Sitting of 1 April 1987

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

    European Year of the Environment
    Mr. Robert B. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what initiatives his Department is taking to contribute to the European Year of the Environment.
    The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning (Mr. William Waldegrave): My Department intends to provide more than £750,000 in direct support of the United Kingdom's National Committee and of projects within its programme for European Year of the Environment. We are also sponsoring a number of specific projects.
    Mr. Jones: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in addition to the various initiatives in which he is involved, industry in the United Kingdom has set a lead in producing much of the new technology that will help to abate pollution? Does his Department intend to support in any way the fair that is due to take place next month in Birmingham, which will show British technology at its best?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir. We had a lot to do with the generation of the idea of the international pollution abatement technology fair at the national exhibition centre in Birmingham. which starts on Monday. It is important to remind people that valuable jobs are to be found in providing modern equipment for pollution abatement for home use and export.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister comment on the work of the national committee in promoting the European Year of the Environment, and in particular the efforts of the officers who have been responsible for drawing-up the programme?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I should like to pay tribute to those, including the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who have done sterling work on the committee under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Harrop. The committee is finding the job enjoyable, in that many good projects are coming forward. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the staff, who will now be in place with a proper budget to deal with.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what progress is being made in the European Community, particularly by the United Kingdom, towards reducing levels of acid rain?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last year, we are committed to a £600 million programme of flue gas desulphurisation to ensure that the declining trend of our sulphur emissions continues, as we need it to do.
    Mr. Livsey: As to European Environment Year, will the Minister indicate what occurred at the meeting of European Environment Ministers with regard to the protection of the ozone layer?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the case, at least in theory, that Council meetings are confidential, but it is no secret that the Community agreed a negotiating position to take to the Vienna meetings, where the protocol will finally be agreed, which will involve a freeze followed by cuts in the production of chlorofluorocarbons.
    Mr. Jessel: As part of the European Year of the Environment, will my hon. Friend encourage bee keeping? If so, will his Department drop the proposal that is contained in the consultation document to classify bees as pests?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There has been a certain amount of unnecessary alarm about this matter because, by a failure, for which I apologise, I did not send the relevant consultation paper about air pollution to the bee keeping associations. Bees are ecologically and economically important, but in urban areas uncontrolled swarms can occasionally cause problems to householders. We were discussing whether additional powers were needed to deal with that.
    Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister note that this is the European Year of the Environment, and will he send a message of goodwill to our European neighbours by announcing that the British Government will join them in signing the 30 per cent. declaration on acidic emissions? Will he announce the phasing out of the dumping of sewage sludge in the North sea, and will he give the House an assurance that the Government will not block the directive on large-scale plants for acidic emission, which is due to come up at the May Council meeting, and thereby do something to improve Britain's bad name in European environmental circles?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Britain's name is not so bad as the hon. Gentleman appears to hope it is. To start at the end, it is not Britain but Spain that is now blocking the large plant directive. Secondly, I would be happy to end any particular dumping if it were shown to be environmentally correct to do so. Scientific studies show that for some treated sewage sludge dumping at sea may be the best practical environmental option, and we must not abandon that concept. On the hon. Gentleman's third point, we have explained again and again that the starting date of 1980 for the 30 per cent. club is systematically unfair to Britain. That has been recognised in the negotiations in Europe on the large plant directive, incidentally, but it has not been recognised yet in the protocol itself.

    Housing Needs Expenditure
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to allow local authorities to spend more than 20 per cent. of their capital receipts from council house sales on housing needs; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I have no immediate plans to alter the rule whereby local authorities can spend the whole of their receipts from council house sales, provided they do not use more than 20 per cent. of them a year for prescribed expenditure.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Would it not be a splendid idea with the coincidence of this question with National Housing Week to double the limit for prescribed expenditure to 40 per cent. to give a real initiative to housing authorities? Secondly, would it not be important to build on the consensus on the need to involve housing associations, building societies and other financial organisations to put together a committee that again could build on the consensus and enable us to solve the housing problem by using all the financial resources that are available, which are obviously considerable?
    Mr. Ridley: The Labour party and the Conservative party—the Government—both agree that there should be overall control of local authority capital expenditure. The Liberal party, and the Social Democratic party—the alliance—have not made clear to me what their view on that is. If that is the case, an increase in the prescribed proportion of receipts would result in a reduction in capital allocations. That would be unproductive. It would make life harder for housing authorities in deprived areas in inner cities. Although the hon. Gentleman does not really care about the details, it would probably make life harder for Leeds than will leaving the percentage as it is.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, given the improvements in the economy since this policy was introduced, for which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer rightly took credit last month when introducing the Budget, it is increasingly difficult to defend or understand the 20 per cent. limitation? Is it not high time that it was revised upwards to at least 30 per cent.?
    Mr. Ridley: I am sure my hon. Friend realises that what matters is gross provision. That has increased from £2,669 million last year to £2,922 million in 1987–88, a big increase. As for dividing the gross provision between allocations and the use of capital receipts, the issue is whether the resources go to the more deprived areas or to the less deprived areas. I think the House will feel generally that the right way to help deprived areas is to make available to them the bulk of the capital allocations, rather than to increase receipts.
    Mr. Janner: In view of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham), surely there can be no justification for preventing local authorities from spending 80 per cent. of their own money, which they have been forced by the Government to accumulate, when there is desperate need in areas such as Leicester for improvements, repairs and maintenance, and when the council has had 50 per cent. of its funds taken from it by central Government.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. and learned Gentleman may not understand the system. Allowing an increased proportion of receipts to be spent means that local authorities go out and borrow more. Local authorities are indebted in total to the extent of over £30 billion, and any increase in spending will lead to an increase in debt. The Government do not mind a bit whether spending takes the form of so-called capital receipts or of increased allocations. The
    1078
    point is to determine the best way of helping authorities in need. Is it receipts, or allocations? I would have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would look to the interests of his constituents and realise that allocations will be of more use to them.
    Mr. Madel: Where a council has a good record on selling council houses and has been sensible about its spending and its rates, will my right hon. Friend let such councils make individual representations to him to allow the 20 per cent. to be exceeded if that council has a number of derelict homes that urgently need repair?
    Mr. Ridley: I would dearly like to have the sort of slush fund suggested by my hon. Friend, but I fear that that would be the wrong way to proceed. I must repeat that, if the House wants more money to be allocated to the major areas of housing stress and housing repair problems, the right way to do so is to reduce the prescribed proportion and increase allocations. However, I am not proposing any change.
    Dr. Cunningham: In view of the obvious anger, if not dismay, felt on all sides of the House, will the Secretary of State reconsider Government policy on local authority capital receipts? Is he not aware that many Conservative as well as Labour authorities regard this policy as unnecessarily restrictive, especially since their money is involved? Will he contact the Conservative councillor to whom I spoke in Coventry yesterday when I opened a sheltered dwelling scheme—Quniton Lodge—who said, "We would like to build many more of these schemes and we have the money to do so, but the Government will not let us spend it". That is the case in many authorities around the country—Labour and Conservative alike—which need only one word from the Minister—yes—to allow them to spend their money to provide houses, especially for elderly and disabled people. How can it be right to have a fiscal adjustment of £6 billion in the Budget and to continue with this stupid control?
    Mr. Ridley: I read, even though the hon. Gentleman may not have done so, the Labour party's policy for local government finance. He made it absolutely clear that the Labour party believes in controlling the total capital expenditure of local authorities. Do we agree?
    Mr. Straw: Capital borrowing.
    Mr. Ridley: It is the same point.
    If we are agreed that there should be control of borrowing, is the Labour party saying that it would like to increase the prescribed proportion and reduce the amount that goes on allocations within a controlled total? That is the question that the Labour party must answer. If the Labour party answers it in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), it will deprive the hon. Gentleman's constituency of the help that it needs.
    Mr. Nicholas .Winterton: In the light of the representations made to my right hon. Friend by both sides of the House, but especially from the Conservative Benches, will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to the matter? Will he agree to meet a delegation of his hon. Friends, not least because those of us who represent responsible borough councils — my borough of Macclesfield is the lowest-rated borough in Cheshire — are aware that they need to spend their money to provide accommodation for the elderly and for

    1079
    the young? Will he bear in mind that these authorities have obeyed every exhortation and request of the Conservative Government?
    Mr. Ridley: I would he delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any group of councillors or hon. Friends that he may wish to bring with him. I would be — [Interruption.] If the House will listen, let me say that I would be sorely tempted to agree with him. However, if I were to do so the result would he that the most deprived areas of the country, including Leeds, Whitehaven, Workington and South Shields, would suffer because they would receive less in allocations because more would be going to my hon. Friend's constituency.

    Fulham Football Club
    Mr. Pendryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to meet the president of the Football League to discuss the future of Fulham football club; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): I see the president of the Football League regularly, but I have no plans to discuss the future of Fulham football club specifically. I have no powers to interfere in decisions of the club's directors or with discussions they may have with the Football League.
    Mr. Pendry: I am sad to hear that. Will the Minister recognise that his act of listing certain buildings at Craven Cottage, helpful as it was, will not stop the Bulstrodes of this world from demolishing our football clubs for commercial gain? When the Minister next meets the president, will he urge him to change the Football League's regulations so that no one may acquire a League club without guaranteeing that the club will not be used for other than football and sports-related activities without the management committee's approval?
    Mr. Tracey: Obviously, the Football League's regulations are very much a matter for the League's management committee. I am sure that the House will agree with the hon. Gentleman about the protection of football clubs. However, the problem at Fulham football club, as with many other clubs, is that it has lost the support of the communities around it and the supporters who ought to be bringing in revenue to keep the club together.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister recognise that Fulham football club has generated more loyal support and determination to save it from the greedy hands of property speculating asset strippers than virtually any other sporting institution has demonstrated this year? Will he also recognise—this is critical—that the survival of football clubs depends on thir being run in the interests of football? Part of the problem with Fulham football club has been that its ownership in recent years has been vested in the hands of individuals who have been more concerned with what money they can make out of property development than out of the furtherance of the football club's fortunes.
    Mr. Tracey: I am sure that Fulham football club will have found a large number of supporters in recent times. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has become a vocal supporter, as was his predecessor, the late Mr. Martin Stevens. I am
    1080
    well aware that football as a game has increased considerably in popularity across the board in recent years. However, unfortunately, the clubs at top level have been losing supporters because they have lost the support of the communities around them.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that we have rarely heard such a dismal reply to such an important question? When he meets the president of the Football League, will he explain that the football grounds are so attractive to speculators because they were all created, at the turn of the century, in the heartlands of our industrial populations? They need to be protected by regulations within football itself, and by suitable planning action by local authorities and the Government. Will he also consider with the president Ihe fact that there is such a little return on investment in football at the moment that makes the capital sale of the grounds so attractive to the speculators? Action to maintain these oases of sport in the midst of our industrial conurbations will require of him initiatives which he has so far singularly failed to take.
    Mr. Tracey: I have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that football clubs are private companies, and it is essential that private companies should be attractive to their supporters—the consumers. I have observed, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, far too many interventionist tendencies, which are only too typical of his party.

    Private Sector Tenants
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of security of tenure for private sector tenants.
    The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): We get a steady flow of representations on this issue, requesting the reform of the private rented sector to bring empty flats and houses back into use in the interests of those who need homes.
    Mr. Winnick: Why should any legislation that would remove security of tenure from incoming tenants in the private sector be any more successful than the totally discredited Rent Act 1957, which not only ensured a substantial reduction in the rented sector, but led to Rachmanism and to existing tenants having their security undermined? When will the millionaire Secretary of State recognise that the appalling housing crisis requires much more public sector and housing association accommodation, not opportunities for racketeering landlords to exploit tenants?
    Mr. Patten: On the hon. Gentleman's second question, I do not think that cheap personal attacks on my right hon. Friend do the hon. Gentleman any good at all.
    On the hon. Gentleman's first question, opinion about the private rented sector has changed greatly. I direct him to the excellent editorial of 24 March in that admirable morning newspaper, The Guardian. Now that my reselection has safely passed, I can mention that that editorial was rather in my praise. The editorial said that the private rented sector had a vital role to play in housing, and it was right.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend accept that the appalling housing crisis to which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has just referred is entirely due to the dogmatic and static attitude of the Opposition

    1081
    parties? The way to give the right to rent to millions of young families is to encourage building societies, institutions and other responsible bodies to provide that rented accommodation. Will my hon. Friend do everything possible at the earliest opportunity to introduce legislation to that effect?
    Mr. Patten: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Rooker: May I remind the Minister that the question is about security of tenure? Does he appreciate the vulnerable position of the tenants of some private landlords? Landlords knock on the doors of their female tenants late at night, not coming for a cup of coffee, but seeking other favours. That happens throughout the country and, indeed, in my constituency. That vulnerability is due to lack of security of tenure, and that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and others call for greater security of tenure in the private rented sector. The Minister must address himself to that point. Young people, and women in particular, are extremely vulnerable under the present rules.
    Mr. Patten: I was slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, because he has never written to inform me of any of those complaints. I repeat what I said on Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill the Government have no intention of changing the security of tenure of present renting tenants.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Does not the present legislation relating to rented accommodation mean that unemployed people who have access to work are often unable to accept the offer of employment? Will not legislative reform enable people to take jobs that they cannot take now because no private rented accommodation is available?
    Mr. Patten: Only the attitude of some — I stress, some — Opposition Members is preventing us from reaching a position in which the law can be reformed in order to bring back into use some of the 540,000 empty privately owned flats and houses in the country. That would be in the interests of those seeking work, of young people who are moving to big cities and of the homeless.

    Liverpool (Rate Support Grant)
    Mr. Wareingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what rate support grant is to be received by Liverpool city council in 1986–87; and what the comparable figure was for 1981–82 and 1983–84, in constant 1986–87 prices.
    Mr. Ridley: The figures in 1986–87 prices are £129.8 million for 1986–87, £154.1 million for 1981–82 and £141.1 million for 1983–84.
    Mr. Wareing: Is that not further evidence, if it were required, of the Government's attack on the city of Liverpool? Is it not time to call off the vendetta against the people of Liverpool, in which the Government have been engaged over the past six or seven years? Does the Secretary of State not realise that it is not councillors with whom he has political differences who suffer, but the homeless, who require homes, the old and the disabled, who require social services, and the council tenants, whose houses require urgent repairs? Is it not time that there was an adequate rate support grant for one of the greatest cities in this country?
    Mr. Ridley: I am surprised by that, because I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that Liverpool's share of rate support grant was 1·34 per cent. of the total in 1981–82, and last year it rose to 1·44 per cent. of the total, so Liverpool is in fact receiving a greater share of the rate support grant total.
    Mr. Favell: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Opposition where rate support grant comes from? Does it emerge from the ground like daffodils in the spring or out of the sky like showers in April, or does it come from the taxpayer in villages, towns and cities throughout the country, most of which are run by councillors who are responsible, balance their budgets and show a great deal more consideration for their fellow taxpayers than do those in Liverpool, Manchester and many of the inner London boroughs?
    Mr. Ridley: As my hon. Friend raises the point, let me tell him that in 1986–87 Stockport received £171 per head in rate support grant, whereas Liverpool —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is perfectly in order to compare the two.
    Mr. Ridley: Perhaps I can give the figures that I intended to give. In 1986–87, Liverpool received £264 per head in rate support grant. Stockport received £171 per head. Next year, in 1987–88, at the settlement assumption, Liverpool will receive £264 per head and Stockport £173 per head. I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). The problems of Stockport are every bit as severe as the problems of Liverpool. That illustrates the point that I made to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), that Liverpool is getting a very good share of the rate support grant—indeed, a much bigger share than Stockport, where, I think he will agree, there are some serious problems, too.
    Mr. Alton: Is it not invidious to start drawing comparisons between different areas? Does the Secretary of State not accept that the rate support grant system is fundamentally flawed, because it does not take into account major demographic changes? One third of the city of Liverpool's population have left in the past 20 years, one in four people are over retirement age, and there is the fastest growing group in the over-80s, one in five are unemployed, and there is one of the largest voluntary sectors of education anywhere in the country. With those major demographic changes and special circumstances, should the right hon. Gentleman not look again at the way in which Liverpool's rate is settled? If the district auditor comes in, and if the Audit Commission carries out a survey that highlights areas where the Secretary of State should assist, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to follow those recommendations?
    Mr. Ridley: It is precisely because of the factors that the hon. Gentleman mentioned that Liverpool's GRE gives it a higher rate support grant than that of many other authorities. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the additional factor of shrinking population. I receive strong representations from my hon. Friends who represent Berkshire to the effect that growing population is an equally severe problem for them. Every hon. Member has different views as to why his authority should have a greater share of the rate support grant, and those views are all reflected in the long, almost continuous negotiations on

    1083
    GRE, which have resulted in Liverpool getting not 1·34 per cent. of the total but 1·44 per cent. of the total, a growing proportion, in recognition of those very problems.
    Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Dickens. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that this question is about Liverpool.
    Mr. Dickens: Has the Secretary of State read the remarks by the former deputy leader of Liverpool council, who stated that the abolition of the Merseyside county council and bus deregulation had saved an enormous amount of money? Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Government are reaching those parts that the Opposition have failed to reach?
    Mr. Ridley: I read that a sum of £10 million had been saved for Liverpool as a result of those two policies. Indeed, I have read that sums of great magnitude have been saved through the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils and as a result of the Transport Act 1985. I am only waiting for the letters of thanks from the councils that opposed both those measures. I believe that due thanks are now in order here for to the very large sums that councils have been saved.
    Mr. Heffer: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what two of his predecessors said about the problems on Merseyside and Liverpool? The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) came up with proposals to try to help the area, but they were cut back by the Cabinet of the day. Also, another of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends said when he came to Liverpool that he had never seen such problems in relation to housing anywhere in Europe. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends recognised that the problems in Liverpool have arisen because of the decline of the port, which is no fault of the people of Liverpool? That has happened because we are on the wrong side of the country and because we entered the European Common Market. Is it not time—
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not time that Conservative Members recognised the real problems of the city, the high level of unemployment, the great problems with housing and the other problems that go with that, and began at last to deal with those problems on a serious basis instead of producing the nonsense that we hear from the Conservative Benches—
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
    Mr. Heffer: —to help the people in the area involved? It is precisely because—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman should try to apply for an adjournment debate on this subject. I know that this subject is of grave concern to the hon. Gentleman, but he is taking a long time. We have reached only Question 5.
    Mr. Heffer: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, it is not a joke that my people in my part of the world are unemployed and suffering. It is about time that the Government began to look at the real problems instead of listening to the nonsense from the Tory Back Benches.
    Mr. Ridley: It is a pity, when so much of what the hon. Gentleman says is justified —there are indeed real problems in Liverpool —that those problems were
    1084
    compounded by Militants and by the Labour-controlled council. I have been reading the accounts by Mr. Hamilton of the gross mismanagement of the city by the hon. Gentleman's friends. I can only say that the people of Liverpool now have an opportunity to elect a council which will not behave like the previous council.
    Mr. Heffer: That is not true, and the Secretary of State knows it.
    Mr. Ridley: People in Liverpool will have to live with the consequences of whatever council they elect. That is the nature of local democracy, and the hon. Gentleman must abide by that.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I now appeal to the House for brief questions so that we may make progress? We have reached only question 6. Mr. John Cartwright, No. 6.

    Homeless Young People
    Mr. Cartwrightasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further research his Department plans to institute into the issue of homeless young people.
    Mr. John Patten: I have just announced major research into various aspects of homelessness, costing more than £300,000. We are also acting to help the homeless, for example, through our new mixed-funded housing association schemes, by a leaflet to encourage young people to take a realistic view about leaving home, and by our hostels initiative.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that the overwhelming majority of homeless youngsters coming to constituency advice services all over London are local youngsters who are homeless through no fault of their own? Does he have any idea of the number of young people in Greater London who are moving around, sleeping on friends' floors, or sleeping rough, because they have no chance of being housed by a housing association or by a local council? Will he consider a crash programme of emergency housing to deal with the growing army of homeless young people?
    Mr. Patten: I know the depth of the hon. Gentleman's concern about this. Governments have never collected statistics about the young homeless as such, and perhaps we should begin to do so. We are discussing that aspect with the local authority associations. The hon. Gentleman is right that both national Government and local authorities have a responsibility. The most recent figures available to me show that about 40 per cent. of people accepted as homeless give the reason that their friends or relatives no longer feel able to house them, so there is also a wider responsibility.
    Sir George Young: Will the research cover the problems facing homeless young people in Ealing, who are especially vulnerable due to the NALGO strike? Is my hon. Friend aware that the borough may be in default of its statutory responsibility under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act because people cannot contact the department concerned'? If that is so, what remedy is available for homeless young people in Ealing?
    Mr. Patten: The picture is similar to that which emerged a year or two ago in Brent. In the past year the Labour administration in Ealing has been ruining a perfectly well-run borough and failing to deliver services

    1085
    to people of all ages. It is an extremely serious matter when young people are unable to obtain the statutory help to which they are entitled.
    Mr. John Fraser: Will the Minister take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), that it is extremely damaging to the cohesion and quality of our society and its economic health if thousands of single people cannot afford to live in the communities in which they grew up because they are unfortunate enough to be unemployed or homeless? Will the Minister establish a programme for local authorities and housing associations to provide accommodation at reasonable rents and with security of tenure so that young people can remain in the communities in which they grew up and thus maintain the quality of our society?
    Mr. Patten: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seems unaware that the Housing Corporation already has such a programme. The hon. Gentleman is in a good position to talk to Labour-controlled authorities such as Brent and Lambeth which have refused money offered to them on a plate this year to help with the problem of homelessness. In the same way, alliance Members might talk to Liberal-controlled Tower Hamlets about the 3,000 flats and houses being kept empty there.

    Unified Business Rate
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from small businesses on his proposal for a unified business rate as a replacement for the commercial rate.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I continue to receive representations both for and against the uniform non-domestic rate.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the concern of small businesses represented by the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses, especially those in low-rated areas, is that they may be required to pay more towards the cost of local government services under the unified business rate? Will he confirm that there will be a transitional period for businesses to adjust to the new rate, and state how long that period will be?
    Mr. Chope: I cannot say exactly how long the transitional period will be, although there certainly will be such a period, but the major benefit for small businesses will be the knowledge that after the transitional period it will be impossible for the rates to rise by more than the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware of the widespread feeling that if Ministers wish to make the business rating system fairer they should go for improvements in the rate support grant system and for an urgent revaluation? Is he aware that figures further given by the Minister for Local Government show that business rates will rise by 31 per cent. in Westminster and by 28 per cent. in Hammersmith and Fulham, that business rates will be forced up by the Conservative party by 33 per cent. in Ealing, by 25 per cent. in the Prime Minister's area of Barnet and by no less than 57 per cent in the Minister's former borough of Wandsworth? Does he agree that The Economist was right when it said:
    "The road to Mrs. Thatcher's proposed poll tax"—
    1086
    and to the unified business rate—
    "is one paved with banana skins and leading nowhere"?
    Mr. Chope: Not at all. It is a bit rich to hear those statistics given by the hon. Gentleman, because they relate to the year 1986–87 and, as I understand it, he is supporting the fact that in Ealing in one year the rates have gone up by 65 per cent., an increase of £260 per employee for one particular firm in Ealing.
    Mr. Spencer: Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that small businesses cannot tolerate is the rate increase which is erratic and unpredictable? Is he aware that in Leicester in local election year the rates go up by 5 per cent. and that the following year the council does not care and the sky's the limit? No local or small business can possibly tolerate such a situation.
    Mr. Chope: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend wholeheartedly. That is the major benefit that will flow from the national non-domestic rate.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cumulative reduction in the rate support grant since 1979 expressed at 1986–87 prices.
    Mr. Ridley: The cumulative reduction in rate support grant between 1979–80 and 1986–87 in England amounted to £12·75 billion in 1986–87 prices. The cumulative increase in spending by local authorities in England over the same period amounted to £9·5 billion in 1987–87 prices.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not true that the rate support grant for Cumbria has been cut from 75 to 50 per cent. of net expenditure over those years? Does the Secretary of State understand that in the county of Cumbria we have now lost £60 million in the current year on a budget of £220 million and that we cannot afford it unless rates go up or services are cut? Does the Secretary of State understand that the people of Cumbria do not want that kind of politics and that we cannot afford it? Will he now re-examine the whole question of those settlements?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that for the past eight years the Government have been transferring some of the burden from central to local taxes for local authorities. I merely make the point that, far from containing their expenditure, it has had no such effect, and local authorities have, in fact, increased it by £9·5 billion cumulatively over the same period.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is not the question of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) nonsense? Surely there has been a massive increase in real spending in many of the Labour authorities? They have been spending as though there were no tomorrow. Had there been no rate capping, Leicester, for instance, would have been in a diabolical situation. Leicester has been allowed to twin with Nicaragua, create the Nelson Mandela park, abuse the system totally, have "go gay" policies and put the ratepayers' interests at the bottom of the line, with party political propaganda on the rates.
    Mr. Ridley: I confirm that the real increase in local authority current spending has been 13 per cent. in the past eight years. So whatever else they may be, no one can accuse local authorities of being short of resources.
    Dr. Cunningham: Not only the House but the whole country will welcome the candour with which the Secretary of State has now confessed that tit has been a deliberate policy of the Government for eight years to switch the burden from central taxation to rates. Is it not also the case, however, as Treasury figures published yesterday demonstrate, that the burden of central taxation for the average family with two children far from decreasing in those eight years, has gone up by about £20 per week? So, the result of the Government's policies after eight years is a massive increase in the rates—the direct result of policy, as he has just said—and an increase in the burden of central taxation as well. What bigger failure could there be than that?
    Mr. Ridley: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what bigger failure there could be, and that is if his party got into power and spent another £37 billion a year.

    Countryside Conservation
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increase in (a) money terms and (b) real terms in expenditure since 1979 by his Department on the conservation of the countryside; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My Department's support for conservation of the countryside is channelled principally through grant in aid to the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission and in the supplementary grants given to the national parks. These grants have gone up some 275 per cent. in total since 1979, which is 115 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that the scale of the increase, at a time when Government expenditure has been carefully controlled, shows how great our commitment is to the countryside? Does he also agree that there is no room for complacency? in particular, there is a growing threat to our estuaries from a range of developments. Will he ensure that estuaries, which are among the best habitats, are properly protected in future?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is quite right. The expenditure represents the Government's settled and steady policy of raising the priority for the protection of the countryside as compared with the position left by the Labour Government. On the question of estuaries, the formal answer is, of course, that every individual project must be considered properly on its merits in due course. I think it is right to make it clear to my hon. Friend that some of our unspoilt estuaries must remain unspoilt, and that the planning system must be used to do that.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Will the Minister take time today to read the back page of The Western Morning News? Had he recognised that, according to this report, in the countryside of the south-west:
    "Rivers were getting dirtier with pollution of 40 per cent. between 1980 and 1985"?
    Does he recognise that the countryside people down there are drinking
    "discoloured and unpleasant tasting water"
    as a direct result of the meanness and shortsightedness of the Government? What will he do about it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman should learn not to refer to the inhabitants of the southwest peninsula as those "people down there". The delays
    1088
    in the time scale for water investment are rather longer than he understands. The problems in the south-west derive largely from the absolutely savage cuts in water investment imposed by the IMF on the Labour Government after 1976. We have restored those cuts and have spent more in real terms.
    Mr. Rowe: Further to that last question, would it not be much safer in those circumstances if the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) decided that he would be better off staying north of the border?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman is looking for a retirement home, and where better?
    Mrs. Golding: How can the Minister equate his supposed care for the countryside with a letter that I received from him today saying that he is granting permission for a massive opencast site in my constituency which will involve the destruction of 27 rights of way, 47 acres of public open space, 68 acres of woodland, plus miles of hedgerow? Although this is for 100 jobs, which we all know are needed, is he aware that it will involve the complete and absolute disruption of the whole road systern in my constituency, with heavy lorries, noise and dirt?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have just had a classic definition of NIMBY—not in my back yard. Anywhere else, the hon. Lady would welcome the cheap and secure fuel and the jobs, but not in her back yard. That is not a responsible way to proceed on national issues.
    Sir Anthony Kershaw: May I refer to my hon. Friend's back yard and ask him to put a stop to the silly machinations about a Severn barrage, which will cost a lot of money and be an environmental catastrophe?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of my hon. Friend's robust views on the matter. There will have to be plenty of time for his views and for the equally robust opposing views of other people on the matter to be properly investigated in due course.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Cunliffeasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest total of representations received by him in respect of his proposals for a community charge in England; what proportion was in favour; and what proportion was against.
    Mr. Chope: A summary of responses to the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government" was placed in the Library on 15 December.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Will the Minister confirm that as recently as last week he told constituents of mine in Lancashire and Yorkshire that his poll tax would increase their family bills by about 15 per cent.? Will he further confirm that that applies especially in the townships of Wigan and Leigh, and especially to those owner-occupiers in lower-priced properties?
    Mr. Chope: I can confirm that all single householders in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be significantly better off as a result of the introduction of the community charge.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Can my hon. Friend tell us the proportion of people who were in favour of the charge and the proportion who were against?
    Mr. Chope: I do not have the precise proportions, but out of about 600 responses, 390 were in favour of the abolition of the domestic rating system.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jack Straw.
    Mr. Straw rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman not want to ask a question?
    Mr. Straw: I showed surprise, Mr. Speaker, because so many hon. Members were rising.
    First, will the Minister confirm that his suggestion that all single householders will benefit from the poll tax is quite untrue because at the moment single householders on the lowest income pay nothing in rates because they get a full rebate? Under his proposals everybody, however poor, will pay at least 20 per cent. of the poll tax.
    Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government has told constituents in a wide range of Conservative marginal constituencies in the north that in some cases their rate bills will almost double when the poll tax is in operation? In Conservative York it will go up by 25 per cent., in Bradford by 20 per cent., in Grimsby by 17 per cent., in marginal Pendle by 55 per cent., in marginal Hyndburn by 50 per cent. and in Labour Burnley by 90 per cent. Is that what the Conservatives have in mind when they say that they wish to create greater fairness by abolishing the rates?
    Mr. Chope: If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the way in which the question that he asks is answered in the Green Paper, he will see that the examples are only examples and will by no means definitely be the resulting figures. The precise resulting figures will depend upon whether the authorities concerned spend wisely.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. John Heddle.
    Mr. Tony Banks: What about other hon. Members?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making very slow progress today.

    Rates
    Mr. Heddleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the average rate increase in the current year (a) for councils under Conservative control, (b) for non-rate capped councils under Labour control, (c) for councils under alliance control and (d) councils under joint alliance/Labour control.
    Mr. Chope: On average, rates in Conservative councils are up 5·4 per cent. compared with 12·4 per cent. for non-rate capped Labour councils, and 10·7 per cent. for councils under the control of the Social Democrats and/or Liberals. Political control in many of the councils with no overall control is unclear. The average rate increase in all
    1090
    such councils is 8·5 per cent. For those shire counties for which we have information, councils under joint alliance/ Labour control are raising rates by significantly more than are those under joint Conservative/alliance control.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that his answer shows that authorities controlled by the Socialists or hung councils controlled by the Opposition parties have increased the rates by 100 per cent.? Therefore, does he not agree that a fairer system of local accountability and local expenditure should be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Chope: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It is because the present system does not allow for proper accountability that the Opposition parties are so in favour of it.
    Mr. O'Brien: The real reason why the figures highlight the problems about which the Minister speaks is that there is industrial deprivation and great unemployment in the north of England. Will the Minister give an assurance that under the new system, the poll tax, the poor, old-age pensioners, the widows and the unemployed will not suffer by having to pay the 20 per cent. extra that he proposes in the poll tax?
    Mr. Chope: The figures that I have given do not refer specifically to the north or to the south. In Gloucestershire, for example, there has been a massive increase in the rates, but I am not aware that that county has a particular problem as a result of unemployment.

    Voluntary Agencies, London
    Mr. Roweasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will meet representatives of the voluntary agencies in London to discuss their funding in the next financial year.
    Mr. Chope: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the anxieties about the future voluntary agency funding have been substantially allayed, there are considerable difficulties for voluntary agencies in the annual budgeting that is forced upon them by so much public accounting? Will he give us an assurance that voluntary agencies, which increasingly are taking on jobs of considerable importance, will be able to look further into the future when considering the funding for which they are dependent on the Government?
    Mr. Chope: I shall certainly take my hon. Friend's comment into consideration. Let me add that the present Government have done more than any previous Government for voluntary agencies.
    Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after the two statements.

Higher Education and Research
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's policies for higher education.
Higher education is crucial to help our nation meet the economic, social and intellectual challenges of the final decade of this century. We must ensure that our universities, polytechnics and colleges respond to the country's requirements. Important reforms are already under way; I pay tribute to the efforts that are being made, especially in our universities, to adapt more closely to the needs of the nation. The White Paper we publish today announces new policies in three key areas: first, wider access to higher education so that the United Kingdom gets the skilled people we need for economic success and to compete in international markets; secondly, the financing and management of polytechnics and colleges in England; and, thirdly, the thorough-going reform of the University Grants Committee, along the lines recommended in the Croham report.
It is 21 years since the polytechnics were conceived. They have now come of age. They are successful, mature institutions with a strong national role, complementary to our universities. But they are held back by current planning and funding arrangements. Control by individual local authorities inhibits their progress towards meeting the challenges of the 1990s, and towards managing their resources to best effect.
We therefore intend to legislate to convert the polytechnics and other mainly higher education colleges in England to free-standing corporate bodies under boards of governors. Local and regional industry and commerce will be strongly represented on the boards. We want industry and those colleges to work more closely together. Industry will find it more attractive to place contracts for consultancy and research. We will be setting up a new Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council which will be independent of Government, although subject to guidance from the holder of my office. The council will succeed the National Advisory Body, and will contract with individual institutions for the provision of higher education.
Local education authorities will retain control of those colleges that do not provide predominantly for higher education. The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council may contract for the provision of degree and full-time HND and equivalent courses at such colleges. Other courses, including all part-time sub-degrees, at colleges remaining under local authority control will be a local responsibility: the present expenditure pooling arrangements will end. Responsibility for the 530,000 students on non-advanced further education courses in some 360 colleges across the country will continue to rest with local authorities.
The voluntary and other colleges of higher education that are grant-aided by my Department will be brought within the ambit of the new funding council. For the present, however, those arrangements will not be extended to cover the polytechnics and colleges of higher education in Wales.
Secondly, we intend to introduce legislation to change the University Grants Committee to an independent statutory body on the lines recommended by the Croham
1092
committee. We accept the Croham recommendations that that body should be smaller, with broadly equal numbers of academic and non-academic members and a chairman with substantial experience outside the academic world. The new body will be called the Universities Funding Council, and its primary responsibility will be the allocation of funds to individual universities under new contractual arrangements.
Thirdly, I want to encourage more people of all ages to go on to higher education. The Government already have an outstanding record on access to higher education. Student numbers have increased by almost 160,000 since we took office in 1979. After its fall in the 1970s, the participation rate for young people has increased by 15 per cent., and the number of mature entrants has risen by about a quarter. We remain committed to providing places for all with the intellectual competence, motivation and maturity to benefit from higher education.
Over the next decade, however, the number of 18-year-olds will fall by one third, and student demand will no longer be a sufficient basis for planning. A major determinant must also be the nation's demands for highly qualified manpower. The increase in graduate output already planned seems unlikely to do more than keep pace with the nation's requirements until 1990, and may be insufficient by the mid-1990s. This view is echoed in the excellent report published yesterday by the Council for Industry and Higher Education, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior).
For the present, the Government's best judgment is that they should plan for the student numbers envisaged in the higher of the two projections which I published last November. This projection involves an increase in full and part-time student numbers from 906,000 in 1985–86 to 957,000 in 1990. That is an increase of 50,000. By the year 2000, almost one in five school leavers would then be going on to higher education. The Government want to ensure that within the total numbers the shift towards scientific and other vocational courses should be carried through.
Whether we reach these student numbers will depend crucially on this shift being achieved; on whether the schools and colleges succeed in raising the proportion of young people who qualify; and whether the universities, polytechnics and colleges can admit more mature students and more young people with vocational qualifications. The Government believe that higher education will meet these challenges.
Fourthly, the White Paper acknowledges that the quality of our research is recognised worldwide. The Government are committed to maintaining and enhancing the strength and quality of the science base, of which our institutions of higher education are a major and essential part. We attach particular importance to sustaining the work of the most able scientists and their teams. The Government are accordingly making available an additional £15 million for 1987–88 through the science budget. This funding is in addition to the £39 million increase in that budget for 1987–88 which I announced on 6 November last year, and the extra £17·5 million over three years for AIDS research by the Medical Research Council, announced since November.
The consequences of the increase I am announcing today for later years will be taken into account when we consider the science budget in this year's public expenditure survey. But I emphasise that we, and the scientific community, face difficult choices in the future.

1093
We must be more selective. We must concentrate resources. We must get even better value for money from better targeted research. We must exploit our science to the utmost —and that is a matter as much for industry as for Government, the research councils and higher education.
Our country's higher education is among the best in the world. Our policies will secure and develop its distinctive strengths. They will extend its benefits to a wider section of the population and will ensure that it serves our nation.
Mr. Giles Radice: We have listened with interest to what the Secretary of State has had to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Welcome it."] I welcome his conversion to the view that a policy of contraction simply will not do. Will he confirm that, according to his own White Paper, by the mid-1990s we shall have no more students in higher education than we have today? Will he also confirm that the CBI has calculated that industry will need at least 4 per cent. more graduates every year and that the report published yesterday of the Council for Industry and Higher Education —the organisation of industrialists and academics chaired by the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) —concluded that the number of students planned by the Secretary of State will not be enough to meet the needs of the economy in the decade ahead?
Is it not also the case that, even with that small improvement in the participation rate that is planned by the White Paper, the proportion of 18-year-olds in higher education in this country by the mid-1990s will still be well behind those of the United States and Japan, as well as of several other European countries? It will also be lower than the 22 per cent. projected for 1981 in the Prime Minister's 1972 White Paper.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, in any case, many people will view his White Paper figures with some scepticism? We observe that the Government have buried away in a Committee the political time bomb of student grants, which are so crucial to access. We note that the Secretary of State is not making any commitments to provide extra resources—again so necessary for access—and we remember above all that the Government have squeezed and cut higher education during the past seven and a half years.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the welcome increase in research funding no more than meets the cost of the recent salary increases? Is he aware that that leaves the science budget in the position in which the Advisory Board for the Research Councils said that resources fall short of what would be needed to maintain the buying power of that budget?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, as over the teachers and local government, so now over the control of higher education, he is taking power to himself? Why is he rejecting the advice of the National Advisory Body committee set up by his predecessor, that, although the day-to-day running of the polytechnics and colleges should be in their hands, the overall strategic responsibility for them should remain with the local education authorities? Higher education will now be run on the basis of Whitehall diktat, and the view that the Secretary of State always knows best.
1094
Finally, is the Secretary of State aware that for all the glossy exterior of the White Paper and the fine words that he has spoken to the House this afternoon, he has ducked the real challenge of opening up higher education to a far wider group than ever before, and of providing more graduates in the decade ahead to meet Britain's needs? The right hon. Gentleman has failed to do that.
Mr. Baker: The hon. Member has something of a nerve to chide me about the numbers of students in higher education, because the Government of his party cut the number of students by several thousand. I am planning an increase of 50,000 by 1990, on top of the increase of 160,000 since 1979. Those are ambitious targets. I make it clear to the House that achieving them depends on young people coming forward with the right qualifications. It depends also on the polytechnics and universities being more willing to welcome into their studies young people with vocational qualifications. That is an important point.
The hon. Gentleman also chides me for centralising the policy relating to polytechnics. However, I remind him that the present system of polytechnic policy is already highly centralised. I have a statutory responsibility for the distribution of all the money and for approving or disapproving well over 50,000 individual courses. We are putting the polytechnics in the same relation to Government as universities. They will enjoy much greater freedom and entrepeneurial independence.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the National Advisory Body's good management practice working group. That group necessarily had to operate on the assumption that the existing structure would continue. It was not asked to consider alternative structures, and would not have been the appropriate body to do so.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics made it absolutely clear in February that it favours the policy for polytechnics that we have announced. It stated that corporate status alone would not solve the problems and without direct funding, they are not convinced that it would go far enough. In support of my view, I quote a former Labour Minister in the Department of Education and Science, Mr. Gerry Fowler, who is the director of the North-East London polytechnic and who has clearly said that he wants the polytechnics to be independent.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must have regard to the business before the House. There is another statement after this, followed by a ten-minute rule application and an important debate in which there is enormous interest. I shall allow questions on this statement to continue until 4 o'clock and then we shall move to the next statement.
Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the additional £15 million that he has announced for scientific research will be extremely welcome? Does he agree that scientific research in our universities should be a seamless robe, from the acquisition of fundamental knowledge to improvements within existing technology? Will he commit himself to sustaining the whole of that robe and not just parts of it?
Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his support; I know that for many years he has taken a great interest in the scientific funding of our universities. The money provided will allow key scientists, programmes and

1095
research teams to be kept together. We all want good science—that is common ground across the House—and we want that science to come out more into the market place. It is evident from all our research funding that the link with technology transfer is not sufficiently strong. British industry simply does not spend enough on technology transfer and basic research development.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is the Secretary of State aware that I am happy to welcome some aspects of the report — [HON. MEMBERS: "Only some aspects?"] The right hon. Gentleman asks for such welcomes and I give them to him—particularly the Government's reversed attitude to cuts in higher educaton and research? With falling rolls, is he not missing a unique opportunity substantially to increase the percentage of people going through higher education? I note that he did not answer the previous question about the numbers in higher education in 1990. Will he answer that now? Is he aware that the Council for Industry and Higher Education, to which he referred earlier, commenting on the 4 per cent. increase, said that this was "at odds" with Britain's ambitions for prosperity and renewal?
Is the Secretary of State aware that we can welcome his statements on corporate status for polytechnics? But why must that once again be centralised? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is an extremely important statement on which we have several points to make.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Many other hon. Members wish to take part.
Mr. Ashdown: Indeed, Mr. Speaker.
Why does the Secretary of State believe that, in these circumstances, he must take that power? Will not that concentration of control over the polytechnics result in the polytechnics being less able to meet the needs of their communities?
Mr. Baker: As a result of the decline in the birth rate which started in 1966, the number of 18-year-olds in higher education in the 1990s will drop by a third. The projections on page 6 of the White Paper show that the numbers will dip in 1990–91 and then rise again. If we get our policies in place and change the qualification requirements of young people, I hope that we may be able to avoid that dip.
I have read carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said in the past few days about alliance policy on further education—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can you understand it?
Mr. Baker: It is quite difficult. The alliance policy carries a big price tag which rises into the billions, matching Labour Front Bench policies. But I shall return to that at a more propitious moment.
The hon. Gentleman and his party are not taking the right line if they object to our proposals for the polytechnics. Our policy is to increase their independence. The directors of polytechnics, and industry, want it and I am sure that it will result in much better relationships. I beg the hon. Gentleman not to commit his party to opposing that part of our policy.
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this positive statement which, despite the carping words of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), will be widely welcomed? Can he confirm that the additional 50,000
1096
students will be over and above the 160,000 to which he referred? Will he advise the House what the number of students in place was when Shirley Williams, the president of the SDP, was Secretary of State for Education and Science in a Labour Administration?
Mr. Baker: When the president of the SDP held the responsibility which I now hold, she cut student numbers and froze teachers' pay. When she held that position in a previous Government, she also came out in favour of student loans instead of student grants. I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) that the extra 50,000 students is over and above the 160,000, and that that means that when we came into office, one in eight of the 18-year-olds in our country could expect to go into higher education, but by the end of the century it will be one in five.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: I welcome the Secretary of State's conversion to Labour party policy in terms of wider access, but does he agree that, to make it successful, additional money must be made available for universities and polytechnics in real terms, taking into account the fact that during the lifetime of the Government on average they have suffered a reduction in their real unit of resource? Does he agree that, if we are to get more young poeple from working-class homes into higher education to use their talents and resources, we need a system whereby youngsters at the age of 16 years are persuaded to stay on for further and higher education? On that basis, what plans do the Government have for introducing a system of educational maintenance allowances?
Mr. Baker: We have no plans for the latter, because I do not believe that that will attract more people to stay on, and there is a great deal of deadweight expenditure involved in it. As to funding; we have witnessed over the last seven years an increase of 160,000 students — many of those 160,000 students come from, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, working class homes—who have been attracted into higher education because they see the benefits of it. It is as simple as that. As to funding of universities, there has been an increase in funding for 1987–88 of well over 10 per cent. That is the money that I announced before and after Christmas, and figure H of the White Paper shows planned increases over the next three years. By 1989–90, for the first time, the money that is spent on higher education will rise to over £4 billion.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his positive approach is profoundly welcomed by those of us who care deeply about education and is in marked contrast with the unmourned, and I hope now dead, Green Paper of 1985? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the attention which has been given to the polytechnics to give them the status that they have earned and achieved is particularly welcome? Cambridge is also grateful.
Mr. Baker: We should, as a country, take pride in the polytechnics. They are excellent institutions. [Interruption.] I said that as a country we should take pride in them. As I visit many of the polytechnics, I see courses and faculties which are often better than in many of the neighbouring universities, and I am glad to see that the number of first-class degrees given by polytechnics rose by 20 per cent. last year. Polytechnics will now have the

1097
independence that their maturity deserves and they will be able to establish a close relationship with local companies; that must be good for them.
Mr. Stan Thorne: Will the Secretary of State ensure that mature students can gain access to higher education through the provision of adequate family awards?
Mr. Baker: There has been a good increase in mature students—people who are aged 20, 30 or 40 years—going into higher education in the last few years; an increase of nearly a quarter. From memory, I think that they number between 40,000 to 50,000 a year. They tend to be funded in a variety of ways. If they have not gone into higher education first, they qualify for grants. Many of them are sponsored by companies, which is a growing practice that I warmly applaud and whenever I can I encourage companies to sponsor mature students.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his positively expansive programme for higher education. Is he aware of the warm welcome that his proposals for polytechnics will receive, not only from directors of polytechnics but also from teachers at polytechnics—I was such a teacher before I entered the House — but more importantly, from students in polytechnics, who will benefit from having teaching taken out of the party political arena and brought into an independent academic institution?
Mr. Baker: Many of the teachers, staff and faculties, apart from the directors, will welcome the independence that will come from not being subject to the control of the local education authority. They will be able to raise their own money much more freely. Many industries and companies will be willing to support them in the knowledge that their moneys will be directed to specific institutions for specific courses and disciplines and not merely to the local authority area. I am glad to say that the chairman of the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics, Dr. Rickett, made this clear effectively in a radio broadcast this morning.
Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State accept that £15 million will be entirely inadequate for research council funding generally, when that is merely the figure required in Wales to bring the Principality into parity with the rest of the United Kingdom? If there is to be a real increase from 2·5 per cent. for research council founding in Wales, the system will require much more than £15 million.
We support the right hon. Gentleman's access policy, but how does he equate the notion of greater access with today's reports that six departments in University college, Cardiff are facing closure? How does he equate that with the £20 million to be taken out of the university of Wales over the next two years? In the absence of a statement from the Secretary of State for Wales, will the right hon. Gentleman announce the Government's proposals for Wales in the light of the Graham report?
Mr. Baker: The circumstances that have brought University college, Cardiff to its present position are peculiar to that institution, as I think the hon. Gentleman is aware. It would not be productive or sensible to generalise on them. No changes are proposed for Wales
1098
because the Welsh system is smaller than the English one and only a few colleges concentrate on higher education, which means that the need for change is different from that in England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will consider making changes similar to those proposed for England if the Welsh Advisory Board does not demonstrate in its current review that it can offer advice based on national and not local considerations.
Mr. Steven Norris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as befits the senior partner in the Oxbridge duo, Oxford has a university and a polytechnic, which means that his announcement is doubly welcome? Will he take it from me that the key phrase in his statement about polytechnics is that of their coming of age? Many of us who have seen the excellent work that is going on at Oxford polytechnic, for example, thoroughly endorse the phrase and welcome my right hon. Friend's moves. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the £15 million for research council funding of which he has spoken, which is most welcome, comes on top of the £40 million which is additional grant this year for the councils, and will fund the extremely generous pay award of 24 per cent. for the staff of the research councils and allow them to continue their research?
Mr. Baker: I can give my hon. Friend all those assurances. The money that I made available for the university pay settlement was £170 million over three years. That was made available after Christmas. It allows for an increase in academic pay of about 24 per cent., with 16 per cent. payable from 1 December and 7 per cent. from March 1988. That is a demonstration of the importance that we attach to university teachers. The money is additional and it will ensure that research money is available for key scientists and to keep key teams together. Research grants will be given, but the allocation will depend on the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.
My hon. Friend mentioned Oxford polytechnic, which I remember visiting five or six years ago. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State visited it more recently. It is an outstandingly good and successful polytechnic.
Mr. Norris: Thank you.
Mr. David Clelland: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement reflects the Government's previous neglect of the education system and will be seen to have more to do with the approaching general election than a genuine interest in education? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that the university of Newcastle upon Tyne has recently announced a reduction of 140 academic posts as a direct result of the Government's policy, and his announcement will have little impact on that?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have asked universities to examine their priorities, and universities throughout the country are doing that. During the lifetime of this Government, Newcastle polytechnic and other polytechnics have flourished like the green bay tree. Newcastle polytechnic has expanded and developed, as have other institutions in Newcastle. I was impressed by the college of art and design at Newcastle, which is providing services and training for 16 to 19-year olds. That will continue under Newcastle city council. The hon. Gentleman should recognise the enormous expansion in higher education that has occurred under this Government.
Mr. David Crouch: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the extra £15 million that he has announced for research for the civil science Vote? In doing so he has proved once again that he is a listening Minister and that it is worth while for Back Benchers occasionally to make speeches in the small hours of the morning advocating a change in Government policy. We thank him very much.
Mr. Baker: In the past few weeks there has been a lot to listen to regarding scientific research. The debate that took place on the Consolidated Fund was certainly pointed, because the hon. Members who took part spoke forcefully of their experience of universities in their constituencies as well as their broader experience. I am glad that that debate contributed to allowing me to announce the increased expenditure today.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Why has the Secretary of State not waited for the report from the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education, "Management for a Purpose", which I gather his Department paid more than £350,000 to commission? It would have been useful if the Secretary of State had waited for that report, because there is a great deal of scepticism about the centralisation that is taking place. Although I agree about the coming of age of the polytechnics, one of the main functions of those polytechnics has been to bring the university sector into closer contact with their localities and industries—rather than the reverse. We are fearful that that could be lost by this centralisation and the proposals announced this afternoon.
Mr. Baker: When the hon. Gentleman sees the proposals in the White Paper, I think that he will appreciate that the present system is already highly centralised. I am trying to create polytechnics as independent, free-standing institutions funded by an
1100
independent council. It will be guided by advice from the holder of my office, but will have the same independence as the University Grants Committee has of Government.
With regard to the NAB working party, I saw the chairman a week ago and explained the Government's proposals. Indeed, I answered that point about 10 minutes ago.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the seven years since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) first proposed a polytechnic grants committee, nothing has happened other than to prove that the work of the polytechnics is too important to be left to the whims and prejudices of local councils? Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that, since the war, the only Government under whom the proportion of 18-year-olds entering higher education fell was the previous Labour Government when Mrs. Shirley Williams was Secretary of State?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend upon me to make the most of that—it is a two-barrelled gun. This failure was both under Labour and also when the president of the SDP was Secretary of State. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend with regard to polytechnics. I believe that. in the past few years, many directors of polytechnics have found it extremely irksome to be dependent upon political control. They have seen me — many of them are not particularly of Conservative persuasion—and have said that they cannot stomach any longer the nitpicking and political interference to which many of them have been subjected.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind those hon. Members who have not been called that if they put down questions this Friday they will be answered during education Questions on 28 April.

Higher Education (Scotland)
4.2 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on arrangements for planning and funding of higher education in Scotland announced in today's White Paper on higher education. This follows consultations on the recommendations in the report of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council on future strategy for higher education in Scotland and advice from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Croham committee on the University Grants Committee.
In my statement to the House on 17 July 1986, I said that the Government accepted STEAC's view that there is scope for improvement in the planning and co-ordination of provision in higher education by the universities and colleges in Scotland. In reaching decisions on the future, I have recognised that six out of eight Scottish universities opposed the central STEAC recommendation for a separate Scottish body with funding responsibilities for both the university and college sectors. I share the views of the universities that they should continue to be, and be seen to be, an integral part of the British university system and believe that that might be prejudiced by removing them from the British funding framework of the UGC and its successor.
Irrespective of the source of funding, it is, however, highly desirable that both the university and college sectors can plan the development of their provision in the knowledge of what other institutions in Scotland are planning to do. But knowledge is not enough—we need arrangements to ensure that plans can be discussed, adapted and co-ordinated to take account of what other institutions intend to do and to ensure that overall provision in both sectors is in line with likely national and local needs. That is why we announce in the White Paper that we propose to accept and build on the recommendations of the Croham committee that the proposed Universities Funding Council should have a Scottish committee. The committee will play an important part in planning higher education in Scotland. It is important that the Universities Funding Council and its Scottish committee should take into account the needs of Scottish higher education as a whole. To this end in future the Secretary of State for Scotland shall give the Universities Funding Council guidance on plans for the other sectors of higher education in Scotland and will expect it to have regard to his views on the implication of Scottish needs for the university sector. These will, of course, be consistent with guidance given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the Universities Funding Council. The UFC and the Secretary of State for Scotland will then be able to plan provision, with the help of the Scottish committee, in the university and college sectors respectively, with a clear knowledge of the implications of each other's plans.
I expect the committee to advise the UFC on the implications of the Scottish education system for the needs of the Scottish universities. It will, in consultation with my Department, consider the demand for higher education in Scotland and the balance of provision between its constituent parts. Appointments to the Scottish committee will be a matter for the Universities Funding Council in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I
1102
envisage that the committee will include members drawn from the non-university sector and employers as well as from the UFC and the universities and that there will be representation from the Scottish Office.
I believe that the establishment of a Scottish committee of the UFC on these lines will mark a very important development in the relationship of the Secretary of State for Scotland with the university sector, with far-reaching implications for the proper planning of higher education. For the first time he will have formal access to a group taking an overview of the needs of the Scottish university sector and will be able to discuss with them his views on the priorities for higher education in Scotland and the plans of the college sector.
I am confident that the arrangements will be welcomed by the universities in Scotland. They will be able to maintain their role as part of the British system, but will have a new focus for looking at Scottish needs. They will be better able to plan their provision in the light of knowledge of each other's plans and those of the central institutions. The central institutions for their part should welcome the more systematic opportunity afforded by the Scottish committee for joint planning between my Department and the universities on how demands from students and employers should be met. Most importantly, Scotland should benefit from the improved arrangements for co-ordination and planning of higher education to meet the changes envisaged by the White Paper between now and the end of the century.
Mr. Donald Dewar: The Secretary of State, perhaps typically, has opted for the least exciting possibilities open to him. To many of us on the Labour Benches his announcement sounds like a recipe for muddle and confusion.
Even in terms of the Croham report, is not the Secretary of State a minimalist? I concede that Croham offered a Scottish committee of the University Grants Committee, but it did so only if a Scottish planning and funding body was not established. The Secretary of State has made a great deal of the views of the six out of eight Scottish universities, but perhaps it would be more accurate to suggest that they were the views of six out of eight principals. In any event, they emphasised their fears about the peer group review. That matter was specifically referred to the Croham committee. Can the Secretary of State confirm that Croham made it clear, when considering the matter, that a separate funding solution would not affect or disrupt the maintenance of national standards or any other aspect of the peer group review as it presently operates?
Is not the Scottish sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council a poor apology for an effective, coordinating body, which would consider central institutions, colleges of education and universities, as recommended by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council report?
The new system means that the Secretary of State for Scotland, together with his colleague the Secretary of State for Education and Science, will intimate his views to the Universities Funding Council. The sub-committee is no more than a nod in the direction of consultation; a little bit of window-dressing that perhaps cannot do much harm, but certainly will not do much good.
The Secretary of State will be familiar with paragraph 8.19 of the Croham report which, when discussing the

1103
possibility of a Scottish sub-committee, advised that it would have the specific remit of looking at the existence of separate Scottish school examinations and four-year honours courses at the universities. The report said that it would consider, specifically,
"the proposed resource distribution as it affected Scottish universities".
Will he say whether that distribution of resources, in particular, will be part of the remit of the sub-committee he is establishing? If it disagrees with the Universities Funding Council, what will be its powers to do anything about it? Can it merely complain on the sidelines or can it really and effectively affect the outcome?
The Croham recommendation was that the Scottish Education Department or any sub-committee would be represented by an assessor. Will the Minister tell us whether it will be by an assessor on this occasion or will it be by direct appointment and, if so, why has there been a change? Will he accept that there is nothing in the sad and damaging cuts of recent years to suggest that Scottish universities will be safer as a result of the rejection of the STEAC proposals for an over-arching body?
The Secretary of State knows of the Opposition's commitment to a Scottish assembly—[Laughter.] There is a certain amount of nervous laughter by hon. Members. When that assembly is in being, it will have responsibility for the universities and for their separate funding. Will he note our regret that the chance has not been taken now to move in that direction and to accept the STEAC vision of an over-arching body with the necessary authority to plan and build a healthy future for higher education in Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: We have just had the somewhat ludicrous occurrence of the hon. Gentleman seeking to present himself as the champion of the Scottish universities while he simultaneously rebukes the Government for having accepted the representations of the Scottish universities. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He knows perfectly well that overwhelming opinion among Scottish universities was adverse to the recommendations of the STEAC committee in this respect. He knows also, or he ought to know, that even among the central institutions there was a difference of view, with a minority of the central institutions rejecting the recommendations of the STEAC committee.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of individual questions. He asked about peer review and suggested that the Croham committee had said that peer review need not be affected by separate funding of the Scottish universities. That is indeed the case. However, if the hon. Gentleman wished to be open and frank with the House he might have added that the Croham committee qualified that statement by suggesting that parity of research funding could not be guaranteed if British peer review advice was interpreted by separate funding bodies north and south of the border. As the Scottish universities have a legitimate interest in access to proper research funding, the hon. Gentleman might have reminded the House of that aspect of Croham's conclusions as well.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the membership of the Scottish committee.[Interruption.] He might advise his hon. Friends to remain silent while I am answering his questions. The hon. Gentleman asked about membership of the Scottish committee and I said in my opening statement that there would be representation from the
1104
Scottish Office. We shall naturally wish to have consultations on the detailed question of representation. but we wish to have a broad base of representation on the Scottish committee, which will include not only the Scottish Office but representatives of others with an interest in the work of the Scottish committee.
I was somewhat puzzled, surprised and disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Scottish committee of the sort we propose would have only what he chose to describe as cosmetic functions. He seems to have failed to appreciate that the announcement we are making today goes significantly beyond the recommendations of the Croham committee. The Croham committee merely suggested that there should be—
Mr. Dewar: You have rejected STEAC.
Mr. Rifkind: I am well aware of the fact that it rejected STEAC. I informed the hon. Gentleman that it rejected STEAC so he does not need to remind me of that fact. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that what we have announced today provides the Secretary of State for Scotland, for the first time, with a locus with regard to the universities to ensure that the interests of Scottish higher education are taken into account, to ensure that there is a minimum of duplication between the role of the central institutions and those of the universities and to ensure, as does the White Paper and my statement, that the proposed Universities Funding Council should have regard to the views of the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the needs of higher education in Scotland. That represents, for the first time, a significant development in our ability to co-ordinate higher education in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman might at least have had the grace to acknowledge that, even if he was disappointed that the STEAC recommendations were not being accepted.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to apply the same ruling to this statement as I applied to the previous one. In view of the pressure of business, I propose to allow questions to go on for a further 15 minutes. I remind hon. Members that there are Scottish questions on Wednesday next week.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is right to accept the wise advice of six out of the eight Scottish universities and set up a Scottish co-ordinating committee? Will he agree that there are more students in higher education in Scotland than ever before and that that shows how the additional finance put into education by the Government is paying off?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. The number of students in Scotland in higher education has increased by about 10,000 since the Labour Government left office in 1979.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State accept that there is a wide feeling of victimisation within Scottish universities at the way in which they are being treated, that there is particular discrimination against small universities and small departments and that there is mistrust as to whether the University Grants Committee does understand the Scottish dimension? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I have a constituency interest in the university of Aberdeen and am rector of the university of Dundee, both of which are facing savage cuts that will devastate their ability to face

1105
the future. Will he acknowledge that what he is proposing today is merely cosmetic and that there is no evidence that that body will be able to address itself to the fundamental problems facing Scottish universities? Is he prepared to accept that that is the case, that more action will be needed and that more funding for Scottish universities and colleges will he necessary?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has made a general and unqualified statement. If he is seeking to imply that he wishes that the recommendations of STEAC had been accepted, he has to explain why he takes a view that is contrary to the representations made by the university of Aberdeen and the university of Dundee, of which he says he is the rector. He does not seem to be in touch with opinion in the two universities to which he has chosen to refer. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.
Mrs. Anna McCurly: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the new committee provides a proper forum for providing funds for small but significant research programmes in Scotland, which the UGC has failed to do?
Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of the Scottish committee is to ensure that the new Universities Funding Council will have full access to information as to the particlar needs of Scottish universities and will, therefore, be able to take into account those needs and the needs of higher education in Scotland overall in coming to its decisions.
Mr. Bruce Milian: Is the Secretary of State aware that the structure he has announced today, with a sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council, having no executive powers, acting only in an advisory capacity and subject to the guidance of the Secretary of State, is completely inadequate to meet the basic recommendation of STEAC, which was that we need a coherent, single planning and funding body for university and non-universiety sectors of higher education in Scotland? The structure announced today does not even meet the need for a single planning body, leaving the question of funding aside. Seven out of the eight universities want a single planning body.
Mr. Rifkind: I have to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the precise role of the Scottish Office in future will be to provide that planning and co-ordinating responsibility of the sort to which I have drawn attention in my statement. For the first time the Scottish Office will not only be involved in the planning and funding of the central institutions in Scotland, but will have the right and responsibility to be involved in the co-ordination of the central institutions with the Scottish universities. The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that, where the majority of Scottish universities and a number of the central institutions made representations against the proposals put by STEAC, it is a sensible outcome to have a situation where the involvement of the Scottish universities in the United Kingdom as a whole is maintained.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he was Secretary of State for Scotland and the subject of devolution was considered, the Government of which he was a member rejected the idea of the Scottish universities
1106
being devolved to a separate funding arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman had better reconcile what he said then with what he says now.
Sir Alex Fletcher: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that both of today's statements should help to improve standards and value for money in higher education? Does he agree that colleges and universities could contribute to those aims by re-examining the academic year? The principal of Aberdeen university has shown how that might be done, and he should have the support of Ministers and academics.
Mr. Rifkind: That is a matter for the university of Aberdeen to determine, and I do not wish to comment on it. One of our objectives is to ensure that there is a proper use of resources and that unnecessary duplication is avoided. There has been occasional duplication of resources between the central institutions and the Scottish universities — for example, in the subject areas of engineering and technology, business and management, and architecture and town and country planning. The proposals have been announced to ensure better coordination of provision.
Mr. Jim Craigen: Does not the nature of the sub-committee for Scotland give us the worst of both worlds? Is there not a danger that the Secretary of State for Scotland may end up playing second fiddle to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who will now be involved in the Scottish universities? What guarantees can the Secretary of State offer that the Universities Funding Council, which will appoint the sub-committee with his agreement, will not end up with a creature that suits it?
Mr. Rifkind: Because the appointment of members to the Scottish committee will be planned in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have already outlined the broad spectrum of people—from a broad spectrum of backgrounds—that I would expect to serve on that committee.
The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I subscribe to a common policy of government. My role will be to ensure that proper account is taken of the interests of higher education in Scotland and that the role of the central institutions and universities in Scotland are more effectively co-ordinated. The universities in Scotland want that co-ordination to be effected without it being done at the expense of the great value that they rightly attach to their presence as part of the United Kingdom university structure.
Mr. Barry Henderson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement is most welcome, not only because he has accepted the advice that I gave in the Scottish Grand Committee in January of last year, but because Scotland will get the best of both worlds? Students from all parts of Great Britain will continue to be able to come to high quality universities such as the university of St. Andrews.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that possibly the most important and welcome news that we have heard this afternoon has been that scientific research will continue without pause this year, and that more young Scots will have access to higher education in the years to come than ever before?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is indeed correct that the announcement of an additional £15 million for research that was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science earlier will make a valuable contribution to ensuring the smooth continuation of important research during the years to come.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State concede that what we all want is a Scottish higher education system that meets the needs of the 21st century? We are concerned that the sub-committee will not hold to systematic views, but be a pantomime horse that will try to face in both directions at once. There will be no co-ordination or thrust in relation to the needs of Scottish education, now or in the future. We desire a thrustful organisation, a spearhead, a planning organisation, and that has manifestly not been included in the statement.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman makes a bland statement without supporting evidence. He must acknowledge that the views that he has expressed are flatly contradicted by the vast majority of those in the universities of Scotland, and he will have to explain that.
Mr. Allan Stewart: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement of the future involvement of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Universities Funding Council and the Scottish committee. That is clearly a major step forward.
My right hon. and learned Friend has said that there is a clear need, accepted by everyone, for effective planning across the binary divide in Scotland. Is he satisfied that the system—it is essentially a guidance system—that he has announced will achieve that? As regards his point about demand, does he agree that the crucial figures are the participation rates in higher education in Scotland, which have been excellent in recent years? Can he give the House any guidance on how those figures are likely to go next year?
Mr. Rifkind: I believe that the UFC and the Scottish committee will have the same interest in the proper co-ordination of higher education in Scotland as would the Scottish Office. That will represent substantial progress.
On participation in higher education in Scotland, my hon. Friend knows that the White Paper is based on an assumption that the proportion of young people who will have qualifications for entry into higher education in the United Kingdom as a whole will have reached 20 per cent. by the end of the century. I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that Scotland reached that figure in 1980. By 1985–86, the proportion in Scotland was 23 per cent. That shows the great opportunities that are available for higher education in Scotland under this Government.
Mr. Tom Clarke: When the Secretary of State referred to six out of eight universities, if he did not mean exclusively vice-chancellors and principals, precisely whose opinions did he take into account before making his statement? Why has he disregarded the overwhelming—if not unanimous—view of students, who supported the STEAC recommendations about an over-arching body? Why has the Secretary of State rejected their views?
Mr. Rifkind: I am not aware of any referendums having been held in the universities of Scotland to establish the
1108
views of students as a whole. Such referendums have not been held. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's assessment of students' opinions is no better or worse than that of anyone else. We are entitled to assume that the views of university principals — unless they have been repudiated by the university courts or senates — represent the views of the universities. If the hon. Gentleman were able to inform me that the majority of university principals were in favour of the STEAC recommendations, he would not have tried to suggest that that was of little value in determining opinion in the universities.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the considerations that led the last Labour Government to believe that the integrity of the British university systems should prevent the Scottish universities' removal from that are as powerful now as they were then.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Scottish universities enjoy exceptionally generous funding compared with those in England and Wales? I have seen figures that suggest that they receive as much as 25 per cent. more. Can he confirm that the new system will not prejudice that, since funding under a Scottish Office body might? Are we not witnessing yet another example of the Opposition's Scottish assembly dogma being put before the interests of the people of Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: No, I would not suggest that the Scottish universities are funded better or worse than universities elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Because the Scottish universities have four-year degree courses, they require additional funding for each student, compared with that for students in universities with three-year degree courses. That means that a higher proportion of funding goes to Scottish universities.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: May I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that, contrary to the ridiculous nonsense uttered by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), his statement will be welcomed in Aberdeen, particularly by the Robert Gordon's institute of technology, which will now be able to increase its number of science and technology students? Is my right hon. and learned Friend also aware that his statement will be welcomed by the university of Aberdeen with the demise of the University Grants Committee? Will the Universities Funding Council look closely at the need for Aberdeen university to have more money for research, rather than have penalties imposed upon it by the UGC?
Mr. Rifkind: The Universities Funding Council has not yet come into existence, so it is difficult for me to anticipate what its view will be. But I remind my hon. Friend of the important announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, that the resources for research at universities in the United Kingdom are being increased substantially.
Mr. John Corrie: Will any organisations have a right to serve on the Scottish committee, or will they simply have to take their chance? Does my right hon. and learned Friend hope to see employers' organisations on the committee, so that there is some industrial input, in these days when we require more industry?
Mr. Rifkind: Members of the proposed Scottish committee will be there as individuals rather than representing organisations, but I have said that I envisage that the committee will include members drawn from the non-university sector and employers, as well as from the UFC, and that there will be representations from the universities in Scotland as well as from the Scottish Office.
Mr. Alexander Pollock: May I take it from what my right hon. and learned Friend has told the House that the proposal will preserve the university framework in Great Britain, with a clear Scottish dimension within that framework? Is he satisfied that the importance of higher education throughout Scottish society will be fully recognised and pressed by the Scottish angle of the new body?
Mr. Rifkind: I firmly believe that the proposals that we have announced today represent the best of both worlds for the Scottish universities because they not only provide continuing integration of the United Kingdom structure, which is what the universities want, but, for the first time, they enable a sensible co-ordination of the needs of higher education in Scotland, which both the Scottish universities and the central institutions recognise as being important to their future.

Questions to Ministers
4.31 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall not complain unduly at the fact that today's was the second environment Question Time when, unfortunately, I failed to catch your eye—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Yes. Part of the reason for that is that questions tend to be rather long on both sides of the House. On the Labour Front Bench, we have seven shadow Ministers who all seem to want to intervene at least twice, which cuts the time for Back Benchers to ask questions.
Question No. 3, asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), was about Fulham football club. I wanted to ask a question about Chelsea football club, which is also very much under threat—
Mr. Speaker: Order. With great respect, I anticipated that. That question was about Fulham. I did not think that Chelsea would be in order.
Mr. Banks: I think that I could have found a way of linking the two, but that is not the point.
The point is this. The Minister responsible for sport was present at that time. We do not have many opportunities to direct questions at him. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you exercise some judgment when it is the turn of a Minister to answer questions, who is not often put at the Dispatch Box—given his performance, one can understand why. That should be an opportunity for us to ask direct questions of a Minister who is not often in the Chamber. In future, when such an opportunity arises, will you exercise some discretion, Mr. Speaker, and allow the questions to run on for a little while?
Mr. Speaker: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman said, but, with the greatest respect, I cannot use my discretion to allow supplementaries to go wide of a question. The course that the hon. Gentleman should take is to table questions and hope that they come near the top of the list on the Order Paper.

Hon. Member for Ynys Môn
4.33 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am raising a matter of which I have informed you. I have also informed the hon. Member concerned.
The hon. Member in question, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best), has just made a statement that he made multiple applications for British Telecom shares. In view of that statement, Mr. Speaker, have you heard that it is the hon. Gentleman's intention to make a personal statement to the House, on his own admission, which may be a serious crime?
Mr. Speaker: I have not had any intimation at all of a personal statement, and I do not know anything about that matter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that anything can arise. It is not a matter of order.
Mr. Skinner: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is well known that Members of Parliament are supposed to put statements about shares and their interests in various matters in the Register of Members' Interests. I should like to know—[Interruption.] Just hear this out. In future, we must make sure that we have a full and comprehensive register. When people make multiple applications for shares in companies that have been privatised, for which they have voted in the House, will you see to it, Mr. Speaker, that that is included? Would it be a sensible item to include on the register in future, because—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the hon. Gentleman. He should take up that matter with the Committee concerned. It is not a matter of order.
Mr. Skinner: Well, you pass it on. You are supposed to be in charge.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not my role. He must make his own decisions in these matters.

Hon. Member for Ynys Môn
  BILL PRESENTED

    DARTFORD-THURROCK CROSSING
    Mr. Secretary Moore, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. Secretary Channon and Mr. Peter Bottomley, presented a Bill to provide for the construction of a bridge over the River Thames between Dartford in Kent and Thurrock in Essex and of associated works; to provide for the Secretary of State to be the highway authority for the highways passing through the tunnels under that river between Dartford and Thurrock and their approaches, instead of Kent and Essex County Councils; to provide for the. levying of tolls, by a person appointed by the Secretary of State or by the Secretary of State, in respect of traffic using the crossing; to provide for transfers of property arid liabilities of those Councils to the person appointed and the Secretary of State and for the transfer to the Secretary of State of property and liabilities of the person appointed on termination of his appointment; to provide for the management of the crossing, including the imposition of prohibitions, restrictions and requirements in relation to traffic, and otherwise in relation to the crossing; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 126.]
    Mr. Speaker: We now come to the ten-minute Bill. [Interruption.] Order.
    Mr. Skinner: Why do you not tell the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and his hon. Friend instead of picking on Labour Members?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very unseemly to shout across the Chamber in that way.

Housebuyers' Protection Bill
4.36 pm
Mr. Alfred Dubs: I beg to move,
The leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure the registration for public inspection of the selling prices of all residential properties; and for connected purposes.
I shall break all the records for brevity in introducing the Bill, but it is a matter of importance.
For most people, buying a house or flat is the biggest financial transaction of their life, yet that decision is made with less knowledge than when they buy, for example, a second-hand motor car or a packet of cornflakes. The key problem to which my Bill directs itself is that the buyer of a house or flat does not know how much to offer when he or she looks at an estate agent's list. Of course the asking price is published, but we all know that, while sometimes the asking price will be identical to the selling price, at others there may be a 20 or 30 per cent. difference between the two. Estate agents—perhaps not surprisingly—are rather secretive about the prices at which their properties sell.
My Bill is simplicity itself. It provides that, when a house or flat is sold, the price at which it changes hands will be registered for inspection, probably at the local town hall or Inland Revenue office. The information to be given will be the price of the property—I am talking about residential properties only—the date of the transaction and whether the property was sold freehold or leasehold. The name of the purchaser or the seller will not be published. Indeed, that information is already made available to the Inland Revenue at the Land Registry, but is not published by it, so the cost of that procedure would be minimal.
1114
The advantage is that when anyone seeks to buy a property in a particular area, all he or she has to do is to inspect the lists on which are shown the dates of transaction and prices of similar properties that have been sold in the recent past. That enables the buyer to make his or her offer for the property with much more knowledge than ever before. The results will be to stabilise prices—not to control them, because demand and supply will still affect the price levels; but the Bill will have at least some effect in lessening the likelihood of gazumping because better knowledge of prices will give people less incentive to leap over a price that has already been partially agreed.
The Bill will also help in the valuation of properties, and in some instances it will even be of help to sellers. I cannot speak for all estate agents, but the few with whom I have discussed the Bill seem to think that it is not a had idea. I say most emphatically that I do not regard this provision as an invasion of privacy. The individual's name would not be involved. I believe that this is a simple and effective way of protecting consumers in their capacity as buyers of property and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. John Fraser, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Nick Raynsford, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. George Howarth and Mr. David Clelland.

Housebuyers' Protection Bill
  HOUSEBUYERS' PROTECTION BILL
  Mr. Alfred Dubs accordingly presented a Bill to ensure the registration for public inspection of the selling prices of all residential properties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 1 May and to be printed [Bill 131.]
Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice Bill
  As amended, (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
New clause 1

  DEATH PENALTY
  'A person convicted by the unanimous verdict of a jury of the premeditated killing of another person or of knowingly and intentionally killing another person in a manner, or for a reason, or in circumstances which a reasonable person would consider to be evil, shall suffer death in the manner authorised by law.'.
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) to move the new clause, I announce to the House that I have selected amendments (a), (b), and (c) to the new clause. I repeat what I said earlier. An enormous number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I have no way of limiting the length of speeches. However, it would be very helpful today if an average of 10 minutes per speech could he achieved. That would mean that a great many right hon. and hon. Members would be called.
  4.41 pm
  Sir Ian Percival: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I start from the premise that every single right hon. and hon. Member is greatly concerned about the level of violence in this country, that we all have an equal concern for the sanctity of life, and that we are all equally conscious of the responsibility that rests on our shoulders for the safety of those whose lives are at risk from criminals. I hope that every hon. Member will start from the same premise. That is to say, that no one has a monopoly of those thoughts or values. The difference between us is that those who support the new clause sincerely believe that the death penalty has a part to play in connection with those concerns and responsibilities. We do not claim that the death penalty will resolve all the evil violence with which our society is beset. However, we do claim that it has a role to play in lessening it.
  I will explain fully to the House why I say that, but first I want to deal quickly with one or two generalities. Some people say—I think mainly to divert attention from the real issues—"Why again and why now?". The answer is quite simple. The reason we say that the House should consider the subject again is that we are putting a new approach before the House — and we are putting it before the House at a time when there has been a rising tide of evil, the like of which I have never seen in my life. We believe that the House should debate the new approach in the light of the new circumstances, and we believe that the public expects the House to do that. With regard to the question "Why now?", it is because the Bill is the perfect, if not the only, vehicle for raising the issue before the House, and it was inevitable once the Bill was presented that this debate would take place at this stage.
  Next I want to consider another but quite different generality. There are some who will always say that in no circumstances is it permissible for anyone to take life, and
  1116
  that the worst of all is for the state to take life because that sets an example of brutality. I do not agree with that. I shall endeavour to show why I think that it is wrong, but it is a point of view. Neither part of that has ever been accepted by the majority of this House.
  It has always been accepted that the death penalty is the appropriate penalty for treason and that the state has the right to execute those found guilty. Less well known outside the House is the fact that our service men are liable to execution if convicted of any one of five offences. It is well known in this House because as recently as 10 April 1986 there was an attempt, no doubt very sincere, to abolish those penalties. In fact, that was defeated by a majority of 3:1, and it is interesting to note that that majority included a significant number of hon. Members who on other occasions have voted against the death penalty. Maybe some of them have changed their minds. Whether that is so or not, it is clear that for the majority the question is not whether anyone guilty of any crime should ever be executed, but which ones should be executed. That is the question to which we who have tabled the new clause have addressed our minds, producing in the result a wholly new approach.
  Immediately after the war, there were great debates in the House and in another place on this very issue. The then Archbishop of Canterbury put forward a view that was pretty representative of others when he said that, although he felt that the weight of experience and argument was against the abolition or suspension of the death penalty at that point, he was against returning to the state where it was the automatic penalty for all murder, and he hoped that someone would propose a way of discriminating between the less heinous and the more heinous, and he felt that if someone did so that would be a real step forward.
  In an attempt to meet that., the Government of the day brought forward such a proposal based on a list principle. It listed certain types of murder that were supposed to be more heinous than others. That was enacted in statutory form in the Homicide Act 1957, and in my opinion that was a disaster. It led to the Lord Chief Justice of the day saying later, in 1964, that he was for the abolition of the death penalty not on any moral grounds, but merely because the Homicide Act 1957 was so bad. I would need a great deal of persuading before I would support any return to any kind of list because any kind of list necessarily involves a real danger of terrible anomalies. We have sought to meet the archbishop's point while avoiding the pitfalls of the list system.
  I want to explain briefly to the House how the proposal would work because there has been the most fearful misunderstanding or misrepresentation, call it what you like. The system would work like this: the judge would have to say to the jury, "Ladies and gentlemen, you have to be sure, and unanimous, that the accused killed the person referred to. You have to be sure that it was premeditated or that it was done knowingly arid intentionally. But that is not enough. You must also be sure, all of you, that the manner, reason or circumstances in which it was done was such that any reasonable person would consider it to be evil." The judge would say, "I cannot define evil to you. That is for you, the members of the jury, to exercise your qualitative judgment." There is nothing new in that. Already in many cases a qualitative judgment must be exercised by the jury. Where a qualitative judgment is required, what better body to exercise that judgment than a jury?

  1117
  Two objections have been raised to that so far. One was raised this morning that, on the drafting, two offences are created, one up to the first "or" in the new clause and one after. I do not think that that is so. Even so, there is nothing in that point which, if it is a defect, cannot easily be cured by including the words, "in either case done". On that point, if there is a defect, it can readily be put right and I would agree to doing that to remove any doubt.
  The other objection is on the question of the definition of evil. I do not think that a jury would have difficulty with the word "evil". It is not a word that I dreamt up. It has been used by judges frequently recently. I noticed two cases in the past 10 days—they have nothing to do with my use of the word — where the judges in sentencing said, "You are evil men." "These were evil crimes". In any case, the system would work as follows. For example, if Hindawi had succeeded in killing 376 people, would any jury have had any doubt or would it have taken them more than five seconds to decide on the requirement of evil? Hon. Members do not appreciate that there is a built-in fail-safe provision in that if just one member of the jury says, "No, I am not sure", there can be no conviction under the clause.
  I do not claim that my wording is perfect. but I know that if the new clause is carried there will be the most rigorous examination by everyone who is interested, including both Houses of Parliament and all the lawyers. I would in no sense resent that. On the contrary, any assistance which would improve the wording would be most welcome. It would be as flattering as it would be unlikely that I had got it exactly right first time.
  Mr. Charles Morrison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend address himself to a problem relating to the jury? He will agree that a sizeable minority of people, among whom I number myself, oppose the death penalty. As some members of any jury are likely to be drawn from that number, what are the chances of anyone being found guilty by a unanimous verdict?
  Sir Ian Percival: That problem is not new. It has always been with us, and it existed when juries tried murder cases when we had the death penalty. The answer is that no one with very strong views either way should sit on the jury if it can be avoided, and judges have ways of indicating this to those who are liable to serve. [Interruption.] I gave way to an old friend, but from now on I shall do my best to follow your wishes, Mr. Speaker, and, in the interests of brevity, to resist the temptation to deal with every point, let alone with interventions.
  The other main question is whether we should have the death penalty even in such a limited area. Here again let me get rid of some of the generalities. This is not a debate about hanging. I deplore the way in which that word is continually used to send shivers down people's spines. We are debating whether or not we should have the death penalty. If the new clause is accepted, every hon. Member will agree that there must be careful consideration of the most humane method. There is much loose talk about brutalising, but I am probably the only hon. Member to have spoken to the executioner. He is a constituent of mine and a less brutalised man it would be hard to find.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the debate is about the death
  1118
  penalty, is it in order to raise the conviction of Mr. Hindawi for a crime for which he could not have been hanged even if the proposed new clause had been law?
  Mr. Speaker: It is for every hon. Member to make his own speech and I do not intend to interfere in that.
  Sir Ian Pecival: I was merely giving an instance of a case in which the jury would have had no difficulty in deciding that what had been done was evil.
  Mr. Bob Clay: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Sir Ian Percival: No, I will not give way.
  Mr. Clay: What about the Birmingham six?
  Sir Ian Percival: Next, some suggest that one is civilised if one is against the death penalty and uncivilised if one is not. That is a most arrogant assertion. There is no need for the death penalty in a civilised society—but first find a civilised society! To suggest that those of us who support the death penalty are uncivilised is a great impertinence—and very pompous. There is a word for it in Yiddish, "chutzpah".
  I shall continue to resist the temptation to deal with every point that is raised, but I intend to deal head-on with the three matters which I know are of most concern to people who are really interested in this issue — the special problems regarding terrorism, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland; whether capital punishment is a deterrent; and the risk of executing an innocent person.
  I intend the new clause to apply to terrorism, including terrorism in Northern Ireland, exactly as it applies to other kinds of killing of such a heinous nature as to come within the provisions of the clause.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Bill, which has been before the House for some time, does not apply to Northern Ireland. Moreover, Northern Ireland does not have trial by jury. I am not trying to make a funny point. I am concerned about Northern Ireland. Given the nature of the Bill, how could the new clause apply to Northern Ireland?
  Sir Ian Percival: It would, of course, have to be applied by means of another provision. I am simply stating frankly that I intend it to apply across the board in an attempt to grasp a nettle about which I know that people feel strongly.
  Some will say that we cannot execute terrorist killers in Northern Ireland— a part of our own country—for fear of the consequences and that we must therefore reject the death penalty for all other killings, even those carried out by international gangs. I agree that we must be consistent and that if something is to be done it must be done across the board, but I disagree with the conclusion that I have just described.
  The killings carried out by the IRA are among the most cold blooded, savage and brutal even in this evil world. Members of the IRA use the death penalty to punish their own people, to deter them from committing what they consider to be crimes and to ensure that they obey orders. They also use it against members of organisations which oppose them, and against the public to deter them from exercising their fundamental rights and freedoms. The common element of all of that is that of deterrence. Why, then, should we ourselves not use the death penalty as a punishment and a deterrent for them?
  Sir Ian Gilmour: The new clause refers to convictions
  "by the unanimous verdict of a jury".
  How can that apply when there is no jury?
  Sir Ian Percival: I am coming to that. I must be firmer in resisting the temptation to deal with each intervention as it arises. I will deal with these issues in my own time and in my own way. The House will find that I shall not seek to duck any matter of importance.
  We are told that we should not use the death penalty because it would create martyrs. I echo the view on this expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) on previous occasions and his attitude to it when Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. But I add this—if there is anyone who believes that the killing of a father in cold blood in the presence of his wife and children is the stuff of which martyrs are made, we should tell such people exactly what we think of them and not cringe before them. It is further said that if we dared to threaten to execute we would he faced with reprisals and that hostages would be taken and killed. That is as good as saying that we dare not do it. I believe that we have to say, unpleasant as it is—as we have said to many a thug in the past— that if it is right, necessary and proper to do something, we dare do it. It is not something to be said lightly but we cannot duck it, particularly when we are talking about our own country.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know exactly where we are in relation to this. If carried, this will apply, as I understand it. to England and Wales, not to Scotland or Northern Ireland. Even if it were carried, therefore, it would be necessary to have consequential amendments, obviously in the other place—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter of order for me. The hon. Member takes up a great deal of time and I am anxious to call as many Back Benchers as possible. I cannot answer questions like that.
  Mr. Heffer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I may be taking up time but I have to inform you that you are responsible for the conduct of business. I am now going to ask you again: if this is carried, will it or will it not apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland and then what will happen about getting it to apply? How would we proceed?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a question which should correctly be put to the right hon. and learned Member who is moving the new clause.
  Mr. Heffer: He cannot do it.
  Sir Ian Percival: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that both you and right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that the more inverventions of one kind or another that there are, the longer it may take to make the points which I want to put across. I hope that the House will bear that in mind.
  The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It would be necessary for these provisions, if carried, to be extended. I am merely looking the problem straight in the eye and emphasising the need for consistency.
  I have already answered the point about fear of reprisals, but I would add that when we do not have the death penalty we have convicted terrorists on our hands in prison for life, with the consequent threat that hostages may be taken and may be killed. I have no doubt that the present Home Secretary and Secretary of State for
  1120
  Northern Ireland will disagree with what I am saving. I greatly respect their views, both as individuals and as holders of those important offices. However, I am comforted in taking a different view by the fact that at least one previous Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned' Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), and one recent Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, have expressed different views. I also bear in mind that in our debate in 1983 there were those who, as they said, were at the cutting edge, and who expressed different views.
  I am aware of the impossibility of having a unanimous jury verdict in a country where there are no jury trials, but I am not dealing with how the legislation would be applied. I refuse to duck the issue. There were those in the last debate who said that they did not agree, that there could not be juries. My point is that we must make provision for enforcing our law throughout our own land. The proposition that we cannot do what we believe to be right, proper and necessary to protect life in our own country because of threats from criminals of what they will do in retaliation is simply unacceptable.
  Turning to deterrence, I would like first to put it in its proper context. Any judge in considering sentence has to have in mind at least four considerations. One is punishment — and I sometimes think that some hon. Members leave that one out. We cannot leave it out. It is one of the essential elements of sentencing—and there are many who believe not only that there should be punishment but that it should bear some relation to the crime. Another element is prevention, to ensure that the offender is, as far as possible, prevented from doing it again. A third element is the effect that the sentence would have on the rehabilitation of the accused—of course it is—and the fourth is the deterrent value of the sentence. The sentence itself is, however, only one of the three elements of deterrence. The first is the fear of being caught, the second the fear of being convicted and the third the fear of what will happen after conviction.
  Let me get rid of some of the wilder statements. Sonic people have said recently that there is overwhelming evidence that the death penalty does not deter. That is nonsense. Others have said that the statistics give no support for the proposition. Of course they do not, because the only people who appear in statistics are those who have not been deterred. The ones who have been deterred never become part of the statistics, nor do the potential victims of their crimes, thank God.
  I ask the House to look at the question from the point of view, first of all, of common sense and then from the point of view of the evidence that we have had. It is simply flying in the face of reason to say that the fear of death will not deter some people. It is a total fallacy to say that because it does not deter everybody it would not deter some. One might just as well say that life imprisonment does not deter anyone because it does not deter everyone.
  Perhaps I could here remind the House of one aspect of the sentence of life imprisonment. If it means what it says—and unless it does it is not much of a deterrent—it is a fierce punishment. It means locking up a person for the rest of his natural life, killing him off at whatever speed it takes him to die. One might even ask if it is any more humane. Of course, those who oppose the death penalty suggest that if we ask convicted criminals which they would rather have they will choose the second. So they would, almost invariably, but surely that only serves to

  1121
  confirm the view of those who agree with me that the vast majority fear death more than they fear life imprisonment. That is why they would rather have life imprisonment than death. So it is a greater deterrent to those who can be deterred, not a complete deterrent but demonstrably a greater deterrent than life imprisonment. That leads in my view to but one conclusion.
  I would also ask the House to look at this in the light of some known facts. Since 1964, when the last execution took place, the total of murders and section 2 manslaughters has gone up from 85 to 238. Some say "That is not too serious, some 70 per cent. of those murdered are killed by someone whom they knew." That is a strange proposition. It could be just as nasty to be killed by a friend. But even if that is so, and even if one discounted all those, the increase in the others, the professional crimes, I find very disturbing and significant in this context the fact that it has happened since abolition.
  I find it also the more convincing when taken together with two other facts. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that in 1965, when we were talking about abolition, the police said that professional criminals did not carry firearms because of the risk of their killing someone and losing their own lives. Indeed, the police said that so strong was the fear—the fear of death—that before criminals went on a job everyone was searched and if someone was found to have a gun he was out of that gang for ever. The police said that if the fear of death was taken away, those vicious men would carry guns which they would use, primarily to terrify, but if necessary to kill. That stands to reason because if someone is faced with 30 to 35 years in prison for armed robbery, if apprehended, what has he got to lose by killing the person who might apprehend him?
  Every single word of what was said to us then has come about. In 1972, the first year for which we have figures, there were 254 offences in which a pistol was used; in 1985 there were 1,390 such offences. The same applies to all other firearms used in armed robberies. The same applies to the carrying of knives. That seems to many of us to be a clear indication that life imprisonment is not as powerful a deterrent as the fear of death. Following the removal of the fear of death we have seen a rise in violent crimes generally in which weapons are used and an increase in the number of deaths.
  The second point turns on a point made frequently by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) who speaks with such authority on these matters. He is quoted and relied upon by the Howard League on this. He has said:
  "Ninety seven per cent. of homicides are cleared up."—
  and I say immediately that that is a fine record. He continued:
  "That is the best deterrent."
  But surely that is disproved by his own words.
  The deterrents are said to be the fear of being caught, the fear of conviction and finally the fear of the penalty that will be received. What my hon. Friend's figures show is that, although there is a 97 per cent. chance that the person who kills will be caught and convicted, such people are not deterred by the prospect of life imprisonment. Surely the right inference to draw is that if those concerned thought that there was a 97 per cent. chance of being
  1122
  caught and convicted, and then losing their lives, that must surely be a greater deterrent, not to all but to a substantial proportion.
  Mr. John Wheeler: Surely the alternative to what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said is that most of these crimes are committed by people who do not think rationally about the consequences, which is why his ultimate penalty would be of no value.
  Sir Ian Percival: I have already conceded that there are some who will not be deterred by anything. I am talking about those who can be deterred. I do not accept that there are people who cannot be deterred. In respect of those who can be deterred the conclusion to be drawn from my hon. Friend's proposition is in my view the opposite of his.
  The third point, which is the one that has given me most concern over the years, is the risk of a mistake. I have always regarded with horror the possibility of anyone being wrongfully convicted of anything. For anyone in the House to be wrongly convicted of the theft of £5 would be dreadful. I view with horror the possibility of a mistaken conviction resulting in an innocent man or woman being locked up in prison until he or she dies, and that is a risk that we take now, I view with even greater horror the possibility of an innocent man being executed because, as has been rightly said, there is no way of putting that right.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Yes, there is—the royal pardon.
  Sir Ian Percival: I am sure that every person who has ever taken part in a trial in which a person's life was at stake must have shared my view and must have taken every conceivable care to see that a mistake was not made.
  I think that there is great exaggeration about the assertions as to mistakes that have been made. Many of the allegations are I think ill-founded. Nevertheless, I accept that there is a risk, and that there always must be, but that is not, as so many seem to think, the end of the matter. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen thought that that was cheapening the debate, they may think that I was being a bit offensive, but that is what I think.
  5.15 pm
  There is, in fact, no course open to us that does not entail the risk of death for innocent persons if mistakes are made. What we have to weigh against the risk of executing an innocent person if we have the death penalty is the risk that other innocent persons will lose their lives if we do not have the death penalty. I refer to three categories. A number of people have been killed by those who, having murdered, were sent to prison and later released. I was surprised and horrified to hear that the total for the past 20 years is 33; that is, the lives of 33 innocent people have been lost because of mistakes. I do not criticise those who made the mistakes. It is easy to be clever with hindsight, but the fact is that 33 people who could still be alive lost their lives because of mistakes.
  There are those who are at risk from those convicted of murder, such as prison officers and other prisoners. There are those innocent people who are at risk if, as we believe, the death penalty really is a deterrent and we deny the protection of that deterrent to our citizens. I conclude that, on balance, the risk that innocent people will lose their lives through mistakes is far greater if we do not have the death penalty than if we have it.
  Lastly, I want—
  Mr. Peter Thomas: Before my right hon. and learned Friend finishes, will he clear up one matter which has disturbed me? I have listened carefully to his speech. Does he wish us at the conclusion of the debate to vote for the principle that he has enunciated in his speech, that capital punishment will follow only when there is a unanimous verdict by a jury that a reasonable person would feel that the killing was evil, or does he wish us to vote for the terms of the new clause? I am sure that he has considered its terms. If he reads it, he will see that any interpretation by a court of those terms would mean that there are two categories of capital murder. If we are to vote for this, are we not voting for the proposition that
  "A person convicted by the unanimous verdict of a jury of the premeditated killing of another person … shall suffer death in the manner authorised by law"
  or the alternative, which is that
  "A person convicted by the unanimous verdict of a jury of …intentionally killing another person in a manner, or for a reason, or in circumstances which a reasonable person would consider to be evil, shall suffer death in the manner authorised by law."
  There are two categories. If we are to vote for—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt but that is a very long intervention.
  Sir Ian Percival: My right hon. and learned Friend, who is an old and valued friend, cannot have been present when I dealt with that point at the start of my speech. If it means what he says— and I am not sure that it does—it can very easily be put right by adding the four words "in either case done". My answer is simple and I am surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend should seek to deal with it in this way; it is a drafting point. If, in fact, it is capable of—[Laughter.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Sir Ian Percival: If, in fact, it is capable of having the effect that my right hon. and learned Friend said, I would be the first to wish to remedy it by putting in those words. I am asking the House to vote for the principle that has been perfectly adequately summarised by my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Finally, I want to say a word about the significance of public opinion in these matters. I hold as firmly as anyone else to the view that we are not delegates but representatives. I want to quote from something said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) with which I agree. He said:
  "I should be the last to imply that a Member of Parliament ought to subordinate his judgment of what is wise or right to even the most overwhelming majority of opinion. If he believes a thing harmful, he must not support it; if he thinks it unjust, he must denounce it. In those judgments the opinion of those he represents has no claim over him."
  I agree with every word, but I also agree with what he went on to say, which was this:
  "But capital punishment is not for me in that caterogy: it is not self-evidently harmful, nor self-evidently unjust. I cannot therefore deny that in this context a settled and preponderant public demand ought to be taken into account or that at a certain point it would have to prevail."
  He then said that he did not think that that point had been reached at that stage. But that was 12 years ago. I would also remind the House that the Royal Commission in 1953 said:
  "The continuing demand for retribution cannot be ignored".
  Hon. Members will have had a lot of correspondence on this matter. I had a letter from an elderly gentleman
  1124
  living in Brixton who, in substance, asked, "Don't they know up there" — he meant us — "that we are more frightened now of violence from our own people than ever we were of Hitler? Don't they know that we believe that there is one thing that they could do to help and protect us? Don't they know we feel that they are putting our lives at risk to ease their misguided consciences?" That is just one example of what has been written to me. I could cite many others.
  The figure for public opinion is now said to be about 85 per cent. in favour. That means — and the House should recognise this—that one cannot say that it is just the cranks or extremists at either end. It means that the solid bulk of moderate, middle-of-the-road thinkers in this country believe, and believe strongly, that we are not doing everything that we ought to do to give them the protection to which they are entitled. To those hon. Members who continue to vote against, I must say that I believe that the stage has been reached—or is very close—where if this House continues to ignore public feeling it will do so at its peril.
  I commend my new clause to the House as something which has the support not only of logic and reason but of the vast majority of those for whose lives we are responsible.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The House has listened to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) with the respect and attention which his views and experience always command, and also with a sense of the peculiar responsibility which falls upon each of us and which he rightly emphasised. This is a matter which for many years Parliament has taken to itself. By that I mean that hon. Members make up their own minds about their vote and then justify that vote to their constituents. It follows that policy decisions by Government, advice from Whips, statements in party manifestos, have no place in this discussion. Only Parliament can change the law, and on this matter Ministers come to the debate simply as individual Members of this House.
  Nevertheless, there is a convention that the holder of my office should try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. By that convention, the Home Secretary gives some factual background, attempts some analysis of the actual proposal before the House and, finally, adds something of his own personal views. I shall follow that convention this afternoon. I shall do so briefly, to allow other hon. Members to contribute.
  Last year there were 3·8 million recorded offences in this country. Of that total, just over 3 per cent. were offences of violence against the person, and of that 3 per cent., 7 per cent. involved violence endangering life. So offences of violence endangering life constituted 0·2 per cent. of the total number of recorded offences. The rise in recorded crimes of violence including homicide has been substantial, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, but it has been markedly slower than the rise in recorded crimes against property. However, it is of course natural and right that crimes of violence should arouse the strongest feelings of anxiety, frustration and anger. An hon. Member's position on capital punishment is not a test of his or her resolution on crime in general because there is no evidence, either in the figures or from the experiences of other countries, that the existence of capital punishment

  1125
  for murder — that unique offence at the pinnacle of crime—has any effect in deterring or reducing crime in general. The House will want to concentrate, as my right hon. and learned Friend has done, on the relationship between capital punishment and murder itself.
  Probably the least questionable statistics are those showing the number of offences initially recorded as homicide per 100,000 of the population. The number of homicides per 100,000 population reached its peak in the 1860s and 1870s, then began to decline in the last quarter of the last century and the first sixty years of this century. The high point in the figures was 1·96 homicides per 100,000 people in 1865 and the low point was 0·57 in 1961. Since then the trend has moved upwards again and last year there were 662 homicides in this country, amounting on the same basis to 1·33 per 100,000 of the population.
  Against that background, it might be useful to say something about the three main justifications advanced for the return of capital punishment, which were all touched upon by my right hon. and learned Friend. They are the arguments based upon public protection, upon just punishment, and upon deterrence. As regards protection of the public, there can really be little argument. If the sole aim of justice in this regard was to ensure that in no circumstances could anyone found guilty of murder commit that offence again, capital punishment provides that assurance. As Queen Elizabeth I said in an earlier age: "Stone dead hath no fellow".
  As regards the argument of just punishment, it is true that very many people in this country regard death as the only fitting penalty for some cases of murder. The argument is that anyone who, by a conscious and deliberate act done from evil motives, takes the life of another has forfeited his own right to live. A crime which is so final and irremediable in its effects is believed to deserve no less final and irremediable a punishment by way of retribution. I hope that I am stating the argument correctly. Against that there is the counter-argument that the state is less likely to instil an absolute respect for the life of its citizens if it chooses to include the taking of life among the instruments of its penal code. The conflict between these arguments is essentially something which every Member will have to resolve for himself or herself. We each have to decide whether the death penalty is the only penalty of sufficient severity for certain cases of murder.
  Perhaps I should remind the House that since we debated this matter a change has come over the nature of life imprisonment, which under present law is the mandatory penalty for murder. This change is the result of the policy announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) in 1983. since then, in all but exceptional cases, those convicted of the most heinous forms of murder — murderers of police or prison officers, terrorist murderers, sexual or sadistic murderers of children and those who murder by firearm in the course of robbery—will all serve a minimum of 20 years in prison. Under that policy, in a number of cases life imprisonment will and does mean precisely imprisonment for life.
  5.30 pm
  I turn now to the question of deterrence. The House will not be surprised to know, and my right hon. and learned
  1126
  Friend clearly said, that the figures and the research are really not a great deal of help to either side of the argument. For example, the figures for homicides and executions in England and Wales show no pattern that is of much use in settling the question. In 1903, for example, there was the largest number of executions in this century, but in 1904 the homicide figures rose. At the end of the last war, there was a rise in the number of homicides by more than a third. This was followed by 20 executions in 1946, but there was still a rise in homicides in 1947.
  On the other side of the argument, 23 executions in 1952 were followed by three years of decline in homicides, but after that there was a further decline in homicides even though the number of executions was lower than ever before. International comparisons show no big difference in the incidence of homicide between those countries with the death penalty and those without. Even a study of the impact of the halting and then the reintroduction of capital punishment in a number of states in the United States of America over the last decade provides no firm guidance. Therefore, we are really left, as my right hon. and learned Friend was left, to make our own judgment on the importance of the deterrent argument.
  About half of homicides arise out of a quarrel, a wish for revenge, or loss of temper. In almost 75 per cent. of each category, the victim knew the suspect. Perhaps that kind of murderer is less likely to be deterred. For the rest, the House will reach its own conclusion about whether any deterrent effect from capital punishment outweighs the possible reduction in the conviction rate which seems to go with capital punishment.
  Mr. David Winnick: By drawing on his own experience, does the Home Secretary not agree that, however terrible and despicable the crimes of the terrorist, such people are not likely to be deterred by capital punishment? Bobby Sands and others demonstrated that they did not place too much value on their own lives.
  Mr. Hurd: I am suffering from the same problem as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport in that the hon. Gentleman is raising a point that I intend to cover later.
  I should now like to speak about my right hon. and learned Friend's new clause. First, there is the question how widely it should apply in the various parts of the United Kingdom. That matter has been raised but not settled by interventions. The Bill applies generally only to England and Wales, and the House will have to consider whether it would be right to have capital punishment available in some parts of the United Kingdom but not in others. In this context we have to think particularly about Northern Ireland, the part of our country that has suffered most tragically from terrorism.
  As has been said, my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal could not as it stands be applied to terrorist murders in Northern Ireland, since there is at present no jury in such trials in that part of our country. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he would like it to be applied throughout our country. I understand that reasoning, but his proposal could not be applied in Northern Ireland without some fundamental change in its nature. If I may say so, my right hon. and learned Friend has not helped us a great deal about what that fundamental change should be. Nevertheless, his proposal

  1127
  is clear—although we are not clear about its meaning in the absence of jury trials in Northern Ireland—that this should apply throughout the United Kingdom.
  The House may remember that when it last debated this issue in 1983, my predecessor, as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), made clear his considered judgment that the return of capital punishment would make it more difficult to bring terrorists to justice, would strengthen their support and would destabilise society in Northern Ireland. He added that the professional judgment of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, after consulting his senior officers, was that to reintroduce capital punishment for terrorist murders would make the task of the police in Northern Ireland substantially more difficult.
  I thought it right to consult my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has authorised me to say that his firm advice is against this new clause. He has asked me to say that in England and Wales during the four years from 1983 to 1986, six people were convicted of crime which could be classified as terrorist murder, and one of the murder of a police officer. During the equivalent period in Northern Ireland, the figure was 94. My right hon. Friend's view—I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) holds a different view—is that in the main the terrorist is fully prepared to risk his own life as well as to sacrifice the lives of others. Up to the end of last year, for example, more than 330 members of the IRA had been killed in the present campaign, and, in my right hon. Friend's view, there is no convincing argument that the additional assistance of the death penalty would be any significant deterrent.
  My right hon. Friend thought it right again to consult the Chief Constable of the RUC to see if he maintained his previous view. Sir John Hermon confirmed that he did and that his opinion had been, if anything, reinforced by recent experience. This view was shared by his senior colleagues in the RUC.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend hazard an explanation about why, on the day in December 1985 when we debated the matter of terrorist offences meriting death, the leader of the IRA threatened that if this House were to pass the motion on capital punishment and if it were reintroduced he would take the lives of two British soldiers for every one in the IRA who was hanged? Why should he have done that, unless he feared capital punishment?
  Mr. Hurd: I shall deal with my analysis of that point and the impact of capital punishment on the IRA. I shall answer that point towards the end of what I have to say. I am reporting the views that I have obtained from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who at present holds the responsibility for making that assessment.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend is always fair. Just as every hon. Member is equal before his conscience and his constituents, so too is the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland one man in this matter. My right hon. Friend will therefore want to remind the House that the representative body of the overwhelming majority of Royal Ulster Constabulary
  1128
  officers who have to face this at the sharp end take a contrary view and support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival).
  Mr. Hurd: In my experience that is certainly true, and it is also true that hon. Members from the province of Ulster hold different views. No doubt some of those hon. Members will express their views in this House. I am simply speaking about the professional analysis of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who holds the principal responsibility for making the assessment that I have mentioned.
  If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable are right and lf their view is accepted, and if we continue to rule out the possibility of reintroducing capital punishment for murder in Northern Ireland, we ought to consider carefully what might follow from having it in operation in Great Britain and not in Northern Ireland. Not many hon. Members would think that that is a sensible conclusion, and I agree. If within the space of a week or so similar outrages were carried out in Belfast and Liverpool, it would not be right or even comprehensible to provide, as this new clause in its present form would provide, that those brought to justice should face capital punishment on one side of the water but not on the other.
  I shall now turn to the effect of the new clause in England and Wales. As he explained, my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to avoid the difficulty of classifying different types of murder by putting the onus for decision on the jury. In doing that he follows the line advocated by the Royal Commission in 1953, although that was widely criticised and not acted upon at the time. He also follows the special procedures that are used in several states of the United States of America.
  It is a very heavy burden that my right hon. and learned Friend is proposing to put upon a jury. It is a heavier burden than was placed upon the judge when capital punishment was mandatory. It is also heavier than the responsibility placed upon the Home Secretary of the day, who was not, as the jury would be under the new clause, obliged to reach a positive decision to send a murderer to his or her death. The presumption then was that the law would take its course.
  Under my right hon. and learned Friend's clause, a random group of jurors would not only be asked to decide beyond reasonable doubt about guilt or innocence; in addition to that finding of fact, they would be asked to make a moral judgment about evil. The House will wish to consider whether out of those moral judgments—case by case, jury by jury — are likely to emerge results sufficiently consistent to command public confidence. For example, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), it would seem at least likely that on a large proportion of juries there would be one committed opponent of capital punishment. Such an opponent might well agree on a verdict of guilty on the point of fact, but might never accept a moral judgment abour the nature of evil that would lead the defendant to execution. It is possible that whether executions took place would depend not on the nature or the degree of evil of the offence, but on the views of one or two members of the jury.
  Our criminal justice system rightly places a heavy weight upon juries—we discussed that last night —but the House should be clear that what we are considering

  1129
  here is something additional and different. The results of seeking this second decision from a jury would certainly be unpredictable, and therefore less likely to act as a deterrent. They might also vary remarkably from case to case, and that would be deeply unsatisfactory to people on both sides of the argument. It is a revolutionary step to ask a jury to pass from findings of fact to findings of moral judgment. The criminal would have no means of knowing what the outcome might be.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Do my right hon. Friend and the House appreciate that, following last night's debate, however frightful or evil a murder may be, whether the defendant lives or dies will depend on a peremptory challenge?
  Mr. Hurd: My hon. and learned Friend is confusing two points, one of which was settled in the House last night. However, I see the link that he is making between those two points. I am not sure where that leaves his argument.
  I understand clearly why my right hon. and learned Friend has made his proposal in this form. He wants to get away from the argument about different categories of murder, because in the past it has bedevilled the case for restoring capital punishment. However, in steering clear of that difficulty, he runs into another difficulty with the jury. The dificulty becomes inevitable once we move away from the simple notion that everyone convicted of murder should be executed. Few people today would hold to that simple proposition regardless of the circumstances of a case. Yet, having moved away from it, no one has yet found a satisfactory means of answering the crucial question of who should be executed and who should not.
  Not all the arguments of either sense or morality point in one direction. There is a swirl of discussion in which each of us must find his or her balance as best we can. Let me mention three arguments—one of which relates to Northern Ireland—which weigh heavily and personally with me.
  5.45 pm
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport spoke, as he is entitled to do, about public opinion. I do not believe that the present strong public support for capital punishment would last very long if the death penalty, in whatever form, were re-established. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) has just reminded us, in his fine biography of Sir Anthony Eden, how public opinion was disturbed by actual cases during the last years of capital punishment. Many of us remember vividly the case of Craig, who pulled the trigger and killed a police officer but was spared because he was under 18—whereas Bentley, who did not pull the trigger, was hanged, because of the fatal words that he uttered on the scene. That trial has always stuck in my mind. I wonder how long the public would continue to support a system that, whatever its form and its legal framework, would be bound to throw up that kind of anomaly and inconsistency.
  Mr. Vivian Bendall: Surely the main point about the Craig and Bentley case was that Bentley was an accessory both before and after the fact.
  Mr. Hurd: I do not see how that phraseology alters the fact that the man who pulled the trigger was spared, while
  1130
  the man who did not was hanged. However it was phrased, such anomalies and inconsistencies would be bound to occur.
  The public's view of capital punishment would also be affected by the publicity that any execution would receive from the news media, which are now much more intrusive and less inhibited than they were 30 years ago. The process by which the life of a man or woman is lost not as a result of accident, crime or war, but as a result of the cool and protracted decisions of the state is bound to be the focus of lurid publicity. What happens—as we see from the United States or, indeed, Malaysia—is that the offender, in a thoroughly perverse way, is treated as the victim. It is his sorrowing family who are interviewed, his words and actions that become famous and his last moments that are lovingly described. I do not believe that the Public would find that acceptable for long. A circus would be created, and the holder of my office, because he would still be the guardian of the prerogative of mercy, would be cast as the ringmaster.
  My second point refers back to what I have said about terrorism, and the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). Of course terrorism is not confined to Northern Ireland, and what I say now reflects the total application of the clause. Whatever its leaders may say for tactical reasons, I am pretty sure from my own time in Northern Ireland that, if we really want to help the Provisional IRA to build up again the flow of dollars and guns into its armouries, the infliction of capital punishment on its members would be a good way of setting about it. The greatest single gain in strength that it has achieved in recent years came after the hunger strikes of 1981, when it contrived with some difficulty to provide corpses for its own purposes out of its own membership.
  My last point rests on an even more recent experience. I spent part of the Christmas Recess looking through the papers relating to a number of people now serving prison sentences in this country for terrorist offences. As the House will know, I decided to refer one of those cases back to the Court of Appeal. It is emphatically not for a Home Secretary to say whether such individuals are guilty or innocent, but where there is new matter of substance in a case—for example, in the form of a new witness or new material bearing on the scientific evidence — a Home Secretary is justified in asking the court—indeed, he has a duty to do so—to look at the matter again. If such men had by then been executed, any review of their case would be a charade. A later finding of innocence in any such cases would leave a dark stain on our system of justice. Mervyn Russell was convicted of murder in 1976. Several years after his execution, the Court of Appeal quashed his conviction.
  I do not put forward those three reasons as a Minister, but they weigh heavily with me in my attempts to find a balance between the different arguments. This is the fifth debate on capital punishment that I have attended; many right hon. and hon. Members have been in the House longer, and have attended more. My recollection, which perhaps they share, is of debates that, through sheer quality, have done the House honour. Courage, as well as clear thought, has been required of us all, and I believe that we shall fully maintain that tradition today.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: It is a little less than four years since the House last debated this issue.

  1131
  At that time — five weeks after the general election in 1983 — many hon. Members felt that the time was appropriate for such a reassessment. As some hon. Members put it, we had just been refreshed by our contact with the electorate. We are likely, fairly soon, to be refreshed again. Indeed, it might have been in the minds of the proponents of the new clause that, as Dr. Johnson almost put it, when a man knows that he is to be refreshed in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
  Circumstances, however, are considerably different from what they were four years ago. First, we are not, as we were then, debating a general motion. We are debating a specific new clause that has been tabled for inclusion in a specific Bill which, if carried, would become the precise law of the land.
  Secondly, the proposal is not that there should be a general return of capital punishment but that it should be reintroduced only where there is a jury trial, where the jury is unanimous and where a reasonable person would consider as evil the manner of the murder. the reason for the murder and the circumstances of the murder.
  Those hon. Members who have proposed the new clause may well have drafted it along those lines to seek to make their proposition more acceptable. If there were, to begin with, any merit in their general case, it would be disposed of by the nature of their proposal as well as by the ambiguous manner in which the clause has been drafted, as was pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas).
  It is for the proposers of the new clause to persuade the House of their case and of the merits of their clause. No death penalty for murder is the status quo. Those who seek to change the status quo have to provide a convincing case for that change. The new clause signally fails that test. For example, the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) said that it would apply to terrorist murders in Northern Ireland. In response to a further intervention he said that if the clause were included in the Bill he would make the necessary drafting changes to ensure that there is consistency throughout the United Kingdom. However, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, the need for a jury decision, whether unanimous or not, means that the proposed change in the law would not be generally available in Northern Ireland.
  Sir Ian Percival: Both my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) missed one point that I made: that special procedures might be necessary.
  Mr. Kaufman: It would not simply be that a special procedure would be required. An entirely different procedure would be required. The whole of the clause hangs on a jury verdict. In his new clause the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the unanimous verdict of the jury is required and that the unanimous verdict of the jury shall take into account
  "circumstances which a reasonable person would consider to be evil".
  If there is no jury — and in the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland there is no jury — the unanimous verdict of a jury, or any verdict of a jury making a judgment about the evil inherent in a case, would not be possible.
  This morning I contacted the Attorney-General's office — it was extremely helpful to me, and I am grateful to it for that—about the nature of dealing with murder trials
  1132
  in Northern Ireland. The Attorney-General's office made it clear to me that the only way in which a murder trial can take place in Northern Ireland is if it is certified out by the Attorney-General himself. The Attorney-General's office also made it clear to me that, in what its representative called "the emergency situation" in Northern Ireland, domestic murders might be certified out but that non-domestic murders—namely, terrorist murders to which the Secretary of State for the Home Department referred —would not be certified out. Therefore, it would not be a minor change of a tidying up that the right hon. and learned Member for Southport would have to provide. He would have to provide a new form of capital punishment for Northern Ireland that was not based on a jury verdict. If it were not based on a jury verdict, it cannot be denied that the safeguard that he has presumably sought to build into this new form of capital punishment would not be available for terrorist cases in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Fairbairn: If we are to deal with the unity of capital punishment for the whole of the United Kingdom, let us consider Scotland. A Scottish jury consists of 15 members and the verdict is 8:7, not 10:2. Therefore, the chances of being convicted of a capital, or an evil, premeditated crime in Scotland would be different from what they would be in England.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. arid learned Gentleman points out that at least jury trial is available in Scotland. and I presume that the right hon. and learned Member for Southport is proposing that a unanimous verdict would be required of Scottish juries. If not, he would have to provide for three different forms of capital punishment decisions in three of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom.
  I say again that it cannot be denied that capital punishment would not be available for murders by terrorists in Northern Ireland, even though such murders might be regarded as evil in manner, reason or circumstances, as is provided for in the new clause. I say that they might be regarded as evil, because the nature of evil is an entirely subjective concept.
  As the Home Secretary has pointed out, most murders are not committed by habitual criminals. As the Home Office statistics make clear in tabular form, they are committed in most cases by a son, daughter, parent, spouse or other family member, or by a lover or former lover, or by a friend or an acquintance. Between 1975 and 1985, those categories of murder accounted for 73 per cent. of the murders that were committed. Moreover, again as the Home Office statistics make perfectly clear, 50 per cent. of the murders that were committed between 1975 and 1985 were committed during a quarrel, or in revenge, or because of loss of temper.
  Only about 10 per cent. of murders are committed in pursuit of other crime, and that proportion is lower now than it was 10 years ago. Although the number of murders has risen, as I shall point out, it is curious that the actual number of murders committed in pursuit of other crime was lower in 1985 than it was in 1975. How on earth would a jury be able to assess which of these murders was or was not evil?
  In any case, such an assessment—again as the Home Secretary pointed out—is a complete distortion of the role of a jury. The role of a jury in any trial, including a murder trial, is to consider the facts of the case, and on the

  1133
  basis of those facts to decide whether or not the defendant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt to have committed the crime of which he is accused. As I shall have reason to point out before I end my speech, to make a factual decision on the basis of evidence that is offered in good faith is a hard enough job. Juries, public spirited though they all are, have been known to make mistakes as to fact that have resulted in wrongful conviction. Under the new clause, the jury would have to choose the penalty. Decisions on penalties are for Parliament to make or for judges to impose. That ought not to be a job for juries, with one member having the right of veto over the penalty to be imposed, as is provided for in the right hon. and learned Member's new clause.
  What is more, to impose on juries the duty to make a moral analysis whose outcome could result in the death of the object of that moral analysis is to impose an intolerable burden, particularly since there is no measure, except for an individual's personal judgment, which might well be prejudiced, as to what the nature of evil might be. Whole religions and whole methods of philosophy have been based upon an analysis of what is good and what is evil, yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman is imposing upon a jury the burden of having to make a decision in a few hours on the nature of evil and how it should be applied to a particular case and to a particular human being, a decision that might result in the death of that human being.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  6 pm
  Mr. Kaufman: No, I wish to get on.
  If we accept this proposition, Parliament would not only change the nature of jury trial and verdict, but it should also make every such verdict automatically liable to appeal. The basis of that appeal would not be, as it now often is, whether the judge had misdirected the jury, but whether the concept of evil in the minds of the appeal court judges was different from that in the minds of jurors. Appeals would become matters of differences of opinion, on which it is impossible for there to be any factual yardstick.
  That hon. Members have put forward such an unsatisfactory formulation for the return of capital punishment for murder is a symbol of the fundamental flaws in the general case made by those seeking a return of the death penalty. To establish their case, they must prove that the absence of capital punishment fails to provide an effective deterrent for murder, such as they believe would exist if the death penalty were brought back. However, they cannot prove it.
  As the right hon. and learned Member for Southport and the Home Secretary have pointed out, the statistics for murder are too insecure for any proof one way or the other. Arguments based on those statistics may be distorted by the classification of the murder and the base year that is chosen for comparison. Each year, some killings are initially regarded as murder. However, when they are pursued by the police, or dealt with by the courts, they are reclassified to provide a considerably lower total. In 1985, for example, the homicide figures in Great Britain fell by 69, solely as a result of reclassification.
  1134
  Murder has certainly risen over the years, but not in a steady progression. Between 1951 and 1952, for example, when capital punishment was available, the number of murders rose by 72. Between 1976 and 1977 when capital punishment was not available, the number of murders fell by 83.
  Murder is a uniquely dreadful crime, because it is uniquely irreparable. Every murder is hateful because it flies in the face of human instincts. However, it is necessary to see even the crime of murder in perspective, for example, in an international perspective. Last year, in England and Wales, 662 offences were initially recorded as murder. That figure is unacceptably high to us in this country, although it will certainly be reduced when the figures are reassessed, as they are annually. In New York city last year, the number of murders was not 662, the total for England and Wales, but in that single city 1,598. As a percentage of crime in New York city, the murder rate there is 15 times greater than that for the whole of this country.
  As the Home Secretary sought to do, murder must also be seen in the context of total crime nationally. In the 20 years before abolition, murders constituted 14·7 per cent. of the more serious crimes of violence against the person. In the 20 years since abolition, that proportion has fallen to 9 per cent. In the 20 years before abolition, murders constituted 2·8 per cent. of all violent crimes. In the 20 years since abolition,'as a proportion of violent crime, that figure has fallen to 0·7 per cent. As a percentage of all crime, it has fallen from 0·05 per cent. to 0·02 per cent. All crime has risen unacceptably. Murder has risen far less than other crimes, although every murder is one too many.
  Hon. Members proposing the reintroduction of the death penalty have yet to prove—so far they have failed to do so — that, if reintroduced, capital punishment would have a deterrent effect on potential murderers and assist in improving the Queen's peace.
  Mr. Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer or try to answer a question that I asked the Home Secretary? I remind him of it. If capital punishment had been reintroduced and the leader of the IRA threatened us by saying that he would take the lives of two British soldiers for any member of the IRA who was hanged, would not that clearly suggest that, to the IRA, capital punishment is a deterrent?
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. and learned Gentleman has intervened precisely when I was seeking to deal with that matter. I shall proceed as I was about to do, and hope that if my reply does not satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman at least it will respond to his point.
  Since hon. Members who are proposing the new clause probably rule out, by the criterion of evil, three quarters of the murders that take place each year, we have to ask what would be the impact of the reintroduction of capital punishment on the remaining quarter, among whom, presumably, the hon. and learned Member for Burton includes murders by IRA terrorists. Presumably, those hon. Members would include murders committed by terrorists, although — I repeat that it is important to make this point—the requirement of the presence of a jury would exclude all terrorist murders committed in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the leader of the IRA could bluster in vain because his members would not be faced by

  1135
  capital punishment in Northern Ireland, where most of the terrorist murders that are committed in the United Kingdom take place.
  In the case of executions of terrorist murderers, the state would be faced with an enormous dilemma. I shall deal with the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Southport sought to make. Have those hon. Members considered, with any seriousness, the effect on the Queen's peace of reintroducing capital punishment for terrorist murders, even if it were possible adequately to define such murders in law? I ask the hon. and learned Member for Burton, how could capital punishment act as a deterrent among groups of people which include some—although not all—who actively seek death as martyrs?
  Capital punishment is an ugly form of killing, but it is less gruesome than the death by slow starvation, which was deliberately sought and attained by the hunger strikers in Northern Ireland who deliberately killed themselves. How could capital punishment act as a deterrent to men who actively seek death, glory in it, and become martyrs after achieving it? One of them was an hon. Member of this House. As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland could point out, that man's name is not only remembered in Northern Ireland, but is already part of folklore and song.
  It is quite certain that executions of members of terrorist groups would lead to reprisals. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Burton made that point himself. When hostage taking has become an international disease and the prolonged disappearance of Mr. Terry Waite is, tragically, no longer even a regular news item, how can we be sure that the sentencing to death in Great Britain of any terrorist from Northern Ireland or elsewhere would not lead to hostage taking as a means of preventing the imposition of the penalty? If the capital sentence were imposed, it would result in the murders of innocent hostages, misnamed as revenge executions.
  Sir Ian Percival rose—
  Mr Kaufman: I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman when I have finished this point.
  In the case of such executions, not only hostages, but the judge, prosecuting counsel and jurors involved in the case would be at permanent risk. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that we should not be deflected from doing what we regard as right. He and his associates propose that we do something wrong, knowing the consequences in advance, because they believe that it would be right.
  Sir Ian Percival: The right hon. Gentleman misquotes me entirely. Let us leave aside for a moment the question whether it is right or wrong and assume that society concludes that it is right, proper and necessary to do something. His argument leads to the conclusion that, even if the threats were sufficiently severe, society should not do this. That is simply unacceptable.
  Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. and lerned Gentleman is assessing the position incorrectly. When a Government come face to face with these matters, grand words in the House of Commons must be set aside in order to try to save human life. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is sitting two rows in front of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. When the right hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister, he had to face just such
  1136
  a dilemma when Leila Khaled landed in this country. It is easy to propose a new clause it is different to be the Prime Minister or Home Secretary in a Government who must face these matters and seek either to negotiate out or to get rid of the object of danger to one's citizens from the country. The state would almost certainly be faced with a terrible dilemma of either doing a deal which would lead to the reprieve or even the release of the killers or seeing more innocent people killed, possibly in a country outside its jurisdiction, such as a country in the middle east. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the Hindawi case. Does he believe that, if Hindawi had been sentenced to death, hostages would not have been taken in the middle east and the Government would not have had to deal with that predicament?
  The proposals in the new clause must also deal with the potential deaths of other innocent people, namely those wrongfully convicted of murder who, if this proposal had been law, might have been wrongfully hanged. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he did not duck that question, but he did not deal with it. At best, he dealt with it in a cursory fashion. This is not a hypothesis. several people are alive today who were convicted of murder and might well have been hanged if capital punishment had existed. Martin Goodwin was convicted of murder in 1969 and his conviction was quashed in 1972. Patrick Meehan was convicted of murder in 1969 and his conviction was quashed seven years later, in 1976.
  Mr. Fairbairn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No. I have already given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman once and I must proceed.
  Geoffrey Mycock was convicted of murder in 1969 and his conviction was quashed in 1984. Patrick Murphy was convicted of murder in 1970 and his conviction was quashed in 1972. Cooper and McMahon were convicted in 1970, three appeals were dismissed in 1974, 1976 and 1978 and they were granted special remission in 1980 because of doubts about their guilt. John Preece was convicted in 1973 and his conviction was quashed in 1981. Albert Taylor was convicted in 1974 and his conviction was quashed in 1978. Mervyn Russell was convicted in 1977 and his conviction was quashed in 1983. All those men might have been hanged if the new clause had been law at the time of their convictions.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: In dealing with criticisms of the new clause, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that if there was a defect it could easily be put right. I have listed nine defects and it was possible belatedly to put them right, but if the death penalty had existed every one of those men might have been dead. A posthumous pardon would have done them as little good as the posthumous pardon from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) to Timothy Evans when it was finally bestowed.
  Two further cases are in doubt. The first case relates to the three men convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater. The Home Secretary, to his credit, has reopened their case. Secondly, there is the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings in 1974. The Home Secretary, again to his great credit, has referred their case to the Court of Appeal. If any of those nine men are found to have been wrongfully convicted it will be possible to release them, but if the new clause had been law

  1137
  they might have been hanged. Therefore, if the new clause had been law at least nine men might have been hanged because they were wrongfully convicted and a further nine may yet be included in that category.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels rose—
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Kaufman: Can hon. Members who propose this change in the law face the prospect that their vote at 10 o'clock tonight may result in the deaths of innocent people? I hope that none is callous enough for that.
  Mr. Fairbairn rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I do not base my present absolute opposition to this proposed change in the law only on statistics, the danger of reprisals or even the established and repeated fact of mistaken conviction: I base my opposition to capital punishment not on what it does to those executed, but on the injury which it inflicts on the whole of society. Its very presence debases and barbarises society. As the Home Secretary pointed out, the debasement is exacerbated by the morbid appurtenances of judicial killing, such as the interviews with the families of the convicted, the scenes outside the prison as the time of execution approaches and the poisoning of the national life during that period. If it is wrong for an individual or group of individuals to take another human being's life, as I believe it is, it is wrong for the state to do that with the additional torture of the weeks of waiting and anticipation.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No. I wish to conclude my remarks because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  If Britain restores capital punishment we shall double the number of countries in non-Communist Europe which practise it. Our sole companion would be Turkey. We would also be in line with the Soviet Union. That is why prison governors and assistant prison governors, faced directly with the consequences of capital punishment, have said that they will resign if it is reintroduced for murder.
  Hon. Members may say, "What about the victims and their relatives?" At present, we have in mind an ugly, vicious murder — the murder of PC Blakelock at Broadwater Farm. Only 12 days ago, his widow was questioned about the possible punishment for her husband's killers and she said unequivocally:
  "Not the death penalty, I don't believe in capital punishment."
  If that brave woman in all the tribulations of her cruel bereavement can see so clearly and assess so dispassionately, surely the House of Commons can make an equally clear and dispassionate assessment.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens rose—
  Dr. M. S. Miller rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Dr. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the sentiments expressed by PC Blakelock's widow were expressed by my relatives when an aunt was killed and Meehan was sentenced for it?
  Mr. Dickens: On the same point—
  Mr. Kaufman: There is a justifiable horror of killing and there should be an equally justifiable horror of judicial killing or killing by a jury, as provided in the new clause. I shall vote against the new clause and I hope that the House will do the same. There is something morbid and unhealthy about the wish to return regularly to a subject on which the House has stated its opinion with great clarity so many times. Let us get rid of it tonight once and for all.
  Mr. Edward Heath: I am grateful for the opportunity of making what I hope will be a short intervention in the debate.
  On each of the occasions over the last 20 or more years in which the matter has been debated I have voted against capital punishment. I intend to do so tonight. Nothing has happened since the last debate on capital punishment, which was opened by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardiner), to change my view in any way. My hon. and learned Friend said that his debate would probably be the last in the House on this subject. In some ways I had hoped that he was right; not because those of us who are opposed to capital punishment are reluctant to face any challenge, but for another reason, which is that it detracts from the effort which is required to consider the real nature of crime and to try to find better ways of reducing it.
  Every one of us wants to minimise crime, but in the last decade there has been all too little thought about the psychology of crime, the social reasons for it and the means of dealing with it. Rab Butler devoted a great deal of time to these problems before he was Home Secretary as well as when he was Home Secretary. We began to feel that we were making progress. Since then we have had very little time, money or attention paid to the subject. That is why I regret that we constantly return to the subject in this way.
  There is an automatic desire to debate corporal and capital punishment. Yesterday we had corporal punishment. Many of my hon. Friends referred to their times at public schools, the beatings that they received and expressed their desire that it should be widely extended to the whole electorate. I did not have the benefit of attending such a school. I have always admired the intellectual excellence of some of the leading schools, but it has never appeared to me that their disciplinary methods have led to a greater human understanding by those who suffered them. That is the past, that was yesterday. Today we are dealing with capital punishment.
  We are dealing with legislation at this point. This is not just a general discussion about a motion in which views can be expressed; we are dealing with a specific new clause to a Bill before Parliament. It is from that point of view that we must examine it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) pointed out, this clause is in no fit state to become part of our legislation. There is an argument between the lawyers as to whether there are two categories in the clause or only one. The highest legal advice that I have had is that there are at least two categories and that the question of premeditated killing is separated from the other questions of the reasonable view of a jury. We, as the House of Commons, cannot put a clause with that duplicity into our legislation. Whatever the public may think about capital

  1139
  punishment or the lack of it, they would think that we were ruefully incompetent to put such a clause on to the statute book.
  Sir Ian Percival: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heath: Therefore, I must urge the House, from that point of view, not to accept this new clause.
  Sir Ian Percival: I am interested that my right hon. Friend and others are making such a meal of this. If there be an ambiguity, it can be put right perfectly easily by the addition of four words. We have another House for that purpose. I would be the first to add those words. That point is no argument against the principle of the Clause.
  Mr. Heath: I hesitated to give way initially only because I thought it might be more worthwhile to give my right hon. and learned Friend a general give-way at the end on all the points that I make rather than on particular instances.
  Are we not entitled to expect that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends, when putting forward a new clause to the House, would at least have removed ambiguities and not said what the House must do is wait and see what the other House does about it? The other House may want two different categories; we do not know. So we have no opportunity of settling that for ourselves.
  The other aspect is the application of the Bill to England and Wales or the United Kingdom as a whole. This is a basic point. As a House we are surely not entitled to include in a Bill that applies to England and Wales a measure which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport says that he wants to apply to the United Kingdom. In other words, even those who want the restoration of capital punishment must recognise that this is no means by which to restore capital punishment in this country. On that basis alone the clause should be rejected.
  I want to support most strongly what the Home Secretary has said in his analysis of the situation. We have had cited the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1947, which is 40 years ago, the Royal Commission in 1953, which is 35 years ago, and it is now time capital punishment, having been abolished for nearly a quarter of a century, for there to be a re-examination in the light of abolition over a quarter of a century. Then we would have some basic evidence on which those who want to can form their judgments and change their views. It is not possible to ignore the intervening period of nearly a quarter of a century in which capital punishment has been abolished.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport said, in regard to Northern Ireland, that we must not take any notice of the consequences. I believe that he is profoundly mistaken. My Government abolished capital punishment in Northern Ireland because we knew that it was not conducive to a better situation, it was worsening the situation, and that was why we asked Parliament to take that decision. I face up to my right hon. and learned Friend quite frankly. What the IRA was doing was demonstrating what we all knew — that if we implemented the powers of capital punishment it would make the situation worse by the executions that it would carry out. My right hon. and learned Friend is entitled to say that, but we all knew it beforehand.
  Mr. Lawrence: Why did he say that?
  Mr. Heath: Because it is a matter of fact. We all know what the IRA would do if we attempted to carry out judicial executions in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Lawrence: Why?
  Mr. Heath: Because it is in the nature of terrorism that it will do it.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The IRA kill anyway.
  Mr. Heath: Yes, and it will kill even more if we try to implement judicial executions in the province of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Peter Bruinvels: It is a major deterrent.
  Mr. Heath: Let me come to this question of the deterrent. None of the figures show that it is a deterrent, but when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport said that we must ignore the consequences and do what is right he was denying his own argument. His argument was that it was a deterrent. It was a deterrent as one of the consequences and we are being asked to take notice of it. Therefore, he is entirely contradictory in his own arguments. What he cannot show is that it is a deterrent, and when he says that if things get worse we are to ignore it then he is, first, denying the reason for the death penalty, and, secondly, he is ignoring the results of the death penalty, which must be the main basis on which he is asking for it to come back. In that respect his argument is not only contradictory but fallacious.
  As to the remaining aspects of the penalty, as I said before, I have been grievously worried about the question of mistakes. I cannot share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport that we balance up mistakes in which the state kills innocent people with other citizens who are killed by individuals committing a wrong.
  Sir Ian Percival: We do in a war.
  Mr. Heath: We are not in a war. My right hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer. Have we declared war? [Interruption] Really. What a statement!
  Sir Ian Percival: It seems my right hon. Friend has declared war on me.
  Mr. Heath: I do not only rely on the BBC; I watch ITN as well. I was not aware that we were in a situation in which my right hon. and learned Friend can produce that sort of argument. There still exists the power of treason. Nobody believes that it will be used in peace-time for one moment, as long as capital. punishment does not exist elsewhere. When it comes to mistakes, I am horrified that anyone can say that they do not matter as long as there is more or less a balance between the mistakes and the innocent victims of killings. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that that is one of the most powerful reasons why we should not acknowledge the reinstitution of the death penalty.
  6.30 pm
  The clause would make unsuitable legislation. Some right hon. and hon. Members desire to reintroduce the death penalty, but it must be done by proper means. There must be produced a proper clause that can be justified in legislation that applies to the entire United Kingdom. Alternatively, it can be done by means of a debate in which general views are expressed on a motion that calls for the

  1141
  Government to introduce legislation. That is how the House should behave. The introduction of the new clause is not the way to carry on in dealing with the vital issue of life and death for those who have committed offences and for innocent people.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport concluded by saying that unless we reinstitute capital punishment the electorate will have no time for us. Indeed, he said that we would fail to reintroduce it at our peril. I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Capital punishment was abolished nearly 25 years ago, and since then I have not noticed that the House has been at peril. I have not noticed that those who have supported the abolition of capital punishment have been at the peril of the electorate. I hope that no one will be influenced by what my right hon. and learned Friend said about being at the peril of the electorate if we throw out the new clause.
  The new clause asks us to deal with a moral question. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he was introducing a new approach, but, with great respect, it is not new. This is an attempt to secure capital punishment for a particular form of murder instead of the general form. This proved a failure with the Homicide Act 1957, which was an attempt to arrive at a compromise, and, as he said, it failed. This is but another attempt by means of the back door to introduce into legislation a particular classification, and, similarly, it would fail.
  We cannot ask juries to make moral decisions of the sort that would face them if the new clause became part of the Bill that in due course will become an Act. We cannot ask juries to decide what is evil and what is not. What would be the position of a Moslem juror who was faced with a defendant accused of blowing up an aircraft to bring pressure on a country which is a tyrant towards his, the Moslem's, fellow citizens in another part of the world? The Moslem would take the view that that was not evil. He would say that it was good and sanctified by Allah. What is his position on a jury? The jury system would be made impossible. A potential juror cannot be excluded merely because he happens to be a Moslem.
  Sir John Farr rose—
  Mr. Heath: If the new clause were passed, we would be asking jurors to make judgments on morality and idealism, which they should not be asked to do. I know that some judges use the phrase, "This was an evil man" or, "This was an evil crime", but it would be better for us all if judges adhered to the law, commented only on the law and excluded from their remarks phrases likely to gain approval in the gutter press.
  Sir John Farr rose—
  Mr. Heath: There are those who say that certain incidents on television may incite the young to commit crime. They must be aware that there is mass coverage of every sort of crime by a part of the press. The first items to be dealt with by local radio stations throughout the country are about crime, not the world situation, our economy or other major issues. This must be inciting psychopathic personalities to commit crimes. I return to my original argument that we have done far too little to study the impact upon our fellow citizens of the media, the gutter press and the comments that are made from judicial benches.
  Sir John Farr rose—
  Mr. Heath: I have nearly completed what I have to say but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Sir John Farr: My right hon. Friend has said, properly, that we are discussing a new clause that, if accepted, would become part of the Bill. May I remind him that clause 30 enables those who are found to be carrying a firearm, and not necessarily using it, to be sentenced to life imprisonment? If a criminal can be sentenced to life imprisonment for carrying a firearm, and there is no further deterrent for using one, he will have the inducement to use a weapon. That is why the new clause should be supported.
  Mr. Heath: I do not agree with that view and I cannot accept it. It does not deal with the arguments that I have advanced that turn on the ambiguity of the new clause, its limited application within the United Kingdom and the consequences of mistakes for us as Members of Parliament.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will do what they believe to be right when the House is divided at 10 o'clock. They will not be at the mercy of the electorate, which understands that those of principle reflect their views by their votes in the House. I hope that the new clause will be thoroughly defeated.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am glad to be able to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I do so with almost complete agreement.
  There is nothing novel about the debate, except for the form of the new clause. The Home Secretary made a speech of notable courage and clarity, especially when he set out strikingly what with modern conditions of publicity would be the almost inevitable swing of sympathy to the condemned man awaiting execution, and the effect that this would have on general morbidness throughout the country. Modern media methods would be applied to a far greater extent than the methods of more than 20 years ago were employed when the last executions took place.
  The form of the new clause, if not the debate, has a certain novelty, but novelty is not always a virtue, and I do not think that it is with the new clause. It is not difficult to see the general motive for the novelty and the reasons for the form that it takes. The general motive is a rather desperate attempt to find a method — almost any method — that will persuade the House to accept the death penalty in some form, and it seems hardly to matter what that is. Its purposes are to try to divide murders into two degrees while avoiding the illogical catalogue of criteria which made the Homicide Act 1957 almost entirely unsatisfactory in everyone's view.
  The method of making everything depend upon a judge's or jury's view of the meaning of "evil" — perhaps one of the least objective words in our language — can hardly be regarded as a triumph of precise draftsmanship. The second particular purpose of the new clause is to try to deal with the objection to death by majority verdict. There are grave difficulties. I assume without question that the sponsors feel that they have, perhaps regrettably, to avoid Northern Ireland and to make the Act not apply to it. The new clause does not refer to Northern Ireland, but if it were carried any Government would have to deal with the consequences and produce some consistent law throughout the United Kingdom.

  1143
  I assumed that the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) was prepared, against his will, to exclude Northern Ireland because I could not conceive how he could fix his clause upon having a unanimous verdict in the United Kingdom and then, across 60 miles of sea, in part of the United Kingdom, to state that one could proceed without a jury.
  This is difficult territory. The House may recollect that, in 1983, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) fell into a trap on Northern Ireland from which he had great difficulty in extricating himself, then or for several years afterwards. He did not advocate bringing back juries, but advocated, in a vague sort of way, that perhaps one could have two judges sitting together or perhaps a judge sitting with assessors. That cannot be regarded as remotely on all fours with the insistence upon a unanimous verdict in Great Britain and not accepting a majority verdict.
  Sir Ian Percival: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As I have said, I am a little surprised that such a meal has been made of this. I accepted that one must be consistent. I did not think it was acceptable to have the death penalty here, but not in Northern Ireland. I did not think it was acceptable that we should be prevented by threats from doing what we wanted. I said that special procedures would be necessary. They were discussed in the 1983 debate. There were those who said that juries could be returned to Northern Ireland and there were those who said that a unanimous verdict of three judges could be accepted. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman should reconsider what he said about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) — I considered what he said was rather admirable.
  Mr. Jenkins: No, not at all. I do not wish to go back over what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks, but I believe that he put forward a singularly ill-thought-out proposition when Home Secretary and bearing in mind his responsibilities. The right hon. and learned Member for Southport has made a similar proposition, but at least he does not have the responsibilities of Home Secretary or any similar responsibilities.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Southport does not recognise that there is an almost insoluble problem. Whichever way the right hon. and learned Gentleman moves to deal with it, he gets into almost impossible difficulties. The first difficulty is to state that one must have a unanimous verdict in Great Britain, but to proceed without a jury elsewhere. Secondly, if one returns to jury trial in Northern Ireland and abandons the Diplock courts, one can say goodbye to the majority of convictions for terrorist offences. Undoubtedly, one would make a symbolic, retributive punishment almost certainly counter-productive with regard to the safety of life. One would face allowing many terrorists, otherwise incarcerated, to be acquitted and to walk free to assassinate again immediately. Such considerations make the constant return to this subject look more in the nature of an obsession than a policy.
  If it is proposed that the sponsors do not accept capital punishment in Northern Ireland—that is the logic of the decision to gear the sentence of the death penalty to the unanimous verdicts of juries — what do we do about
  1144
  terrorism in Great Britain? In. Northern Ireland, the threat to life by terrorism is 600 times as great as it is in Great Britain. If there was capital punishment in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland, one would have a position of proclaiming a unique, effective deterrent, but drawing the sword where the threat was least and sheathing it where the threat was greatest. What sort of policy is that?
  If one was to have the death penalty for what might be called civilian murders, but not for terrorism, on what possible basis of logic is the criterion of evil to be applied? One of the features of the new clause is that its two arms inevitably run head-on in to each other — the evil criterion and the unanimous verdict of the jury.
  6.45 pm
  This is an ill-thought-out mish-mash of a clause. It is contradictory. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made an effective case against the use of the death penalty in terrorism cases, and I shall spare the House a rehearsal of that argument. I accept that it is a powerful argument, especially in the Irish context, given the psychology or the psychosis of the Irish terrorist.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) constantly popped up and said that he could not understand why the leader of the IRA should say that, if the death penalty were introduced and terrorists hanged, he would murder two British soldiers every time it was carried out. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that that surely proved that the leader of the IRA was in deathly terror of the death penalty. The hon. and learned Gentleman failed to understand that, given the extraordinary psychosis of terrorism, a man like that wants a mounting total of death on both sides. That is exactly what would occur — a multiplication of threats and a reduction in safety.
  Mr. Lawrence: The significant point is that that threat was made to the House on the day of the debate on capital punishment. Why should the leader of the IRA bother to issue such a threat unless he thought that his ranks would be deterred if capital punishment were introduced?
  Mr. Jenkins: If the leader of the IRA or whoever made the threat thought that he would change the minds of those right hon. and hon. Members and others who had been dedicated to capital punishment, in season and out of season, he was extremely mistaken.
  Mr. Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Jenkins: I gave the hon. and learned Gentleman an anwer. Surely he behaves a little better in the courts, or he must get in trouble with the judges.
  Mr. Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Jenkins: I will not give way.
  Mr. Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
  Mr. Jenkins: I believe that the change in the law that made majority verdicts possible has had considerable value. I introduced that change in the law in 1967 against considerable opposition from, as it happens, most of the Conservative party. It has worked well and is responsible for about 10 per cent. of convictions. Those are concentrated on the more serious and professional criminal cases. I would not like the position wherein

  1145
  majority verdicts were held to be good enough for some forms of conviction, but not for others. I would not like the position in which someone was held in prison for 20 or 30 years or their entire life on the basis of a verdict which, by a clause passed by the House of Commons, discriminated between verdicts and said that a majority verdict was not good enough in all circumstances. I believe that that would dangerously undermine the validity of majority verdicts. That is part of the wider case that has convinced and influenced many senior police officers against the death penalty. They see it as the enemy to a likely conviction.
  Mr. Dickens: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkins: No.
  If we reintroduce the death penalty, the conviction rate for murder will almost certainly go down. We must remember that the alternative to conviction is acquittal — the man does not go to prison, he walks free. Of course, if that man is innocent we want him to go free but, for the moment, I am considering the guilty.
  However, one cannot discuss the reintroduction of the death penalty without contemplating the position of the innocent, or the possibly innocent, who are charged and convicted. It is not my view that it is majority verdicts that are peculiarly unsafe. It is my vice that the frailty of human judgment, whether expressed through majority or unanimous verdicts, is too great to support the finality of capital punishment. My view has been substantially strengthened since 1983.
  During my two periods as Home Secretary, I had to deal with 10 capital cases in which there were varying degrees of doubt, some quite simply amounting to wrongful conviction. The right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned a substantial number of other cases that have occurred since 1976. The people involved in the 10 cases I had to consider were not all hanged, but two were, and more would have been had the death penalty not been abolished in 1965. I already thought that that was an unacceptably high proportion, but events that have taken place since have greatly compounded that view. For example, grave doubts have arisen recently in regard to the safety of the verdicts in both the Birmingham and Guildford bombings cases. There were six convictions in one case and four in the other. Incidentally, all were convicted by unanimous verdicts. There was one majority verdict in the associated but separate Maguire possession of explosives case. All 10, or perhaps more likely nine, could have been hanged if the death penalty had been in operation.
  Looking back on previous debates, I discovered that in the 1974 debate when I was talking about wrongful conviction, I was interrupted by a Conservative Member, no longer with us, who said, "That does not apply to terrorists." I was half inclined to agree with him and I said that I would deal with terrorism later. That is a classic answer, not only for trying to defend the continuity of one's speech, but for disguising that one does not have an immediate answer to the point put to one. How wrong he was, and how half wrong I was.
  Clearly, the Home Secretary believes that there is considerable doubt in the Birmingham case, or he would not have announced its referral to the Court of Appeal. I am sure that sooner or later he will have to do the same
  1146
  in the Guildford case, and it ought to be sooner rather than later. What a monstrous addition those nine or 10 people would have been to the already unacceptable level of people falsely or doubtfully convicted in capital cases. How, in view of that, anyone can believe that the case in favour of the death penalty has strengthened since 1983 I find it difficult to imagine.
  The only difference is that we were then on the morrow of a general election and today we are on the eve of a general election. I do not believe that that will make any difference to more than a handful of votes in the House. This is pre-eminently an issue on which the House owes the country its independent, honest and unfettered judgment and it owes it the duty of importing perspective into the issue, in looking at and learning from the past, foreseeing possible consequences in the future and not merely reacting to the emotions of the moment.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: I am honoured to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) who altered the jury system in 1967.
  I support the new clause that has been introduced with clarity by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), and I believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) because I do not think that there is any reason why this clause should not be included in a Bill that already contains similar clauses imposing life imprisonment for certain firearms offences, such as clause 30, and it is an appropriate time to do it. We have tried many times to introduce it, but without success.
  I have tabled two amendments. The first is about unanimous verdicts and the second is with regard to terrorism. I am a little perplexed. I am not sure that the alteration in the jury system made by the right hon. Member for Hillhead would not apply to this clause. Unless we alter the law, I think that the courts—nobody in the House and no official can tell one the answer—might well interpret it as being in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's modifications. I do not know whether I have the right hon. Gentleman's support on that, but it is for the courts to interpret that if the clause is accepted.
  On majority verdicts, it is impossible to know whether all or even one of the 12 jurors are committed to the abolition of the death penalty. If one juror is committed to the abolition of the death penalty, then the whole thing becomes a farce. However, if the right hon. Gentleman's alteration is applied the composition of the jury is changed. There is another alternative as suggested in my amendment (a): the majority vote. I understand that that is the law in Scotland.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport has said that the provisions of the clause would include acts of terrorism. I object to the fact that it does not apply to Northern Ireland and would require special legislation in order to cover terrorist actions. I have had an early-day motion tabled for about 15 years advocating that the death penalty should be imposed for terrorists and people who assist in terrorist actions both in this country and elsewhere. With amendment (b) it would be difficult to extend the clause to Northern Ireland without complicated legislation. Therefore, although I support the clause it would be inconsistent to have the death penalty in one part of the United Kingdom and not in another.

  1147
  However, Northern Ireland was once in a similar position. For a time, it had the death penalty but we did not have it here. We would be faced with a grave problem but I do not think that it would be insoluble. I would like to see the necessary legislation imposed so that it affects Northern Ireland as well.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) explained why his Government introduced abolition for Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman seems to he inconsistent in what he is now saying.
  Dr. Glyn: The Government introduced it in Northern Ireland for reasons with which I do not agree. With respect, that is my argument. I did not want to see it remain in Northern Ireland because it was right. The acts of terrorism would be reduced considerably if we had the death penalty. If we asked the police or the military—
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Dr. Glyn: I shall finish, if I may. The death penalty would decrease violence in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman bases his argument on the idea that terrorism would be reduced in Northern Ireland. Where is the evidence for that? Will he bear in mind a point that I made earlier in an intervention in the Home Secretary's speech: that terrorists and those who were accused of terrorism were willing to sacrifice their own lives, and were in no way deterred by the possibility of dying as a result of a hunger strike. That played into the hands of the Provisional IRA.
  Dr. Glyn: That argument will go on for ever. In my view, capital punishment is a deterrent, and would be in Northern Ireland. I suggest that public opinion is behind us and that if there were ever a referendum in this country, the death penalty would be reintroduced.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) set an admirable example of brevity. If all hon. Members do the same, I shall be able to call a great many of them.
  Miss Betty Boothroyd: The right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), in moving the new clause, spoke of the significance of public opinion. That is the argument with which I want to begin. It is a strong argument that we have to meet when we discuss the return of capital punishment for any category of murder. That has always been the case and the debate today is no exception.
  It is suggested by many, both inside and outside the House, that the public wishes the return of the death penalty, as the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) said. I tend to think that perhaps that is the case, and that the majority wish for that. The return to judicial killing would be regarded as a mark of determination by the House to deter the criminal. Such symbols have a powerful attraction. I submit that they are of little benefit when they do not actually produce the required result.
  Over a long time, I have read as much as I could about the matter and listened to what others have had to say, but it is hard to find any substantial evidence to suggest that judicial killing is an act that deters. I do not doubt that the death penalty deters some potential criminals, but it does
  1148
  not deter others. There is no real statistical evidence for believing that there is a clear correlation between the murder rate and the existence or otherwise of the death penalty. To me, it is incumbent on those who take the view that the death penalty should be reinstated—because life imprisonment and the present level of punishment do not deter — to show that capital punishment would deter further. The onus of proof is on them. Because it cannot be proved one way or the other, it then has to become a question of one's own personal judgment.
  The second argument with which we must deal is that of retribution. I find it difficult to deal with those who demand retribution, because of the sheer single-mindedness of that approach. There are those who believe that murderers should be executed irrespective of the consequences of that decision.
  7 pm
  The retributionists today, as on other occasions when we have had such debates, will not find much difficulty in arriving at their decision, all the more because of the emotive wording of the new clause—the word evil, and all that it implies, is used in the clause. For those who seek retribution there will be no problem in supporting the clause.
  For my part, I do not believe that revenge and retribution are the business of Parliament. No one has greater respect for this House and its procedures than I, and I am firm in my belief that the business of Parliament is justice and the protection of the innocent. It is justice in the form of harsh punishment for the guilty, and justice in protecting the lives of the innocent and the values of our society. For me, retribution can never have, and I believe should never have, a place in the deliberations of a Parliament in a civilised nation.
  My third and major argument is the question of selectivity. Selectivity is spelled out in the new clause and lies at the crux of it. Those who do not believe in judicial killing are not being asked to throw their convictions overboard. In fact, what is taking place today is that they are being persuaded to make their convictions flexible.
  It has been suggested by those who tabled the new clause that it is reasonable to adopt a flexible attitude to the capital crime. During my years of service in the House I have spoken in a number of debates on this issue and there have been persuasive arguments seeking to apply the death penalty for acts of terrorism. I have learned this afternoon that this applies also to them. There have been persuasive arguments on other occasions for the death penalty for the killing of police and prison officers on duly. On each occasion, we have been asked to be flexible in applying the capital sentence to various groups of individuals.
  Today, the right hon. and learned Member for Southport and his supporters have gone one stage further. They are suggesting that we should give authority to the courts to act in a selective and discriminatory fashion in determining the degree of evil that is associated with the act of murder, in that 12 jurors in unison are required to discriminate between murder that is more heinous and murder that is less heinous. So, in this discriminatory fashion, the death penalty can be applied to acts of a more evil nature, and that is left to the discretion of the jury.
  Many hon. Members are far more familiar with the workings of the law than I. They have acknowledged, today and in earlier debates, that to restore selective

  1149
  judicial killing will present the courts with enormous problems. We know, from experience and from evidence that is sent to us from time to time, that attempts to implement legislation that distinguishes between different types of murder have been unsuccessful. We also know from some of the most eminent people in the judiciary that earlier legislation produced anomalies, despite the years of study and examination in attempts to define different types of murder.
  The new clause will create chaos for those applying the law. It makes the jury system unworkable because it demands of jurors a subjective judgment in defining evil. This House must face reality. From my point of view, all murder is evil. So far as the House is concerned, either we have the death penalty for all types of murder or we do not reinstate it. We must be honest and have the courage to say that. That is the issue that is before us yet again today, and we cannot duck it. We cannot ask jurors to distinguish between, and be flexible towards, one act of murder as opposed to another. For those who commit outrageous and evil acts there cannot be any shred of sympathy. They must be met with long, tough sentences and I make no bones about it. I make no bones about the fact that I welcome the practice of committal for decades and conviction for life.
  My final argument, which was mentioned earlier, is about the democratic process, because it brings into conflict individual conscience and what I regard as majority opinion. The first question put to me in the election campaign in Nelson and Colne. when I was the candidate following the death of Sydney Silverman, was on that issue. It was an emotive period. and to some extent I was unsuccessful because of my convictions as an abolitionist. Since first being elected to the House, I have consistently demonstrated my opposition to judicial killing, although in all honesty I cannot say that all my constituents are aware of my views. But I take the view—I believe that my constituents share it with me—that I am not a mandated delegate, and this is not a delegated assembly. I owe respect to the people whom I represent for their point of view. I also owe them my judgment in seeking what is right and best for the country in its entirety.
  It would not only be wrong in itself, but wrong in the interests of the nation, to reinstate capital punishment on the basis of public opinion. That opinion I must face and convince. If I fail, my views and I can be rejected. It would be intolerable if I were to allow public perception rather than convincing argument to blow me away from the opinions that I hold. The right hon. and learned Member for Southport, in introducing the new clause, was far from logical and far from convincing. I find the new clause extremely misleading and confused. I shall demonstrate that in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Hal Miller: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd). She will find that I am equally forthright in my opinions and as content to stand by them. I hope to take up her remarks on deterrence and the point of view of the public, but first I should like to refer to the suggestion by the right hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), that somehow it is a mark of a degraded and
  1150
  uncivilised society to consider the reintroduction of the death penalty. I shall hardly take lessons from a former Home Secretary who was responsible for introducing the permissive society—
  Mr. Alex Carlile: You fool.
  Mr. Miller: I said at the beginning of my speech that I am confident of my opinions and I am prepared to stand by them. I shall continue to do so.
  What causes me greater anxiety than the gratuitous slur which the two right hon. Members sought to introduce and which spoiled their arguments, which were until then stated in a perfectly logical fashion, is the suggestion which, unfortunately, has crept in on both sides of the House, that somehow capital punishment cannot be considered for terrorists because of the consequences. I hope that the Minister of State will take the opportunity, when replying to the debate, to restate the position of Her Majesty's Government on not giving in to terrorists' demands, and not being deterred by terrorists' threats from carrying out the policy to which the Government adhere, never mind capital punishment in that context. The spirit that infused some of the remarks that we have heard can only be described as craven.
  Mr. Fairbairn: The consequence of the death penalty in the 17 cases when I defended a person on a capital charge was that people were wrongly acquitted. The consequence was that they went out and murdered somebody else. The consequence of the death penalty being abolished is that, with the 500 people whom I have defended for non-capital murder, the jury has not had that difficulty. Two were wrongly convicted and both were pardoned—Preece and Meehan. If they had not been, they would have been wrongly hanged by us.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Miller: My hon. and learned Friend's forensic record is well known to the House, but he has not assisted me in my argument about terrorist offences. I now wish to return to the main point that I wanted to make. I should like to deal first with the concept of deterrence, because it is the main reason why I support the concept of the reintroduction of capital punishment.
  As one of the main sponsors of the new clause, I must accept liability for any defects that may have been found in its drafting or its uneven effect. I am happy to accept the criticism that has rightly been made in the House today, but it should not be allowed to detract from the principle at stake. I admit that the new clause was a device to get the principle of the reintroduction of capital punishment re-examined. Were the new clause to be passed, I still cannot believe that it would be impossible for it to be dealt with through Lords amendments.
  I wish to refer to the principle of deterrence and the role of the public. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) rightly stated that the main deterrent is to be detected. I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his team have done in equipping, paying, raising the morale of and employing extra police to improve the chances of detection. I also pay tribute to them for the legislative measures that they have passed in the teeth of the Opposition, such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, to improve matters considerably in that major respect. We should not get the idea of capital punishment

  1151
  out of all proportion. It is only part of the deterrent. The most important part is some of the work that my right hon. Friend has undertaken.
  However, the concept of the deterrent is well established in the public consciousness. The purpose of the deterrent is not to be used but to deter. That is the concept that underlies our defence policy. It is an applicable analogy. We are attempting to introduce and further the same concept of deterrence. It is widely understood and accepted by the public. It is easy for hon. Members with abilities that sometimes are better than those with which I was endowed at birth to pick holes in arguments but lose sight of what the public are concerned about and their attitude. The public are well accustomed to the idea of a deterrent and have been encouraged in that by our Government, I am glad to say.
  If the public really believe that capital punishment is a deterrent, as it seems to me they do from my travels round the country on by-election duty, it is reasonable to suppose that some of the criminal fraternity among the public also find it a deterrent. The limit of my ambition is to increase deterrence. That is what I am trying to do. It is important. It is all very well to win the argument in the House, but I do not find people going outside the House and campaigning for the views that they hold here. If they are sincere in their beliefs, a real educative process must be undertaken to sway the public—and perhaps educate the public — to their view. They must change the perception of the public. The reason why the matter has cropped up again this evening is not some perverse, atavistic, degraded thirst for blood and retribution among Conservative Back Benchers— [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it is."] No, it has nothing to do with that. I am not interested in retribution. I will not be accused of that.
  The reason for this debate is the wide concern among the public that there should be an increased deterrent for the increasing number of crimes of violence and murder. That is why we are debating the subject tonight. It crops up again this evening because of public demand, and we must discuss the matter. Although we are not delegated, it is right that we should discuss the matter in this House as representatives.
  I accept that the new clause may be defective and may not be in a fit state to be passed by the House. However, I make no apology for discussing the matter and for putting my point of view. I sincerely urge all hon. Members to take very seriously the point about public perception and the public wish. If there must be a process of re-education, would hon. Members please undertake that process if they are opposed to the measure?
  I have found that there is a very real wish for increased deterrence and a very widespread understanding that the reintroduction of capital punishment would help to achieve that end. That is why I will be supporting the new clause tonight, whatever its defects.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I am probably the only speaker in the Chamber tonight who lives in an area where there is capital punishment. The distinction that we are talking about in Northern Irish terms is capital punishment on the one hand and capital punishment as part of the judicial process on the other. I live in a part of a very small island which has suffered the deaths of approximately 2,600 people. Translated into British terms—when compared with England, Scotland
  1152
  and Wales — that is almost 12,000 people. We can rightly say that there is capital punishment in Northern Ireland which is extra to the judicial process.
  It would also be true to say that I am probably the only person in the House tonight who has been on more than one occassion under sentence of death from the people who carry out capital punishment. That is not unique to me. That is a common position for any Northern Ireland politician.
  For those reasons we must be very careful tonight. We must be careful that we do not allow self-righteous indignation to carry us away, that we do not let our very sincere convictions rule our heads and above all we must not allow a ghoulish macabre self-indulgence in these matters to take over the debate.
  We are all against sin. This debate should not be a moralistic beauty contest on the Floor of the House. It should be the means of solving a very serious problem. As someone who lives in the middle of probably the most dangerous part of Northern Ireland, which has seen more violence than any other part, I do not want to see any Act incorporating capital punishment. I do not want to see it even contemplated.
  There has been much debate tonight about the deterrent element of capital punishment. I have one simple question to ask. If that deterrent factor exists, why have the problems of political violence remained in Ireland after 800 years? Why, in 800 years, has that deterrent not worked? It has not worked for a very good reason—and that question was put continually from Conservative Benches. Those who are dedicated to violence in the north of Ireland, be it Republican violence or Loyalist violence, are dedicated to getting the most repressive legislation that they can from this House. I refer to the words of Daniel Morrison of Provisional Sinn Fein after the horrific bombings in Brighton. He confirmed my point clearly by saying that Provisional Sinn Fein would not get the repressive legislation that it sought. If those people were sitting in this Chamber tonight, they would be wishing the new clause to be carried. If it was carried, it would not be the leaders of those organisations who would suffer. The young lad of 16 or 17 years of age on the periphery of the violence would suffer. That is where I believe the central flaw in the argument lies. That essential flaw would play into the hands of those who are dedicated to change things by violent means in the north of Ireland.
  We have heard numerous references to the IRA and I condemn every act of violence that it carries out. However, let us not forget that there are other organisations on the Loyalist side in the Unionist community which are acting in exactly the same way, in a way which is reprehensible for everyone in the north of Ireland and in a way which can never bring a solution to our problem.
  I will not go into the legalities of the new clause I will leave that to the lawyers. However, having listened to some hon. and learned Members tonight, I do not believe that they have cleared the wooliness that surrounds the new clause. It is incredible that this type of legislation could only apply to Northern Ireland if there was a reintroduction of a jury system. We would enter a bizarre situation whereby, after derogating from the highest standards of the judicial process, we would have to reintroduce a jury system so that people could be hanged to cope with terrorism. That inherent bizarre proposal is central to the new clause. That is absolutely ludicrous and,

  1153
  in legal terms—and I do not speak as a legal person—that could not possibly be made to work by any remote stretch of the imagination.
  Reference has already been made to the hunger strike deaths. Let us examine the implications of the new clause. Those people on hunger strike were seeking one aim—the definition of their position as political prisoners. Once such a new clause is introduced, those people would have that and a further definition of their position as political martyrs. We know the potency of the martyr syndrome in Irish politics. We know the way in which it seeps down from one generation to another and we know how the whole sub-culture of violence which is condemned as outlandish in one decade can become a source of admiration in the next decade. To play into the hands of that sub-culture of violence would be a crucial mistake if we hope to find a solution to the terrible problems facing the north of Ireland.
  If we want the IRA, the UDA, UVF or the INLA—or whatever name an organisation may choose at any given time — to succeed, I recommend that the surest way to achieve that would be to hang those people. Imagine the position in a very closed community such as Northern Ireland the day the first person was hanged under this kind of legislation. Be he Protestant, Catholic, Unionist or Republican, imagine the attitudes within that community. Imagine the problems that would be caused for people living in that community. Some theories simply do not stand up. Some people say that capital punishment would be a protection for the vulnerable in society. It is not such a protection. The most vulnerable in society live in areas which would be taken over by emotion. Their areas would be laid bare by the men of violence.
  Some people say that the proposal would be a body blow for violent organisations. That is not quite correct. Those organisations would be laughing all the way to their next sinister plan because they would know that the proposal was playing exactly into their hands. Those who see the death penalty as a means of creating peace and order—I do not use the term "law and order"—in the north of Ireland have only to consider the effect of the hunger strikes. Nothing created the Sinn Fein political presence so potently as what happened in those prisons. There was a cynicism and a callousness that was quite shocking, but there was also a blindness in the approach to that situation which in many ways was rooted in self-indulgence and gave those people the necessary impetus at the very time when it was needed.
  7.30 pm
  I conclude with the words of Winston Churchill, which were quoted by my colleague the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in the debate in 1983, but which bear repeating. Churchill said:
  "The grass grows green on the battlefield, but never on the scaffold."
  Whether the battlefield be a mining village in Britain, an urban ghetto in London or the blood stained streets of Northern Ireland, I beg the House never again to allow the shadow of the gallows to cut out that light which alone can bring real peace and justice.
  Mr. Leon Brittan: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that our debates on this issue had been debates of distinction which had brought
  1154
  honour to the House of Commons. I believe that that tradition has been continued in today's debate, with the exception of a self-righteous display of petulance and intolerance by a former Home Secretary. I was not persuaded by another distinguished contributor that debates of this kind should not be held because they distract attention from the serious matter of the handling of crime. I entirely agree that this issue, whatever one's views about it, is not central to the problem of crime because, mercifully, murder is by no means the most prevalent of crimes. Nevertheless, no one paying any attention at all to the vast quantity of legislation emanating from the Home Office when I was Home Secretary and under my successor or to the debates that have taken place in the House could possibly believe that two debates on capital punishment separated by a four-year interval have prevented the House from considering the subject of crime on a broader basis.
  The House is right to debate this matter because of the public concern and interest in it, which should not be condemned as merely some kind of morbidity that decent, intelligent folk should suppress. With regard to public opinion, I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) that it is our duty to listen to what our constituents say but at the end of the day to make up our own minds. I am not sure that I agree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that if capital punishment were reintroduced public opinion would be likely to swing against it. I do not think that that has been the experience in those parts of the United States where capital punishment has been reintroduced. Those who oppose capital punishment in all circumstances must therefore rest their views on their conscience and analysis rather than on the belief that they can accurately predict what public opinion would be following reintroduction of the death penalty as opposed to what public opinion is today.
  There are those who say that it is always wrong for the state to take life. I respect but do not share that view. Others say that they would support capital punishment if it were a unique deterrent. The evidence on that point is complex. It was analysed at some length in the debate in 1983 and contributors to today's debate have gone over the ground again. In all fairness, the evidence can at best be said to be inconclusive. It does not provide a sufficient base for a decision one way or the other. Many people, however, feel that, although the evidence of a deterrent effect is at best inconclusive, capital punishment should nevertheless be restored for the most heinous of offences. As has been pointed out, in the last debate on the subject I voted in favour of the restoration of capital punishment for one particular category of murder and, despite all that has been said, I do not regret having done so.
  The problem of deciding which murders are the most heinous has proved to be a formidable one over the years. Reference has been made to the Homicide Act 1957 and the attempt to found a category of murder which would be capital murder because it was committed in furtherance of theft. That is just one example of the difficulties that arise in seeking to make definitions of that kind. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) has therefore adopted a genuinely new approach, for which he deserves the respect and commendation of the House whether or not we feel able to support his proposal. He has attempted to define the most heinous of offences, which should be met with capital

  1155
  punishment, not by the motive or type of crime but by an assessment of its moral quality. I have much sympathy with that attempt and I do not agree with much of the criticism that it has attracted. It is a valiant attempt but, unfortunately, I do not believe that it is viable as a legal instrument.
  There is a further obscurity in the wording of the clause in addition to that which has already been pointed out and which was dealt with very fairly by my right hon. and learned Friend. He made it crystal clear that he would require the ingredient of evil to be found in the offence whichever limb of the clause was applied. That being so, I am somewhat mystified as to the need for a reference to premeditated killing as an alternative to knowingly and intentionally killing, as in my view the category of those who knowingly and intentionally kill another person must include those who commit the offence in a premeditated manner. That obscurity, however real and important though it is, is not my principal reason for reluctantly concluding that I cannot go along with my right hon. and learned Friend's new clause, sympathetic though I am to the motives of those who support it.
  The more substantial problem is that the clause envisages that the test of whether the murder should be capital is whether the killing was evil, and that that should be decided by a jury. I find the concept of evil far too vague and subjective to be the basis for deciding whether a man should be deprived of his life. I will illustrate this by my own reaction, which I do not think is unique. The purpose and intention of the clause is that capital punishment should apply only to the most heinous forms of murder and that those who sponsor the new clause do not favour the general reintroduction of capital punishment. Personally, I regard any deliberate taking of life as evil, except in very rare cases such as mercy killing. On that basis, the clause would constitute a general reintroduction of capital punishment if the jury happened to share my view, which I do not think is unreasonable, that except in the most exceptional circumstances any deliberate act of killing is an evil act. Yet that is not the intention that a majority, at least, of the sponsors of this new clause put forward.
  It is also said that we should not worry about the use of the term "evil" because it would all be decided on the facts of the case. That is all very well if, even if undefinable, it were possible for us to think that there was a sufficient consensus as to what was particularly evil. I suppose that the analogy to be drawn here is with the person who said that he could not define an elephant but would have no difficulty in recognising one if he saw it charging at him. But it is a false analogy, because, although the man may be unable to define an elephant, a zoologist could describe the distinctive features of the elephant in such a way that it could not be mistaken for another creature, whereas a criminologist or a moralist would find it difficult to describe the distinctive features of evil so that there could be no doubt in a given case that conduct was or was not evil.
  Reference was also made by my right hon. and learned Friend to the use of the word "evil" by judges. I do not myself think it is to be criticised if judges, addressing someone convicted of a particular criminal offence, use adjectives of that kind to describe the conduct which has taken place; but while it is one thing for a judge to use the word as an adjective in describing behaviour after a verdict, it is a very different thing to use it as part of a
  1156
  statutory definition of an offence. The two are not at all the same. The mere fact that it is possible to refer to spectacularly horrific cases and to say, "Surely those are evil," is not an answer to this point, because it is precisely the borderline cases that are important. It is the ability to distinguish one side of the border from another which should be the touchstone of the validity of a legal definition. On that basis, this definition is fundamentally inadequate.
  It is also proposed that it should be a jury that should perform this task, but that does not resolve the problem. The judge would have to sum up the case. What is he to say to the jury? My right hon. and learned Friend has said that the judge should say to the jury, "Here is the case. You have heard the facts. If you think it is evil, that is capital murder, but I cannot give you any guidance at all as to what is or is not evil." That would be a very unusual situation in our jurisprudence.
  Mr. Dickens rose—
  Mr. Brittan: I would rather not give way, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
  It does not end there either, because the matter may then go to the Court of Appeal. How is the Court of Appeal to determine whether or not it has been right for a jury to decide that a particular case was evil to the extent to justify its being a capital murder? The Court of Appeal itself, in considering decisions, would be bound to build up a corpus of law, defining what is evil and what is not evil, in a way which would be completely arbitrary and unguided by Parliament but ineluctable in the discharge of its duties.
  I have the greatest respect for the motives behind this further attempt to define those murders which should be singled out for capital punishment. I have no basic ideological objection to the task on which my right hon. and hon. Friends have embarked, but I must regretfully conclude that, valiantly as they have striven, they have not produced a proposal which is legally viable, quite apart from the general arguments with regard to capital punishment. It is for that reason, if no other, that I do not find it possible to commend this clause to the House or to support it myself.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): To some, the whole concept of capital punishment is alien. It is a moral stance and I fully understand it. Others accept capital punishment. I make no bones about the fact that I have always opposed capital punishment, for the simple reason that it is so easy to make a mistake. A mistake can be made with the best will in the world by the most honest and honourable people in the world. If it is made in a case of a capital nature, it can never be rectified.
  Earlier in the debate we heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House of mistakes that had been made, of cases where people had been convicted of murder and later acquitted. Perhaps I can give just one example which comes from personal experience of a case — not a murder case—where a mistake was made.
  7.45 pm
  I have practised as a lawyer for some 20 years or more, as both solicitor and barrister. During that time, I have come across cases which have worried me. About 15 or 17 years ago I was asked to defend a man in a simple burglary case which involved kicking a window in and stealing a

  1157
  pair of shoes—not the most serious or most difficult case. He denied the charge but was convicted. The evidence against him was glass on his shoes. He was sentenced and did three months. The magistrates who tried that case were the most honourable and honest men before whom I have ever had the privilege of appearing. I knew them personally. They lived in Sheffield. They knew exactly what they were doing. They heard the evidence and they convicted the man. A year after that conviction, another man was accused of burglary and once more it fell to my lot to defend him. He asked for other matters to be taken into consideration, one of which was the case for which my previous client had been convicted. A full investigation was made and this showed that, as the first defendant had said on the previous occasion, he was not guilty. A mistake had been made but it was one which could be rectified and compensated.
  That was a case where a mistake was made by innocent, ordinary people who were trying to do their job as fairly as possible. Our system is not perfect. Juries are not perfect. In 999 out of 1,000 cases, they do a wonderful job and try their best, but with the best will in the world mistakes can be made and if for no other reason than that there is always the possibility of a mistake people like me will continue to hold the view that capital punishment is something that we cannot have in our system.
  There is perhaps one other ground on which I will oppose this clause and which will lead me to vote against it tonight, and that is the way in which it seeks to place on members of the jury the onus of deciding on life or death. It introduces into our system a completely new concept. It brings the jury into the realm of imposition of penalty. All we ask a jury to do nowadays in any trial, and all we have ever asked it to do, is to decide whether the Crown has proved its case. This new clause suggests that we add a second duty. Not only must the jury decide whether the Crown has proved its case; we then tell it that it has heard the facts and must decide. We say that if it is unanimous this man or woman will live or die. What guarantee would there be that two juries in, say, St. Albans and Southampton, sitting on the same day, hearing virtually similar cases, would come to the same conclusion? There is no guarantee at all.
  It is these two reasons, plus a myriad of others which hon. Members on both sides of the House have already mentioned, that lead me to the firm and unyielding conclusion that the clause should be defeated.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I speak in the full knowledge that the subject of the debate produces strong feelings both inside and outside the House. What I have to say comes from deeply held convictions about capital punishment, convictions which have not been lightly or recently arrived at without serious consideration of the moral points involved, and convictions which I believe are widely supported in the country. There have been 16 debates on the subject in the House in the past 32 years, all resulting in an abolitionist stance. The arguments for and against have been well rehearsed and are widely known. I cannot hope to do more than cover three or four of the central contentions.
  I must point out what the new clause does not seek to do, and what the debate is not about. It is not about unanimous verdicts; it is not about spur-of-the-moment
  1158
  crimes of passion; it is not about the method of the death penalty; it is not about the fear that juries will not convict but will acquit because they do not wish to convict on a capital charge. All those matters are specifically excluded by the wording of the new clause.
  It is my belief and that of those who support the new clause that capital punishment or the death penalty, whichever name we like to give it, would and will be the supreme deterrent. As evidence of this, I draw the attention of the House to the fundamental and obvious changes which have taken place in society since partial abolition in 1965 and full abolition in 1969. Recent tragic events in Tottenham, in Oldham and in Sunderland are graphic examples of the fact that the possession of and resort to lethal weapons have become commonplace in today's Britain.
  It is possible to paint misleading numerical figures with statistics, but certain facts speak for themselves. In the five years up to abolition in 1965, the average number of murders in England and Wales was 290. In the five years up to 1983, the average was 590. In the 18 years up to abolition in 1965, the number of police officers killed in the course of duty was 11; since 1965, there have been 30 such cases.
  More worrying is the increased use of firearms and other weapons. In the 10 years from 1973 to 1983, the number of offences involving guns and other weapons rose from 1,754 to 8,067. The number of murders arising out of the commission of other offences, usually theft or rape, rose by a staggering 73 per cent. from 1965 to 1977. Figures for the years since then show similar increases.
  Of course, such rises reflect a general increase in crime. An overwhelming statistical case for the deterrent effect of capital punishment is always difficult to make. However, like many other arguments on the issue, no absolute proof can be obtained as it is impossible to calculate how many people would be deterred from carrying and using firearms and other weapons if capital punishment were available to the courts.
  I should like to deal briefly with a misleading point which is always put by the abolitionists, if I may to refer to them by that name—that is, that the reintroduction of capital punishment will encourage a nothing-to-lose attitude among certain sections of the public and the criminal fraternity. Such a position already exists on the streets.
  That leads me to my second point, which is to emphasise an undercurrent in my comments thus far, that murder has become commonplace. In the words of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) in the 1983 debate, crime has become a game in which it is bad luck if one loses. There are those who will argue that the absence of capital punishment is the mark of a civilised society, yet the hacking to death of a policeman or the gunning down of a security guard or of innocent people who come between thugs and their desires surely cannot be the mark of a civilised society. Quite simply, the criminal law no longer provides credible sanctions for the most heinous form of wrongdoing. Something must be done and the House should support the new clause tonight.
  My third point is that the majority of people are in favour of the reintroduction of the death penalty. According to a poll in 1983, over 90 per cent. of the very large sample interviewed supported the substance of the new clause.
  Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend has mentioned polls. May I draw to her attention a poll taken on Saturday by Southampton, Test young Conservatives in the centre of the shopping parade in Southampton? It showed that 69 per cent. of those polled would like a referendum on capital punishment and that 65 per cent. wanted their Members of Parliament to vote for the restoration of capital punishment.
  Mrs. Peacock: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Recently, I did a poll in my constituency by knocking on doors. I spoke to 190 people who were picked at random. Only 13 did not want the reintroduction of the death penalty, so the figures speak for themselves.
  The strength of feeling in constituencies has not altered since the poll in 1983. The most frequent comment that I hear in my constituency about law and order is, "I wish the House of Commons would bring back hanging because that is what we need." If instead of the debate there was a national referendum, I have no doubt about the result; there would be an overwhelming vote for the reintroduction of the death penalty. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) said earlier, we are representatives, not delegates, but it is clearly the duty of each of us to reflect the feeling in our constituency and to protect the interests of constituents and their families to the best of our ability.
  If people decide that their interests are best protected by having the death penalty as a sanction for murder, who are we to decide differently? Do we think of ourselves as morally superior? Is that what we are to tell our constituents tomorrow? Have we secret information which should persuade perhaps some of us to decide otherwise? I suggest that we do not. The 650 Members of Parliament are not in a position to take a paternalistic and arrogant attitude merely because of the two initials which we have after our names.
  Let me remind the House that out there in the country murder and violence are not distant and unreal. The fear of them happening to ourselves, to our young children and to our elderly relatives is a constant companion. Although I recognise that there is a constant fear of a miscarriage of justice and that mistakes can be made, it has also been suggested that we might have martyrdom and hostage-taking. Already such things happen, so the decision that I should like the House to take would not have that effect.
  I implore the House to take this giant step for sanity and to reintroduce the death penalty. It is high time that some hon. Members came down from the ivory tower of the House and did what the people want. At least I speak for people in England. What they want is for us to vote for the reintroduction of the death penalty. I ask the House to support the new clause.
  Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup ( Mr. Heath) who said in his excellent speech that, whatever the pros and cons of capital punishment, it is a wholly inadequate instrument for dealing with crime. All the lawyers in all parts of the House have recognised the enormous contradictions in the clause. If we in our wisdom or otherwise pass it into law we will make fools of ourselves.
  8 pm
  I have been in the House for a long time and I remember the magnificent campaign inspired by the late
  1160
  Sydney Silverman. He was one of the most courageous men I have ever met, and, by his perspicacity and tenacity, he obtained the abolition of capital punishment. During my years in the House I have heard all the debates on the subject before and since capital punishment was abolished. I have always made my views clear to my constituents and I have never suffered electorally as a result of my views.
  It has been said repeatedly in the debate, and it is perhaps trite to repeat it, that we come to the House not as delegates but as representative men and women, trusted to exercise our judgment on a multitude of issues and to account to our electorate for our behaviour on specific issues and on general performance. There is a great temptation for hon. Members, in the run up to a general election, particularly for those such as the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) who hold marginal seats, and especially when the result of that election is very much in the balance, to assess what they calculate to be the popular majority, as the hon. Lady asserted, on a specific issue and then, irrespective of the pros and cons, to plug a demogogic line for all that they are worth.
  Mrs. Peacock: If the hon. Gentleman had checked my record, he would have found that my views were the same for many years before I came to this House. I have not changed them for electoral advantage and would not do so on such an issue.
  Mr. Hamilton: No doubt the hon. Lady also promised at the last election to deal with law and order. One of the reasons why the Conservative party is sensitive about these matters is precisely that it has thrown hundreds of millions of pounds at the problem of law and order, but crime rates have got remorselessly worse. The Conservatives are seeking to convince the House and the public that one of the reasons for that is the abolition of capital punishment 20 or 30 years ago. It is all designed by those who support this clause to portray an image of toughness, virility, righteousness and morality.
  As I have said, there is almost certainly an understandable sensitivity in the Conservative party about its calamitous failure to deal with the problem of law and order. I have no doubt that the new clause was carefully drafted. I can imagine the people who sponsored it sitting down at meeting after meeting carefully drafting it to cater for all eventualities. They have made a regular hash of it. It is a further attempt, no doubt sincere, to categorise murders. In this case it has to be premeditated, it must be shown without any shadow of doubt that the accused knowingly and intentionally killed, and it has to be proved that the crime could be considered evil by a reasonable person.
  No one has defined a reasonable person or what is evil. If such vague absurdities were accepted, fortunes would be made by the legal fraternity arguing at great length and at great cost about the precise meaning of those terms. Lawyers and economists have one thing in common, and it is that they can never agree with one another for more than five minutes. They are paid very expensively for disagreeing with each other.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is talking about lawyers. Is he aware that in 1983, before the last debate on capital punishment, there was a special extraordinary meeting of the Bar at which a motion against capital punishment was carried not only overwhelmingly but, I think I am right in saying, with only four votes against it?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am glad to hear that. It shows that in certain special cases there can be some degree of unanimity. When they see a worthy cause lawyers can come to some measure of agreement.
  Several hon. Members spoke about the absurdities inherent in the Homicide Act 1957. I was in the House at the time and I remember the attempts to categorise murder. Murder by shooting was evil — to use the terminology of this clause—but murder by poisoning or strangling was not. It was fine to strangle somebody but terribly bad to shoot him. If a person went into the corner shop and took a few sweets or chocolates or cigarettes, that was murder in furtherance of theft and was evil. However, murder done in the course of a rape was civilised and, while it was not acceptable, it was less obnoxious than robbing the corner shop.
  Under that Act the murder of a policeman or a prison officer was reprehensible and evil, but the murder of a nurse, of a coalminer or even of the Prime Minister was less heinous than robbing the corner shop. All those absurdities were contained in an Act passed by a Conservative Government and they show the impossibility of trying to categorise murder.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) enumerated the number of mistakes that have ben made. With a judge or a judge and jury mistakes are inevitable. However conscientious those people might be, they can make mistakes and the death penalty is irreversible. When the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) moved his clause he spoke about this matter and reminded me of a comment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that it is neither here nor there to make the odd mistake. The Chancellor said that that was in the nature of things. That is fine—provided one is not at the end of a rope. For the man at the end of the rope it is very final and a very big mistake. Such mistakes have been made over the years and that is why capital punishment is so morally indefensible.
  If it is evil for an individual to take a life, it is just as evil and reprehensible for the state to take another life. That is why capital punishment is so immoral and why I think that this proposition will be roundly defeated. Let us get on with the job of really tackling the root problems of the crime rate from which we are now suffering.
  Mr. Mike Woodcock: As requested, I shall be brief. I support the new clause in the hope that it will be part of a more general enhancement of penalties for serious crimes. A few weeks ago I was reading my Sunday newspapers. I picked up a copy of the Sunday Times and a quite innocuous little story attracted my attention. It was about a milk float being developed by a dairy company and a local authority. The new float had metal grilles over the windows and was designed so that the driver stayed in his cab. He summoned his customers by a chime or klaxon. The milk was dispensed through a chute at the rear of the vehicle. It was in cartons rather than bottles, so that the bottles could not be used as missiles.
  I had to stop and think about it. I wondered whether the milk float had been designed for some foreign, lawless society. However, I discovered that it was intended for use in this country—on some of the council estates of our capital city. That is the state that law and order has
  1162
  reached in some parts of the country. Everyone is now appalled by the rising crime rate. The problem is not confined to this country, but we are no exception.
  In the 10 years between 1975 and 1985 murders have increased by 20 per cent.; rapes by 80 per cent.; burglaries from dwellings by 90 per cent.; thefts from vehicles by 100 per cent.; and robberies and arson by 250 per cent. In the past 25 years, the annual number of notifiable offences recorded by the police has risen by 700 per cent. At the same time, the number of crimes solved by the police has fallen. Most forces clear up about a third of burglaries from dwelling houses.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the increase in burglaries from dwelling houses can have resulted from the absence of capital punishment?
  Mr. Woodcock: If the hon. Gentleman will listen for a moment, I shall explain in the five minutes that I have to make this contribution that I want to see increased penalties for all forms of crime, with murder at the top of the hierarchy.
  As I was saying, most police forces clear up about a third of burglaries. The best solve fewer than half such cases; the worst, fewer than 10 per cent. Some forces clear up fewer than 15 per cent. of all crimes, including murder, and the best solve fewer than 55 per cent.
  Two weeks ago I spoke in Birkenhead, near my constituency. After I had spoken, I joined the audience, walking among the tables and chatting to the people sitting at them. At the first table that I came to, I sat down with eight elderly ladies. Within three minutes, I had discovered that they had all been burgled within the past three years, one of them in the last week. Another had her car boot broken into within the last two weeks, and another had been mugged just two weeks earlier — not in a back alley, but in the middle of Boots the Chemists in Birkenhead. Is it any wonder that such people are concerned about the rise in crime?
  When I was elected, I took as the principal points of my election campaign the economy and jobs, individual responsibility, strong defence and a stronger stand on law and order. Nearly four years have gone by, and we are now approaching another general election. I am proud of the Government's record on the first three items: the economy is in good shape, people are becoming more independent and rely less on the Government to do for them those things they should do for themselves, and our defence policy is well respected and supported. However, I am not so proud of our record on law and order. Yes, we have strengthened the police, devoted more resources and built more prisons. However, that is not enough.
  8.15 pm
  People who commit crimes must know not only that they are likely to be caught, but that, if they are caught, they will face the severest penalties for the severest crimes. The public need to know that the punishment will fit the crime. Too often offenders leave the court laughing because of the leniency of their sentences; too often, when they do not walk free, there is a public outcry about such leniency.
  There is a parallel between tax and prison, in that the Chancellor found that lowering the top rate of tax gives a greater incentive to work and thus increases the tax take. I believe that the Home Secretary would also find that

  1163
  longer and more rigorous sentences would result in a disincentive to go to prison, and hence a lower prison population.
  A few weeks ago, a distinguished judge, Judge Argyle, was heavily criticised for making what some considered to be political remarks. He said:
  "The Government, when elected, had pledged to do something about law and order, but the Government have fallen flat on their face in dealing with the situation. Quite simply, law and order does not exist in this country at the moment. The criminals arc walking all over us."
  I do not agree with all of that, but I agree with the last sentence—"The criminals are walking all over us."
  Judge Argyle also suggested that judges should have discretion to impose the death sentence on anyone convicted of an offence carrying a sentence of 15 years or more. Again, I do not entirely agree, but I believe that the death penalty should be available in cases that satisfy the terms of the new clause. We need to make not only the punishment but the deterrent fit the crime, and for some crimes only one punishment is a suitable deterrent.
  I am tempted to be swayed by some of the moral arguments against the death penalty. I do not lightly support the call for it, However, I am compelled to think that drastic circumstances demand drastic solutions. I support the new clause because I believe that it is a necessary part of a much more rigorous approach to sentencing generally.
  Essentially, sentencing is about deterrence and about protecting the potential victims—not only the victims of evil murders, who are mentioned in the new clause, but those old ladies in Birkenhead who were robbed and mugged so many times. Although it may seem trivial, I am also thinking of the people who cannot have their milk delivered to their homes because of the fear of violence against an inoffensive milkman. I am thinking of the millions of other people in the United Kingdom who are fed up with the rise in crime, especially in violent crime.
  However we vote tonight, one thing is quite clear: the nation is behind the new clause. I shall do my duty to my electors, and I hope and trust that others will do the same.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock). However, his final comment, that he would vote in accordance with the wishes of his constituents, does not conform with his mandate. He is not here simply to represent his constituents. As he knows, he is here to represent the British people. He is not a delegate, and he is not mandated. That point has been touched upon a number of times this evening, and I accept the assurance by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) that she has made her views on law and order well known for the past few years, and that she has not been influenced by the fact that her majority is only 860.
  It has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), among others, that we are all here to vote in accordance with our consciences. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who has been present throughout the debate, likes to claim from a sedentary position that Labour Members have been whipped tonight. That is not the case; we are voting by conscience on a free vote. That conscience is based on conviction and on the facts as we know them. Hon Members who may
  1164
  wish to vote in accordance with what they think is electoral gain will find that a very chilling electoral wind will blow in their direction if they do so.
  Let me return to the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival). He talked of a rising tide of evil, and it was obvious from that phrase that he and his colleagues had tabled the new clause on that basis. But he also uttered the most famous words of the evening. He said, "My wording is not perfect. It may be defective, but it is easily put right." That is one of the difficulties that the House faces — that, in the first instance, we must ask ourselves whether we believe in the death penalty as the ultimate deterrent, then take the clause and come to some conclusions.
  In his opening speech, the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked of the concept of deterrence, and he actually switched the concept of reasonableness from the jury to the accused. He said that a reasonable person would not commit murder, because that reasonable person would know, first, that he might be caught; secondly, that he might be tried and found guilty; and, thirdly, that he might be hanged, or be the subject of a lawful execution. It seemed to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was confusing the concept of reasonableness and transferring it to the accused. That is hardly so.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said that we regret every murder and any death—
  "any man's death diminishes me. I am involved in Mankind."
  We take the view that the new clause does not provide a solution to the problem of how to deal with murder. In his speech, the Home Secretary referred to crimes of violence against the person and said that they amount to only 3 per cent. of all the crimes that are committed in this country. He also said that, of that number, only 7 per cent. are related to murder. We do not share the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that those figures are of no consequence.
  He also said that, the jury would have to be unanimous. However, that was a cop-out for those hon. Members who are not anxious to exercise their conscience tonight. He was saying to them that it does not matter what decision they reach tonight; if one juror in a murder trial is opposed to the death penalty, he will use his discretion and our convictions will be superseded.
  It reminds me of the case of the only American soldier who was executed for desertion in the last war. After he was found guilty of desertion by a military tribunal the death penalty was passed, on the understanding that when his case was reviewed by a higher court the sentence would be commuted. When the case went to a higher court, the original verdict was confirmed, on the understanding that when the case went to a yet higher court the sentence would be commuted. Eventually, the case went to the President of the United States who found that he could not commute his sentence. The man was therefore shot. Everybody who was involved in that case sail that they thought that the sentence would eventually be commuted and that if they had known that it would not be commuted the death sentence would never have been passed.
  The right hon. and learned. Gentleman has said to us, as Members of Parliament, that how we look at this question does not matter because ultimately the jury will decide and that if one or two members of the jury abstain

  1165
  or do not return an absolute majority verdict the ultimate sanction, the death penalty, will not be available to the judge.
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "cop-out". It is an emotive expression. However he describes it, the fact that 12 people will reach a unanimous decision is a most important safeguard. With the utmost respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is dismissing it in a casual, if not a cavalier, way.
  Mr. Bell: I hope that I am not dismissing it in a cavalier way. The point was also made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who referred to a Moslem who might be opposed to the death penalty. I shall turn to the subject of emotive language later.
  According to the new clause, a single juror who is not convinced about the need for the death penalty will ensure that a majority verdict cannot be returned. But that would create legal apartheid for the crime of murder. We would introduce two ways of dealing with the same crime.
  A jury would have imposed upon them as an additional responsibility the new concept of evil. At the moment they are arbiters of fact. They would also have to ascertain whether the killing was premeditated and whether it was evil. This morning on radio and again in the House tonight, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to show that all these factors are cumulative: that there would have to be premeditation, prior knowledge and evil.
  There are possibly three, not two, concepts of murder in the new clause. First, there would have to be premeditation. That in itself could put a rope around the neck of the accused, if he was found guilty. Secondly, there has to be the concept of evil. That is a different concept but it has the same consequence. It would lead to death by hanging, if hanging were to be the lawful method of execution.
  Thirdly, what would be the penalty for manslaughter? Manslaughter may be evil but it may not be premeditated. Nevertheless, a jury may have to find, in accordance with the new clause, that the killing was evil and that therefore the death penalty is merited. The test of evil becomes subjective, objective and possibly both at the same time. Is the evil to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred evil in intent or evil in the circumstances?
  If a man killed his wife with a carving knife in a fit of temper and without a cooling-off period, that would be manslaughter under the law as it now stands; but according to the new clause the manslaughter could be said to be evil because brutality was involved in the death of the man's wife. Therefore, manslaughter could be converted into murder and the death penalty could be imposed.
  There are those who argue that there is no such thing as ordinary murder—that all murders are evil and that in this context "evil" is an unnecessary adjective. A famous judge said that there is no such thing as gross negligence; there is only negligence with the epithet added to it. The new clause leads to an assault not only on the Criminal Justice Bill but also on the English language. An attempt is being made to convert the word "evil" from an adjective into a noun and to write it, as such, into our statute law.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Is it not a fact that there are certain people who have been convicted of murder and who are
  1166
  now serving a life sentence who might have gone completely free if the jury had known that the death sentence could be passed upon them?
  Mr. Bell: That is one of the dilemmas that the new clause would introduce into our legal system, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out to me. I shall deal later with that subject.
  The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) referred to my phrase "cop-out" and said that it was emotive. However, is not the term "evil" likely to inflame prejudice and to force members of a jury to look not at the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, but at the actual killing? In the example that I gave, the fact that the wife had been brutally killed was not before the court of law. The case, simply, was that she had been killed. However, under the new clause the manner of death would be uppermost in the minds of the members of the jury; they would have to consider not simply that she had been killed but how she had been killed. They would therefore consider the nature of her death. How is a reasonable member of the jury to define evil? How would the man on the Clapham omnibus, referred to by judges of past decades, or the man on the Victoria underground between Pimlico and Green Park, define evil?
  The right hon. and learned Member for Southport says that a reasonable man would have no difficulty in satisfying himself that all the necessary ingredients of evil had been established. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman has confused what a learned judge might say after a verdict in a case such as that to which he referred, the Broadwater Farm affair, in describing a man found guilty of murder as "evil". That statement was made after the man had been found guilty of murder and after the evidence had been given. If a direction is to be given by the judge to the jury before the trial, that the crime that they are about to hear and to try is "evil", what happens to the principle of a fair trial and to that equally great British principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty?
  8.30 pm
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not told the House that by adding the emotive word "evil" he has made the verdict in a case of murder not the rational decision of a court but an emotive one. In the 1930s, a little emotion was sometimes conveyed to the jury by leading counsel for the prosecution. In a case of stabbing, the counsel for the prosecution said that the murdered man was plunged into eternity without warning and in the twinkling of an eye.
  If it is for the judge to direct the jury that one crime is, or may be, construed as evil, and that another is not, what will the reaction of the jury be? Will not they think, "We do not have to worry too much because the death sentence is not necessarily the only sentence. The man may not be hanged but given only life imprisonment." How will that affect or influence the jury?
  Having decided—as I understand the briefing notes that were kindly issued by the right hon. and learned Gentleman — that a man or woman is charged with murder of an evil nature, that is to say where the judge has not ruled that it is not of a non-evil nature—even I hate double negatives, and I wonder what the jury will make of them or of such a direction — the judge cannot afterwards give instructions as to what constitutes evil. It is as if the judge, rather than the jury, had first climbed on

  1167
  to the Clapham omnibus, converted himself into a reasonable man, then alighted and left the rest of the journey to the jury.
  Having decided that murder was committed, and that it is of an evil nature, why should the members of the jury have to choose the only sentence that would mandatorily be available—the death penalty? My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup have stated that a morality would enter into the jury's deliberations, and that the court would become not only a court of law, but a court of morals.
  On the radio this morning, the right hon. and learned Member for Southport stated that the construction of his new clause depended on the placement of commas, or some such phrase. I submit that that is hardly a satisfactory way for a judge to sum up what the new clause means, and I wonder what the jury would make of it. The draftsmen of the clause and the supplementary notes should have taken a leaf out of French law books because in that country juries are empowered not only to return verdicts of guilty or otherwise, but to state whether there have been extenuating circumstances. That would be a more honest approach to the issue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has put before the House and to his new clause.
  At least, had there been any logic to the new clause, the foreman of the jury would have to declare or return in the first instance a guilty verdict and, in the second, state whether the facts of the case as presented and of which the jury is certain beyond reasonable doubt constitute evil. The jurors would be not only the arbiters of the facts but the keepers of the conscience, responding to the outrage of public opinion and, by their verdict, condemning a prisoner to death. Why should members of the jury be placed in that sordid position?
  Therefore, it would not be a case of the prisoner delivering himself into the hands of a jury in a murder case. He would be delivered up to the worst elements of the popular press. So-called public opinion would not be able to gauge or distinguish between the murder itself and its horrific detail, and the prisoner to be tried. Incidentally, the prisoner would remain innocent until proven guilty.
  Out of deference to the House—if the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) wishes to intervene, he may do so and I shall give way — [Interruption.]
  Mr. Dickens: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman has invited me to intervene.
  Mr. Bell: That is because I believe that an intervention from a standing position is better than one from a sitting position.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Hon. Members are still waiting to take part in the debate, and it would be welcome to have no interventions.
  Mr. Bell: Out of deference to my parliamentary colleagues who wish to take part in this important debate and who are giving me encouraging nods, I shall finish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with a quotation from Lord Justice Birkett, who stated:
  "people are not tried by newspaper, not tried by rumour, but tried by juries called to do justice".
  In the twilight of his life, Lord Justice Birkett also declared
  "We can never prevent crime or repress crime by severity alone. The eighteenth century demonstrated that. The death
  1168
  penalty was as common then as a magistrate imposing a fine of 40 shillings today. However. people cried out for more severe punishments. Women were burnt alive at the stake and. people still cried out for severe punishment. However, crime still persisted."
  The entire history of our country shows that the death penalty has no place in our society and that it is not a deterrent. The House should state tonight that the case is not proven for the right hon. and learned Member for Southport. In fact, the case is proven for the defence and for those who do not wish to see the death penalty restored: in our country.
  Mr. Lawrence: I have no doubt whatever that innocent. lives would be saved if capital punishment were restored. I have no doubt that it is a deterrent to some who kill and maim in the course of their criminal enterprises. If would.o be murderers are stopped, the innocent people whom they would have killed will live. We should be most concerned to save the potential victim because, in most cases, the potential victim is an innocent person.
  I believe that capital punishment would be a deterrent for several reasons, but I shall give only two of those reasons to the House. When I introduced a motion in the House in 1985 to restore capital punishment for terrorist offences, the IRA, which uses capital punishment as a deterrent for its own kind, threatened retaliation if we passed the motion. That clearly suggested that those in the IRA intending to kill feared the death penalty.
  When I asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to explain why that happened. he did not do so, because he did not have an answer. When I asked the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to do so, he could not either, because he had no answer. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) tried to answer that question and spoke about a psychosis of death. He continued by asking what would be the point of the IRA trying to change our minds by making that threat. But as I recall, that is precisely what happened. Hon. Members told me that they were in favour of capital punishment but that they did not want to be held responsible for the lives of innocent soldiers in Northern Ireland if we passed that motion. Therefore, the threat did work.
  The second reason that I believe that capital punishment is a deterrent is that in the course of my career as a barrister I have been told many times by men of violence that they feared the rope and that they would neither take lethal weapons for burglary or robbery. nor enlist the help of young tearaways who might go crazy and kill someone. When people write to me to say that capital punishment has never acted as a deterrent, I am afraid that I prefer the evidence of experts to the guesses of the kind—hearted.
  Of course I appreciate that not every one would be deterred. However, if some would be deterred and if some innocent lives would be saved, is that not well worth having? I go further and join my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) in believing not only that innocent lives would be saved but that there would be less violent crime generally in our society—fewer brutal beatings, muggings and woundings—if capital punishment were restored. If everyone was aware that there was a line beyond which no one could pass without suffering the ultimate deterrent, there would

  1169
  be more respect for other people and their possessions, and the general atmosphere of moral disintegration in society would be arrested.
  I remind the House what has happened since the contrary view, that capital punishment is wrong, was adopted by the House. We suffer a much more violent, vicious society, the numbers of murders has risen, violent men are no longer afraid of carrying firearms and the number of firearm offences has shot through the roof. Can anyone seriously believe that that would still have happened if we had retained capital punishment? The elderly are terrified to leave their homes, women are frightened to walk alone in the streets, our football stadiums are half empty and 33 convicted murderers have been released to kill again in the past 20 years. That is what the gentler, kinder, more considerate approach has achieved. It has utterly failed.
  Naturally, I am aware that the arguments against capital punishment, most of which we have heard this afternoon, have some substance, but on balance they are less than convincing. We are told that capital punishment is against God's law. If that is so, it took the churches hundreds of years to discover the fact, and since the Almighty has not seen fit to stop some of the carnage and killing, he must be leaving that to us, as a significant number of clerics have affirmed in a letter sent to hon. Members today.
  We are told that capital punishment is uncivilised, and I agree; but we are living in an uncivilised society in which civilised remedies have failed. We are told that capital punishment would create martyrs and lead to the taking of hostages. But it is not only death that creates martyrs; life imprisonment does exactly the same, with the added feature that martyrdom of the dead is largely anniversarial, while martyrdom of a prisoner is continuous. Nor is it only the threat of death that causes the taking of hostages. Hostages are taken in the Lebanon to induce the release of people from prison. Capital punishment differs in that there is no point in taking a hostage after the murderer is dead.
  We are told that the death penalty is no more than vengeance; but it is better for the state to exercise vengeance according to just rules of law than that vengeance should be wrought without fair trial by frustrated people down dark alleyways, as happens in Northern Ireland. We are told that juries would acquit more often. Perhaps they would, but an acquittal for capital murder need not be an acquittal for non-capital murder or manslaughter. The point is that the would-be killer could never be sure in advance that he would not suffer the death penalty, so he may well be deterred. Deterrence is the point.
  We are told that juries must not make moral judgments, but that is precisely what they do, day in and day out, in every criminal trial. They must make moral decisions whether a man is guilty or not; whether his actions are honest or dishonest; whether his actions are decent or indecent; and even whether he shall be imprisoned for life in murder cases.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton listed those who might have been hanged if the death penalty had been retained, but that is not good enough. If there had been capital punishment, they might not have been convicted of
  1170
  capital murder, and, if convicted, they might have been acquitted on appeal. One cannot rely on a purely hypothetical argument for not doing what is right.
  I understand why many people cannot bring themselves to sanction the taking of life, and I have sympathy with their view. It is a difficult, nasty step for anybody to have to take. However, they might think differently if an innocent loved one were murdered and might have stayed alive if the state had not been so weak in its approach to the most evil of criminals. It is time this House brought back some security and safety for law-abiding citizens.
  It does not matter whether the new clause is well drafted or wrongly drafted or whether it applies to Northern Ireland. The public expect us to make a decision on principle. No one can really suppose for a moment that if we approved the new clause today capital punishment would be introduced as an adjunct to this criminal justice measure and just tacked on during the Bill's passage. The capital punishment offence would be so important that the Government would have to say, "We shall not attach this to the Criminal Justice Bill. We shall have to have a separate Bill, having considered all the ways in which capital punishment can be properly introduced and reflecting the wish of the House."
  8.45 pm
  The exact method of introducing capital punishment does not matter tonight. If legislation were introduced, we could undoubtedly ensure that a tribunal would make absolutely certain that people about whom there was the slightest doubt or for whom anything could be said after the trial should not hang. Many of those who are worried about mistaken verdicts would be reassured if such a tribunal were introduced. Indeed, in the past the Lord Chancellor has suggested just such a measure.
  What matters is whether the House will now face up to its responsibility and reflect the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people we represent. The new clause reflects those wishes and it is our duty to support it and the wishes of the people. Therefore, I support the new clause.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make yet a further appeal for brevity? It would be helpful if speeches could be under 10 minutes.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke with his usual passionate eloquence which we respect and enjoy, but he fell into the error of misrepresentation when he dealt with terrorists. He suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) had spoken about the psychosis of death. He did not; he talked about the psychosis of terrorism and answered the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman kept repeating in interventions. Terrorists are psychotic, which means that some do not care whether or not they face death and, possibly even worse, others want to face death and welcome the martyrdom of it.
  Tonight we are debating how best to protect the public from murder, but it is a much more complex question than that. We are debating how best to protect the public from murder while maintaining a fair system of trial, sentencing and review by appeal. Let us not forget that since the

  1171
  abolition of capital punishment our system of appeal has developed by the introduction of the Home Secretary reference.
  It would be a sick mockery if mistakes such as those which were listed by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) could be corrected only posthumously. It would not help the victim or his surviving family. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of Geoffrey Mycock who was convicted in 1969 and released in 1984. I met him on two occasions before his case was reviewed by the Court of Appeal and on the day on which his appeal was allowed in the Court of Appeal.
  Mr. Mycock had been convicted almost entirely on the basis of forensic evidence, consisting of the identification of fibres. After many years, it became clear that the forensic scientist who had given that evidence had been an unreliable witness on many occasions, particularly at that trial. There was a long campaign, which included work by Members of Parliament, to have that case and others reviewed.
  When I visited Mr. Mycock for the first time, he was in Nottingham prison and had been in gaol for 15½ years, but he was very much alive. Indeed, he was alive with a lively determination which I judged could have been based only on the truth. When he reached the Court of Appeal on review after reference by the Home Secretary, the Crown did not even seek to argue that his conviction had been correct. As a result, he was released. He had lost 16 years of his life but he did not lose his life itself.
  After a difficult period of adjustment, Mr. Mycock is leading a normal, private life in society. That error has been corrected in the way in which it should have been—by releasing him to make the best of what is left of his life. I feel a revulsion that the state should even countenance that he could have been killed and not have the opportunity to live the rest of his life at peace. His example is only one of many similar cases.
  Those who support the new clause accept that they are prepared to face, on behalf of the state, the fact that such terrible mistakes could be committed. I am not, and that is one of the main reasons why I shall be voting against the new clause.
  Secondly, I should like to turn to some of the practical difficulties which would arise if the new clause were passed. If a person kills and at the time of so doing intends to kill or cause serious injury, he is guilty of murder. That is the test of murder which is applied in our courts. It is surely in the public interest that all those who commit murder should be convicted of it. Once they have been convicted of murder, the public can be protected by a proper criminal justice policy and by proper examination of the murderers and their cases while they are in prison. The test of murder should be applied consistently; it is fairly simple; it can be and is applied consistently. What is murder in Newcastle is murder in Bodmin and anywhere else that one may care to mention in the country under the present rules.
  Those who practised the law during the era of capital murder, although it could be defined quite easily and clearly, tell me that it was extremely difficult to obtain a verdict of guilty. It happened only in the plainest of cases, yet even then we know from the catalogue given by the, right hon. Member for Gorton that mistakes were made, even in what were thought to be the plainest of cases.
  1172
  The new clause would lead to wrongful acquittals of murder, perverse acquittals of murder and acquittals of murder which would be the result of the lottery of the random selection of a jury.
  The new clause is defective not only because of what it would cause but because of its drafting. Let us look at some of the words in the new clause:
  "in circumstances which a reasonable person would consider to be evil".
  Does that include what happens before the killing, at the time of the killing or after the killing? Supposing a crime of passion is committed and in blind panic, as has happened, the murderer cuts up the body and does vile and ghastly things with it. As the clause is drafted, that person will be liable to execution for murder as a result of the things that he did after a dead body lay before him.
  Mr. Dickens: Quite right too.
  Mr. Carlile: That seems to be quite wrong.
  What is suggested in the new clause is that premeditated killings should be capital offences. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) to say that it can be changed later. That shows the danger of presenting a clause such as this on Report. If we are to introduce capital punishment, it should he introduced only after proper consideration of a proper Bill which goes through the proper stages—although I hope that we shall never have to face up to that.
  Under the clause, any prernediated killing would be capital—a killing by euthanasia; a killing by a wife who, under intolerable strain, picks up the carving knife and waits for her drunken and violent husband and stabs him. Indeed, one of the matters that the right hon. and learned Member for Southport has not faced up to is that his new clause even deprives accused people of the defence of diminished responsibility which is currently available to them. That defence results from a temporary loss of sanity, which all reasonable members of the public and which certainly juries regard as giving a proper defence to a charge of murder.
  I should like to talk briefly about some misconceptions that we have heard about deterrence. We heard an extremely eloquent speech on deterrence from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who has had to face day by day for about the last 20 years the risk that he might be murdered; who has had his friends around him murdered; and who knew many constituents who have been murdered. We should value his judgment that capital punishment would not be a deterrent in Northern Ireland.
  I would say to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), if she were here, that, although she complained that the lack of capital punishment has led to the increasing use of guns in crime, she was ignoring the evidence of states in the United States of America which have capital punishment. It is quite plain, if we examine what has been happening in those states, that, despite the existence and use of capital punishment, the use of guns in the course of crime has increased. Indeed, as another hon. Member said, there is no evidence that there is more homicide in countries where there is no capital punishment than in countries where there is.
  This new clause serves to create confusion. It certainly does nothing to deal with the general problem of burgeoning crime that we face today.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I must say that I do not care for new clause 1. Murder is, by definition, evil and, although circumstances may have some effect on the degree of that evil, the evil remains.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting my amendment. For some time I have believed that the House should not take upon itself to have debates on whether the death penalty should be restored until we know what public opinion wants. Many hon. Members who have spoken have called public opinion in aid of their point of view, but over the past 18 years—during which time the House has had no fewer than eight separate debates on the subject—none of us have troubled to discover what the nation feels about the abolition of the death penalty and whether it would feel safer if the death penalty existed. I have put down my amendment because I believe that we must discover that simple fact and I should like to elaborate a little on my reasons for it.
  It may be that the decision that was initially taken in 1969 to abolish capital punishment was fatally flawed because, unlike the promises made with the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, the House did not have five years of crime statistics on which to make its judgment. I suspect that it made a judgment that was based more on emotion than on statistics or reason. I believe that we made the decision without an adequate basis of fact, and that has plagued the subject ever since.
  In tonight's debate we can argue that we are talking merely about a new clause or that we are talking once again about whether we should have capital punishment as the ultimate deterrent in our system of sentencing. Who of us would dare hazard that this is the last debate that we shall have on this subject? Should we not ask ourselves why this subject keeps returning to the Floor of the House roughly every two years? I suggest that it does so because we do not know the will of the people and because we seem not be sensitive to whatever that will may be.
  In 1969, I was one of those who voted for abolition. I did so then — I have done so on a number of other occasions — because I believed that the abolition of hanging would not have much effect on the incidence of murder. Recently I have imposed a self-denying ordinance on my ability to vote because of my belief in the value of a referendum and because I want to know what the people think.
  9 pm
  I cannot deny that there has been an increase in the number of murders, an increase that is to be seen in any statistics that any one of us cares to consider. I cannot deny that an increasing number of weapons are being carried in pursuit of crime, or that the police are being forced more and more to carry weapons themselves. I am aware that when weapons are carried by criminals there is an intent to use them and to kill with them. The carrying of a weapon is a rational, calculated act and not one of emotion. I am aware also that before the law was changed such a situation did not exist.
  If we had replaced capital punishment with life sentences that were life sentences, rather than the 10 years which on average is a life sentence now, they might have had an effect. By that means we might have persuaded the people that they are as safe without capital punishment as they are with it. As so-called life sentences seem not to deter, it seems that we have a duty to ask the people whether they are satisfied with the present situation. Do
  1174
  they accept that abolition, with its belief in redemption of even the most evil people, is the better course, even if we have to accept higher rates of murder as a result, or that the brutality and irredeemable nature of capital punishment should be restored, albeit for a trial period?
  As I have said, we have the duty to ask the people through a consultative referendum. I say that because no one in the Chamber can say that he or she knows with any certainty whether society is more or less safe without capital punishment than it would be if it existed. It is a personal judgment that is coloured by individual concepts of morality.
  I know that on hearing "referendum" some of my hon. Friends will mutter about ours being a representative democracy and remind me of the Edmund Burke dictum that we individually should form our own judgment. I suggest that the comments of an 18th century politician are not really relevant at the end of the 20th century. He spoke when Parliament was of a different stamp, when the populace was largely illiterate and uneducated and did not possess television, radio or mass-circulation newspapers. It could scarcely claim to be informed. That society cannot be compared with our own. We have now a highly educated populace that is well informed and articulate. In these times those outside the Chamber are as well equipped as we are to make a decision on their individual safety and the safety of their community.
  In 18 years we have never sought to ascertain the strength of public opinion. Why? Have we failed to do so because the feelings of the people might contradict the decisions that we have made on the Floor of the House, or because we think that if we have one referendum we might move on to having others, which will cause us to feel that we are losing control of our nation's affairs? I do not think so.
  A referendum of the sort that I am talking about would be based on moral issues. I am not advocating referendums on all the great issues of our time, but I do not believe that the House can arrogate to itself a greater wisdom that it clearly does not possess. In simple numbers, membership of this place does not amount to the average size of the polling samples that constitute opinion polls. Our votes are even less representative on moral issues than we care to admit.
  Mr. Heffer rose—
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Sir Winston Churchill said many years ago, "Trust the people", and I echo his words. A three-week campaign followed by a consultative referendum would give us the information without which this debate is empty.
  Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: We would then know the will of the people and we could act accordingly if we were so minded.
  Mr. Gale: We are debating a new clause to the Criminal Justice Bill. In the past three months those of us who served on the Committee considering that Bill have watched and listened as Labour and alliance spokesmen have shed crocodile tears over law and order. We witnessed the Opposition vote against the abolition of the defence's right to challenge jurors without cause. We witnessed the Opposition vote against modest Government measures to guard against lenient sentencing

  1175
  policy. We shall be interested to see the results of tonight's vote and whether the Opposition will represent a cross section of views as we shall on the Conservative Benches or whether they will, as they did in 1983, toe a party line. [HON. MEMBERS: "This is a free vote."] The condemned men have had a hearty dinner.
  The opposition to this clause faces a dilemma. Two weeks ago a married man with two children was hacked to death in a south London car park. His body was left lying beside a car and the axe with which he had been murdered was left beside him. Yesterday, I spoke to that man's mother. I did so at the request of an alliance Member of this House who felt unable to answer that lady's questions.
  That lady wanted to know what this House was going to do to deter similar murders. She wanted to know why her husband and herself, as taxpayers, would have to support that murderer in prison for the rest of his life. Not surprisingly, her Member of Parliament, who is an abolitionist, was unable to satisfy her requests. I had to say that, in all honesty, I did not believe that tonight this House would be likely to satisfy her request. However, I understood her point of view.
  This new clause has been subjected to misinformation and disinformation. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile)—I am sorry that he is no longer in his place—said on the BBC lunchtime news, and again in his speech, that the murderer of a drunken, brutal husband would be liable to the death penalty under this clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman well knows that that is wholly incorrect, but he is in good company. The hon. and learned Gentleman is joined by the gentlemen of the press in their misinformation and disinformation about this clause.
  Yesterday The London Evening Standard stated:
  "Tomorrow the House of Commons will once again vote on hanging for murderers."
  At least, we have established tonight that this is not a hanging debate, but a debate on capital punishment. That newspaper went on to say:
  "There are certain crimes so hideous — the Moors murders, for example—that if a law could be fashioned to hang those guilty of them, it would pass through Parliament by acclamation."
  I would suggest that that is exactly what my right hon. and learned Friend's clause seeks to do. The aim of the new clause is to deter.
  We have heard a great deal this evening about the definition of evil. I believe that 12 men and women on a jury are capable of determining whether someone is evil. We have had the judgment on the Broadwater Farm case. Indeed, the judge said to the man in the dock, "You are an evil man". One cannot define what the judge said, but everyone in this country knows what he meant. I suggest that most people agree with him.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that to make a decision on the death penalty would place an intolerable burden on the jury. However, I believe that that type of burdensome decision is required from juries in this country on all sorts of matters every day of the year. I believe that the men and women serving on juries do not shirk their duty and are capable of making responsible decisions.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) who spoke so eloquently earlier in the debate. I am not seeking revenge, but I am seeking a deterrent. It has been said that there is no evidence to
  1176
  suggest that capital punishment deters crime. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that a policeman walking down the street deters burglaries. However, burglaries that are not committed are not reported, in the same way as deterred murders would not be reported.
  It has been said that there has been an increase in the availability of weapons in recent years and that that is why there has been an increase in the incidence of armed crime.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gale: I have very little time.
  The increase in armed crime has taken place since the abolition of capital punishment. I suggest that if there has been an increase in the availability of weapons, it is because there has been a demand for weapons following abolition.
  It has been said that we risk executing an innocent man. We have always faced that possibility as we face the possibility of gaoling innocent men or women for life when they have been wrongfully convicted. What we do know is that there are 33 innocent victims who, since abolition, have been murdered by murderers who have been released from prison. Those people might not be dead if we had had capital punishment on the statute book.
  What we are seeking to do tonight is not a light decision, but I passionately believe that if, by taking this decision, we can deter the murder of one innocent person, that will be worthwhile. I believe that capital punishment will be that deterrent, and I am not ashamed to say that in their hearts I know that many hon. Members feel that way too. I hope that those beliefs will be represented in the lobbies tonight and I urge my hon. Friends—I use the word Friends advisedly—on both sides of the House to represent those views.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have listened to this debate since it started, as I have listened to most such debates in the past quarter of a century. It is quite clear in the Chamber and outside that there are understandably strong feelings about the decline in law and order. It is a subject that we cannot ignore. The situation gets worse. There is fear on the streets. I do not think that there is fear on the streets of Morley or the streets of Batley.
  Mrs. Peacock: There is.
  Mr. Rees: In that case, people need to look at the situation in some of the inner city areas where there is a real problem.
  There is fear on the streets in some housing estates. They seem to have been designed to facilitate crime. The wife of a recent Prime Minister was mugged not a mile from this place a fortnight ago. Nobody on either side of the House can be happy at the situation. However, this is not the time to relate the over-facile promises made in 1979. The situation gets worse all the time. In my view, the debate about the return of capital punishment is a reflection of the concern for law and order generally.
  I sat in hospital towards the end of last year with some ex-service men. A sergeant who had flown Wellingtons said that one night his crew was going off and that he was pulled out because he had sinus trouble. That is not easy if one is a crew member. His crew was killed and he said to me, "I wish that I had been killed. Living in this country now with the problems of law and order is not what I fought for." The feeling lies deep. It lies deeply outside the House. It is a feeling that could be played with very easily.

  1177
  We would do better if we concentrated on the problem of law and order, on the problem of what to do with lifers and the problem of the role of the police, rather than pretend that there is yet another easy solution.
  At the turn of the century when the crime rate was high — it went down in the 1920s and 1930s — they had hanging. They hanged people at a high rate of knots, but murders still took place. To pretend that there is a simple solution—I suppose we shall all hear that in the general election this year—is not to the credit of any political party because there is a growing feeling that none of the political parties is talking sense. I do not believe that one can stand up and say, "Return capital punishment and all will be solved." The electorate will see through that.
  The new clause speaks of a unanimous verdict. Given what has emerged since, I am not convinced that the juries in some of the nasty murder trials of recent weeks would have reached a unanimous verdict. Will it be easy to determine whether a murder was premeditated? The new clause speaks of "a reasonable person"—there are not all that many reasonable people in this House, let alone outside it. The new clause continues:
  "in a manner, or for a reason, or in circumstances".
  Ignoring for a moment the general problem of hanging, I do not believe that the new clause is drawn in a way that would aid judicial decision-making. It is misconceived and bad.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Charles Irving: Can the right hon. Gentleman solve a problem that exercises the minds of many? As a nation, for many years we have not been able to resolve the problem of obscenity. How, then, shall we resolve the problem of evil?
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is experienced in prison reform and, as Home Secretary and since, I learnt the value of the extra-parliamentary work that he does. He has raised an interesting point. We have not been debating obscenity, but the words that a jury must interpret. That puts the jury in a different position.
  The new clause is not only badly drafted; it does not achieve its aim. It is based on a complete misunderstanding of the Irish situation. I must tell the right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) that for nearly 20 years, first through Gardiner and later through Diplock, we worked in Northern Ireland in circumstances in which we could not have juries—Gardiner agreed with that—not only because a jury would be divided but because jurors on a terrorist case would not be able to go home at night. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said tonight that that did not worry him. It worries me, and it worries me that we put the lives of soldiers at risk.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Southport did not examine the question of Northern Ireland, where 2,500 people are dead. He is shaking his head, but there can be no juries in Northern Ireland. I would not be a juror in Northern Ireland, and I would not ask my wife to be one. My life would be at risk in a murder trial.
  It is no good Englishmen—for this purpose I count myself as one—saying that Northern Ireland and the RUC do not matter: we over here have decided that they can have juries. They cannot have juries in Northern
  1178
  Ireland. It is wrong for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to cobble together the new clause, sit back and say, "Leave it to Northern Ireland to find something." Jury service puts people's lives at risk, and no politician has the right to do that, in whatever cause.
  Sir Ian Percival: The right hon. Gentleman will I am sure acknowledge that I faced that matter head on and said that I could not agree to an inconsistent clause. It has to apply throughout the United Kingdom.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, for fear of the consequences, we must not have juries? He has overlooked the fact that even if that were true—I do not accept that it is—other suggestions have been advanced, such as the unanimous verdict of three judges.
  Mr. Rees: It is no use coming to the House on a matter of principle with a new clause that talks of 12 good men—or women—and true, of unanimous verdicts and so on. What will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), whose constituency is in an area in which members of the RUC, soldiers and civilians are dying every week, and have died in the past? It is no good saying to him, "Incidentally, we have juries here, but you lot over there—you colonial chaps—can have a judge assisted by two assessors." Either there is a case for juries, or there is not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The new clause is a poor amendment.
  Let me explain. In 1973, the Leader of the House of Lords was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He believed in the death penalty, and he kept the death penalty in Northern Ireland. The figures were given at the time. I have them here, but I do not have time to give them. A large number of people had been killed that year and the year before. But the Unionist Government in Northern Ireland had not used the death penalty because they could not use it—not because they were cowards. Loyalists are not cowards. Republicans are not cowards. The people of Northern Ireland are far less cowardly than most of us over here.
  A Protestant from the Shankill was found guilty of murder. Having just put legislation through the House, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland used the royal prerogative and the man did not hang, because the right hon. Gentleman could not do it. It was not because he was a coward, not the Leader of the House of Lords. He has seen more military action than most of us have had hot dinners. Later in the year it was a Catholic who was found guilty. The right hon. Gentleman said, "I cannot go on in that way." The death penalty was removed in Northern Ireland because of the reality of the situation — not because of an emotional spasm about being in favour of or against the death penalty.
  My neighbour, the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), says that the new clause is a giant step forward. It is not. It is defective and it does not understand Northern Ireland. Any lawyer who votes for it can be doing that—I respect his views—only because he wants something to be done. It cannot be because he believes that the new clause will work. It is not a major step forward.
  There is a problem of law and order. My constituents face it, in an inner city. We do precious little about it, but at the time of a general election we pretend that we will do something about it. No doubt tomorrow people will say, "It's a pity. We could have had the death penalty and in

  1179
  a week the whole thing would have been solved." That is not so. This defective new clause ignores Northern Ireland. English politicians, of whom I am one, should see that it is defective, not just on juries, but in other ways.
  I feel strongly about this matter. I have friends on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland—nationalists and loyalists—whose friends have been killed and murdered. I have impolite words to describe the paramilitary forces in Northern Ireland. They will not be deterred by the death penalty. This morning I took the opportunity to go into the Library and look at the story of the 1916 rising. I am interested in it. My father died as a result of the first world war. He was brought back from France to be at the Easter rising. He never thought that many years later his son would be Secretary of State for a divided country. Redmond spoke in the House about the nationalist party. Because of the war and our feelings about it we shot was it six? [AN HON. MEMBER: "No, 16."] We shot 16 Irishmen, including Connolly, the great Socialist. They sat him in the chair and shot him. From that moment onwards, Left, Right and Centre in the south of Ireland said, "The English are finished." Pearce said, "The fools, the fools," about the death of a friend of his, "They have left us the Fenian dead". From then on, forget governing Ireland. Forget home rule. Forget Gladstone. Forget Healy.
  The new clause's greatest weakness is this. It is an Englishman's clause. They do not understand Ireland and never have. We have a duty there, but it is to try to understand. We should not fiddle about with the new clause, which does not deserve to see the light of day. Of course, there is a law and order problem. I say to the House: deal with it. My constituents want it to be dealt with. They do not want to be fooled. The new clause claims that by bringing back capital punishment problems will be solved and there will be a deterrent. The problems in our society run deeper than that. There are guns, and people on the fiddle in the cities. There is something wrong with society. If capital punishment is returned in this daft way it will not deter that. If I am understandably angry it is because I feel for Ireland. The English have done it again. By doing this, they think that there is an advantage on this side of the water. It does not exist.
  I shall vote against this new clause tonight because it deserves to be voted against irrespective of my general view. What a piddling little new clause to bring forward to the House. This new clause is not worth anything. I hope that it will be withdrawn. Let us have a proper debate about law and order.
  Mr. Mark Carlisle: Like the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), I have sat through the whole of this debate. I made my maiden speech in this House on 21 December 1964 in favour of the Bill then presented by the late Mr. Sydney Silverman in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. I have sat through many other debates since then and I suspect that this is the last time that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) and I will sit through such a debate in the House.
  On every occasion this issue has been debated seriously. The debate has justified the seriousness of the issue. That has happened again tonight. I was slightly sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), whom I expect to join in the Lobby tonight, tried to imply a
  1180
  criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) because she happens to take a different view from him and from me.
  I believe that all hon. Members have a duty to vote according to what we believe to be right, taking into account the views of those whom we represent. However, in the end, we have the responsibility to make up our own minds. I shall oppose the new clause because I am opposed to the return of capital punishment.
  There are strong moral objections to the death penalty and to the state taking life. I do not suggest that those objections are by any means absolute. I accept and realise that the state has a responsibility to secure the safety of society. However, I believe that the moral objections to the state taking life mean that the burden of proof for the restoration of capital punishment must rest on those who claim that it is right and necessary to take life. I believe that they can do that only if they can show that the death penalty is a unique deterrent.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke with great certainty and passion about the deterrent effect of the death penalty. I would have thought that no one would suggest that any form of penalty is not always some form of deterrent. However, is the death penalty a unique deterrent which we must bring back now? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) said, the evidence is totally and wholly inconclusive. There is no significant difference in the rate of homicide in those countries with capital punishment and those without The case for the return of capital punishment has not been made this evening.
  I was rather surprised at the cavalier attitude adopted by those who support the new clause to the question of possible mistakes in verdicts. The very finality of the punishment is a matter of importance. Surely there is a great difference between making a mistake which results in a person being hanged or suffering death as a result of the verdict and a mistake in which someone is sentenced to life imprisonment. In the latter case, the mistake may be rectified.
  Having made my own position clear, I should say in all sincerity that even if I supported a return to capital punishment I could not possibly vote for the concept contained in the new clause because I believe that it is unworkable. The intentions are clearly good, but I believe that the proposition is impracticable. The new clause deals with premeditated and planned killing. I accept that drafting errors could be put right in another place, but the new clause would require that if the jurors found that a person had knowingly or intentionally killed another person they would then have to ask themselves whether that killing had been carried out in a manner, for a reason or in circumstances which a reasonable person would consider to be evil.
  9.30 pm
  Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, I find it difficult to conceive of circumstances in which the intentional killing of one person by another could be for a reason or in a manner which a reasonable person would not consider to be evil. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said, murder is, of its nature, an evil act. The inference to be drawn from the new clause that there may be cases of intentional killing which in their manner

  1181
  or circumstances are somehow not to be considered evil is a concept that the House should neither recognise nor endorse.
  Even if one accepts that that is not the intention and that the new clause is an attempt, albeit unsuccessful, to identify a particular type of murder by its degree of heinousness, juries will be asked to identify those most serious types of murder which in their eyes merit the death sentence. The jury is being asked, in effect, to decide the degree of moral turpitude involved in a particular killing. That is a wholly new concept and something that no jury has been asked to do before. Deciding whether a person should be subject to the death penalty on the basis of the degree of moral turpitude involved is by its nature a purely subjective decision and bound to lead to great inconsistency in its application. The test is not capable of being applied objectively across a range of cases because it depends upon a moral concept that is not capable of definition but must be decided on the basis of the subjective opinions of the 12 people chosen to form a particular jury.
  A clause in that form would inevitably mean that the decision whether a person should suffer death would depend not on the heinousness of the crime but on the subjective views of the jurors and would therefore be totally inconsistent because juries faced with similar facts in similar cases in different parts of the country are bound to reach entirely inconsistent decisions. As has been pointed out several times today, a juror who is a strong believer in the abolition of capital punishment would be likely to influence the outcome by being unable to go along with the concept of the clause requiring the jury to adjudicate on whether the death sentence is justified. The resulting inconsistency would make the clause completely unworkable.
  I do not consider it a fair task to ask a jury to undertake. It is not right to ask a jury to adjudicate on a sentence in the way that this clause would require it to do. It is no good my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) saying that we are voting for the principle tonight. We are voting for a new clause in a piece of legislation that is before the House. That new clause is gravely flawed and, despite my right hon. and learned Friend's efforts, I hope that it will be rejected.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: Like the right hon. and learned Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), I was here in 1964 when Sydney Silverman's Bill was introduced. I had been consistent in my opposition to hanging before I came to the House, and this will certainly be the last contribution that I shall make in this Chamber on the issue of capital punishment. Not long after I came here, a policeman was murdered and two others injured in a brutal attack in a little station in Cumbria. At the time my postbag was full of letters asking me to support hanging. I stood my ground and said that I would vote against it. I also said that I would be prepared to go back to Carlisle and justify my action. This I did and later many of the people who had written to ask me to oppose capital punishment wrote to congratulate me on being consistent in the stand that I have taken. I have listened to and taken part in almost every debate on this issue since then.
  1182
  Not long after I came here, like other hon. Members, I applied for a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association trip. I was fortunate in being selected to go to Australia. The leader then was Lord Brooke, known in this House as Mr. Henry Brooke. During the three weeks that I was in Australia I became very friendly with Henry Brooke, so much so that when he died I felt that I had lost a good and loyal friend.
  I well remember the Sunday night, after attending a service in the Methodist central hall in Sydney, going back to the hotel and having dinner with Henry Brooke. We spent a long time talking very privately about capital punishment. I will never forget that he told me that, as a Conservative Home Secretary, he had reprieved more murderers than any other Home Secretary. That, I thought, was an admission. He also said that time and time again he had had an awful job trying to make up his mind whether he should reprieve or not. He said, "I don't want to go through that again."
  A few years afterwards we had another debate on the same issue. I remember Henry Brooke speaking from the Opposition Back Bench, pleading with the House not to bring back hanging. His plea was successful. I hope that the plea that we are making tonight will be successful too.
  On Monday The Independent said:
  "Above all, the responsibility for deciding whether another human being should live or die is too much for anybody to shoulder—be it a judge, a Home Secretary or a member of a jury. No matter how sanitised, and no matter what the safeguards, capital punishment remains unacceptable in a civilised society."
  I stand by that and will vote aganst this new clause tonight.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I do not know whether capital punishment would deter; I suspect that it would. Many hon. Members think that it would not, but their views arc no more confirmed by the evidence than mine are. None of us knows for certain. One thing I know for certain is that, before abolition, the average British police officer acted in the belief that while on duty he was protected by the invisible armour plate of the law of capital punishment. The police were convinced, and acted in the conviction, that any criminal who murdered a police officer would be signing his own death warrant. It makes little difference whether that belief was or was not statistically or morally justified. What matters it that in that belief our unarmed police—for they were unarmed then—regularly performed acts of gallantry in the face of criminal gunmen. They did so as a matter of routine.
  Today there is a new position. First, there has been a massive increase in the carrying and the use of firearms by criminals, precisely as the Police Federation predicted to the House. There is nothing accidental about that. The man who cleans, oils and takes out a gun for the commission of a crime does so as a rational act. He does so because he believes that it will be easier to extract from his potential victim the money that he is seeking. He also believes that if challenged he is more likely with that gun to be able to get away with his crime.
  The second major change since abolition, which again the Police Federation predicted in a memorandum to the House, is that as a result of the removal of what the police believe was a sure-fire defence against criminal gunmen, policemen would become "much more hesitant"—those were the words used in the memorandum — about risking their lives to arrest armed criminals. So it has come to pass.

  1183
  The practical point is that in that split second of timing when, as often happens, the policeman has to decide whether or not to tackle an armed criminal, the odds are now stacked against the policeman. If the police officer, while unarmed, decides to tackle the criminal, the policeman risks all he has—his life, his family and his future. But the gunman he confronts no longer risks his life, for the law now protects him from that. So if the gunman shoots the policeman, who may well be the only witness, first, he greatly increases his chance of getting away scot free and, secondly, if he is caught and convicted, the worst that can befall him is a sentence of life imprisonment.
  The odds are too one-sided. No hon. Member should therefore be surprised if nowadays more and more police officers hesitate to tackle armed criminals unless they, too, are issued with firearms. That is the third development which, again, the police predicted at the time of abolition; the policeman had to be armed for his own and the public's protection.
  I do not say that abolition is the sole or even the principal reason why more and more police posts have had to be issued with firearms, but what I find painful and egregious is that the voices that are loudest in the House in condemnation of the police for carrying guns are the very voices which so scornfully brushed aside the warnings of the police that this would become inevitable if the capital sentence were abolished.
  I would not support the death penalty for the vast majority of murders committed in Britain — those committed in family circumstances. Nor do I believe that the capital sentence would deter the fanatical terrorist murderer or those who kill under the influence of drugs. However, some killers of two types could be deterred by the prospect of death after conviction. One of those types is the hired gun, the professional assassin, who makes a contract to commit murder on behalf of some terrorist gang or even as an enforcer working for some criminal agency. Such men exist and there is no doubt that they kill for money. The most essential characteristic of such men is that they want to live to collect and enjoy their blood money.
  9.45 pm
  It is known to many in the security service that in those nations which have the death penalty the price of hiring such an assassin or enforcer goes up. The cash nexus makes it more difficult to procure such a murderer, and to that extent the capital sentence provides a measure of increased protection for the potential victim. The second type of potential murderers who would be deterred are the members of criminal gangs, notably here in London, who before abolition of the death penalty would regularly frisk younger members of the gang to make sure that they were not carrying guns. They did so because they feared, in the vernacular of the time, that if one of them killed a cop they would all be topped.
  It is now the norm and not the exception for such gangs of criminal burglars to go out in London with guns. They feel safer that way because the gun makes it easier and quicker to force their victims to hand over money, and because if they are caught the gun provides them with a better chance to escape. I and the vast majority of police officers dealing with such gangs believe that the
  1184
  restoration of the capital sentence would serve to reduce both the carrying and the use of firearms by such criminals and would therefore save innocent lives.
  Mr. Steve Norris: On behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), I can tell the House that we have had a most interesting and reflective debate. I say wih some diffidence and humility that the speeches that we have heard on both sides of the argument have, in the main, been excellent contributions. It is with equal diffidence that I shall briefly address one or two of the points made by hon. Members who opposed the new clause and then make a few brief and substantive remarks.
  In his thoughtful and interesting speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made much of the difficulties that would apply in Northern Ireland if this clause were to become part of our criminal law. In a most moving speech, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) told the House of his concern about the difficulties that would apply in the Province if this provision were enacted.
  Not long ago in France, the judges in a case involving terrorism, despite the advice that by all accounts they received from the French Government, said quite clearly that once a nation comes to believe that sentences imposed after due process of law in open court have to be tempered by the effect that those sentences may have on terrorists or others, that nation will go down a very dangerous road. Of course this is not an easy matter. A former Prime Minister, a former distinguished Home Secretary and the present Home Secretary have made that clear. However, that surely cannot be the overriding consideration of hon. Members on this issue.
  If so much is to be made of the drafting point, why should we not heed the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle)? Although he opposed the clause, he made it clear that if the House were minded to reintroduce the death penalty, it would ensure that the clause could be suitably amended if necessary before it became law.
  Many Conservative Members deeply regret that the level of violence, not only in the United Kingdom but in all Western societies, is still so high that it is inevitable that we should debate such a motion either now or at such equally propitious time. Whatever politicians or sociologists may claim to be the reason for it, violent behaviour is unquestionably with us. Although we are dealing with the death penalty for murder, it is wrong to think that the debate is concerned solely with about 600 cases. We are also dealing with the many cases of violent assault that escape being murder cases by a hair's breadth, thanks to the skill of surgeons and the dedication of the police.
  I understand the argument about the cathartic effect on society, which from time to time feels the need to ventilate its revulsion and contempt as it witnesses the appalling crimes that are committed. However, that alone would not make me support the clause. I accept that the amendment will not apply in many cases of murder, nor should it necessarily apply in such cases. Some Conservative Members accept that many killings are unpremeditated. Domestic murders, for example, often result from a strong familial relationship that has led to conflict. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is still murder."] None the less, such people will not be deterred by the existence of the death penalty. Perhaps even less acceptable to the general public is the

  1185
  certainty that there is no deterrent value in the death penalty for those who are so psychotic or insane that they are wholly unaccountable for their actions. In such cases, the death penalty will make no difference.
  Nevertheless, the continued existence of appalling and barbaric crimes in the United Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere is not in question. Recent cases beggar description — for example, the Keith Blakelock case, which must have turned some of the strongest stomachs. If ever there was a case of murder being evil, that was it.
  It is perhaps even more sinister that terrorists and paramilitary groups in the United Kingdom, the middle east, north Africa and elsewhere are recruiting young people barely into their teens to carry out appalling crimes for their own strange and convoluted political ends. Such crimes have only one common denominator, as in the Hindawi case: the victims are innocent people. Many women and children will be slain and maimed.
  In recent years, there has been a frightening increase both in violent murders and in crimes involving sexual offences, followed by murder, on women, children and elderly people. In addition, there are crimes against the police, who are mostly unarmed who endeavour to protect the most vulnerable in our society from such violence. It is against that background that we must consider what society and Parliament can do to reverse the tide of violence.
  We must ensure that those who are contemplating offences of this nature are certain that the likelihood of their being apprehended and convicted is considerable. Any system of penalties that does not take account of the need for certainty of conviction to be present in the mind of the criminal is of no avail. Certainty of conviction must be paramount.
  We have also to consider whether the existence of the death penalty would be likely to deter. Of course there would be many who would still commit the crime of murder and who would not be deterred. Young terrorists are being intimidated by the paramilitary groups into running little errands on their behalf, which lead to greater involvement in terrorist offences and eventually to murder. Furthermore, there are the mindless muggers, the vandals, the casual thugs and the calculating professional criminals who go out with a gun in their hand either to frighten or to use it to kill. Given that nowadays a life sentence rarely means more than 10 years, the possession of a firearm is not worth worrying about, so they decide that they might as well take a gun with them.
  I refuse to believe that in those groups, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said in a powerful speech, there will be a number of people who will not be deterred by the existence of the death penalty. In his opening speech my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport pointed out that that number will be significantly greater than those who are deterred by the prospect of so-called life imprisonment. Almost by definition, those who are deterred cannot be detected. A few moments ago that conclusion was derided, but were we to compare the present murder rate with what happened over 20 years ago we should have to assume that the only factor in the equation that has changed is the existence or otherwise of the death penalty. Were we not to draw that conclusion, we should have to ignore all the social developments of the last 20 years. The common
  1186
  sense conclusion that the vast majority of ordinary people will draw is that some people would be deterred by the existence of the death penalty.
  As for pubic opinion, I am as opposed to a referendum as I am in favour of capital punishment. I do not believe that the course that was advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) is appropriate. I believe in the supremacy of Parliament. I believe, too, that all hon. Members are representatives, not delegates. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) said that we have to accept that the moral authority of Parliament, which is based on public acceptance of the supremacy of Parliament, is seriously jeopardised if it consistently ignores the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the citizens.
  Since abolition, the British people have had over 20 years in which to consider the implications of this issue. What is now being proposed was not in existence at that time. We cannot turn back the clock, and those who have tabled the new clause do not propose to do so. This issue is beyond politics. It is beyond party and class. There is a very real sense of frustration by the British people bordering on anger at Parliament's patronising, "We know better" attitude.
  Tonight, this House has an opportunity to take just a small step, but not the only step, to combat and punish serious violent crime. However, that step expresses, in the clearest and most unequivocal way, society's abhorrence of premeditated and evil murder. Capital punishment will certainly deter a number of offenders. It is a step which would be massively welcomed in every quarter of this land, and I commend it warmly to the House.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 342.

  Division No. 132]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Cash, William

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Alexander, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Amess, David

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

  Arnold, Tom

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Cockeram, Eric

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Colvin, Michael

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Coombs, Simon

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Corrie, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dicks, Terry

  Beggs, Roy

  Dover, Den

  Bellingham, Henry

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dunn, Robert

  Bennett, Rt Hon Sir Frederic

  Durant, Tony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Eggar, Tim

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Blackburn, John

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Farr, Sir John

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Favell, Anthony

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bright, Graham

  Forth, Eric

  Brinton, Tim

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Browne, John

  Fry, Peter

  Butcher, John

  Gale, Roger

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Galley, Roy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  1187

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Norris, Steven

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Greenway, Harry

  Osborn, Sir John

  Gregory, Conal

  Ottaway, Richard

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Grylls, Michael

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Pollock, Alexander

  Hannam, John

  Porter, Barry

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Portillo, Michael

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)

  Powley, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Price, Sir David

  Hayward, Robert

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Heddle, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Henderson, Barry

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Hickmet, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hicks, Robert

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Hill, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hind, Kenneth

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry E)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Rost, Peter

  Holt, Richard

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shersby, Michael

  Jackson, Robert

  Silvester, Fred

  Jessel, Toby

  Sims, Roger

  Jones, Robert (Herts W)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Key, Robert

  Speed, Keith

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Speller, Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Spencer, Derek

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lang, Ian

  Steen, Anthony

  Latham, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Lightbown, David

  Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

  Lord, Michael

  Stokes, John

  McCrea, Rev William

  Sumberg. David

  McCrindle, Robert

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  McCusker, Harold

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Terlezki, Stefan

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Maclean, David John

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thornton, Malcolm

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Thurnham, Peter

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tracey, Richard

  Marland, Paul

  Trippier, David

  Marlow, Antony

  Trotter, Neville

  Mates, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mather, Sir Carol

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Viggers, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Merchant, Piers

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Watts, John

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Whitney, Raymond

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mudd, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Neale, Gerrard

  Wood, Timothy

  Neubert, Michael

  Woodcock. Michael

  1188

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Peter Bruinvels and

  Mr. James Pawsey.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Alton, David

  Crouch, David

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Anderson, Donald

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Ashby, David

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Deakins, Eric

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Dewar, Donald

  Ashton, Joe

  Dixon, Donald

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Dobson, Frank

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dormand, Jack

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Douglas, Dick

  Barnes, Mrs Rosemary

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Barron, Kevin

  Dubs, Alfred

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Beith, A. J.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Bell, Stuart

  Eadie, Alex

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eastham, Ken

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Benyon, William

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ellis, Raymond

  Best, Keith

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bitten, Rt Hon John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Blair, Anthony

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Fisher, Mark

  Bottomley, Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fletcher, Sir Alexander

  Boyes, Roland

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Forman, Nigel

  Britten, Rt Hon Leon

  Forrester, John

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Franks, Cecil

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Freeman, Roger

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Freud, Clement

  Buchan, Norman

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Buck, Sir Antony

  George, Bruce

  Budgen, Nick

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Butterfill, John

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Caborn, Richard

  Gorst, John

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Gould, Bryan

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Campbell, Ian

  Gow, Ian

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Grist, Ian

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ground, Patrick

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hancock, Michael

  Cartwright, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harris, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Clarke, Thomas

  Harvey, Robert

  Clay, Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Hayes, J.

  Cohen, Harry

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Coleman, Donald

  Haynes, Frank

  Conlan, Bernard

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cope, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Corbett, Robin

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  1189

  Home Robertson, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Howard, Michael

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Moate, Roger

  Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Howells, Geraint

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

  Needham, Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Nellist, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Newton, Tony

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hume, John

  O'Brien, William

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Irving, Charles

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Park, George

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Patchett, Terry

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  John, Brynmor

  Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Pike, Peter

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Prescott, John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Knox, David

  Radice, Giles

  Lambie, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Lamond, James

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rathbone, Tim

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Redmond, Martin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lester, Jim

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Lilley, Peter

  Robertson, George

  Litherland, Robert

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Livsey, Richard

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Rogers, Allan

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Loyden, Edward

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ryder, Richard

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Scott, Nicholas

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maclennan, Robert

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Madden, Max

  Shields, Mrs Elizabeth

  Madel, David

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Major, John

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Maples, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Marek, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Martin, Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maxton, John

  Snape, Peter

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mellor, David

  Squire, Robin

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stern, Michael

  Michie, William

  Stott, Roger

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Milian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Strang, Gavin

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Straw, Jack

  1190

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Taylor, Matthew

  Wareing, Robert

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watson, John

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Weetch, Ken

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wheeler, John

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  White, James

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Tinn, James

  Wilson, Gordon

  Torney, Tom

  Winnick, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Woodall, Alec

  Wainwright, R.

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Walden, George

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. James Couchman and

  Walters, Dennis

  Mr. Ron Davies.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Ryder.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The House has spent two long days on the concluding stages of the Bill and I should like to draw our consideration of it briefly to a conclusion.
  The Bill contains much heavy matter and many different subjects, each of which might have justified a Bill of its own, and I shall not go through its contents.
  Naturally there has been controversy—sometimes it has been sharp—and this has occurred sometimes between parties and sometimes between laymen and learned Members. I am sure that the Bill has benefited from the examination that we have given it.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is noted for his sharp sword or razor, and I do not think that he will take it amiss when I say that he has shown once more a clear and constructive grasp of how Parliament should get to work on a Bill of this sort. The same is true of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I pay particular thanks to my hon. and hon. and learned Friends for sustaining the burden of the argument, and a special thanks to my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, who have borne the great share of the work.
  The Bill goes now to another place and their Lordships will consider it carefully in the knowledge that no guillotine has been imposed upon it in this place. The Bill does not go to the other place with the bloodstains of the faithful Commons upon the papers. Each matter has been carefully weighed more than once, and I am sure that in doing its duty as the second Chamber it will bear that in mind.
  I take this opportunity to correct an error which I made in the earlier part of the day in the debate on the new clause moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival). In referring to Mr. Mervyn Russell, whose conviction for murder was quashed several years after he had been sent to prison, and developing the matter, I referred inadvertently to the quashing of the conviction several years after his execution. I must correct that slip of the tongue. The right hon. Member for Gorton got it right, and I intended to say that Mr. Russell was one

  1191
  of a number of persons whose conviction had been quashed since the abolition of capital punishment and who might have been liable to execution but for abolition.
  10.20 pm
  Mr. Kaufman: I would like to join the Home Secretary in sending the Bill to the House of Lords in the hope that that House can complete the necessary corrections that we were unable to make in the House of Commons.
  This Bill has many good parts and I agree with the Home Secretary that it has been improved as a result of the proper and sensible consideration given to it in Committee. I would like to thank my hon. Friends who have shared with me the burden of dealing with the Bill and who have assisted to ensure that the Bill is properly considered and improved. I would also like to thank the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State who, for Conservatives, have managed the Bill very well. I believe that they now understand the way in which Government and Opposition, while in no way abandoning their differences, can co-operate to improve the legislation.
  Although there are matters in which we would like some improvement and although I do not approve of what goes on along the Corridor, I nevertheless hope that, while the other place is around, it will restore peremptory challenge. On that basis, I would like to thank everyone involved for helping us to work so well on the Bill.
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I should like to thank the Home Secretary and other Ministers for their great courtesy, forbearance, help and willingness to listen during the passage of the Bill. As in the case of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, every single clause and every schedule was considered, and that is how it should be with Bills that deal with criminal justice policy.
  I also thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and his hon. Friends for their assistance. I hope that we have assisted one another from time to time, when needs must, during the passage of the Bill.
  Although I should like to see some improvements to the legislation in the Lords, I believe that it contains considerable improvements to the law and I look forward to those improvements being put into effect.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Ambulance Service, Northumbria
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Ted Garrett: It is somewhat regrettable that I am forced to detain the House for another half hour. I would like it to be known that this is only the second time in 23 years that I have sought an Adjournment debate. Therefore, I do not take the matter lightly when deciding upon a subject for an Adjournment debate I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the deterioration and decline in the Northumbria ambulance service. I speak with some knowledge about the ambulance service because, on 5 July 1948 when the National Health Service Act came into being, I was a founder member of the Northumberland ambulance service committee. Out of the shambles of the post-war period we were able to create an efficient organisation from scratch and that service was extended to include the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county council area. That reorganisation was carried out with the minimum of fuss.
  The breakdown in that excellent organisation started when the present chief of the ambulance service decided on what was euphemistically called an efficiency campaign. That was two years ago and since then the service has virtually collapsed. It is the source of bitterness and cynicism among the electorate of the area and all quarters of the populace are fed up with the whole business.
  Public concern was such that the 10 councils within the area of the administration of the ambulance service decided to fund and conduct an independent public inquiry. That was decided upon because they could not get the regional health authority or the ambulance committee to take seriously the bitter complaints that were being received not merely by Members of Parliament but by other leaders within the community. They were forced to do that.
  An independent committee was set up with some excellent members. It was fortunate in having Lord Ennals as chairman, the former Secretary of State for Social Services, and its membership comprised Mr. Alan Fisher, former general secretary of the National Union of Public Employees, Mr. Malcolm Collett, principal lecturer in medical sociology at Newcastle upon Tyne university and Mr. Sidney Grahame, technical adviser and former chief ambulance officer for Gateshead and Sunderland. Those men had some knowledge of that vital sector of public service.
  That independent committee took evidence from a variety of sources. It published its report in the spring of last year. I regret to say that, although the Government were informed of the report and given copies of it. no response has been received. There was very little response from the regional health authority or the ambulance committee. Indeed, the recommendations in the report, to my knowledge, have never been implemented. I believe that they have been ignored.
  The service continued to decline from that time. Local Members of Parliament, doctors and the general public can all relate negative examples of their experiences of the service. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) raised the matter in a debate some months ago, but nothing happened.

  1193
  As I have said, the recommendations of the independent inquiry were ignored. Representations by the northern group of Labour Members of Parliament to officials and representatives of the regional health authority were ignored and nothing happened. Petitions with thousands of signatures have been submitted to various sources but nothing has happened. All those matters should have been looked into, but instead we have had some weak promises from some of the officials.
  I could go on for some time. I have received hundreds of complaints, as have other hon. Members representing the northern region, not merely Labour Members but members of other parties as well. I can give an example of a complaint that I received last week. A lady should have attended hospital every day for radium therapy. On one day she waited five and a half hours for the ambulance to bring her home after treatment. It is difficult to imagine her physical and mental state during that wait. The following day she waited four hours, but worse was to come. One day when she was ready to go to hospital to receive her daily treatment and after several telephone calls, she was informed at 4.30 in the afternoon that the ambulance would not be coming.
  Similar cases abound in the region. The region stretches from Berwick on the border down to the boundaries of Durham and out through Northumberland and Durham to the borders of the Pennines. It is a hugh area and many people depend on the ambulance service. Many people do not have their own cars. In some cases the vehicles for the ambulance service are the sort of vehicles that convey people to hospital with the minimum of inconvenience.
  The morale of the staff is at rock bottom. They are threatened if they complain. Very often they are forced to do single manning where, in their judgement, there should be double manning and often, on the two-person system, only one turns up. From what we have gathered in the press and from consultations with union people and ordinary members of the public, it seems that joint consultation by the officials and representatives of the union is a mockery.
  The scale of frustration, anxiety, misery and fear that has been imposed on the people within the area of the ambulance service is a public affront to the people and requires urgent action. It is a shame that a service that was admired for its pride and efficiency has deteriorated to the extent that it has.
  I urge the Minister to use the powers that he has to make a clean sweep of the people responsible for the collapse of the service. The hon. Gentleman must therefore request the resignation of the chairman of the ambulance committee and its members. He must request the resignation of the chief ambulance officer and the two people with higher responsibilities—the chairman of the regional health authority and the senior administrator. If they refuse to resign, he should use the powers available to him to seek their dismissal. I am confident that they will be replaced by people who will put human needs before bureaucratic needs. I urge the Minister once again to act decisively to end this shameful abuse of bureaucratic powers over the people of the north-east.
  10.31 pm
  Mr. Don Dixon: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) for introducing this
  1194
  important subject on the Adjournment. It is important to many of our constituents, certainly to those of my hon. Friends who are now here. My hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) have had many letters and complaints from their constituents since the so-called reorganisation of the ambulance service. We as a northern group have met several times. We have had meetings with Professor Tomlinson, the chairman of the Northern health authority, and with Mr. Caple, the chief ambulance officer—and all to no avail.
  We have had continuous complaints since the so-called reorganisation of the ambulance service. Over recent weeks, I have had three serious complaints about the service in our area. One involved one of my constituents, who had a serious chest complaint, was in hospital and was discharged. She went on a non-emergency ambulance back to her house. When she got back, she was laid on the bed and her husband was told, as she could not get her breath, to open the windows and doors. That lady died 10 minutes after she was taken out of the ambulance.
  In the second case, one of my constituents, a 76-year-old man who had just had a stroke, had to go to hospital. I have the appointment card here. He was supposed to be picked up by ambulance at 11.30 am. The ambulance turned up at 9 am. It could not go back again. The man had to telephone for his daughter, and she had to take him to hospital.
  These cases have happened only in recent weeks. If I were to tell of all the cases since reorganisation, I could go on all night. In the third case, the person had been in hospital, where he was seriously ill, for 13 days. His stepfather was told that he was to be discharged at 10 am the following day. The family went to the hospital; the ambulance had been ordered for 11 am. The family sat with the person in the waiting room all day. At 5 o'clock, no ambulance had arrived. The family had to ring the daughter, and get her from work and to come down in her car to take the person home. He was seriously ill when he got home, mostly as a result of having to wait for the ambulance to arrive. Two days later, that person died.
  My constituents are irate about the ambulance service in our area. The so-called reorganisation is a disgrace. It is an unmitigated disaster. Talking to Mr. Cape!, the chief ambulance officer, is a waste of time. All one gets are platitudes and excuses. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends who are present could echo such complaints.
  I thought that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), would reply to the debate. We know that the hon. Lady has made certain comments about health in the north. However, if we compare the hon. Lady with Mr. Caple, the hon. Lady looks like Florence Nightingale.
  That is the position in the area. It is time something was done. It is time that the Minister took note of the comments raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend and had a thorough investigation to sort out those people who have disorganised the ambulance service in our area.
  10.34 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mr. Tony Newton): I begin by responding to the last remark. I am sorry to have deprived the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) of the pleasure of having my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security in his

  1195
  direct sights. I should explain that my hon. Friend was faced with some difficulty in being able to respond to the debate tonight and I thought that it would be appropriate if I responded.
  I am happy to have the opportunity to discuss the matter with hon. Members. I appreciate the strength of feeling. Although I have not checked the statistics mentioned by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), I have no reason to doubt his word that he is an infrequent raiser of matters on the Adjournment of the House. I fully accept that that reflects the importance that he attaches to the matter. I note that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) is in the Chamber and I know that he has raised this matter before on the Adjournment. I am also aware that the hon. Member for Jarrow has been concerned about this for some time. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is present and I know that he takes a considerable interest in this matter.
  The difficulty that I face in answering tonight has two parts. First, a number of specific instances were raised in the past few minutes by the hon. Member for Jarrow upon which necessarily I am not able to comment off the cuff. However, I will see what further information I can gain from the authority about the particular cases raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow if they can be identified from the information he has provided on the Floor of the House or should he wish to give me further information to enable me to seek the authority's comments.
  I am conscious that I must resist some part of the thrust of the comments made by the hon. Members for Wallsend and for Jarrow that the regional health authority and the ambulance service — including the chief ambulance officer—and I do not pretend to be quoting hon. Members accurately; I merely give the flavour of what they said—have persistently refused to respond to some of the points that have been made. I happen to have on file comments made by the regional ambulance officer on 23 December last year in response to a report commissioned by Prudhoe town council. I understand that the report had only been published on 8 December 1986. Frankly, by the standards of central Government, that is a fairly full and detailed response to a report published within not much more than a fortnight of the publication of the original document, and it includes detailed comments on a number of specific cases that had been raised. Whatever else has been said about the response, it constitutes a serious attempt to respond to the criticisms that had been put forward.
  It would be less than fair to the authority and the chief ambulance officer on the evidence of the papers that I have concerning this matter, not to acknowledge that an attempt to respond has been made. However, I fully understand in the light of what hon. Members have said, that that response has not satisfied them or manifestly, on the basis of what they say, some of their constituents.
  I cannot make immediate comment on specific cases although I will undertake to have those cases examined. It is right to record that according to the papers that I have, response has been made to particular cases and points that have been raised in reports in the past. I may refer to that point later.
  The second difficulty that I face is perhaps closer to the fundamentals of the case put forward today. As has been acknowledged on both sides, this is not the first occasion on which the Northumbria ambulance service has been
  1196
  discussed in the House. I have looked at the report of the last debate and noted the undertaking given by the then Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). He said that he did not expect standards to be reduced but rather that they would be improved, and he referred to early evidence that efficiency of response in terms of emergency ambulance services had improved rather than deteriorated. All the evidence that I have seen from the intervening period confirms that in response to emergency demands the Northumbria ambulance service has improved its record. I will give some of the statistics in a moment. Against that background, I must confess to some puzzlement about the reasons for raising the subject again today. At any rate, I start from the position that in my judgment the northern regional health authority, which is responsible for the running of the service, has sought to allay the fears expressed, has been monitoring the service provided and aims to maintain what appears to have been an improvement and to make further improvements.
  I justify my comments about what appears to have happened on the basis of statistical evidence of improvement especially in the emergency service since the restructuring began. The statistics show clearly that ambulances are getting to emergency cases faster and that within six months of the closure of Prudhoe ambulance station 95 per cent. of emergency response times were within 20 minutes, compared with 73 per cent. before—an increase of more than a quarter and not far short of a third. In the period 1 October to 25 November 1986—the latest figures available to me—all emergency calls in the Prudhoe area were responded to within 14 minutes, which is better than the standard set by the Department for areas of that kind and reflects the fact that even in the usual areas the regional health authority has deliberately set standards which are more commonly expected in the metropolitan areas with their closer-knit populations and generally shorter journey times. I understand that even the people campaigning for the reopening of Prudhoe ambulance station, which is part of the background to today's debate, acknowledge that in this respect the service has improved since restructuring. They believe that there is room for further improvements, and that may well be so. I should be the last to say that I regarded any ambulance service as having achieved perfection, and hope that any authority concerned with services of this kind will seek to maintain and in every possible way to strengthen its efforts to ensure that the service is as efficient as it possibly can be.
  With those figures in mind — I am not aware that anyone has seriously disputed the improvement in response times to emergencies which has taken place in the Northumbria ambulance service since restructuring—I am somewhat puzzled at the extent to which the concern persists. I do not dispute the fact that it persists—if it did not, hon. Members would not be here for this debate.
  Mr. Garrett: The station referred to is Prudhoe, which is in the constituency of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He has complained bitterly. The fact is that there are people who have examined the statistics presented by the chief ambulance officer, people who are statisticians and who have disputed those figures from that area.
  However, I would like to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and I come from

  1197
  heavily industrialised areas. Prudhoe is an urban/rural area where there is less congestion of the roads. In my car I have checked some of those times and again, keeping within the permitted speed limits, I have found that those figures understate the times.
  Mr. Newton: I think that I must simply undertake to note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and also to apologise if I had mistaken one of the thrusts of the case that he was seeking to make. My file is stuffed with reports about the Prudhoe ambulance station. Given that it was adverted to by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington in the previous debate as well, perhaps we over-estimated the extent to which that particular controversy was part of the concern that was to be reflected by the hon. Gentleman. But given that he has made it clear that he is anxious to steer the discussion on to more general ground and to relate it to the performance of the ambulance service throughout the area, let me make a number of points which are related to the performance and improvement in efficiency, as I would judge it, and also the quality and useage, of the Northumbria ambulance service fleet during the period in question.
  On the figures available to me, it is certainly the case that the substantial manpower resources deployed in this service are now being better used than previously. When comparing the ratio of vehicle crew staff to patient movements—and I am conscious that measurements of this kind always sound bureaucratic, but we must have some kind of measure of the way in which resources are used—the restructured service, in manpower terms, has increased its productivity by 12·3 per cent. Putting those figures into somewhat more manageable terms, in 1982–83, for each ambulance man or woman employed, 1,312 patients were transported, whereas by 1985–86 that figure had risen by 162 patients to 1,474. Similarly if one looks at what one might call the usage of the fleet itself, I am advised that 32 new vehicles have been introduced, that they include 11 front-line accident and emergency ambulances and 21 patient transport sitting case vehicles. There are 73 fewer vehicles overall than before restructuring, which may sound like a downside case, but the fleet is travelling an increased mileage, and the net result is a substantial increase in the productivity of those employed in the service and a reduction in the costs that would otherwise have been incurred — which means,
  1198
  other things being equal, more money for the health authority to plough into direct patient services in other ways.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: I am grateful to the Minister and I am sorry to intervene in the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), but I did tell him what I was going to raise.
  The Minister will realise that a lot of things can be hidden behind statistics. In fact, my job used to be hiding things behind statistics. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and others have illustrated, it is the human factors that we are concerned about — the number of times, for example, that I have not had ambulance cover in my constituency, and so on. Would the Minister be prepared to meet the hon. Gentlemen who are here this evening, after he has had a reply from Mr. Caple, so that we can talk about the human aspect of it and not just its statistical aspect?
  Mr. Newton: I will consider that. The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have crossed swords in a friendly way many times over the years, knows that my predeliction is always to agree to such a proposition. When I have seen the report from the ambulance officer, if it is the wish of the hon. Gentlemen that we should meet to talk about it further, I shall gladly see whether that can be arranged.
  On his comment about seeing this in human terms, I hope that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington will accept that that is what I want to do. Leaving aside the specific cases to which the chief ambulance officer sought to respond in his paper of 23 December 1986, which on the face of it reveals considerable inaccuracy in the accounts of the cases as put to him in the first place, the human effects of the organisation of ambulance services must in the end be judged by the speed of response to emergency cases, which is what most people regard as the first requirement of an ambulance service.
  I am not in a position to engage in a complex statistical argument with the hon. Gentlemen about the basis on which the statistics have been constructed, but I have no reason to suppose that they have not been put together in good faith and on a well-established basis. They show that the response time in the Northumbria ambulance service has improved since restructuring. On that basis I cannot yield to the demands of the hon. Member for Wallsend that I should undertake the actions sought of me in his speech.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  Commission Members
  Commission Members
SCOTLAND
  Riding Centre, Summerston
  Riding Centre, Summerston
  Landscape Conservation
  Landscape Conservation
  AIDS
  AIDS
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Enterprise Education
  Enterprise Education
DEFENCE
  British Military Hospital, Dharan
  British Military Hospital, Dharan
PRIME MINISTER
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Gazumping
  Gazumping
  Court Proceedings (Documentary Evidence)
  Court Proceedings (Documentary Evidence)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Officers (Medical Protection)
  Prison Officers (Medical Protection)
  Greater London
  Greater London
  Airports (Passport Checking)
  Airports (Passport Checking)
  Prisoners (Violence)
  Prisoners (Violence)
  Rate Defaulters
  Rate Defaulters
  South West Africa People's Organisation
  South West Africa People's Organisation
  Charities (Political Activities)
  Charities (Political Activities)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Mr. John Fleming
  Mr. John Fleming
  Police Computers
  Police Computers
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Channel Islands (Defence and International Representation)
  Channel Islands (Defence and International Representation)
ENERGY
  Waddilove Report
  Waddilove Report
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986
  Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Motability
  Motability
  Benefits (Age Limit)
  Benefits (Age Limit)
  NHS Finance
  NHS Finance
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Social Security Advisory Committee (Report)
  Social Security Advisory Committee (Report)
  Cervical and Breast Cancer Screening
  Cervical and Breast Cancer Screening
TRANSPORT
  Noise Insulation Regulations 1975
  Noise Insulation Regulations 1975
  National Bus Company
  National Bus Company
  Witchford Bypass
  Witchford Bypass
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  London Underground (Accidents)
  London Underground (Accidents)
  Exeter-Exmouth Relief Road
  Exeter-Exmouth Relief Road
  Wheelchair Passengers
  Wheelchair Passengers
  Channel Tunnel Roads (War Cemeteries)
  Channel Tunnel Roads (War Cemeteries)
  Road Assessment Studies (London)
  Road Assessment Studies (London)
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  City Technology Colleges
  City Technology Colleges
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Official Forms (Welsh Language)
  Official Forms (Welsh Language)
  Government Data Network
  Government Data Network
  Growth and Manufacturing Output
  Growth and Manufacturing Output
  Prices
  Prices
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
EMPLOYMENT
  National Pay Agreements
  National Pay Agreements
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Job Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
  Availability for Work Test
  Availability for Work Test
  Self-Employed Persons
  Self-Employed Persons
  Hotels (London)
  Hotels (London)
  Workfare
  Workfare
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fish Stocks
  Fish Stocks
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Dairy Inspection
  Dairy Inspection
  Greater London
  Greater London
  International Bee Research Association
  International Bee Research Association
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
ENVIRONMENT
  Inner City Initiatives
  Inner City Initiatives
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Clearance Areas (Compulsory Purchase)
  Clearance Areas (Compulsory Purchase)
  Planning Circular
  Planning Circular
  Greater London House Conditions Survey
  Greater London House Conditions Survey
  Derelict Land and Buildings
  Derelict Land and Buildings
  Development Corporations (Jobs and Houses)
  Development Corporations (Jobs and Houses)
  Land Use
  Land Use
  Islington (Rate Support Grant)
  Islington (Rate Support Grant)
  London Marathon (County Hall)
  London Marathon (County Hall)
  Community Charge
  Community Charge
  "Paying for Local Government"
  "Paying for Local Government"
  Basildon (New Towns Commission Tenants)
  Basildon (New Towns Commission Tenants)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Harrow (Rate Support Grant)
  Harrow (Rate Support Grant)
  Urban Regeneration Grant
  Urban Regeneration Grant
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Water Industry
  Water Industry
  Urban Development Grants
  Urban Development Grants
  Chemicals (Ozone Depletion)
  Chemicals (Ozone Depletion)
  Bedfordshire County Council (Grant)
  Bedfordshire County Council (Grant)
  Housing Estates (Conservation Villages)
  Housing Estates (Conservation Villages)
  Local Authority Housing Stock
  Local Authority Housing Stock
  Amusement Centres
  Amusement Centres
  Black Country (Urban Development Corporation)
  Black Country (Urban Development Corporation)
  Urban Development Corporations
  Urban Development Corporations
  Bathing Water
  Bathing Water
  Leicester (Unoccupied Housing)
  Leicester (Unoccupied Housing)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Local Planning Inquiries (Assistance to Objectors)
  Local Planning Inquiries (Assistance to Objectors)
  Nitrite Levels (EC Directive)
  Nitrite Levels (EC Directive)
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Greater London Council
  Greater London Council
  Beaches (Pollution)
  Beaches (Pollution)
  Unfit Dwellings
  Unfit Dwellings
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  London Docklands Redevelopment Corporation (Houses and Flats)
  London Docklands Redevelopment Corporation (Houses and Flats)
  Defective Housing
  Defective Housing
  Grant-related Expenditure Assessments
  Grant-related Expenditure Assessments
  Countryside (Access)
  Countryside (Access)
  Flagstaffs
  Flagstaffs
  Planning Control
  Planning Control
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Seal Skins
  Seal Skins
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
THE ARTS
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection

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

Shipping Registry: Norwegian Proposal
Lord Campbell of Croy: 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 arranging to discuss with the Norwegian Government the published proposal that an international registry for shipping be established in Oslo this summer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we are not making any such arrangements. I did, however, informally discuss this proposal when I met the Norwegian Minister of Trade and Shipping in Oslo last November. The main purpose of the second Norwegian registry would be to stem the loss of ships from the Norwegian flag.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Do the Government intend to inquire in friendly discussions into the effects of this project on the rules and standards at present required by Norway for shipping registered in Oslo considering that Norway has a problem of its ships leaving for flags of convenience?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is essentially an internal Norwegian matter but our officials meet regularly in multilateral fora which discuss such matters. Certainly we shall be discussing that kind of matter with the Norwegians.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that his reply is extremely disconcerting? The reports that have been published indicate that it is not just a problem for Norwegian shipping; the proposal will attract shipping throughout the world. The hope is to attract associated shipping services away from London to Oslo. That could have a very severe effect upon our associated services. Surely this is a case not merely for discussion with the Norwegian Government but also with the Council of Transport Ministers all of whose countries will be affected. This is a further terrible advance for flags of convenience with lower costs and lower wages for crews.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the final proposals have not yet been published. We do not therefore know exactly what form they will take. As for the Council of Transport Ministers, I am sure that the proposal will be a matter of discussion. Norway, not being within the Common Market, is not a party to that. However, the Norwegians obviously feel that they have a reason to retain their shipping under their own flag, and these proposals are aimed at that.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can we have an assurance that the Government are concerned that there will be an international register and that they will do all they can to ensure that nations are properly represented by their own flags and not by flags of convenience?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we already have a fairly similar kind of arrangement in the Isle of Man and dependent territories registers which keep ships under the British flag. However, as I say, this is a matter for the Norwegians. There is a limit to the amount that we can interfere with what they wish to do.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, bearing in mind what the noble Lord has just said, will he confirm that what the Norwegians are proposing is precisely what is available to British merchant fleets under the registers of the Isle of Man, Gibraltar and, I believe, the Cayman Islands?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot confirm that it is precisely the same because we do not yet know the final details of what the Norwegians propose. However, I have said that it is very similar to the kind of arrangement we can offer.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can my noble friend advise the House whether his officials are in communication with the General Council of British Shipping on this subject? If so, what is the reaction from that body?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that my officials are constantly in touch with the General Council of British Shipping. However, I have not heard its reaction to the proposal by the Norwegians.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, has the Minister seen the report in the Daily Telegraph of the 9th March this year which gives a far more disconcerting account of what the Norwegian Government are planning than the Minister has given? If he has not read the report, will he please do so and consult not only with the General Council of British Shipping but also with the International Maritime Organisation? The effect on British shipping is very severe. If action by the Norwegian Government to deal with their own problem led to the British Government taking the same course, it would, I am certain, be disastrous for the world.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must admit that I have not seen the report of 9th March. I shall of course look at it now that the noble Lord has proposed it to me. I have said that we can offer a similar kind of arrangement through the Isle of Man and dependent territories registers.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is it suggested that a report in a newspaper is more authoritative than a statement from the Dispatch Box in Parliament?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not know the answer until I have read the report in the newspapers. However, as I have said, we have still not seen the final proposals of the Norwegians. As I have also said, it is very much an internal matter for them. We cannot tell them that they cannot do this.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the intention of the Norwegian register at present is to replace many of its experienced Norwegian crew with, I believe, Filippinos? Is there not a safety angle to be considered in this case?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the present requirement of Norway's register is that two-thirds of the crew should be Norwegian. One of the proposals is that the vessels could have all-foreign crews. It would of course be up to the shipping lines to satisfy themselves that they could still operate safely with that change. I do not think the proposal applies to the officers. I think that they will still remain Norwegian.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the British arrangements in the Isle of Man allow a relaxation of standards?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that impression could be taken from anything I said this afternoon. It certainly is not the case.

Spectacles: Supply Sources
2.44 p.m.
Lord Rugby: 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 what alternative sources of supply of optical requirements are available to members of the public who for reasons of choice and cost do not wish to deal with suppliers operating under the opticians' "closed shop".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness 'Trumpington): My Lords, I do not accept there is an opticians' closed shop. Unregistered persons wishing to do so are permitted to supply spectacles to adults.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that by insisting on its own highly restrictive and indeed inhumane interpretation of Section 21 of the Opticians Act, the General Optical Council has laid open Her Majesty's Government to direct proceedings which are now being brought forward under Article 169 of the Treaty of Rome for failure to fulfil its obligations?
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I have to cite the correct Act. When such restrictions have been removed in other member states, and also throughout the United States of America, why do Her Majesty's Government therefore continue to inflict this restriction upon the citizens of this country? Such a restriction fails to enable them to obtain their reading glasses by the best possible method; that is, by choice.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord needs new specs!
Lord Rugby: My Lords, I cannot hear the noble Baroness.
Baroness Trumpington: And a hearing aid! My Lords, conditions relating to the sale of spectacles vary from country to country. Some countries permit the sale of ready-made spectacles and others do not. The United Kingdom Government have struck what they consider to be the right balance in their regulatory arrangements. The link between the sale of spectacles and the sight test has been retained as a safeguard to the public. We have taken measures to increase competition in the sale of spectacles so that the public can also enjoy the benefit of low prices.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the sight test is an inquisition which forces the customer to purchase an appliance which he would prefer to choose of this own volition, were such volition available?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that there is no legal impediment to cross-channel ferries selling simple reading glasses without prescription outside British territorial waters? Can she also confirm that the same principle applies to airlines selling reading glasses outside British air space?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have to maintain that the Government considered there were good health reasons for retaining the link between sight testing and the sale of spectacles. Therefore there is the requirement for prescription.

Haringey Council: School Lessons
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: 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 now heard from Haringey Local Education Authority in reply to their inquiries last year and again in January this year as to the authority's plans to promote "positive images" of homosexuality, and if not, what action they propose to take.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, Haringey Local Education Authority has now replied at some length to the further inquiries about its policies on the treatment of homosexuality in the school curriculum. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is studying the reply and will respond shortly.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and I am most encouraged to hear that a reply has at last been received. I should like to ask the Minister whether or not Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the extent of the disquiet and anxiety felt by many parents of the borough at the prospect of their children being exposed to they know not what in the way of unorthodox moral suggestions. In particular, may I ask whether the Government realises that a lot of the anxiety comes from ethnic communities; for example,

571
the Moslem community in Haringey for whom a homosexual lifestyle is perhaps more taboo than it is in the Western world?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the situation as it has been reported by Haringey, and as I have said, as a result of the authority's lengthy reply they are aware of the case the authority itself makes. The situation arises in certain other authorities also. The Government are taking the situation very seriously and that is why in this first issue that has arisen a very careful analysis of the authority's policy statements and its plans for implementing them is being carried out.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that parent power under the Education Acts is bypassed on the pretence that promoting homosexuality is sanctioned by the equal opportunities legislation? Is she also aware that, odd as it sounds in your Lordships' House, that is what is happening in Haringey at this moment? Is she aware that the categoric prohibition in the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, with its direct enforcement procedures cannot be so evaded?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if not before, certainly now, I am aware of Haringey's attempt to side-step the provisions of the Education Act 1986. In fact, I understand that the Act applies to any sex education taught in schools, no matter when, where or how it is taught. So, changing the label does not alter that position. In fact, sex education is often not a separately timetabled subject but part of a broader programme of personal and social education or health education, and so the Education Act 1986 applies.
So far as concerns the reference to the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, my noble friend will know that it is scheduled for Second Reading in another place this coming Friday.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the reason for the delay is that there have been lengthy and proper consultations by the authority with parents, teachers, pupils and governors? Can she also confirm that the positive images policy of Haringey has not been imposed on anyone? In fact, if it were to be considered and programmed it would be in conformity with Section 46 of the Education Act 1986.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we are indeed aware that Haringey argues that its policies are consistent with the law, that it is consulting locally on proposed steps to implement the law and that its previous actions have been misreported. These claims are being studied.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, did the noble Baroness see the report in The Times of 17th March about the pregnant woman who went to a meeting of gays and lesbians in Haringey and was sworn at, punched in the stomach and thrown to the ground?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am aware of the report. It is a most reprehensible situation, but it does not tie in exactly with the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be good enough to answer the question of my noble friend Lord Graham and confirm that to the best of her knowledge no action has been taken in Haringey to promote positive images of gay and lesbian people and certainly not without the agreement of all concerned? Does she also agree that there is a very long path between election manifestos and implementation of those manifestos, whichever party they come from? Will she accept that the consultation, which has to take place in Haringey between the local education authority and the teachers and the governors, is likely to lead to very considerable further delays before any conclusion is reached?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will welcome any delays in this matter. My understanding is that the local education authority adopted a general policy statement on equal opportunites in November 1985 and a more detailed report on this in relation to homosexuality last September. The primary purpose seems to be to discourage unfair discrimination against homosexuals and other minorities. It has currently set up a curriculum working party to develop guidelines for antiheterosexist approaches in schools and the local authority proposes to consult interested parties before adopting the guidelines. Clearly the subject will arise again when the local authority has come to a firmer decision.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if effective measures can be provided to prevent the promotion of homosexuality in schools, such as those provided for in the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, there will be widespread rejoicing not only among the parents in Haringey but also among parents in Ealing, Lambeth and throughout inner London, all of whose authorities are committed to precisely these policies?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. We made our position very clear during the passage of the noble Earl's Bill through this House. We understand the reasons for its introduction and we entirely share the concerns which underlie its purpose.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend share my amazement that the Labour Party, which derives its inspiration from those two very active heterosexuals, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, now seems determined to confine its appeal to homosexuals?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I note my noble friend's remarks and would refer your Lordships to the date on the Order Paper.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the whole of civilisation as we know it, and most religions, are based on the foundation of a secure family unit consisting of father, mother, child and of course grannies and grandpas, uncles and aunties?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. The Government believe that in this context schools should not avoid teaching about homosexuality but that it should be factual, balanced and sensitively handled. This is particularly important at this moment of time in view of the threat posed by AIDS. My right honourable friend will be addressing this in his forthcoming circular on sex education at school. There can be no justification for any teaching which advocates homosexual behaviour or encourages homosexual experimentation by pupils. However, the main thrust of the Government's policy has always been to set any such teaching in a family context.

Child Victims: Evidence in Court
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: 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 what action they are taking to relieve child victims of physical and sexual abuse from the trauma of giving evidence in court.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Criminal Justice Bill before another place would permit a child under 14 to give evidence at the Crown Court by live video link at the trial of an offence involving sex or violence.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very encouraging reply. The National Children's Home, the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children and the NSPCC pay tribute to the Government for supporting this part of the Criminal Justice Bill. Is there any possibility of the Government looking into the position of children giving evidence by video at the time or directly after the incident has happened and that video being used in court?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her words of support. Indeed, yesterday in another place my honourable friend Mr. Mellor said that we are extremely well disposed to looking at such a proposal but we should of course want to consult all the interested groups first.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister take it for granted that the Government's view in regard to these dreadful cases is one that is shared in all parts of your Lordships' House? Will the noble Earl also consider whether there is a case for examining the possibility of corroborative evidence being available and in that event the prosecution being able to rely upon that corroborative evidence without subjecting a child to any cross-examination at all?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support and I hope that it will apply to the rest of the Criminal Justice Bill when it reaches this House. With regard to his second point, as the noble Lord knows far better than I do, under our law there has always been a right of prosecution. I shall look very carefully at the point that lie has made and
574
discuss it with my right honourable and honourable friends.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to take the position that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, very seriously indeed? I welcome the fact that a video from a child would be acceptable to a judge and jury but nevertheless the prosecution could demand that the child be brought into court in any case. That is what we dread about the whole issue.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that, along with all the other matters in the Criminal Justice Bill, we take this matter extremely seriously. As I said, I shall discuss it with my right honourable and honourable friends.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is likely that the Government will have completed their investigative inquiry with regard to video-taped interviews before the Criminal Justice Bill comes to this House, or will it be after?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it certainly will not be before, because, as I understand it, it is hoped that the Bill will arrive here fairly shortly. Whether our full consultations are achieved during the passage of the Bill before your Lordships' House is something that I do not know at the moment.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lady Hooper will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on higher education and research.
With the leave of the House, I shall arrange for a Statement to be made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on higher education in Scotland to he printed in the Official Report.
With the leave of the House, I should also like to say a brief word about the length of speeches in this afternoon's debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to which your Lordships have agreed to apply a five-hour time limit. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 20 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 25 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, all other speeches should be limited to a strict upper limit of 10 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he will be doing so at the expense of other speakers in the debate.
Following is the Statement referred to:

Higher Education in Scotland
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on arrangements for planning and funding of higher education in Scotland announced in today's White Paper on higher education. This follows consultations on the recommendations in the report of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council on future strategy for Higher Education in Scotland and advice from the

575
Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Croham Committee on the UGC.
"In my Statement to the House on 17th July 1986, I said that the Government accepted STEAC's view that there is scope for improvement in the planning and co-ordination of provision in higher education by the universities and colleges in Scotland.
"In reaching decisions on the future, I have recognised that six out of eight Scottish universities opposed the central STEAC recommendation for a separate Scottish body with funding responsibilities for both the university and college sectors. I share the views of the universities that they should continue to be, and be seen to be, an integral part of the British university system and believe that that might be prejudiced by removing them from the British funding framework of the UGC and its successor.
"Irrespective of the source of funding, it is however highly desirable that both the university and college sectors can plan the development of their provision in the knowledge of what other institutions in Scotland are planning to do. But knowledge is not enough. We need arrangements to ensure that plans can be discussed, adapted and coordinated to take account of what other institutions intend to do and to ensure that overall provision in both sectors is in line with likely national and local needs.
"That is why we announce in the White Paper that we propose to accept and build on the recommendation of the Croham Committee that the proposed Universities Funding Council should have a Scottish Committee. The committee will play an important part in planning higher education in Scotland. It is important that the Universities Funding Council and its Scottish committee should take into account the needs of Scottish higher education as a whole. To this end in future the Secretary of State for Scotland shall give the Universities Funding Council guidance on plans for the other sectors of higher education in Scotland and will expect it to have regard to his views on the implication of Scottish needs for the university sector. These will, of course, be consistent with guidance given by my right honourable friend to the Universities Funding Council. The UFC and the Secretary of State for Scotland will then be able to plan provision, with the help of the Scottish committee, in the university and college sectors respectively with a clear knowledge of the implications of each other's plans.
"I expect the committee to advise the UFC on the implications of the Scottish education system for the needs of the Scottish universities. It will, in consultation with my department, consider the demand for higher education in Scotland and the balance of provision between its constituent parts.
"Appointments to the Scottish committee will be a matter for the Universities Funding Council in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I envisage that the committee will include members drawn from the non-university sector and employers, as well as from the UFC and the
576
universities and that there will be representation from the Scottish Office.
"I believe that the establishment of a Scottish committee of the UFC on these lines will mark a very important development in the relationship of the Secretary of State for Scotland with the university sector, with far-reaching implications for the proper planning of higher education. For the first time he will have formal access to a group taking an overview of the needs of the Scottish university sector and will be able to discuss with them his views on the priorities for higher education in Scotland and the plans of the college sector.
"I am confident that the arrangements will be welcomed by the universities in Scotland. They will be able to maintain their role as part of the British system but will have a new focus for looking at Scottish needs. They will be better able to plan their provision in the light of knowledge of each other's plans and those of the central institutions. The CIs should welcome the more systematic opportunity afforded by the Scottish committee for joint planning between my department and the universities on how demands from students and employers should be met. Most importantly, Scotland at large should benefit from the improved arrangements for co-ordination and planning of higher education to meet the changes envisaged by the White Paper between now and the end of the century."

National Health Service
2.59 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals rose to call attention to the state of the National Health Service, and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted that so many noble Lords have indicated their wish to speak in this debate and also that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has decided to make his maiden speech today.
I shall start with what I call a short health of the nation statement. In spite of the National Health Service the United Kingdom has become one of the most unhealthy societies in the world. Is that sensational talk? No, it is not. First, the latest World Health Organisation figures show that Britain has the worst rates in the world for deaths from lung cancer, breast cancer and heart disease.
Secondly, the incidence of chronic illness in the United Kingdom is steadily rising. The latest available figures reveal that the percentages are 30 per cent. for males and 32 per cent. for females. That is a very substantial rise as compared with 10 years ago. Bluntly stated, it indicates that at any one time almost one-third of the adult population has a long-standing illness.
Thirdly, in Britain the expectation of further life at the age of 45 is among the worst in the developed world. Fourthly, cigarette smoking is still responsible for at least 100,000 deaths each year in the United Kingdom and for the additional burden to society from associated heart and lung diseases.
This debate on the National Health Service, and the essential services that go with it, comes at a time when

577
the Prime Minister and other leading Ministers have been making what I believe to be exaggerated claims about the strength of our economy and while the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been distributing largesse in tax cuts largely benefiting those in the community who are fit and upwardly mobile. The health service received nothing from his Budget. The decision to give away £3 billion in tax cuts will, I believe, fuel the consumer boom and worsen the balance of payments. Prescription charges are increased while the real price of drink and cigarettes, left at the present level, is falling in relation to inflation. These are decisions taken in the run-up to an election when the Government will no doubt seek to defend the Prime Minister's statement that the National Health Service, which she and most other Ministers can afford, and prefer, not to use, is safe in Conservative hands. That tattered claim is not accepted by the public, who in every opinion poll about issues put the National Health Service very high on their list of concerns. The public say constantly that they would prefer more funding for the National Health Service and indicate their support for Labour policies as opposed to those of the Government.
As we are all aware, the National Health Service suffers from an acute lack of resources. I accept that this is not a new phenomenon; I accept that demands can never be totally met. However, as a result of the Budget, the Government can no longer defend themselves, as they have in the past, by the plea of shortage of resources. Their decision to deny the money needed by the National Health Service and to give it away to those in work who do not need it, was, in my view, deliberately anti-social and gravely damaging to the health service today and in years to come. It jeopardises the future of the National Health Service and the future health of our people.
In this respect, the Government's policies are cynical and uncaring, and I intend to spend most of my time seeking to prove it. I have sympathy for the Minister who has been put up to defend what I believe is the indefensible. I am very disappointed that the noble Baroness will not be replying the debate: she has an appointment overseas. I believe that her first responsibility is to your Lordships' House. I deeply regret that even though she knew about this debate three weeks ago, she did not feel it important enough to be present tonight to reply to the debate. I gave her warning that I would say this.
The Minister's brief will say that the Government are spending more on the National Health Service than ever before. That is quite true. Not once in 40 years has there actually been a cash cut. But it has been clearly proved by the House of Commons Select Committee on Social Services, based on figures given by the Government, and from a series of independent studies, that after taking account of the historic growth in the number of elderly people, with their increasingly heavy demands on the National Health Service, advances in medical technology, which we all welcome, the much higher inflation rate in the National Health Service and the Government's habit of paying for only part of staff salary increases, NHS spending in England has actually fallen by 5 per cent. over the past four years.
Examples are to be found on all sides and from all parts of the country. Rochdale has a £15 million overspend and has been warned that if it does not find ways of cutting that amount, commissioners will be sent in to run the health service for it. Salford has a £2 million overspend; Merton and Sutton a £1.25 million overspend; Mid-Glamorgan a £2.5 million overspend; and Shropshire a £2 million overspend. They are all technically bankrupt and are told to slash their already strained services or to go.
Bearing in mind that the position of Britain in the OECD league tables of percentage of national income is slipping year by year, it is quite clear that the National Health Service suffers from a grave shortage of funds. In the view of the Labour Party, the National Health Service in its current circumstances needs not less than a 3 per cent. real terms increase in order to fulfil our modest commmitment to improve standards of patient care, to step up the programme of health education, prevention and limitation of disease, and to raise the standard of living of health workers.
What is the situation today? Even with 3 per cent. annual real terms growth, we should still be almost bottom of the European league of percentages of GNP spent on health care. Ours is approximately half the figure for Germany and France. Let us look at some of the facts. Roughly 10,000 beds have been closed since 1979. That fact was given to me by the Minister herself. However, she says that more patients have been treated. Frankly, she does not know: her statistics only tell her how many patients are admitted and discharged. Let me tell the noble Baroness while she is present that, according to the most reliable evidence, the efficiency drive has too often led to patients being discharged too early and consequently often having to be re-admitted. On re-admission, the statistics record another new patient. My Lords, that is not efficiency. There are some cases of patients being discharged and re-admitted on the same day. But it helps the statistics.
Secondly, according to the British Medical Association, the cut in beds now means that 40 per cent. of acute beds are occupied by patients over the age of 65, thereby blocking beds for younger, acutely ill patients. Thirdly, in spite of all that has been said about waiting lists by the Secretary of State, and repeated by the noble Baroness, according to the latest figures, they are at an all-time high. Leaving aside the peaks during industrial action in the periods of both governments, the latest figure issued by the department shows that waiting lists stand at 673,000. That is 1.8 per cent. higher than six months previously and roughly 100,000 more than the average during the period of Labour Government. These are not just figures; they are men, women and children waiting in pain for hospital treatment, often in circumstances where their condition is getting worse and the chances of total recovery getting less.
Moreover, the waiting time for emergency cases—for emergency cases!—is also rising. The BMA reported 12 months ago that 63.5 per cent. of urgent cases had been on the list for more than a month and 25.8 per cent. of non-urgent cases had been waiting for more than a year. Quite frankly, this is appalling.
Health authorities are saving money by making hospital doctors work even longer hours. Up to 3,000

579
hard-pressed junior doctors are working more than the stipulated maximum of 101 hours a week. In my view it is sheer exploitation of dedicated and skilled men and women which, at the same time, increases the risk that they may commit an error. It should be stopped.
There is a nursing crisis. Nursing really is in crisis. It is nothing to do with the dispute. It is a profession of 509,000—that is more than half the staff of the National Health Service—who have greatly earned the respect of the nation and of anyone who has ever been into hospital. Today there are grave shortages, with wards and theatres being closed for no reason other than the shortage of nurses. The NHS needs 30,000 additional nursing staff each year. On present estimates we face a shortfall of 10,000 qualified staff, and that may be as high as 16,000 by 1995.
It is not just the demographic factors. There are fewer young people reaching the age at which they would go into training for nursing, but it is not just that. It is pay and conditions. We need to keep those who have been trained and induce others to return. In 1981–82, 30,046 nurses entered training. By 1985–86 it was down to little more than 22,000. It is serious for the future.
In February 1987 the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visitors published Project 2000; crucially important proposals. I look forward to the Government's response to that document when the Minister replies. The document is called No Nurses, No Future. At the present time nurses are voting with their feet and have little confidence in the Government's commitment to them.
Hardly less important is the growing shortage of occupational therapists, and 19.2 per cent. of funded posts cannot be filled; of speech therapists; and of chiropodists, especially needed for our elderly folk. It is not just an immediate problem, although it is urgent, especially for the growing number of the elderly. But future prospects are horrific. Looking at the period up to 1994 the required growth rate is for chiropodists 30.6 per cent.; for dieticians, 25.8 per cent.; and for physiotherapists, 28.4 per cent. Occupational therapists, who mainly work with the elderly and the disabled—and I am interested because I am president of the College of Occupational Therapists—have a massive need for an increase of 73 per cent. What are the Government doing about it? That is the question that must be answered so far as these essential professions are concerned.
As president of the College of Occupational Therapists I have had countless meetings with Ministers in the DHSS and the Department of Education and Science. I hate to say it, but they do not seem to know, and nor do they seem to care, about the prospect that is facing us. As for speech therapists, it was only two weeks ago that it was revealed that only 25 per cent. of district health authorities had achieved the target of one speech therapist for every 5,000 children. Why is this? It is partly because they are paid less than a typist gets paid in London. You cannot expect people to go into significant and important professions which require great dedication,
580
commitment and training and then pay them salaries that are simply not worth the challenge.
Let me continue with this sad saga. Prescription charges have risen twelvefold since 1979. I repeat that, twelvefold. Of course the Minister will say that 75 per cent. do not have to pay, so she can cross that out of her speech since her time is so short. But of the 80 million prescriptions that are paid for, about 32 per cent. are for items that cost less than £2.40, which is the prescription charge, according to the Prescriptions Research Centre, and it should know.
They are not allowed to pay less for prescriptions-only medicines, which means that the Government are making a profit out of any prescription which is less than £2.40. Talk about penalising the sick! It is an extraordinary situation that we face, and there is no point in the noble Baroness saying that I had to face it. In my day prescription charges were 20p and not £2.40.
There are two other consequences of the Government's money-making prescription charges. According to the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee there are about 100,000 patients a year who cannot afford to have all that is prescribed. That means they go without medicines that the doctors think necessary. Secondly, doctors are writing prescriptions for longer periods to save money for their poor patients. This leads to a great deal of waste with patients who for some reason or another do not use their medication.
Sharp increases in charges for dental treatment have had serious consequences. According to the Government's Dental Estimates Board the 25 per cent. increase in dental charges led to a 5 per cent. fall in treatment the following year. That is a substantial fall in root treatments; a 15 per cent. fall in extractions. Treatment of gum diseases which can save teeth in the long-term has fallen by 38 per cent. I had hoped that I would hear from the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, what they thought about this problem.
Only last week the Royal National Institute for the Blind expressed deep concern at the consequences of the Government's decision not to increase the value of spectacle vouchers for blind people on low incomes as from today, April Fools' Day. Honestly, how can they take such action when we know of the fantastic sums being earned by many in the City? It is a total discounting of priorities in our society. I find myself angered by such decisions. At a time when we are all supposed to be well off—except the National Health Service, which cannot afford to provide a decent service—health authorities in England have just written off £640,000 from bad debts by private patients.
I have time only for a brief conclusion. I am deeply worried about community care—the policy of the Government and their predecessor in respect of the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the disabled to close, so far as it is reasonable to do so, the big long-stay hospitals and to provide service in the community. Frankly it is not happening because the extra money is not there.
That is why the manifesto which has ben issued jointly by Dr. Barnardo's, Royal MenCap, MIND and

581
the Spastics Society specifically calls for a central bridging fund to be established as a matter of priority to supplement joint finance in the transition from hospital to community care. I believe that it is absolutely vital that that should be done. I know that other noble friends will deal with some of the points which came up in the report from Sir Douglas Black. I shall not deal with those today.
My indictment of the Government's handling of the nation's health is fundamental. I believe it strikes at the root of the deep divide between the approach of our two parties in terms of health and social security. The time is past when the Government can meet the targets set out in our carefully documented programme. The people themselves must decide on the future of the National Health Service. I believe that they will do just that. I beg to move for Papers.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
Noble Lords: No. Order!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that in this Wednesday debate his speech had little to do with the National Health Service?
Noble Lords: Order! Sit down!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it was nothing but a naked Labour Party propaganda attack.
Lord Hesketh: Order!
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must begin by offering your Lordships my most sincere apologies. Months before I knew of the existence of this debate I had accepted an invitation to visit West Germany on official business. I know that my noble friend Lord Hesketh will respond admirably to the points raised in the debate, but I deeply regret that I shall miss your Lordships' speeches,
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to my knowledge did not give me warning of his opening remarks. I am, however, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for giving us an opportunity to discuss the health service. It was not so long ago that he was the Secretary of State, so presumably a part of today's health picture follows his period in office.
When someone first comes into contact with the NHS, whatever the circumstances, they must above all feel they are being treated as an individual, not as a patient and certainly not as a statistic. As I have only 10 minutes, I should like to say a little about three major areas.
I begin with services for elderly people. In particular, I should like to remind your Lordships of the developments which have occurred in the health service's ability to treat older people. We all know people who have recently benefited from hip replacement operations at an age when even five or ten years ago they would have been considered too old to undergo surgery of any kind. We are focusing on hip
582
replacements and on cataract operations and have set health authorities targets to be achieved by 1990 in both these fields. Such operations can restore mobility, independence, hope and dignity to elderly people.
The provision of community care services for elderly, and particularly very elderly, people is also vital to improving the quality of service which they receive. We aim to provide services that enable elderly people to live at home for as long as possible. There are many successes to report, such as an increase in the number of elderly people treated by district nurses. These successes must be sustained in the future.
Community care also has a vital role to play in the provision of better services for mentally ill people. This is a subject which I know is dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and it is certainly dear to mine. Though the newspapers mainly record bad news—and no doubt the same was true during the noble Lord's own time as Minister—progress in this area continues. There is a gradual shift of beds for elderly demented people from large district hospitals to pleasant local units. The work done by consultant psychiatrists at general practitioners' premises is increasing. And groups of well-trained social workers with a real involvement with mentally ill people are increasingly common.
Community care for mentally ill people is the preferred option in the majority of cases because it prevents the danger of institutionalisation. But this cannot happen without adequate professional support. This support is now being put in place. The number of community psychiatric nurses has far more than doubled. There are 480 day hospitals, well over two per district on average, and 155 district general hospitals. And by 1986 only seven health authorities had no psychiatric beds of their own.
I have talked so far about how the health service cares for those who already need help. But the health service is not just about treating disease; it is also about preventing disease and promoting good health. This will be a key theme in the future, and I believe that it is a theme whose time has come. It involves work on healthy eating and healthy lifestyle, and public education on how to avoid the greatest risks to health. All of these issues will be addressed by the new Health Education Authority which comes into being today and will be focusing particularly on coronary heart disease as its first major campaign and will of course be responsible for the AIDS public education programme.
Prevention is also linked to another theme which has assumed greater significance in recent years: it is that of women's health and how the service can meet the special needs of women. There are a whole range of issues here, but I will focus on the need to reduce the number of deaths from breast and cervical cancer. The Government are determined to reduce deaths from this type of cancer. On 25th February we announced our decision to implement a national breast cancer screening service. An extra £6 million will be provided in 1987–88 to set up a least one centre in each region. Four of these centres will be funded to provide a national training facility. The screening service will be extended over the next three years to cover all women in the age groups concerned.

583
Because we are determined that the service will be introduced as efficiently and as quickly as possible, we are today announcing that Sir Roy Griffiths has been asked to lead a small team to oversee the implementation of the Government's policy on cervical and breast cancer screening. Sir Roy and his team will be working with health authorities and family practitioner committees to make sure that they have viable plans, not only for installing computerised call and recall systems but also to improve take-up of screening and to follow up when women do not respond after being called for screening. Sir Roy will be making regular reports, and I will keep your Lordships informed, particularly about progress towards the target date of 31st March 1988 for the cervical cancer screening service throughout England.
I have spent much of my valuable time this afternoon speaking about what our achievements in the health service will mean for patients, because I believe that that really is the bottom line. I should now like to take a few moments to say something about the role of nurses.
I know that the nursing profession is facing a period of change and development. There are major proposals for a new system of education and training and wide-ranging discussions, largely under the banner of the Project 2000 recommendations about the nursing role in the future. I cannot comment at the moment on the Project 2000 proposals themselves as they are still out for consultation, but I should like to record our appreciation of the work which has gone into their development. I should also like to restate the Government's real appreciation of the work done by nursing and midwifery staff, and of the dedication which they bring to that work. We have done our best to show our appreciation of that work. The nurses' working week has been reduced from 40 to 37½ hours.
We have established the Nurses and Midwives Review body. The review body is currently considering the evidence for 1987–88 and will report to the Prime Minister shortly. We remain committed to the review body system. In April last year we published the Cumberlege report on neighbourhood nursing. We encouraged wide public debate on the report and are now considering all the views expressed. We shall want to build on the areas of agreement that emerged during consultation.
Last week, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced that he was funding a fellowship in each of the 14 health regions for a nurse to study and formulate ideas for the nursing practice for those who are infected or who have AIDS but are not in hospital. They will be tenable for three months, awarded centrally and open to any nurse in England with an interest in a community approach to the care and treatment of AIDS patients. The reports of these studies will be published as a set of collected papers.
He has also doubled the allocation to the English National Board for nurse training on Aids in 1987–88. This will enable them to develop and expand their AIDS course. We will also, in consultation with the board, fund workshops in each of the health regions to offer training to community nurses on AIDS
584
management. The chief nursing officer will shortly be writing to regional nursing advisers about this.
This subject is so wide and so much that has happened and is happening is so exciting that I feel terribly frustrated at having to merely skim the surface of just a few of the many innovations and improvements I could have talked about. I have not even mentioned the primary care review—the first of its kind for 40 years—and the steps we have taken to improve the position of disabled people, the waiting lists initiative or, of course, AIDS. During the past two years (to the day) since I have had the honour to hold my present job, I have had the chance to see something of the results of our policies. Let me give the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, some figures. There have been 1 million more in-patient cases treated; 3.5 million additional out-patient attendances; 400,000 additional day cases; double the number of kidney patients being treated and more than three times as many coronary artery bypass graft operations performed. These are just a few of the figures. And these are not just dry figures; they represent millions of people helped by the health service.
I have met some of the people whose stories are hidden under the statistics of extra patients treated, fewer babies dying, and so on. I have talked to them and I know how much they appreciate the National Health Service. Those people are loud in their praise of the care they have received. They represent lives saved, pain eased and hope restored. I contend that our record on the health service speaks for itself.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, may I say at once that I greatly enjoyed and indeed agreed with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, every bit to the extent to which I have agreed with his speech on the previous three occasions on which he has made it. I do not for a moment say that in any sense of criticism. I say it merely in order to underline a point which is clearly apparent—that debates on the state of the National Health Service have now become frequent and regular events in your Lordships' House and they have done so for the very good reason that they are necessary. Indeed, it is necessary to say the things that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said, and in fact it is necessary for them to be said over and over again. Perhaps I have reminded your Lordships before of the lines from Lewis Carroll in, I think, The Hunting of the Snark, where he said:
"What I say three times is true".
What the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has said three times is true and what I shall now say for the fourth time is also true.
I accept the truth of everything the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has said to us and I am absolutely sure that she herself is dedicated to the principle of an effective, efficient and humane National Health Service. I accept of course that the figures she has given us are true. We all know that the Government have put more money into the National Health Service; but we also know that this is a field in which we have to run extremely quickly if we are going to stay in the same place.

585
Modern medicine is such that, were it allowed to do so, it could consume all the resources that there are. As we learn to keep people alive and continuing to require treatment—people who would formerly have died and been no expense to anybody—and as we learn to treat conditions for which formerly we could do nothing, as we learn new methods (highly expensive technological methods) of investigation, so we increase the burdens borne by the National Health Service and of course we have to increase the resources in order to meet those burdens.
The noble Baroness constantly comes to us with good news. Let me mention just one little piece. Not very long ago she gave us a Statement which reported that the Government had decided to put a lot more money into AIDS research. That is very necessary, and from these Benches I welcome that. The noble Baroness told us that every penny the Medical Research Council had asked for had been given. I welcome that; but of course what was not said was that most of the research being done into AIDS is being done by academic staff, the cost of which is borne by the University Grants Committee; and we heard nothing about extra funds for them. So sometimes the good news that we hear is not perhaps quite as good as it sounds.
The adequacy of the National Health Service depends on four factors. These are: the number and quality of the people who do the work (doctors, nurses, chiropodists and all the rest); the adequacy of the places in which they work (the hospitals, the surgeries, the clinics, and so on); the tools with which they work (the drugs, the instruments and the highly advanced technological equipment); and, finally, the administration whereby those other three are brought together and delivered to the patients. It is my belief that the National Health Service at present is deficient in all four respects. I will take them one by one and as briefly as I can.
First, as regards the people who do the work, I do not think we should say anything adverse about the quality of those people. We have doctors, nurses and other workers in different disciplines of medicine of the highest possible standard in Britain. I think there are certain anxieties about the training of them. Some of the training seems to me to be based on work in an institutional environment, whereas so many of them actually are now required—by government policy; and rightly so—to work in the community. That is rather different and perhaps that is a matter which could be dealt with at greater length in another debate.
There are shortages, which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals; and some shortages are acute. The noble Lord referred to nursing. I have seen nothing more illuminating and perhaps more worrying than the paper sent to all of us by the Royal College of Nursing. I think most noble Lords have seen that and I will not weary the House by going through it but I would ask your Lordships to consider one particular fact from the information sent to us which I think shows the predicament that we are in.
The Royal College of Nursing says that in 1982 there were 1 million 18 year-olds to recruit from and by 1992 that figure will have dropped to 600,000. More importantly, the Royal College says that the
586
number within that figure who have between five 0-levels and two A-levels, from which the nursing services recruit at present, will also fall. Nursing takes 25 per cent. of all young women in that cohort at present. As the Royal College says, there is a demographic time-bomb under nurses which will cut off its supply of recruits unless the system is reformed. It is really a very worrying situation, and words which sooth us are not really helpful. We have to recognise that there is a real problem.
I have just mentioned that the community is the place where so many work. Talking of the people and the shortages, the noble Lord referred to Salford. It so happens that I have had a letter from the secretary of the Salford local medical committee, a copy of which has also been sent to Ministers. I do not have the letter with me but I have made some notes of what I recall having been said in it. The Salford local medical committee has written to Ministers to say that Salford people can no longer be considered as having a safe and efficient health service. The letter goes on to say that long waiting times for hospital services of various kinds have resulted in a situation which can no longer be regarded as safe. I am told by the Salford local medical committee that 80 acute hospital beds will have to close unless adequate staff are provided to man them.
The committee clearly maintains—and the family practitioner committee in Salford also maintains—that the resources, such as they are, have been efficiently managed locally. The problem has been resources coming from the centre. Members of the committee believe that they manage the local resources entirely satisfactorily. Having mentioned Salford, I think that underlines the North-South divide in terms of health. Noble Lords have heard much about Sir Douglas Black's report Inequalities in Health and we have had a further report recently which has underlined the fact that people living in poor housing and underprivileged circumstances are undoubtedly penalised and disadvantaged from the point of view of health. Those are the areas. The news which I have had from the doctors in Salford shows that there is insufficient recognition of the special needs of special areas if the health opportunities are to be equalised. That is the real problem there.
Having mentioned the North-South divide, let me touch on it once again in another connection. There is an extent to which the South-East and London in particular, which we blame as being privileged, suffer from the North-South divide, because the London teaching hospitals can no longer recruit nurses of adequate standard because those nurses, if recruited, cannot find anywhere in which they can afford to live. The question I should like to put to the noble Baroness or the Minister when answering is: what is left of the old nurses homes? It is my impression that most of the living accommodation for nurses in London has been sold off or has been diverted to other purposes so that it is no longer possible to recruit within the National Health Service in London staff of an adequate capacity because having recruited them there is nowhere for them to live.
Let me move on. We have a shortage of consultants in certain specialties, particularly those specialties

587
which do not require English. An anaesthetist who does not have to talk to patients can disappear and get a job at a much higher salary in the EC. Many are doing so; many operating theatres are lying idle, not because of a shortage of nurses but perhaps because of a shortage of anaesthetists, sometimes of radiologists to do the X-rays in rheumatic conditions, and so on. That is a big problem. There is no doubt that GPs are often in the wrong places. As the noble Lord said, we have a shortage of chiropodists and speech therapists, and overall there is a big shortage of community workers.
I must conclude. I shall merely say how wise your Lordships' House was to remove crown immunity from National Health Service hospitals. We have recently seen a case of a London hospital where the wisdom of our decision has been underlined. However, the main place in which people now work is the community, not the hospitals. The Government are right in switching to an increased involvement in community health care, but you cannot have community health care unless you have the organisations within the communities to carry out the services. We do not have those.
Moving on quickly, it is difficult to have to dismiss the universe in a few easy phrases since it is an immense subject, but there are the tools with which people work. Drugs, of course, are the principal tool and I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that there are thousands of people every week going to the chemists and saying, "Which of these items must I have?" That is a deplorable situation. I have said before and will say again that if charges have to be made, the prescription charge is an unreasonable one. Why level a charge on the random need for a prescription and the random question of whether it contains several items rather than just one? If there must be a charge, it should be a charge for the use of the service, which would be more equitable. I should prefer no charge at all.
With regard to other tools, not a week passes when noble Lords do not get requests for funds, for donations for buying brain scanners and mammography X-ray machines or renal dialysis machines. There is a real shortage of technological equipment and that shortage must somehow be remedied.
Finally, as regards administration, we moved to a situation of management, and I thought that was good. With the Griffiths report we moved to a business system. We then found that the manager left because there was so much interference centrally and we now have the Minister for Health sitting as chairman of the National Health Service Management Board. At the moment we have the most centralising Government we have had in my lifetime; power in the National Health Service is being concentrated centrally instead of being diffused out to the regions.
To end, I merely repeat what I said at the beginning—that there is a gap to bridge. It must in part be bridged by health education. My noble friend Lady Seear will deal further with that. It must partly be bridged by better use of the resources we have. I hope we now begin to move back to the original concept of
588
a comprehensive National Health Service, free at the time of use; not free, but free at the time of use to every man, woman and child in this country. It will not be easy, but I hope I live long enough to see it achieved.

Higher Education and Research
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on higher education and research which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the Government's policies for higher education.
"Higher education is crucial to help our nation meet the economic, social and intellectual challenges of the final decade of this century. We must ensure that our universities, polytechnics and colleges respond to the country's requirements. Important reforms are already under way. I pay tribute to the efforts that are being made, especially in our universities, to adapt themselves more closely to the needs of the nation. The White Paper we publish today announces new policies in three key areas: wider access to higher education so that the United Kingdom gets the skilled people we need for economic success and to compete in international markets; secondly, the financing and management of polytechnics and colleges in England; and, thirdly, the thoroughgoing reform of the University Grants Committee, along the lines recommended in the Croham report.
"It is 21 years since the polytechnics were conceived. They have now come of age. They are successful mature institutions with a strong national role, complementary to our universities. But they are held back by current planning and funding arrangements. Control by individual local authorities inhibits their progress towards meeting the challenges of the 1990s and towards managing their resources to best effect.
"We therefore intend to legislate to convert the polytechnics and other mainly higher education colleges in England to free-standing corporate bodies under boards of governors. Local and regional industry and commerce will be strongly represented on these boards. We want industry and these colleges to work more closely together. Industry will find it more attractive to place contracts for consultancy and research. We will be setting up a new polytechnics and colleges funding council which will be independent of government, although subject to guidance from the holder of my office. This council will succeed the National Advisory Body and will contract with individual institutions for the provision of higher education.
"Local education authorities will retain control of those colleges which do not provide predominantly for higher education. The polytechnics and colleges funding council may contract for the provision of degree and full-time HND and equivalent courses at these colleges. Other courses, including all part-time

589
sub-degrees, at colleges remaining under local authority control will be a local responsibility. The present expenditure pooling arrangements will end. Responsibility for the 530,000 students on non-advanced further education courses in some 360 colleges will continue to rest with local authorities.
"The voluntary and other colleges of higher education which are grant-aided by my department will be brought within the ambit of the new funding council. For the present, however, these arrangements will not be extended to cover the polytechnic and colleges of higher education in Wales.
"Secondly, we intend to introduce legislation to change the University Grants Committee to an independent statutory body on the lines recommended by the Croham Committee. We accept the Croham recommendations that this body should be smaller, with broadly equal numbers of academic and non-academic members, and a chairman with substantial experience outside the academic world. The new body will be called the universities funding council and its primary responsibility will be the allocation of funds to individual universities under new contractual arrangements.
"Thirdly, I want to encourage more people of all ages to go on to higher education. The Government already have an outstanding record on access to higher education. Student numbers have increased by almost 160,000 since we took office in 1979. After its fall in the 1970s the participation rate for young people has increased by 15 per cent., and the number of mature entrants has risen by about a quarter. We remain committed to providing places for all with the intellectual competence motivation and maturity to benefit from higher education.
"Over the next decade, however, the number of 18 year-olds will fall by one-third, and student demand will no longer be a sufficient basis for planning. A major determinant must also be the nation's demands for highly qualified manpower. The increase in graduate output already planned seems unlikely to do more than keep pace with the nation's requirements until 1990, and may be insufficient by the mid-1990s. This view is echoed in the excellent report published yesterday by the Council for Industry and Higher Education, which is chaired by my right honourable friend the Member for Waveney.
"For the present, the Government's best judgment is that they should plan for the student numbers envisaged in the higher of the two projections which I published last November. This projection involves an increase in full and part-time student numbers from 906,000 in 1985–86 to 957,000 in 1990; that is to say, an increase of 50,000. By the year 2000 almost one in five school-leavers would then be going on to higher education. The Government want to ensure that within the total numbers the shift towards scientific and other vocational courses should be carried through.
"Whether we reach these student numbers will depend crucially on this shift being achieved; on whether the schools and colleges succeed in raising the proportion of young people who qualify; and on whether the universities, polytechnics and colleges
590
can admit more mature students and more young people with vocational qualifications. The Government believe that higher education will meet these challenges.
"Fourthly, the White Paper rightly acknowledges that the quality of our research is recognised worldwide. The Government are committed to maintaining and enhancing the strength and quality of the science base, of which our institutions of higher education are a major and essential part. We attach particular importance to sustaining the work of the most able scientists and their teams. The Government are accordingly making available an additional £15 million for 1987–88 through the Science Budget. This funding is in addition to the £39 million increase in that budget for 1987–88 which I announced on 6th November last year, and the extra £17.5 million over three years for AIDS research by the Medical Research Council announced since November.
"The consequences of the increase I am announcing today for later years will be taken into account when we consider the Science Budget in this year's Public Expenditure Survey. But I emphasise that we, and the scientific community, face difficult choices in the future. We must be more selective. We must concentrate resources. We must get even better value for money from better targeted research. We must exploit our science to the utmost—and that is a matter as much for industry as for government, the research councils and higher education.
"Mr. Speaker, our country's higher education is among the best in the world. Our policies will secure and develop its distinctive strengths. They will extend its benefits to a wider section of the population and will ensure that it serves the nation."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.53 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place? Will she accept at once from this Dispatch Box that that Statement is by no means as bad as it could have been? When I look back at the statements which have been made from these Benches, and by my honourable and right honourable friends in another place, I recognise many of the pleas that we have been making about the future of higher education, particularly in the light of the somewhat doomsday projections which were made in the Green Paper two years ago, as being reflected in the Statement made today. Will the noble Baroness accept that, in so far as that reflects a conversion, we welcome it?
But wider access to higher education is not just a matter of numbers, though indeed the numbers are more complex than she indicated in her Statement. Does she not agree that the bulge of 18 year-olds was actually reached in 1982 and that participation rates at that stage went down, although there has been some recovery since? Does she recognise in what the Statement says about access that it requires not only increased numbers in higher education but also increased resources for 16 to 19 year-olds?

591
Will it not also require better provision for part-time students? This House has expressed its view quite recently about the provision for Birkbeck. Will it not be necessary to look again at mature student grants to assure access? Will it not be necesssary to look at the cost of access courses, to which some consideration is given in the White Paper?
Will it not also be necessary to look at the requirements by the higher education sector in terms of A-levels? The Council for Industry and Higher Education in its report yesterday called A-levels a ticket for limiting entry. Do the Government accept that there should be some relaxation or widening of the requirements for entry into higher education, and is that not the responsibility of our higher education sector as a whole?
I must also ask the noble Baroness about resources. She referred to the £15 million increase in the Science Budget for 1987–88, but will she not accept that that £15 million only provides for the salary increases which have been already agreed and will not provide for a single additional research project? When the Statement uses the words "more selective", does that not mean that more valuable research projects, more alpha research projects, will be turned down?
The Statement refers to the effect on public spending and says that the projections in the White Paper on expenditure plans are adequate for two years after 1987–88. Will she tell us more about what projections are likely to be necessary after that period and what provision is now being made for increased public expenditure on higher education? I hope the noble Baroness will accept that these are not intended entirely as antagonistic questions, but I think that they deserve to be spelled out before your Lordships' House.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement which in general we welcome. But even now the scale of the changes proposed does not begin to meet the need. The type of universities at the present stage is such that only a quantum leap is adequate for making up the deficiencies. When the Statement says that we hope to get one in five of school-leavers into some form of higher education, we still shall not be up with the level which is adopted by our major competitors, and this is only a step in the right direction. It is not by any manner of means what we should like to see if we are to meet the needs of this country and to give the opportunities that we would wish to give to people seeking higher education.
Following the report yesterday from the Council for Industry and Higher Education, which I think the noble Baroness will agree was very encouraging, let me say that we need very much to look at the whole position for mature students and for people who can only work on a part-time basis. I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said about entry requirements. If we are to draw into higher education a great many people who have the capacity to take it—and many of them may not be aware that they have—the traditional educational entry requirements which were appropriate for sixth form school-leavers are no longer appropriate for the sort of people
592
that we have to draw into these institutions. That is a matter of the very greatest urgency.
I would also ask the noble Baroness to pay great attention to courses for part-time students. As we all know, there are a number of new types of teaching which help part-time students, but it seems odd that we have had these repeated appeals on behalf of Birkbeck College to be able to maintain its part-time student teaching, where it has been a pioneer in making part-time courses available for mature students. Surely part-time students, who are of the most serious kind or they would not be there and who are often studying at very great sacrifice, need major help and encouragement. There is a hint in this paper that that is so, but can it not be developed further?
The tone of this Statement is for greater encouragement for science and greater collaboration between industry and the universities. That is right. However, let us not forget that we cannot have good technical and applied science unless we have first class basic science. The maintenance of first-class research departments and research work going on in our universities in basic as well as in the applied fields is essential.
The main criticism that I make is that the emphasis in this Statement is too short term, too applied and fails to recognise that the basic work of universities must go on at the same time. Concentration is all right. However, we hope that it does not exclude the smaller institutions which may be enterprising in new fields of research and should not be discouraged in order to build up the larger departments.
This is a matter of such great importance that I should have thought it would be appropriate, through the usual channels, to see if we can have a debate.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, a number of issues have been raised. I am very happy that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have felt able to welcome the Statement and the news which it contains. I thought that perhaps the noble Lord's "not as bad as it could have been" remark was a bit grudging. This is in fact very good news. And it should be welcome both to the institutions involved and to the public in general. It goes to prove that the Government do listen and do, when necessary, revise their policies. In this case, the Government have been reviewing their higher education policies for some time. Sir Keith Joseph published a Green Paper in May 1985, and it is in the light of responses to that, and of subsequent developments, that the Government have revised their policies, particularly on access and on planning and funding arrangements for polytechnics and colleges.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness referred to access and to the increased resources that would be needed. As regards funding, we shall review our spending plans each year to take account of the numbers of students already in higher education and the numbers likely to be beginning courses in the future. We shall ensure that all students who are eligible to receive a mandatory student grant continue to do so. That is the position at present, and it will be the position in the future. My honourable friend the

593
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is, as I have said on previous occasions in this respect, conducting a review which will be putting forward proposals for the future of the student support system in due course. I have no doubt that those proposals will be designed to encourage young people into higher education.
On resources for science funding, we have already announced that university funding in 1987–88 will be 10 per cent. higher than that in 1986–87, and that polytechnics and colleges will receive an 8 per cent. increase. Funding in later years will depend on the success of the institution in introducing necessary improvements. The published plans of the Government are that in 1988–89 and 1989–90, the funding will rise in line with inflation. Increases in student numbers have already been included in the planning targets adopted by the UGC and the National Advisory Body.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that the additional £15 million to which I referred in the Statement was merely compensation for the recent pay settlements. I must emphasise that that is an addition; it is not compensation for pay settlements. It is designed to buy more first-class science highly selectively and it should go to sustain the work of our best scientists and their teams.
The Government have shown that they are continually responsive to the needs of science. As measured by the GDP deflator, the science budget has been increased in real terms by over 10 per cent. over the last seven years. This year, we have already made a special addition for AIDS research, which is the £17.5 million referred to in the Statement, for the next three years. We have now made this further exceptional addition of £15 million to secure outstanding science which would have otherwise been lost.
The question of access courses was referred to. Action on that subject mainly rests with the institutions and the validating bodies. The White Paper makes it clear that this is a perfectly respectable route into higher education. However, in the interests of the students who are directly concerned and to ensure the general acceptability of access qualifications, there is a need to give careful consideration to standards and, where possible, to avoid a sole link with a single higher education course.
Reference was made, particularly by the noble Baroness, to the question of part-time students. As I have said, this subject has been discussed previously in your Lordships' House and is being considered in the review which is being undertaken by my honourable friend. On the question of greater collaboration for science and technical subjects in schools, I should like to emphasise the opening remarks of the White Paper which point to the fact that the Government are proposing a package of solutions. In the arrangements announced in the Statement, the Government are building on improvements in schools and colleges and in admission arrangements for those with nontraditional qualifications.
As regards the question of holding a debate, mentioned by the noble Baroness, I shall refer to the usual channels. I believe that we have had some very useful debates, including that initiated by the noble
594
Lord, Lord Chatfield, on scientific research and development and more recently on the Croham Report. Perhaps I may go so far as to say that the White Paper and the Statement made today go in part to meet some of the views expressed by your Lordships in the course of those and other debates.
I may not have covered all the questions raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. If not, I shall try to rectify the position subsequently.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, may I support very strongly the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we should have an early debate on this matter? Fortunately, the Leader of the House is present and has heard the comments. I hope that he will give serious consideration to that matter.
I am sure that my noble friend is aware that this is the most important Statement in respect of higher education since the Government of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel adopted the Robbins Report some 23 years ago—a report which I had, under my noble friend's direction, a modest part in implementing. In view of the great importance of the subject, surely your Lordships' House could contribute a great deal.
There are two points which I particularly welcome and about which I hope my noble friend will add a word. The first is that I greatly welcome the decision to make a more workmanlike body of the University Grants Committee. That has been urged, I believe, from both sides of the House for some time. Although members of the University Grants Committee have worked extremely hard and devotedly—I cast no reflection on them—I have always thought that the structure was quite unbalanced. The second point which I greatly welcome is the transfer of polytechnics from local authorities. That should surely make the co-operation with industry which is so enormously important very much easier. It is well known to your Lordships that the relationship between industry and certain local authorities is not at all good. The relationship will be much easier if there is direct contact with the polytechnics.
Will my noble friend draw the attention of all concerned to what happens in that respect in the United States, where industry has the closest of links with higher education institutions and puts a great deal of money into them? Certain industries in this country are good in that way. Building and catering have a good record. Many other industries put little in. I ask my noble friend to give considerable emphasis to that point as part of the whole parcel of the polytechnics' new and improved status.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. I need hardly say that I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for being present so that the wishes of the House in respect of a full debate on this topic will be clearly understood by him.
The restructuring of the UGC is an extremely important part of the proposals contained in the White Paper. While I recognise the valuable work that the existing UGC has done, it is hoped that the new body will be able to tackle the task with even more ease and

595
efficiency. The link between polytechnics and local industry is an important plank of government policy. It is being introduced all the way through schools and other institutions. It is extremely important, as my noble friend said, that we look at the valuable example of such co-operation that exists in the United States. That co-operation was frequently referred to during the course of Industry Year last year. A number of initiatives which were taken then are proving valuable in the longer term. I shall certainly pass on my noble friend's remarks to the appropriate quarter.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, welcome the news of the UGC reorganisation. As the noble Baroness said, many of us have been advocating it. We welcome and recognise the work that the UGC has done over the years. One of the matters about which I am concerned, which I think was mentioned in the Statement, is the new independent body. I should like to ask the noble Baroness how independent is independent, because for years many of us have wondered about the independence of the UGC. I hope that this proposed new body will be independent and divorced from any government department.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome for the proposals and the proposed new funding council. After all, that is an acceptance of the recommendations and the broad thrust of the Croham Committee's report. Its general approach to the shape and functions of the UGC's successor has been taken on board. Further decisions on the detail will be taken in the light of continuing consultations on the report. The UGC's independence cannot be criticised in view of the number of measures upon which it has insisted. I believe that the UGC can be pointed to as a body which has proved how valuable independence from government can be.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two questions about the emancipation of the polytechnics, which I believe to be the most important part of the Statement? We are told that they are to have corporate status. Does that mean that they will have the power to award their own degrees; that is to say, will they be emancipated from the CNAA as well as from the local authorities, which I think would appeal at any rate to the larger and stronger among them?
Secondly, is my noble friend aware—I am sure that she is—that the new structure, which gives polytechnics a degree of financial autonomy in matters of expenditure within the grant that they receive, will demand considerable management qualities by polytechnic directors? In future, how are they to be appointed? Will that be one of the tasks of the boards of governors? I apologise if these questions are answered in the White Paper, but Back-Benchers do not have an opportunity to see those documents before Statements are made.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, some of the queries raised by my noble friend are covered in the White Paper. In general, the effect of the new arrangements
596
will be to create a kind of UGC relationship for the polytechnics so that they will, as mature institutions, be able to act responsibly and independently, making the necessary local contacts while being recognised as national institutions. I think that I can go no further than that. Some of the detail has yet to be worked out after further consultations.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, while I do not dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said about the importance of polytechnic-industry links, does the noble Baroness accept that it is important that some form of local authority link, and linkage with the local authority education system, should be preserved? In that connection, is she aware that the National Advisory Body is either on the point of publishing or possibly even has just published a report on the governance, management and status of polytechnics? Will that be taken into account before firm decisions are made on the matter? Is the noble Baroness also aware that an independent body under the chairmanship of Sir Alistair Pilkington is sitting to investigate polytechnic local links? Before firm decisions are taken in this matter, I ask that those contributions be taken into account.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the whole process of higher education and these arrangements for higher education are always subject to review, innovation and good ideas from any source. The form will not be fixed in concrete as a result of the present change. The work of Sir Alistair Pilkington's committee will be considered. It is important that polytechnics work out their own links with local industry, and to date many have. We have seen the benefit that can result from it. We are of course aware of the good management practice working group which has been studying the position. It includes a representative of the Department of Education and Science. The working group's brief does not go as far as the arrangements which are currently being made. Although I believe that the report is to be published shortly, it would not fully solve the problem that we feel we have tackled in the White Paper.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there will be considerable disquiet in Wales about the irresolute nature of the report as it affects the Principality? For example, the Statement refers to the arrangements not being extended to cover the polytechnics and colleges of higher education in Wales. How long will it take? Wales is smaller than England and even smaller than Scotland. Why should it take all this time? Why are we not being clearly told what will happen in Wales?
Secondly, I am second to none in my admiration for the work of the UGC and its chairman, but it is clear that the new UFC will have a Scottish committee with a direct relationship with the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, why is there no reference to Wales? Why did not Wales have a representative on the Croham Committee. Is the noble Baroness aware that in the Principality that is regarded as absolutely disgraceful. We shall come back to it again with more force on the next occasion.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House—
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, if my noble friend will excuse me, I hope to hear his question in a moment. Turning to the important question of Wales, which I expected would be raised, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will be well aware that that is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. My understanding of the differentiation is that the Welsh system is smaller and very few colleges concentrate on higher education so that the need for change is different. I believe that there is in fact only one polytechnic in Wales.
However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will consider making changes similar to those proposed for England if the Welsh Advisory Board does not demonstrate in its current review that it can offer advice based on national, not local, considerations. I can go no further on timing than that.
As regards Scotland, I am not sure of all the reasons but I understand that a separate Statement is being made in another place on Scotland which is not being taken in this House. However my understanding is that the proposals do not go so far as to suggest that there should be a separate arrangement on funding for Scotland.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the £15 million injection—
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain what she meant in saying that this is decided on national, not local, considerations? I hope that she does not consider Wales as being a local consideration. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would choose her words carefully. Further, her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales signed the White Paper and, although he may be responsible for polytechnics in Wales, her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is responsible for further education in universities.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that the words "national" and "local" are both to be taken within the context of the word "Wales". Does that help the noble Lord?
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the £15 million injection of funds to the Science Vote will be of enormous relief and help to the research councils? They are in the great difficulty of having to turn down extremely well presented and important research projects. I am sure that the research councils will be greatly relieved that this injection of funds will give them the opportunity to award research funds to those projects which are so greatly needed.
Furthermore, will my noble friend now consider again whether the advice of the House of Lords Select
598
Committee on Science and Technology on how industry might be persuaded to be more effective in taking up publicly funded research could be pursued? It will be recollected that in responding to the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield—when proposals were made, for example, that industry should be required to list in its accounts the amount funded on research or that there might be further tax advantages—these proposals did not receive as much warm support as he might have wished. Having said that, I am sure we are all grateful for the £15 million investment from public funds and we hope that industry can match it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments and I shall draw them to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that between now and 1990 the majority of our unversities will be involved in the process of cutting back on their departments and on their staffs? Can the noble Baroness tell me how this can be reconciled with the policy for widening access contained in the White Paper when no additional funding is to be available? I ask that because widening access to differently qualified people means that more money will be required for in-service training and different facilities for teaching university students. Secondly—
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, order! Debate!
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I conclude with that one question.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the funding and other arrangements to be made by the universities are very much questions for the universities and the new funding council to work out. As was explained fully in the Statement, the Government's contribution does not represent a cut in funding in any way. Our aim is to urge the universities to co-operate with local industry, to encourage industry to have schemes which will help to provide funding from the private sector and also to make the best possible and most efficient use of the funds that are available.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Ferrier wished to point out that the discussion on this Statement had gone on for too long. I appreciate fully that it is an important subject, but I must point out to your Lordships that it has taken 41 minutes and that is a great deal longer than we expect a Statement should take in the middle of an important debate. We must bear that in mind and perhaps we can now return to the debate.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, before we return to the debate I should inform your Lordships that because of the time taken for the Statement the conclusion of the debate has now been extended to 8.40 p.m.

National Health Service
4.27 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh; owing to the length of the Statement I may not be in my place at the end of the evening.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for introducing this debate. Even if the subject has been discussed on many previous occasions, the National Health Service is of such great importance to the life of our country that it is right that it should be under review in your Lordships' House from time to time.
Some of your Lordships may have noticed in The Times a review of the new biography of Aneurin Bevan, who was one of the chief architects of the National Health Service, in which the writer, John Grigg, said:
"For all its faults it has remained so popular that even fanatical anti-collectivists have felt bound to proclaim themselves its champions".
I believe that to be true of its popularity, and many polls have shown this.
However, popularity is not enough. It is said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and so surely is the price of maintaining an adequate National Health Service, especially in view of the great pressures on it which have been outlined already this afternoon. There are the great problems of an ageing population and the development of costly hi-tech medicines, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred. It is vital that the National Health Service does not simply become a political football between the parties. The NHS is far too important to us all.
The main protection for the National Health Service must be a deep-seated conviction in this country that health care is vital and worth paying for by the nation; that such care should not be dependent on the ability of people to pay; that charges, if any, should be minimal; and that the principle of its being free at the point of use should be maintained. Therefore, the task facing us is to maintain the popularity of the NHS and the willingness of people to contribute to it a substantial proportion of our national income in face of the growing problems to which reference has been made.
The Churches, weaker though they are than in the past, perhaps still have some influence on the thinking of people about society. However, I believe that we have not done nearly enough over the years to give the backing to the health service that has been needed.
Yet there have been some efforts in this direction to encourage people to think about the philosophical and indeed the theological basis of the health service, and one such has come recently in the report from the Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England entitled Not Just for the Poor—Christian Perspectives on the Welfare State. I should like to quote just one paragraph from that report because it gives a line on its approach:
"The social character of our human life and the responsibilities and duties which attach to it are consistently and persistently set out in biblical thought and in the development of Christian belief.
600
Human beings are made for each other. We can find our vocation in relationships with others, in the service of others, and in community with others. The ordering of society should give expression to these basic truths about what it means to be human".
The report is emphatic in pointing to the dangers of having a divided society so far as concerns social benefits and indeed health care. It states:
"Our Christian understanding is that, not just within the Christian community but within society as a whole, 'we are members one of another'. In the light of this, welfare provision should not just be about directing benefits to the very poor. It should be concerned with justice for all citizens and any tendency to allow the development of a socially disenfranchised sub-class of those receiving benefit is unacceptable.".
I believe that the creation of the National Health Service owed not a little to the part played by those ideas in the life of our country in times past. It would be quite wrong to say that the inspiration came entirely from those who would confess that they were believing or practising Christians. That is quite untrue. Nor would it be true to say that it came from any one particular party, because its inception was widely supported by people from all parties. There was broad agreement on the ideas behind the National Health Service.
Today, while we welcome—and it is a welcome given by all parties—the National Health Service, we must ensure that this concept is not eroded in the years ahead. I believe that there is a grave danger that it is likely to be eroded unless action is speedily taken on certain fronts.
Reference has already been made to the important report some years ago about inequalities in health care—the Black Report: I think it is worth listening once again in your Lordships' House to what the Black Report said about inequalities:
"present social inequalities in health in a country with substantial resources like Britain are unacceptable and deserve to be so declared by every section of public opinion … we have no doubt that greater equality of health must remain one of our foremost national objectives".
That has been underlined by the row that has recently broken out over the report entitled The Health Divide. I could not help noticing the remarks of Dr. David Player, the Director General of the Health Education Council, which were headlined—again, I believe, in The Times—" I was signing my death warrant". Why, my Lords'? It was because he sent copies to 10 Downing Street. It would be very sad if a report that was underlining the serious situation that faces us over inequalities in health care was felt to be politically unacceptable in any one side of the political life of our country.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, referred to Salford. As some of your Lordships know, I live in Salford, and I am often present in church congregations and other groups there. In the city of Salford the inequalities in health care hit me in the eye very hard indeed. I think that what must first be given attention in the years ahead is the very serious problem of basic inequalities in health care. I am not suggesting that nothing is being done. We have heard this afternoon from the noble Baroness about some of the things that are being done. However, it is not nearly enough to meet this major challenge in our national life at the present time.
There is also the question of the effect of private practice on the National Health Service. I do not want

601
to say too much about that topic because your Lordships recently had a debate on this very matter; but I look back to the speech made by the Prime Minister in October 1982 when she said:
"Of course we welcome the growth of private health insurance. There is no contradiction between that and supporting the National Health Service. It brings in more money, helps to reduce waiting lists and stimulates new treatments and techniques.".
I do not believe that that observation is true. On the contrary I believe that the very rapid growth in private health care and insurance has diverted resources and increased disparities. Staff have been siphoned off; influential patients, who themselves would press for better provision and the ironing-out of inequalities, have been taken out of the National Health Service; and doctors and consultants have often been tempted away from what should be their proper duties. We should all appreciate the personal choice of those who opt for private health care for themselves and their families. I can readily appreciate that people have responsibilities; hut that is a different issue from public policy commitment. There should be no encouragement to the further growth of private health care. It damages the National Health Service and exacerbates some of the problems with which we are faced.
The other issue that I should like to raise concerns the question of how to achieve greater efficiency in the National Health Service. Surely that is something with which we are all concerned in such a vast organisation, and it is a problem that always faces us. We all ought to be agreed on the need to promote more efficiency. Yet there is the other side of that question, which is the care of those who work for the National Health Service—not only nurses (to whom reference has rightly and properly already been made this afternoon), doctors and medical staff, but also those who maintain its basic services. I believe that to go down the road of privatisation is not necessarily to take the right road at all so far as concerns basic services such as cleaning, laundering and catering. Those tasks represent work of constant volume in hospitals. The morale and pay of those who work in those services are a very important part of our National Health Service these days. The last thing we should be doing is exploiting the very low paid in a service that is meant to maintain basic health in the life of our country.
Of course the National Health Service cannot bear the whole burden of trying to achieve greater equality in health care. As we all know, it covers many different areas such as housing, unemployment and so on. Yet the conduct of the National Health Service, the way it is organised and the way in which its resources are distributed, are vital to the health care of many people in our country. Our people are our wealth. This is very closely related to productivity and concerns our ability as a nation to earn a high standard of living. I believe that in the years ahead the National Health Service, far from being a political football between the parties, ought to be something for which we all care and whose improvement we wish to see.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have just been experiencing the acute tension of waiting to make my maiden speech coupled with the extreme frustration of
602
not being able to join in the previous item of discussion on higher education. The result is that I may become a burden on the National Health Service sooner than I had anticipated.
In speaking to your Lordships on the subject of the National Health Service, as a matter of courtesy I ought to declare an interest—indeed, a multiplicity of interests. My wife's career has largely been in the National Health Service: as a speech therapist, as the secretary of one of the first community health councils, and now as a part of the administration of one of London's major teaching hospitals. Like many other academics, I have sat on research committees of the MRC and the DHSS. I was also a member of the Nuffield Foundation inquiry into pharmacy and am now a lay member of the Council of the Pharmacy Society of Great Britain. I am proud to say that I was a founder member of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) and I continue to support that body.
I am not here to boast of my credentials however. In my maiden speech I want to emphasise a commitment to the National Health Service as such, the principles and values of care and concern with fellow human beings and the devotion to duty that lay behind the setting up of the service. Those are values which I believe continue to permeate the health care profession despite the occasional cynical dissenting voice to the contrary.
Let me mention what seem to me to be the key principles, the first of which is universality. The NHS is available to all citizens; it is not limited to those with the ability to pay. Therefore, ipso facto, it is redistributive. On this occasion again I must refrain from entering the debate on inequality and health, fascinating though it is.
The second principle is that the health care offered should be that which is most appropriate to the patient; if you like, the best. Even though in this case a private alternative is available, in fact in health care one cannot buy a better treatment than is offered by the National Health Service. Of course, one can purchase more privacy, luxury or immediacy, but that is another matter.
On waiting lists, the present position is not good. One can even say that it is intolerable, especially for what one might call straightforward or bread-and-butter surgery which can so enhance the quality of life. I for one, would give the highest priority to the use of additional resources for that purpose. Unless I misunderstood the Minister, she was taking the same view in her contribution to this debate.
To me, most importantly, the health service offers to the patient and to his or her family a kind of certainty—given the anxiety that illness causes, together with economic worries arising from loss of time at work—that doctors, nurses and most other health care professionals are accessible without direct charge. All this involves vast resources. No one is or ever has been ignorant of that. Indeed, the whole purpose of having a system of taxation is to finance activities for which charging at the point of service is inappropriate. It is economic nonsense to suggest otherwise. Moreover, since we all require health care at some time in our lives, and benefit from the treatment which others receive as well, public

603
finance—which one can interpret as a form of insurance system—is the best way of paying for it all.
Nonetheless, resources are not unlimited. The economist must emphasise his dismal science and say that he is aware, as I am aware, that no matter how rich we become, there is no limit to our demand. In the case of the NHS I would go further. I would expect the demand for health care to rise more rapidly than income. I would also expect technical advance to be more rapid. In addition, the expectation of life has risen, and I would hope to see it continuing to rise.
Putting all these factors together, there can be little doubt that there must be some tendency for health's share of public expenditure to rise, and indeed for the share of health expenditure in gross domestic product to rise. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester that it is undesirable for those who work in the NHS to go on subsidising the rest of us. It is surely reasonable for them to wish to participate in whatever national prosperity there is available.
On resources, there are no easy ways out. Those who place their faith in new forms of finance are chasing a chimera. Paying for things is always difficult. The pursuit of efficiency is highly important. Some of us have been pressing this for years. But while it is a duty to use available resources as effectively as possible in the interests of a patient, it is impossible to ignore the fact that in too many areas there are simply not enough resources in the first place.
I am aware that I have been moving too close to controversy and must start to draw back. However, I must raise the topic of prescription charges which others have mentioned. I give my support to what my noble friend Lord Ennals has said. As an economist I am never doctrinaire on sources of funds. If prescription charges are a source of finance without adverse side-effects, why not use them? The problem today is that they have risen so much in real terms that they may, and indeed in my view must, be harmful. It is entirely right that the medical profession should be aware of the expense of items and should not prescribe what is dearer when what is cheaper is just as good.
I supported the introduction of the limited list and will continue to support greater rationality in prescribing. But high prescription charges—and there is some argument about the exact figures—even though they fall on only half of all patients, go further than that. They may cause the doctor to prescribe too much at a time and the patient not to purchase what the doctor regards as necessary, therefore adding to the so-called problem of non-compliance.
The Nuffield Foundation report was surely right to recommend an enhanced advisory and counselling role for the pharmacist. But that was to help and not to get in the way of the general practitioner. There is now a growing tendency for patients to ask the pharmacist for advice because the total cost of all the items on the prescription form is more than can be afforded. This places the pharmacist in the impossible position of having to respond to the question, "What does the doctor want me to have?" Following on from that, in some cases prescription charges may cost the service more than it says. It seems to me therefore that
604
the time has come to look at them again in a dispassionate and open-minded way.
If Ministers ask the usual question, "Where will the money come from?", for once there is an easy answer. Let me suggest that they raise—or advise their right honourable and honourable friends to raise—the excise duty. That is a financial policy which has clear health benefits.
Those of us who were brought up in the liberal —with a small "I"—tradition of western civilisation believe most strongly in the value of debate and criticism. But we sometimes forget that we need on occasions to support and praise our institutions. My purpose in intervening today has been to do precisely that. Those who claim that nothing radical or progressive can be achieved by parliamentary democracy can be rebutted in many ways, not least by the foundation of the National Health Service.
In conclusion, I offer my support and thanks to all those in the health service—the doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, speech therapists, pharmacists, auxiliaries of all kinds, porters, clerks and, not least, the administrators. Together, they comprise a health care team of which we can be proud.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for raising this debate this afternoon and for limiting it in time. I am afraid that I have to make an apology; I also have to leave before the debate concludes. I hope that I may be excused.
My first pleasure is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his maiden speech which, he will have observed, was much enjoyed by all sides of the House. He contrived the right balance between expressing some of his views—which are obviousy strongly held—without being controversial. If I may say so, we all felt that he made a most valuable contribution to the debate. We look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, made a wholesale condemnation of the Government's record in the health service in every aspect of its work, referring to shortfalls of all kinds. My reply to that is yes, of course, it is not perfect; and, yes, of course, much remains to be done. However, I would say—and with his ministerial experience the noble Lord well knows this—that in judging this Government's record on the health service we must have regard to the reality of the position from which the Government started.
Over the past eight years the achievements are impressive. If we look at the record since 1978, the last full year of the Labour Government, there are 4 million more patients being treated every year. They comprise in-patients, day patients and out-patients in hospitals. It is a very substantial number. But that is what the health service is all about. There are 12,000 more doctors and dentists—a quite substantial figure. There are 63,000 more nurses and midwives. There is more cash to the tune of 26 per cent. plus in real terms. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to take note because he rubbed our noses in the fact that the EC had observed that we needed an extra 3 per cent. per annum in real terms in order to achieve the health

605
service that we should like. This 26 per cent. in eight years, unless my arithmetic is wrong, is more than that figure; so we are doing something. I agree that there is much more to be done. This is as good a record as any government have achieved.
I should like to congratulate my noble friends Lady Trumpington and Lord Hesketh, and in particular my right honourable friend Mr. Norman Fowler, on what they have done. In particular I join with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in thanking and congratulating the 800,000 dedicated health service workers who make this tremendous service possible. Of course, there are still complaints and delays.
It is interesting to look at the whole picture. I should like to pick up two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I was going to make precisely the same points. There are two major factors which will always ensure that demand exceeds supply. We are a longer-lived population; our expectation of longevity grows and grows. I become 80 this year and I confidently expect, the Lord willing, I might even get to 90. Who would have expected this 50 years ago? This is the same for everyone.
As the noble Lord quite rightly said, the older we get the more support services we need, which makes greater and greater demands. Alongside that there is the continuous stream of improvements in surgical and medical skill, not to mention anaesthetics, radiology and ever more ingenious drugs. Yesterday's incurable is today's curable. What wonderful news that is for everybody, and it is a great credit to the National Health Service.
I have had the interest in Guildford of seeing on my doorstep the development of one such scheme. Guildford and Edinburgh were chosen as the two pilot scheme sites for mammography screening following the success of the scheme in Sweden. The team in Guildford consisted of a surgeon with an international reputation, Mr. Boulter, who is an old friend of mine, a similar star radiologist, Professor John Price, a pathologist and an administrator.
The team spent two years making its plans on paper and it went into action about eight years ago to call up all women in its area between the ages of 45 and 55. It won an excellent response. The administrative work of call and recall is formidable, but it was successfully coped with. Patients with incipient lesions were treated with radiotherapy and success achieved with—what is even better news—ever-decreasing doses of treatment. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will know, often in the past radiotherapy did more damage than benefit. But the team had the most valuable experience in that respect.
The experiment was completed, and it was critically structured with some areas where there was no such treatment to see what mortality was in those areas. The experiment proved that early diagnosis and treatment save much mortality and very much suffering. Hence the report of Sir Patrick Forrest and the health service adoption of the policy for the national scheme for the whole country as rapidly as possible. I should like to make the point to my noble friend Lord Hesketh (I am sure he will take it away) that the training of the teams for the 100 centres to he set up will be formidable. It will be a major
606
undertaking which will need the greatest possible attention.
This is a wonderful story. Many such things are happening today. Each one makes greater demands on the health service and gives rise to greater cost. I have mentioned the scheme in Guildford because I was lucky enough to see it. However, when we think of the cost and the burden of the research work and the treatment for AIDS, which are bound to grow and grow, we must make the point that this demand will continue and continue. There will always be some delays and shortages. Even with the present Government, who have a very good economic record whatever noble Lords opposite may say, it is possible only to increase the funding of the health service by a certain amount year by year. Therefore, there will always be shortages somewhere. To go at a faster rate is to court disaster and leads to overspending; you end up not only without an increased health service but a sharply reduced one.
The experience of 10 years ago, which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, so painfully had himself as the Secretary of State, confirms that this is what happens. He actually had to cut the health service in order to bring it within the economic requirements of the day. These are the harsh realities of life and good intentions do not alone provide the health service of our dreams. We have to watch all the time how we manage to provide the money for such a service.
In my contribution to this debate I should like to say that by comparison with the record of any government of the past, and especially the government of noble Lords opposite, the record of this Goveernment in relation to the health service has been a good one. Not everything has been done; masses more remains to be done. However, I believe that this Government deserve a major measure of congratulation on what they have achieved.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like first to apologise to your Lordships' House for the fact that, owing to an engagement which I had accepted long before I knew that this debate was to be held, I shall not be able to be here for the reply from the Government Benches later this evening.
It gives me more than usual pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on a well-informed and balanced maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him on very many occasions. He is a necessary addition to his party's strength in this House. It gives me special pleasure because he was a colleague of mine from the London School of Economics before he left us to go to other places. Indeed, we are almost reaching the point when we need, or can justify an ex-LSE House of Lords society—something which once upon a time would have been considered a contradiction in terms.
In the brief time allowed to me I should like to say something about the paper, The Health Divide, referred to earlier this week and to which passing references have already been made. We cannot pass a debate of this kind without making further comment on this very important paper. It shows beyond a doubt the growing social inequalities in health and the extent

607
to which these inequalities are due to not only failures in the health service (perhaps inevitable failures in the health service) but also to a whole range of social issues which require attention on the preventive side.
We have to remember that although the National Health Service spends most of its time curing people, it is far better to prevent than to cure. If some of the advice given in this report was followed up, prevention would be a great deal more effective and would in turn save resources. It is highly important that this report should be properly followed up. It is well-documented; the evidence is beyond question, and the picture that it shows is of quite unnecessary ill-health and early death arising from a whole variety of causes, some of them preventable. In a debate of this kind this is a matter which we cannot possibly ignore.
Having said that I must also say that we on these Benches deeply regret the fact that the Government have seen fit to change from the Health Education Council to the newly appointed Health Education Authority. We ask them to give the true reasons why they have seen fit to make this change. We are also much concerned about the change in the nature of the work to be done by the new authority. The Health Education Council had the duty not only to educate but also to promote good health. In the light of the information contained in the report, there can be no shadow of doubt that health promotion, as well as health education, is urgently needed.
Health promotion is part and parcel of the preventive work which I am sure all noble Lords agree needs to be done. Why then have the Government said that the new health authority will not have a promotional function but only a much more limited educational function? This would appear to be a step backwards and a step which we greatly deplore. We also deplore the fact that the new authority is to be a limb of the DHSS and is not to be an independent body. Surely in a matter with the ramifications for health that the National Health Service has, serving so many people across the country, it is extremely important that there should be an independent body able to speak its mind based on the information that it collects—a body which is seen to be separate from the DHSS. To have moved this body into the DHSS, or rather to have moved it directly under the DHSS, is surely a retrogressive step. We should very much like the Minister to explain why the Government thought that it was necessary to take this step.
It seems to me that this is yet another example of this Government's extraordinary determination to centralise wherever possible. That is a most extraordinary development for a Conservative government. Whatever the demerits of previous Conservative governments, nobody could have said that they were centralisers, but this Government seem to wish to centralise everything they can lay their hands on. They have now centralised this council. We deeply regret that and we should like to know what the justification for that was and to say that we believe that a powerful independent body which could voice its findings about the state of health in this country is a very necessary part of the whole machinery for making the National Health Service and society as a whole work properly.
608
The question of machinery is a big question which in the tail-end of a Parliament, as this can now presumably be described, probably must be a matter to be discussed in the future. However, looking at the problems of the NHS, is it really sensible to have the great variety of things which are covered by it at the present time in one department, one huge DHSS? Surely there should be a Minister for the National Health Service who could concentrate on the problems of prevention, cure and health. Surely that is job enough for one man. Why cannot it be under one person? Why does it have to be dealt with by a department which handles such complex matters as pensions and the payment of benefits and general social services? Surely the NHS is a job in itself which a Minister should do? Those of us who try to deal with government departments know what a very great advantage it is if one can deal with a Minister whose attention is entirely focused on one particular field of work.
In the two or three minutes left to me I wish to pick up some things which have already been said about community care. Moving people from institutions to community care is generally approved of. I urge the Government to look at this very carefully indeed. I suspect—and I am not qualified to say this with any authority—that there are some people, especially the mentally handicapped, for whom moving out of an institution may be very difficult indeed. They may have been there for a very long time and have come to terms with the institution and have made a world for themselves inside that institution which they can understand.
While I and my noble friends on these Benches are entirely in favour of the general thrust towards community care, we should like to state a reservation that there should be careful examination of that residue of people for whom it surely will not be suitable. Consideration should be given to how their needs will be met.
For those who come under community care there must be community care, not just a pushing of people out of institutions back into society, into bed and breakfast accommodation from where they wander around during the day trying to find somewhere to go and something to do. That is not community care. Nor is it community care to expect families, however devoted, to take on the total caring of people who come out of institutions.
For 20 years I have been chairman of the National Council for Carers and the Elderly Dependants and I know that the problems of the carers are acute, unless they are very well supported. It is hypocrisy to talk about community care unless the Government are prepared to provide a far larger home-help service, a far better local nursing service, day centres, respite centres and respite opportunities so that people can put those for whom they are caring into some kind of home for two or three weeks in order that they can get away. Help should be available with sitting-in. Indeed, a whole range of things are necessary. We need a charter for carers if community care is not to create almost more problems than it solves.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, may I first add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his maiden speech. Preventive medicine, which has been coming to the fore in this debate, if successful saves lives and prevents ill-health. It also saves resources, but what is distinctive about it is that in order to be successful it requires the co-operation of individuals and often requires the support of the community.
Sometimes success depends on one thing; for example, inoculation. Sometimes it depends on a combination of inoculation, public health measures and thereapy. I shall give a number of examples. Fluoride prevents dental caries. A poll conducted in February this year by the National Association of Health Authorities found that 76 per cent. of people thought that fluoride should be added to the water supply and 15 per cent. were against it. What do we do? If there is a decrease in dental caries in the young, there will be more dental capacity to look after the increasing number of old people, perhaps at no additional cost. Will the Minister please tell us how many local authorities at the present time add fluoride to the water supply?
The virtual elimination of tuberculosis required the combination of preventive inoculation, public health measures and drug treatment. The result is that there has been a massive redeployment of staff and hospital resources which were previously committed to the treatment of tuberculosis. This made more room for the long-term sick and many others. However, in order to maintain this situation there must be constant vigilance and preventive measures, urgently applied if necessary; and this means public co-operation.
Inoculation is very effective in preventing whooping cough and measles. With whooping cough there has been some damage in the past. As your Lordships know, the resultant campaign, conducted because of sympathy for the sufferers, has had a devastating effect, lowering the whooping cough inoculation rate and influencing the measles inoculation rate which at the moment is perhaps about 40 per cent. The children who are not inoculated are exposed to risk, particularly when they go to school. The risk is serious, the worst complication being meningitis. Should we require inoculation against measles of all children before they go to school? In the United States this has virtually controlled the disease. However, this is a matter for the expression of public opinion. The means to do it are available and can be provided by the National Health Service. Perhaps I may ask the Minister for the present inoculation rate for measles.
In recent weeks the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has made a number of announcements about funding. These have been referred to. The most recent were announcements about research into AIDS and screening for breast cancer. Additional sums have been made available for cardiac surgery and screening for cancer of the cervix. In these days of patient awareness, the demand to see patient records and the desire of any patients to make their own decisions about treatment, and also the increasing threat of litigation, I thought it might be helpful to analyse these situations just a little further, remembering perhaps
610
that one is talking about guidelines and evidence and that the diagnosis and treatment of individual patients requires very specialised skills. This is the kind of evidence that is taken into account by courts of law concerned with claims for negligence.
Regarding AIDS, the substantial sums mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, were for research to try to find a vaccine. Additional sums were also provided for the care of sufferers. There is no treatment—only prevention by individual decision.
With regard to carcinoma of the cervix, it took 50 years from the time that Marie Curie discovered radium until an effective safe treatment was developed which did not cause damage to patients or doctors. Here the emphasis is on early diagnosis because an effective safe treatment is available. The substantial sums mentioned by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for screening for carcinoma of the breast are again given for different reasons.
In 1971 the first results were published in the United States showing that the early detection of breast cancer had a mortality one-third lower than undetected cases. These results have now been confirmed in Sweden, the United Kingdom and Canada; but the importance of this finding and why it is being strongly supported is because radical excision has not been shown to be of greater benefit than simple excision, and radiotherapy in some cases is disappointing. Expert advice is required in individual cases; but this investment in screening by mamography is of great importance. Again, it requires co-operation. As we recognised, the sums voted so far are modest—one centre for each region. What of the future? How rapidly can this be spread? They are matters of public concern and public opinion.
Hepatitis B presents a different problem again, and I suspect that it would have been very much in the public concern if AIDS had not happened when it did. The virus is known, the diagnostic tests are available and vaccines prepared from antigens in the blood are already on the market. The antigen which is now licensed in Britain is perfectly safe for infants. If we could immunise the entire world population, and immunise babies born to carrier mothers at birth, all cases would disappear in two generations.
In practice, what can be done? Ideally in Britain we should screen all mothers and immunise the babies of carriers at birth. That would be ideal, but it seems absolutely essential that all mothers of Chinese, African, Indian and Asian origin should be tested. What responsibilities do we have? Is this a health-promoting exercise which should have a high priority? Will the Minister say what is the Government's policy as regards this serious matter?
Additional sums have been set aside for coronary by-pass operations. But the sums became available for a different reason again. Controlled clinical trials were started and then abandoned, such was the immediate success of the operation.
Thinking of these matters which are examples of health measures, where informed public opinion is necessary to influence the Government on the expenditure of limited resources, one is considerably

611
distressed by the changes that are taking place in public opinion in relation to medicine.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on civil liability, the United Kingdom is following the American pattern in many fields and solicitors are advertising for dissatisfied patients to consult them on a non-fee basis. I agree with his view and those of the British Medical Association on the need for no-fault compensation.
We in Britain are fortunate in having general practitioners available as a gateway to the health service, and it is hoped as a guide, counsellor and friend to the patients. The importance of this cannot be exaggerated. When this is absent, patients may choose their own doctors perhaps for the wrong reasons, and they are often actually aware that the meeting has a financial basis. As a result of this, relationships can be clouded and doctors tend to do many tests to cover themselves because of the possibility of litigation, perhaps when such tests are not strictly necessary. The results are further increases of costs. I sincerely hope that that spiral does not happen here.
There are two vitally important areas for all members of the public to have an active interest. First the positive approach to their own health and measures about their lifestyle; and secondly, an opinion about matters of the kind that I have referred to earlier in my speech where public opinion can make the difference between success or failure.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I begin with congratulations on my own part on the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It was admirable and, if I may say so, one of erudition and warmth, and I am sure that the House will be in his debt on many occasions in the future.
I have said often and say again that in my experience the welfare state is the most Christian thing that has happened in my lifetime. The older I become the more convinced I am that that is not untrue. It is for that reason that I am more concerned by the kind of erosion of its principles and the occasions of default in its practice which were enumerated in a bristling catalogue of information about the welfare state and the National Health Service in the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and for which I was extremely grateful. The accusations have not been met.
I presume to take what I have to say from an experience which is mine. I was instrumental in founding the West London Day Centre some 15 years ago. I have looked into the experiences of that day centre for the kind of evidence which I presume to present before your Lordships in the realm of the National Health Service, and in particular in the difficulties which it faces and the omissions for which I believe there must be a speedy remedy.
The first is the question of prescription charges. Your Lordships have been told this afternoon that since the last Labour Government the charges have risen from 20 pence to £2.40. The British Medical Association and British Dental Association have
612
passed comment which I think is worth repeating. The British Medical Association states that there is a large measure of deterrence as prescription charges increase, and that more and more people who ought to be treated are making the choice—however silly and economic it may be—to refuse or not to accept the responsibility of doing what the doctor says when it will cost them something to do it.
The British Dental Association has been more specific. Only the other day it said that the prescription charges are excessive and socially divisive. I found that to be the experience of many people in the day centre. I believe that that fact has been enlarged and established in speeches which have been made in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I believe that the whole concept of the welfare state is imperilled by the prescription charges.
Secondly, as I looked into the experiences of those who come into the welfare centre, I was impressed by the long delay, accompanied by much suffering and pain, which is the accompaniment to the kind of problem about which your Lordships have heard a great deal today. There are 600,000 or more people who need relief from pain and who are denied access to the opportunities of that relief.
Representation of fact by the St. Thomas's Hospital implies that of the 10 health authorities in London and the South-West the cut in beds will be by 15 per cent. to 36 per cent. before 1993. I am a little allergic to statistics; one can prove almost anything by them. However, I suggest that the evidence is incontrovertible: that the absence of opportunities at the emergency state has been increased and is constantly being increased.
I have a simple comment to make about that. Pain is a sufferable but sometimes an almost insufferable condition. Noble Lords will not think that I am sentimental if I remind myself that there are a great many people who are in considerable pain every day of their lives and in a society which could afford, if it was only conscious enough of its moral responsibility, to do more for them than to say, "You will be postponed in your treatment for so long". That time seems to become longer as their pain increases. This is, I believe, an experience in that the microcosm of the West London Day Centre is represented in the macrocosm of society as a whole.
There is an even more serious element. It will not surprise your Lordships that quite a number of people, when you mention in this day centre the welfare state or the national health condition, regard it as a rather sick joke. They feel that they have no part in it, that they have no access to it; and in particular this is true of the homeless. I shall read to your Lordships, if I may, a short excerpt from a publication by UNLEASH, which is the United London Ecumenical Action on Single Homelessness, an imposing statement of participation. There is an even more significant statement in the publication itself:
"To be single and homeless for any period of time is to endanger one's own health to a far greater degree than normal; yet normal health care is precisely what is commonly denied to single homeless people. Numerous studies have shown that homeless people not only suffer from higher levels of illness and handicap, but also are likely to have much greater difficulty in gaining access to health services.".

613
That is the experience that we have undergone in the centre to which I refer.
One of John Wesley's injunctions to his followers was in a document called Twelve Rules for a Helper. One of those rules which was impressed on me when I was a student was:
"Go to those who need you, and specially to those who need you most".
I believe the homeless are those who are in the greatest need. Remember, if you will, that a great many of these homeless are not destitute in the old-fashioned Dickensian sense. They are without a house to live in or an accommodation in which they can lay their heads, and they find it increasingly difficult to believe that the National Health Service really is concerned with the overall well-being of the community as a whole.
I do not say that with any rancour. I say it because it is an increasing experience of those who are not particularly susceptible to all the statistics of the increasing amount of money that is given to the health service; whereas there seems to be an ever-increasing divide between those who have, and have the opportunity of having more, and those who are impoverished and find very little access to those means of the welfare state which are often trumpeted as their opportunity.
I believe in the welfare state because I believe that it is substantially the only way in which you can create and maintain community. I deplore the invasion of privatisation which is a thoroughly un-Christian word, and the invasion of what is called caring capitalism, which in my judgment is a contradiction in terms.
I therefore press the House, if I may, that we take much more seriously our opportunity of doing two things: of spending more money in ways which have been academically set forth in your Lordships' House this afternoon by which we could immensely improve the whole working of the health system if more money were centrally offered to those projects which are now in decay; secondly, to rededicate ourselves to the concept of the welfare state, which is the only way to rescue the health service as it is now from an increasing polarisation and the decreasing sense of its commitment to one of the prime requirements of a civilised society—to care for all, and to expect from all that which they can contribute to that care.
It is in that respect that I offer these comments. I hope that out of the conversation this afternoon there may be more caring, and in that caring a new dispensation for the welfare of those who are our brothers and sisters and to whom we owe, and should continue to owe, the duty of comradeship.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for initiating a debate which covers so many matters of great and urgent concern. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his excellent maiden speech. I must apologise if I have to leave just before the end of the debate due to a longstanding commitment to chair a meeting which cannot take place in my absence. I apologise.
While this debate gives my noble friend the Minister a most welcome opportunity to emphasise the very
614
real achievements of the Government, it also provides an opportunity for other issues to be raised for consideration and, hopefully, for reassurance by my noble friend. I shall confine my contribution to just two issues: community care, and my own profession of nursing.
The principles behind the policy of community care are commendable. Of course in appropriate circumstances it is preferable for people to enjoy the greater freedom and independence of life in the community rather than to become dependent and institutionalised in long-stay residential care. In many places arrangements for transition from residential institutions to life in the community are imaginative, sensitive and finely tuned to the needs of each person. Where this is happening, this is good news.
However, sadly there are also many reports of real suffering due to unsatisfactory transfer to community care. The people involved are very vulnerable: they include the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped, and the elderly. Many have been residents for years, even for decades, in places which often had the good characteristics of the term "asylum"—institutions offering refuge, security and care in a protected environment. For thousands of residents their residential institution has been home; it has been their world. For them, to be moved out into the community can be a dislocation of their entire way of life and of all the human relationships which make life meaningful.
There is no shortage of evidence of concern for real suffering. Organisations such as RESCARE, the National Society of Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care, and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship have been urgent in their pleas to rethink the massive shift to the community, or at least to slow it down until really adequate alternatives are available. Also, the Audit Commission report Making a Reality of Community Care, and the report published by MIND, When the Talking has to Stop: Community Care in Crisis, both discuss problems for those who have already been discharged into the community—problems caused by indadequate funding and staffing, fragmentation of responsibility and poor communication.
In the temperate words of the Audit Commission report:
"It is not surprising that joint planning and community care policies are in some dissaray.".
The MIND report claims rather more graphically:
"Community care is not dumping all responsibility onto informal carers, in the vast majority of cases women; it is not pushing people into bedsit poverty and isolation; it is not hostels which, rain or shine, turf people out at eight in the morning until five at night; it is not homelessness and destitution … scandalously, this is what it means to so many people at present.".
I am aware that the Government have set up an inquiry into community care to be chaired by Sir Roy Griffiths, but can my noble friend the Minister indicate what steps are being taken now to alleviate the anxieties and sufferings of people such as these?
This leads into my second topic, nursing. A part of the solution to some of those problems could lie in the development of neighbourhood nursing services as proposed by the Cumberlege report, and endorsed by the report of the Social Services Select Committee on Primary Health Care. Perhaps 1 may ask my noble

615
friend the Minister whether the Government will at least consider setting up some pilot or experimental schemes embodying some of their recommendations, such as the establishment of community nursing services in smaller units; or the establishment of some nurse practitioner posts with specified powers of prescription; or the development of some schemes with appropriately trained nurse practitioners working with GPs to provide a complementary service for elderly people; or, finally, a manpower planning exercise on the training and supply of community nurses. Such measures could not only involve improvement in community care but could also lead to more effective nursing, which would enhance professional job satisfaction. I think some reassurance from the Government on those lines would mean a great deal to the morale of the nursing profession.
It is urgent, because nursing in general is in a state of crisis, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, emphasised. It is in a crisis of recruitment and a crisis of training. One-third of students fail to complete their training. There is a crisis of retention of trained staff and a crisis of shortages of staff in many parts of the country, shortages so extreme that wards have had to be closed. Morale is at an all-time low in many places. That is not surprising, especially given the pay and conditions of service. A qualified staff nurse, after over three years of training, earns a mere £6,475 a year—now much less than the new scales for non-graduate teachers.
Conditions of service involve work which is inherently stressful. For example, research has shown that student nurses, caring for patients who are in severe pain or who are dying, experience stress levels comparable to those occurring during major personal tragedies, such as bereavement. There is the unremitting responsibility of being in the front line of patient contact, where errors may mean serious physical harm and even death.
I ask my noble friend what reassurances the Government can give to the nursing profession. Recent pay awards recommended by the pay review body were not given immediately in full. They were staged in a way which appeared churlish and resulted in a real loss of salary of several hundred pounds for each nurse.
My noble friend may respond by pointing to an increase of over 50,000 in the numbers of nurses and midwives. But those figures cannot be taken at face value. Nearly half of that increase was needed to compensate for the reduction in the working week, and the remaining real increase of about 27,000 also needs to be put into context. For example, those figures include untrained staff, and also much of that increase had already taken place by 1983, since when there has not been much growth.
However, as we have heard, there is great and justifiable pride in the increase in the number of patients treated. For example, in-patients have increased by 18 per cent. and day patients by a staggering 71 per cent. But that quicker and more cost-effective throughput means that patients are in hospital for a much shorter time, during which they are much more dependent and require much more intensive nursing care. The increase of around 7 per
616
cent. of qualified nursing staff between 1978 and the present has to care for far greater increases in patient numbers and needs. This is often associated with great stress for the nurses and what is in technical jargon often called "burn-out".
It is not surprising that nurses are leaving in droves. Even more worrying perhaps is the decline in new entrants, with a drop in the number of school-leavers, but also, sadly and significantly, fewer of those choose to go into nursing. There is a real danger that if the Government do not respond appropriately to these crises in the nursing profession there just will not be enough nurses left to staff the NHS. The National Health Service itself could then face a crisis of unprecedented proportions.
I appreciate the reassurances given earlier this afternoon by my noble friend, but I also urge him to consider very carefully the questions which I have raised, so that not only can nurses be encouraged but also those for whom they are responsible can benefit from the highest possible standards of health care which we as a nation would wish them to receive and which the National Health Service was established to provide.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Porritt: My Lords, thanks to the initiative of the noble, and perhaps this afternoon slightly bellicose, Lord, Lord Ennals, we are again discussing the state of the National Health Service. Medically speaking I feel that that state is such as to give rise to acute anxiety. The NHS seems to be suffering from an extensive number of serious diseases.
There comes immediately to mind a severe lack of financial sustenance; repeated and continuing attacks of acute wasting disease; painful disability from increasing rigidity; an apparently unlimited degree of giantism as evidenced by overmanning in excelsis and overbuilding in extenso—big is not always beautiful—plus excessive doses of misplaced and blinkered enthusiasm derived from short-sighted estimates and contorted values. Add to this psychologically an insidious growth of material and monetary motivation which has been steadily eroding those idealistic and humane characteristics with which the service was endowed when it was born. All this being so, I cannot help feeling that there is an urgent case for emergency surgery, followed by prolonged intensive care and after that a long rehabilitation.
I trust that your Lordships will not feel that it is in any way a frivolous contribution with which I have started my words in a serious debate. I can assure the House that the words I have used are not lighthearted. In fact it was with rather a heavy heart that I finally decided to take part in today's proceedings and risk once again skillful brickwall treatment in an attempt to get beyond the hotchpotch of piecemeal and hand-to-mouth methods by which the affairs of this colossal organisation that we call the NHS is managed today. We should get back to and get down to an unbiased, wide-ranging, long-term strategy for the future. Only by such a non-partisan, non-party and, I humbly suggest, non-political approach can we hope to save the best of this fine idealistic concept which is both financially and administratively slowly strangling itself in front of our very eyes.

617
One of the advantages of growing older—I am pretty well ahead of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent—is that to some degree one can see things more clearly in perspective. Some 40 years ago, admittedly on the outskirts, I was involved indirectly and to a very minor degree in the early days of the NHS. I met socially, got to know, admired and liked Aneurin Bevan. His Welsh oratory, his shrewd political sense, his opportunism and almost evangelistic enthusiasm, singled him out as a very special individual. His Achilles' heel was his quite rigid socialist idealism. His health for all given free (so-called) at the point of delivery was simply against human nature. Financial stringency did not take long to make its unwelcome appearance and early charges for spectacles and dentures led to Bevan's resignation—a loss that must always leave, to my mind anyway, an historical query.
Ten years passed. The National Health Service seemed to prosper, largely owing to the loyalty of a not originally very approving army of general practitioners. The profession decided to see how it could improve the service after this initial experimental period and so the Medical Services Review Committee was set up. I was now very directly concerned as its chairman. That report, representing the views of the totality of the medical profession at the time, was constructive, comprehensive and practical. It was shelved by the Government.
The committee made three major proposals, among some 50 altogether. The first was agreed to soon after the publication of the report: namely, that the original three parts of the NHS—general practice, hospital practice and public health (what we now call community medicine and community care)—should be united to effect economies in administration and personnel. The remaining two, another 30 years on, still remain unsolved or unconsidered; namely, that the capitation system of remuneration of doctors is inferior to other methods. No other country in the world has followed our lead in this respect.
Secondly, the detailed administration of the service must be at the periphery, where doctor and patient, supplier and consumer meet. This is where detailed methodology should be dealt with: not at the one colossal monolithic centrepiece of the NHS as it stands at the moment.
So here we are now, with vastly increased commitments in responsibilities, buildings, equipment and staff of all sorts, struggling on with roughly the same old organisation, concerned chiefly with financing a system that has grown out of all recognition and improved to an almost magical degree over the intervening years. Why must the health service be a party concern? No party owns the national health. I must admit to being embarrassed and often disappointed when I hear able Ministers beating a party drum, metaphorically, to drown out the querulous and petty criticisms of an equally able opposition, as if the only solution to all the ills that beset the National Health Service is more, more and more taxpayers' money.
As I have pointed out on previous occasions, there are many other ways of raising money for such a vital matter as the National Health Service if only these could be considered in an open-minded, unbiased and
618
long-term manner. Money, essential as it is, is far from being the only problem to be faced in dealing with a human clientele and a humane profession. The problems are important enough to require—even, I would say, to demand—wholehearted co-operation on the part of all concerned.
Why is it beyond the power of government—any government—to set up an independent group, preferably of people with a philosophical outlook, to advise medically and economically, to investigate the whole infinitely complex scenario, to be courageous enough to dismantle machinery where necessary and to plan a fresh start from basic principles?
Purely as tentative suggestions, I would envisage, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the study in depth of certain simple and fundamental questions. For instance, why must pensions be linked with health? There should be a more precise definition of health and illness: that is to say, preventive measures and therapeutic methods. Is the capitation system the best means of remunerating doctors? Is the technologically and scientifically trained doctor of today best suited to serve the better informed and more demanding patient of today? Why, in hospital management, administration and so on are 10 people required today to do the work of one 30 or 40 years ago?
Why do highly trained nurses have to become business managers in an office in order to gain promotion? Should the large modern hospital entirely take the place of the hostel-type of hospital, which deals so well with the geriatric and the mentally handicapped, and of the small urban and suburban hospital? As selective medicines become necessary, thanks to the amazing developments of modern therapy, how and by whom is the selection process to be managed? Also, is today's patient happier, either in the hospital or in the doctor's surgery, than his counterpart of 30 or 40 years ago?
These are simple questions. These simple questions and a hundred more that are pertinent beg for answers. Perhaps it is already too late. Ingrained habit is notoriously difficult to eradicate; but I would suggest that these sorts of questions fairly represent the state of the NHS today. I would not want to appear to be a prophet of doom—perhaps just a prophet in his own country—and I assure your Lordships that I maintain an unquenchable optimism that ultimately a great and historical profession will win its way through all its present difficulties and dilemmas.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, I should like to join with others in thanking my noble friend Lord Ennals for raising this subject for debate today. He spoke with his usual skill and knowledge. I should like also to congratulate my noble friend Lord Peston on a model maiden speech. He will be a very worthy addition to Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and we look forward to hearing from him often in the future. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Porritt. When I was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, he was the distinguished Governor-General of New Zealand.

619
As Commonwealth Secretary of State and earlier as Secretary for Overseas Trade in the Attlee Administration, I had an opportunity for considerable travel overseas. It was with pride and pleasure that I learned how highly regarded was our National Health Service. The service was also admired and respected by the British public. I regret to say that this is not so today, as the standards of the service have fallen. In many other countries the provision of health services is superior to our own.
The creation of the National Health Service in 1948 was probably the greatest social advance of this century. During the post-war years it encouraged values of equity, social duty and solidarity. That the service was available to all through financing by the national exchequer brought security to millions who in earlier years had feared the cost of ill-health. It is the duty of the Secretary of State for Social Services, as laid down by the National Health Service Act 1977, to continue the promotion of a comprehensive health service, designed to secure improvements in the physical and mental health of the community and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease.
Standards fall far short of these requirements today. Less is being spent as a proportion of the gross domestic product, and per head of the population, than in other comparable developed countries. The lack of public resources available to the National Health Service will mean a recurrent problem in providing the necessary health care for our people.
Since the early 1960s the proportion of the nation's wealth spent on public health programmes has fallen. Spending on the National Health Service has failed to match the rapid increase in the numbers of very old people in the population and the extra inflationary costs of medical technology. The National Health Service has been damaged by the growth of powerful commercial interests such as the new contract-cleaning companies, the private clinics, health maintenance organisations and private hospitals.
A Consumers' Association report has said that private hospitals will not necessarily give access to the best facilities. Private hospitals could be less able to cope if unexpected complications arise. National Health Service hospitals are much better equipped to deal with emergencies and complex operations than most private hospitals.
The private hospitals cream off the lucrative surgical work, leaving the care of the old, the chronically ill, the mentally sick and the handicapped to the state. They poach the nurses trained by the National Health Service. The role of health service consultants with part-time private practices is questionable, particularly with their use of NHS facilities. The government auditors' reports show that there have been substantial losses of revenue through non-payment for national health services.
Priority is given to private patients causing NHS waiting lists to be kept long, while instant treatment is available privately from the same consultant. The situation is aggravated by the government policy of cutting social expenditure and shifting the balance between public and private sectors and constructing a permanent unemployment economy. We now need to
620
restate that the resources of medical skill and healing should be placed at the disposal of the individual when he or she needs them, that medical care should be a community responsibility, available to rich and poor alike in accordance with medical need.
The financial restraints placed upon the National Health Service have meant the postponing of essential services, cutbacks in research and the placing of obstacles in the way of improving training for nurses and professions supplementary to medicine. The NHS is still relatively efficient, in spite of the old, badly equipped hospitals. Hospital staffs are stretched to the limit and are among the poorest-paid workers in the country. The Government have neglected the NHS by their encouragement of the commercial sector. By their enforced privatisation programme and their inappropriate application of business principles to the managment of illness, distress and death they emphasise the need for a public service, free and available at the time of need.
The report Inequalities in Health is the most important document on health since the Beveridge report in 1942. It sets out an analysis of ill-health in contemporary Britain and strategies for the prevention of disease, and the encouragement of health. Its principal finding was that ill-health was strongly class-related and that the causes were to be found in the economic and social structure. Key factors such as accidents at work, overcrowding, a dangerous environment and poor nutrition have to be tackled. The National Health Service has to operate within a society dominated by powerful commercial interests. Its success in meeting the health needs of the population has been restricted by the conflicting demands of the market. The result has been an erosion of the National Health Service by government cuts in services and jobs, low wages, privatisation and charges for national health services.
There is an increasing neglect and despair of the very old and the mentally ill. For all the major advances in eliminating the old killer diseases and development of powerful therapies, the general health of the population is improving less rapidly than in other European countries.
The regional and district health authorities are undemocratic; they are not elected; many of those who serve on the committees are appointed and they do not live or work in the area for which they are responsible. Among the community there is a strong sense of an imposed and alien authority. As an illustration, an admiral who was partly responsible for the privatisation of the Royal Naval dockyards is now the chairman of the regional health authority. There must be more political awareness of the need for the resources of the community to be used in the service of the people and not for managerial staff to control and operate.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Hastings: My Lords, I shall not enter into the political debate going to and fro across the House. I rather agree with the view which has been expressed that if we can keep politics out of health, so much the better.

621
I happen to know two groups of disabled and handicapped people which I want to talk about because I am sure the House will agree that that at least is a non-political issue. One of them has been mentioned: that is, the mentally handicapped. I see a lot of mentally handicapped children much of the time and many young mentally handicapped adults in the working villages of the CARE organisation, in the Camphil organisation, and in the Gateway clubs for young adults run by MENCAP. These are nice people, fully capable and fully deserving of a good life, enjoying and appreciating it.
When we talk about care in the community, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, gave a warning note with which I entirely agree. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, very effectively enlarged upon this issue and I agree with every single word said by both noble Baronesses. Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, making this one of the main issues of her speech and stating that a lot of money is being spent on providing extra social psychiatric workers as well as extra day centres, I find that this is good news, but she failed to mention accommodation.
I should like to know where these people are living. Arc they in council houses? Are they in rented flats? Are they in hostels? Where are they and what are they doing during the daytime? What sort of supervision is being given to them? They cannot just be left to get on with things by themselves. The accommodation issue is one which I would ask the Government most sincerely to investigate thoroughly. I should like to be told whether they even know—we should all like to know whether they know—the answers to those questions, because it is a very serious matter indeed.
I have heard of schemes where instead of selling off hospitals, or at least not selling off all their grounds, the outbuildings can be adapted, new ones can be built and a little village can be created within the grounds which is not far removed from the general community, because many of these hospitals are right in the middle of it. Yet they would still have a small clinic for their daily care which they will need. Have the Government heard of such a scheme? Have they examined such a possibility? Are the Government selling all the hospitals, and if so, where is the money going? I think we should like to know.
I am afraid that some of these mentally handicapped people—I am not talking about the mentally ill but the mentally handicapped—will end up in trouble if we are not careful, because they are innocents abroad. Instead of ending up back in hospital where they came from, some of them may unfortunately end up in prison, a place where they should never—I repeat "never"—in any circumstances be sent. This is the danger.
Now I should like to turn to an even smaller minority group, the mass of the people who suffer from epilepsy. Some of your Lordships may remember that I said on another occasion that I had been the president of the British Epilepsy Association for well over 20 years; and I declare my interest again. Over the last 30 years, there have been several reports on this subject. There was the Cohen Committee in the late 'fifties, then the Reid Committee which reported in 1969—when something actually was done—and
622
then the Bennett investigation into the results of the Reid report. Finally, there was this document, the report of the Working Group on Services for People with Epilepsy, which was asked for by the DHSS itself and produced in 1984, but not, strangely enough, sent out and made available to those interested until July, 1986.
Then a circular was sent out by the DHSS saying:
"It is not however the DHSS's intention that the report should be treated as a 'blueprint' for the provision of services by all authorities. It is hoped that the report will stimulate discussion on the scope for improvement.".
Then later, on the question of funding—and I have had correspondence with the department on this matter—I was told that the responsibility for funding lands firmly upon health authorities and depends entirely on the extra funds made available to them by the Government. But the decisions are the health authorities' own according to their priorities and the resources available. That is a classic formula for doing absolutely nothing. I know it, everybody else knows it, and I am quite sure that the Government know it. I think that this is not quite fair and not quite good enough.
The main recommendations are simply that, in addition to the three special assessment centres—one at Oxford, one at Chalfont and one in York set up after the Reid Committee—there should be two more, one in the Midlands and one in the South-West. They should have supra-regional funding, which means that the Government have to pay, and that, I am afraid, is what the DHSS does not like about it.
The other important recommendation is that there should be special epilepsy centres attached to neurological units in as many general hospitals as possible. There are diabetic centres and it is not very difficult to have epilepsy centres, yet this has not been pushed at all. I ask the Government simply whether they have followed up that circular. It went to health authorities, social workers, local authorities, district councils, county councils and a whole lot of people who ought to be able to get together and do something.
This is a small but important group. These people suffer and there is no reason why they should. They are perfectly capable of having a very good life. Lots of other people do not even know that they have epilepsy, but if it is known it is still a local stigma and the Government, with very little money, could do an awful lot. I simply ask them, please, to follow up this report, not let it gather dust, ask all these authorities what they are doing and say, "Please, even if we, the Government, do not have to pay, find the money for it".
6.3 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for raising this issue yet again. I should also like to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. My noble friend Lord Winstanley referred to the fact that this is the third time that he has had to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, making more or less the same speech—
Lord Ennals: No.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: He did.
Lord Ennals: He did, but he was wrong.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: But, my Lords, I have been present on at least two of those occasions and I have been staggered by the similarity of what has been said. On every occasion we have heard from the Government that they have put a lot more money into the health service. From this side of the House we refute that argument, or try to.
As a former regional chairman, I thought that I would look at the regional cash allocation for the year 1987–88 and what it means for the regions to try to solve this problem. Is the extra money really extra money? There is built into the 1987–88 allocation 3.75 per cent. for increases in pay and prices. All inflation above that figure will have to be met by the health authorities out of the total budget.
Much has been said in this debate already—and there has been no disagreement on nurses' pay—about the loss of nurses to the health service. I wonder whether anybody in this House believes that the review bodies for both doctors and nurses are likely to recommend pay rises within that limit if they want to stop the drift of nurses out of the service. I do not believe that they can. The inflation of prices is immaterial compared with what we ought to pay the people who serve us in the National Health Service for lost ground within recent years. I should be very surprised if the Government, in an election year, even attempted to keep the pay increase to below 3.75 per cent. On the basis of the inflation allowance to the regional health authorities there is a very bleak outlook.
Additionally, over quite a number of years the NHS has been under pressure to produce extra cash through compulsory efficiency programmes. I am not against saving money through efficiency programmes. It started even before I left the health service, but it was always understood that that saving should be for developing the service. It should not be for topping up the inflation charge that the Government are not allowing to the health service, and, in practice, almost all of the savings have gone towards meeting the costs of pay awards.
In addition, I must grant the Government, in this year's allocation the NHS is receiving a 1 per cent. growth in real terms, presumably for development. This 1 per cent. has to cover all extra costs associated with the increase in the elderly population and technological advances based on extremely expensive equipment. As well as that, the Secretary of State is now setting targets for various types of care which he wants to see improved, such as renal services, cardiothoracic services and hip replacements. We all want to see those services improved, but they have to be paid for out of the 1 per cent. growth money, plus the savings achieved through efficiency programmes.
Thus we are asked in the NHS to use all our savings twice over. We are asked to use them to top up the pay awards over 3.75 per cent. and we are asked to cover increased charges, because the population pattern has changed and technological advance asks us to invest more money. I have never heard anyone adequately
624
dispute that the figure necessary to cover both demographic change and technological change is at least 2½ per cent. per annum. It follows that the future is grim so far as any improvement in the service is concerned, and we may be approaching a time when rationing will be the order of the day.
If we add to that in certain regions, such as metropolitan regions, the additional problems of RAWP, then the picture becomes even bleaker. The four inner London regions were asked to cut £109 million in acute service spending between 1983–84 and 1993–94. In the years 1983 to 1985, they have achieved 74 per cent. of the planned 10-year bed reductions. However, they saved only £30.9 million or 34.5 per cent. of the projected revenue reductions. One does not need much imagination to visualise the deterioration in services which will result from a further compulsory saving of £78 million.
I should therefore say that the picture is in line with that painted on this side of the House. The increased moneys which, according to the Government, have been given to the health service have been more than spent by the changes that are necessary. Improvement is therefore minimal.
I was also in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and was very concerned when he referred to the excessive hours worked by junior doctors. It is a frightening thought that a junior doctor who has been on duty over a weekend should not be allowed off duty until the end of Monday. I do not believe that one can ask people to make reasonable judgments after working such excessively long hours. Long before I retired as a regional chairman, and as long ago as 1980, there was a plan to increase consultant cover in order to deal with this problem. I should like to ask the Government how many new consultant posts have been created and how many regions have been able to afford to take up the possibility of appointing new consultants. I can remember in my day that two consultant posts were granted and the districts in my region could not afford to take them up. I should therefore like to know how many consultants have been appointed.
I was going to speak for some time about the Health Service Commissioner, which was what I really wanted to speak about. However, I see that my time has run out and I therefore hope that on the next occasion when the National Health Service is discussed I shall be able to make my point.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, along with previous speakers in your Lordships' House I wish to express my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Ennals for giving us the opportunity to debate what is probably the most important personal service that we as a nation provide. I also congratulate my new colleague, my noble friend Lord Peston, on his maiden speech. Knowing his reputation, we expected a high standard and I think that that was achieved. I have no doubt that we shall hear from him on numerous occasions in the future.
For part of my contribution, I wish to deal with a specific problem in an area of Manchester. Much has already been said about the National Health Service in

625
a national context. We are sometimes a bit repetitive in highlighting the same problems. However, I was interested to hear the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester with his knowledge of Manchester and Salford. Those who do not know the geography of that particular area may not realise that Manchester city centre and Salford actually meet. They are separated by the River Irwell.
Manchester and Salford are very much interlinked in terms of needs and wants. In speaking of that particular area, we are referring to one of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. Previous speakers have mentioned London and what I shall say could be applied to many of the major conurbations. A short time ago we discussed these matters in a debate concerning inner cities. Those areas need—I do not say demand—a higher proportion of care in dealing with their problems than the more affluent areas. I shall not go into many statistics. However, it is a fact that in the major city areas and certainly in the Manchester area there is a far higher incidence of death through heart failure. People die much younger on average, a high proportion of people die due to various forms of carcinoma and a child born in the centre of such cities has, as I understand it, four times more chance of dying before it is 12 months' old than a child born in one of the better areas.
Manchester has three area health authorities: the Central Health Authority, the South Health Authority and the North Health Authority. Most of my remarks will concern Central Manchester Health Authority. However, they are indicative of what is taking place in most areas. There is an increasing workload and a diminution of resources to deal with the situation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, I intended to make one speech and I find that I must make another in order to get my points over. However, the fact is that between 1982 and 1986 Central Manchester Health Authority lost, in terms of financial support, nearly £3 million. That is a lot of money. At the same time, between 1st April 1982 and 31st March 1985, there was an increase in workload. In-patient workload increased by nearly 9 per cent., district specialties increased by 22 per cent. and day cases increased by 29 per cent.
The more mundane part of what I wish to say concerns the fact that there has been a further load increase placed on Central Manchester Health Authority, whose main hospital is Manchester Royal Infirmary, by the closure of the emergency and casualty department of Ancoats Hospital. Anyone who comes from that side of Manchester, as I do, will know that Ancoats Hospital was a small hospital which dealt with many local cases. It had mystique and many people in that area literally did not know of any other hospital. That was their hospital and it flourished in the past, very often because the local people donated generously in a charitable way to keep the hospital going. What has happened is that the accident and emergency services have had to close.
A few weeks ago there was a debate in another place in which the Member for central Manchester and the Member for north Manchester highlighted the difficulties raised by the closing of these accident and emergency services in that hospital and what was happening. I should like to give briefly some of the
626
statistics which have been quoted concerning the burdens which will fall on the Manchester Royal Infirmary, without, as I understand it, additional funding. A document I have states:
"In 1986, the MRI Accident and Emergency Department treated 43,286 new patients and 7,071 follow up patients. Total: 50,357".
The document continues:
"It is impossible to quantify the effect the daily short closures of Withington Hospital Accident and Emergency Department will have on the MRI".
That is a hospital in south Manchester where facilities have also been withdrawn. It places an additional workload on Manchester Royal Infirmary. The document then states:
"In 1986, Ancoats Accident and Emergency Department treated 25,656 new patients and 11,611 follow up patients. Total: 37.267".
If the situation continues, those patients will have to be dealt with by Manchester Royal Infirmary which is already dealing with an increased load on a diminishing supply of money. The hospital is almost at breaking point. I think it has had to use capital resources, as have other hospitals, which should have been used on the hospital's fabric and maintenance, in order to keep those services ticking over. That type of thing was featured last year in reports on the nation's housing, education and health service establishments. They are seriously deteriorating and in some cases they are in a dangerous condition. That cannot be allowed to go on.
Manchester Royal Infirmary says that it will require an extra £189,000 to deal with the additional load which has been placed upon it. No one can deny that it makes out a genuine case for that additional funding.
I wish to return to the subject of Ancoats Hospital. As I said, the subject was raised in another place. I make no criticism, but the Minister was unaware of the hospital and what it meant to the area. I know that it will be difficult to reply to a small point like this in a major debate, but will the Minister ask his right honourable friend in another place whether he will consider the future of Ancoats Hospital as a matter of urgency? I am not trying to simplify the matter and say that it is easy to make a decision to restore the emergency and accident services. It is not a simple matter, but I do not have time to go into the details. All I ask is that the Minister give an undertaking to look at the matter to see whether it is possible to comply with the requests of the local people, and the staff of that hospital who throughout its history have performed a marvellous service.
In 1940, when we were waiting for the blitz in Manchester, I was (I will not say that it was a privilege) one of only two patients in a ward in that hospital. I had been knocked down by a hit-and-run car during the blackout. I do not know whether it was lucky or unlucky that I survived, but that hospital has been like a beacon in the area. Will the Minister please look at the situation to see whether something can be done about the cuts and whether services can be restored in that densely populated and underprivileged area?
6.23 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, in his programme "The Week in the Lords" on Saturday, Christopher Jones said that this debate was a forerunner to the election.

627
I think it is safe to say that there has been a minimum of political give and take across the Chamber. We have had a remarkably informed debate despite the fact that over 40 minutes have been cut from it by a mini-debate on higher education.
To my mind, the outstanding speech was that of the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, who could remember the early days of the National Health Service. I remember that in my maiden speech I made a remark which led to the substitution of the words "supplementary benefit" for "national assistance". That was greatly to advantage in the distribution of assistance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, made a well-informed speech which contained an up-to-the-minute approach to the problems which face the DHSS. A debate which has 28 speakers and lasts five hours epitomises the position referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Porritt. Mixing health problems and social security leads to a great deal of overlapping everywhere. If it is correct to say that old men dream dreams, one of my dreams is that the time will come when the two departments will be separated.
I do not know whether it is correct, but someone has said that National Health Service morale is going down. The lack of a Minister responsible for health contributes to any weakness of morale in this wonderful service and the thousands of people who make their careers in it. I find it to be a marvellous success story (I think we all should) despite the difficulties which have arisen and which were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Nugent.
The large number of speakers taking part in this short debate shows how important the service is felt to be. We have talked about this matter before. It was talked about years ago, but the longer we put off separating the two departments and having two Ministers, one responsible for health and one for social services, the more difficult the division will be. That is the first of my dreams that I wish to put to your Lordships.
My next point is a simple one, which I have mentioned in the House before. The time has come for manipulative therapy to be accepted by the National Health Service as part of the services it makes available. It is all very well having views about whether or not it is good, but we know that there could be an enormous financial saving if surgery, drugs and beds were replaced by the modern practices of osteopathy and chiropractic. I hope that that will come our way. It is a task which can be faced by the next government, whoever they are.
I come next to the subject of social security. The most important social security problem which has been considered in your Lordships' House in the past year or so has been that of aged and handicapped people in cold weather, and insulation, draught exclusion and other ways of ensuring that next winter old folk and handicapped people will be better treated and given more assistance.
I say that because, years ago, I was promoting the use of night stored electricity—off-peak electricity. I believe that in the years that have gone by we have reached a stage where there have been enormous
628
advantages in the actual materials used for the storage of heat. One of the tasks that I have set myself, and one of the dreams that I dream, is that by next winter it will be possible to have small night storage heaters available for off-peak electricity.
In the debate on heaters in this House some months ago it was said that the night storage heater is a failure. It is not the heater which is a failure; it is the switchgear. What goes wrong with them today is that if there is a power failure the switchgear stops and the heater goes on at the wrong time of the day. I urge the Department of Health and Social Security to help me in tackling the whole question of off-peak tariffs.
I believe that our electricity is far too expensive. When I first came home from India and set up house in Scotland in 1952, the off-peak tariff was one halfpenny (in old money) per unit. Today it is 2.3 new pence; in other words, it is seven times more expensive than in 1952. One reason for that was because we had a hydro-electric base in the Clyde Valley. However, I believe we should have a real attempt to do something and I am going to see Sir Philip Jones of the Electricity Council in the next week or so to press for a revision of the approach to off-peak tariffs and the use of night storage heaters for relieving the difficulties of heating for old and infirm people during the winter.
I could go on and on, but I shall not do so—which will be a relief to your Lordships. However, I feel that we should be pleased that this House has given this subject some attention. We have had most informative speeches by senior medical people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and so on. I hope that the Government will take note of one or two of the points that have been raised.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, to whom we are grateful for having initiated this debate, will not consider me unduly opportunist in making use of the occasion to draw to the attention of Her Majesty's Government what is an apparent and notable gap in the coverage of the National Health Service and one that is peculiar to Northern Ireland.
I should like to refer to homeopathy, which is a subject on which I have no special knowledge and in which I have no personal interest: Indeed, I had hardly heard of it until the subject was debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 14th March 1964. I remember the occasion clearly, because I was unable to participate in the debate due to the fact that Mr. Speaker was otherwise engaged and I was stuck in the Chair for most of the afternoon.
However, I recall that we were told that there was a distinct difference in the coverage of homeopathy in the National Health Service in Northern Ireland as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom. In Great Britain there are five hospitals which specialise in homeopathy and which give National Health Service treatment to patients. However, that is not the case in Northern Ireland where there are just eight doctors who specialise in the discipline and anyone who requires treatment has to go to them as a private patient.

629
I was not alone in being surprised and concerned at that information given to the Assembly on that occasion. Such was the concern that the Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly took evidence on the subject and produced a report to the Assembly on 4th March 1985. It was most comprehensive and was widely acclaimed. It was approved by the Assembly and sent to the Secretary of State on 20th March 1985.
The main recommendations of the report were, first, that a referral clinic should be established and that patients should be allowed to be referred to such a clinic by their doctors, where they would receive homeopathic treatment on the National Health Service rather than having to pay for treatment as private patients. The second recommendation was that a clinical research facility should be established to ascertain precisely the efficacy of homeopathic treatment. The implications of that are that for the research facility an estimated £25,000 a year for two years would be required. Thereafter it would have to be reviewed. In the case of the clinic the cost would be that of the National Health Service personnel providing the services.
Some 10 months later, on 16th January 1986, the Secretary of State replied, conveying the Government's response, to the effect that further research would be inappropriate until the research presently taking place in Great Britain had been completed. The second response in respect of the clinic was that there would be no justification in establishing such a referral clinic until the demand for homeopathic treatment was known and proven.
Since then two developments have occurred. First, the fairly limited research which took place in Great Britain—I understand in Glasgow—revealed that homeopathy is not a matter of giving placebos. Homeopathy must be taken seriously. It was also revealed that further and much more scientific study is required; and that is what the Northern Ireland report advocated. Indeed, one of the witnesses who gave evidence was Professor P. F. D'Arcy, the Dean of the Faculty of Science at Queen's University, Belfast, and Professor of Pharmacy. Professor D'Arcy said that he would be prepared to carry out such a research programme and confirmed that he had the expertise among his staff and the equipment with which to do it if he was given the funds. I should add, with respect, that Professor D'Arcy is a self-confessed agnostic as regards homeopathy. He does not know, but he would like to know. I am in the same position and so are a great many people; but the difference is that Professor D'Arcy is in a position to find out because he is a scientist. He is not the sort of man to listen to hearsay or anecdotes. As a scientist he wants facts and it is only facts that will convince the rest of us.
In answer to the second response, the Northern Ireland Homeopathic Society surveyed province-wide all the general practitioners in Northern Ireland to inquire whether, if a referral clinic were to be made available, they would actually make use of it and refer their patients to it. Just over 20 per cent. said that they would. That does not mean that 80 per cent. said that they would not. Some practitioners did not reply and
630
some were equivocal, but over 20 per cent. said that they definitely would use it.
The Northern Ireland Homeopathic Society also consulted Price Waterhouse about the possibility of doing a feasibility study on setting up a clinic, and it found that it would cost £11,000. In September last a delegation was sent to the DHSS Department of Community Health to see whether grant aid could be obtained towards the cost of the feasibility study, but it was refused. However, the Department of Community Health suggested that the society make application under the clinical research grants scheme, and it duly did so, requesting £10,000 per annum for three years to research the subject of "Homeopathy, the Answer to Childhood Respiratory Disorders", which it felt would be a particularly appropriate and relevant topic to test the efficacy of homeopathy. Again it was turned down.
Meanwhile the same society raised £3,000 by voluntary effort to provide funds for patients who wanted such treatment but who could not afford it as private patients, and so assisted them in that way. In the absence of public funds, self-help has been tried as an interim measure. Having said that, I emphasise that I myself am not a member of the Northern Ireland Homeopathic Society.
In the light of that situation and in view of what has happened since the Assembly report was delivered, I respectfully ask Her Majesty's Government, first, whether they will now provide £25,000 for two years to undertake a preliminary study on the efficacy and scientific basis of homeopathy; secondly, whether they will be prepared to set up a referral clinic linked with that research unit whereby National Health treatment can be provided for patients. In advocating that Her Majesty's Government should follow that course, perhaps I may conclude by summarising three points.
First, the research that has already been carried out reveals that homeopathy is not to be dismissed. It works—we know that—but we do not know how it works. That is why more research is needed. Indeed, the London faculty of homeopathy has recommended Northern Ireland with its compact community as being an ideal situation in which to carry out such an exercise. Secondly, a referral clinic would not just bring parity with Great Britain, which is only fair: it would also meet an increasing demand that has now been quantified. That is unlike the previous position. Thirdly and finally, in the context of the National Health Service budget, the outlay would be insignificant, particularly in the context of the bill for drugs and prescriptions. In Northern Ireland alone in 1970 the cost was £8.1 million and in 1983 it was £56.9 million. In that context the outlay would be insignificant. It would not be money well spent; it would be money well invested and I believe that it would be one of the best investments that the National Health Service could make.
I commend this proposal to Her Majesty's Government. I do not expect an answer immediately from the noble Lord since he has not had notice of this point but I should he grateful for a reply as soon as he has had an opportunity to ask his staff to look into the matter.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ennals for initiating the debate and for drawing attention to this matter. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Peston on his excellent, non-partisan speech. My noble friend will not, I believe, take that line again in the House. I expect that he will be more partisan in future and I look forward to listening to him when he is perhaps in better form in that respect.
At Question Time one hears many requests to Ministers concerning various aspects of the National Health Service, and one notes the replies of Ministers concerning the amounts of money that are spent and the quality of the service. However, I am in the position of a Back-Bencher. And from the Back-Benches, I often think of what my next door neighbour might say if he heard the answers that are given. I recall that when I was a child, the boy next door suffered from tonsilitis and had trouble with adenoids. He had to wait for 15 months—perhaps it was much longer—to go into hospital for treatment, and during that time he was constantly off school.
One wonders not only what my neighbour would say but also what a woman who has already been waiting two years for a gynaecological operation and who has been constantly in pain would say. Or what about a man who is waiting for a hernia operation and frequently has to take time off work? So it goes on.
I think about such things when I sit on these Benches and hear statistics bandied about in the way that they are. What does the man in the street think? He or she is not interested in the amount of additional money provided; he and she are more concerned about the time they have waited to go into hospital. They cannot see any improvement as a result of the additional moneys. They find the waiting lists just as long as they were years ago. We must get over the message that the waiting lists have to be reduced. This must be brought again and again to the attention of hospital authorities. The first priority is to treat people who are waiting for treatment.
My second point is that I want the Government to realise the amount of voluntary contribution that is made towards the health service. I do not think that this aspect has been followed up today, although it has been casually mentioned by one or two noble Lords. I want to say thank you to those people who give their time most generously working in hospital wards, not performing professional tasks but relieving nurses in ways such as arranging flowers and writing letters for, or comforting, patients and running errands for them. We should remember those people who are working hard and keeping the National Health Service going.
Another group of people contribute by paying heavy taxes through their weekly stamps and so on. Some are going deeper into their pockets to provide for hospices, scanners and so on. In my particular area of East Lancashire—in Blackburn and the Ribble Valley—we have a very proud record of that sort of service. We do not rely on the state to provide everything for us. We are prepared to help. Those efforts are co-ordinated by the local newspaper which is doing a tremendous job in encouraging the community to dip into its pocket.
632
There is a scheme at the moment for a scanner which requires a tremendous amount of money. I am sure however that in the next 12 months we shall provide that scanner for one of our hospitals. If the community is prepared to dip into its pocket in that way, surely the Government can encourage such people, not by putting the money into ordinary allowances for the DHSS but by giving something extra where they find a community that is prepared to provide certain amenities out of its own resources.
Perhaps the Government will consider this position. If the community can make this effort, then the Government can match it pound for pound, or by some other means. I am sure that this would encourage a great response throughout the country from the man in the street. We know that we are a very generous nation when there is a call for contributions to be made. We should therefore use the facilities and resources which exist to be tapped by the state.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, must be very gratified that this debate has inspired nearly 30 speakers to take part. It has given us an opportunity to hear the inspiring maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am particularly interested, although not financially or professionally, in the pharmaceutical industry, and his speech was of much interest on that aspect. If we debate that aspect of our lives I hope that we shall hear from him again, and on other subjects.
There are two areas where expenditure is essential. I believe that one is defence and the other is health. To be a strong country we must be defended. To be a strong country we must also be healthy. It is a matter for great regret, and this has been mentioned by a number of Members in your Lordships' House this afternoon, that party politics seem to be seeping more and more deeply into the National Health Service. To some extent this may be unavoidable.
I have taken part in a few election campaigns for colleagues in another place. Come the election, Party X says, "I am spending Y amount of money on the health service". The other party says, "I am spending Z amount". For those who are on waiting lists and for those who are working in the health service, very often on inadequate pay, it is little consolation to hear politicians trying to score points off one another. I believe that this is one of the most important aspects of the debate.
I have served for some 30 years on hospital committees, both mental and long-stay hospitals. Currently I am president of the friends of our local district hospital in Surrey. I was a patient there 18 months ago having a gall bladder operation. I was in hospital for only nine days. Ten years ago for an operation like that one was in hospital a good deal longer. Recently my wife was in the same hospital having an operation on the veins in her leg, a frequently performed operation. She was in for three days. We were both extremely well treated.
In this connection I should like to pay tribute to the Leagues of Friends of various hospitals. I declare a non-financial interest as president of the friends of our local district hospital. I know something of what goes

633
on there. It is not a party matter, but under all governments, if it were not for the friends facilities for some of our hospitals would be very much less adequate than they now are. At our local hospital the friends raised about £6,000 towards equipment for the intensive care unit. That is not a lot of money for the equipment which may be needed but it is a very fine contribution.
I should like to say a word about the pay and conditions of nurses. My noble friend Lady Cox, who has much experience in this field, made a speech which was acclaimed on all sides of your Lordships' House. Special pleading must play some part here. We have a younger daughter with a young family who, if she were to return to nursing—which she wished to do—would be earning about £6,400 a year gross, plus about £900 a year in London weighting. Having small children she needs a creche. She told me the other day—I have checked these facts—that she has to pay about £30 a week for a crèche, or £3.50 per session. On a salary like that how can any government expect experienced nurses—she has her SRN—to return to nursing? I hope that the Minister will bear this point in mind. The situation has probably existed under all governments.
We pay a great deal of money for various people to stay in bed-and-breakfast hotels on social security. I do not wish to comment on the rights or wrongs of that. But is it rational or logical that £30 a week should have to come out of the earnings of experienced nurses who have been through their training, who have a young family and therefore need a crêche? I believe that this is a fair point.
Another matter that has not yet been raised is our service hospitals. The report by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the Ministry of Defence hospitals mentions, for example, Aldershot. The military hospital there had a surplus of 91 nurses over a complement of 236 in 1986. The Royal Air Force hospital at Ealing had a surplus of 48 nurses over a complement of 148. Are facilities at these hospitals available for national health patients? If our service hospitals are not full, if the beds are not being used, here is a way in which waiting lists could be cut. All governments want to cut waiting lists in hospitals. It is not a monopoly of any political party. How it is accomplished is a much more difficult matter.
I should like to say one word about private hospitals, which have been touched upon. It is fair to say that St. Thomas's Hospital in 1985 was provided by private hospital funds with a lithiotripter for crushing kidney stones. Two thousand patients have used it, many of them from the National Health Service. I mention that point not to cast favour or otherwise on private medicine. I believe in an ideal society. Having recently read Mr. Bevan's speech on the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill it is my interpretation that he did not wish completely to abolish private medicine. I believe that there is a place for private medicine and the National Health Service to work side by side. Every country has a certain amount of private medicine—even in Eastern Europe. I go around a number of countries and I see this working.
To conclude the plea, we have a National Health Service which is composed of thousands and thousands of dedicated workers. Let politicians remember that.
7 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I too should like to commence by thanking my noble friend Lord Ennals for the opportunity afforded by this debate. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Peston on an admirable maiden speech. I am sure we all look forward to hearing a great deal more from him.
Like the noble Lord, I wish to commence by declaring an interest. I am a union official. My union, ASTMS, organises extensively in the National Health Service. In the public mind, although not, I am sure, in your Lordships' House, the National Health Service consists mainly of doctors and nurses. However, it has to be appreciated that it employs many thousands of highly skilled people in other professions.
There are about 26 professions in the National Health Service where the people concerned are members of my union. There are scientific officers, medical laboratory technicians, radiographers, clinical psychologists, pharmacists, therapists of various kinds, and so on, and fairly recently your Lordships' House has debated the problems that face speech therapists. These are not professions which people join if they are out to become rich or even moderately well off. Although the work is often highly skilled and requires a great deal of training, as has already been indicated in the debate, the pay is pretty low. You have to be dedicated to do this work and most of the people who do it are dedicated.
A medical laboratory technician, for example, working on cancer screening or on AIDS would have a commencing salary of £6,000 a year, rising in a number of stages to the princely level of £8,000. A principal medical laboratory scientific officer, with many years of experience and a staff of around 60 working under him, can expect to get about £16,000 per annum. This is hardly a fortune for the type of work and responsibilities undertaken.
Since 1979 the real disposable income of these people has gone down by about 16 per cent., yet arguably the work has become more skilled and more demanding. We have heard on several occasions during the debate that there is a shortage of nursing staff. This point has been dealt with in some detail by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and I do not wish to add to what has been said. Poor pay and working conditions have combined to produce a shortage of highly trained people. The gap between National Health Service pay and the rest of the workforce is exacerbating the difficulties and quite clearly is creating problems that have to be overcome.
However, I do not intend to use the opportunity afforded by this debate simply to air the problems of poor pay, except to say that these are a symptom of general underfunding and inadequacy of resources. We are—and I believe that this is true of most of us in your Lordships' House—very proud of our National Health Service. It was founded in 1948 to provide, as other noble Lords have said, a comprehensive service available to all on the basis of medical need and free at the point of use. That was a very high ideal. These principles have been the guiding light of the service since the beginning. However, the continued

635
effectiveness of the service depends on matching needs with resources.
There is a growing gap between needs and resources. This continues to widen, despite an increase in total care expenditure. The Government have repeatedly said that they are spending more than ever on the National Health Service—and they are. However, as other speakers in this debate have said, we are having to meet the pressures of an ageing population, the advance of medical technology which leads to greater expectations on the part of people generally and added issues such as drug abuse and AIDS.
Compared with our competitors in the industrialised West, the UK fares badly in terms of expenditure on health care. The United States spent 10.8 per cent. of national income on health care in 1983, France spent 9.3 per cent. and Italy 7.4 per cent., compared with our expenditure of 6.2 per cent.
I know that it is claimed that spending on the National Health Service has risen by over 20 per cent. in real terms between 1978 and 1985–86. However, a large part of this increase was absorbed by the pay settlement for medical and nursing staff. Clearly this was absolutely necessary because there had been years when salaries had fallen behind. Nevertheless, despite the fact that it is proposed, I believe, to spend more for the next three years, it is questionable whether this will be enough to meet the needs.
A major problem is that real growth in spending is absorbed by increasing demands made upon the National Health Service by the changing demography in the United Kingdom. As has been mentioned a number of times in the debate, and I think it is a highly important point, this is instanced by the rising number of people over the age of 75 who use the hospital service. Over half the average daily hospital in-patient population is concentrated in the demanding areas of geriatrics and psychiatric medicine.
As has been referred to previously, there has been a policy of developing community care for certain patient groups since 1976. The aim of the policy, as we know, is to transfer appropriate elderly, mentally ill or mentally handicapped patients from hospital into the community, often in their own homes. The principle of care in the community is a good one, but comprehensive community support must be developed if these very vulnerable groups are not to suffer. At present there is an insistence that funding for these developments must come from existing resources. We have an obligation to see that these vulnerable groups are not forced into an unprepared community because in-patient facilities are closed before alternative facilities have been developed. Indeed, a worrying feature of inadequate hospital funding is the growing list of hospital closures.
Between 1979 and August 1986 a total of 205 hospitals were approved for complete closure. There may have been good reasons in some cases but, as has been mentioned, waiting lists have been growing. Between 1981 and 1985 waiting lists rose by 66,000 to 802,000, with nearly 20 per cent. of the patients queueing for orthopaedic surgery. Wards have been closed and, as already indicated, there are staff shortages. We have reports reaching us at the union
636
office of concern expressed by staff about the decline in standards of the fabric of the hospitals in which they are working and the need for money to be spent on supporting those structures and improving the environment generally.
New developments in medical care and technology also need increased spending. In 1985 a third heart transplant programme was established at the Freeman hospital in Newcastle to supplement the work of Papworth and Harefield. Up to 1986 a total of 348 heart transplant operations have been performed, including 57 heart/lung transplants. Operations such as coronary artery by-passes help prolong the life of people with heart disease, and these operations are increasing. The number of liver and kidney transplants is increasing but such operations are extremely expensive. A liver transplant costs about £19,000 for an adult and about £75,000 for a child, with £5,000 per patient per year in subsequent costs. Kidney transplants cost around £8,000, with £2,700 in subsequent therapy.
The publicity that such achievements receive has led to advances in public expectation, but there is a shortfall in the number of such operations that can be undertaken. Therefore, any real spending increase has to cope with growing and, for example, in the case of AIDS, with entirely new demands. AIDS is being tackled as a central initiative. But it also has considerable implications for the regional health authorities. As the incidence of AIDS increases and the disease spreads—although one hopes that it will not, the indications are that it could—a significant increase in resources will be called for. Drug abuse is a further area that calls for centralised help and this should essentially be long term.
There has been a decline in deaths from certain diseases. On the other hand, as with AIDS, there are less encouraging signs. Deaths from heart disease among women fell by only 1 per cent. in the years 1979 to 1984, while deaths from lung cancer among women rose by 20 per cent. That is an indication perhaps that far more women are smoking and are not being prevailed upon to give it up.
Despite the publicity accorded to the campaign for screening to identify cervical and breast cancer at an early enough stage and thus take steps to deal with it, there is still not enough being done to monitor and to check on the women at risk. A disturbing development has been the introduction of a commercial service in the screening area. We have information which would seem to indicate that National Health Service staff are working on commercial projects concerned with screening and testing smears, and so on. We think that that development should be watched. In any event in this area we still believe that there are too many preventable deaths.
Nevertheless, improvements in the quality and length of life since the Second World War owe much to the existence of the National Health Service. It promised security to millions who in earlier years feared the costs and consequences of illness. Peri-natal mortality has been falling for years. Life expectancy across all classes has been improved. Children born in the years 1982 to 1984 can expect a life span two years longer than those born 10 years before.

637
The NHS was designed to meet the health needs of all citizens without regard to income. It has been able to respond to an ever-widening range of health care needs thanks to the developments in care and the treatment, devotion and dedication of its staff. But, as has been said during the course of this debate, there are problems because the resources are simply not keeping pace with demand. The suggestion has been made that my noble friend Lord Ennals was bellicose in his attack upon these issues. I fully support his comments and I prefer to say that he made a passionate demand for further resources, and that that is a demand which we all should support.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for initiating this debate and to congratulate the maiden speaker the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Many who, like me, have been the recipients of clever and good treatment under the NHS consider it deserves all the help it can get. Equally, there are employees of the NHS who, after giving so much effort and expertise, sometimes think that their services are not fully appreciated.
In 1987–88 no less a sum than nearly £20 billion is to be spent on the NHS. That must go part way to meet both the views that I have given. As my noble friend Lord Auckland said, considerable individual sums are raised voluntarily all over the country for separate parts of the service. For instance, last week I addressed the AGM of St. Stephen's Hospital League of Friends. In just one year it had contributed £30,000 for vital hospital equipment and other invaluable service in their hospital. With effort like that, who could deny the strong pulses beating throughout the service?
The Phipps Respiratory Unit Patients' Association, to which I am attached, so far has raised £650,000 of the £1 million it needs to equip the unit's future in new purpose-built surroundings. This has been achieved through the work and devotion of ex-patients. Some, like me, are timid about raising funds and tend to be lured by voices saying, "Why is this not done by the NHS?" But most of us appreciate the crying other needs to rebuild so many out-dated hospitals, the ones whose crumbling conditions were overlooked in the past. Now, the biggest hospital building programme in NHS history has been embarked on by the Government. This includes over 170 schemes, each worth more than £1 million, which have been started and completed since 1979, with 400 schemes in the pipeline, 100 to be completed in the next three years. Wonderful doctors and nurses deserve to work in the best hospital surroundings. It is incredible that this unwritten rule was abandoned by the previous government.
The large increase in patient treatment and the success of new sophisticated methods employed is a tribute to all concerned. It would not be possible without an overall increase in provision and of course without the skill and proficiency of hospital staffs. Medical science is so diverse and progressive that it can take on and defeat so many illnesses and conditions that would be fatal or crippling if left alone. Although there are economies to be made to public expenditure when people are restored to look after
638
themselves, medicine overall essentially is an extremely costly programme.
It appears to me that the only way to keep the cost ceiling in place is to encourage everyone to understand good health education. Towards this end we have the new Health Education Authority. I am hoping that this will see the message of good health instilled into everyone and especially into the student teachers for they can have a great influence on the common sense of their pupils in this. Many teachers could be amazed to find just how much good posture and good example affects the future health of children, as of adults.
I am told by a very knowing Scandinavian physiotherapist that the teaching of physical education needs to include a degree of anatomy, physiology and psychology just to show the reasons for care and a smattering of kinetics to show the relation between movements and the forces acting against them. This is needed particularly to help in lifting methods.
If the message of health discipline gets across it can I believe cut the numbers of slipped discs and hernias for a start, let alone coronaries, arthritis and the rest. While on this subject, I implore every hospital ward to have not only an efficient hoist for lifting patients but also nurses who know how it works. I do not say this only for the increased comfort of patients but also in order to protect nurses' backs. If, like me, you happen to measure nearly six feet and to be of ample proportions to match, it is rotten luck for patient and nurse if for six days you have to be manually lifted up the bed several times a day on a hospital ward. When you are discharged your conscience very rightly worries you about all the damage that you have left behind.
Other countries admire the Government's campaign about the scourge of the 1980s—AIDS. Of course there were some who sought to deride the campaign, yet who could possibly deny that it has made known the grim facts more widely than could ever have been hoped? Government funds have encouraged charities to prepare to take part of the strain and to raise necessary funds to help with care for cases in the community. I am attached to one such organisation and I am aware of the heavy programme and workload that is expected. Joint finance and other flexible plans are welcome in community care, but I, like several other speakers, should like that to be expanded. There are patchy conditions of care in the community, even in London. The back-up support of charities such as Crossroads Care Schemes and CSV deserve funding even more than they are at present.
District nurses do such wonderful work, yet I am amazed to find that, unless they own a car or a bike, in some districts they have to walk. In my area their patients can be as far apart as Knightsbridge and Earl's Court. With the new potential load I ask my noble friend to agree that every area should have its own car.
I particularly want to refer to RAWP because to my mind it is a ghastly trouble to London hospitals. It is particularly bad in that there are RAWP losers and RAWP gainers. However, what I believe to be wonderful, and a real step in the right direction is the fact that there has lately been a recognition of that. There has been a total grant of £30 million towards the hospitals which were in real trouble, with £10.6

639
million allocated to the Thames regions. Many of us see this as a small amount, but the hope is that it is a first step and that it will lead to more recognition that our heritage of hospital centres of excellence does not fall back and fall hostage to the RAWP theory.
It should be remembered that it was not this Government that initiated this uncomfortable scheme: it was thought out before, and particularly when noble Lords opposite were in government. I think that RAWP is particularly difficult for London because it ties the money to the people. It means that when somebody moves to live in the country then decides to commute back to London and use London hospitals, the money is not there to pay for them.
I cannot end my speech without reference to the most welcome establishment from July of a special health authority for the artificial limb and appliance services. Being an old client of the appliance centres, I applaud this and especially the selection of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, as chairman, and Professor McColl as vice-chairman. I should humbly like to thank the Secretary of State on those appointments and for the attention paid to the McColl Report.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should like to spend about five minutes talking about the state of the nation's health, and about five minutes on the direction in which I feel that the National Health Service should be moving in order to cope with our major problems.
Just over four years ago I was in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when I made a maiden speech, though not such a good speech. It was directed to what is again a topical issue: inequalities in health. My text was the Black report, which, incidentally, has never been fully debated in your Lordships' House. For me the most significant implication of that excellent report was that our health record could be equal to the best in the world—for example, that of Scandinavia, Holland or Japan—if the health of our least well off people could be improved to match that of the best off. The good state of health of the professional classes in the United Kingdom has been achieved by some whole nations. The higher mortality rates in this country of manual workers and their wives and children are more characteristic of less well developed nations, despite the fact that we are still a comparatively rich country with a long tradition of public health.
The report re-emphasised that the differences in health between the social classes were only partly dependent on health services as such, and were more related to long-term environmental influences such as housing, nutrition, education, smoking habits and conditions at work. It made 37 recommendations, 20 of which would have cost little or nothing to implement. Others, particularly those relating to child health and nutrition, had cost implications—£2 billion was one estimate. The suggestions of the report were therefore dismissed as being far too expensive and out of the question.
That now seems to be rather ironic considering the fact that £2 billion is the sum which has just been handed back to income tax payers at the better end of
640
the pay scale, let alone all the money that has been received by the Government from the family silver auctions over the last five years. I believe that there is more to come from the nice furniture in the sitting-room, if I remember the words of the late Lord Stockton. In fact, only a few even of the cost-free recommendations of the Black report were carried out. Those were usually done by the district health authorities or the local health authorities rather than from central government initiative. As regards school meals, an exactly converse policy to the report's recommendations has been carried out.
We now have an update of that report called The Health Divide, compiled by Margaret Whitehead and published by the Health Education Council. Unlike some noble Lords, I have had a chance to read this fascinating and well-written document. It is a worthy successor to the Black report, with some 300 references to work done in the intervening seven years. It is an objective account. It does not question, for instance, the fact that overall our statistics have improved. It points out one example where social class differences have actually narrowed—in post neonatal deaths—illustrating that the class differential is not inevitable and can be reduced provided that resources are properly mobilised.
However, many more examples are given of the converse where the gap between the social classes has actually widened. In the case of coronary heart disease, not only has the gap widened but the actual rate of mortality has increased in manual workers and their wives, and deaths from carcinoma of the lung have also increased in the wives of manual workers. As has been pointed out, these differences can be largely attributed to the fact that smoking is more widely prevalent at the lower end of the social scale. The Government's decision not to increase the excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol in the last Budget should be condemned.
However, recent research has shown that coronary heart disease in adult men is not only related to smoking but is also associated with a deprived childhood. Almost certainly a nutritional factor was involved in the childhood of those men, backing up the Black report's emphasis on the importance of child nutrition in improving the nation's health. One social class, if one can call it that—the unemployed—has become much more numerous since the Black report. Clear evidence is presented to show that their health experience, for both physical and mental illness, is much worse even than that of unskilled labourers in work.
A section of the report which looks at international comparisons describes the reduction of health differentials in Finland as a result of government policy. An important part of that was a concentration on primary care in the areas with the highest mortality. I quote:
"Building costs were switched from hospital to health centre buildings. By 1981 the community and hospitals sector were taking equal shares of the building budget (formerly the hospital sector took the major share)".
At the same time:
"Differences between cities and rural areas in mortality rates of men aged 35–75 are said to have disappeared".

641
That leads me on to a brief look at primary care services in the United Kingdom and last year's Green Paper. Now that the consultation period is over, we should be interested to know whether the Government's plans for primary care will be announced soon; or must we wait until after the election? If we do, we may be in a position to make proposals from this side of the House, though we shall be on the other side of the House by then.
One of the most important commentaries on the Green Paper is that of the Social Services Committee of another place, which has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I entirely agree with her speech and the points that she made: exactly the converse of her speeches when she is talking about education.
The Select Committee report is a distillation of much evidence both from the concerned professions and from the consumers. I find myself in agreement with most of their 55 recommendations. In fact, I should be pleased if the Government took them over lock, stock and barrel and incorporated them.
There is little doubt that good primary care is the key to an efficient health service, particularly with regard to reducing health inequalities. To increase hospital spending in deprived areas may be fair if it reflects the increased demand for acute care made by a less healthy population, but by itself it will do little to improve the poor health of the population. It may even deflect scarce resources away from the preventive and promotive activities which are an integral part of good primary care.
I would suggest that the Government take seriously the suggestions of the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners (my own college; and here I declare an interest) that the good practice allowance suggested in the Green Paper be dropped as such and replaced by performance linked contracts which could be entered into voluntarily by GPs prepared to provide an improved range of services. They could contract to provide these services to an agreed standard, taking appropriate training if need be. Such services include, for instance, computerised call and recall services for cervical screening or high blood pressure screening, child health surveillance, minor surgery, and special clinics for the surveillance of chronic diseases. There are other needs, and new priorities may well arise.
Additional costs for providing these services would need to be recognised. Recommendation 5 states:
"we recommend that the Government enter into negotiations with the medical profession about alternative ways of remunerating GPs to include a range of separate allowances related to the type of service offered".
In this way GPs will be encouraged to provide help to those who need it most but who do not come forward until too late as things are.
As there is still a little time to run, I should like to add a further recommendation to those in the Green Paper. It is one which seems to have been omitted. Individual GPs vary enormously in the frequency with which they refer patients to hospital. One study has shown that the costs of the hospital care of their patients per doctor ranges from £100,000 to £500,000 per annum.
642
A recent study in Manchester was unable to determine whether high or low users were practising the best medicine. I suggest that GPs may make more rational use of expensive National Health Service facilities if they are each sent confidential statistics of their referral patterns compared with national and local averages. This was an important point made by the Green Paper which seems to have been omitted by the Select Committee report. There are many other recommendations in the report that I should like to describe to your Lordships, but time is short. I commend the report to the Government, and I hope they will be guided by its very wise suggestions.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, my life was thrown into confusion this week. The BA aircraft on which I was due to return from holiday broke down. There was a delay of 17 hours. This meant I was unable to ask a supplementary question on Monday about the future funding and management of the Portman and Tavistock clinics. The answer given by the Government makes clear that they are still deferring a decision. The insecurity and lack of decision is not good for staff morale.
These clinics try to help some of the most complicated and difficult cases in society. They deal with the sexually abused and those who do the abusing. They train social workers and other staff throughout the country. Recently they have had an application from the health district of Hull to train 400 staff. This illustrates how wide is the need. It seems sensible to create a special health authority to deal with the growing problems of sexual abuse and the horrendous outcome.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the crucial problem of nurse recruitment. A sister at the Westminster Hospital told me only yesterday that recruitment was at rock bottom. I was recently a patient at Stoke Mandeville Hospital which has recruited nurses and auxiliaries from the north of England, many of them splendid people ready to learn. But the accommodation offered them within the hospital was very poor and they could not afford to live out.
Several staff left because the pay was so bad. An auxiliary receives between £3,000 and £4,000 a year. One day a doctor stormed into my room, his face white with fury. A government Minister had made a statement that 90 per cent. of nurses had their own accommodation. The doctor said, "It is not true. In Oxford, if they can get accommodation, they cannot pay for it. In Aylesbury, it is the same".
Today, one of your Lordships' staff told me that his local hospital has had to close wards and the casualty department because of lack of staff. This is the West Middlesex Hospital. I hasten to add that among nurses there are some glowing stars of first-class efficiency and dedication. Many of them come from southern Ireland.
Last night, I went through 122 job applications for a director of our North Yorkshire Red Cross. Several were senior nurses in post in the National Health Service. While pleased that they are applying to the Red Cross, I am worried that they are not content to

643
stay within the health service. What has gone wrong? Is it job satisfaction or frustration within the administration? In this case, it is not money, as the Red Cross cannot afford high wages.
The regional health authority of Yorkshire is losing its general manager, an excellent person with a good wage, but the appointment is only for three years. Do not even general managers need security? Even someone of that calibre who comes into the National Health Service from outside takes time to learn about the vastness of, and the complexities within, the service. It is sad when they leave after two years.
A few weeks ago I attended an interesting conference organised by the DHSS on incontinence. The message from the conference, attended by health managers from throughout the country, was that incontinence is a matter which needs specialised treatment and support, especially in the community nursing service. Many of the specialists working in the community were overwhelmed by the amount of work. They felt isolated and in need of support. Many National Health Service staff working with emotional and difficult health problems need support and a good supply of equipment to deal with those problems. It would be serious if incontinence aids were not readily available because of cost.
One of the frustrations for some staff working within the hospital service is outdated and inadequate equipment. I have had letters about a three-year-old child who is on a ventilator. The correct ventilator was not available. Her parents were devastated with worry. Voluntary contributions to hospitals are most important, but it seems that every health district needs a Jimmy Savile, who has a gift for fund raising.
Having recently been a patient in a National Health Service hospital, I found the food in the spinal unit of Stoke Mandeville Hospital monotonous, with hardly any fresh vegetables, and badly presented. For patient morale and wellbeing, this is serious. One pound and eight pence is allocated per day per patient for food, and this includes drinks. Many patients send out for take-away food, which is delivered by taxi. Patients who cannot afford this borrow money from other patients, and I wonder whether they ever pay it back. I feel that if food was better and more imaginative, patients might get out of hospital quicker.
With the increase in alcohol abuse and illegal drug taking, violence in casualty departments is increasing. We must find ways of protecting our hardworking hospital staff. Not only are they at risk from infection; they are at risk from violent assaults.
I have a few minutes in which to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for instigating this debate. I hope that he will do so on many more occasions. I also congratulate the maiden speaker, who is not in his place, and say that I hope we shall often hear from him. It is always good in your Lordships' House to have new supporters for the National Health Service. They are greatly needed. I was hidden behind Bar but I listened to every word said. By concluding my remarks now, I am able to provide a few extra minutes to other speakers.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I shall be very brief. It had been my intention to make two points only. Fortunately one of these has become unnecessary owing to the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Winstanley. I had intended to endeavour to bring to an end the endless accusations of Opposition speakers and the media about cuts in the National Health Service, but both noble Lords were refreshingly realistic on this score. They appreciate that National Health Service spending rises annually in real terms. In fact, I understand that since 1978–79 it has risen by 26 per cent. in real terms, which is a very large increase.
Now that the two noble Lords have acknowledged that former accusations of tax cuts are completely wide of the mark, I trust and hope that the media will follow suit. It has been tedious and highly misleading to the public to continue year after year and month after month with these false accusations. Now at last the criticism that the Government are not spending enough on the NHS is quite fair. It may even be right, though I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Hesketh will come forward with a robust argument to refute it.
Secondly, I should like to draw to the attention of any noble Lords who have not seen it a very interesting document issued by the Institute of Directors entitled The Business Leaders' Manifesto. This is its manifesto for the incoming government, whoever and whenever it will be. It is easy to read. It explains the poor performance of this country since 1945 against that of our competitors and makes radical recommendations over a wide front and over a long timescale.
The noble Lord, Lord Porritt, in an extremely interesting speech pleaded that the whole structure of the NHS should be re-examined. That is what the Institute of Directors has done. Many noble Lords have observed that whatever government are in power the National Health Service never has sufficient resources to cope with demand. The institute is well aware of this; hence its wish radically to change the structure that exists today and to reconstruct it on the lines originally envisaged. It is probable that unless we do this we shall never overcome the difficulty.
Among other things, the institute proposes, first:
"a return to the principle of Beveridge in the financial structures of health and social security spending, making them honest, open and transparent to the individuals who pay for them".
Secondly:
"introducing tax reliefs for private health and welfare insurance and eventually introducing financing based on compulsory insurance provision with the State paying the premiums for the small group unable to meet them".
It is not possible for me to do other than point your Lordships in the direction of this manifesto. It covers a whole range of other issues: social security, taxation, local government, employment, and so on. It all hangs together.
I believe that all of us must be equally concerned over the huge and mounting costs of our welfare state. I for one am grateful to the institute for putting forward solutions to that pressing and escalating problem, among others. I commend them to your Lordships.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, a commentator suggested recently that after the Royal Family the National Health Service was our most popular national institution. The number of speakers this afternoon has given some credence to that point of view. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said that it was popular even with fanatical anti-collectivists.
I shall not go into all the statistical wrangles, claims and counterclaims on expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said that the service needs a 3 per cent. increase in real terms per annum and the Labour Party is pledged to that. The Government claim 26 per cent. since they came to power, though my noble friend Lady Robson has given indications as to why that does not quite work out in practice and the Alliance is pledged to 2 per cent., with a substantial development fund. I want rather to spend my few minutes dealing with the receiving end of the service where the claims of politicians meet their real test.
The Health Education Council's swansong, The health Divide, which one might call a successor to the Black Report, has been mentioned this evening particularly by my noble friend Lady Seear. It is indeed a remarkable document, not least because it is scrupulously fair about the difficulties of evaluating some research data. But its central message is not open to challenge; namely,
"the results of these studies taken together, give convincing evidence of widening health inequalities between social groups in recent decades especially in adults".
I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, counter this on Monday by repeating that, overall, health in the United Kingdom is improving steadily, with rising life expectancy and reduced infant mortality. Of course it is: the report recognises that. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, recognised that in her speech, but it is not the point. The point is that:
"In general, death rates have declined more rapidly in the higher than in the lower occupational classes, contributing to the widening gap. Indeed, in some respects, the health of the lower occupational classes has actually deteriorated against a background of general improvement in the population.".
Frankly I do not find that surprising. Inequalities are seldom isolated phenomena.
Just as the gap between the richest and the poorest has increased within an overall increased national income—and the plight of the homeless has become worse within an overall pattern of increased home ownership—so health inequalities have increased. It is all part of the same pattern. Indeed shortcomings in other spheres of policy such as housing and employment feed through into health, just as one would have expected and as my noble friend Lady Seear said in her speech.
This being so I want to ask the noble Lord my first question. How does this trend accord with the Goverment's commitment in 1980, renewed, I believe, in 1984 together with the 33 other members of the European Region of the World Health Organisation to ensure that:
"By the year 2000, the actual difference in health status between the countries and between groups within countries should be reduced by at least 25% by improving the health of the disadvantaged nations and groups."?
646
Can the Government say in the light of this report how these aims are to be advanced, because all the evidence is that the trend is moving in the opposite direction at an accelerated rate? That is my first question.
I turn to the subject of waiting lists. They have already been discussed but they constitute one of the major flaws in the whole system. The last figures available, which are the Government's figures, show a total of 717,761. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, gave a smaller figure but I believe that that referred only to England while this is the most recent figure available for England and Wales. It represents a 3 per cent. increase over the year ended September 1985. It is particularly disappointing when all health authorities have been asked to prune the lists of those no longer requiring an operation or of those who have moved away from the district.
We are going to have a debate on the crisis in nursing and there will be other occasions to go into this in more detail. But it is interesting to note that the situation is so bad that the College of Health now publishes a guide to hospital waiting lists, an advance copy of which I hold in my hand. It analyses the background to the waiting lists and gives valuable advice to those who are able and willing to shop around and seek treatment in another district.
As your Lordships will know, there is already a system of cross-boundary flow payments, and the patient's general practitioner may be prepared to co-operate. But it all requires a lot of homework in ringing around and consulting one's community health council, etc. Even if you have the time and the initiative, there are problems with this DIY approach, such as the cost of travel to another district and difficulties for your relatives in visiting you, and so on. Basically you are trying to beat a system which is no longer user-friendly.
Why should the system not be user-friendly? As I said, cross-boundary flows are already rather reluctantly recognised. We on these Benches would go further and suggest that DHAs should adopt a deliberate policy of buying in some services from other districts and selling their own specialties on a much wider scale than at present. This could benefit authorities with strong specialties which lose money under RAWP, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and allow them to use to the full their manpower and facilities. That is far better than sacking staff, closing wings and maintaining empty beds. I gather that Guy's and St. Thomas's have been trading in this way for some time, and the system could be extended much more widely. If accompanied by a right for the patient to be treated within a certain time, it would give a tremendous boost to the reduction of waiting lists.
What have the Government proposed? Last July the Secretary of State announced a new drive to reduce waiting lists. It was to continue over three years and the intention was to treat an additional 100,000 patients a year. He allocated £50 million for two years. On 17th February last it was confirmed that £25 million would be available for the present year and that the extra funding would allow for at least 5,000 extra hip replacements. But at £2,500 a time, these will cost £12.5 million, leaving only an equivalent

647
amount of £12.5 million for the remaining 95,000 operations.
In a press release on the same day, 17th February, the DHSS said that these operations would include 22,000 general surgery operations, 20,000 orthopaedic, 14,000 ophthalmic, 14,000 gynaecological, 8,000 ear, nose and throat and 6,000 concerned with plastic surgery. That is marvellous news if it can happen, but can the noble Lord tell me how on earth all those operations are going to come out of the remaining £12.5 million in this year's allocation? To put it the other way round, will the Government pledge themselves to those 100,000 additional operations and pay whatever is necessary to deliver them—or are we to be sceptical in the future of the department's press releases? I very much hope that the noble Lord will assure me that that is not the case.
Finally—and I do not want to trespass on the generosity of the noble Baroness in having given us a minute or two more, as other speakers are to follow—I turn to an area in which the Government have a relatively good record; namely, the treatment of AIDS. I want to ask the noble Lord two questions, of which I have given him notice. I hope that he received my note. A community care conference was held on Wednesday, 25th March, chaired by the Secretary of State, which considered among other things care in the community for AIDs victims. I believe that the Secretary of State was much impressed by what he saw in San Francisco. Can the noble Lord say what money the Government will put into a similar system of hospices in this country? Is he aware that the London Lighthouse Project has enough money for only another three months of its building programme? Is any help at hand?
I am still not clear—indeed I think none of us is entirely clear on this matter—how every district health authority in the country is to comply with the Secretary of State's direction to draw up an AIDS plan, to appoint an AIDS prevention officer, to instruct its own professionals in AIDS detection and so on within its normal budget. I am aware that it is the Government's intention to finance AIDS expenditure through the usual channels. There is something to be said for not having a whole separate system which might seem to relegate the disease to the category of a plague or to give it some kind of ghetto status.
Even so, additional sums have been made available to some regions and they will become increasingly necessary. AIDS care is labour-intensive. Existing teams are in danger of burning out. There is a lack of junior doctors because training posts are not available and they cannot count work in this field as a career credit. In short, there is a host of problems which cannot be solved by inadequate central subsidies plucked out of the sky in an emergency. Would it not make more sense to set up a central AIDS fund to which districts could make bids for sums specifically related to their own plans and requirements, and indeed to the incidence of the disease in their own areas? All these vary very much up and down the country. Would the noble Lord discuss this suggestion with his honourable friend the Minister for Health? He cannot give me an answer now but I throw this into the
648
pool for discussion and I very much hope that it will receive serious consideration. Otherwise I think we shall run into trouble in that area, despite the Government's excellent efforts to date.
In contradistinction to some of the other areas we have discussed this evening, I think the Government's approach to AIDS has obtained widespread general support. It would be a pity if this essential element of public confidence was to be eroded by an inadequate funding mechanism. I hope very much that the noble Lord will be able to reassure me on these points.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, for over four hours we have been debating a subject of vital interest to the people of the four countries of the United Kingdom, because we are all patients or potential patients. We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Ennals for the opportunity to focus attention on the National Health Service.
We have listened to a series of important speeches, often based on considerable experience of the NHS. According to my account, the issues which have dominated the debate are the inequalities in health which have been referred to by some eight or nine speakers, the underfunding of the NHS, the inadequacy of the community care facilities, the crisis in the nursing profession and the growing waiting lists. Those are the issues which have dominated the debate, and many searching questions have been asked. They are begging for an answer, and we await with interest the Minister's replies. Of course I join with other speakers in thanking my noble friend Lord Peston for his well-informed and reflective speech.
The subject is wide, but I propose to exercise a little discipline and go straight away to the Government's central theme in relation to the NHS. It has been the Government's case for some time that the NHS has been prospering since 1979. This case rests on four assertions, and they were advanced last Monday during Question Time by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. They are recorded in col. 360 of Hansard for 30th March. The four main assertions are these: the increased resources which the Government have put into the health service since 1979; the increasing number of patients who are being cared for; the improved treatment which is being offered; and, finally, the assertion that the overall health in the United Kingdom has improved steadily. That is the Government's case.
It is our case that these assertions or arguments are sometimes misleading because they are not based on the whole truth or because they are taken out of their true perspective. I shall analyse them very quickly. My noble friend Lord Ennals, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, as well as several other noble Lords have brought the increased budget into its true perspective by reminding the House that the increased funding—and certainly we do not deny that there has been increased funding—has failed at least since 1982–83 to keep pace with additional demands being made by the growing number of elderly, the increase in costs of medical technology and the increase in NHS pay and prices.

649
That is the main reason, though not the only reason, why we read all too frequently about wards and operating theatres being closed permanently or temporarily because of shortage of funds for that particular service or shortage of nurses in key specialties such as intensive care units and theatres.
Then the Government go on to call in aid the increased number of in-patients who have been cared for in our hospitals since 1979. But increased productivity is not new; it has been improving ever since the first day of the NHS. Of course we are immensely grateful for that, and this gives me the opportunity to express our appreciation of the skills and care of all the members of the health team who work in hospitals and in the community.
It must be noted that the improved productivity since 1979 has been achieved notwithstanding a reduction of about 36,000 or 37,000 hospital beds. It will be our case that further improved productivity is no longer a risk-free policy because it inevitably reduces sharply the period of convalescence in hospital, and if reduced too far this could lead to premature discharge. Is this already happening? Will the Minister, when he comes to reply, enlighten the House as to how many patients were re-admitted to hospital once or twice within 12 months of their discharge in 1986?
We cannot leave the question of productivity without drawing attention to the very long waiting lists. This has dominated the debate. They have grown, according to my account, by about 2 per cent. to 673,000 in the last six months. This would have been the highest ever recorded if the lists were currently being calculated on the same basis as before 1979. In the 1983 debate in your Lordships' House on the state of the NHS, the Minister could bracket the figures of improved productivity with the steady progress in reducing the waiting lists. But this is something which the Minister can no longer do. I noticed that when opening the debate the Minister was silent on the question of the waiting lists. I submit again that this is the price we pay for closed wards and the shortage of nurses in the key specialties.
One could demonstrate how the long waiting lists can lead to unfairness. For example, three weeks ago I heard of a woman patient in my parish who had a lump in her breast but could not obtain an NHS consultant appointment in under six months. Worried, she agreed to pay the fee for private consultation and was seen within five days. But this option is not available to all patients. We say that it is unfair and unjust that patients in a priority category such as this should have to wait six months or more for an urgent consultation. I am sure that this lady in my parish is not an isolated figure.
I move onto the third assertion; namely, the improved treatment which is being given. Of course we are immensely grateful for improved treatment, wherever it is on offer; and it has been on offer since 1948. But let it be remembered that the improved treatment of today often rests on a long line of research and also on the level of excellence in our teaching hospitals. I think this point was touched upon by my noble friend Lord Bottomley and it may have been elaborated on by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. This is a subject which your Lordships' House discussed on
650
26th November 1986 when we drew attention to the fact that medical research is now in jeopardy and that the country has lost, since 1979, the equivalent of one medical school. If we are today denying the Medical Research Council and the medical schools adequate funds, where will the medical miracles of tomorrow come from? I should therefore be grateful if the Minister would tell the House what level of support the MRC and the medical schools and teaching hospitals can expect to receive from this Government.
To return to the question of improved treatment. perhaps I may say that it is patchy. For example, has the treatment improved for those suffering from chronic bronchitis? We have heard that the Government are setting targets for so many extra hip replacements, so many extra coronary bypass operations, so many bone marrow operations, so many extra cataract operations, as well as the list to which the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred. We gather that the Government are setting targets for additional operations, but this is some acknowledgement, nevertheless, of an unmet demand.
What about the care received by the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and the elderly in the community? Has their treatment improved? Organisations such as the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and the newly-founded RESCARE are by now actively campaigning for the retention of many of the hospitals scheduled for closure until such time as improved facilities are available outside the hospital. Indeed, they are holding a meeting here in Westminster in a few weeks' time, because experience tells them—and I think this is the point that has been made already this evening—that in general, life in the warmth and within the community of the hospital is far better than existence in many bed and breakfast lodgings which have mushroomed since 1982 and which are financed by the DHSS.
The testimony of these two voluntary organisations can be coupled with the illuminating evidence of the Audit Commission published last December which has been referred to. The commission found that there are today at least 25,000 fewer long-stay hospital beds than there were 10 years ago, but there are only an additional 9,000 day-care places. As has been said, very little is known of the whereabouts of the 17,000 or 20,000—it could be even more—who would have been in hospital 10 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, asked a number of searching questions: where are the missing 17,000 or 20,000! What care are they receiving or not receiving? Is it true, as has been reported to RESCARE and has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that a small number of mentally handicapped persons may even be in prison? If that is true, what on earth is being achieved by sending these unfortunate people to prison?
Forty-eight long-stay hospitals are due to close in the next eight years with the loss of 10,000 more places. Yet I have been told that the DHSS or the regional boards or both are pressing the district authorities to accelerate this planned rundown. Will the Minister take heed of the warnings of the voluntary organisations and the warnings that have been issued in the Chamber this afternoon? Can he therefore confirm whether or not the regional boards are pressing the district authorities to accelerate the

651
planned rundown? Indeed, will the Minister tell the House which of the Audit Commission's recommendations have been accepted by the Government?
Finally, I come to the Government's fourth assertion—that overall health in the United Kingdom has improved steadily. Of course TB is not the plague that it was and people are not dying from diphtheria, but then we have the evidence of The Health Divide which has dominated the debate today. This document published last week shows that all the major killer diseases now affect the poor more than the rich, and confirms that the inequalities in health between the social groups are widening.
I can only ask the Minister whether this report, like its predecessor the Black report, is to be shelved or ignored. Unless the Government can demolish the Black report and The Health Divide report—and we on this side of the House do not believe that they can be demolished—the noble Baroness and the Minister cannot assert that overall health in the United Kingdom has improved steadily since 1979.
I must now conclude. The Government's case that the NHS is flourishing rests on the four assertions which we have examined, and it is our submission that those assertions are misleading. But it is rather interesting that no one has attacked the concept of the NHS, the principles of the NHS, which is after all one of the outstanding creations of the post-war Labour Government; and its principles are for the vast majority of people every bit as relevant as they were in 1948. That has been suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. So when we talk of the failure of the hospitals to tackle the waiting lists, or the failure to provide adequate community care facilities, we are talking in the main but not exclusively about the shortcomings of a government who seek to run the NHS on the cheap.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have a very heavy right arm with the many questions raised in this afternoon's debate, and a great debate it has been. But before I say anything I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on a remarkably good maiden speech. I thought he summed up extremely well part of the whole problem that lies before us today. I hope he will forgive me if I slightly paraphrase him. He said that no matter how rich we become, we shall never be able to exceed demand. That is true.
I would also, before answering as many of the questions as I can, like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. He suggested that Ministers do not use the National Health Service. This Minister, be he very junior, was for four days an in-patient of the National Health Service quite recently and is very grateful for the fine service which he received.
I think we all agree on both sides of the House about our wholehearted support for the very fine work that everyone in the health service has done for the service. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and many others paid great tribute to the voluntary sector and I wholeheartedly support the
652
tribute paid to those who undertake voluntary work in the health field. It is hard to overstate the value which we place on this and I shall take the suggestions on board, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, and draw them to the attention of my noble friend the Minister. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Porritt, spoke for all of us in this debate, as did the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, at the end, in saying that no one questioned the National Health Service and he hoped very much that its future could be discussed without politics. I for one wholeheartedly agree with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, felt that the Government claimed that we were spending more money on fewer hospital beds. It is true that there are fewer hospital beds, but those which we have are being used more intensively and effectively than ever before. Sometimes the increased levels of activity run ahead of the resources available, and temporary reductions in services have to be made if authorities are to remain within their cash limits.
It will always be difficult, if not impossible, to explain the rationale behind such decisions to those who are still waiting their turn. But I know that your Lordships will recognise the underlying significance and the advantages to the National Health Service and its patients of higher productivity and lower unit costs, which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, referred to spending on health in this country compared with overseas. International comparisons of this kind are notoriously unreliable because of differences in the definition and range of services provided. For example, what we classify as personal social services others may include in health service provision. Nevertheless. I hope your Lordships will recognise as significant the fact that health spending per head of population grew in real terms in the United Kingdom by 21 per cent. between 1978 and 1983—well above the average for Western countries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, felt that the cash allocations to regional health authorities would not enable nurses to be awarded the pay rise that they deserve. She will surely recognise that planned cost improvements, amounting to savings of as much as £150 million, will be retained by health authorities to the benefit of their local services.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, drew our attention to the need for more money for community care. The latest estimates we have of expenditure by local authorities on personal social services indicate an increase of almost 30 per cent. in real terms nationally between 1978–79 and 1986–87—substantially more than is required to keep pace with demographic pressures. For 1987–88, the rate support grant settlement allows for a 3½ per cent. increase.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, drew our attention to the importance of real care for those who need community care. I refer them to my noble friend's speech with regard to the position of those discharged from long-stay care. We have

653
consistently said that no long-stay patient should be discharged until appropriate care is available to support him or her outside the hospital.
The noble Lords, Lord Ennals, Lord Winstanley and Lord Soper, drew our attention to prescription charge increases. The recent increase in prescription charges of around 9 per cent. is broadly in line with rising costs of medicines. We believe that people who can afford to do so should contribute. I remind your Lordships that 75 per cent. of all prescriptions are dispensed free. There was a further point raised by certain noble Lords that the cost of 30 per cent. of prescriptions was beneath the charge for the prescriptions themselves. But the remaining 70 per cent. cost rather more than the prescription charge.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Robson, spoke about the low morale and low pay of nurses. Pay is a matter for the independent Pay Review Body, which is expected to report to the Prime Minister shortly. Members will not expect me to anticipate the review body's recommendations, other than to say that it will be carefully considered by the Government when it reports. I take this opportunity to remind your Lordships that the basic pay rates for nurses have risen by 10 per cent. in real terms since 1983 and 23 per cent. since 1979.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the shortage of nurses. In the country as a whole the picture is less gloomy than some anecdotes might suggest, but there is evidence of shortage in key specialities in London and the South-East, particularly in the inner-city areas. Basic pay, which is a matter for the independent Pay Review Body, does not appear to be a major factor affecting recruitment, though the high cost of housing in the South-East is a major source of difficulty. The National Health Service Management Board is now discussing with the regional health authority chairmen what action might be taken in conjunction with local management to overcome problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, drew our attention to the shortage of nurses' accommodation. I am aware of a shortage of reasonably priced housing in some parts of the country, particularly London and the Home Counties, which affects the ability of some health authorities to fill key nursing posts. Consideration is being given to what measures can be taken. In so far as certain accommodation has been sold, often it has been inappropriate and unsuitable for young professional people to use. Therefore, it is not entirely a case of property being sold which is suitable for nurses, because it was deemed to be unsuitable for them.
Lord Ennals: Slum property.
Lord Hesketh: The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the new Health Education Authority. I should like to speak at some length on that matter. The new Health Education Authority will be directly involved in planning disease prevention and health promotion within the National Health Service. It will do that in a way in which the old Health Education Council never could. The Health Education Council stood outside the National Health Service and had only limited involvement with district and family
654
practitioner committee planning and service provision.
The chairman of the new Health Education Authority has been given a seat at the table of the Secretary of State's health cabinet where regional health authority chairmen meet regularly with Ministers. He will thus be directly involved in the process of developing policy and service provision within the National Health Service. Not only will health education be directly represented for the first time at these meetings. The development of health education itself will also be greatly assisted by being kept firmly in touch with service needs.
The right of the new authority to take an independent stance on matters within its remit is not at issue, given that it will work, just as the HEC did, within the framework of ministerial accountability to Parliament. The policy to increase the vigour and effectiveness of action throughout the National Health Service to prevent illness and promote good health as part of the National Health Service with access to Ministers means that there will be no need for confrontation or pressure group tactics.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister give way for a moment? As regards the chairman of the new authority being allowed a place at the table with the chairmen of the regional health authorities, the Minister must be aware that the overwhelming number of members of regional health authorities are now either members of the government party or active supporters. Therefore, where will this independence come from?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is a point on which we must agree to differ. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to the suppression of The Health Divide. The Government have not been involved at all in the commissioning or publication of that document. The Government did not attempt in any way to prevent publication, and the document has been distributed and is freely available. I understand that the chairman of the Health Education Council has emphasised that at no time did Ministers intervene.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, brought up the important matter of measles inoculation. I am glad to say that the uptake rate in England and Wales of vaccination against measles has improved from 63 per cent. in 1984 to 68 per cent. in 1985. Further improvement is essential if children are to be spared the avoidable distress of disability arising from the disease.
The noble Lords, Lord Bottomley and Lord Soper, together with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, felt rather opposed to the private sector in health care. However, patients have had the right to private care since the beginning of the National Health Service, as have doctors. That follows the fundamental principle that people in this country have a right to spend their money on anything they wish including their health care. Private medicine is no threat to the National Health Service. On the contrary, the existence of a thriving private sector usually strengthens the health service by relieving it of some work and enabling it better to meet its obligations.

655
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised the matter of occupational therapists. The department accepts that the supply of occupational therapists is insufficient to meet continually rising demand, although recent surveys show that the number of funded posts in the National Health Service unfilled for three months or more has fallen significantly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is not present, raised the matter of pilot projects with regard to the Cumberlege Report. The points made in the report which attracted particular comment include the concept of a neighbourhood nursing service, which in some areas is already being provided although perhaps under another name. The report also recommended a manpower planning exercise on community nursing numbers. We have already amended the National Health Service planning system to ensure that we receive information on future plans for seconding nurses to district nurse and health visitor training. Unsatisfactory responses will be taken up within individual regions throughout the accountability review process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lords, Lord Porritt and Lord Ferrier, together with many other noble Lords, suggested that the department be split up. In my humble position, I suggest that this is a subject of which I should steer very clear. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, drew our attention to two services for epileptic people and suggested that they should be designated as supranational. An application to recognise certain special services for people with epilepsy as supra-national has been put to the Advisory Committee on Supranational Regional services. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is awaiting the advice of the committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to the possible closure of the accident and emergency departments at Ancoats Hospital. I understand that the North Manchester Health Authority will shortly be consulting the community health council and the public generally on the future of the accident and emergency departments. The Secretary of State will take into account the views expressed, and particularly those expressed this evening by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, drew attention to homeopathy in Northern Ireland. He kindly offered to allow me to answer his question after this debate. I am extremely grateful. Time is beginning to run out but I shall try to deal with a few more questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, pointed out that 205 hospitals had been approved for closure since 1979. I agree with that. However, I remind her that that is fewer than the number of hospitals closed in the five years from 1974 to 1979
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, drew our attention to the situation in primary health care. In the consultation period the Minister chaired 12 public consultation meetings. Over 2,000 written comments were received, some of them after the 31st December deadline. The Government are now studying the large body of evidence submitted, including a report by the Social Services Committee of the House of Commons. They will decide in the light of those consultations
656
what changes to pursue. I am sure that noble Lords would not thank the Government for reaching hasty judgments on these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about AIDS and hospices. The local health authorities must make local decisons about the level of spending on hospices. The provision of hospices may be the right approach in some districts. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently announced a central allocation of £7 million in 1987–88 to meet extra costs generated by AIDS.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me a question concerning the number of extra cases in the health service which were readmissions. Studies suggest that while some of the increase in cases treated is due to readmission, the greater proportion is for new patients. Furthermore, many readmissions are in any case a planned part of the patient's treatment.
The Government have shown how they care for patients by putting patients first. We have done this by ensuring that the health service is more efficient, more flexible, better managed, better financed and better housed. Efficiency is about putting patients first, because it is about delivering more care for every pound spent. My noble friend Lady Trumpington has already quoted some exciting and impressive examples of the improvements in efficiency in recent years.
The health service is also using resources more wisely. We are making better use of facilities. Over 38 cases were treated per bed in 1985 compared with 28 in 1978. We are also making better use of financial resources. For example, rationalisation of NHS land usage will produce £200 million from the sale of surplus land and property in 1987–88.
The health service is now more flexible, and is more responsive to patients' needs and wishes. Waiting lists for NHS hospital treatment are now over 70,000 less than when we came to power. We recognise that in some areas and for some specialties patients have to wait too long. This is a major cause of frustration, inconvenience and distress. That is why we have launched a major three-year initiative to improve waiting times and waiting lists. To help health authorities to make a more rapid progress in tackling this problem we have established a special waiting-list fund of £50 million over two years. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently announced the allocation of the first £25 million for 1987–88. This will support over 350 projects throughout the country and enable an additional 100,000 cases from the waiting lists to be treated. These will include at least 5,000 hip operations and 8,000 extra cataract operations. I am sure noble Lords will understand exactly what that means in human terms.
Good management is essential to the efficient and effective running of any organisation, and the health service is no exception. This is why we have taken steps to ensure that the service is better managed. The introduction of general management, as my noble friend Lady Trumpington has said, has been a big step in securing a well-run service.
Not only are we making more efficient use of resources; there has been real growth in the resources the Government have devoted to the service. That

657
commitment to growth in the health service is a continuing one. The figures on health service finance are large. In 1987–88 we shall be spending nearly £17 billion in England alone—£1 billion more than in the last financial year, and almost three times the amount spent in 1978–79. In other words, we shall be spending about £47 million per day. This means that spending will have risen about 28 per cent, ahead of inflation since we came to power.
Finally, the service is better housed. It always irritates me that the opening of a new, modern hospital is news for only a day, whereas the closure of a hospital can be bad news for years. Our health service building programme is of a massive order. We have started and completed more than 170 health service building schemes, each worth over £1 million. In the coming financial year alone we shall be spending more than £1 billion on capital schemes, and looking to the future, over 100 such schemes costing a total of about £700 million should be completed over the next three years. This is the biggest health service building programme by any government. Look back into what happened during the previous Labour Government. It is a dismal picture of cuts and cancellations.
I fear, listening to some of the contributions made by noble Lords this afternoon and this evening, that one could end with a distorted picture of the health service today. It is a caring service. Its job is caring for individual people. It is now providing more care more efficiently than ever before. In the future we are committed to improving and expanding the service still more. That is why I am proud to stand here today and talk about the health service which we all cherish. The Government's commitment is to the people of this country in sickness and in health, today and into the future.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he answered my first question on AIDS but not the second. Will he write to me?
Lord Hesketh: I will.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, let me say how grateful I am to noble Lords in all parts of the House for taking part in what has been an excellent debate. I should like to thank the Minister for the replies he gave. Fortunately my task is not to reply to the debate or we would have another debate.
Although we have discussed various aspects of the health service on a number of occasions, this is the first time in four years that we have had a debate on the National Health Service as a whole. I want especially to congratulate my noble friend, who has been congratulated by everyone. He must be feeling great.
I have three quick points. First, at the time of the Budget the Government had to decide whether to make tax cuts or to put more money into the NHS. They decided on tax cuts rather than more money. I repeat that because it is a fact.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): No.
Lord Ennals: Yes, yes, yes.
658
Secondly, I want to emphasise what was said by a number of noble Lords about community care. Voluntary organisations and local authorities must provide services before people are moved from long-stay hospitals. As I said, is not bridging funding essential? I was disappointed not to have had a reply on that.
No one has said anything about my third point, but I believe that too many people are chock-full of pills. They are given a pill, or six of them, for every ill. I am increasingly aware of the importance of a healthier lifestyle and the value of natural medicines.
I warmly welcome the debate that we have had and feel privileged to have had the opportunity of opening it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Cardiff Bay Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1987
8.35 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move, That the order laid before the House on 12th January be approved.
This order is made under provisions in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. Under Section 134 of that Act the Secretary of State for Wales is empowered to designate an urban development area. Section 135 empowers him to establish a corporation for the purpose of regenerating the area. The order before your Lordships designates an area of 1,089 hectares in the City of Cardiff and the Borough of the Vale of Glamorgan in the County of South Glamorgan and will establish the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation to bring forward the redevelopment of the area. Incidentally, I am told that 1,089 hectares is 2,700 acres.
The order has been judged to be hybrid and a petition was made against it. A Select Committee of your Lordships examined the case put forward by the petitioners for the exclusion of an area of land from the urban development area. The Select Committee concluded that the order should proceed unamended. I am pleased to say that there were no petitions against the establishment of the corporation as such.
The Cardiff Bay area was once the hub of commercial activity in Cardiff, reflecting in particular the growth in coal production at the end of the last century and the early part of this. At one time, the port of Cardiff had a greater throughput of traffic than any other port in the world. The decline in coal exports from the time of the Great War however saw a decline in port-related activity and this decline has continued to the present day.
Some of your Lordships know the area a good deal better than I and will know that the two main communities in the area epitomise many of the problems associated with our inner cities. It is right that these communities should look to government both central and local to help bring about change. This is the objective, and we are confident that the future

659
holds out every prospect of new life being breathed into the area to make it once again a vibrant and important centre for the economy of Wales.
I am pleased that the proposal before your Lordships has met with widespead support in the area. All the local authorities in the area have pledged their full backing for the proposed corporation, including the South Glamorgan County Council under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Brooks of Tremorfa. It is, I believe, highly relevant that this support spreads right across the political spectrum.
It is for this reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has decided that the corporation, by working closely with the local authorities and other public bodies in the area, can be small but will have to provide the drive and motivation to bring this massive redevelopment forward. My right honourable friend has decided not to give the corporation all the development control functions given to the UDCs in England at the outset as he believes that the cooperative approach with the local authorities can provide the necessary stability in policy terms and produce the quick decision-making necessary if the private sector is to have the confidence to invest. The corporation will have all the powers necessary to see its task through, including the powers for land acquisition, land reclamation and servicing, the provision of infrastructure and will be able to work with the private sector to bring forward development.
The chairman-designate of the corporation has already been announced. Mr. Geoffrey Inkin knows the area well and has the enthusiasm and drive to make a success of this project. Other appointments to the board will be announced very soon and will include a number of local people who have close ties with the area as well as others who have the particular skills and experience necessary to ensure that the corporation is successful.
The studies that we have commissioned suggest that,
"this is a rare opportunity to develop a superb environment setting which will have few, if any, competitors in Great Britain".
The corporation is needed to ensure that this opportunity is grasped. The local authorities and others in the local community agree with the Government that this is the way forward. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 12th January be approved. [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Trefgarne.)
8.45 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his explanatory opening speech. We are also glad that he has found the time to sail from the unpredictable seas of the Ministry of Defence into the peaceful haven of Cardiff Harbour. We are also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the Chairman of the Select Committee, and his noble colleagues for their work in the Select Committee.
Cardiff is a capital city of which we have every right to be proud. Its civic centre with its fine, well laid out buildings would grace any capital city. I remember the late Clement Attlee saying that it was one of the finest
660
in the world. Its people, moreover, are industrious and forward-looking. Wales, historically, had no fixed capital city although there were attempts to establish one over many years. It is the kind of subject upon which it is not easy to find a solution in Wales. Sir Owen Edwards, who was a Member of the other place for a time, begins his history of Wales with this sentence:
"The history of Wales is a history of tribal warfare.".
When I was Chairman of the Welsh Parliamentary Party many years ago I had the privilege of leading a deputation of my colleagues to the then Home Secretary to recommend that Cardiff should be designated as the capital city of Wales. It was a bold, some say a rash, step to take because Swansea, Aberystwyth and Caernarfon also laid claim to the distinction. I confess that as a native of Gwynedd and then the Member for Anglesey I felt in my heart that Aberffraw, the capital of the great Llywelyns, had some claim to consideration. However, our task was made easy because at that time the Home Secretary was a Welshman—the late Gwilym Lloyd George. We overcame our tribal loyalties and decided that Cardiff was a worthy choice. We have not been disappointed; and all parts of Wales look to Cardiff as its capital city—even those from the far North.
The House will be aware of some of our problems in Wales at the present time. We suffer from unacceptably high levels of unemployment, especially in some areas, and there is a need for urban renewal on a substantial scale. The chief cause of our difficulty has been the decline of our basic extractive industries on which we had become over-reliant and upon which the great ports of South Wales, notably Cardiff, depended for their prosperity. The tragic disaster of Aberfan, which shocked the world, was a poignant reminder that major changes and new developments are urgently required.
As Secretary of State at the time—Aberfan was the worst moment in my career in politics; and I know I have the sympathy and understanding of my noble and learned friend who was Attorney-General at the time—I recall in a discussion of the implications with Sir Goronwy Daniel, the Permanent Secretary, asking if there was anything we could extract from so awful a catastrophe. Out of that we created the derelict land unit which has during the intervening years carried out one of the most extensive programmes of land reclamation in the whole of Europe.
Cardiff inevitably suffered from the decline to which I referred, but it has also developed into a great administrative, commercial and cultural centre and many interesting projects are now under way there. But the greatest project and the most exciting enterprise is the one we are discussing this evening. If it is fully realised it will bring a new impetus and a new opportunity to Cardiff and also to the adjoining areas. I sense an atmosphere of hope and of excitement in Cardiff which does not exist in many places today. I remember sensing the same spirit when I visited Aberdeen a few years ago.
This proposal to develop the Cardiff waterfront is partly responsible for this expectant atmosphere. It is comparable with the London dockland development and a few other similar projects. A study by the well-

661
known firm of Messrs. Jones Lang Wootton found that there is an area in South Cardiff of about 3,000 acres which is immediately available for development; of which 600 acres are immediately available for development close to the water's edge. I note that the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales, who has played a major role, compares it with the waterside development of the Baltimore inner harbour in the United States which is now world famous and which attracts over a million visitors each year.
The commercial, cultural and entertainment possibilities are endless and there are ample attractive sites for imaginative housing development. I understand that it comprises 65 per cent. of the land immediately available for industrial development in the whole of the City of Cardiff. What is proposed is that this huge derelict area can be transformed to the immense advantage not only of Cardiff but of the economy of South Wales, and especially the valleys of South Wales which have suffered so much in terms of employment and industrial dereliction over many years.
The support for the scheme in the Cardiff area is widespread and enthusiastic and my friends from the local authorities are anxious to get it under way. This can be summarised in the words of Mr. Eurfyl Davies, the Cardiff City Planning and Development Officer, who said:
"Cardiff City Council has long been concerned about its docklands area with its serious problems of declining economic activity, social deprivation and physical decay and is highly committed to its regeneration".
Mr. Davies was one of the witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee of this House but he was reflecting a general view when he uttered those words. He also emphasised the importance of the inclusion of the whole Roath Basin area within the early development.
As the noble Lord said, this is a project supported by all local authorities including the South Glamorgan County Council, the Vale of Glamorgan Council and, of course, Cardiff City Council. It also embraces all political parties and all public bodies. It is right that I should also mention that my right honourable friend Mr. James Callaghan has taken a great interest in this venture and is in full support of it. The city council has underlined its commitment in several ways and I should like to pay tribute to it for the enterprise and the work it has done.
This is a substantial commitment, as the House must agree. One obvious and essential point is that this great scheme must be adequately planned and administered. There must be effective central control. We note with great interest the composition of the corporation; with five directors from the local authorities together with eight others and a chairman who has already been appointed by the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord mentioned. We wish the new chairman every success in his important task. We hope that the other members will be able, experienced and with a commitment to Cardiff and to Wales.
This scheme will be in our capital city and it must have a Welsh flavour and be identifiably Welsh. We give this enterprise our warm support. We shall watch
662
its progress with great interest and we wish all those who devote their energies to it every success.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the warm welcome he has given the proposal that I have ventured to bring before your Lordships this evening. Perhaps I may finish on a personal note. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been very much the architect and supporter of this project from the start; indeed he has given it his close and continuing personal attention during the preparation of the various orders and their passage through the other place. He was, in fact, good enough to assist me in preparing my remarks to address to your Lordships this evening. My right honourable friend has made it clear that he does not intend to stand at the next general election. I venture to suggest that this project will remain as a memorial to his time in the Welsh Office; and a very splendid memorial it will be.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Class 1 Contributions— Contracted-out Percentages) Order 1987 State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1987 State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables—Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1987
8.50 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have to apologise to the House that there are errors in the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. Reference is made to an order and regulations laid on 16th March and regulations laid on 18th March. The order and regulations were withdrawn by the Government on 30th March and replaced by a fresh order and regulations which I am now asking the House to approve.
With your Lordships' agreement, for the convenience of the House, I propose to deal in my opening remarks with the draft order to which I have just referred together with the two sets of draft regulations which appear next on the Order Paper.
The reports by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Government Actuary show the technical complexity behind the three statutory instruments to be debated. I propose, as did my predecessor when these matters last came before the House five years ago, to do my best to avoid burdening your Lordships with too many technicalities, but rather to concentrate as far as possible on the social and policy issues involved.
The terms for contracting-out of the earnings-related additional pension part of the state retirement pension scheme were contained in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, which came into operation in April 1978. My right honourable friend the Secretary

663
of State has a statutory duty to review these terms at least every five years. The revised terms will take effect from April 1988.
In 1986 widespread consultation took place on the terms of contracting-out on the basis of memoranda prepared by the Government Actuary. The comments received were taken into account by him in the preparation of his formal report.
The basis on which schemes have been contracting-out since 1978 has been that schemes guarantee to provide a pension that is broadly equivalent to the state additional pension. In return, national insurance contributions for contracted-out employments are reduced. This reduction is commonly called "the rebate". It was thought right in 1978, and again when the terms were first reviewed in 1982, that the rebate should contain a contingency margin. The margin was to allay anxieties that schemes would have an open-ended commitment, because accrued rights would be related to future earning trends and future returns from investments were uncertain. Other safeguards were provided when schemes had to buy back into the state scheme. The success of these arrangements is shown by the fact that of the 11 million members of occupational pension schemes, nearly 90 per cent. are contracted-out.
It is disappointing, however, that the number of people in occupational pension schemes has remained virtually static for two decades. The Government's wish to provide new opportunities for the expansion of occupational pension and personal pension coverage resulted in the provisions of the Social Security Act 1986. The provisions of that Act were widely debated here and in the other place during 1986. I do not, therefore, propose to refer to the detail contained in the Act. I will just say this. Our aim has always been to give everyone the chance of having their own pension and more choice of how to save for it. In future it is expected that it will be the exception for people to reach retirement without a pension of their own.
The 1986 Act introduced a new money purchase test for contracting-out and also contracted-out personal pensions. The minimum amount that is to be paid to money purchase and personal pension schemes is equal to the amount of the rebate that will apply to salary related schemes.
That is the background to the current review. The cost to salary related schemes of providing guaranteed minimum pensions was calculated as being 7 per cent. of reckonable earnings from 1978 to 1983, and currently it is 6.25 per cent. The cost for the five years from 1988 to 1993 is calculated to be 5.4 per cent. Your Lordships will see that the cost is decreasing as the average rate of accrual of guaranteed minimum pension declines. This is because those who were in the scheme from 1978 enjoyed a faster rate of accrual than those joining later. The figure of 5.4 per cent. includes, as do the figures for previous periods, a contingency margin of 7½ per cent.
My right honourable friend has decided that from 1988 to 1993 the rebate should be 5.8 per cent. This will include an additional margin of 0.4 per cent. over the average cost of providing a guaranteed minimum
664
pension. The additional margin provides a further safeguard against any additional costs arising from the implementation of the 1986 Act. The amount of the rebate will give increased confidence to existing contracted-out schemes and encourage the setting up of new money purchase and personal pension schemes. The additional margin will apply for the period 1988–93 only. The 5.8 per cent. rebate will be shared so that employers receive 3.8 per cent. and employees 2 per cent. This reflects very closely the apportionment of the present rebate.
Contracted-out schemes may in certain circumstances transfer their liabilities for guaranteed minimum pensions to the state scheme by paying premiums. This is commonly referred to as "buying-back". It is necessary to provide different actuarial tables in respect of guaranteed minimum pensions that accrue up to April 1988 to those that accrue from April 1988. This is because guaranteed minimum pensions paid on account of accruals from April 1988 will include revaluation of up to 3 per cent. per annum. The tables represent the average cost of providing guaranteed minimum pensions. This cost is adjusted by a device called the market level indicator which allows for investment yields at the time of the buy-back. Without this protection a scheme could find itself in difficulty in meeting the cost of premiums if there were a fall in the market value of its investments. In current investment conditions the premiums are roughly equivalent to the amount of the rebate and the scheme is able to retain the profit from the investment appreciation. The new market level indicators will ensure that schemes are fully protected against sudden falls in the market value of their investments whilst reducing the scope for profits to be made from ceasing to contract-out.
The Government announced on 18th March that new personal pensions will be introduced in January 1988. Not only is this three months earlier than originally planned but those without a pension will be able to backdate contracting-out to April of this year. This is a considerable achievement. Premiums may be payable by schemes that have ceased to be approved as "appropriate" by the Occupational Pensions Board. Although it is extremely unlikely that a scheme would cease to be appropriate before April 1988 it is still necessary to provide legislative cover against that contingency. The transitional regulations provide that cover.
I opened by referring to the technical complexity of this subject; but I believe I have been able to indicate to your Lordships the importance of these statutory instruments and how they fit in to the Government's overall pension strategy. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Social Security (Class 1 Contributions—Contracted-out Percentages) Order 1987 laid before the House [16th Report from the Joint Committee]; the State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Regulations 1987 laid before the House [16th Report from the Joint Committee]; and the State Scheme Premi urns (Actuarial Tables—Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1987 [16th Report from the Joint Committee] be approved.—(Lord Hesketh.)
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I must begin by protesting at the inconvenience that has been caused to

665
the House by the fact that these measures were due to be put before your Lordships on Monday and that they were then taken off. I am told, and I have a letter from the Printed Paper Office in front of me which says:
"The reason for re-laying these instruments was indeed a drafting error".
I think it is quite fair for me to ask who made the drafting error and why that error was not put right. It has been a great inconvenience to many noble Lords that the timing was altered from Monday to Wednesday.
I understand also that these provisions have not been laid in the other House. Although I realise that it is not absolutely essential for the other place to take them first, there is some anxiety about when they are to go to the other place in order that they can be legalised. Of course, the provisions arise out of the Social Security Act and therefore there is no reason why we should take a great deal of time dealing with the details.
However, I must put on record that for many of us it has been of great inconvenience that there has been this muddle; that someone who is unidentified has put the papers in the wrong position and has not corrected the matter. This is not the first time that this has happened with the DHSS. The department seems to be in total confusion. There have been more mistakes—and I say this as a former civil servant—from that department than from any other with which I have had contact.
I shall not propose that we have any unkind discussion tonight. I shall say only that it is an absolute disgrace that my noble friends and I are pushed around from Monday to Wednesday and that nothing seems to be correct that comes from that department. I have every sympathy with the noble Lord who has to deal with these matters. In that spirit, I hope that he will appreciate that we give a grudging consent tonight.
9 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having explained these orders and regulations, complicated though they are. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Banks, who was prepared to deal with them when they were originally due to have been introduced. He has asked me to express his great regret that he is unable to be here tonight. He is disappointed to be unable to intervene on a matter on which he is perhaps the greatest acknowledged expert in the House.
The measure that excites the most interest is the Social Security (Class 1 Contributions—Contracted out Percentages) Order 1987. This interest arises because all employers with contracted-out schemes need to know the amount of the contracted-out rebate from April 1988 in order to reassess their positions. Most particularly, all employers contemplating a new contracted-out occupational scheme—whether final salary or money purchased—under the new arrangements also need to know the position. Likewise, individuals contemplating contracting out by means of a personal pension plan need to know what rebate will be paid by the DHSS into their policy.
There has been considerable speculation as to what the new level of rebate might be. The figure of 5.75 was
666
widely canvassed. It has turned out to be 5.8—not a great difference. It has always been understood that the rebate would reduce as those with higher accrual rates were gradually replaced by new people coming in with lower accrual rates, to which the noble Lord referred. Thus we have had the reduction in 1983 from 7 per cent. to 6.25 per cent. We now have a further reduction to 5.8 per cent. As the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, told us, the Government Actuary thought that 5.4 per cent. would be sufficient, including the 7.5 per cent. contingency reserve. To be on the safe side the Secretary of State has gone to 5.8 per cent., for which contracted-out contributors will be grateful.
To this extent the order is welcome. The difficulty is that the new provision for personal pensions takes effect from 1st January. The new rebate does not become effective until 6th April 1988. This means that for this period—approximately three months—the old rebate will apply to personal pensions. Will it not therefore be a little confusing for those effecting personal pension plans in the first three months of 1988 to be faced so soon with a reduction in the DHSS contribution that they can expect? Is there not a danger that people may jump in on one basis only to find that their long-term commitment is on another?
Turning to the actuarial tables, these indicate the cost of buying back into SERPS on ceasing to be contracted out. These tables have to be revised periodically to reflect market conditions and any consequent change in the cost of providing each £.1 worth of pension.
The second measure sets out the table required to replace the 1978 tables and the 1982 amendments. The first measure, which is a transitional one, is necessary to provide the appropriate tables for personal pensions in the period of this hiatus between 1st January and 6th April. This is a further complication resulting from the decision to start personal pensions from 1st January.
Two questions arise from that. Would it not have been better to have held back the personal pensions until April, especially as most potential providers are complaining that they do not yet have sufficient information about the general regulations—not these regulations—governing personal pensions, the terms of the policy, and so on? They do not have sufficient information to design and prepare their schemes in time. That is a complaint in the industry. Also, does not the initiation of the new personal pension on 1st January and the new money purchase employers' scheme in April favour the former against the latter, particularly as those who take out a personal pension plan between 1st January and 6th April can claim an extra year's contracted-out rebate in addition to the 2 per cent. incentive?
If this situation seems surprising I am assured that this is the pension industry's interpretation. If it is not true the noble Lord will tell me. If it is true, does it not provide the personal pension with an additional attraction for the new entrant at the expense of any money purchase scheme an employer may introduce from April? Would it not have been better to introduce the two types of schemes on all fours and on a level

667
platform? I shall be most grateful if the noble Lord can comment on those remarks.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate until I heard what the Minister said. In addition to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I am concerned by the additional incentive that the Government appear to be giving to personal private pensions. Noble Lords will know what we on this side felt at the time of the Social Security Bill about private personal pensions. Indeed, we hold that the Government by their attitude are assisting to some degree to undermine very good collective occupational pensions provision by their apparent support for PPPs.
I should like to put on record—although it is over and done with now—my objection to bringing the date forward to January 1988. I speak as a member of the Occupational Pensions Board and I think it is going to be very difficult to get everything in place in time to be ready for January 1988. This is a further complication.
I draw the attention of the Minister to the fifth report of the Social Security Advisory Committee where it deals with personal pensions. It expresses grave doubts about the degree of security that an individual will have if he switches to a money purchase-type arrangement with personal private pensions. That is made very clear in the final paragraph:
"We are concerned about the risk inherent in money purchase schemes since investment in a pension constitutes a major element of personal finance for most people".
It is talking in that connection about private personal pensions. I put those points to the Minister because I think they are relevant in the context of these regulations.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, first I take this opportunity of apologising to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, for the unfortunate situation. I am not entirely sure who is responsible, and I fear that that will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord. Lord Kilmarnock, questioned me with regard to the rebate for personal pensions taken out in 1987–88 which will be backdated to 1st April 1987. They will be the present rate of 6.25 per cent. Those involved in selling personal pensions will no doubt make it clear that the rebate from April 1988 will be 7.8 per cent.—that is, a rebate of 5.8 per cent. together with a 2 per cent. incentive rebate. The 2 per cent. additional rebate will also be available to contracted out group money purchase schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, also said that personal pensions providers will not have sufficient time. The regulations will be out towards the end of May this year, but personal pensions will be backdated only for those who are not contracted out between April 1987 and January 1988. In so far as concerns the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, I will write to him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, expressed her feelings concerning PPPs, and I fully understand her position. However, I am sure that she
668
is well aware that the Government are very keen on promoting the concept of individuals being able to have individual pensions. But I fully understand the points that the noble Baroness makes and take them aboard.
I shall write to noble Lords concerning any further points which I have not covered. I hope that the regulations will prove to be a success. I am confident that the statutory instruments before us today form an integral part in the Government's strategy for the provisions of pensions for all. I commend them to your Lordships.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

Channel Tunnel Link with East Sussex
9.11 p.m.
Lord Hardinge of Penshurst Lord Hardinge of Penshurst rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they accept the necessity for major road works between Hastings and Hythe in view of the fact that the A.259 has been preferred as the main trunk route between the Channel Tunnel and the towns of East Sussex, and in particular of the need to by-pass Dymchurch and St. Mary's Bay as well as New Romney.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with some humility and after much thought that I have decided to press this question. To some extent this is a specialist field and some of the greatest experts in the land are at work on it. I refer in particular to the passage of the Chunnel Bill itself and also the awesome task undertaken by the group of experts who form the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. But I believe it is justified to draw attention to the needs of a particular large area involving a substantial population. The timing of the question may not be perfect, but it is difficult to see what would have been better. I first heard of this issue in June last year. It is now April 1987—nine months later. I am told that it is possible that the Select Committee may still be hearing evidence for a long time. So, perhaps it is as good a time as any.
I must express my particular gratitude to noble Lords who have put their names down to speak this evening. All their contributions will be important and at least two noble Lords are rather expert on transport, which I am not. There is a lot of interest in, and support for, my Question in East Sussex apart from noble Lords who will speak tonight. My noble friend Lord De La Warr is concerned and although he is not here to speak tonight I think your Lordships may hear from him at some time during the passage of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Chelwood has taken the greatest interest and trouble and, despite illness, has been in touch direct with the Minster about the matter. He would certainly have spoken had it not been doctor's orders that to do so would delay his convalescence. I am quite sure all noble Lords wish most warmly that his convalescence will soon end and he will be back to full health.
My concern in this Question comes from the fact that I have lived in East Sussex almost all my life and never very far from the town of Hastings. Apart from this I have no personal or financial interest of any kind

669
to declare. Before coming to the background of the Question itself, I should like to say a few words about the town of Hastings, which is at the very centre of this particular matter. I am really repeating what my noble friend Lord Teviot said on the Second Reading of the Chunnel Bill. These points will bear repetition.
First, Hastings is not part of the so-called pampered South-East. It has never been a wealthy town and has recently had unemployment figures as high as 20 per cent. As my noble friend said, it has somehow always been a bit rundown. One reason that it has been in part isolated from the south-eastern boom has undoubtedly been the lack of good access roads, but I shall come to that in a minute. My noble friend also made the point that Hastings is one of the most famous towns in the world. It is impossible for anyone anywhere in the world who knows anything at all about European history not to have heard of Hastings. This of course is due to the battle, and the fact that the battle took place somewhere else is neither here nor there. It is called the Battle of Hastings.
I hope that I am not being slow in coming to my Question but these points are all relevant, as is the situation on the A.21. In general we should congratulate the Government on what they have done and what they are doing about roads. It is true that progress is being made, and further progress is planned on the A.21 between Pembury and Hastings. It is clear that progress will be made. I am not offering any criticism of this Government or departments or councils when I say that previous development of the A.21, which is the natural link between Hastings and the M.25, has been snail-like, to put it politely. Indeed, a vigorous snail might take exception to the comparison.
I am much older than the Minister and I have seen all this going on—if those are the right words—since before the war. In the late 1950s I used to ask Neill Cooper-Key, who was then the MP for Hastings, what he was going to do about the A.21. So I have been concerned with this problem for a rather long time.
Therefore Hastings, Bexhill, Eastbourne, Battle, etc. must look for their opportunity in road developments that are consequential on the building of the Chunnel. That is why I have chosen to ask the Government this Question in this particular form rather than try to intervene at one of the stages of the Chunnel Bill, though again I congratulate my noble friend Lord Teviot on his efforts at Second Reading.
That is the preamble and the general situation. I shall now try to set out the relevant details. ESFLAG is the acronym of the East Sussex Fixed Link Action Group. The members of it are East Sussex County Council, Eastbourne Borough Council, Hastings Borough Council, Rother District Council and Wealden District Council. Observers are Lewes District Council and Ashford Council. Their concern is that there should be sufficient access to these places, to the 1066 country, the South Downs, etc. in the event of the Chunnel being built. They have been very modest in what they ask for. They are not shouting for great dual carriageway roads. They just say that they want one good road, or preferably two good roads, linking them to the Chunnel terminals.
Thanks to the efforts of East Sussex County Council and also Hastings Council, I was able to place in the
670
Library a week ago a map that makes this whole Question easier to understand. It is a simple black and white line map. There are in existence some magnificent road planning and projection maps but they are hard to copy in many numbers.
The original thrust of ESFLAG's argument was to stress the need for the Hastings eastern bypass, etc., for major comprehensive improvements on the A.259 east of Hastings to Rye and Brenzett, which is in Kent, and to urge that the A.2070 from Brenzett to Ashford should be trunked and become the main access route between the M.20, which in this context effectively means the Chunnel and the South-East. This is a logical route on the map despite the fact that private cars will load and unload at Cheriton. A powerful consideration was that, while there was a decent road as far as Brenzett, it would be comparatively short and simple to trunk the A.2070 to provide a good road to Ashford and the M.20. It was influenced by the obvious major problems in converting the A.259 east of Brenzett into any form of major road conduit. This road is at present very inadequate.
The Department of Transport press notice No. 562 of 23rd October 1986 makes no mention at all of the A.2070. It is headed "Further Trunk Road Proposals for A.259 corridor in Kent and East Sussex", though in fact—and properly I dare say—it concerns itself more with Kent. Among other things, this notice promises a bypass for New Romney while apologising for the disappointment that may be caused by the absence of plans to bypass St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch. If I may quote from the words here attributed to Mr. Peter Bottomley:
"We remain unconvinced that traffic growth estimated for the A.259 justifies reinstatement of these suspended schemes at present".
I shall come back to that later.
On 17th December 1986 I wrote to my noble friend the Minister and received a most courteous reply dated 20th January this year. Obviously his letter is important, and I am particularly grateful for the reassurances that it gives about some of these problems and the promise of future government activity. With the leave of the House I shall quote one sentence from his letter:
"We have explained to ESFLAG in recent correspondence that we do not see any compelling strategic reasons for making the A.2070 the trunk road in place of the eastern section of the A.259 from Brenzett to Hythe and we would only be prepared to pursue this if Kent County Council were of the same view as ESFLAG".
But in this particular matter Kent County Council apparently is not of the same view as ESFLAG. If I may again have leave to quote, Mr. John Fassenfelt, on behalf of the Kent county surveyor, wrote to Mr. Roger Carrier, the Hastings chief executive, on 4th February and said (among other things):
"You mention in your letter the question of trunking the A.2070. This is not something that the county council is pressing for at present".
I am not criticising anyone at all about this matter. There is no criticism implied in the Question. It is a question of seeking enlightenment, not of criticising the Government; certainly not Kent County Council or anyone else.
In view of what I have said, it seems that ESFLAG and everyone else must accept the trunking of the

671
A.250 east of Brenzett in preference to the A.2070. The purpose of my Question is to draw attention to the obvious inadequacies of this road at present. In particular—and perhaps I am just being stupid here—I cannot follow the logic of bypassing New Romney but not Dymchurch or St. Mary's Bay. The map illustrates this point and of course I have been to look more than once.
I am not alone in seeking enlightenment on this point. I have read the relevant minutes of evidence heard so far by the Select Committee, which show that Kent County Council also endorses the need to bypass these two towns. This very important information has been confirmed by the Hastings chief executive, as has another important fact: that Shepway District Council is also concerned by the absence of proposals to bypass Dymchurch and St. Mary's Bay. I am aware that in the past the Government have given some answers to this question, but there is still widespread concern.
I have almost finished, but there is just one thing that I should like to say about forecasting in general. There is a bit of chicken and egg about it. If you say there will be no traffic so we need no road, well of course there will not be any traffic. It is self-fulfilling. That is enough of snails, chickens and eggs. We all recognise that this is a serious debate on a serious matter. I again thank noble Lords who will speak. I shall listen with great interest to what is said, and of course to the Minister's reply.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, my noble friend has taken a great deal of trouble and has followed every road to do with this important subject. I shall hardly mention roads at all because he has covered the whole road aspect. The noble Earl who is going to follow me also, I gather, knows quite a lot about roads.
This Question goes a little beyond roads, as my noble friend equally mentioned. The Channel Tunnel is going to make a great difference to a great many people's lives, not only in the county of Kent and East Sussex but in the rest of the country. I shall go on to speak about East Sussex in a moment. It is going to be a trauma for all of us. Some people have supported the tunnel, and some have not. However, it is something that is going to come into being, though others may think otherwise. Let us take it that the tunnel will come here very soon.
Quite properly the Government have had a Kent consultative committee. I do not suppose that they could have afforded a Sussex consultative committee, but East Sussex is in close proximity. I am not speaking as my noble friend did, as a transport expert. He has covered transport so far as concerns roads and there is little for me to say except that I think I can say here that British Rail has been rather outstanding on this matter. It has promised to improve its line between Hastings and Ashford. I shall refer to British Rail later in my short speech. One follows the excellent advice that one has received from East Sussex County Council and the district councils of the organisation my noble friend mentioned.
Apart from roads, my noble friend mentioned that I spoke on the Second Reading of the tunnel Bill, and
672
perhaps made a "funny", or an amusing remark, or whatever, and referred to the town of Hastings. But, as my noble friend mentioned, Hastings is a serious subject. It is a place that has been forgotten for a long time. I do not see why the Channel Tunnel should make any difference to Hastings, but here is an opportunity for an area to have a bit of consideration.
Although there are industries there, if there could be something more (though not too much) to employ in proportion some of the 20 per cent. unemployed, that would be a great thing—not just industry, but even tourism. I think I can speak a little about tourism not only for Hastings itself, which is an ancient town, but for that delightful part of the countryside.
When we speak about tourism and the Channel Tunnel, we speak about tourism from abroad. We are good ourselves at going to the Continent to have short breaks. One would like a little reciprocity from the Continent to here for short breaks in Kent and East Sussex. One hopes that with the Channel Tunnel tourism will increase. If visitors come for a week, 10 days, a fortnight or even longer they can see further sights in Great Britain and enjoy them.
I am sure there will be a time when people will make trips through that tunnel with their motor cars and will want just short holidays and will go to see East Sussex, which has a great deal to offer—not only the town of Hastings, but Rye, and wherever. The noble Earl lives at Hurst Green. I do not know whether he lives in the part of Hurst Green in the parish of Salehurst or in the parish of Etchingham, but there are two typical English villages. There is the small town of Robertsbridge and the church at Salehurst. There is also the magnificent church of Etchingham with its misericords. There is a great deal for people to see. Very soon I shall stop talking. My noble friend spoke largely about roads. I hope I have opened the subject enough to prove that there is a great deal to see in East Sussex.
My last comment to your Lordships is that the Channel Tunnel may give encouragement to other noble Lords to promote similar Unstarred Questions on other subjects. My noble friend has made it worth while for all of us to consider that.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to offer warm support from the Opposition for the proposition advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge, in such an effective fashion. He indicated that out of the five speakers to follow him, two might be regarded as experts on transport. The noble Lord who has just spoken is clearly one of those, but that leaves four others. I do not know who the other one was he had in mind; it was certainly not me.
In many years in the House I have only once spoken on road transport. Then I was on the winning side, ultimately; I joined in the mass protest against the desecration of Christ Church Meadows, Oxford, and that road has never been driven through. I hope that I shall be on the winning side again here. As the noble Lord who has just spoken said, I have a house in Hurst Green, which is perhaps seven or eight miles from Battle. It seems a long way to walk, which I still do just occasionally—more and more occasionally—but I

673
know that walk and it is about twice as far to Hastings. However, I live in that part of the world.
My only credential, which my colleagues here will appreciate, even if no one else does, is that I am president, no less, of the Battle and Bexhill Labour Party. That is an important office. It is a fine body of men and women. They have not yet threatened the occupying power, but we hope to put that right very shortly otherwise I may be evicted from the presidency after so many years of relative failure.
As the noble Lord indicated, I have come into this more out of my respect for him than for any other reason that occurs to me. I have this high regard for him, and as I live there I should have seemed to be rather a backslider if I had not spoken for a few minutes. The noble Lord drove me round the district on Sunday. We spent about two and a half hours on the job so I am much better qualified to speak. I might speak indefinitely after all that; but as he has said it all so well I do not need to say much more.
I realise it is difficult to discuss these things however clearly they are put except against the background of the various excellent maps; but those who are present at the moment and those interested who read Hansard will be able to understand the argument clearly from the maps. I side entirely with those who say that the crucial communications between Hastings and Hythe—to take those two places only as part of the whole issue—should be vastly improved. That is obvious to any simpleton or anyone who is as ignorant of road transport as I am even after a drive round the district with the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge. As I said, the details of this have been clearly explained by Lord Hardinge and I shall not repeat them. I echo every word he said; for the most part with full comprehension. for the rest in blind faith.
Many years ago the great Edmund Burke spoke with so much eloquence that the next speaker, so we read in our history books, a certain Mr. Cruger—not spelt the same way as the president of the Transvaal, Mr. Kruger—could think of nothing better to say when it came to his turn except:
"1 say 'ditto' to Mr. Burke."
In fact he was so keen on saying that, that he ended by saying:
"I say 'ditto' to Mr. Burke."
All I can do now is to end by saying:
"I say 'ditto' to Lord Hardinge."
9.35 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I also would like to thank my noble friend Lord Hardinge of Penshurst for putting down this Unstarred Question. It gives me the opportunity to say a few words. I think also I ought to congratulate my noble friend upon what I gather was an enjoyable all-party car trip that he organised last week-end. I really want just to dot a few i's and cross a few t's following what has been said.
I wish to emphasise the situation of Hastings, where unemployment is very much the highest in the county of Sussex. I believe the figure last December was 13.6 per cent. I should also like to mention that in the hinterland there is a rural development area. About two-thirds is in Kent and one-third in East Sussex. It
674
was promoted by the Sussex Rural Community Council and the Sussex committee of CoSIRA, to both of which committees I belong, with the backing of the Kent CoSIRA and of the two county councils. So there is no doubt that this is an area where there is a severe problem.
As regards the impact of the tunnel, I believe the informed wisdom in East Sussex is that it is likely to close the Newhaven-Dieppe ferry route. That means the loss of 900 jobs in Newhaven and probably also a loss of tourism owing to the inaccessibility of the area from anywhere else, and the lack of road communications along the coast.
There is no doubt that going eastwards along the coast and arriving at Brighton, one is confronted with a rather interesting choice if one wants to go on to Dover. Undoubtedly it is quickest to go straight up the Brighton-London road on to the M.25, down the M.20 and across perhaps to the M.2. It is a great long trek but probably saves half an hour over any other route.
There are about four other choices that one can make—combinations of bucolic charm and frustration by traffic. Probably the worst choice of route at the moment, until something is done, is to continue along the A.259, the coast road. It is absolutely no good as regards communications with Hastings. One must stress the importance of doing something for the Hastings area in order to prevent further deterioration taking place, as it could so easily do. One has also to consider the support for the tourist industry in East Sussex. I would imagine that the transport authorities have also to consider what needs to be done ultimately about relieving the southern sections of the M.25. I would strongly suggest that there is a good deal to be said for not continuing to deal in a piecemeal fashion with the A.259. Much needs to be done. It is highly desirable that something pretty effective should be in place by 1993 when the tunnel opens.
To return to the Hastings problem for a moment, the destinations for tunnel traffic would, to my mind, be both Folkestone and Ashford. I remain concerned that there is to be no trunking of the A.2070 from Brenzett to Ashford. I am very hopeful that we may hear more about that tonight because I believe, in the end, it will be most necessary.
I realise that there will be residents of Kent with susceptibilities, and I am sorry that there are no noble Lords from Kent speaking tonight. I can only hope that they are not too discomfited by what we are saying. I am afraid there is no doubt that my noble friend the Minister will have to keep a balance if we transgress a little too far. Here we are all from East Sussex, having our say. I hope very much that the Minister might be able to relieve our minds somewhat tonight about the problems in East Sussex.
9.42 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think we should first of all congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, on raising the question of roads in East Sussex. I should also like to thank the Minister for sending me a map showing the existing and proposed road system in the area. I must pay tribute,

675
as always in matters of roads and traffic, to the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association who have both been most helpful in informing me about an area of the country which could not exactly be considered my own backyard. It is an interesting reflection that when I looked up the map I realised that where I live in Central Scotland is almost half-way between the extremities of the British Isles from Shetland to Hastings. That gives one some idea of just how far it may be from me and also people tend to forget that the country goes a long way further north than we sometimes imagine.
I have been most interested in the comments which have been made. I am absolutely sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, and my noble friend Lord Longford, who are knowledgeable about the area and also Lord Monk Bretton are familiar with the roads and realise the great problems arising from the shortage of roads in the area. However, I also appreciate the Government's problem of priorities which is always very great. It is interesting that every speaker as well as the wording of the Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, has mentioned the Channel Tunnel and the infrastructure. The point came out during various debates which we had on the Channel Tunnel, and it was made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, both on the Second Reading and again this evening that the whole country is concerned about the Channel Tunnel and its infrastructure. Certainly any extra money put into that infrastructure will be looked at very closely by other regions and it will also be closely watched, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, by the ferry operators who feel they are not being very fairly treated.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, spoke about the difficulties of Newhaven and the possibility of it being almost by-passed or even closing down once the tunnel comes into operation. Although I have been marginally keen on and in fact was at one time very enthusiastic about the tunnel, all these problems are beginning to arise which might make us think twice about the project. The ferry people are really quite concerned. I am sure many noble Lords received the letter from Sealink Ferries. We all know that they have an axe to grind, but they say this:
"We all know that the planning process for road improvements is tortuous and that governments might say they will make improvements in access to ferry ports, then just hide behind planning difficulties and do nothing.".
That is as against the ones to which the Government give a high priority. The Channel Tunnel will go ahead much more quickly and many of the processes will be by-passed.
I am sorry to appear less than totally enthusiastic about the urgency which noble Lords have expressed over these roads. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, who probably knows the problem better than us, may be a little disappointed. I am interested in what the Minister's reply will be. It is not that I do not sympathise with the strong feelings about the amenities of the area, but I know that fighting for roads is something with which the Minister will be all too familiar. Every group of people in this House and in another House have their own priorities
676
and it is up to the department to make balanced judgments.
I do not have a great deal of faith in the belief that there is some mystical way, some fundamental scientific way, in which the department makes its assessments of traffic, accident losses and all the other paraphernalia. I have seen too many roads brought on by political expediency or some other reason in both parties to believe that there is any scientific way of making an assessment. The department produces figures—
Lord Teviot: My Lords, the roads in East Sussex and South-West Kent are rather similar to Highland roads. I do not know whether the noble Lord has visited these roads but they are not dissimilar.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I agree that they have something in common. We were a little lucky in that off the North-East coast of Scotland oil was discovered and there was a sudden readjustment of priorities to accommodate it. In East Kent there is a great readjustment to accommodate the Channel Tunnel which will possibly burn itself out. I wish the noble Lord well in his campaign for road improvements in the area. As I said, I do not want to be too dampening. But I have a little experience of fighting for roads in different parts of the country and in listening to people who are fighting for roads.
I am probably doing the department a great disservice here, but at the end of the day it is like a whole lot of other things. To use the Scottish expression,
"The greetin' wean gets fed first",
and that is what happens, unless there is something overriding, like oil or the Channel Tunnel. But other roads tend to be built according to the political and other pressures which are put on the Government or the department. Therefore, I wish the noble Lord well in his efforts.
9.49 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, let me first say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Hardinge of Penshurst for the Question he has asked about the A.259. I also take the opportunity of thanking other noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and I have something in common in that I do not think that either of us has any local interest in the area though I must admit that I once had a great uncle and aunt living in Dymchurch.
This part of the A.259 forms the most easterly section of the south coast trunk route between Honiton in Devon and Folkestone in Kent. From Southampton eastwards, the south coast trunk route consists of the M.27 to Cosham, near Portsmouth, then the A.27 to Pevensey near Eastbourne, and then the A.259 to Folkestone. The A.27 serves a number of important towns such as Havant, Chichester, Arundel, Worthing, Brighton and Lewes, before terminating at Pevensey. From Pevensey eastwards the A.259 passes through Bexhill, Hastings, Winchelsea and Rye and across the Romney Marshes by New Romney, St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch to Hythe and Folkestone. Some of those towns already have bypasses. Several

677
further bypasses are proposed as part of the Department of Transport's extensive plans for substantially improving the route. The improvements planned are a measure of the importance which we place on this essential part of the national trunk road network.
The standard of trunk routes is determined by the traffic expected to use them. An important feature of the A.27/A.259 route, which has to some extent determined priorities, is that traffic reduces, except around Brighton, the further east one travels. For example, traffic flows in 1985 on the M.27 near Portsmouth were 52,700 vehicles per day; on the A.27 east of Chichester the flow was 24,000; east of Arundel it was 19,000 and east of Brighton it was 25,700. However, west of Eastbourne it was 12,000 and on the A.259 east of Hastings it was about 7,000 vehicles a day.
Until recently, resources in the South-East have been concentrated on major routes of national importance, such as the M.3, M.4, M.20, M.23, M.25 and M.27, although some of these routes have of course helped Sussex by improving access to and from the area. Following the excellent progress that has been made on the major strategic routes, we are now giving high priority to the improvement of the A.27 and the A.259. Prior to the renewed interest in a Channel fixed link in April 1985, to which I shall return, there were seven major schemes on the A.27 and two on the A.259 in the national trunk road programme. The June 1985 review added three further schemes, two on the A.27 and one on the A.259.
I shall not on this occasion detail the progress that has been made on the A.27 schemes. But when completed the nine major A.27 schemes in the current programme will provide some 32 miles of improved trunk road at a total cost of about £125 million at November 1983 prices.
I shall deal with the A.259 section of the trunk route shortly. I turn first to the implications of the proposed Channel Tunnel. The Government are committed to ensuring the adequacy of the trunk road network, particularly in Kent, for traffic to and from the Continent following the proposed opening of the tunnel in 1993. It should not be overlooked that the road infrastructure needs to take account of traffic using both the tunnel and the Channel ports, and that most of the proposed motorway and trunk road improvements are required to cope with the projected increases in traffic with or without a tunnel.
Since the Channel Tunnel came once again under active consideration, a number of reviews of the specific road infrastructure requirements have taken place. It has for many years been the Government's policy that the M.20 should be the principal corridor from London and the M.25 to the Channel ports of Dover and Folkestone, whether or not the Channel Tunnel was built. The Channel fixed link White Paper of February 1986 explaining the choice of the Eurotunnel proposals confirmed the decision that the M.20 should be the principal corridor and the department's intention to complete the M.20 Maidstone-Ashford section, the widening of the Maidstone bypass section of the M.20 from two lanes to three and the improvement of the A.20 between Folkestone and Dover.
678
In the late summer of 1986, the Department of Transport carried out an assessment of possible improvements along the A.259/A.261 corridor. My honourable friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic subsequently announced in October 1986 that a New Romney bypass (suspended since 1980 along with bypasses of St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch) would be restored to the active programme and that consideration would be given to a possible A.259 eastern bypass of Hastings. My honourable friend also announced that we planned to detrunk the A.259 between Hythe and Folkestone and to trunk instead the A.261/A.20 route from Hythe to the M.20 at Stanford. In this connection he said that he would consider whether a scheme to improve the A.261/A.20 should be included in the review of the trunk road programme which is currently being undertaken.
My honourable friend also said, with regret, that the bypasses of St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch would remain suspended at that time, though they would be kept under review.
There has been concern about the suitability of the A.261/A.20 route between Hythe and the M.20 as a trunk road, which my honourable friend Mr. Howard, the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, has drawn to the Government's attention. My honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for roads and traffic has considered whether a scheme to improve this route should be added to the programme in the current review. I am pleased to announce his decision to include it. We shall appoint design agents to investigate and prepare detailed proposals for the improvement. This will include examination of all options, both along the line of the existing road and along new routes.
We need, however, to trunk the route in order to be able to exercise our powers to improve it. The next step will be to publish draft orders for both the trunking of the A.261/A.20 route and the associated detrunking of the A.259 east of Hythe, probably in the summer. These orders would be formally open to objection which would give people an opportunity to express their conerns. Depending on the objections, a public inquiry may be held.
I turn to the A.259/A.261. Our current predictions of traffic on the A.259 indicate that the Channel Tunnel may generate about an extra 1,000 vehicles per day in the year 2008, split between the A.259 and the A.2070 from Brenzett to Ashford. This would not be likely to add more than 10 per cent. to the A.259 traffic there.
We also recognise that there is an alternative route from Hastings which follows the A.259 to Brenzett and then heads northwards on the A.2070 to Ashford, thence via the M.20 to Folkestone. Provision for the proposed Ashford south orbital road is included in the Channel Tunnel Bill. And the Government have offered transport supplementary grant to Kent County Council for this scheme and improvements to the A.2070 at Ham Street and at Ashford.
I note the views of my noble friends Lord Hardinge and Lord Monk Bretton that the A.2070 should become a trunk road. My right honourable friend does not accept that there is any compelling strategic reason

679
for making that road a trunk road either in addition to the existing A.259 trunk road between Brenzett and Folkestone or in place of our strategy of making the existing A.259, between Brenzett and Hythe, and the A.261, following trunking, the preferred route for traffic wanting access to the tunnel terminal at Folkestone. The A.2070 is the responsibility of Kent County Council, which has made no proposal to trunk the road and supports our strategy to trunk the A.261/A.20 route.
I turn again to the A.259 between Brenzett and Hythe and my noble friend's concern that the communities of St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch be bypassed. Since the conclusions of the A.259/A.261 review were announced in October 1986. Kent County Council and Shepway District Council and others have expressed their concern that the department's proposals for the A.259 do not go far enough. They have made petitions to and appearances before the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill. In particular, Kent County Council has called for reinstatement in the programme of the bypass schemes to St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch, and Shepway District Council has asked for further consideration to be given to the possibility of a new trunk road to replace the A.259 which would pass to the north of Rye and link to the M.20 at Stanford. Taking Shepway's point first, my right honourable friend could not, in view of the modest traffic flows, justify providing a completely new route between Rye and the M.20 at Stanford, nor indeed between Brenzett and Stanford.
What my right honourable friend has done, however, is to look again at the possibility of including a bypass of St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch in the current review of the trunk road programme. He has had to weigh a number of factors. We do not have unlimited resources for road improvements and there are many schemes nationally competing for a place in the programme, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, pointed out. We have also had to consider the local aspects of a scheme for St. Mary's Bay and Dymchurch, including the visual impact of a new road 4.2 miles long with a bridge over the railway line, encroaching into Romney Marsh. The marsh itself is designated as an area of special significance to agriculture and contains valuable areas of unimproved pasture. I am pleased to announce that my right honourable friend has decided to add this scheme to the programme and the design agents will take these environmental considerations into account. I hope the exceptional reasons for announcing today these additions to the national programme will be understood.
If I may summarise in conclusion, Her Majesty's Government accept the need to improve the A.259 between Hastings and Hythe and from there via the A.261/A.20 to the M.20 at Stanford. We already have four major schemes in preparation—bypasses of Bexhill and Western Hastings, Winchelsea, Rye and New Romney—to which we can now add St Mary's Bay and Dymchurch and the A.261 scheme. When completed, these schemes will provide some 22 miles of improved trunk road at a cost of about £40 million at November 1983 prices. In addition, the regional
680
programme of smaller schemes includes improvements at Guestling Thorn, Icklesham, Brookland and Brenzett.
Our aim is that these schemes should be completed or under construction by the time the Channel Tunnel opens; but my right honourable friend cannot guarantee that timing given the need for detailed preparation and design and the uncertainties of the highway inquiry procedures. This represents a substantial investment in the A.259, which, even with traffic generated by the tunnel and its associated developments at Folkestone and Ashford, will remain lightly trafficked compared with most trunk roads. Implementation of the present proposals for the A.259/A.261 and for the A.2070 by Kent County Council will mean that East Sussex will be connected to the M.20 by two improved routes east of Brenzett, the choice of route depending on the final destination—by A.2070 to Ashford and the proposed inland clearance depot or the more direct A.259 route to Folkestone and the tunnel. I can confirm that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider very carefully in the current review of the trunk road programme whether a place can also be found for an eastern bypass of Hastings.
Once again I should like to thank my noble friend for raising this matter and I hope that both he and those concerned in Kent and East Sussex will be pleased with the announcements I have been able to make tonight.

Housing (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at two minutes past ten o'clock.

  DEER POACHING
  DEER POACHING
  BRITISH SUMMER TIME
  BRITISH SUMMER TIME
  ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
  ANIMAL PROCEDURES COMMITTEE
  JERSEY AND GUERNSEY: DEFENCE CONTRIBUTIONS
  JERSEY AND GUERNSEY: DEFENCE CONTRIBUTIONS
  GRAND PROGRAMME EXPENDTURE
  GRAND PROGRAMME EXPENDTURE
  VOLUNTARY PROJECTS FUNDING
  VOLUNTARY PROJECTS FUNDING
  POPULATION FIGURES
  POPULATION FIGURES
  CO-OPERATION NORTH: GRANT
  CO-OPERATION NORTH: GRANT
  COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS: BRUSSELS MEETING
  COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS: BRUSSELS MEETING