leave open the option of surrogacy as something which can be entered into (if I may put it that way) by consenting adults.
In commenting upon this particular amendment, I should like to say that it seems to me to be valuable clarification. I echo what the noble Baroness has already said about our hopes that the Government will very quickly bring forward much wider legislation on the Warnock recommendations. Many of us would feel much happier about the lapse of some of these

929
amendments if we could receive such an assurance. But it seems to me that this particular amendment is a very valuable clarification at this time and therefore I am happy to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in moving it.
Lord Craigmyle: I should like very much to support this amendment. It is sometimes represented that surrogacy is really a sophisticated form of adoption; and adoption is perfectly normal and legal, so why should surrogacy not be so? The noble Baroness was much nearer the truth when she referred to the unhappy practices in the 19th century, among them the practice of baby farming. To my mind surrogacy is a sophisticated version not of adoption but of baby farming and, since baby farming is illegal, so then should be surrogacy. If we have it stated that for all purposes of law the lawful child is the child of the mother who bears it, this will be very much clearer. If the mother then wishes to go through with the surrogacy arrangements that she may have made (I hope unofficially), she can go via the procedure of adoption. There is nothing to stop her from doing that; it would be a perfectly normal thing to do. But the child's benefit must come first. If the mother wishes to retain the child, then the child's benefit would seem to lie in allowing the mother to retain it. One perfectly natural reason is that the mother who bore it will be lactating and the sponsoring mother will not. These are some of the considerations which lead me to support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I wish to ask a question on this point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is usually so kind in his speeches to your Lordships as to explain from his vast knowledge and experience what his amendments mean. I am almost at his footstool on occasions when he is explaining the law. What are the consequences of the noble and learned Lord's amendment? I have a feeling that he is stepping outside the intentions and framework of the Bill. I may be wrong. On this occasion, for once—how rare it is—the noble Earl the Minister is going to be right on this Bill throughout the piece. He knows what the Bill is intended to do. He does not want it to do any more and he does not want it to do any less. He knows that he has a flank behind him on the other Benches opposite and behind me who would wish to push him. They are nudging him, to push him a little further than the scope of the Bill.
1 p.m.
If the noble and learned Lord carries the day, it is like saying: "Away with everybody connected with this wretched business. The woman who bears the child is the mother and there is no nonsense about it, and all laws, doctrines, secular outlooks and religious beliefs shall be subordinated to that doctrine". That is what he is saying. I think that that is a point of view, but this Bill is dealing with commercial surrogacy. It is outlawing commercial transactions in connection with this procedure of transferring the process of carrying and birth to another person on behalf of someone else. This Bill does not outlaw that, unless there are commercial considerations involved in it.
930
The other part of profound importance is to be taken care of later on. I urge your Lordships not to be carried away on these matters by the headlines in the Daily Mail, the Mirror or any other of the popular newspapers, which try to sway public opinion and carry people into the kind of panic situation that we see so frequently in such matters. Let us be a little cautious for a change.
The noble and learned Lords who are Lords of Appeal sometimes reserve the right to deliver their judgments—judgment is reserved. Suppose I were to move now that the Committee should reserve judgment on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. I think this would be justified in the circumstances, because not only is this amendment on the Marshalled List this morning for the first time but the noble and learned Lord has not told us where it would lead. As an ordinary layman, one can ask some questions about where it might lead. If the baby belongs to the mother who gives birth to it and is her property and no one else is able to claim it, does the law establish that parenthood so definitely that some other legal process has to be undertaken to change it?
Does it mean that the commissioning mother—to use the phrase of the noble and learned Lord—has to undertake adoption proceedings? Can we be told, if it is relevant? Quite honestly I think that these are matters which should be reserved for the grand inquisition into this matter, which is not suitable for this morning's proceedings, if I may say so. So I concur with the Minister, if he gets up and says that he is not in agreement with this.
Lord Denning: Perhaps I may answer the questions which have been asked. Clearly my noble friend has suffered nothing from not having noticed earlier—he has dealt with this very effectively—that the simple object of this clause is to do away with competition between the carrying mother and the commissioning mother. In law, the carrying mother, who has carried the baby for nine months, once she gives birth to the child should in law be the mother of the child. But the next step is easy. If this surrogacy agreement is to be implemented, let it be done by adoption, when the courts can see whether or not it is a proper case for the commissioning mother to bring up the child and for it to be adopted. That is the right way to deal with it and for the law always to say that the carrying mother is the mother subject to her power to institute adoption proceedings later.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may deal with some of the general points first, and particularly with the two points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. She said that it was pointless to discuss the amendments of the noble and learned Lord. I tried to make it clear, in the preamble to my answer to the first amendment, that it certainly is not. This is very relevant. We certainly welcome the debate on the wider issues as well as the principle of this very limited Bill, and everything that is said today will be borne in mind for future legislation.
This takes me on to her second point. She wanted an assurance that future legislation would be brought in. I hope she has read what I said at Second Reading, and perhaps I might just recap. Obviously it is not for me

931
to dictate what will be in the Queen's Speech, nor do I know; but my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, earlier in the week of 14th June, had said that it was the Government's intention to introduce a comprehensive Bill on these matters as soon as possible.
My noble friend Lord Craigmyle said that surrogacy was baby farming. This brings me to a point on the earlier amendment that I meant to take up with the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. If it was baby farming, well, then, Abraham was baby farming. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, seemed to indicate that surrogacy was a new invention of the permissive 20th century. It is nothing of the sort. It went on long before Abraham's day. The only thing that I should like the right reverend Prelate to help clear up for me, on which I am not 100 per cent. sure, is that Sarah was 99 when she had her child. I wonder whether in those days mothers were better than they are today. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for moving this amendment and giving us the opportunity to debate a matter which is obviously of great concern to us all.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the legal status of a child born following a surrogacy agreement. In most cases the surrogate mother's egg will be fertilised in pursuance of the surrogacy agreement. In that case the law is clear: that the surrogate mother is the mother of the child. It would, however, be possible to envisage circumstances where the commissioning parents donated both egg and sperm and where the embryo was transferred to the uterus of the surrogate mother. In this circumstance the law is unclear at present as to whether the commissioning or the surrogate mother is to be regarded as the legal mother.
The Warnock Committee recommended that:
"Legislation should provide that when a child is born to a woman following donation of another's egg the woman giving birth should, for all purposes, be regarded in law as the mother of that child".
Its recommendation looks more widely than does this amendment to all cases where egg donation is involved, not just to those where a surrogacy arrangement is involved. Here again we step out of the context of this Bill, which is a very limited Bill to ban commercial agencies. We are stepping on to uncharted territory which is still the subject of much discussion. I think that this shows that the Committee would be wrong to rush into accepting an amendment of this kind, even one which would implement, at least partially, one of the Warnock Committee's recommendations. There are, as I pointed out, other issues to be borne in mind, including whether this provision should extend to all cases of egg donation. I am sure that it is better to wait and deal with this matter in a much more comprehensive Bill at a later stage.
Lord Denning: We are back to where we were on the other amendment. A lot of people would support the amendment. I want to make the law clear at the moment. That is why I limited it to the surrogacy. I still hold, and I would still express my opinion in law—you can disregard it if you like—that the carrying mother is in law the mother of the child. But I can understand the uncertainties that some people may have about it. In the circumstances I will not move the
932
amendment now nor proceed with it further. I only hope that when the Government come to consider the Warnock Report, they will bring this in as part of it. In the circumstances I do not propose to proceed further with the amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Negotiating surrogacy arrangements on a commercial basis, etc.]:
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("or")
The noble and learned Lord said: I am afraid I am causing all the trouble, but this involves an equally interesting point. If your Lordships look at Clause 2 as it stands, you will see that it deals with commercial surrogacy, where people go to an agency and arrange for a child to be born in this way for money. The clause then makes it a criminal offence for people to take part in a surrogacy arrangement on a commercial basis for money. An offence is committed by all those who do the arranging—the agencies and everything like that. But the clause exempts altogether the doctors who are the essential tools in doing the arranging. They can do it for a fee, if you please, and, maybe, a high fee. They are equally involved, or perhaps more involved, because they are the essential instruments for carrying this out on a commercial basis, and they do it for a fee. So, why on earth, should there not be an amendment to cover these professionals?
The Warnock Committee reported on page 47:
"We further recommend that the legislation be sufficiently wide to render criminally liable the actions of professionals and others who knowingly assist in the establishment of a surrogate pregnancy".
I say that the doctors who arrange it are just as bad as the agencies, and that they ought to be equally liable for the criminal offence. The special object of this Bill is to deal with commercial surrogacies, and that is why I have put down this amendment to implement a recommendation of the Warnock Report. I hope that it will be accepted. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble and learned Lord is plainly keen to extend the scope of the Bill to give further deterrence to those who would wish to enter upon the dangerous practice of surrogacy. But I would refer again to the principle that the interests of the child should be our paramount consideration and I suggest that the amendment unwittingly runs counter to that important tenet.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4-because Amendment No. 3 is the paving amendment to No. 4—would increase the provisions of the Bill beyond those who run commercial agencies to those who would give counselling advice to prospective commissioning couples.
Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 29, at end insert—
("or
(d) do any act intended to result in or facilitate the carrying of a child by a woman, knowing that the child is to be carried in pursuance of a surrogacy arrangement.")
A couple who are childless, and who are considering surrogacy, may want to take legal advice to see whether they would be breaking the law. I am sure that

933
they would wish to consult a solicitor, if only because of the wide publicity that this Bill has received and which will contribute much to its effectiveness in discouraging this practice, if your Lordships grant it a speedy passage on to the statute book.
I can see the headlines in the paper. The noble and learned Lord is approached by a childless couple. He is so popular throughout the country, but because of his own amendment he is taken to court and found guilty and is subject to a fine of £2,000 and/or three months' imprisonment; or even worse, if my noble friend Lord Swinfen has his way in asking for £20,000, with six months' imprisonment. I do not think the country would be at all pleased to see the noble and learned Lord in that plight.
A solicitor would be very reluctant to outline the legal position, in case the couple eventually decided to embark upon a surrogacy arrangement, in which case he might be legally liable for the information he gave, even if he had no part in the drafting of the contract. Similarly, a counsellor would be loath to see a prospective couple, even if he was disinclined in principle to recommend surrogacy and had done his utmost to dissuade them. He, too, could be prosecuted if they did, in the end, commission a surrogate to bear a child.
However, the most serious consequence of these amendments is not that legal advice or experienced counselling would be denied a couple already suffering distress because of childlessness, but that the surrogate mother herself would be denied counselling and might enter into an arrangement which she would avoid if she were given good advice. Worse still, she would be denied many kinds of medical treatment, notably treatment to prevent a threatened miscarriage during her pregnancy, and I do not need to tell your Lordships of the importance for mother and child of adequate pre-natal care. It would be sad, indeed, if an innocent child were to suffer because of a legal agreement entered into by its mother. Once again, we are discussing widening the Bill, and as soon as we start to consider widening its very narrow scope we run into an immense amount of problems.
Lord Denning: I was quoting the Warnock Report which, in many respects, is still a very good one. I can well see the point which has been raised about protecting professional men and, in the circumstances, I shall not press this amendment, either. The point has been raised and it is for wiser heads than mine to settle it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]:
1.15 p.m.
Lord Denning Lord Denning moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 33, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 39.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment deals with the position of the man and woman who take part in this commercial arrangement for money. Clause 2 exempts both of them from any criminal liability whatever and they go completely free. Is that right? The carrying mother, whoever she is, is doing it for money and is helping all the way through. It may be that the punishment ought to be very slight, but she is actually a participant in the whole of this criminal
934
situation of commercial surrogacy. One can have sympathy with her if she needs the money, and also sympathy with the man, but is it right that they should be excused altogether? Ought they not to be equally liable for the offence? The sentence may be very light, or even nothing. There may be just conditional discharge or something of that kind. But is it right that they should be exempted altogether by statute in this way? I beg to move.
Baroness Warnock: I have attempted to keep out of this debate, but I should just like to reiterate the arguments that we on the committee used to allow the surrogate herself to be exempt from any criminal charge. We did not like the idea of any child being born as a result of a criminal act, and I think that is what really lay behind our arguments. The other point is one that has been made before, that the urgent purpose of the Bill before your Lordships is to eliminate the agencies which I fear, unless this Bill goes through, will proliferate.
There are now waiting in America a largish number of agencies wishing, and anxious, to start on this side of the Atlantic and I think that there is a market for such agencies. I regard it as a matter of extreme urgency that to set up such agencies should he made a criminal offence. Since we know that it will be some time before all the detailed arrangements are discussed in both Houses, I think that we should, if possible, set up a criminal offence which picks on those very people whom we want to stop. Whatever may be anybody's view about surrogacy, this is a matter on which the body of the evidence is very strong—that people are not prepared to have in this country agencies which exploit both the misery of the infertile and the willingness of women to act as surrogates. It is very important that we should not widen the scope of this extremely narrow Bill in this way, but should allow it to go through as quickly as possible.
Lord Edmund-Davies: I support the noble Baroness in this matter. One cannot deal with this point at this stage without looking at page 3, line 5, of the Bill. We are dealing here with surrogate arrangements on a commercial basis and payments made therefor. As noble Lords will see, line 5 provides:
"In this subsection 'payment' does not include payment to or for the benefit of a surrogate mother or prospective surrogate mother."
When the comprehensive Bill is introduced, it must embrace and demand consideration of the position which frequently occurs and which must move any person of ordinary human feeling. I refer to the family longing for a child but incapable for one reason or another of having a child for whom someone out of pure benevolence agrees to act in the role of a surrogate mother.
I am not arguing for or against. All I am saying is that this little Bill is far too small to comprehend that situation. Accordingly, one has in line 5 of the Bill the words:
"In this subsection 'payment' does not include payment to or for the benefit of a surrogate mother or prospective surrogate mother."
I refer again to the case of the woman who, purely out of reasons of benevolence and pity for the barren couple, agrees to play the role of a surrogate mother. She puts herself inevitably to some expense during that

935
time. Would it be right to say, as is embodied in the next amendment, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has in mind to move or had in mind to move, that to recompense the kindly-disposed surrogate mother for her expenses, let alone some financial recognition of a modest kind for the service she had rendered, is to be prohibited? I leave the answer to the question. The answer I have in mind is neither here nor there. It is not a question capable of being adequately dealt with in this little Bill. Accordingly, I for once am not supporting my noble and learned friend Lord Denning in this matter.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wish to adopt all the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. The Minister has indicated to the Committee time and again that the object of the Bill is narrow and that it is primarily aimed at the commercial agencies and at the risks of exploitation of women and of commissioning parents by agencies. It appears to me that it would be very harsh if the mother and the commissioning parents were also punished for being the victims of exploitation.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I thought that the noble and learned Lord was providing by Amendment No. 5 for the carrying of Amendment No. 4. I thought he was clearing the decks to enable his Amendment No. 4 to be the governing clause in Clause 2. But on a closer look at it, it seems that, having failed by withdrawing Amendment No. 4, he still feels that he wants to remove the surrogate mother from the provisions of subsection (2). It is very confusing and difficult to follow as to what the combination of the amendments really amount to.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could assist the court, so to speak, by telling us which of his amendments is relative to the purpose of the Bill, and then not move the others. We could then probably make more progress instead of just going on, if I may say so, for this session of the law school learning more about the law for consideration later. We are quite prepared to await the noble and learned Lord's instructions at a subsequent stage in our legal education which will come probably in two years' time when we are a little older and probably able more readily to absorb the complications of this matter.
I feel that we are ploughing on, if I may say so with respect, rather needlessly. Can we not go to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who really wants to increase the fines. We will understand that all right. The noble Lord is going to get at the money. We might or might not agree with what he proposes to do, but at least it is relevant to the Bill. Am I being impertinent to the noble and learned Lord?
Baroness Phillips: Before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, replies, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that he is not being impertinent, but I think he is going a little outside the rules of courtesy. I say that because surely the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is as entitled as anyone else to make a contribution to this Committee. The fact that he happens to have been a Law Lord is not relevant because he is not sitting in that capacity in this Session of our parliamentary arrangements. If we are going to
936
use this rule, no doctor should ever speak on a medical matter, and certainly no farmer should ever speak on an agricultural matter. A great number of noble Lords have been distinguished military personnel. Are they not to take part in the debates on defence? It is a nonsensical argument and I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has as much interest in the clarification of our Bills as any other noble Lord. I have heard the noble and learned Lord speak many times, and he is a master of English if I may say so. This is something we certainly need injected into our legislation.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: In view of the remarks of the noble Baroness, perhaps I may venture a statement on the biblical sources which were put to me earlier by the noble Earl the Minister. When I refer to the complexity of the issues, among those complexities was the ambivalence of the biblical sources. It is indeed the case that one could argue that a form of surrogacy took place in the arrangements between Abraham and his slave, in view of the barrenness of Sarah.
I think it is worth pointing out that there are other features of Old Testament culture which, if we were to look to them as a guide, might lead us to some difficulty. For instance, polygamy was practised at that period. Most of us would accept that there has been a growth of the tradition, a formation of the culture, which has led us to our present understanding of the integrity of the family. It is the emphasis on that integrity that I feel to be so important.
I welcome the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. I do so in particular because in accepting this narrow Bill we are presumably allowing the possibility of the growth of practices which may in some regards negate other recommendations of the Warnock Report. I think for instance of the growth of non-commercial agencies. That in my mind underlines the strength of the argument for the urgency of the introduction of more comprehensive legislation.
The Earl of Caithness: Am I right in thinking that at the moment we are talking to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6?
Lord Denning: That is right.
1.30p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for the support for the Government's point of view from the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies—and particularly from my point of view from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We have crossed swords before, and we shall doubtless do so again; but I think he is learning that we are not always wrong. It is a good thing. I hope he will come around fully to our point of view in future.
These amendments touch on a point raised by a number of noble Lords on Second Reading. They seek to make all forms of commercial surrogacy illegal. At present the Bill excludes the commissioning parents and the surrogate mother from the criminal sanctions of the Bill.

937
These amendments, by removing those exceptions, would extend the scope of the Bill to make all forms of commercial surrogacy illegal. However, we decided that the Bill should not deal with that wider issue, as we felt it was important to deal with the immediate problem about which everyone was agreed, the probem of commercial agents themselves. Thus, this limited Bill sets out only to prohibit what virtually everyone regards as abuses, and to prevent the commercially-motivated exploitation of people's personal difficulties.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that such abuse is of a different order from the passing of fees from commissioning parents to surrogate mothers, offensive though I know many find that practice to be. I believe we can safely leave that and other issues to the later, Warnock Bill.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, said, there needs to be much wider debate on these amendments than we have had; for example, on whether the prohibition should apply only to surrogacy for reward or should extend, as it would do under these amendments, to cases where the surrogate mother's only payment is to cover the bare expenses which she might have undertaken. We need to have wider discussion on these issues, and I hope that for that reason the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Denning: I am quite persuaded by the arguments I have heard. I am only too pleased not to press this point and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denning Lord Denning had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 6 to 12:
Page 3, leave out lines 5 to 7.
Page 3, line 19, at the beginning insert ("a body of persons or").
Page 3, line 24, leave out from ("then") to end of line 31 and insert ("whether or not the body at any time receives any payment in respect of that activity,").
Page 3, leave out lines 33 to 39.
Page 4, leave lines 4 and 5.
Page 4, line 6, leave out from ("arrangements") to ("in") in line 8 and insert ("which are").
Page 4, leave out lines 14 to 17.
The noble and learned Lord said: I believe that I can deal with the rest of my amendments in one sentence or two. These amendments were designed to give effect to the proposal in the Warnock Report that such legislation should be wide enough to include both profit and non-profit making organisations. That is much too debatable a question to involve us in discussion at this stage and so I propose not to move any of the remaining amendments in my name.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 12 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Craigmyle: Before we wave a cheerful farewell to Clause 2 which, after all, is the main clause of the Bill, I believe it would be right to say a few more words about commercial and non-commercial agencies. I
938
accept very readily the point put so clearly and strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that there are commercial organisations waiting in the wings to come onto the all-too-permissive stage of the United Kingdom to do their obscene act. But there are already in existence so-called non-commercial—I should be inclined to call them pseudo-charitable—organisations which are all too willing to take up that act.
If we allow them to go ahead while addressing only the obviously commercial agencies, I fear that we may later regret doing so. At a later stage, when the main Bill which we are promised comes before us, those of us who try to raise the question of non-commercial agencies will be told, "But we have dealt with agencies already. You should have objected at the time". I see my noble friend shaking his head. I hope that he will bear his head-shake in mind if he has to deal with the main Bill when it comes before us.
I have not been tremendously impressed by the argument that we dare not amend this Bill in case we lose it. My noble friends on the Front Bench and their honourable and right honourable colleagues in another place are no mean parliamentarians. We have in the course of this Session dealt with, and are still dealing with, highly contentious measures; contentious in the ordinary sense of divisions along party lines. We have also seen the Government push one Bill through Parliament probably, though not certainly, against the majority opinion in another place, and they are pushing it through this House, too. We have seen the Government defeat another Bill which had overwhelming support in another place—all this to suit their own parliamentary convenience. Are we really to believe that the Government are now so incompetent that they cannot get a few Lords amendments to a Bill such as this through another place?
Lord Swinfen: I should like to support very much the remarks of my noble friend Lord Craigmyle. I also feel that the Government, if they really wished, could get this Bill—it is called a small Bill, but is in fact quite a large stepping stone in the right direction—through the other place with amendments. They have in other legislation been extremely courageous in tackling problems which have gradually been getting worse over the years because various Governments have been too frightened to deal with them. Why on earth do the Government not have the same courage to deal with this matter? It is absolutely essential that the Government either bring forward another Bill themselves very quickly, or, if a private Member of either House brings forward a Bill, give that individual every possible assistance to get that legislation onto the statute book. Debates on the various amendments to Clause 2 have shown that a great deal still needs to be done. I must apologise to the Committee if what I have said sounded rather like a Second Reading speech, particularly since I had a go at Second Reading.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I have every sympathy with the desire of the noble Lord that what has to be done shall be done without undue delay. This is a very important matter and there is a great deal of legitimate public interest, quite apart from the blown-up emotions that can be created on a matter of this kind.

939
But surely the experience of Private Members' Bills in recent days has exposed the hazards and risks of that procedure in dealing with important matters of this kind. Indeed, I am coming to the conclusion that, with the best will in the world, the Private Member's Bill procedure is unsuitable for dealing with a number of the matters with which Private Members' Bills attempt to deal.
One of two solutions is indicated. First, there should be some clear understanding as to what is and what is not a suitable subject for the Private Member's Bill procedure. Secondly, there is a course which I favoured when I was in a position to influence matters—that any Private Member's Bill on a subject of conspicuous public interest or concern should never fail through lack of time and thereby bring the parliamentary process into disrepute.
The public do not understand why it is that a Bill can occupy a House of Parliament—at any rate, the other place—for many hours and days and yet be talked out at the end of it all. Members of the public wonder what sensible parliamentary process it is that does that. Television may let the public into the secrets of our parliamentary life, but still they will think that we are all half-crazy and it is about time that parliamentary procedures were changed drastically so as to cope with business under modern conditions.
I ask forgiveness for giving this little homily about Private Members' Bills, but we saw something of this kind of situation yesterday and what a mess we got into then. We are not out of it yet and we have to finish that business next Wednesday. All of this arises because the Private Member's Bill procedure entrusts an important Bill into non-Government hands but requires those involved to work hand in glove with the Government. The consequences of that procedure can only be as we witnessed them to be yesterday. I utter this caution, and at the same time I am sure the Government want to get ahead with a matter of this importance. We can only await the outcome. After all, we take a little time to digest reports of the complexity and delicacy of the Warnock Report. Personally I cannot thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, too much for undertaking this difficult, and in some respects, quite distasteful task. We owe a tremendous amount to people who devote themselves in the public interest to matters of this kind. We must treat their reports with respect and arrive at well-considered solutions. Their own wisdom may not be enough in the end. Such complex and controversial matters require the clash of opinion to arrive at the right solution. I hope we shall get there, but not through the Private Member's Bill procedure.
Lord Denning: This is a Government Bill.
Viscount Brentford: I hope that the Government will bring forward a new Bill as soon as possible. We have been considering this admirable report for nearly a year, and that to me seems to be a reasonable time. I hope that the Government will not wait until public opinion veers too strongly one way or the other, because I am sure that there are strongly held feelings on all sides and also entrenched interests relating to the matters that we have been discussing on Clause 2. I
940
hope that the Government will bring forward a Bill that is right as soon as they possibly can.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this clause stand part debate. I remind the Committee that this Bill has the objective of prohibiting only commercial agencies. It does not bite on non-commercial agencies which do not take fees. Before my noble friends Lord Swinfen and Lord Craigmyle get too depressed, I refer them to Clause 2(5) and ask them to read that clause very carefully. The effect of that provision is that if any agency fixes up a surrogacy and at any subsequent time receives any money from the surrogate or the commissioning parents, or even anyone connected with them, it commits an offence unless it can prove that the payment had nothing to do with the arrangement made. This prevents a body from seeking donations instead of charging fees for what it does. I think that that will deter a lot of people. I realise that the majority of the Warnock Committee recommended—
Lord Swinfen: What is the position if the money is paid to them in the form of a legacy?
The Earl of Caithness: As I understand the position, if it can be proved that the legacy was as a result of a surrogacy agreement then there is trouble; but for whom I am not quite sure! Perhaps I should look into that.
I realise that the majority of the Warnock Committee recommended that both commercial and non-commercial agencies should be prohibited by law. However, it is clear from the response to the report and from the minority report signed by two of its members that there is not the same unanimity about banning non-commercial agencies as there is about prohibiting commercial agencies. Indeed, I refer again to the BMA conference earlier this week which voted to reject, against advice, the Warnock recommendation. It was rejected by 193 votes to 182 votes. The doctors themselves are now split down the middle. It is an extremely difficult area. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen said, there is still a great deal to be done. Certainly there is; but there is still a great deal to be discussed and a great many minds are putting their thoughts towards trying to form legislation that will not divide the country into two and which, when enacted, will not be impossible to work.
We have taken a small step forward and I hope that noble Lords will ensure the Bill's speedy passage on to the statute book; and I look forward to the wider debate on the Warnock Report.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Offences]:
1.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("level 5 on the standard scale") and insert ("£20,000").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 14 because the two amendments are tied together.

941
Amendment No. 14: Page 5, line 10, leave out ("3") and insert ("6").
As this is only the Committee stage of the Bill, I have tabled these as probing amendments and do not intend to press them. However, I reserve the right to come back at a later stage of the Bill if I am not satisfied with the Government's answer. I feel that we still have ample time, perhaps in another place, to deal with amendments, even bearing in mind that Parliament normally works for only eight months of the year. I am sure that if any other organisation worked for only eight months of the year its shareholders would want to know why, and I sometimes wonder why our shareholders do not wonder why.
The question of amending the term of imprisonment from three to six months can easily be dealt with. I do not think that three months is long enough and that the period should be six months. A more complicated issue is the fine. Level 5 gives a maximum penalty of £2,000. I shall not go through all the press reports which I have in my hand because time is moving on and I do not want to weary your Lordships. However, a report in the Daily Telegraph on 5th January 1985 suggests that the agency in the Baby Cotton case was paid about £14,000, of which less than half was paid to Mrs. Cotton. A fine of£2,000 added to that would be a reasonable increase, and is possibly not too much.
This country very often follows the United States and I have here a report from the magazine Time on 10th September 1984. I shall quote a part of it:
"For their part, Aaron and Mandy"—
that is, the commissioning parents—
"have agreed to pay Valerie"—
that is, the surrogate mother—
"10,000 dollars to be kept in an escrow account until the child is in their legal custody. In addition, they have paid an agency fee of 7,500 dollars and are responsible for up to 4,000 dollars in doctors' fees, lab tests, legal costs, maternity clothes and other expenses."
If my arithmetic is correct, that totals 21,500 dollars, and that is not very far away from £21,500, depending on the rate of exchange. Add £2,000 to that amount and it is not a very large increase in the cost of the surrogacy arrangement. I am assuming that some arrangement will be concluded on who pays the fine if a commercial agreement is made. That would not surprise me.
I know that in normal circumstances Justices of the Peace, on summary conviction, can impose a fine of only £2,000. But not very long ago, in 1982, under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act we agreed in Section 22 that on summary conviction there should be a fine of £ 10,000. That was in relation to sex shops and sex establishments. In the Video Recordings Act, which became law at the end of last Session, the fine on summary conviction is one not exceeding £20,000; and that is where I obtained the figure for my amendment. There is one other example. In the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 the penalty that can be made on summary conviction in a magistrates' court is up to three times the value of the goods recovered in cases of smuggling. I have sat on a Bench on cases where goods have been recovered in excess of £16,000. That meant that the magistrates were entitled to impose a fine in excess of £48,000 on summary conviction. I suspect that goods to the value
942
of £16,000 or thereabouts is not the lowest value to have been before Justices of the Peace in the past. Any idea that they are not responsible enough to handle fines of that level is totally ruled out. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I agree with the noble Lord. The penalty provided in the Bill is too lenient. It does not reflect the gravity of the offence. It is not likely to hurt the defendant financially, especially as this is an offence where the offender has profited by its commission. It will not help to make it a really effective penalty.
It may be said that there is the stigma of a criminal conviction. That is probably the main usefulness of the offence. But the offender to whom the Bill is addressed will not too seriously be deterred by that stigma. If the penalty is to be effective, I agree that the offence must be buttressed by a penalty calculated to prevent the offence because it will hurt the offender.
Lord Denning: I, too, support the amendment. I only hope that passing the amendment will not imperil the Bill's getting through both Houses in time.
Viscount Brentford: I support the amendment for the reasons stated by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. The only problem I see is that he will need to make a diary note for 10 years' time to bring forward a Bill to update the figure unless at Third Reading the amendment is varied to allow a figure to be laid before your Lordships' House by order. I warmly support the amendment. It seems to me to bring realism into this matter.
The Earl of Caithness: May I deal briefly with the point that my noble friend Lord Swinfen raised on clause stand part? I was right in saying that the agency that accepts a legacy will be liable to prosecution unless it can be proved that it was not given as the result of a surrogacy arrangement.
I well recall the points made by my noble friend. He raised them at Second Reading. As I said we would, we have considered the amendments carefully together with the Home Office, which has a general oversight of the level of penalties provided for in legislation.
I can understand what I take to be the objectives of the amendments: to make sure that there is a realistic deterrent for those who might seek to profit by flouting the Bill. I do not think, however, that increasing the maximum fine tenfold to £20,000 and doubling the maximum period of imprisonment to six months would be appropriate to the offences which the Bill creates, and I should prefer to see the provisions stand as at present drafted. Your Lordships' Committee will want to consider how the courts will look at offenders and what penalties they would see fit to impose. In general, Level 5 on the standard scale is the maximum penalty which can be imposed by a magistrates' court, but there are exceptions in the case of sex shops, where the level of the fine reflects the profitability of the activity rather than the nature of the offence. Indeed, my noble friend gave another example.
I do not think that the Committee would be well advised significantly to increase the penalties provided in the Bill as drafted. We should not underestimate the seriousness of the offences created by Clause 2. The

943
approach taken in these amendments is somewhat draconian. It is very desirable that the penalties provided for comparable offences should be consistent, and those now in the Bill are identical to others for a very similar offence under Section 50 of the Adoption Act 1958, as now updated, of receiving a prohibited award or payment for making arrangements for the adoption of a child.
I understand very well the argument that, given the level of fees that we have seen paid in these cases, we must ensure that the penalties laid down should present a real deterrent. It would not do if it were possible to continue to run a commercial surrogacy agency and treat the likely penalty as merely an incidental expense of the business. What we have to remember, however, is that someone seeking to do that would face the possibility not only of a fine of £2,000 but of three months' imprisonment, too, and that not only for every time he negotiated a surrogacy arrangement but for every time that he offered to do so. I think that that is quite a major deterrent, and I beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The evidence that we have to date shows that it is quite an effective deterrent on the existing commercial agency.
But it does not rest there. If a person's repeated conduct shows that the penalties available are an insufficient deterrent in his case, there is a well-established procedure by which the Attorney-General may obtain a High Court injunction to restrain him. Breach of such an injunction is a contempt of court for which on every occasion he will risk committal to prison for up to two years and an unlimited fine. I can therefore say to my noble friend Lord Brentford that on that basis there will be no need for legislation in 10 years' time.
We have powerful weapons available to ensure that the laws Parliament makes are respected. I must ask your Lordships' Committee not to let the very natural indignation aroused by the cases about which we have read to induce us to lay down penalties out of line with those for comparable offences. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coleraine: I wonder whether my noble friend will explain something of the nature of the evidence that satisfies him that the level of fines proposed is sufficient to deal with the commercial agency point.
The Earl of Caithness: I missed the point that my noble friend was trying to ask me.
Lord Coleraine: I believe that my noble friend said in answer to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord
944
Prys-Davies, that there was in his view ample evidence to satisfy him that the level of fines proposed is sufficient to deal with commercial agencies. I wonder whether he can add anything to explain the nature of the evidence that satisfies him on that point.
The Earl of Caithness: It is not only the level of fine: it is the imprisonment that is also a deterrent. As I understand it, the commercial agency existing at the moment has said that it will not operate because of the threat of those two things.
Lord Swinfen: I shall consider seriously what my noble friend said and read it carefully in Hansard when I receive it on Monday. He said that the level of fines in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and in the Video Recordings Act reflected the profitability of the business. Parliament will have to make sure that the level of fines also reflects the profitability in commercial surrogacy. There is a danger that if we do not deal with this matter properly now it will get worse, grow and become a blot on the nation.
My noble friend also mentioned the powers of the Attorney-General. They come in only on repeated offences, which will show that the level of fines and other penalties is not sufficient because it will be commercially viable for agencies to take such fines into account.
I feel that my noble friend's arguments do not really wash. However, as I said at the beginning, this is a probing amendment, I shall take it away and consider it.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. If he takes the logic of his argument further—and I hope he will consider this—it may be that that particular person is going to break the law regardless of the level of fine or the term of imprisonment, and that is when the Attorney-General's powers can be used.
Lord Swinfen: I realise that, but part of the law, and the penalties fixed by law, are a deterrent, and we have to make certain that the penalty is sufficiently large to act as a deterrent. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
House adjourned at one minute past two o'clock.

  INLAND REVENUE OFFICES: UNANSWERED POST
  INLAND REVENUE OFFICES: UNANSWERED POST
  SSSIs AND ASSIs: EXPENDITURE STATISTICS
  SSSIs AND ASSIs: EXPENDITURE STATISTICS
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT SINGLE PAYMENTS
  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT SINGLE PAYMENTS
  OXYGEN CONCENTRATORS: SUPPLY ARRANGEMENTS
  OXYGEN CONCENTRATORS: SUPPLY ARRANGEMENTS
  PACIFIC SEABED: US EXPLORATION LICENCES
  PACIFIC SEABED: US EXPLORATION LICENCES
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE COMMERCIAL WORK: COST
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE COMMERCIAL WORK: COST
  ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS: SOVIET COMPLIANCE
  ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS: SOVIET COMPLIANCE