Sitting of 19 November 1987

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 26 November.
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL (By Order)
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  HAMPSHIRE (LYNDHURST BYPASS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  BRITISH RAILWAYS (LONDON) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To he read a Second time upon Thursday 26 November

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Intervention Stocks
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current totals of intervention stocks held in store in the United Kingdom, broken down by commodity.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): A note setting out the volume of intervention stocks in the
    1184
    United Kingdom on the latest available dates, broken down by commodities, is deposited in the Library of the House and is updated monthly.
    Mr. Loyden: I have acquainted myself with the up-to-date position. Does the Minister agree that it is an outright indictment of CAP policy that food to this extent can be hoarded when in the Third world about 40,000 children die every day from starvation and related diseases? Why do the Government appear to be sabotaging the only good that has Bowed from that policy — the distribution of food in Britain to the poor and needy—by intervening to stop that plan?
    Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) has made great efforts to ensure that European food is distributed in the Third world, but the inability of Third-world Governments to accept Oxfam or other organisations and the habit of Third-world revolutionaries of shooting at food convoys does not help the smooth distribution of that food. [Interruption.] That may sound absurd to Labour Members, but it is true. Intervention stocks of butter in Britain have decreased by 25 per cent. and of wheat by 50 per cent. over the past year. We are not trying to sabotage any deals on food for the poor. In collaboration with other people, we are trying to make those schemes more efficient and more effective.
    Mr. Curry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Third world needs help in developing self-sufficiency and that to use developing countries as a dustbin for European surpluses is against their interests?
    Mr. Thompson: I agree with my hon. Friend. The examples of India and China demonstrate what happens when countries begin to produce their own food. Oxfam says that it is not food that is needed, but education for people in the Third world on how to become as efficient in agricultural production as we are in Europe.
    Mr. Ron Davies: We deprecate the Minister's facile comments about the Third world. Does he understand that this winter there will be a sense of outrage if these large stocks of beef and dairy products lie unused in intervention as a result of the Government's deliberate torpedoing of the scheme that is currently being discussed in Brussels? Will he undertake to reconsider his position and go to Brussels and argue for the distribution of the surpluses to the needy in Britain and the Third world? Will he further undertake that, if such a scheme is eventually agreed in Brussels, he and the Government will not block its introduction in Britain?
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically fudging two quite distinct issues. In the context of butter and food, we are doing as the hon. Gentleman asks, because we are trying to get the best possible scheme for this system to work efficiently. The distribution of food surpluses to the Third world is of paramount importance, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should do all that we can to ensure that it is distributed properly. I wish that some of the recipient countries were as open, free and able to receive it.
    Sir John Farr: The House recognises that the surpluses are caused by over-production. Will my hon. Friend comment on what happened last night when the French and German Ministers of Agriculture walked out of a meeting designed to bring about a European 20 per cent.

    1185
    set-aside programme? Will my hon. Friend condemn the action by those Ministers, because if we could bring about that sort of programme it would reduce surpluses?
    Mr. Thompson: I do not wish to pre-empt the answer to be given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on that detailed and important question.
    Mr. Speaker: I appeal to the House for briefer questions, please.

    Pollution
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will recommend a date for the termination of burning waste at sea, ocean incineration, as agreed by delegates at the sixth meeting of the Oslo Commission in 1981.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): This is one of the questions which will be discussed at next week's ministerial conference on the North sea in London, and one to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment and I will be giving careful attention.
    Ms. Ruddock: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is it not true that the British Government have already blocked a proposal by the Nordic countries to end incineration at sea by 1991? As the Government are a signatory to the Oslo agreement, surely they have a commitment to set a date for termination prior to 1990.
    Mr. Gummer: The Oslo agreement demands that there should be a date for termination. We will listen to the arguments carefully. The United Kingdom is responsible for only about 3 per cent. of the waste incinerated on the North sea, but we are concerned to ensure that the destruction of waste is done in the most ecological way. A difficulty facing the hon. Lady is that the scientific evidence shows that in many cases incineration is the best way of dealing with waste. We have to face that problem.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the initiative taken in holding the North sea conference on this matter, which is of great international anxiety. I congratulate also those concerned with the production of a consensus document agreed between the scientists of the countries concerned. Does my right hon. Friend agree that international co-operation, which involves give and take on our part as well as that of others, is the route to solving all these problems?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about that. It is a matter to which the countries concerned must together find an answer. I think that my hon. Friend will also agree that any answer that we find should be based firmly on the scientific evidence and not derived from ulterior and exterior emotional answers.
    Dr. David Clark: Why is the Minister so hesitant about joining all our North sea neighbours in calling a halt to incineration at sea, which is partly responsible for 30 per cent. of the fish caught in the German Bight being diseased? Is the Minister aware that the Government's hazardous waste inspectorate's report for 1986 says that ocean incineration should not be regarded as a long-term solution?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. That is not the reason for the diseased fish. The United Kingdom
    1186
    Government want to find the best possible answer to this problem and we wish to go ahead on the basis of the best possible scientific information. We are holding the conference in order to come to a decision together. There is not much point in pre-empting the decisions of the conference.

    Dairy Industry
    Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what impact on the dairy industry he expects as a result of capital gains tax from the sale of milk quotas being given roll-over relief.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I am delighted that roll-over relief on capital gains tax on the sale of milk quota has been accepted as from 29 October. It will now be more attractive for farmers to develop their businesses, since the tax on the proceeds of the sale of milk quota will be deferred when these are used to acquire a new asset. I know that this has been warmly welcomed by the farming community.
    Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the decision has, indeed, been warmly welcomed in dairying areas, such as the south-west of England? However, is he aware that many farmers who sold their farms with milk quota prior to that date have suffered hardship? Is there any chance that they might benefit retrospectively from the announcement?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I should like to express my gratitude to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury for making the announcement and agreeing the decision. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a general principle, which I believe is supported on both sides of the House, that one cannot have retrospective legislation in tax matters and that there is always a cut-off point. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is helpful that the announcement has been made by means of a written answer in the House well in advance of next year's Budget so that all those concerned will benefit from 29 October through to next year's Finance Bill.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the great concern in many dairy areas about the effect of the sale of milk quotas outside those areas? It is feared that that will lead to less milk being available in creameries and to a shut-down of creameries, as is being proposed in Gwynedd and Dyfed. What does the Minister intend to do about that?
    Mr. MacGregor: There is not a great deal of evidence to suggest that the introduction and transferability of quotas has led to big regional variations in the supply of milk. I do not think that that is so, but it is certainly something that I watch. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is quite a gulf between examining the evidence and agreeing proposals for policy changes which might in themselves be disadvantageous.
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to have discussions about the dairy sector with the president of the National Farmers Union.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: My right hon. Friend meets the president of the National Farmers Union regularly, but has no immediate plans to have specific discussions about the dairy sector.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend intend to seek an extension of the quota period beyond 1991 so that dairy farmers can plan ahead properly?
    Mr. Thompson: As my hon. Friend says, uncertainty is the greatest concern in the farming community at present. I know that my right hon. Friend is pressing the Commission—and will be pressed by the president of the National Farmers Union — on this very point. However, conclusions have not yet been drawn.
    Mr. Grocott: We all know and understand that the Minister and his officials meet representatives of the National Farmers Union regularly. However, will the Minister ensure in future that he follows the precedent set by his distinguished predecessor, John Silkin, and takes a little more notice of what consumers of dairy products require and a little less notice of what producers require?
    Mr. Thompson: Consumers want an ample and ready supply of clean, wholesome food at a reasonable price. We see the consumers from time to time on various matters. The hon. Gentleman may also like to know that yesterday I saw representatives of farm workers on various points related to agriculture.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that something has gone wrong with the distribution of milk in the United Kingdom? In some areas butter is being manufactured for intervention while elsewhere creameries are short of milk to manufacture into cheese for early sale.
    Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend is being delicate when he refers to Scotland as "some areas". There is a trade in liquid milk between England and Scotland. My right hon. Friend and I have met Scottish Ministers to discuss this matter, and ways of resolving the difficulties are being pursued urgently.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that he does not have to go to Scotland to find difficulties of distribution, as they are found in England, too? Will he discuss with the European Community whether the quotas are right, as we now seem to be passing from ridiculous surpluses to possible shortage?
    Mr. Thompson: As my hon. Friend knows, I am fully aware of the difficulties that some cheese producers in the United Kingdom have had this year. I have already discussed this complex question with the Milk Marketing Board, and my right hon. Friend is doing the same. We hope that the situation in England will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction by next year.

    Pollution
    Dr. Moonie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is currently sponsoring into North sea pollution.
    Mr. Gummer: This Department maintains an extensive monitoring and research programme in the North sea, which includes studies of fish and shellfish quality, water quality, conditions at sea disposal sites, and examination of the effects of a wide range of contaminants.
    Dr. Moonie: I am sure that the Minister will share my concern about reports of the declining population of cetaceans in the North sea and of sickness among other species. What does he propose to do about the matter?
    Mr. Gummer: I am always concerned when I hear reports of environmental damage or damage to particular species. We are spending about £1·5 million on work in the North sea alone and about £5·4 million in all on marine pollution. I look carefully at anything that suggests that we should be spending more or taking immediate action.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation that is felt for his long-term work on incineration at sea? However, many fishermen in Scarborough fear pollution, because they claim that the processes presently adopted by boats, such as the Vulcanus,are not being properly carried out?
    Mr. Gummer: I perfectly well realise the concerns of fishermen in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere. As he knows, the area to which he referred is in Dutch waters. We are anxious that the rules should be carefully kept, even though we carry out only a small amount of incineration. My hon. Friend underlines the point that decisions about the North sea should be made together by all the countries concerned, and that is why we are taking so active a part in the North sea conference.
    Ms. Walley: Will the Minister therefore give an assurance that he will introduce the best up-to-date technology to prevent discharges into the North sea from Sellafield around the top part of the country?
    Mr. Gummer: I am obviously anxious to ensure that Sellafield has the highest standards, and we have recently imposed further restrictions on how that waste should be discharged. I take my responsibilities in that area particularly seriously because of my own constituency interest in nuclear power.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend note the proposal before the Teesside development corporation to build a barrage across the River Tees because the present washing of effluent up and down the Tees, which is dumped in the lower Tees by several Teesside manufacturers, would mean that the lower part of that river would become polluted to the extent that it would be almost dead and that the pollution would inevitably be washed into the North sea? Will my right hon. Friend take note of that so that his Department will be able to establish some monitoring techniques before the proposal is put fully before the development corporation?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall look most carefully at that. We are anxious to continue our policy of improving the quality of water in the North sea. Our contribution to pollution is much lower than that of many of our neighbours. We must aim at solving the major problems in front of us and at the same time prevent any new problems arising. That is why the conference that is about to open is important, and we hope to use it most effectively.
    Dr. Godman: As some research shows that the dumping of industrial waste can damage fish stocks, and in the light of the relative shallowness and the near landlocked nature of the North sea, with its important fisheries, does it not make better sense, if dumping has to continue, that waste should be sent out to the far Atlantic in suitably equipped ships?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that we live alongside a sea that is widely used and has many shallow areas. For that reason, we look carefully at any dumping that goes

    1189
    on, upon which considerable restrictions have been placed over the years. In every case we look at the best available scientific response. If there were circumstances in which it seemed that we should change the way that we do things, I would be the first to do so because we have a real responsibility to protect not only the fish but the North sea environment.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the take-up in the first series of environmentally sensitive areas.
    Mr. Gummer: In the eight environmentally sensitive areas introduced so far in the United Kingdom there have been over 1,600 applications and formal inquiries. Those cover 60,000 hectares, or 150,000 acres. In England alone we have already achieved three quarters of our long-term target for the first series of areas.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the environmentally sensitive areas policy is in large part because it depends on co-operation and voluntary effort rather than on compulsion and coercion, and that many regard it as one of the most encouraging initiatives in the conservation of the environment for many years?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. I recently attended a conference of environmentalists from all over the world at which it was widely said that our ESA proposals were the most encouraging concepts for the protection of the environment in the past 20 years. The reason is that it is a voluntary system, because it brings farmers in not as antagonists but as the operators of the protection of the environment. That is extremely helpful, and that is why we intend that the second series will spread the ESA attitudes to an ever-wider area of Britain.
    Mr. Hardy: The ESA concept is commendable, but is the Minister aware that there is continued destruction of habitat in those areas and elsewhere, not least through the continuing destruction of large lengths of hedgerow, and that throughout that period of serious destruction the Government have maintained a most obstructive view to any attempt to secure protection'? Is that obstruction to continue?
    Mr. Gummer: I find that an odd question when, in the environmentally sensitive areas, we are encouraging farmers to look after the land in the most environmentally satisfactory way. One thing that we are doing is protecting the hedgerows. We now give grants to people to look after their hedgerows. To suggest that the Government are in some way obstructing that runs totally contrary to what the Government have done. We have moved from a position that obtained some years ago when people were given money to pull hedgerows up to one where we are now giving money to people to keep hedgerows. That is an entire change and cannot be called obstructive.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: If farmers on that part of the Sussex downs designated as an ESA are encouraged to convert arable land to grassland for sheep grazing, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the question of access to the downs and the possible danger of dogs worrying sheep?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point out that there is a real, and increasing, problem in which various
    1190
    perfectly proper desires come into conflict one with another. It is not just a question, on the one hand, of farmers trying to look after the land properly and, on the other, of those who wish access wanting to get on to that land. Environmentalists are concerned to retain the sort of environment that is natural to particular parts of the country. With the local authorities, we will have to work out ways in the ESAs of ensuring that we do not get the sheep worrying that we might otherwise have.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings he has had with other EEC Agriculture Ministers regarding the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: The Agriculture Council met on Monday of this week with the objective of completing discussions on proposals on agricultural stabilisers in preparation for the European Council. It adjourned yesterday and reconvenes next Monday morning, 23 November. Some progress was made, but I greatly regret that it has not been possible to meet again earlier than Monday as it is now urgent that decisions are taken to ensure greater budgetary discipline in the CAP.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that, under this Government, agriculture is the most highly subsidised industry in Britain, costing every family of four approximately £11·50 per week? If the Common Market were a coal mine, the Prime Minister would close it. Is the Minister aware that £20 million of the massive subsidy is due to swindling, and that not one bureaucrat, unlike councillors, has been surcharged? Instead of whingeing about stabilisers, waving goodbye to the Germans, and the rest, why do the Government not do the decent thing and get out of this unmitigated disaster?
    Mr. MacGregor: As usual, the hon. Gentleman just does not understand. The whole point about the discussion on agricultural stabilisers is to get greater budgetary discipline into the CAP. We are as concerned as anyone about the level of subsidy that is going into the disposal and storage of stocks that cannot be got rid of, except at subsidised prices. The Government are playing a full part in that. However, it is also a fact that the British agriculture industry is one of the most competitive and efficient in Europe and is one of the most competitive in the United Kingdom. It responds well to technological innovation, and it has enabled us to produce 80 per cent. of all the food that we can grow here, compared to a much lower level before. It is also a fact that agricultural incomes have been under pressure and that food prices have been rising less than the RPI.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: May I ask my right hon. Friend totally to ignore any advice that he receives from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and to accept that the common agricultural policy has been a great success? Does he agree that food is cheap in the EEC and that in Britain we are spending 25 per cent. less of our disposable income than we were nine years ago? Does he realise that milk is cheaper than the water that can be bought in bottles?
    Mr. MacGregor: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have yet to hear any advice from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I have found at all helpful. Obviously, I agree with my hon. Friend's complimentary

    1191
    remarks about British agriculture and its contribution to our nation. On the other hand, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the present level of subsidies for unwanted surpluses is unsustainable and must be tackled.
    Mr. Heffer: Is it not ridiculous that there is food in Common Market food storage depots in Liverpool when people in the Third world are suffering and starving and people in Liverpool are struggling to make ends meet? Is it not time that the Government stopped messing about with the agricultural policy and fought to change it entirely, or got out of the Common Market?
    Mr. MacGregor: Getting out of the Common Market would do no one any good. The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the exchanges earlier during Question Time, when the issue of food aid was addressed. I shall not repeat all that. However, he must realise that one purpose of the discussions on stabilisers is to reduce the amount of stocks in intervention. It is a fact that, as a result of the recent decisions that were taken by the Council, the United Kingdom's butter stocks are down by 20 per cent. compared with a year ago, wheat and barley stocks are down by over 50 per cent. and skimmed milk powder stocks are down by 85 per cent. Therefore, we are succeeding in reducing those stocks in intervention.
    Mr. Marland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that output from British farms is falling and that the real problem lies with the surpluses and in the cost of storing the surpluses that are currently in store, many of which are, sadly, unusable? Will he further confirm that he will not introduce quotas on any other agricultural produce, other than those that are currently in position?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question. I assure him that we are reducing stocks such as the amount of feed wheat that is in store, and finding markets for it. On his point about quotas, no proposals for quotas on any other commodities are before the Council at the moment.
    Dr. David Clark: May I assure the Minister that he has the support of Opposition Members in any genuine attempts at a major reform of the CAP that would reduce wasteful expenditure and lead to a reduction in unnecessary and unwanted surpluses? Will he assure the House that the stabilisers that he speaks about are truly effective, not only in reducing surpluses, but in cutting out unwanted production? Finally, will he give the House a categorical assurance that he will not in any way support an oil and fat tax, which would increase the price of margarine in this country by up to 60 per cent.?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first point. Regarding his second point, what we are striving to do in the current discussions is to get stabilisers that are truly effective in the direction that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. That is important for our farmers, and in other ways. I regret that we have not made enough progress on that this week, and I am determined to try to ensure that we make more progress when we resume on Monday.
    The hon. Gentleman's third point concerned the oils and fats tax. We have been strongly critical of that tax throughout — the hon. Gentleman gave one of the reasons for that — and we are maintaining our opposition to it.

    Veal Crates
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress there has been on the abolition of veal crates.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that regulations to abolish veal crates were approved by the House yesterday and will be the subject of a debate in another place today.
    Mr. Knight: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the regulations will require that calves be free to turn around without difficulty, and will also make provision to ensure that they receive a balanced diet? In addition, will he give a pledge to the House that the Government will support the tabling of a calf welfare directive in Europe?
    Mr. Thompson: I shall give my hon. Friend all those assurances—especially the last one.
    Mr. Morley: Has the Minister further considered the regulations as they apply to battery hens and cage sizes? Do the Government have any plans to amend the law and lay down recommendations for increased sizes or battery hen cages?
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman missed the pleasure of our debate with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) yesterday, when we went into a great deal of detail about battery hens and cage sizes. The minimum size—and width— for a cage has been laid down for Europe, but minimum sizes above and beyond that are laid down in this country for cages holding one, two or three birds.

    Rhizomania
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to ensure that there are no further outbreaks of rhizomania in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MacGregor: We have taken strong and positive action to prevent the spread of the disease. The outbreak of rhizomania in Suffolk has been contained by stringent controls to stop infected plants and soil being moved from the farm. Since the outbreak in August we have surveyed over 12,000 hectares of beet crops and have found no other infection.
    We have recently reduced the amount of soil that can be imported with potatoes from 2 per cent. to 1 per cent. and introduced the 1 per cent. allowance for certain other root vegetables. We intend soon to introduce statutory controls to allow the disposal to land of waste from the processing of imported potatoes and other root vegetables only on sites approved by the Ministry.
    Mr. Alexander: My right hon. Friend has given a most helpful reply. Does he recollect that the sugar beet industry has for some time been asking for stricter controls on soil disposal, and that the Ministry has declined those in favour of a voluntary code? As rhizomania is spread by a virus in soil imported from abroad, it is almost certain that the recent outbreak came from imported vegetables, so our present controls were clearly inadequate.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I examined the proposals that I have mentioned to him today during the summer — before the outbreak of rhizomania — with a view to taking action. I am as

    1193
    determined as anyone to ensure that the disease does not spread, so we have been—and are — moving to the precise point to which my hon. Friend wants us to move.
    As to whether the disease comes from imported vegetables, we have examined every possible source from which the outbreak might have come, and there is no evidence that it had anything to do with imports. It was certainly not due to the failure of the measures that we have taken in the past few years. It is now clear that the disease had been in that particular field for some years.
    Mr. Bellingham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many Norfolk beet growers will be pleased with the constructive and positive response that he has given today. Is he aware that many of those beet growers want to diversify out of arable land into woodland? What progress is being made on a farm woodland scheme?
    Mr. MacGregor: The Bill dealing with the farm woodland scheme has now had its Second Reading in another place. It is progressing, and I hope that it will come to the House with due speed before too long so that we can get the scheme into operation.

    Beef
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of the beef sector.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The market for beef cattle is reasonably firm, with prices generally above the level of last year. With the prospect of less beef from the dairy herd it is encouraging to note that the specialist beef herd had risen by 2·4 per cent. at the June census.
    Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister for that information, but will he accept that there is real concern that there could be a serious beef shortage in the coming years, given the cuts resulting from the dairy quotas? Given that that is so, will the Minister press hard in the next round of negotiations to ensure that there is a substantial increase in the suckler cow premium? That premium is the best way to ensure that we get the quality beef we need, raised in the environmentally acceptable circumstances that most people want. That is what the beef farmers in the quality area that I represent are looking for.
    Mr. Thompson: The premium is at 35 per cent. this year. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question, because a great proportion of the suckler herd is in the less-favoured areas and we need quality beef from those areas. We shall do all that we can to ensure that England and Scotland continue to provide premium beef of the highest quality.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that, unless help is given to the small dairy farmers who suffered grievously from the hurricane, there will be an even more serious knock-on effect for the beef sector, as many farmers will have to go out of business?
    Mr. Thompson: The dairy and beef herd run together and one depends on the other. We have looked at all sorts of ways to help those people damaged by the hurricane and we shall further consider any specific proposals that my hon. Friend may bring forward.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that in my constituency we produce beautiful, delicious English beef? —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear".] So as not to upset
    1194
    my Scottish colleagues, they also produce beautiful beef. When will the Minister do something about the importation of the rubbish from abroad?
    Mr. Thompson: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman's constituency continues to provide high quality beef, as it continues to provide all sorts of other high quality goods. The limitations on imported beef are very strict. We allow a small amount of high quality Hilton beef from the United States. We import some quota beef to help Third world countries — Opposition Members were demanding that when we discussed Question 1 today. Generally, we produce and eat a great deal, if not most, of our own beef.

    Agricultural Surpluses
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest progress being made within the European Community to reduce agricultural surpluses.
    Mr. MacGregor: As I said earlier, the Council of Agriculture Ministers is currently considering Commission proposals directed at tackling surpluses and their associated budgetary costs and bringing the common agricultural policy within a framework of greater budgetary discipline.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to continue to insist on a legal framework of binding rules to ensure budgetary discipline for agricultural spending if the future of the European Community is not to be imperilled? Such controls must ensure strict production controls on every major product area.
    Mr. MacGregor: I certainly agree about the importance of providing a budgetary framework that really works to keep the CAP within the budget allocated to it. At the present time—this is one of the problems—the proposed Commission expenditure on agriculture for next year is £3,000 million above the guidelines calculated under the current rules. That is why it is important that we get effective stabilisers next week, and that means having clear figures and a mechanism that obviously works. I would not go along with my hon. Friend in saying that there must be production quotas for every sector. I believe that, in many sectors, price restraints and the kinds of proposals that we have before us at the moment, represent a much more effective way of tackling the problem.
    Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister confirm that some of the stockpiled food is now unfit for human consumption?
    Mr. MacGregor: Obviously that is so, since quite a lot of the stockpile is in feed wheat, which never goes for human consumption. We regularly monitor stocks, for example, of beef and other products. In our case, I do not believe there is any evidence that we are causing those stocks to deteriorate to the extent that they are unusable.

    Alternative Land Use
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to bring forward detailed proposals for the set aside of agricultural land.
    Mr. Gummer: The European Community extensification scheme already offers an opportunity to introduce incentives to farmers to set aside land used for cereals production. At this week's meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, the Commission has proposed that this scheme should be strengthened and extended to cover all arable land. Discussion is proceeding on this.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a voluntary set aside policy is an expensive way of achieving not much, since producers throughout the Community will find ways of maximising the apparent acreage taken out and minimising the subsequent drop in production? Does my right hon. Friend think that the problem could be better tackled nationally, with each country separately committed to a reduction of expenditure on surplus production, and finding the mechanisms to do that?
    Mr. Gummer: I must disagree with my hon. Friend. A voluntary system can be made to work efficiently, because it polices only those in the voluntary system. It can be made to work properly without the cheating to which he refers. We are enthusiastic about it, and the rest of the Community is beginning to come round to the idea. That shows that the United Kingdom is once again taking the lead in the European Economic Community.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I later visited the scene of last night's terrible fire at King's Cross, where I met representatives of the emergency services. I also visited some of the injured at University College hospital, as well as members of the hospital staff. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Ross: Has the Prime Minister had time today to read the letter in The Independent from members of the St. Mary's hospital action group, who are concerned about the £3 million deficit at the Paddington and North Kensington health authority? Is she aware that health authorities all over the country are facing similar situations? In my constituency the Tayside health board is facing a substantial cut in finance this year because of an alleged overprovision under a SHARE formula of earlier years. Does she realise that deficits in spending faced by health boards are borne by patients, through ward closures and reductions in services, and that such deficits damage the morale of people in the Health Service who have to support them?
    The Prime Minister: Spending on the Health Service provided by the taxpayer has gone up from £8 billion to £20·5 billion during the past eight years. That has gone up as the taxation has gone up from £11 per week per family to £29 per week per family. With regard to London, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the resource allocation working party reviewed the distribution of resources and concluded that there should be a move towards national equality of
    1196
    access to health care. That meant that all four Thames regions, which were substantially over their targets in 1979, should receive a reduced share of the total resources. May I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, on the subject of total resources in the health services, the report of Sir Alec Merrison in 1979 said:
    "We had no difficulty in believing the proposition put to us by one medical witness that 'we can easily spend the whole of the gross national product."'
    There has to be a limited budget on all services. The budget on health has gone up enormously—over 30 per cent. in real terms.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: As hundreds of my constituents use the Piccadilly and Northern lines to King's Cross each day, may I welcome the sympathy and concern that my right hon. Friend has shown towards the victims and the tribute that she paid to the marvellous emergency services? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that any inquiry that will inevitably ensue encompasses not only the immediate causes of the accident, but safety throughout Greater London's underground system, in view of the deep concern that now exists among the travelling public?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I know that everyone wishes to thank all the emergency and hospital services. They were the first to thank members of the public for coming forward so readily and so quickly. Indeed, I think that there was unanimity of praise for almost everyone. Later today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be announcing the setting up of a public inquiry—[Interruption.] I thought that it was necessary to say that. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very serious matters.
    The Prime Minister: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With regard to safety, investment in the Underground has been steadily rising since 1984. In 1985–86 it was £135 million, the following year it was £171 million and the next year £199 million, and £5 million per annum is spent on specific health and safety measures over and above the safety measures incorporated in other investments. Of course safety will be dealt with in the several inquiries that will take place.
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Strang: When will the Prime Minister recognise that the figures that she comes out with about health spending take no account of the increased costs in the Health Service, which are greater than in other fields, of the increased number of elderly people in the community or of increased technology? That is why, in my health board area, the Health Service has to cut spending this year on the hospital service by £7 million. That cut is against the background of a greater number of people needing patient care and poorer staffing ratios per patient. When will the Prime Minister recognise that, instead of encouraging the private service, she should be giving adequate resources to the Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman's Government were in power the average family paid £11 per week to finance the Health Service. It is not Governments who pay to finance any service. This year the average family will pay £29 a week to finance the Health

    1197
    Service. Clearly, the Opposition wish to put up taxation on average families in order to provide more. Every service will have to live within a budget and, because of our rate of growth, we have been able to make increasing provision for the Health Service. As we have a record rate of growth this year—much bigger than growth in the rest of the European Community — there will be increased provision for the Health Service next year of about £800 million. That was previously announced by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy day to take note of the fact that the figure for those out of work in my constituency of Norwich, North has fallen by over 15 per cent. during the last 12 months? Bearing in mind that in Norwich and the surrounding area there is still a shortage of skilled manpower, will my right hon. Friend and her colleagues press on with programmes that give more emphasis to training and to incentives to work, such as those announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Employment in his excellent statement?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that most hon. Members are delighted with the reduction in the unemployment figure, which has fallen by 445,000 over the last year. That is very welcome. I agree with my hon. Friend that the new training programme announced by the Secretary of State for Employment is excellent and will help many more people to get jobs as more and more people in our work force will require an increasing number of skills.
    Mr. Kinnock: Clearly, everybody is glad about any fall in unemployment. We have only 2 million more to go and we shall be back where the Prime Minister started in 1979. Up to 45 per cent. of Jaguar, 20 per cent. of Rolls-Royce and 15 per cent. of British Areospace have been bought by foreign interests. Now that 10 per cent. of BP has been bought by the Kuwaiti Government, will the Prime Minister tell us whether this is what she meant when she talked about encouraging wider share ownership?
    The Prime Minister: As our own overseas assets, including portfolio investments, are very considerable and contribute enormous sums to our balance of payments, I would hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman would want to do without them. Moreover, as British Petroleum owns many assets and oilfields overseas, it is not surprising that there should be some international investment in BP.
    Mr. Kinnock: The claims that the right hon. Lady makes for returns on overseas investments constitute less than half the deficit that she has run up on manufacturing trade. She should put the matter in perspective. If the idea of Kuwaiti Government involvement in British Petroleum is so good, will she tell us why she has not taken 10 per cent. of the shares, or must we rely on the Kuwaitis to nationalise BP again in order to give it proper security?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's questions are absurd. BP has great international assets, thank goodness. It is not surprising, therefore, that there should be a considerable number of overseas investors in
    1198
    BP. That is good. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman forgets that this is a global economy and that there is global trade. He wants to treat this country as some sort of Albania.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows a great deal more about the Albanian form of government than I do. I am glad that she is delighted about the strength of BP. Does it strike her as ironic that it used to be British strength in BP, and that now it belongs to everybody else? When will she stop re-flagging Britain?
    The Prime Minister: It is because I am aware of the kind of government and attitude in Albania that I accuse the right hon. Gentleman of it.
    Dr. Michael Clark: During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to study the Central Electricity Generating Board's statement recommending that, when privatisation takes place, electricity generation should be kept together as a whole and controlled by the board? Does she further agree that when privatisation takes place there should be competition in generation and that, whatever it might cost to break up generation, the savings would be far greater than any costs?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware that there will be many representations before the Bill on electricity privatisation is presented to the House in the next Session. I think that it would be best to wait and see what that Bill contains, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is very interested in the representations that are being made.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Prime Minister say — [Interruption]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has not yet asked a question.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Prime Minister say what contingency plans she has to protect the economy in the event of the United States authorities failing to agree measures to deal with their deficit problem? In particular, will she say how much she proposes to rely on a fiscal and how much on a monetary boost?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, if the United States Congress and President do not agree, Gramm-Rudman takes effect on Friday. During that time a number of alternative policies can be put forward, but, in any event, there must be a reduction in the budget. It is not for us to have contingency plans, but there must be some cuts in the United States' budget.
    Mr. Boswell: Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to go to Wandsworth to study the benefits to the nation of the sale of 10,000 council houses by competitive tendering, thus reducing costs by 25 per cent., so that it has the lowest rates in the Metropolis?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I can go down today, but I congratulate Wandsworth, under Conservative local government, on the excellent results that it has achieved, both in the sale of council houses, and in holding down rates.
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cox: Does the Prime Minister recall that last winter there was very severe weather, which caused enormous problems for the elderly and disabled in being able to keep warm and to pay their electricity bills? As we again approach winter, can the Prime Minister tell the House what realistic thinking she is giving to the introduction of a proper cold weather payment that will bring benefit to people in need so that we do not have the utter confusion of the scheme earlier this year, which benefited absolutely no one? Can she tell us what thinking she is giving to that?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that considerable changes were made to the scheme last winter to meet requests from all parts of the House. The changes mean that the scheme is triggered at a higher temperature than previously. Also, considerable administrative changes were made so that people who have made claims will automatically get the claim again without having to apply, should severe weather happen again. It is an excellent scheme, far better than any previous scheme, and reasonably generous.

King's Cross (Fire)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the fire last night at King's Cross station.
At about 7.40 pm last night a fire broke out at King's Cross underground station on an escalator connecting the underground ticket hall area to the Piccadilly line platforms. Thirty people have lost their lives as a result of the fire; 20 were seriously injured. There has been extensive damage to the station ticket hall.
The injured have been taken to St. Bartholomew's hospital, University College hospital, Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton, and the Wittington hospital.
I am sure the whole House would wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families of those who have died and to those who have been injured. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I should like to pay tribute to all those involved in the rescue operations, especially the fire service, one of whose members lost his life in the fire, the Metropolitan and the British Transport police, one of whose officers is seriously injured ; and to the ambulance service, the hospitals involved and the staff of the London underground. They all worked with the utmost bravery in appalling conditions to deal with the casualties and with the large numbers of people who were trapped underground by the smoke and flames. Without their dedication, the numbers of casualties would undoubtedly have been even greater.
I have decided that a formal investigation should be held into the disaster, conducted under the provisions of the Railway Acts. The evidence will be heard in public. I hope to be able to announce very shortly, after discussion with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, the name of a senior QC to head the inquiry. The inquiry will be assisted by a member of the Department's railway inspectorate and by an expert in fires and fire prevention. The detailed arrangements for the inquiry will be announced as soon as possible. It will be for the inquiry to establish the causes of the disaster and to make recommendations to ensure that all possible lessons are learned. Its report will be published.
London Regional Transport, in collaboration with the police and fire services, is already examining the causes of the accident and its findings will be made available to me and to the formal investigation.
I understand from London Regional Transport that the Metropolitan and Circle lines through King's Cross are operating normally. Services on the Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern lines were suspended this morning, but LRT hopes that they will be resumed later today, although initially trains will not stop at King's Cross station. It is too early to say when normal services will be resumed.
Every year the London underground carries over 750 million passengers. I deeply regret that its generally fine record of safety has been marred by this accident. I am sure the thoughts of all hon. Members of this House are with those who have been bereaved, the injured and their families. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".]
Mr. Robert Hughes: May I, on behalf of the Opposition, express our condolences to the relatives of those who were killed and to those who have
1202
been severely injured and wish the survivors a speedy recovery? I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the emergency services. Everyone concerned clearly did a splendid job and we are grateful to them for that.
It is quite clear that a lot of questions will have to be answered and it may not be appropriate to put them now. However, I welcome the inquiry announced by the Secretary of State and especially the fact that it will be open, that the evidence will he heard in public and that the findings will be published. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry will be extremely far-reaching and will deal not simply with the precise cause of the fire at King's Cross and its effects, but cover all the facets of the operations of London Transport which affect future safety and the public? Have the lessons learned from the Oxford Circus fire inquiry been put into practice? Have any of those recommendations not been implemented?
When was King's Cross station last inspected by the London fire brigade? I understand that there should be an annual inspection. Even at this stage, can the Secretary of State say that the fire did not actually start on the escalator, but in a machine room or in some room underneath the escalator? As the inquiry will take a considerable time to reach its findings, will the Secretary of State immediately institute a fire safety audit on areas within the underground where passengers would be particularly vulnerable and put at risk should a fire occur? If such areas are identified, will he ensure that there are frequent and rigorous fire watchers to prevent a recurrence of this tragedy?
Will the Secretary of State also ensure that there is an immediate and urgent examination into the adequacy of the present sprinkler systems,? Will he ask other areas with underground systems such as Merseyside and Glasgow — although the circumstances of those systems are different from the London system—to consider their fire safety precautions very carefully?
As I understand perfectly well that the Secretary of State cannot make a detailed statement today because the circumstances are still unclear, once he receives the result of the LRT, fire service and police inquiry, will he make an early statement so that we can consider whether any other immediate lessons might be learned?
Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions and I share the sentiment contained in the first portion of his remarks.
The hon. Gentleman correctly said that there are a lot of questions to be answered and that is why an inquiry is urgently needed. I have a whole list of the recommendations from the Oxford Circus inquiry that have been implemented. Of course that inquiry will be wholly relevant to the King's Cross inquiry when it is set up. As the House is aware and as the hon. Gentleman said, all underground stations are required to be inspected annually. In fact, King's Cross was inspected in April of this year.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about the machine room, it would be most unwise of me or the House to speculate on the cause of the accident at this stage in advance of an inquiry. I will, of course, discuss with the chairman of London Regional Transport—and have done so already—whether any immediate action needs to be taken, and naturally everything is being carefully considered.

1203
The inquiry is required to investigate the cause of the accident and all the circumstances surrounding it and report on those and any other relevant matters, including recommendations designed to prevent a recurrence of this accident elsewhere. It is for the inquiry to decide how to conduct itself, but I would have thought that any reasonable matter could be considered.
Mr. Frank Dobson: May I join the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in paying tribute to those people who risked their lives, and in one case lost his life, in an effort to save the lives of others and get people to hospital from the holocaust at King's Cross? I hope that others, besides paying tribute to such services today, will ensure that they are not reduced in numbers tomorrow and over the next year. I hope that we do not go ahead with the proposed 800 reduction in the staff of the London fire brigade. I hope that the cuts of over 200 beds at the hospital visited by the Prime Minister today will be restored and that the health authority visited by the Prime Minister and her hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) will have sufficient funds to pay enough nurses and other staff to provide a proper service in the area.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that this is the third major fire at a tube station in my constituency in three years since the Oxford Circus fire; that few, if any, physical changes have been made to King's Cross underground station since then ; that there have been cuts in the staff deployed in maintaining the escalators, and that further cuts are proposed; that the staff at a station with eight platforms and a veritable rabbit warren of tunnels have been cut from 16 to 10; that the cleaning staff have been cut from 14 to two; that the training provided for station staff to deal with fires lasts for 30 minutes, and is not specific to their stations; and that no members of staff were taught how to help in an evacuation of the station?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that the Chaiman of London Regional Transport recently said— referring to other difficulties—that too much risk had been accepted in the interests of economy? Will he confirm that the Government will not require any further such economies? Will he also make representations to the management of British Rail to persuade it not to take the threatened disciplinary action against staff at King's Cross who were yesterday threatened with such action for distributing leaflets which said that part of the system between there and Moorgate was a fire danger?
Will the right hon. Gentleman not only provide the funds to make the underground system safe, but change the management, so that it is composed of people who take it seriously?
Mr. Channon: I understand the hon. Gentleman's natural and rightful concern, as a constituency Member who is obviously very seriously affected by the disaster —as, indeed, is the whole House. I cannot agree with all that he has said, and the House would not expect me to. Nevertheless, I shall try to deal with the points that he has made.
I am assured by both the fire and the health authorities that they are more than satisfied with the adequacy of the resources available to them. Certainly, the emergency services seemed to operate with astonishing efficiency last night. As for the cuts in underground staff, it is the prime
1204
and the statutory duty of London Regional Transport to operate the underground safely. Safety is paramount in staffing considerations. An annual review of training and procedures has been taking place for some time with the London fire brigade, and efforts are continually made to improve procedures.
There has been a considerable increase in investment on LRT, a good deal of which will be devoted to safety measures. I assure the House that we shall go on with our large programme of investment in LRT, much of which is spent on the underground. That investment has risen considerably since 1984, and has included money spent on the renewal of lifts and escalators, and specific expenditure allocated for health and safety purposes.
With respect to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), many of his remarks are more properly a subject for discussion by the inquiry, rather than ones for snap judgments by any of us.
Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Let me join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in conveying deep regret to all those who have suffered. As one who has used the London Underground for some 40 years, I believe that, in view of the standards that the staff have always shown with regard to safety and protecting the interests of passengers, it does no good to their morale to make the sort of remarks that we have heard from one person this afternoon.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the remarks on a BBC news programme at five past seven this morning, implying that the fire had been caused by rubbish under an escalator, were not what we expect from an impartial public service broadcasting organisation?
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the London underground carries hundreds of millions of passengers a year and has an extremely good safety record. He is right also to point to the extreme devotion to duty of those who work on the London underground, in particular those who were on duty last night and today at King's Cross station, the many people who came back to work, and, indeed, others who helped in the appalling disaster.
As to the point about the BBC and speculation as to the causes of the accident, it is impossible at this stage to make any judgment, and it is irresponsible to make any attempt to do so. The inquiry will get to the bottom of it. The whole House and the country will know the results of it.
Mr. James Molyneaux: As we on this Bench recently had cause to be grateful for the sympathy that was expressed by right hon. and hon. Members, on behalf of the Ulster community I express our sincere condolences to the bereaved and our concern for the injured.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has behaved in a typically generous manner.
Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents in south Cambridgeshire who travel daily from Royston have to use King's Cross station and will continue to have to use it? Therefore, will he reassure them that, notwithstanding the dreadful tragedy, travel by rail, either

1205
overground or underground, is still one of the safest means of travel and, indeed, involves far fewer casualties than occur on the roads?
Mr. Channon: Yes, I understand my hon. Friend's concern and, obviously, his interest for his constituents and, indeed, the constituents of many hon. Members who travel on the line. I certainly confirm what he said. Travel on British rail and on the London underground is by far the safest form of travel.
Mr. Simon Hughes: May I join the right hon. Gentleman and other colleagues on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends in expressing condolences to those who have lost relatives and to those who are now in hospital? I pay tribute to those who worked selflessly and, in one case, tragically, to save the lives of others. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that, of all fires, underground fires require particular preventive measures. They are the most difficult to deal with. The television pictures illustrated how horrific the fire was. When the inquiry takes place, will he make sure that evidence from the emergency services and from passengers throughout London is acceptable so that the lessons that can be learnt from the specific tragedy can immediately be applied to prevent tragedies throughout the network and throughout the capital? I hope that no evidence will be excluded on the ground of its irrelevance if it will save lives.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, which will generally be welcomed in the House.
The conduct of the inquiry must be a matter for the chairman. I cannot lay down how he will conduct the inquiry. As I said, the inquiry is required to investigate the cause of the accident and all the circumstances surrounding it. They are extremely wide terms of reference. I am sure that the inquiry will want to get to the bottom of the incident to see what lessons may exist to prevent any recurrence ever again.
Rev. William McCrea: Will the Minister be assured that the people of the Province whom I and my colleagues represent extend their sincere and heartfelt sympathy to those who have been bereaved in the appalling tragedy? We earnestly pray that those who have been hurt will soon enjoy a speedy recovery. Will the Minister accept that we welcome a full-scale inquiry into the matter? Perhaps snap judgments about what happened may not be of best assistance to those who have suffered.
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I endorse the last part of his remarks.
Mr. Terry Fields: As a fireman for 26 years before coming to this place, I understand the conditions that were encountered and the tragedy that last night's events have inflicted on families. I add my condolences to those families, particularly to the family of Colin Townsley, a 45-year-old station officer from Soho, and to the other firemen who were injured. They typified the dedication and self-sacrifice of our emergency services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the safety aspect of all rail premises, particularly on the underground, will be looked into as a result of this
1206
tragedy? Will procedures for evacuation and escape in an accident be looked into? Will he ensure that maps of the warrens of King's Cross and other tube stations are made available to the emergency services and not locked away in the ticket office, as they were yesterday?
To support my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), will the Secretary of State, with the Treasury and the Home Office, ensure that the 800 jobs due to go in London and other metropolitan areas are saved by the Government, because yesterday's tragedy and the loss of life of members of the public and of the emergency services will pale into insignificance if these cuts go ahead?
Mr. Channon: I thank the hon. Gentleman, particularly for his opening remarks. Anyone who saw the fire service at work could not fail to have been deeply impressed and full of admiration for what it did. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the work that it did and to the sorrow that we all feel at the death of one of the fire officers.
There is a conflict of evidence on the point about maps. I heard directly contradictory information about whether maps were available, so I asked immediately for the chairman of London Regional Transport to investigate this matter urgently to ensure that maps are available, if they were not last night. I do not prejudge whether they were or not ; it will be a matter for the inquiry to consider. We must take urgent action in advance of that. As to the fire services in London, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has considerably increased current expenditure, and he is keeping a close eye on the matter.
Mr. Robert Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for the concern that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have shown about this matter. Will he reconsider the ratio of investment in LRT between new investment, such as the docklands light railway, and investment in core infrastructure maintenance? Does he accept that the public transport is essential in a city such as London and that part of King's Cross is part of the oldest tube railway in the world? If we are to maintain and improve public transport, which is essential, we must build new lines and ensure that old lines are modernised and invested in to keep them up to scratch.
Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend and I shall consider the pattern of investment in the London underground. As I told the House, much of the investment is aimed at renewing and modernising infrastructure. Grant settlement for next year allows for high levels of investment, including renewal of lifts and escalators, specific expenditure for health and safety purposes — safety considerations underlie a major part of the total investment programme—and renewal of track structures and signalling. My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point, which I shall examine.
Mr. John Cartwright: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, particularly the form of the inquiry that he has now announced. Will he accept that when such large numbers of people are packed so tightly in such a confined space, as happens on the London underground, any sudden emergency puts life at risk? Will he therefore specifically ensure that the inquiry considers LRT's emergency procedures, the frequency with which

1207
those procedures are not only reviewed but practically tested and, most important, the adequacy of the training given to the staff in the operation of those procedures?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman raises two important points. I have read to the House on a number of occasions what the inquiry must investigate and it would be unlikely, even astonishing, if it were not to investigate the cause of the accident or the circumstances surrounding it. I should have thought that the emergency procedures and matters that the hon. Gentleman raised were wholly relevant to that point.
Sir John Farr: As one who had to use the emergency telephone number and stay up all night, fortunately without justification, I should like to pay tribute to the ladies who dealt with that emergency service; they behaved splendidly, as did all the emergency services. In his earlier remarks, my right hon. Friend said that there were lessons to be learned. Would one of those lessons that he may consider learning be the feasibility of establishing some form of automatic sprinkler protection in places of public congregation?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks. The emergency services reacted to the appalling disaster with impressive and astonishing speed and efficiency. That was admirable and encouraging. Of course, the question of sprinklers and other such matters will be dealt with in the inquiry, and we shall consider them extremely carefully.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that for some months concern has been expressed by London Members about the safety of the London underground? Written Question No. 15 today is evidence of that. Does he agree that in striking the balance that is always present between efficiency and safety, the regulations and management decisions inherent in that balance should receive the widest possible consent and agreement between representatives of those employed on the underground and representatives of those who travel on it?
Mr. Channon: I am sure that as a general statement that must be right. I ought to tell the House that the safety record of the London underground has been generally excellent considering the age, density of traffic and all the circumstances surrounding it. It compares well with underground systems abroad of a comparable age. I shall examine the hon. Gentleman's point.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no knowledge of which right hon. and hon. Members have constituents who have been killed or injured in the fire. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has summed up the feeling of the House. We all have sympathy with the injured and with the families of those who have been killed as a result of the tragic fire.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Business of the House
3.56 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 23 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day (4th Allotted Day). Debate on a motion in the name of the leader of the Liberal party entitled "The Future Government of Scotland".
TUESDAY 24 NOVEMBER — Until about Seven o'clock Second Reading of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Bill.
Motion to take note of EC documents on CAP reform and agricultural stabilisers. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 25 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Urban Development Corporations (Financial Limits) Bill followed by remaining stages of the Scottish Development Agency Bill.
Afterwards motion on the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) Order.
THURSDAY 26 NOVEMBER — Opposition Day (5th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Worsening Financial Pressures on National Health Service Hospitals".
Motion relating to financial assistance to Opposition parties.
FRIDAY 27 NOVEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY 30 NOVEMBER — Second Reading of the Education Reform Bill.
[Debate on Tuesday 24 November Relevant European documents:
(a) 8250187 Common Agricultural Policy Reforms
(b) 8761/87 & ADD 1 to 4 Agricultural stabilizers
(c) 9066187 Certain oranges: prices and budgetary stabilizers
(d) 6116/87 & COR 1 Income support for. farmers.
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:
(a) HC 43-iii (1987–88), para 1
(b) HC 43-iv (1987–88) para 2
(c) HC 43-v (1987–88) para 4
(d) HC 43-i (1987–88) para 2]
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the statement. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that even some of the Government's most ardent supporters in the other place, who debated the matter yesterday, registered the fact that they had little or no confidence in the present handling of science and the science budget. I have asked previously for a debate on the Government's failures in that area. Will the Leader of the House now give us a date for such a debate?
There is growing concern over the recent report of the National Radiological Protection Board about the safety levels of exposure to radiation. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on the report as soon as possible, since there is widespread and justifiable concern?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why there will be only one day's debate on the Education Reform Bill? The Education Bill of 1944, which is the foundation of the

1209
provisions that the Government are now seeking to destroy, was given proper time in the House. Will the Leader of the House, even at this late stage, arrange for a two-day Second Reading debate because it is a matter of general and considerable interest and concern?
I assume that we shall have the Second Reading of the poll tax Bill some time before Christmas. I am sure that the Leader of the House shares my view that such an important constitutional matter should not be debated too close to the festive season, with all its natural distractions. Could he therefore tell us when the Second Reading debate will be?
Finally, I note that the Prime Minister's PPS has been breaking his Trappist vows on the subject of the televising of the proceedings of this House. As there is strong support on both sides of the House for the change, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when this important debate will take place?
Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman asked me five questions. First he asked whether I could announce a debate on science and research matters. I cannot give him a date for that. I shall be happy to organise a debate as soon as I can—time is pressing—because I am sure that the Government would like a further opportunity to point out that our contribution to science and research compares very well with that of many of our major competitors.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the National Radiological Protection Board report. The board's speedy response to the statement of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment is welcome and the Departments with regulatory responsibilities will be considering the report in detail to see whether any changes in United Kingdom policy are needed. They will report to the House if anything should arise from that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Education Reform Bill and asked whether there should be a two-day debate rather than the one-day debate that is intended at present. I do not think that a two-day debate is necessary but I can arrange for discussions on the matter through the usual channels to see whether we can extend the one-day debate later into the evening.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me when the Second Reading debate on the Community Charge Bill would be. I cannot tell him the exact date, but I believe that many millions of people will consider that to have a Second Reading debate before Christmas would be an excellent opportunity.
On the televising of Parliament, I have already said that I will discuss the matter through the usual channels and with other interested parties, and I hope that the debate can take place around the turn of the year — perhaps very soon after Christmas.
Sir Dudley Smith: In view of the constant allegations by the Opposition and the media about Health Service cuts and delays in operations, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that our hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security announced two days ago at the European Health Ministers conference that we now lead the world in transplant surgery and in the number of operations performed? Is he further aware that despite next Thurday's Opposition debate many Conservative
1210
Members would welcome a full debate on the financing of the Health Service and its future in the latter part of the 20th century?
Mr. Wakeham: I was aware of my hon. Friend's points. I hope that, in the absense of a better opportunity, he will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the debate next Thursday.
Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that we wish the Secretary of State for Social Services better health. However, will the Leader of the House make it known that there is some disappointment that the long-awaited statement on primary care has not been made? Can he tell us whether it will be made before Christmas? If the statement is made, will there be an opportunity for the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for health in Scotland, to make a separate statement so that Scottish Members have the opportunity to question him?
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Certainly the statement on primary health care will be made very shortly. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question about a Scottish statement, but I shall refer it to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that early-day motion 275 concerning the future of the national dock labour scheme has now been signed by more than 100 hon. Members?
[That this House believes that the National Dock Labour Scheme is an anachronism which both endangers the viability of jobs in the scheme areas and acts as a deterrent to job creation by new ventures; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to abolish the scheme, and open negotiations immediately with employers and unions to bring that about.]
Is he further aware that a growing number of Conservative Members feel that the national dock labour scheme is not in line with the Government's principles. Will he find time for a debate on the matter in the near future?
Mr. Wakeham: I have indeed seen my hon. Friend's motion. The Government made it clear in the last Parliament that they have no plans to change the operations of the scheme, and that remains the position. However, such matters are kept under review and I shall certainly refer my hon. Friend's remarks to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Is the Leader of the House aware that in my constituency and in other Glasgow constituencies, review committees, which are not democratic bodies by any means, are considering the future of primary schools? Some of the proposals will entail young children having to negotiate the Townhead interchange, which is one of the biggest motorway interchanges in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, young children are being expected to cross main roads. If the future of our children is to be considered in this manner, we should surely debate the matter in the House.
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly take on board the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses on behalf of his constituents. The first step is for me to have a word with the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider how best to proceed.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time for an early and

1211
urgent debate on an act of arrogant political dictatorship by Haringey borough council? The council has removed all opposition members from its committees and outside bodies on the ground that they have refused to sign a questionnaire, which goes far beyond a declaration of legitimate interest, and which is at least impertinent and at most an infringement of individual civil liberties, as has been confirmed by the National Council for Civil Liberties. This act has deprived the majority of my constituents of proper representation on the authority that looks after their local interests.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I understand that there is no statutory obligation on councillors to complete such a questionnaire, but there is a statutory obligation on them to declare a pecuniary interest when it arises in debate. That appears to be the better approach. The Government are considering carefully the prevention of such abuses in the light of the recommendations made in the Widdicombe report.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House find time to read the report of Tuesday's Supply day debate on the provision of public transport in this country, and see what was said about the state of London Regional Transport? Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the provision of emergency services in London, given that we face the loss of hundreds of uniformed fire brigade officers and that we are suffering cuts in the ambulance service and in the National Health Service generally. London's emergency services do not want simply to hear tributes from this House for the service that they provide in times of emergency ; they want to hear that the Government are taking action.
Mr. Wakeham: I think that it would be better if the hon. Gentleman, not I, read the report of last Tuesday's debate. He has given what sounds to me a very distorted account of the proceedings, during which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an extremely good speech. Of course, it is right and proper for emergency service matters to be debated in this House, but not on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's wild allegations. The best way to proceed after the recent tragedy is to wait for the inquiry's report and then for the House to consider how best to proceed.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement from the Home Secretary or an early debate on broadcasting so that the concern of the Salvation Army and some of the churches about the withdrawal by the broadcasting authorities of the film "The Love of God" can be considered? The arrogance of the broadcasting authorities allows them to show violence and other objectionable material for hours on end, while a valuable film such as this cannot be shown at all. We want to know why.
Mr. Wakeham: I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Even if my right hon. Friend does not think that it is right to make a statement next week, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), can find a way of raising the matter on the Floor of the House.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Leader of the House aware that his statement will be followed by a statement on education by the Secretary of State for
1212
Scotland. Given that we are to have a debate on Monday week about the English education system and that we are about to hear our second major statement about Scottish education, could we not at least have a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee to enable us to pick up the issues affecting Scottish education so that the democratic voices of the Scottish people can be democratically heard?
Mr. Wakeham: I understand the hon. Lady's concern to debate those issues. This is a matter that we can best discuss through the usual channels.
Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we are delighted that we shall be debating the Education Reform Bill a week on Monday and would be happy to see that debate extended, because we understand that the Bill will do a great deal to improve the quality and standard of state education?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's desire to ensure that as many as possible can take part in that debate. I cannot add anything to what I said to the Leader of the Opposition, but I shall consider the matter through the usual channels.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: A practical point and then a theoretical one. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the more malfunctions of the fire warning system within the premises, the less Members are likely to regard those clamant sounds when there is some point in them? We have had two or three malfunctions this week.
The theoretic point. Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully resist the enticements of even the most charismatic sirens—honourable sirens—within this place on the televising of these proceedings? Will he accept that the elder statesmen, who have been here for somewhat longer than our younger colleagues, know the dangers of the provision of television cameras within this Chamber, because not only will it lead to even worse behaviour on the part of some of my colleagues, but it may also lead to worse behaviour within some of the Galleries where other people will want to show off for the cameras?
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend will get a walk-on part.
Mr. Faulds: I shall be one of the stars and my hon. Friend will be a walk-on.
Mr. Wakeham: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's practical point is yes, Sir. His point is right and I shall look into it and see that we try not to have too many of the things about which he complains.
On the televising of Parliament, I have my own views, but I take my responsibilities as Leader of the House carefully and seriously. The right thing to do is to have a debate. I know how persuasive the hon. Gentleman is in debate; if he finds one or two other people to put the argument his way we shall have an interesting day's debate, and I have no doubt that the result will be close.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Does my right hon. Friend recall that three Labour Members are paid ministerial salaries but are not directly accountable through questioning to hon. Members — the Leader of the Opposition and his Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip? Will he consider widening the scope of Thursday's business from simply the financial assistance provided to political parties to the more general question of the taxpayers' value for money from those office holders?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend tempts me, but I think that I shall resist that temptation. Some things in life are best done in private, and discussion through the usual channels is one.
Mr. John Garrett: I have already mentioned this question to you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an independent study of the management of the House and its departments? I particularly have in mind the wrangles that have gone on for years over grading, the relationships between departments of the House, the use of space and the style of management, particularly the management of those who work here.
Mr. Wakeham: I know that the hon. Gentleman has considerable experience in these matters, but I have recently come into a job that gives me some responsibility for and insight into such matters, and my first impression is to be impressed at the amount of progress that has been made in recent years. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to have a talk with me about it, I should be interested to hear his views.
Mr. Robert Key: As it is nearly two years since the House had the opportunity to debate AIDS, since rapid progress is being made in that area, since the Government are hosting a conference of all Health Ministers early in the New Year, and in view of the great public concern about the protection of workers in the Health Service and other health areas, and the responsibility of those working in them who have the misfortune to have contracted the virus, may we have a debate at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Wakeham: It is an extremely important subject and one which the House has debated in the not too distant past. I am sure that we shall come back to it again. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the near future, although, subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, some of the points that he might wish to make might be relevant to the debate on the Health Service next week.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Did the Leader of the House see last week the photographs of the Secretary of State for Defence dressed in full military uniform, with beret and regimental badge, attending the exercise in the south-west of Scotland? Will the Leader of the House come to the House next week and advise us whether it is now the intention that Ministers should dress in uniform — the Secretary of State for Transport as a lollipop man, the Home Secretary as a policeman and the Secretary of State for Scotland as a demolition contractor because of the job that he is doing on all the Scottish services?
Mr. Wakeham: I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman is jealous because my right hon. Friend looked rather fine in his uniform.
Mr. Richard Holt: If my right hon. Friend can find time for the debate on televising the House, will he recognise that the public outside are not as concerned about the televising of this establishment, as they are about crime? When shall we have a debate on the restoration of capital punishment?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything more to what I have said about the debate on televising the House. I have no doubt that, when the Criminal Justice Bill comes from the Lords to this House, whatever I might do about it, there will be a debate on that matter.
Mr. David Young: I know how difficult it is for you to fix a date for a debate on the poll tax because of the Government's arguments about the matter, but will you please——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would have no difficulty.
Mr. Young: In the interest of truth, can the Leader of the House give us a definitive debate by next week? Many of my constituents are extremely worried about the fictitious estimates of payments placed in the papers yesterday. They would like a debate, and to know when it is to take place, as soon as possible. May I have the assurance, please, that it will be announced by next week, if not today?
Mr. Wakeham: I am delighted to know of the enthusiasm that there is on both sides of the House to get on with this matter. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as soon as I am in a position to announce such a debate, I shall do so, and it will be before too long.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: May we have a statement on the extent to which the Upper Waiting Hall and the refreshment facilities of the House are being used by firms to promote their own commercial interests? Not a day passes without hon. Members receiving invitations, sometimes signed by their own colleagues, but often signed by research assistants and others who purport to act on behalf of their colleagues, inviting them to functions in the House to suit a commercial interest that is not related to the constituency interests of the Members concerned, or, indeed, to any desirable parliamentary object. Is it not right that Members' own use of the facilities of the House for constituency and parliamentary purposes should be made a priority and that commercial interests should take a back seat?
Mr. Wakeham: My experience of visiting such exhibitions is not complete. I do not think that I have seen all of them. I have found some of them interesting and some less so. I shall consider whether the arrangements made are satisfactory and I shall find a way of communicating with my hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I am always reluctant to curtail business questions. I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising, but I draw their attention to the fact that there is a statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland and we have a heavy day ahead of us.
Mr. James Lamond: If the Leader of the House was present at Question Time yesterday, he may have noticed that Foreign Office Ministers were calling on a number of other countries to conform to United Nations' resolutions, yet were trying to brush aside the resolution passed on the Malvinas Islands. Would it not be best for the Leader of the House to try to arrange for someone from the Government to come to the Dispatch Box and clarify that position, lest the Government lay themselves open to accusations of hypocrisy?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not believe that that charge could be levied by any hon. Member, and certainly not by any hon. Member who was in the House yesterday when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary adequately dealt with those points.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House arrange some time next week or soon afterwards for a debate about emergency services in London? While the inquiry into the tragedy at King's Cross is to be welcomed and while tributes should be paid to the police, the fire services and the station staff for all the work that they did, as other hon. Members have said, it is also necessary that there be a full debate on the provision of emergency services as a whole. The London fire brigade gets no Government grant, the health services in London are being continually cut, and the ambulance service is under severe threat. I am sure that the Leader of the House would not want us to go into the winter period with the danger of other accidents, perhaps on the railway system, without a full examination of the need for proper funding of the emergency services throughout London, so that, should another tragedy such as the King's Cross fire occur, at least there will be the infrastructure to deal urgently and immediately with the horrors caused.
Mr. Wakeham: Of course, the subjects that the hon. Gentleman raises are perfectly proper subjects for a debate. However, I do not believe that I can add to what I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Neil Thorne: Following the tragedy yesterday at King's Cross and the tributes that have rightly been paid to the emergency services, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the decision that he has just given to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)? It is important that the emergency services should have experience in dealing with those matters. My right hon. Friend will remember that there were tragedies at Moorgate and at Oxford Circus before the fire at King's Cross. Does he agree that, despite the magnificent work of the emergency services, quite clearly they need every possible opportunity to practice their skills, backed up by the civil protection organisation?
Mr. Wakeham: I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's view and I know of his great experience with part of the voluntary services. It is a matter that we must consider again, but I do not believe that I can offer a debate immediately.
Mr. Greville Janner: Following the tragic death of my constituent, Billy Walker, who swallowed the top of a Bic pen, and as several other children have died in the same way, may we have a debate on how that sort of apparently unnecessary tragedy can be avoided and on whether the design of pens should not be subjected to some form of governmental approval? As the appropriate executive at Bic has persistently refused to speak to me on the matter, and has avoided doing so, which is a callous and wicked disregard for the misery suffered by the family, friends and school of the child, is it not all the more important that the matter should be ventilated in the House and in public?
Mr. Wakeham: I must say that, if the executive of Bic thought that he would not get it ventilated by refusing to speak to the hon. and learned Gentleman he does not know the hon. and learned Gentleman very well. That being said, I recognise that it is a serious matter and that it is a proper concern that he has for his constituent. I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future but it is something that we will have to bear in mind.
Mr. Harry Cohen: May I again press the Leader of the House for a full and immediate debate., on the deteriorating standards of London Regional Transport, especially in the light of the King's Cross disaster? As well as expressing sympathy to the relatives of the victims and paying tribute to the emergency services, some hon. Members want to put the case that the rundown in stations and in the infrastructure of LRT has been far greater than the patching-up investment by the Government, and that the staffing cuts have played fast and loose with safety at hundreds of stations in the London area. The King's Cross disaster is a prima facie case of criminal negligence by the board of LRT and the Government. Can we have a debate to prove that?
Mr. Wakeham: To put the case in such an exaggerated form does not encourage me to change my mind immediately. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in his statement made it abundantly clear that safety is the prime consideration of all the railway networks. They have a very high record of safety. The matters are important and we will have to find time for a debate at some time, but I cannot promise one immediately.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision to allocate only one day to the Education Reform Bill? Does he recall that in the summer Ministers were talking about two Bills —one to deal with schools and one to deal with higher and further education? If the two Bills had proceeded, there would have been two days of debate. If he really wants an ordered debate, would it not be far better to allocate one day to deal with the destruction of the schools that the Government are proposing and a second day to deal with the destruction of further and higher education?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not likely to be more forthcoming to the hon. Gentleman than I have been to the Leader of the Opposition. There is a matter of principle. I gave an undertaking to the Leader of the Opposition ——
Mr. Kinnock: I do not mind if the right hon. Gentleman goes further with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Wakeham: That is to protect myself, not the right hon. Gentleman. I gave the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I would look at the matter again. I did not indicate that I thought it very likely that we could have two days, but that we might be able to extend the one day to a later hour.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: May we have an early debate on the disgraceful refusal by the Secretary of State for Scotland to reappoint Mr. Ted Matthews of the Edinburgh council of social service to the Lothian health board, which is now sadly under-represented by the voluntary and charitable sectors that play such a vital role at a time of shameful cuts? Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement on that?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. and learned Friend has no doubt heard what the hon. Gentleman has said would not like to encourage the hon. Gentleman to think that there will be a debate, but I will certainly refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House reflected on early-day motions 228, 253, 272, 273

1217
and 286? With his considerable personal knowledge of the matter, is not the best way to settle it to announce next week an inquiry and to have before the inquiry on oath Mr. T. P. Abraham, Sir Robert Armstrong, Miss Collette Bowe, Sir Brian Hayes, Mr. Richard Mottram, Mr. John Mogg, Mr. John Michel, Mr. Bernard Ingham, Mr. Charles Powell and Sir Clive Whitmore?
[That this House notes in the book, Campaign, by Rodney Tyler, the Selling of the Prime Minister: from behind the doors of Downing Street and Conservative Central Office—A unique inside account of the Battle for Power that the author on page 1, chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1, states 'It was an extraordinary turnaround in fortunes from the moment on 27th January 1986 when Mrs Thatcher secretly confided to a close associate that she might have to resign. … ' and on page 3 that 'On the eve of the crucial Westland debate she herself felt shaky enough to doubt her future' though some around her later sought to dismiss this as late evening anxieties of the sort that had disappeared the following morning). It is certainly true that if Leon Brittan had chosen to, he could have brought her to the brink of downfall, by naming the real culprits inside Number 10. Instead, he chose to remain silent', and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account of what transpired between 3rd January and 27th January 1986, at Number 10 Downing Street, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that the Member for Aldershot on page 136 of his book Heseltine: the unauthorised Biography, states in relation to the Westland Affair that 'John Wakeham issued an order of the day which contained the trite, if effective message, that it was time for all good men to come to the aid of the party. We did and calls on the Leader of the House, the Right Honourable Member for South Colchester and Maldon, to explain when he first knew the role of the then Trade and Industry Secretary, the Right Honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, in the matter of the disclosure of a selectively leaked Law Officer's letter.]
[That this House notes that in his book Mrs Thatcher's Revolution, published this week by Jonathan Cape and Co., Mr Peter Jenkins writes, on page 200 'Brittan himself refused to enlighten the Select Committee on any point of substance. However, he is reputed to have told close friends subsequently that not only has she known perfectly well what had happened but that, on the day following the leak, had expressed her satisfaction to him at the way things had been handled. However at that time, the downfall of Heseltine had not been achieved. … He (Mr Brittan) might point the finger at her (Mrs Thatcher). Potentially he now had the power to destroy her'; and calls on the Prime Minister to give the House a full account of her conversations with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, over the period from 3rd January and 27th January 1986, in relation to the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter concerning the Westland Affair.]
[That this House notes that in The Thatcher Years—A decade of Revolution in British Politics, published by BBC Books, Mr John Cole, on page 170, considering the selectively leaked Law Officer's letter in the Westland Affair, writes 'why did he ( Sir Robert Armstrong) not give her a quick interim report when he discovered that the leak was an inside job, authorised by her office? Why did Leon Brittan not tell her? Or the private secretary concerned? Or
1218
his chief, who sits in the same room? Or her press secretary? And why did she never ask?'; and calls on the Prime Minister to inform the House of the answers to these questions.]
[That this House notes that, in the book 'Not with Honour — The Inside Story of the Westland Scandal', on page 142, Magnus Linklater and David Leigh write that 'Instead, following Havers's complaint, she spoke privately to Brittan about the leak. Although this is something the Prime Minister has failed to disclose, to widespread disbelief, the evidence comes from an authoritative source, who told us: "The Prime Minister knew about the leak. She was pleased it had been done. There was a meeting between Brittan and her after the complaint from Mayhew. Only the two of them were present … Brittan assumed she knew of [the leak's] origins. You must draw your own conclusions." One of Brittan's friends adds, "Nobody thought it was a problem. The complaints were out of the public domain and any inquiry was expected to be a formality. Leon wasn't worried at all about it." ; and calls on the Prime Minister to give a full account to the House of the meeting between herself and the Right honourable Member for Richmond, Yorks, referred to therein.]
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, I have no intention of adding to the full statements and replies that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made.
Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House cease the constitutional outrage and insult to parliamentary democracy in failing to bring forward the orders necessary to reconstitute the Select Committees, and will he do that either in whole or in part in the near future? So that that does not recur, will he consider re-instituting the Select Committee on Procedure so that the whole matter of how Select Committees are constituted and perform their duties can be re-examined and a decision made by the House rather than by the representatives of the Government and the shadow Government?
Mr. Wakeham: I think that it is the hon. Gentleman who is making a constitutional outrage by seeking to ask me to do things that are not in accordance with the rules of the House. I am sticking strictly to the rules of the House. The question of Select Committees is a matter of some concern. I am happy to tell the House that the Committee of Selection made certain changes and additions to the names originally nominated for Departmental Select Committees. Those are now on the Order Paper and will appear above the line early next week. If they are not objected to, the Select Committees will be able to start work immediately. If they are objected to, I will provide time for the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to put the matter to the House for resolution and will announce a debate in my business statement next Thursday.
Mr. David Winnick: Can the Leader of the House discover whether it is the Home Secretary's intention to make a statement before the Christmas recess about what the Government intend to do about those people living here who have been accused of serious Nazi wartime crimes against humanity? Later today the distinguished French citizen, Beate Klarsfeld, who has done so much to help bring Nazi criminals to justice, will

1219
speak to an all-party group of MPs. Therefore, can the Leader of the House also find out whether she will be meeting the Home Secretary at some stage?
Mr. Wakeham: On the main part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave last week or the week before. However, I shall refer the points that he has raised to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to read the extensive coverage in the Daily Mirror of the ludicrous decision of the Football Association to sell the FA Cup — the most prestigious and famous football trophy in the world — to a brewery? That is especially unacceptable, since a major cause of football hooliganism and the ban on English football clubs in Europe is drunken slobs who have no interest in the game. Will the Leader of the House make arrangements for the Minister for Sport to come to the Dispatch Box to hear the opinion of the House on this serious matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I have not read the Daily Mirror but I know the substance of the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised and I shall refer it to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Leader of the House consider the possibility of a debate on the decline in the Merchant Navy? I understand that the number of ships flying the red ensign has now plummeted to the 300 mark. That was highlighted in south-west Scotland during the past few days when it was necessary to hire £6 million-worth of ships to conduct a military exercise. As it might not be possible to contact shipbroking companies in the event of a national crisis, might it not be a good idea to consider the strategic implications of the slaughter of the Merchant Navy, as well as its civil implications? I know that a Merchant Shipping Bill is due and I am interested in its timetabling, but as it has tragically failed to address the problem of the decline in the Merchant Navy, I believe that a major debate is also necessary.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is an important issue. There is a Merchant Shipping Bill which will enable the hon. Gentleman to make his points if we cannot find time for a separate debate. Speaking from memory, I do not believe that his analysis of the recent NATO exercise squares with the facts. As I understand it, the difficulty was not the inability of British ships to take part, but the price that they wanted to charge for their services.

Curriculum and Assessment (Scotland)
4.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement.
Scottish education has a deservedly high reputation, which we are determined to maintain. There is, particularly in the primary schools, a need to achieve a more coherent and better understood curriculum; a more systematic approach to assessment; and to identify pupils who may need extra help. There is also a need for parents to be given more information about what schools are trying to achieve and how their children are progressing.
I intend to secure substantial improvements in those areas. Steady progress has already been made and my aim is to build on this in collaboration with teachers, education authorities and parents. To this end, I am today issuing a consultation paper, "Curriculum and Assessment in Scotland : a policy for the 90s." This sets out proposals for defining and developing the curriculum and for introducing a new approach to assessment including testing of key aspects of English and mathematics at the primary 4 and primary 7 stages.
The proposals are aimed particularly at the five-to-14 years age group. The secondary school curriculum and associated assessment procedures have been the subject of considerable study in recent years. The task now is to draw together existing guidance and good practice. That is done in the document "Guidelines for Headteachers on Curriculum Design for the Secondary Stages" which, with my agreement, the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum is issuing today. Copies of this document, along with the consultation paper, are available in the Library.
The primary curriculum, however, is less well defined. There is substantial agreement over the subject areas that should be covered, but there is no guarantee of the emphasis that each receives in individual schools. Accordingly, I intend to invite the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum to advise on the balance of components within the curriculum and to develop curricular guidelines for all subject areas for ages five to 14 where satisfactory guidelines do not already exist. I envisage that the consultative committee's initial review will be completed by the end of 1988 and detailed guidelines, at least for English and mathematics, will be in place by the end of 1989 for inclusion in school courses in the 1990–91 session. I also intend to ask the consultative committee to draw up a set of statements explaining the school curriculum to parents.
So far as assessment is concerned, my intention is that national guidance will be issued on assessment policy and methods to accompany the guidelines for each area of the curriculum. I also propose to establish a joint committee of the Scottish Education Department, the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum and the Scottish Examination Board to co-ordinate the development of a bank of test items in connection with the new approach to assessment. At present, in many schools, assessment techniques are well developed, but there is no certainty that basic attainments in language and mathematics are being consistently or accurately assessed. The more able pupils are often insufficiently stretched, while the needs of the less able are not identified in a way that allows

1221
appropriate extra help to be given. The aim will be to remedy those deficiencies by providing parents and schools with better information on children's progress and their individual needs. Tests will be drawn from the bank by head teachers and will be administered and marked by the schools themselves. Tests will not be used to select children for particular schools or courses, nor is it the intention that they should be used to rank pupils in order of merit.
The proposals on curriculum and assessment, taken together with our proposals already announced for school boards, will provide parents with much better information about their children's education. I intend to reinforce this with the development of a new format for the pupils' progress record and, in particular, the report card so that it becomes a clear and comprehensive report on achievements and aptitudes.
The proposals provide the basis for a substantial step forward in the quality and effectiveness of education in Scotland. They reflect the particular nature of the Scottish system and build on well-established approaches to meet the needs of teachers, pupils and parents. Given the context of the Scottish system, I hope to implement the proposals by consultation and agreement with our partners in the education service. I am inviting comments from interested parties by 26 February 1988, but if this timetable causes difficulty I shall be happy to receive comments up to Easter 1988.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement will have been heard by many with a combination of suspicion and dismay? Despite the closing flourish about Scottish tradition, the impression is that the Scottish Education Department is again being made an intellectual prisoner, over-influenced by what happens south of the border.
The Secretary of State referred to curricular developments, balance and new guidelines. Does he accept that we want assurances that that does not mean dictation, with schools being forced to follow a set and precise curriculum with little room for discretion? How does he reconcile such a concept—if that is what is meant—with the rhetoric of choice with which we have become so familiar? Is it his determination to regiment even the form of the report card compatible with educational freedom?
Why does the Secretary of State want to import national testing at this time? What is the justification for that at the primary 4 and primary 7 levels? The Secretary of State will be aware that my hon. Friends and I strongly support assessment when it is in the interests of the child. However, why force our primary schools into what looks like a tight corset of examinations? I should, for example, support the use of the Edinburgh reading test at primary 4, but only because the professional judgment of the teacher would properly be exercised in the interests of the child, not because the Secretary of State demands a set national test. Who has been pressing for such changes?
I recognise that there is a short period for consultation. However, what advice has the right hon. and learned Gentleman received during the consultations that he will surely have carried out informally with the teaching profession? Is there not something damaging about his excursion into education when, as I understand it — I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong—his own
1222
inspectors have reported favourably about what is happening in the primary education sector? Is it not in the nature of things that inevitably the tests will be seen to be and will become competitive? If that happens, is there not evidence that the bright will be held back and that those who are struggling will be artificially forced? Is there not a danger that teachers will end up teaching for the examination and not for the children?
I fear that the clear implication is that the Government are encouraging a climate of false competition that will put pressure on children, bring anxiety to parents and distort the community's view of its schools. Is there not a real risk that this importation will be used to rank schools in the public mind and to judge them on false criteria? In the testing, especially at primary 7, many people will see something that will look very much akin to the old 12-plus. Does the Secretary of State accept that the atmosphere is wrong and that he seems to be moving towards a system that is rigid, uniform and traditional in a self-defeating and narrow way? Is there not a reasonable fear, which the House will want to watch carefully and guard against, that children will ultimately be the victims of changes that owe everything to the Government's social prejudices and little to good education practice?
Mr. Rifkind: I do no know whether to be amused by or sorry for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He began by suggesting that the proposals are drawn from those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, which could mean only one of three things : that the hon. Gentleman has no idea of what is being proposed down south, that he has not listened to what I am proposing, or that he is unaware of either.
In many significant ways the proposals are not the same as what is being proposed elsewhere, because they are designed to deal with the structure of Scottish education and to be based on the tradition of continuous assessment that is an important feature of the Scottish education system. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, he knows less about Scottish education than I thought.
First, the hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that there will be no dictation of the curriculum. He will know that there is a tradition in Scotland in which the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum has, over the years, already achieved something close to a national curriculum. Nowhere does the document suggest powers of dictation or imposition. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has suggested that the proposal for the report card will create a standard format throughout Scotland. He appears to be unaware that there already is a standard format for report cards around Scotland——
Mr. George Foulkes: No, there is not.
Mr. Rifkind: There is indeed. There is concern that the report cards provide inadequate information fully to satisfy parents as to how their youngsters are doing in school at present. I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman observe to the House that he supported assessment in the interests of the child. That is sensible and desirable, and I am glad that we have common ground about it.

1223
The hon. Gentleman went on to ask why the Government are proposing the limited testing in English and mathematics at primary level. The reason is simple: first. it is surely important, and not a matter of political controversy, that we should be able at an early age to identify whether a particular youngster is having problems with the basics. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me — [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen did not just produce a knee-jerk reaction to everything that is proposed by the Government, they might find that their own education would be improved.
It is in everyone's interests that youngsters at school who may be having difficulties with basic reading, writing or arithmetic should be identified at an early age, so that they can be given the extra help that their teachers think appropriate. Secondly, it is desirable that parents should be fully informed about the capacity and potential of their youngsters so that the latter can fulfil their capabilities.
The hon. Member for Garscadden predictably went on to suggest that what we are proposing would bring back the 12-plus and introduce ranking of schools and competition in the classroom. If he and his hon. Friends had cared to read the document before they made accusations and had listened to my opening remarks, they would have heard that I said explicitly that there was no proposal to rank pupils as a result of the tests. The information that will be obtained as a result of the tests will be made available to the teacher, the parents and the youngster himself. It will not he made available in a way that would enable anyone to know where that particular child ranked in the class. The document explicitly says that there are no proposals to that effect.
I know that Opposition Members will be disappointed by that, because they might have found it easier to attack the proposals if they had included such a provision. Opposition Members may by all means come to a responsible judgment about what is in the proposals, but they should not create a bogus sense of indignation about matters that are not being proposed in the document.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recognise—the Opposition appear not to — that any measures that improve the quality of education in Scotland will be widely welcomed by parents — and, I hope, by teachers, who should study the proposals carefully. Does he also recognise that in recent years we have had a plethora of consultation papers, working parties and others, which have swamped schools? My right hon. and learned Friend puts at risk what is good in the proposals unless adequate time is allowed for consultation. Therefore, I ask him seriously to consider extending the period of consultation; otherwise, he will put at risk what may be good in the proposals.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that the proposed tests and examinations are an aid only to individual assessment at the choice of the teacher, and not a replacement for the assessment procedures that are in place now?
Mr. Rifkind: I thank my right hon. Friend, whom I can reassure on both counts. We have stated our preference that consultative responses should be available by the end of February, but, as I said earlier, if comments are forthcoming thereafter, they will be taken into account.
The tests are exactly of the sort that my right hon. Friend suggested — namely, to assist the teacher to
1224
decide what is in the best interests of the child, and whether he requires additional help and is meeting the basic requirements of English and mathematics. It is therefore desirable that a youngster at primary school who might have particular problems should be identified at an early stage so that appropriate help can be given him.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State must recognise that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, it is an unusual coincidence that we are considering proposals now in the wake of the proposals for the south. Will he reassure the House that that is not so, and answer the question about where the demands for the changes came from? Will he assure the House that, at the end of the consultation period, and in due course, there will be primary legislation—as there will be south of the border —to enshrine the proposals in law, so that they are not slipped through as a guidance note or a statutory instrument?
If the Secretary of State is saying that no ranking is involved in the assessment, why does he not build on, and develop, the existing diagnostic tests, which already fill the need that he has identified?
Mr. Rifkind: We have no proposals for legislation on the curriculum. I have not yet come to any judgment as to whether legislation on assessment would be helpful. I have asked those who comment on the document to say whether they believe legislation would be helpful to achieving our results, or whether it is not necessary, given the nature of the Scottish education system. The normal co-operative process might be sufficient for the purpose.
Essentially, we are trying to allow the individual head teacher to choose from a bank of national tests the lest that he thinks is appropriate to the circumstances of the school for which he is responsible. It will then be for the teacher to mark the test, and the information will be made available only to the parents and children concerned. The teacher will then be able to come to a judgment about whether additional help might be required. Of course, tools are already available to teachers, but I cannot see why there should be objections to making a judgment about whether the basic, crucial elements of a good quality of education have been achieved in the case of a child.
Sir Hector Monro: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that I welcome his proposals to improve the quality of education in Scotland, particularly in mathematics and English? Does he accept that I do not believe it will be necessary to legislate, because all his proposals can surely be covered by administrative arrangements and circulars?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give firm approval to the view that the consultation period should be extended to the end of March, or perhaps April, so that the schools and teachers can plan their discussions over a longer period, rather than rush things through by the end of February?
Mr. Rifkind: I noted with interest my hon. Friend's view that the necessity for legislation is unlikely. I also confirm to my hon. Friend, as I said in my opening statement, that we shall be extremely happy to receive the responses of those interested in these matters up to Easter of next year.
Mr. Bruce Milian: On the question of national assessment and testing, will the Secretary of

1225
State answer the question that has already been asked: who in Scottish education has been demanding this particular proposal? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman name anyone in the Scottish education world who is demanding national assessment and testing? Is this not just another simple example of aping the English and, in particular, following the disastrous proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Does he accept that the proposals completely ignore the fruitful developments that have taken place in recent years regarding internal assessment in Scotland both at primary and secondary level?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that there have been significant improvements with internal assessment, and that will continue. However, inspectors' reports suggest that although in many schools the methods of assessment are perfectly satisfactory, that is not true of all schools. There are different methods of assessment and different approaches. We do not mind a degree of flexibility, but it is useful that teachers should have available to them — as part of teachers' consideration of continuous assessment — the results of tests such as those we are proposing. We are not suggesting, nor have we ever suggested, that a teacher will simply be expected to rely on this particular method when making a judgment as to what may be appropriate for an individual child. I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are so anxious that teachers should not have the benefit of information of that nature. If Opposition Members can identify some basic problem that will arise as a result of our proposals, we would be interested to hear what it is.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It will come as no surprise to the Secretary of State when I say that today's statement confirms our suspicions that the SED is becoming the DES backwards. His statement makes a mirror image of the legislation that is being proposed south of the border.
On the specific point of the identification of children with special learning needs—I remind the Secretary of State that I speak as one who is specially qualified in this aspect of education as I hold the certificate for remedial education—are not such children best identified through continuous assessment by the classroom teacher backed by qualified remedial teachers who have access to diagnostic tests and who are trained to administer those tests effectively? Would it not be better if resources were put into the remedial service, which has been sadly cut under this Government? That would he of great assistance to youngsters with special needs.
Secondly, on the issue of resourcing, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the implications of the implementation of his proposals? Would it not be better if the money came into the schools for better textbooks, better facilities and better access for teachers to learning opportunities for themselves?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady will see, when she reads the document, that we acknowledge that particular provision may be required for those youngsters with special needs. That is something that we will happily take into account.
When the hon. Lady says that these proposals are a mirror image of the proposals down south, all I can say
1226
is that she must use an extremely curious mirror. In a number of important respects the two sets of proposals are very different. First, my right hon. Friend's proposals apply to secondary as well as primary schools, whereas our proposals for assessment apply only to the primary level.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend's proposals envisage testing over a wide range of subjects, but our proposals are limited to English and mathematics.
Thirdly, in the English context my right hon. Friend has proposed the need for legislation, but I have said that there will be no need for legislation. In the English context, my right hon. Friend is also proposing that certain national tests will apply in every school, but I am suggesting that, in a Scottish context, it will be up to individual head teachers to choose what particular kind of test is appropriate to their local circumstances.
I ask the hon. Lady not to give an immediate reaction, based perhaps on her natural prejudice, but to look at what is proposed.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State take cognisance of the fact that we are rather hesitant about accepting his advocacy in relation to education because, in effect, we really do not trust him to have the good of the people, especially the oncoming generation in Scotland, at heart? There is a basic distrust. If the proposals contain so little to upset the education of young people, why is he bringing them forward? Does he accept that, in the past five to 10 years, one of the most exciting things in Scottish education has been the development in primary schools? If there are to be changes in primary schools, he should have better grounds for those changes than those that he has put forward. If we are to have such changes, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should say how much more money he will put into primary education.
Mr. Rifkind: It would appear that the hon. Gentleman trusts only those people with whose political opinions he agrees. I cannot change his political opinions.
As regards his subsequent points, we make it clear in the consultative document that we accept that our proposals will have resource implications and that, therefore, it will be necessary to bring forward funding to cover the costs that may be involved.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Will not the effect of the proposals be to increase consumer power among parents with children in the Scottish education system? That will therefore enable parents to know effectively what is going on in the schools and to choose between them more effectively. Why does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that Opposition Members think that parents should not be trusted with that information?
Mr. Rifkind: Certainly the proposals on curriculum and assessment will provide much greater information for individual parents about their youngsters' performance. I would have thought that any Labour Member would be only too happy to have as much information as was available and obtainable with regard to the progress that their son or daughter was making at school. I find it difficult to understand why that should be considered a controversial matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: To what purpose will the results of the primary 4 maths test be put?
Mr. Rifkind: I have already informed the House that the purpose of the assessment tests for primary school children is to enable their teachers and parents to be aware of their capacity and of any particular problems they might be experiencing in the subjects that are clearly basic to their future educational prospects.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: If the Secretary of State is so interested in the education of young children, why is he cutting money from Strathclyde region and forcing it to close schools that are only 12 years old? In constituencies such as mine every primary school is affected either by closure or amalgamation. If he is serious about improving education, surely the Secretary of State should ensure that schools are kept open?
Mr. Rifkind: I understand the growing embarrassment of the Labour party about the controversy that has been generated in Strathclyde about the regional council's proposals.
Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has caused it.
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) knows perfectly well that our reason for requiring Strathclyde region to consider the closure of individual schools is demographic, not financial. The hon. Gentleman also knows perfectly well that it is the number of youngsters attending schools because of demographic changes that has led every education authority throughout the country to realise some rationalisation of school provision is necessary. I suggest that if the regional council exercised slightly more leadership than that advocated by the hon. Gentleman, the people of Strathclyde might end up with a more sensible use of their resources.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: I speak as someone who sat the qualifying examination—[Interruption.] — and passed —[AN HON. MEMBER: "He was a late developer".] I well remember that examination and the divisions, sadness and bitterness that resulted from it. We must not have that again. I remember the way in which our education was suspended so that we could prepare for it. That was one of the troubles with it.
Under these specific proposals, will the Secretary of State tell us what key aspects of maths and English will be tested? Will the results be held centrally? Will he give us a categorical assurance that they will not be published? I repeat a question that he failed to answer: who is pressing for these examinations? From where does the demand come?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the purpose of the examination that he sat in earlier years was to determine to which school he would be allocated. When asked by his hon. Friends, he said that he had passed that examination and others had failed. It is not being proposed that these tests should be used to decide whether individual youngsters pass or fail. Pass and fail will not be appropriate to the tests that we have in mind. We are concerned that individual teachers should be able to determine the degree of attainment that individual youngsters achieve so that they can decide whether a youngster requires extra help.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would be done with the results of those tests. I have already said that the results will be made available to parents, individual teachers and
1228
children. The individual results of each child will not be made known to his classmates or to the school generally. The headmaster will inform the school board in due course about the overall results of the school—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I find it difficult to understand why Opposition Members should be concerned that parents should be aware of them. No doubt they have their own reasons. I can assure the House that the achievement and the degree of attainment of any individual child will be known only to that child, to his parents and to his teacher.
Dr. Lewis Moonie: I have one child who has passed through the primary school system, and another who is currently in it. Each year that they have been at school, my wife and I have gone to the school and discussed them individually with their teachers and been given a detailed assessment of their progress, with which we were contented. I have served on an education committee which examined the standards in our schools, and we were satisfied with those standards. What possible additional advantage can there be from the proposed scheme? Is it not just another hare-brained notion from a bird-brained group of Ministers?
Mr. Rifkind: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has in his constituency individual tenants who are delighted with their housing. Does he thereby conclude that there are no problems in housing? No doubt he will find individuals in his constituency who are delighted with the education that they are receiving. Does he suggest, therefore, that there are no problems in education and no need for further resources? The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that these proposals seek not only to satisfy his personal requirements, but to improve the quality of education in Scotland.
Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavic): Sadly, the Secretary of State is showing distressing signs of repeated applications of the leaded handbag. He is seeking to bring the Scottish system into line with the English one. He asked about the question of trust. Here is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to honour some trust. He acknowledged that there would be resource implications. Will he promise to receive independent advice on the resource implications of his proposals and will he promise to honour them in the grants that he gives to local authorities?
Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman will read paragraph 43 of the consultative document—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not available."] He will be able to read it in due course. It is available to the House and to Hon. Members. Paragraph 43 states:
"In particular the Secretary of State will make resources available to fund the development, administration and maintenance of the national item banks and the system of sample moderation. The Government does not propose that education authorities should be charged for these services."
Mr. Tom Clarke: If the Secretary of State is as concerned about special needs and pupils with learning difficulties as he says, why were they not mentioned in his statement? As he has not given the House any information about costing, will he be surprised if the House concludes that resources will be taken from other aspects of the education system? In view of the compliments in a recent report that have rightly been expressed about secondary comprehensive education, will

1229
he refuse to introduce an alien system into primary education, especially when so many alien philosophies have already been imposed on Scotland?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman asks about special needs. When a copy of the document has been made available to him, I suggest that he look at paragraph 36. It contains a recognition that particular requirements may well be needed for youngsters with special needs. Clearly, the education authority will want to adopt a system that is appropriate to requirements as the authority perceives them for that category of youngster.
Mr. Tom Sackville: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that parents have a duty to find out how their children are doing at school? They want to know how they are doing — at least I do. If the Opposition believe that we should help less successful teachers to withhold this information, they are not helping the cause of education in Scotland or the future of children.
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is quite right. He ought to appreciate that the Opposition felt obliged to oppose my statement, irrespective of its content.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Returning to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), does the Secretary of State realise that the profound ignorance of the history of Scottish education that that answer revealed will be seen with the greatest interest in Scotland? Surely he is not too divorced from the much more than 95 per cent. of Scottish people who use the state education system to realise that the past purpose of these examinations was to determine not to which school a child should go, but rather to deal with streaming within schools. His reply, which denied that fact, was astonishing. Does he realise that the suspicion on the part of the Opposition is precisely that he is trying to get back to streaming?
Will the Minister answer the question that he has specifically and persistently evaded? Does he accept that support for this measure within Scotland is reflected by the backing that he has from his Scottish team behind him — one who would support anything and another who sounds distinctly heretical? As we are dealing with the learning abilities of young children, may I put my question in words of one syllable that the Minister might be able to understand and thereby not evade: who has asked for this nonsense?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman asks a number of questions. He knows perfectly well, and is right, that some years ago under previous education arrangements examinations were held at primary level to determine streaming. He will know that in the state sector in certain parts of Scotland some schools were, for all practical purposes, equivalent to grammar schools. They were not called grammar schools, but they were state schools that were deemed to be appropriate for youngsters with a particular level of education. We have no proposals for the streaming of children, nor do we propose that any child's future school will be in any way influenced or determined by the results of these tests. As I have already said, apart from anything else, children will not be judged to have passed or failed in these tests. Only the child's teacher and
1230
its parents will be aware of how the child has done. The purpose of the tests is to assist the teacher in deciding the appropriate extra help, if any is required, for the child. I can understand why the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends might take the view that this is unnecessary. I have yet to hear any reason why they think that it could be harmful.
Mr. Alistair Darling: On that point, does the Secretary of State not realise that it can be very harmful to grade a child at the age of seven or eight because that grading could remain with it for the rest of its school life? Does he not accept that it can be wholly undesirable to be coaching or even cramming children for an examination or test at the age of eight when the child could be stretched to the utmost by existing assessment procedures? Will the Secretary of State now answer the question that he has failed to answer? Being an intelligent man, surely he can tell the House who had the idea for this proposal? As long as the Secretary of State refuses to answer that question, the suspicion will remain that the proposal came from the authors of that other crazy proposal—school boards. This has not been sought and is not wanted. It is high time that the Secretary of State and his team stopped interfering with the education of other people's children.
Mr. Rifkind: Being myself the author of the document on school boards and having put forward the proposals some months before the general election, I am happy to accept the authorship that the hon. Gentleman in his usual flattering way was content to put in my direction.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the question of grading children. If he likes he can put up an Aunt Sally to knock down, but it would be helpful, useful and relevant if he were at least to concentrate such criticisms as he thinks appropriate on what we are actually proposing. There is no proposal to grade children and there has never been such a proposal. There is no reference in the document or any intention on the part of the Government to grade children. If the hon. Gentleman's best criticism of our proposals is on the question of grading, I feel very reassured, because it suggests that there is nothing in the actual proposals that he feels able to criticise.
Mr. John McFall: The Secretary of State mentions a consultation procedure. I am grateful to him for offering the caveat that this consultation will take place until Easter. Perhaps that is a result of his last consultation period on school boards during which I and certainly my colleagues never found any support for the proposition. The main question is: where did that come from? Did it come from the public watchdog that the Secretary of State has set up—Her Majesty's inspectors? I challenge the Secretary of State to show me an HMI report that advocates testing or school boards.
We have our ear to the ground about Scottish education because we are involved in public education in Scotland and can speak to the authorities. We know that what the Secretary of State has put forward is not at all the case. In his paper he talks about testing at primary 4 and primary 7 levels. In other words, at one go he has taken on the primary and secondary sector. There is a proposal in the report by the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum for the eight-to-14 age group, and that report has been out for two or three years. Why does the Secretary of State not look at that and build on it, because

1231
it contains no suggestion for streaming in schools? Where is the concern being expressed in Scottish education? It does not come from the political side or from educationists. In the name of honesty, where does it come from?
Mr. Rifkind: I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that there arc no proposals for assessment of secondary school pupils. I am not sure where he got that impression. I spoke about primary 4 and primary 7.
Mr. John Maxton: Primary 7 is the last step before secondary school.
Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about. The purpose of testing at primary 7 is not to assess suitability for secondary education, but to identify whether there are individual youngsters who need extra help.
Mr. Maxton: Grading.
Mr. Rifkind: No—at the level they have reached. For the Opposition to continue to try to discover proposals that are not in our document does themselves discredit and in no way enlightens the House.
Mr. John McAllion: Is the Secretary of State aware that he betrays his ignorance of the state sector of education in Scotland when he completely fails to recognise that any move towards a nationally imposed curriculum of national testing in schools at the ages of nine and 12 runs contrary to the whole development of Scottish education over the past 30 years?
I am especially concerned about the justification that the Secretary of State has trotted out for these proposals. On the one hand, he says that they will provide better information for parents. On the other hand, I think that in response to an hon. Member he said that the information would be made available to school boards. I am worried that we might create a situation in which parents will he able to compare one school with another and that we shall end up with schools at each other's throats, with some being successful in attracting high numbers while others will be less successful and will see their rolls begin to fall. Will the Secretary of State make it absolutely clear to the House whether the information on testing will be publicly available in a form that will enable one school to be compared with another?
Mr. Rifkind: First, having accused me of ignorance, the hon. Gentleman said that we are seeking to produce a national curriculum. If the hon. Gentleman knows Scottish education, he should know that we virtually have a national curriculum and have had one for years. For all practical purposes, that was achieved through the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, it is about time that he did.
With regard to school comparison, the results of tests on an all-schools basis will be made available to the school board by the head teacher. I have always found it difficult to understand why Labour Members get so upset that parents involved in one school may be aware of the achievements of their school compared with those of others. What are we trying to hide?
Mr. Ernie Ross: Can the Secretary of State tell parents what relevance these assessments have, given that there will be a bank of tests from which the headmaster can draw? How will the individual parent know whether that particular test makes sense? How does the parent differentiate between those tests? Does he have any say in which tests the headmaster uses? What relevance does this assessment have, if it is drawn from a bank?
Mr. Rifkind: The national bank of tests will be devised by educationists, not by Ministers. It will be up to the head teacher to choose the particular test which he thinks appropriate to the circumstances of his school and his pupils. That matter can be discussed with parents and, naturally, we expect full and close co-operation.
Mr. Harry Ewing: If the Secretary of State were at school today, does he realise that his teacher would say, "We are having great difficulty getting through your thick skull today, boy"? Will he tell us who knocked on his door and give us the names of the individuals and organisations which asked for these proposals?
Mr. Rifkind: Her Majesty's inspectorate has consis-tently referred to the need to improve assessment techniques in primary schools. That is what these proposals are designed to do.
Mr. Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of Scotland will have no confidence in Ministers' stewardship of Scottish education so long as those Ministers do not send their own children to local authority schools? If the Secretary of State did that, he would know that such testing and assessment is already under way in schools. So far as I can divine, the reason for the imposition of this centralised national test is the same as that for the proposal of school boards — that he and some of his advisers have a long-term plan to change the nature of Scottish education and restore streaming and a degree of selection which is alien in Scotland. Does the Secretary of State accept that he is taking his advice from the wrong former pupil of Keith grammar school?
Mr. Rifkind: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that those people whose children do not attend state schools cannot be assumed to have any genuine interest in, or contribution to make towards, the welfare of education in that sector. Am I to assume, therefore, that those people who, like the hon. Gentleman, live in homes which they have purchased, can have no real interest in the welfare of those who choose to live in council houses?
Mr. Tony Marlow: As one who has a married son living in Scotland and, therefore, like many people south of the border, has a direct interest in what happens north of the border, will my right hon. arid learned Friend tell the House whether it is Scotland which is against all and every reform proposed or is it just the Labour party in Scotland which is against these reforms and will use every system of distortion and obfuscation in a vain attempt to prevent this happening?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is quite correct.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill
5.19 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put to you on Monday that on the Third Reading of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill an error of procedure occured. Will you confirm that you have written to me and that you confirm that that error occurred, but that you feel that no further action is necessary on this occasion? Will you also confirm that you have taken steps to ensure that failure to signify the Queen's consent on a Third Reading will not happen in future?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to refer to the matter. The hon. Gentleman was correct when he suggested to me on Monday that the House should have been informed that the Queen's consent had been obtained to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. I have satisfied myself that the Queen's consent had, in fact, been properly obtained. This was done as long ago as June of last year. The failure lay in not communicating that consent to the House. In these circumstances I consider that the proper course is to follow a precedent of 1971 and not to impede the progress of the Bill to another place. Had there been a failure to obtain the Queen's consent, the precedent of 1852, referred to by the hon. Gentleman, would have been appropriate and proceedings on the Third Reading would have been null and void. I have asked for steps to be taken to avoid an oversight of this kind occurring again.

BILL PRESENTED
  HOUSING
  Mr. Secretary Ridley, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary Moore, Mr. John Major and Mr. William Waldegrave, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to dwelling-houses let on tenancies or occupied under licences ; to amend the Rent Act 1977 and the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976; to amend the Housing Associations Act 1985 and to repeal and re-enact with amendments certain provisions of Part II of that Act ; to make provision for the establishment of housing action trusts for areas designated by the Secretary of State; to confer on persons approved for the purpose the right to acquire from public sector landlords certain dwelling-houses occupied by secure tenants ; to make further provision about rent officers and the administration of housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy ; 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 54.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that the first statutory instrument is not to be moved. With the leave of the House, I propose to put together the questions on the two motions to approve the other two statutory instruments, that is, items Nos. 2 and 3 on the Order Paper.
  Ordered,
  That the draft National Metrological Co-ordinating Unit (Transfer of Functions and Abolition) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft British Film Fund Agency (Dissolution) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Durant.]

  Housing Benefit
  5.20 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I beg to move,
  That the draft Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.
  This debate is a sequel to the debate last week on the regulations on income support, claims and payments and uprating of social security benefits. The scope of the regulations before us today, which introduce important and fundamental reforms, fully justifies them being taken separately in the House. Nevertheless, it is important for the House to recognise that they are part of the strategic review undertaken by the Government of the whole structure of income-related benefits over a period of four years.
  Housing benefit is clearly a very major element in the social security system, first, because it relates to one of the most basic family needs—a place to live; and secondly, because over the years it has greatly increased as a programme both in terms of costs and the numbers in receipt of benefit. Expenditure this year is expected to be in the order of £5·25 billion. I will use figures for Great Britain throughout the debate. The equivalent help at constant prices being given with rent and rates when we took office in 1979 was £2 billion. Similarly, the number of households receiving help with rent and rates has increased steadily over the period. We estimate that over 7 million households will receive help with their rates and/ or their rents this year. The equivalent figure in 1979–80 was about 5 million. Since total households in Great Britain number about 21 million the figures mean that no fewer than one in three households is receiving help with rent or rates.
  The other general point I want to make to the House in introducing the debate is that, as with other parts of our programme, the Government have shown themselves willing and able to examine the fundamental structure of the existing pattern of provision and to undertake major reviews and reform. It was this Government who tackled for the first time in 1982 the long-standing issue of the entirely different administrative structures for giving help with rent and rates. For many years, expert observers— perhaps, most importantly, the Supplementary Benefits Commission—had criticised a system where people were often receiving less than their potential benefit because they went to a local authority rather than to the DHSS office and vice versa. The 1982 reforms provided a single administrative roof for all households seeking assistance with their housing costs. This was an important step forward and we could not have achieved the new structure proposed in the regulations before the House if we had not taken this first important step in 1982.
  I acknowledge at once that the first attempt at achieving sensible administrative reform ran into difficulty not least because many local authorities found it hard at first to administer the housing benefit scheme. In most places those administrative difficulties have been overcome. Equally, there are issues in our latest proposals which will no doubt be the subject of intense debate, including the limits we are seeking to place on the growth in expenditure and caseload. However, the point I want to emphasise this afternoon before I describe the proposed
  1236
  changes in more detail is that we have a coherent strategy and the will to undertake the necessary reforms within a sensible and responsible framework of public expenditure.
  While the Opposition will wish to exercise their proper constitutional duty to criticise the proposals of the Government, I hope they will find it possible to say what they would propose to put in place of our suggestions. In particular, it would be useful for the House and the public to know whether the Opposition agree that there should he a common framework for income-related benefits and that available resources should be directed towards those most in need. On the scope of the scheme, I wonder whether those who do not wish housing benefit to be kept within bounds have a figure beyond £5 billion which they would like to offer as a sensible public expenditure target. Finally, do they share our concern about the numbers now receiving benefit? Is one out of three households too high or too low a figure for any scheme that they might want to put in its place?
  I put these questions to the Opposition in the hope that when they respond to my opening remarks they may feel it possible not merely to exercise what I recognise as their proper constitutional duty to criticise us but to let the country know what they would like to put in place of our proposal. As with other debates on social policy, I fear that, instead of a coherent response, we shall simply have suggestions that more money should be spent on one group or another without any idea of the framework that should be achieved or without an attempt to set any coherent set of priorities.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Perhaps I may remind the Minister of the statement that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the shadow spokesman on housing, who has repeatedly offered to meet the Government to discuss a new framework for housing subsidies on the clear understanding that such a framework would have to he fair to the purchase and the rental sectors and fair within them. Provided the Government are prepared to accept the principle of equity between the two sectors and the principle of equity on the basis of income within them, we are prepared to sit down with them to devise a permanent new system.
  Mr. Scott: That would not for one moment prevent the hon. Gentleman or, if he does not feel able to do it, his hon. Friend from standing up to say what suggestions they would put forward within the current framework for a sensible system of housing benefit. It is easy to talk about more radical solutions and changing the whole system fundamentally. We are not talking about the whole structure of housing policy but specifically about housing benefit and the way that we respond to those needs. It is in that context that I think it lies within the remit of the hon. Gentleman himself to come forward with specific proposals.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I have a high regard for the Minister's intellect which I have admired over a number of years in the House. I do not believe that he has been subjected to the lobotomy which would be necessary to say that housing benefit should be considered in isolation from housing policy. The point that I put to the Minister is that we are willing at any time the Government indicate to sit down and discuss with them a permanent and rational structure of housing subsidy that will bear a relationship

  1237
  to the future of housing policy and which also will be equitable between the sectors. Until the Government are willing to enter that negotiation with us they can hardly object if we take their proposals at face value.
  Mr. Scott: Which means that the answer to the question which I put to the hon. Gentleman is no, he is not prepared this afternoon to come forward with suggestions particularly about the operation of housing benefit itself.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend but I think he is wrong. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has come forward with a very positive suggestion which I presume is now Labour party policy—that is, to do away with mortgage relief on house purchases.
  Mr. Scott: It is perhaps not for the hon. Gentleman but for whoever holds the portfolio on housing policy as a whole to come forward and explain exactly Labour's proposals in that regard.
  Mr. Clive Soley: I want to make it quite clear that at the moment I have received no reply to my offer from the Government. The other assumption that I have built in is that it must be introduced in such a way that it does not throw people into economic distress whether they rent or buy. The Minister has an opportunity here. If his colleagues in the Department of the Environment have yet to decide, he at least can offer to talk about his part of the package.
  Mr. Scott: This is a remarkable constitutional proposition. The Labour party which has managed to lose three general elections on the trot wants to negotiate with the Government about the pattern of housing policy—[Interruption.] This is the forum in which the Opposition can put forward their suggestions about the development of housing policy. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment will welcome debates on housing policy in this forum and I am sure that our ideas will carry the country as they have carried the country successively in general elections over the past few years. Let us not talk about negotiation, let us sort these matters out on the Floor of the House.
  In presenting and explaining to the House the detail of the regulations, I will seek to divide them into four broad areas. The first will cover the main features of the current housing benefit scheme, which are in most need of reform. The second is how the regulations achieve these reforms through a new structure which is both simpler to understand and has a common framework with the new income support scheme and family credit system. Thirdly, I will refer to the timetable and role of local authorities in implementing the new arrangements. Finally, I will set out for the benefit of the House the broad effects of the proposals, including our revised estimates of overall caseload and expenditure.
  As I said earlier, housing benefit brought the administration of assistance with rents and rates together under one roof for the first time. It resolved the so-called "better off' problem, which was the target of much justifiable criticism from the Supplementary Benefits Commission and others in the late 1970s. It made for far more sensible and efficient administration, in that millions of households had their bills rebated at source for the first
  1238
  time, instead of having to take the money handed out by an arm of central Government and immediately pass it on to the local government offices down the road.
  The main shortcoming with the current housing benefit scheme lies in its basic structure. Many hon. Members who have experience of constituents' difficulties will recognise that. Although the 1982–83 reforms unified its administra-tion, in structure it remains essentially an amalgam of the two separate schemes that preceded it. The jargon of housing benefit divides the world into standard and certificated cases and ne'er the twain shall meet. The assessment of needs, of income and many other features of the scheme are different according to the category into which people happen to fall. On top of that, the entitlement calculation for standard cases is one of the most complex and obscure in the entire benefits system. The scheme includes needs allowances, which virtually no one understands and which are not in effect allowances at all, positive and negative tapers, local variations to the national scheme, supplements and additions here, deductions there, and they seem almost deliberately designed to bewilder both the claimant and the counter clerk. Even——
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I always give way. I will gladly give way once I have finished my sentence.
  Even Ministers at the Dispatch Box have been known to be puzzled by some of the intricacies of the scheme.
  Mr. McCartney: I am amazed by the Minister's admission. The scheme introduced in 1982–83 was an utter national shambles. Does the Minister not regret the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and the local authority associations also warned him that that would happen? He rejected their advice then, as he will reject advice over the present proposals. The shambles since 1982–83 has meant that hundreds of thousands of people are living in real hardship and poverty. It ill behoves the Minister to come here tonight and apologise for the introduction of that legislation and try to get round that by introducing an even more draconian measure.
  Mr. Scott: I have not come here to apologise. I have acknowledged that there were administrative difficulties in the introduction of the 1982–83 reforms. The outcome of those reforms was a substantial improvement on the previous position. To a very large extent that scheme has now settled down and is working reasonably. However, as I was in the middle of explaining to the House when the hon. Gentleman intervened, that scheme has structural weaknesses. The purpose of the reforms that I am announcing today is to settle those structural weaknesses and differences and so get us on to a better system. The dual system which proceeded the 1982–83 reforms was absolutely indefensible and we were right to tackle it. We are now ready to take the next step forward.
  Two particular features of the present scheme illustrate the structural weakness to which I have referred and which I freely admit exists. One is the high-rent scheme, which is a variation of the normal entitlement calculation that can be used in some circumstances when the normal formula delivers an inadequate amount of benefit to those

  1239
  with unavoidably high rents. The second, which many hon. Members who are concerned with policy in this area will know only too well, is housing benefit supplement. That is a notorious paper chase of a benefit that is sometimes described as a piece of sticking plaster used to bridge the gap between the two systems of help which make up the housing benefit scheme.
  To put it on the record, it is worth explaining to the House how housing benefit supplement works. A person must first claim supplementary benefit from the local DHSS office, even though he knows that he will not receive it. He also claims housing benefit from the local authority. After assessing the claim, the DHSS office informs the local authority of the amount by which the claimant's income exceeds his supplementary benefit level. The local authority assesses housing benefit entitlement in the normal way. Then, if housing benefit is payable, it compares the excess income figure notified by the DHSS with the claimant's rent and rates after deducting amounts for non-dependants and amenities included in the rent. If the resultant figure is more than the housing benefit payable, housing benefit supplement makes up the difference.
  However, the procedure does not end there. The local authority must then send a copy of its calculation to the DHSS office for it to be checked and authorised. The DHSS returns the notice to the local authority either authorising the calculation or with an amended figure. That whole process must be repeated every time a claimant's circumstances change. I believe that it was right for us to change to a new system in 1982–83. However, I am equally sure that the time has come to tackle that kind of structural weakness and move to something which will be much easier for claimants and those who administer housing benefit to understand.
  The shortcomings that I have discussed are complex and a source of great confusion to the general public. They are also fundamentally inequitable. It cannot be right to treat people differently according to whether they are in or out of work so that a man who takes a low-paid job and claims a rebate may find himself worse off than if he had stayed on supplementary benefit. It is not right to treat an occupational pensioner differently from a supplementary pensioner, in many cases forcing the former to enter the labyrinth of housing benefit supplement if he or she is to receive a full entitlement and remain above basic safety net levels.
  As I said earlier, there has been legitimate concern about the growth in housing benefit expenditure and caseload. That partly reflects the increase in those on supplementary benefit and increases in rent and rates. Yet despite the supposed "cuts" in housing benefit, it has continued to grow in cost and numbers each year. The measures we have introduced have merely constrained growth. Our aim must be to concentrate help on those most in need.
  All the factors of which I have spoken were part of the background against which the independent review of housing benefit was first established in 1984. The problems and concerns that I have outlined to the House, coupled with a number of serious administrative problems in certain areas of the country, meant that the review and reform process started slightly earlier for housing benefit than for the other income-related benefits. However, the housing benefit review rapidly became part of the wider social security review which led, through the Green and
  1240
  White Papers of 1985 and the Social Security Act 1986, to the various sets of regulations that the House has been debating during the past two weeks.
  It is a great credit to Jeremy Rowe and his colleagues, who carried out the original housing benefit review, that almost all of the basic ideas in his 1984 report are reflected in the regulations that the House is discussing today.
  Mr. Robin Cook rose——
  Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself for just a moment, I shall give way. Perhaps he will calm down while I continue what I am saying.
  I would also like to pay tribute to the contribution of many individual local authorities and their representative organisations, which had been consulted on the regulations since the beginning of this year, and which have provided invaluable technical advice.
  Mr. Cook: If the Minister is going to praise the housing benefit review team for having recommended the structure that he is commending to the House, will he refer us to the passage in the team's report that recommended exclusion of one fifth of rates, and will he tell us why he rejected the team's explicit statement that it did not recommend exclusion of any part of rates from housing benefit?
  Mr. Scott: I am not saying for a moment that every detail of what Mr. Rowe and his colleagues put forward should be accepted. Governments do not set up reviews so that they can accept every single piece of advice that is issued. They ask for them so that they can provide a background of information, and a set of recommendations, which can then quite properly be subject to the political judgment of Ministers—and, ultimately. to the political decision of the House of Commons.
  Having set out the background to the regulations, let me now discuss the main features and effects. The most important feature is a word that I have used several times in our recent debates: alignment. Nearly all of the structural problems inherent in the current housing benefit scheme arise from its disalignment from the rest of the social security system. Alignment removes many of them —I was tempted to say, "at a stroke", but I shall not use that particular phrase.
  However, we do not consider that it would have been possible to achieve such alignment alongside the current supplementary benefit scheme, with its complex pattern of additional requirements. In other words, the reform of supplementary benefit, and the change to income support, is in itself a fundamental feature, and makes possible the change to the new system of housing benefit that the regulations will provide for—assuming that the House approves them today.
  What alignment means is quite simple. For a start, several important sections of the regulations are substantially the same as their counterparts within the Income Support (General) Regulations which the House approved last week. I refer in particular to the parts that deal with membership of a family, and the assessment of both needs and income and capital. The latter part is also largely the same as its counterpart within the Family Credit (General) Regulations which were discussed and approved by the House last night.
  From the claimant's—or the counter clerk's—point of view, this means that for the first time housing benefit has a simple, logical and coherent conceptual framework.

  1241
  Anyone on income support, or whose net income is at or below the income support level—even if he is in work—will normally be entitled to maximum housing benefit. Above that level, benefit will be reduced according to a simple percentage or taper related to net income, with separate tapers for rents and rates. The need for the housing benefit supplement and high-rent scheme is immediately removed, and there is a built-in incentive for unemployed people to take employment in the knowledge that their housing benefit entitlement will not leave them below basic income support levels.
  These are major achievements of which I hope all hon. Members will approve, even if they disagree with some of the details.
  Mr. William O'Brien: In assessing the taper for housing benefit, will the Minister take into account the concessionary fuel allowance that widows of retired and former mineworkers receive? Does he agree that that concession should be disregarded in the assessment of housing benefit.
  Mr. Scott: I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to deal with that point when he winds up the debate, rather than interrupt the outline of the housing benefit scheme that I am trying to give the House.
  I hope that the House will find it possible to approve at least the fundamental structure of the scheme. Let me point out some of the other advantages that flow from alignment. For one thing, the enhancements built into the income support scheme for the elderly and disabled will also automatically be reflected in the calculation of housing benefit for those on higher incomes. Those enhancements will replace their somewhat inadequate counterparts in the current needs allowances.
  It will also be much clearer to those assessing housing benefit how particular types of income or capital should be treated. I would not accept that, by significantly expanding the number of regulations covering the assessment of income and needs, we have created unnecessary complexity. Clarity and precision frequently require comprehensiveness, and the vagueness with which such matters are treated in the current scheme has helped neither the claimants nor those who administer the scheme.
  In only one area have we breached the principle of alignment, and we have breached it in the right direction from the viewpoint of incentives and similar considerations. We have accepted the argument put to us that lone parents, whose needs are currently assessed as a couple under the standard housing benefit scheme, would, whatever the theoretical logic of such a move, fare disproportionately badly from alignment with income support. We have therefore set the housing benefit lone-parent premium significantly higher than its income support counterpart, to offset that effect.
  I do not intend to dwell in detail on the other features of these regulations. My colleague the Under-Secretary can respond to specific points that are raised. In many of the areas I have not so far covered, our policy has not significantly changed, although we have tried to make the wording of the regulations more precise. I will mention in passing a couple of the more important details, starting with non-dependant deductions. We have significantly simplified the rules, and have introduced a new criterion
  1242
  for applying the higher rent deduction — namely, that the non-dependant should be in remunerative work for more than 24 hours a week. That will be a welcome improvement for many non-dependants on training courses or other social security benefits, who are at present assumed to be contributing the same as a non-dependant in full-time work.
  We have also greatly clarified the rules for converting monthly rents and annual rates into weekly amounts, and we have provided more detail on the assessment of students, the handling of overpayments and the procedures to be followed when a claimant wants his case reviewed. We have set out the sort of information that we think should always be sent to a claimant when his claim has been determined. There are many other improvements or clarifications, too numerous to mention. If any hon. Members wish to raise particular points, my hon. Friend will try to deal with them when he winds up the debate.
  Mr. Timothy Raison: In general, I welcome the lines on which the reform has taken place. However, I am concerned about the capital limit of £6,000. May I briefly illustrate the point with a constituency case?
  I was visited the other day by one of my constituents, a divorced lady. The divorce settlement had taken the form of a so-called "clean break". The lady was given a capital sum, on the income of which she was living. Not surprisingly, that capital was above the £6,000 level.
  As a consequence of the new regulations, if I understand them correctly, that lady will certainly lose rate rebate, and it seems to me that a substantial number of people will be affected by the £6,000 capital limit. We are discussing unamendable regulations, but I hope that my hon. Friend will at the very least give us an assurance that the next time that this matter is examined — which I hope will be soon—the capital maximum will be viewed sympathetically. Otherwise, I think we shall see real hardship.
  Mr. Scott: Before I conclude my remarks, I intend to deal with the capital rules. I do not believe that the rules will do anything to help the case that my right hon. Friend mentioned. Nevertheless, a proper system for the treatment of capital is an important way of helping to concentrate help on those who most need it. In due course, the House may discuss whether the £6,000 figure should endure for ever. When we give people help with their housing costs, it is rational to take some account of the capital resources that are available to them.
  It is important to emphasise that the clarifications are just as important for the local authorities administering the scheme as for the claimants who are applying for benefit. A few moments ago, I mentioned the important role that local authorities have played in the consultative process that preceded the regulations being laid before the House. We have been concerned throughout to develop a reformed scheme that is workable and makes sense in the context of the modern, computerised systems that most local authorities possess. We want to encourage and promote better administration of housing benefit, so that, ultimately, all local authorities can attain the high standards that are already operating in some areas.
  Our proposals for reimbursing local authorities for the costs of running the scheme are another element in the package, although they are not actually part of the regulations before the House. Our aim has been to ensure

  1243
  that local authorities receive fair recompense for their duties, while having greater incentive than at present to administer the scheme efficiently and effectively, particularly in areas in which they have some power to influence. This is why the basic rate of benefit subsidy which we are proposing—97 per cent.—is roughly equal to the current rate of subsidy, while a lower rate, which will normally be 25 per cent., will apply in a few selected aspects such as overpayments and excessive rent increases. The same approach underlies our proposal to link administration subsidy more closely to workload. We have also developed, in consultation, I emphasise, with local authority representatives, a comprehensive management information system, which will ultimately enable local managers and central Government to see that appropriate standards are being met in all aspects of the scheme's administration.
  In considering the role of local authorities in the reform process, I do not for one moment underestimate the task which they, like local offices of the Department of Health and Social Security now have to face to deliver the reformed scheme next April. Reform timetables are always tight if consultation is undertaken and taken seriously. I am optimistic that local authorities are much better placed than before the 1982–83 reforms to plan for and implement the new scheme. Quite apart from the advantages that will flow to them and to others from a simpler structure and clearer regulations, local authorities have had much longer to prepare for the changes. They saw a first draft of the regulations at the start of the year and a further draft in May, which was little different from the final set we are discussing.
  We have been at pains to assist local authorities' training needs by funding the local government training board to produce a central training package, and a video which has been sent to all authorities. Computer software houses have also contributed to the discussions on the draft regulations, and my Department funded a short computer systems handbook from a firm of management consultants, which was circulated to all authorities in the autumn. We have also provided £25 million towards local authorities' implementation costs. The Department will continue to contribute all it can in terms of expertise and guidance towards a successful implementation of the reforms, and I firmly believe that we are well on course towards that goal.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister has usefully spent some time in explaining to the House the strategic rationalisations realignments and the basic ethos of the reform. In principle, I go along with much of his rationalisation. Are the original savings of £450 million still the savings that the Department expects to make?
  Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient with me, I shall deal with that matter in due course.
  I want now to refer briefly to the impact of the changes and to comment on a couple of the specific features that attracted criticism in the weeks leading up to the debate. But I should make one point clear at the outset. The housing benefit reforms cannot be seen in isolation from the other changes that we shall introduce next April. Indeed, one of their strengths is that they go hand in hand with the changes to income support at that time. For example — we have always been perfectly frank about
  1244
  our intentions in this regard — the housing benefit changes are consistent with the significant reduction in caseload and expenditure. In our view, income support and family credit offer a better and more efficient way of delivering such support, and I do not see that we need to feel defensive about that.
  Some Opposition Members have talked about cuts. Such talk is quite misleading. There will he a significant reduction in expenditure on housing benefit of about £640 million. That will be redirected to additional payments on other benefits. In fact, we shall pay out £420 million more in weekly payments of income support than would have been the case if the supplementary benefit scheme had continued with a normal uprating, and family credit will cost £220 million more than if the FIS scheme had been continued. Overall, expenditure on weekly payments of benefit will not be lower, and it will be better targeted.
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The Minister said that £400 million more will go into income support. The implication of the figures is that all the money being saved on housing benefit will go back into other schemes. Surely at least half of that amount is transitional protection to look after people who will be worse off under the new scheme unless transitional protection is given. That is only a temporary measure.
  Mr. Scott: Temporary, but, in effect, for the coming year, it will mean that the figures balance out. It is worth reminding the House that, in shifting to the income support scheme, we shall be targeting the money that is available for social security support in its broadest sense much better than we are doing under the present scheme.
  The same point that I made before I gave way applies when considering individual cases. A supplementary pensioner, for example, may well find that her housing benefit is reduced because of the 20 per cent. minimum contribution to rates. But, equally, she should find her income support increased, not least because of the compensation for the minimum contribution that we have built into the rates of benefit. If her disposable income is increased overall, it would be misleading in the extreme to concentrate solely on any reduction in her housing benefit. That is why our published tables show the effect of the reforms as a coherent whole.
  Those who experience significant reductions in their housing benefit will generally be the better-off, and those who lose all entitlement to it will generally be those whose entitlement was quite small in the first place. We have sand before—the figure has not changed since the technical annex to the White Paper two years ago—that we expect the reforms to lead to a caseload reduction of just over a million. There are three main factors which contribute to this, and I shall briefly explain them to the House.
  Mr. Ian Gow: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, what calculation has he made of the maximum amount of housing benefit that will be lost each week with effect from 1 April next year as a result of the proposals? What would he say to a person who has been thrifty throughout his or her working life, who has savings of £6,000 and who might be tempted to say that those who have been feckless and spendthrift continue to benefit, but those who have saved and have been thrifty do not'?
  Mr. Scott: As I said, I shall deal with capital—that Is to say, those with savings of £6,000 or so—towards the

  1245
  end of my speech. It is difficult to put a figure on the amounts that individuals may lose. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may help in that regard. It is clear that some people may lose all the housing benefit that they get at the moment. In general they will be people who are better off or people whose entitlement to housing benefit consisted of quite small amounts under the existing scheme. The underlying figures have not changed a great deal since the technical annex was published two years ago.
  I shall mention the three main factors that contribute to the reduction in the caseload. The first is the minimum contribution to rates, which I have already mentioned. We have debated this issue before on several occasions, and I believe that the arguments are well understood even if there is not agreement across the Floor of the House. We still believe that local accountability is a vital part of the democratic system in this country and that it must be right in principle to expect all those who use local services to feel the impact of their cost. In this respect, the minimum contribution is a step on the road to the community charge which we shall introduce in due course.
  We firmly believe that only by widening the numbers who contribute to the cost of local services will we ensure that proper democratic control is exercised over those who spend the money. The alternative — a housing benefit scheme based on 100 per cent. of rates, which would considerably have increased the numbers wholly insulated from the effect of rate increases—was not acceptable for those reasons. I do not intend to dwell further on this aspect, except to remind the House that this proposal was well understood when the Social Security Act 1986 was passed, since when we have decided to build compensation for the minimum contribution into the income support rates.
  The second factor contributing to the caseload reduction is the steeper rent taper. The rates taper is roughly the same, for someone paying standard tax and national insurance, as the existing one. The rent taper is steeper, even after the conversion is made, and five percentage points higher than our original illustrative figure two years ago. However, the House should not be misled into looking at the rent taper in isolation. It has to be viewed alongside the decision to build 100 per cent. of the claimant's rent into the calculation in all cases, instead of 60 per cent. as at present for standard cases. The effect of this is generally to work in the opposite direction to the taper change.
  I am not denying that the rent taper is steeper than its current equivalent, but people with unavoidably high rents — two or three times the national average — will generally find that the new scheme delivers them more, not less, help with their rent, right the way up the income scale, as a consequence of the 100 per cent. starting point. That is why I reject any suggestion that the steeper rent taper is incompatible with our housing policy initiatives.
  I hope that the Opposition will acknowledge that, even at below average rents, the new scheme will still deliver more help with rent to the poorer households—up to the level of the current needs allowances, for example. This group, which includes many occupational pensioners, is precisely the people that the reform process has always
  1246
  been aimed at. I do not apologise for the fact that there is an element of redistribution towards poorer households inherent in our proposals.
  Finally, the upper capital limit of £6,000 will contribute to the caseload reduction. Again—I understand some of the criticisms made—this proposal tends to be viewed as one aspect of the reforms in isolation from other proposals. As a whole, within the changes that we are introducing next April we are introducing capital rules that are more rather than less generous than at present and £6,000 is twice the present supplementary benefit level: capital below £3,000 will be wholly ignored for the first time in housing benefit. The present arrangements —whereby supplementry benefit ignores investment income but takes capital into account, whereas housing benefit ignores capital but takes investment income into account —surely cannot be defended as a rational way to run a coherent income-related benefit system.
  I should emphasise that the improvements built into the income support capital rules, such as the total disregard of the surrender value of life insurance policies and the disregard, in normal circumstances, of personal possessions, will also be built into housing benefit. It is not right to consider the proposal for the £6,000 limit in housing benefit in isolation from the improvements that we are providing for the treatment of capital across the range of income-related benefits.
  I want to conclude where I began: I welcome this debate and the chance to explain and defend our proposals. I am sure they will bear critical examination. But I shall not regard criticism of isolated features of the regulations, which take no account of other offsetting changes or of the wider context, as a constructive contribution to the debate. The package of reforms that we are introducing next April should be considered as a whole. I ask Opposition Members who wish to speak from the Opposition Benches to state not just what details of the reform they do or do not like, but where they stand on the big issues. How would they fit assistance with housing costs into an overall package of income-related benefits? What do they regard as the proper cost and coverage of such a scheme? The House has a right to hear those as well if we are to have a balanced and constructive debate.
  The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 are the last but not least in our package of social security reforms. They tackle the problems of the existing system and provide a sensible framework against which future adjustments, which may arise from policy changes elsewhere, such as the community charge can be taken into effect. Most important of all, they place housing benefit firmly within the context of a coherent structure of income-related benefits.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: On one point I would cheerfully agree with the concluding remarks of the Minister. The regulations must be regarded as part of an overall package of changes in the social security system —I avoid the word reform—that will hit claimants next April.
  We debated a large part of the rest of the package last Thursday and the Minister heard precisely what we thought of them. We did not think very much at all of them ; they will result in a reduction in entitlement to benefit of 4 million claimants of supplementary benefit, so we think equally little of these regulations.

  1247
  One reason we object to means-tested benefits in principle is because under this Government means-tested benefits have a nasty tendency to become meaner. The Minister said that these regulations would achieve administrative streamlining and greater equity between claimants. I shall argue those points later, but I must disabuse the House of any notion that these regulations were drafted or given birth to by a concern for administrative streamlining or greater equity. They owe their birth to a commitment to cutting housing benefit. The main motivation that has led to the debate is the Government's concern to claw back £640 million that they would otherwise be obliged to pay under the previous system. That is the mainspring of the Government's motivation.
  One million people will lose all benefit altogether, or, to use the euphemism that the Minister used on four successive occasions, there will be a reduction in case load of 1 million claimants.
  I should like to pursue the Minister through the major reasons for that reduction in case load. I shall begin with the point that he, wisely, left until last—the exclusion of claimants from benefit if they have a capital sum ; particularly if they have £6,000, after which point they will lose all entitlement. On many occasions you have sat in that Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and heard us being taunted with being envious of the wealthy. I assure the House that I do not regard people with savings of £6,000 as being, to use the Minister's own term, better off.
  That category includes many households who, by anybody's definition, have modest circumstances. It will include many unemployed people with redundancy payments in excess of £6,000. It will certainly include large numbers of pensioners. Indeed, it will include the pensioners who have taken the Government and the Conservative party at their word and have put by for their old age and created a nest egg. They wish to preserve that nest egg for a rainy day or for particular expenditure that may be required on their house or family. They do not wish to diminish that capital in order to meet the weekly outgoings on their housing costs.
  We are not talking simply about cash in the bank. We are talking about realisable assets such as BP shares. Housing benefit officers may find that they are obliged to advise claimants that they will have to sell their shares in order to pay their housing costs. I doubt whether the stockbrokers would agree with that advice in the present circumstances.
  The irony is that this measure will hit the constituents of Conservative Members the hardest. Some of the London boroughs have done calculations. I have the calculations for the borough of Barnet, which is a particularly interesting borough, in that it contains the constituency of the Prime Minister. If we look at the owner-occupiers in Barnet who are currently in receipt of housing benefit we will see that two out of five pensioners will lose all entitlement to housing benefit under the regulations. If we look at the private tenants in Barnet who are currently in receipt of housing benefit, we will see that one out of five pensioner householders will lose all entitlement to housing benefit. The address of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) is well known and I hope that many of her constituents will write to her on that point.
  We are aware that, unfortunately, the numbers affected go well beyond the Prime Minister's constituency. The last
  1248
  estimate we have goes back to 1982 but even then there were 750,000 claimants for housing benefit who had capital of over £3,000 and half of them were thought to have had capital of over £6,000. In other words, over 350,000 claimants will lose their housing benefit entirely as a result of this rule and the overwhelming majority of them will be pensioners.
  At one stage, the Minister appeared to he saying that the changes are introduced by humanitarian impulse because of confusion among pensioners about the present system. It is certainly the case that, once the regulations are enacted, there will be fewer pensioners around to be confused by the system because there will be fewer pensioners in receipt of housing benefit.
  The next major change that will result——
  Mr. Scott: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he welcomes the improvements in the capital rule as applied to income support from next April? Will he tell us whether he believes that there is virtue in aligning the capital rules between the income support scheme and housing benefit? Will he say whether there is any level of capital that should prevent people from being helped with their housing costs and, if so, what the level would be?
  Mr. Cook: The answer to the Minister's question is perfectly simple. There is no great mystery about it. The Minister talked about capital as if it is wholly disregarded by the present system. That is nonsense and a moment's reflection will tell him that is the case. What is taken into account by the present system — it is perfectly proper and we make no objection to it — is the income flow from the capital available to the claimant of housing benefit as a resource with which they can meet their expenditure requirements. It is perfectly reasonable that that income flow should be taken into account. However, it is wholly unreasonable that they should also be required to diminish their capital in order to meet their weekly revenue outgoing. That is precisely what they will be obliged to do as a result of the change. The Minister is saying, "Irrespective of the income you obtain from capital, because you have capital of a modest sum you will lose all entitlement to weekly assistance."
  The next change that results in the reduction of caseload is the increase in the tapers. In a spirit of moderation and in seeking to find common ground, I can say that I agree that it makes sense to place the tapers on net income rather than gross income. I accept that as a sensible structural change and an improvement. However, we have to measure the impact of the change in the context of the increase in the tapers. When the Government took office, the combined rent and rate tapers were at 23 per cent. of gross income. As from next April, the combined rent and rate tapers will stand at 56 per cent. of gross income. In the past eight years the Government have doubled the rate at which housing benefit is reduced for every successive increase in income. They are constructing a ferocious poverty trap.
  Any family with children that is entitled to housing benefit will almost certainly be entitled to family credit. Indeed, they may even be receiving family credit. We are assured repeatedly that the take-up rate of family credit will be higher. The wonderful circular reasoning given to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in a written answer last week said that the take-up rate will be higher because more people will be receiving it and therefore it will be better known.

  1249
  The taper on family credit will be 70 per cent. If we add together the tapers on housing benefit and the tapers on family credit and look at how they interact with each other, we find that families entitled to both and claiming both will be paying a marginal rate of taxation of 98p in every pound. For every additional pound in income they will lose 98p in benefit. No Conservative Member pays a marginal rate of taxation approaching that figure. Indeed, over the years the Government have taken great care to ensure that they do not have to face that rate of taxation.
  When the Government took office in 1979, the top rate stood at 97 per cent. It now stands at 60 per cent. It has gone down over the same period by almost the identical amount as the marginal rate of tax on claimants of housing benefit has gone up. The effect will be to melt swiftly the entitlement to housing benefit of anybody with an income above income support.
  For example, a single person paying an average rent will have their entire entitlement to housing benefit extinguished when they achieve a net weekly income of £60. At that point they will be part of that reduced caseload. A married couple with one child on an average rent will find that their entitlement to housing benefit is extinguished entirely when they achieve a net weekly income of £95. In other words, their entitlement to benefit will disappear when they are still on less than half average income.
  The effect on young people is particularly draconian. However — this is the point at which I recognise that there is a structural improvement in the regulations—I agree that there is a good and profound attraction in aligning the thresholds for income support with the needs allowances for housing benefit. However, that is a general principle and should not be pursued mindlessly. One of the consequences of pursuing it mindlessly is what happens to young people. As the Minister will be aware, people under the age of 25 are denied the full adult rate of income support. Therefore, under this scheme, they find that they do not qualify for the full adult rate of needs allowance either. The full adult rate is denied them until they reach the age of 25 and until that time they will have a needs allowance of £26 a week. That means that any income over £26 a week will be offset against their housing benefit entitlement.
  I am indebted to the Shelter housing aid centre for a calculation concerning one particular youngster. That youngster was paying a rent of £15 a week. That is a perfectly reasonable rent because it, happens to be the average rent for a local authority house with one bedroom. If he has an income of £26 a week, whether on income support or not, he will receive 100 per cent. housing benefit. If he obtains work and is successful in increasing his earnings to £70 per week, his income, net of housing costs, will rise not to £70 but to the grand total of £36 a week. In other words, because of the effect of the poverty trap that young person will have experienced an increase in income of £44, of which he will be left with only £10 in his hand.
  It would be difficult to come up with a scheme better designed to discourage young people from seeking work and from seeking to maximise their earnings. [Interruption.] We produced no scheme that penalised young people in this way and at no time before the
  1250
  Minister took office did any Government have the benighted idea that people under 25 have lower housing costs and lower personal expenditures than those over 25.
  Mr. Tony Favell: The hon. Gentleman has not yet drawn attention to the fact that more than 1 million low-paid people have been taken out of income tax by the Government. Furthermore, he has not yet answered the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Minister: how many people should receive housing benefit? Already 7 million people receive housing benefit. How many people does the hon. Gentleman suggest should go cap in hand to ask for housing benefit?
  Mr. Cook: First, may I take the gravest exception to the hon. Gentleman's use of the phrase "cap in hand". If he had been in the Chamber throughout the debate he would have heard many of his hon. Friends express perfectly proper and legitimate concern on behalf of constituents who will be denied housing benefit under the regulations. The hon. Gentleman would have grave difficulty in avoiding seriously provoking an audience of elderly citizens if he told them that those pensioners who apply for housing benefit because they need it are going "cap in hand" to ask for it. Such people have worked for this country for most of their lives and some of them have fought for this country and they deserve the support that the Government now want to diminish.
  I want to pause here — in a sense, the hon. Gentleman's intervention helps me in these comments—to compare the Government's attitude to those who receive housing benefits with their treatment of those who require subsidy for their mortgage costs. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman will not tell us that they go cap in hand for mortgage tax relief. We subsidise mortgages by an arrangement that relieves the interest of liability to tax. It is a very real cost even though it is a tax-free system rather than a payment system. Indeed, the system costs more than we pay out in housing benefits. In 1983, the cost of mortgage tax relief was £200 million more than the cost of housing benefit in the rented sector. In 1987 it was not only more; it was very much more. By then the gap between the cost of tax relief on mortgages and the cost of housing benefit in the rented sector was not £200 million but £1,100 million. And the gap has got five times larger.
  In spite of that we have no proposal from the Government to bring the ballooning cost of mortgage interest relief under control and no regulation providing that owner-occupiers with capital of more than £6,000 should apply it to reducing their mortgage costs, although that would be more rational than asking people to apply it to reducing their rent because those with mortgages would at least be left with an asset to show for it. We have no regulation providing that tax relief should be tapered off with increases in income; on the contrary, the higher one's income and the higher one's tax rates, the more valuable mortgage tax relief becomes.
  Of course, it is possible to defend that system on grounds of social policy and to say that it encourages people to invest in homes and makes decent housing accessible to people who would not otherwise be able to afford it. However, it is not possible with any intellectual integrity to adopt that argument in relation to those paying mortgages and simultaneously to adopt the vindictive, punitive approach to poor tenants that the regulations display.

  1251
  I will give the Minister this: in one regard, he is putting owner-occupiers on an equal footing with tenants—that is in his proposed treatment of applications for benefit for the payment of rates. Hitherto, rates have qualified for full coverage by housing benefits, but not any more. From next April. the first fifth of a rates demand will be excluded from cover. There is no logical reason for that step in any assessment of housing need or any of the workings of the benefit system. The Minister was good enough to admit that the housing benefit review team rejected the proposal. It has also been rejected by the Social Security Advisory Committee, by every local authority organisation and by the Select Committee on Social Services.
  The Government have run out of people to ask in their search for someone to agree with their proposals. The measure is purely political in its objective, which is to make the experience of local government as nasty and expensive as possible by forcing it to oblige residents to pay a local tax by going without food or heating. That is exactly what the Government are saying in their proposal that those in receipt of income support will be obliged to meet part of their rates out of their income.
  The Government have not protected those on income support from the effects of the measure. If the Minister seriously wishes to maintain his claim that they have, I must repeat to him the question that I asked him last Thursday, to which he did not reply. The Minister can have it one of two ways. Either the Government have fully uprated the 1985 figures in the White Paper, in which case they have not compensated income support claimants for the effect of the new rates burden, or they have compensated those claimants for the effect of the new rates burden, in which case they have not honestly uprated the 1985 figures. The Minister can have it one of those two ways. He cannot have it both ways. I am perfectly happy to give way to him so that he can clarify the position.
  Mr. Scott: We have provided compensation for the minimum contribution to rates. The 1985 figures were illustrative figures used to show how the scheme would work. When we came to introduce income support, we were perfectly entitled to set the benefit levels as we thought appropriate, but compensation has been provided for the minimum contribution to rates.
  Mr. Cook: Shorn of the persiflage, that statement is perfectly clear and I commend the Minister at least for his honesty. He is claiming that he has compensated claimants for the new rates burden but that he has not fully uprated the 1985 figures. He is saying that the illustrative figures were too generous and that when I referred last week to the fact that the figures had not been uprated — although the Minister shook his head at the time—I was perfectly correct. The real level of benefit provided in last week's regulations is lower than the 1985 level.
  The consequence that the Minister must now face is that, unavoidably, inexorably and arithmetically, there are more losers from his income support system than there were under the 1985 figures. The Minister cannot maintain that he has not uprated the 1985 figures and then argue that there are fewer losers.
  Mr. Scott: No.
  Mr. Cook: With respect, the Minister's figures assume that the compensation for the new rates burden is part of the uprating. He has just told us that that compensation
  1252
  is to be provided specifically to meet that new burden. If he says that, he must take that rates burden into account in his tabulation of losers, which unfortunatly he has not done. There will be more losers than the Government admitted last week.
  Mr. Scott indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cook: There is no point in the Minister shaking his head because he has created the logic that leads us inevitably to that conclusion. If the figures are lower than the 1985 figures there are bound to be more rather than fewer losers.
  So far, I have dealt with only the major cuts that the regulations contain. However, if one lifts any one of the 105 paragraphs, out of it scuttles a further minor cut. At risk of distressing the House, let me hold up to the light three of these nasty little beasts, all of which will cause severe hardship to one group or another and all of which could be dropped with minimal cost. In the old days, when we had Governments who listened to the Opposition, it might have been possible to amend these provisions in Committee, but we cannot do that tonight because we must swallow the regulations whole or choke in the attempt.
  The first of the minor cuts is the exclusion of amenity charges from coverage by housing benefit. That will also overwhelmingly affect the elderly. Heating is specifically excluded from housing benefit. This is the season when we are increasingly conscious of the dangers of being old and cold. yet at this point in the annual cycle the Government have introduced a regulation which specifically excludes heating from housing benefit. Almost all those who will find that they are affected by the measure are frail elderly tenants living in sheltered housing schemes with communal heating which is not under their control. They will find that the amount of heat that they use cannot be affected by them, so the size of their bill cannot be affected by them, but they will now get no help with the heating bill that they cannot reduce.
  Similarly, along with the exclusion of heating charges, there is the specific exclusion of alarm systems in dispersed houses, although it is much cheaper and more desirable to provide an alarm system to enable people to live in the community than to oblige them to go into hospital. The Government have said that that specific provision is necessary to remove doubt about whether alarm systems are covered. I presume that it is typical of the Government that, faced with doubt, they have removed the doubt by prohibiting cover rather than by making sure that alarm systems could be covered by the housing benefit system.
  Secondly, among the other minor cuts is one affecting people in hospital for a lengthy period. It is a striking example of the lack of common sense in the regulations and one of the most mindless examples of alignment with income support. After six weeks stay in hospital, entitlement to housing benefit under the regulations is reduced dramatically. No one in the Chamber would argue that housing costs would fall dramatically after six weeks in hospital. I know of no local authority which is prepared to say to any of its tenants who have been in hospital for over six weeks that they can forget the rent because it will cancel it. Indeed, if there were any such local authority, no doubt these days it would be hauled before the district auditor to explain its attitude.
  I very much hope that the Secretary of State will not be in hospital for six weeks. As he is paying £195 a night, it

  1253
  is natural that we wish him a speedy recovery. But there is an irony in the regulations ; that is that, if the Secretary of State was on housing benefit, his stay in hospital would not affect his entitlement to housing benefit because he is in a private hospital and the regulation that provides for housing benefit to be taken away from patients in hospital for over six weeks specifically excludes patients in private hospitals. Having listened to many lectures from the Dispatch Box about how important it is to target help on those who need it most, it is sheer effrontery to bring to the House a measure that withdraws help from patients who go into a state hospital while preserving that benefit for those who go into a private hospital.
  The Under-Secretary of State says that that has a long precedent. I am sorry to have to disabuse him, but this is the first time that any Government have suggested that housing benefit should be withdrawn after six weeks in hospital. It does not have a long precedent. It is an entirely novel and extremely illogical proposal from the Government.
  Thirdly, there is the extinction of the discretion of local authorities to add to their housing benefits system and to make it more generous by up to 10 per cent. of total cost. This is being extinguished by the Government on the ground of consistency. That is an odd argument, since the whole point of having locally elected local authorities is that they should be inconsistent, or at any rate have the right to be different, so that they can legitimately respond to local circumstances and needs.
  This particular extinction is all the more vindictive since the Government do not subsidise that 10 per cent. by one penny. They will not save one penny in Treasury money by cancelling it, and it would cost nothing to drop that provision from the regulations. It would be a diplomatic gesture to local authorities and I must advise the Minister that he should make such a gesture to local authorities for whom the regulations pose a major administrative challenge.
  Local authorities were promised 12 months' clear notice of the regulations. We are debating regulations that were laid a fortnight ago, which must be implemented five months from now. Major changes were introduced at a late stage. The increase in the rent taper from 60 to 65 per cent. took place only last month. It is important to grasp the scale of the administrative burden that we are placing on local authorities. They will have to reassess every claimant from gross income on to net income. They will have to obtain information about the capital circumstances of every claimant. They will have to administer the new rates demand to 4 million people who at present have no rates liability. While doing all that, they will have to cope with 6 million people queuing up at housing benefit offices wishing to know why their housing benefit has been cut or, in 1 million of the cases, wishing to know why they are part of the reduction in caseload.
  If the local authorities fail to match up to the task, the Government, being the Government that they are, will be tempted to put it all down to the incompetence of local government and the sleepiness of the public sector. It is too bad of local authorities not to be able to do in five months what it has taken the Government two years to decide upon.
  Unfortunately, I must advise the Government that one of the main reasons why local authorities will have
  1254
  difficulty in implementing the regulations for next April is that the private sector is letting them down. IBM and ICL have now advised all those many local authorities with whom they have contracts that they cannot deliver on their software package in time for 1 April. That is hardly surprising. There are 105 paragraphs which are hardly designed to achieve simplicity.
  There are 19 separate references in the regulations to people in polygamous marriages. There is a special disregard for the earnings of part-time firemen or auxiliary coastguards and the schedule that provides for the disregard for part-time firemen and auxiliary coastguards has special mention and exemption for those part-time firemen and auxiliary coastguards who are in polygamous marriages. I invite the Minister to try to develop the computer package that could cope with such variety and diversity.
  It is worth stressing those problems, because a number of local authorities have already been to the Government to say that they cannot do the work by next April. One of the local authorities that has notified the Government that it cannot deliver is Croydon, the borough which contains the constituency of the Secretary of State for Social Services.
  I pause there to review all those people involved in critical decision-making in the Government, who are hitting their own constituents. The Prime Minister is hitting her own pensioners disproportionately. The Minister, who has a high rates burden in his constituency, is excluding his constituents from cover of the rates. Finally, the Secretary of State himself has a local authority that cannot implement his own scheme in time. To save the Prime Minister and the Minister from the consequences of their actions, I urge them to reconsider and at least to allow a transitional period for the introduction of their scheme.
  We were earlier reminded of the shambles of 1983. It was, according to The Times, the biggest administrative fiasco in the history of the welfare state when housing benefit first began. I vividly remember it because in Edinburgh we had to call the police to remove 200 private tenants from the housing office where they were rioting because they faced eviction if they could not obtain their benefit in time. We shall be faced with similar scenes unless the Government recognise that they cannot possibly get the scheme up and running in time for 1 April and must consider transitional protection.
  It is extremely moderate of me to seek transitional phasing for a scheme that I find deeply repugnant and objectionable. However long the Government take to bring in the scheme, its consequences are plain and will be harsh and unjust.
  First, many ratepayers, especially the elderly, will find themselves in arrears with their rates. The penalties for rates arrears are severe. In Scotland they are warrant sales and the sale of furniture. In England they are appearance in court and fines on pain of imprisonment. As a result of this measure, some people will lose their furniture and others will face the threat of imprisonment.
  The second consequence is that many private tenants will fall behind with their rents. Many of those will find themselves being evicted. They are the most hapless victims of a Government who cannot make up their mind between two contradictory impulses—on the one hand to let private rents go out of control and on the other hand to keep the cost of housing benefit under control.

  1255
  Lastly. in the public sector local authorities will face a sharply escalating problem of rents and rates arrears. To put it in terms that Conservative Members may understand, the Government are shooting the local authorities with both barrels. On the one hand they are increasing their costs, and on the other hand they are diminishing their revenue.
  I want to end with a specific illustration of the consequence for an individual family. It is an illustration provided to me of a real family — a couple with two children—in Newcastle on a gross wage of £110, which is half the national average, who have a current rent of £18, which is typical because £18 happens to be almost exactly the average rent for a three-bedroomed council house. That family, on their wage of £110, have a current weekly charge for housing costs — rents and rates—of £12·86. After 1 April that same family, on their same income and rent, will face a weekly charge of £26·39. Even if there is no rent or rates increase, they face that increase of £13·50 a week simply as a result of the changes in the regulations.
  I invite those right hon. and hon. Members who think that new charge reasonable, who consider that increase fair and who are prepared to face that family and say that that increase is fair and that that new charge is reasonable, to vote for the regulations tonight. I invite all other hon. Members who regard such an increase as a scandal, to join me in the No Lobby.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Tony Favell: Often when Parliament tries to help people to meet necessary or socially desirable expenditure, it overlooks the long-term effects that flow from the introduction of a benefit, subsidy or relief. For example, regional subsidies may well provide work for one city but take it away from another. Mortgage interest relief, to which the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred, often has unexpected effects. One obvious effect presently being experienced in the south-east is that it puts up house prices. The more people can borrow, the more vendors charge for properties. That was not expected at the time mortgage interest relief was introduced. However, it can still he argued that the advantages of that and of regional subsidies outweigh the disadvantages, but it is unwise ever to forget the other side of the coin.
  Housing benefit is no exception to the rule that every benefit, subsidy or relief creates its own special problems. One problem that hon. Members on both sides of the House will immediately recognise is that of landlords who know that they can hoist the rents of those on low incomes or supplementary benefit, knowing that the taxpayer will pick up the tab. Landlords of that ilk are only interested in letting to those on supplementary benefit because most people in work would find it impossible to pay the rents they charge.
  For every person who is entitled to help with his rent, there are two persons entitled to assistance with their rates. It is on that narrower aspect that I wish to concentrate, as it is here that the effects of housing benefit have been even more far-reaching. My hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that there are now 7 million ratepayers whose rates are subsidised under the housing benefit scheme. Of those 7 million, 2 million pay income tax. In reply to a recent question by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton,
  1256
  Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), it was disclosed that 1 million occupational pensioners both pay tax and receive housing benefit.
  With 7 million ratepayers being subsidised, it is no wonder that irresponsible local authorities have been spending as if there is no tomorrow. It is now widely accepted, certainly by Government Members, that too few voters with an interest in containing local government expenditure leads to higher and higher local government expenditure. In Manchester, for example, 57 per cent. of all ratepayers receive rate rebates. With 57 per cent. receiving rebate, quite apart from all those who do not pay rates at all, it is no wonder that Manchester city council is not interested in containing spending.
  Mr. Robert Litherland: The hon. Member is paranoid.
  Mr. Favell: He is also correct.
  Until 1966, rate rebates were extremely limited, and local government almost invariably acted in a responsible and careful way. In 1966, a limited national rebate scheme was introduced and in 1974, that national rebate scheme was greatly expanded. Since then, the number of full ratepayers has gone steadily down while the number of irresponsible local authorities has gone steadily up. For the first time since 1974, my hon. Friend is now reducing the number of those on housing benefit. He is to be congratulated. That move, together with the community charge that is shortly to be introduced, will restore sanity to local government. Once again, town halls will be truly answerable to the voters, and as sanity returns to the town halls, spending will return to sensible levels. That is the only true and lasting way to assist those hard-pressed ratepayers who have been fleeced by town halls for too long.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Robert Litherland: A chill goes down my spine when the Government refer to reforms, because I substitute "reforms" for "cuts". I think that is what the whole exercise is about. I will not go down the same road as the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) because I know that he is paranoid about Manchester city council. If he paid as much attention to Stockport, I am sure that his constituents would have their interests better cared for. I am concerned about the effects on my constituents of the change to the regulations. Why do we have benefits at all? Why are benefits required? Who are the people who need and depend on benefits? It is certainly not the Ministers who are putting forward the proposals to cut housing benefits, or the series of social security changes that has already been discussed. People in the inner-city areas claim because they depend upon benefit to exist.
  Manchester spends well over twice as much on housing benefit as the national average. The reason is the extent of massive unemployment in the inner-city area, low pay, poverty, the crime of getting old and becoming a pensioner, sickness and disability. That is why rates and rents are above average in Manchester. It is because of Government cuts that the Manchester local authority has to provide extra resources. Manchester has made tremendous efforts to encourage residents to take up housing benefit entitlements. The city council has

  1257
  estimated that the cuts will hit its residents dispropor-tionately and that the benefit loss will be at least £9 million, an average weekly loss of £1·50 for each household on housing benefit. It is also estimated that, on the basis of the Green Paper, 105,000 out of 112,000 people will lose some or all of their housing benefit, which is more than nine out of every 10 on housing benefit.
  We had worked on the assumption that grant-aided students would be prevented from claiming housing benefit. Now we know the facts. Nearly 7,000 such grant-aided students receive housing benefit from the city council. The average amount is about £214 per academic year and the total cost of that help is £1 million. If, as we expected — we now know — the Government prevent students claiming housing benefit, that will either further penalise individual students or require additional expenditure from hard-pressed local education authorities. What will be the effect of that on the local authorities' resources? The city of Manchester has always taken the view that because of its income support role, the housing benefit scheme should be a national responsibility that should lie with the Department of Health and Social Security.
  The imposition of transferring further work to local authorities, while reducing subsidies, implies that local authorities cannot be trusted with the discretion of assessing the needs of their community. Therefore, the Government are forcing incentives to maintain costs on local authorities. That is the crunch of the regulations and it is another blatant infringement of the democratic procedures that have been the prerogative of local authorities in the past.
  It is considered inconceivable that two separate agencies should operate the assessment of need and income for the same claimants. My local authority rejects that nonsensical and bureaucratic set-up and believes that redistribution of income can be based only on a national programme. To overcome the severe local and regional disparities, we envisage that those responsible for expenditure must have the power to raise revenue on a national basis. I discussed that matter only this week with the officer in charge of the housing benefit department at Manchester city council. He informed me that his department will have to take on about 30 extra staff to administer the new regulations. It is essential that there are sufficient staff to protect the most vulnerable.
  The council is also the major provider of benefits. Every year, 150,000 Manchester residents receive help with their rent and rates from Manchester's housing benefit office. In administering that complex scheme, the city council has resolved that the regulations should be interpreted for the maximum benefit of its residents—and rightly so. Since April 1984, the city council has twice resolved not to carry out national cuts in housing benefit. Instead, it has maintained the level of benefit by operating a more generous local scheme for Manchester residents.
  What will be the consequences of the regulations for my constituents? I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will answer some of the points that have been raised. My constituency has one of the highest percentages of people claiming supplementary benefit, free school meals and housing benefit. I should illustrate the massive unemployment in my constituency. In one area of the Manchester, Central constituency there is 46 per cent.
  1258
  male unemployment. It is now estimated that one third of all residents claim some form of benefit. As I think we would all agree that not everybody claims benefit, it is therefore estimated that about 50 per cent. of Manchester's population are below the poverty line.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has said, some of the hardest-hit are pensioners. About 80 per cent. of Manchester's pensioners are now poor enough to qualify for supplementary or housing benefit. Many people who live close to the city centre are poor and depend on benefits. Indeed, 39 per cent. of personal incomes in Manchester come from welfare benefits and about £80 million is paid out in housing benefit.
  In my constituency, people do not fall foul of the ups and downs of the Stock Exchange. They fall foul of loan sharks—those vultures and parasites who prey on the demise of the poor. That is a growth industry in Manchester, and the Government always welcome that type of entrepreneur.
  There are no areas of escape from poverty and its humiliations. I could list the areas and districts in Manchester—for example, in Openshaw, 38 per cent. of my constituents receive benefit. In other areas, 50 per cent. of schoolchildren receive free school meals. That is the situation in Manchester and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me how my constituents will benefit from the regulations. By imposing such cuts in the housing benefit scheme further hardship is being heaped on communities that are striving to survive. As about 1 million claimants are expected to lose all help with rent and rate payments, surely, as night follows day, many of my constituents will be affected.
  I have already mentioned the massive unemployment in my area. There have been closures of steelworks, of heavy engineering factories and of the finest wire manufacturers in the world. Major employers in the area have thrown workers on the streets with only their redundancy money in their pockets to show for a lifetime of work. Many who are only in their 50s are possibly too old to gain full-time employment again and must now face the further indignity of losing their housing benefit entitlement. That is the Government's thanks to the workers of this country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Livingstone mentioned pensioners. Such people have devoted their working lives to creating the wealth of the City and the nation, but they are not excluded from the cuts. In my area 25,000 pensioners receive standard housing benefit and more than half the city's pensioners receive either supplementary or housing benefit. We recognise that not all elderly people are poor but many are clearly on low incomes and are forced to claim benefits.
  National statistics suggest that the most vulnerable people are elderly people and those who live alone. As long ago as 1983 a survey showed that 54 per cent. of that group were dependent on state benefits. In Manchester there are more than 30,000 lone pensioner households—that is 17 per cent. of all households. As an estimated three quarters of a million claimants — mainly pensioners — will face benefit cuts, by the law of averages, the pensioners in my constituency will be severely affected. As my hon. Friend said, many are independent. They have scrimped and saved all their working lives for their retirement and for

  1259
  the possibility of enjoying that period of their lives. The cuts will inflict hardship and distress on them because of their thrift. That is the reward of the caring Government.
  The Low Pay Unit calculated recently that there are about 430,000 low-income households in Greater Manchester. That means that 44 per cent. of the work force in the Greater Manchester area earn poverty wages. In the city, the percentage will almost certainly be higher and, as we have heard, many of those unfortunates will lose benefits. With £500 million being cut from housing benefit, there will be many losers who can ill afford further cuts in their living standards. How could it be otherwise when the number of Manchester council tenants taking up certificated housing benefit amount to 59 per cent. of the population, and about 34 per cent. of them are in receipt of standard housing benefit? Private sector households do not escape the need to claim benefit—one third of them claim standard or certificated benefit.
  These facts, figures, percentages, estimates and forecasts cannot demonstrate the profound hardship that these human beings will suffer. That is an indictment of our so-called affluent society. Many kids in the Manchester area will face a barren Christmas, relying on charity handouts for presents. These things should he exercising the conscience of Scrooge-like Ministers, with little or no compassion. How can they claim to have compassion when the Government's cuts will add to the misery, poverty and sickness that already exist?
  There is a recognised correlation between poverty and ill health in our area. In the Manchester inner-city area there are 80 per cent. more deaths among people under 65 than the national average. Not a single person there will be able to afford the luxury of being pampered in a private hospital at £195 a day like the Secretary of State who was instrumental in pushing through these provisions. That is an insult to the poor. We live in a sick society in which more resources can be heaped on the greedy while the lifeline for the needy is being cut. I hope that Tories with consciences will come into the Lobby with us tonight.
  7.1 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: I strongly resent the attack that has just been made on my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. It was perhaps symptomatic of the Labour party's extraordinary view that those who already receive large salaries should receive still more to help them when they are sick. The Secretary of State earns his salary daily, and nightly, and it is right that he should spend some of it on paying for his own health care, so leaving a bed for someone who cannot pay.
  Whenever the House debates matters of this type, we are regaled with a briefing from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. We all turn eagerly, leaving aside the rest of our mail, to see what that Labour-controlled organisation has to tell us. Tonight's debate is no exception. I turn to my AMA parliamentary briefing and see in the first paragraph—surprise, surprise—that the association does not like the new benefit scheme. It says:
  "It will reduce benefits available to claimants, will be more difficult to administer, and result in further financial losses to authorities."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) has with admirable economy already dealt with the charge that there will be more financial losses for the authorities,
  1260
  so I shall not burden the House further with that. His remarks were extremely relevant and knocked the AMA case into a cocked hat.
  The association says that the scheme
  "will he more difficult to administer."
  That surprises me because the Government's aim is to simplify the system by making it easier for claimants to understand and staff to administer. That is a good aim. Often claimants do not know to what they are entitled because the system is so complicated. Therefore, our striving to simplify the system for people who cannot understand its complexity is a worthy and proper aim. We shall have a more clearly defined structure of income-related benefits, with help based on easily identifiable and understood criteria. The rules for assessment of income-related benefits will be standardised, and administrative rules across the whole range of benefits will be aligned.
  The regulations simplify what has been a complicated matter in other ways, too. The evidence against the AMA's claim, and for the Government's view on the matter of simplification, is overwhelming. Aligning income support and family credit must surely make the system simpler, because the assessment will he on net, rather than gross, income.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: As the hon. Lady could not be present for the whole debate, she missed a telling intervention by her hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who expressed worries on behalf of his constituents. He asked how the Government arrived at the figure of £6,000, beyond which elderly people in his constituency will be penalised. His view is shared by the AMA. Does the hon. Lady think that her hon. Friend was wrong, too?
  Dame Jill Knight: I cannot be responsible for the opinions of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I can only be responsible for my own. Mr. Speaker was well aware of why I could not be in the Chamber for part of the debate. Heavens alive, the regulations have been before us for 16 days. I do not know what the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) does with his time, but I am capable of reading them in 16 days.
  The system will also be fairer because people will he treated alike. That has not happened until now, but it is right that they should be. Whether they are in or out of work, they will be treated in exactly the same way. Providing people on benefit with a regular income upon which they can rely and plan seems a good idea. I am pleased to deduce from the regulations that that is what will happen. As an individual's income rises, his benefit will be reduced progressively, which seems perfectly sensible. The more he is paid, or the more money he receives, the less money the public will put in his pocket. It will be done by a fixed proportion of the amount by which his income exceeds a needs level. It is right that that level should be set by the Government at what the regulations call an applicable amount. That will usually be the same as the individual's income support level, which seems perfectly fair.
  Mrs. Beckett: I have been following with interest the hon. Lady's argument that benefit should be withdrawn as income rises. Does she apply the same argument to the subsidies that are given to mortgage interest tax relief?
  Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Lady brings in the most extraordinary red herrings from time to time.
  No one who looks at the regulations will deny that they are extremely complicated. It is not an easy matter to establish one's entitlement to help. We are dealing with people who frequently do not find it easy to explain what their needs are. I am absolutely astonished that the AMA is apparently not aware of that. Most hon. Members have received a tremendous number of complaints about the complexity of the present system, so how the AMA can have the bare-faced nerve to describe the new scheme as difficult to administer I cannot understand, given that we are trying to make it simpler for ordinary people to claim.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Lady will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that this will be the third time. If I go on like this, I shall talk for far longer than I had wished, in courtesy to other colleagues who wish to speak.
  Mr. Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. This will be a brief intervention. The hon. Lady is making a great cry about the reform and simplification that the Government are introducing with this measure, but surely what they are reforming and trying to simplify is their own mess when they introduced housing benefit to begin with?
  Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the Government have already conside-rably simplified the complications that lay in their way after previous elections. This is one more step on the road and it is advisable for the sake of claimants.
  The AMA document talks about the reduction of available benefits and paints a picture of gloom and doom. It says that more than 1 million people will lose eligibility to benefits. Shock horror. We are back to the stage where Labour keeps putting foward the curious view that public money should be lavished on the un-needy as well as the needy. Our simple point is that the money available for people in need should be restricted to them only. I know that that is a simple point, but apparently it is too complicated for Opposition Members to take in.
  If one has savings of £6,000 or more, one really cannot be described as a poor person in need of public help. That sum does not involve a house or money tied up in jewellery or clothing; it is money available to spend there and then. I believe that there can be no possible justification for the argument that people who have quite a substantial amount of money in the bank, at their disposal, should be given more money out of the pockets of those who perhaps do not even have £50 in the bank. I do not know how Opposition Members justify that.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill Knight: I have made it quite clear that I will not give way again.
  The situation that I have just described is the system that is in operation at the moment. Many people who pay tax today have less than £50 in the bank. It is not fair to take their money and give it to those who already have a lot. The old Labour party of years ago would have been on my side about that. It would have said, "You don't give vast amounts of public money away to people who have got that money already and who don't have a need." I
  1262
  believe that the thrust of our tax reforms means that we are trying to alleviate the problem faced by those poor people — there are many — who are paying taxes. We want to raise the threshold. Again, we are always under attack from the Opposition about tax cuts, but we are trying to help the very people whom the Labour party ask to fork out to help those who have no need.
  An important and significant shift for Britain is to try to get back to the days when healthy people, in work, shouldered their own burdens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!") Opposition Members may groan, but that idea makes a lot of sense to people outside the House. Of course there are people who cannot bear their burdens, and they must certainly be helped. The difference between the Conservative and Labour Benches is that we want to give more money to the people who cannot help themselves, but they want to give more money to the people who have already got it. That is absolutely crazy.
  Currently, we are making fools of ourselves. For too long we have encouraged the view that the state will meet every reverse in fortune suffered by any individual from the womb to the tomb. We must return to the acceptance of the idea that we all have our own burdens. We should fight to carry them and not ask the rest of society to carry them for us.
  Three great evils have arisen from the idea that the state will always meet every problem—an idea fostered for so long by the Labour party. First, it saps human will and initiative if someone else is footing the bills and solving the problems. Secondly, a system that allows such a thing to continue means that so much money is taken away in tax that people are incapable of carrying their own burdens. We should consider that. Thirdly, it leads to Government overspending all the time. That, of course, leads to inflation, and again we hit the very people who need to be protected.
  The AMA document — hon. Members must understand that I have not had it under my pillow for the past three weeks, but at least I have read it extremely carefully since it arrived—complains about the change from 100 per cent. alleviation of the payment of rates to a mere 80 per cent. alleviation.
  If we had a system whereby people who were lucky enough to get benefit could go into a shop and have everything free, it would be incredible. Even if they were told that they were being asked to pay only 20 per cent. of what everybody else paid, I think that they would cheer. I believe that that is a pretty good bargain if one gets one's rate bills settled by having to pay only 20 per cent. Many people would be absolutely delighted with that.
  Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Dame Jill Knight: I did say that I would not, but since it is three to one, I will.
  Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend has come to an extremely important matter. What is the AMA frightened or? Is it perhaps that it is frightened of facing its electors?
  Dame Jill Knight: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and valid point. I believe that that is probably one of the things that frightens the AMA.
  When people pay even a tiny percentage—20 per cent.—of the rates, they will be much more interested in how that money is spent. All the vast sums being spent on one-armed homosexual window-cleaners' social clubs will

  1263
  come to public notice. "Hallo," they will say, "that is not what I pay my 20 per cent. of rates for." That is a good thing. Let the searchlight of public understanding fall on some local councils' expenditure and we will be all the better for it.
  I am extremely glad that the preferential treatment built into the income support for disabled people will be reflected in the housing benefit calculation. That gave me particular pleasure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, yes!"] Opposition Members do not have a monopoly of care and concern for the disabled. They should also learn a few manners.
  Those on income support will continue to get full help with rent, and that is right. Indeed, more than four fifths of those on income support will be either better off or stay the same as now. Having read about such provisions in the regulations and having listened to some Opposition Members' speeches, I cannot equate the two views. The hard cases that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) discussed will surely continue to be helped in the same way as they have been until now.
  Mrs. Beckett: No, they will not.
  Dame Jill Knight: Oh yes, they will. Sixty per cent. of housing benefit goes to pensioners. One must examine their needs, because they will be the group most affected. I understand from the figures that half will gain and half will lose. However, those who lose will be the ones to whom I have already referred — those who have more than £6,000 in the bank.
  I do not know how Opposition Members were brought up, but I would have thought £1,000 in the bank to be a fortune, let alone £6,000, when I was growing up. As long as people are able to meet their needs from their disposable income, how can it be right for the taxpayer to be asked to do it for them? I welcome the regulations, the thought behind them, the extra simplification and the recognition that some people need help and must continue to get it.
  With great enthusiasm I shall support the regulations.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Before I follow the interesting excursion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Darnel Knight) into the equity of the Government's behaviour, I must apologise to the Minister for missing the early section of his speech, because I was delayed in travelling. However, I must compliment the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on an analytical and excellent demolition of the Government's case. I fully associate myself with his comments.
  Housing benefit is an issue which successive Conservative Ministers have come to the House to simplify, extend, alter and reform. They are still trying to achieve that aim this evening. It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Edgbaston to boast about the Government's magnificient achievement in bringing forward this simplification. All hon. Members who have dealt with constituency cases involving previous simplifications tend to say, "We will see what happens with this one." It is a bit much for the hon. Lady to hold this up as a great achievement, when the Government are trying to sort out the entrails of their predecessors' efforts to minimise and restructure the system, which have resulted in shambles, as the Minister is aware.
  The Minister was determined to talk about the plight of pensioners. Hon. Members on both sides of the House
  1264
  know that several years ago many pensioners who had never been in debt in their lives received notification from local authorities of considerable debts about which many of them were almost worried to death. They came to hon. Members and asked what could be done about it. That was the administrative nightmare that the system introduced.
  Although any simplification will be welcome — and we cannot make a final judgment on that tonight—the Government should be a little more careful when claiming so much credit for what is, after all, a mess largely of their own making. The hon. Member for Edgbaston kindly took an intervention from me, but told us that she did not want to take too many others. I was less worried about the interventions. Indeed, the quality of her speeches would be improved by more interventions from Opposition Members and fewer contributions to the detail of her speeches from what I presume is Conservative central office. I found the image of society in Britain that she painted to be far removed from the lives of too many people in Britain.
  Dame Jill Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I suggest that he has no right to tell me whence I get my material. The main thrust of my argument was that it was ridiculous and wrong to give public money to people who do not need it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree or disagree with that?
  Mr. Kennedy: Every hon. Member will agree that public money should be effectively used. There is no argument about that. In an intervention during the speech by the hon. Member for Livingston, the hon. Lady's hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) asked how many millions more people will be on housing benefit. The Prime Minister talks about the evils of a nanny state and people being too dependent. Because of their economic policy, the Government have made more people than ever before dependent on the welfare state.
  Dame Jill Knight: That is nonsense.
  Mr. Kennedy: I do not understand how the hon. Lady can say that that is nonsense, given the present levels of unemployment and dependency. Many Conservative Back Benchers complain about the number of people who are eligible for housing benefit. They should ask themselves why so many people are eligible, even under a scheme that successive Ministers have attempted to restrict. It is because so many people have an income that is so low that even this Government are forced to concede that it is inadequate in a civilised country like Britain. Government policies have caused that situation and the humbug and hogwash that we hear about targeting resources most effectively is like looking at a glass of water and arguing that it is not half full but half empty. The Government are standing logic on its head by claiming credit for a situation to which their own policies have been the major contributors. The oozing self-congratulatory selfishness that comes from Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers does not commend itself to the millions of people who will be affected by these proposed changes.
  I shall touch briefly on one or two of the main points that arise from this measure. I shall deal first with the 20 per cent. rates contribution. The hon. Member for Edgbaston is attracted to this, but I doubt very much if those who will have to pay it will be attracted to it. The hon. Lady will not find the public fascination with this 20

  1265
  per cent. rates contribution that she predicted. The level of interest on the part of the public will be restricted to those poor people who will be aware that they will have to pay a 20 per cent. contribution that at the moment they do not have to pay. The interest will end there. It will not extend, as the hon. Lady said it will, into a higher level of participation in scrutiny of local authorities.
  We are told that this extra payment will be offset by increased income support. I think that the amount being discussed is about £1·30. However, that does not take account of areas in which there is high rating and in which, obviously, that offsetting amount in income support will be inadequate.
  I have no more brief than the hon. Lady for a Labour organisation. However, I listen to experts. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has argued with considerable force that we could well end up with a nonsensical scheme that is difficult and expensive to administer compared with what it brings in. As the hon. Member for Livingston said, in Scotland that will lead to an increased likelihood of warrant sales which must be one of the most offensive and unacceptable things on the local government statute book —if I may put it that way—north of the border. We do not wish to see that happen.
  The rent taper is increased by 5 per cent. to 65 per cent. Obviously, its application on net instead of gross income is sensible and welcome. However, the 65 per cent. rent taper amounts to a cut of about £150 million in housing benefit. It will also mean an increase in the poverty trap, because the marginal tax rates for households paying tax and 9 per cent. national insurance and receiving help towards rent and rates has risen from 61·75 per cent. over the past four years. As a result of this measure, it will go up to 91 per cent. The highest rate of income tax over the same period and, indeed, before is now down to 60 per cent. and is paid on only taxable income above £41,200 per annum. That shows that there is a gross distortion in the way in which the Government are dealing with and handling public finance in terms of the distribution of wealth in Britain. That is why the double standards of the Government are so unacceptable.
  In terms of the capital rule, the hon. Member for Edgbaston thinks that £1,000 is a great deal of money and that £6,000 is an absolute fortune. When Invergordon aluminium smelter closed in my constituency several years ago, there were significant redundancy payments. However, alternative employment for those people made redundant has not found its way to that part of the country and they have been living on dwindling assets. For that reason, the £6,000 capital limit that the Government propose is not in any way related to the reality of the predicament in which those people find themselves.
  On average, local authority rents have increased by 155 per cent. since 1979. Over the same period, housing benefit has been reduced on four occasions and another cut is due in April. Given a track record like that, there is no guarantee that further cuts will not follow. The Government's record on that is deplorable and it shows consistent negligence on their part that they have not addressed the housing benefits system with a good deal more equity and fairness than this measure suggests.
  The Government's White Paper on housing proposes decontrol of rents. In areas such as London, rents will be all too liable to rocket if landlords are able to charge an
  1266
  amount that the market will bear. There is a contradiction in that because, in a sense, the Government, given their market fascination, wish that to be allowed to happen while at the same time restricting the degree of application and support of housing benefit. That is a mark of the inconsistency of the Government's approach. That will mean a reduction in living standards unless housing benefit goes up accordingly. Four cuts since 1979 and another one promised in April is hardly the basis on which we can have much confidence that that will happen.
  My final point is about the recovery of overpayments. In many ways this is one of the most remarkable sections of the publication that is before us. It would have been wonderful to sit in at the meetings between civil servants and Ministers when they decided on the definition of an overpayment. To have the gall to institute measures to recover overpayments from this category of person is quite remarkable. At the moment the maximum that can be taken from benefit to recover an overpayment is £4·65 a week. The limit—surprise, surprise—is one of the few things that will go up because of this measure. Another is the taper percentage increase. Therefore, people receiving supplementary benefit or income support, when it is introduced, are already on the poverty line, according to the Government's own official definition ; otherwise they would not be eligible for such support. To talk about increasing the amount for the recovery of an overpayment for people in that income category is ridiculous.
  We shall certainly oppose these regulations. They highlight the great distortions in housing policy in Britain, in that those who are unfortunate enough to be in receipt of income which enables them to be recipients of housing benefit are castigated by hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Stockport. It is said that people at the worst end of the income spectrum are going cap in hand for support from public finance, but the public finance should be there by right to alleviate their distress.
  People like me who are in employment and at an age when overheads in terms of dependants are not high and who benefit from mortgage interest relief continue to enjoy a straightforward subsidy. Mortgage interest relief should continue, but not at the higher levels that we see at the moment. It should be restricted to people who pay standard rate income tax. It would be equitable if the Government were to come forward and do something even-handed like that while trying to restrict housing benefit or simplify the system. Of course, that would inevitably lead to losers.
  If the Government acknowledged that many people are doing very well while many of their fellow citizens continue to get poorer, they would get a more reasonable hearing in the House. However, they will not do that. All their energies are concentrated on restricting the rights of the poorest people while not addressing Britain's tax distortions. They need to be addressed and I hope that the Chancellor will yet address them. The Government's attitudes point to inconsistency and a completely irreconcilable conflict in the approach that the Minister is taking. I cannot believe that the Minister is proud of these regulations or can take much satisfaction from them. He has a reputation as a humane man. I hope, therefore, that he will implement them in that manner.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. Chris Butler: It has been accepted by Governments of all political persuasions that

  1267
  budgets should be set and then adhered to. There is no unlimited pot of taxpayers' money that the Government can spend. Therefore, as the global total is limited, it is hon. Members' responsibility to ensure that that money is spent wisely and that the best priorities are placed upon it. I hope that Labour Members will not regard the proposition as jejune, but I believe that taxpayers' money should be concentrated on those who are least well off in society. If not, those least well off will be penalised and those relatively better off will enjoy the extra benefits.
  It is remarkable that the Labour party has sought to defend the relatively better-off sections of the community in this respect. There is a natural tendency for social security expenditure to expand beyond the limits originally conceived. This can happen for a variety of reasons. For example, the original legislation may have unforeseen consequences. Often people use human ingenuity in exploiting the flexibility of the regulations. There is also a tendency for the creeping establishment of precedents by social security Commissioners as they respond to the reasonable and understandable human difficulties before them.
  We have had help with housing costs for many years. Back in 1975–76, the Labour Government spent £259 million on rent rebates for 1 million households and helped with housing costs for a further 1 million households through the supplementary benefit system. However, in 1979–80 the Government helped 5·5 million households with housing costs at a cost of £1·24 billion. In 1986–87 the Government are helping 7 million households at a cost of £5·1 billion. That is equal to one third of all households in this country.
  I would like to ask the Minister an important question. What was the original concept of housing benefit in this respect? What was meant to be the original catchment of housing benefit? As an ex-civil servant, I ask myself whether this may have been yet another example of, "Yes, Minister". When such a benefit extends to a third of the population, it seems to have engendered a remarkable expansiveness. Of course, housing benefit will be a welcome addition to the income of those who are relatively well off. I do not dispute that. I am sure that some of my constituents will nag me when they lose that benefit, but few of them would be content to be regarded as financially disadvantaged or poor. Indeed, some would be quite offended by that.
  At present, real, personal disposable incomes are at record levels and, in all parts of the income distribution, standards of living are higher than they were in 1979. The Opposition may prefer to talk about cuts rather than targeting. I agree that savings of £640 million are implicit in the measure. That too has to be set in the context of an increase in social security expenditure of 35 per cent. since we came to power in 1979. Of course, some of that will be demand-led but a large proportion of it is due to real increases in benefits to those in need.
  The Opposition have said that pensioners will be hit, particularly those with capital of £6,000. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) defended the income rule instead of the capital rule. That would mean that a pensioner could have £100,000 underneath his or her bed and still get housing benefit. What kind of Socialism would that be?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly. Did he understand what my hon.
  1268
  Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was saying? My hon. Friend said that people with large sums of capital should have the income from that capital taken into account. It would be unlikely, unless he had an extraordinarily unwise adviser, that anyone with £100,000 would have so little income that he was entitled to housing benefit.
  Mr. Butler: In that case what is the objection to a capital rule? If income is to be taken as a strict analogue of capital, why was the hon. Gentleman pressing for an income rule?
  I would have more sympathy with the Opposition if they concentrated on those deeply in need of benefits and if, instead of belabouring my hon. Friend for taking away benefit from the relatively well off, they belaboured him perhaps for not targeting these benefits more precisely.
  I am the son of a general practitioner. He has undertaken a large number of assessments for attendance allowance. I have read many of those assessments and I have been greatly moved by the dedication and selflessness of the families of the claimants. Year after year they show altruism that makes me proud to be a human being. They save the National Health Service millions, or perhaps billions, of pounds a year. I shall regard my work in the House as incomplete if at the end of my days here attendance allowance does not reflect more closely its deserts. I hope that I shall always be careful to distinguish between defending benefits for the better off and the sensitive prioritisation of expenditure on those who desperately need it.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: The regulations have to be judged by the House against two crucial tests—who will gain and who will lose, and what general effect will the change have on the provision of decent housing for those in housing need? As to who will gain and who will lose, the Government must concede that when more than £500 million is taken out of the system some groups will lose. One group that has been discussed in detail is the elderly who may have problems following retirement.
  In that context I should like to quote from a letter from Mr. Michael Corp, the group director of Anchor. a housing association, a body which has a fine record in providing suitable houses for the elderly. So far as I know, Mr. Corp has no connection with the Labour side of the House and has no political axe to grind. He felt moved to write to hon. Members in these terms:
  "We estimate that at least 50 per cent. of our 22,000 tenants (a far from wealthy group as you may know) will lose benefit entirely or suffer a considerable reduction in entitlement. Unlike those in employment older people have no option or opportunity to increase income to meet the shortfall."
  That is an objective comment by someone who is heavily involved in providing housing for the elderly. I find that comment disturbing. The Government have to be more convincing about who will lose, particularly among the elderly, before they will get sympathy for the changes in the regulations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) has described vividly the effect of the change on the residents of Manchester. Knowsley and Manchester are not dissimilar. We have unemployment, urban deprivation, low incomes and all the usual desperate

  1269
  problems that urban areas have been confronted with since 1979. I have done research on the effects of the change on the people of Knowsley. I want to give two examples, although I shall not give the names. A couple of pensioners on a small occupational pension which brings their overall income to £1·03 above the supplementary benefit level will lose £5·98 a week. Another single parent with two children and a net income of £81·44 a week will lose £5·19 a week.
  Of the 30,000 people in the borough of Knowsley currently receiving housing benefit at varying levels it is estimated that 7,500 will lose because of the changes in April. Of those 7,500, 2,000 are pensioners. That is the effect that the changes will have on people in the real world outside.
  We have to be realistic about the situation nationally. About 1 million of the 7 million who receive benefit will be taken out of the system. The hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) talked with some pride about the fact that 7 million people receive housing benefit. Why have 7 million been drawn into the system? The truth is that poverty among the old, the low paid and the unemployed has increased inexorably since 1979. That is why 7 million people qualify for housing benefit.
  I shall not shrink from dealing with one further subject in detail. One cannot consider housing benefit without contrasting it with the system of mortgage tax relief which runs parallel to it. Currently £4·75 billion of revenue lost to the Exchequer is spent on mortgage tax relief for owner-occupiers. Fifty-five per cent. of those who receive mortgage income tax relief earn between £10,000 and £20,000 a year. Worse still, 26 per cent. of those who receive mortgage subsidy through the tax system earn over £20,000 a year. That is the reality of the two systems that are operating side by side.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks that the Labour party is now advocating the removal of mortgage tax relief?
  Mr. Howarth: I will state my opinion on that in a moment. I do not purport to speak officially for the Labour party on this subject.
  It is incredible that the two systems operate in parallel and that the major benefit of the two systems goes to high earners. Basically that is the reality of the statistics. I am in pretty good company for a change in my views on this subject. The Archbishop of Canterbury's report "Faith in the City" recommended a total and thorough-going review of the whole system of housing subsidy, and the National Federation of Housing Associations' inquiry into British housing made similar recommendations. Indeed, that inquiry was chaired by Prince Philip.
  In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), I support the proposals of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and that is not a great revolutionary or Left-wing body. It recommended that mortgage income tax relief should be phased out and a single universal system of housing allowance phased in. Sooner or later this Government—like a future Labour Government—will have to bite on that bullet because of the growing and spiralling costs of mortgage tax relief. Any Government of whatever political complexion will have to consider that proposal seriously.
  My next point relates to the effect that the proposals will have on the provision of good quality housing for
  1270
  people with housing needs. We must consider what the experts have said. The Merseyside regional council of the National Federation of Housing Associations—a group of professional people who are concerned about the provision of decent housing—stated:
  "Associations will be looking at levels of Housing Benefit payable over the next 5 years, and what tenants can afford to pay. With private finance, the level of voids and fear of losing resources, associations will be looking for safer tenants, those able to pay."
  In other words, because of these and other measures in train, instead of seeking to help people in greatest need, the housing association movement will be looking for those who can afford to pay for housing that was originally designed for people in need. That is rather strange.
  Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have applauded the development of housing co-operatives around the country and particularly on Merseyside for providing good quality housing for rent. Indeed, they have applauded them because there is an element of self-help and they claim that co-operatives are wonderful since they enable working class people to have the opportunity to design, run, manage and maintain their own homes. I agree with that praise. I am very concerned about that issue.
  However, the National Federation of Housing Cooperatives is also concerned about the regulations. It is concerned because housing co-operatives do not have the resources of housing associations or local authorities and the delays that the system will inevitably introduce in terms of registration will lead to difficulty in planning, and uncertainty and difficulty for housing co-operatives. The federation also believes that the confusion over the reasonableness of market rents and the effect that that will have will cause problems in attracting private finance for new schemes. The proposals are set out in the White Paper shortly to be presented to the House in the new Housing Bill. Those bodies are deeply concerned about providing rented housing. They are desperately worried about the consequences of the regulations and the proposals in the impending Housing Bill.
  The regulations and the proposed Housing Bill are shoddy measures. The regulations will affect the old, the poor and the low-paid very greatly. By continuing to subsidise those who do not need assistance in terms of mortgage tax relief and withdrawing subsidy from those in need through the housing benefit system, the Government are operating a shoddy system that discriminates against those in need in favour of those who need less. The regulations are disgraceful and they deserve to be thrown out by the House. Sadly, that probably will not happen.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): This debate takes place against the background of a topic that is very seldom discussed in the House — the doctrine of relative deprivation. It is perfectly true that there are psychological disadvantages when one's neighbours can afford rather more this year and even more next year than oneself. That is clearly difficult to put up with. However, the introduction of the doctrine of relative deprivation—and when I used to teach social policy, relative deprivation was a great talking point among the students—has meant that without fail there will be a block of the poor so defined because there is a moving boundary.

  1271
  It is very important for us to remember that, as one of my hon. Friends has already explained, by and large there is growing prosperity and there are more prosperous people in this country than ever before. In those circumstances it is entirely absurd to have one household in three, some 7 million people, drawing a benefit that was clearly designed to ameliorate some of the difficulties encountered by what was always imagined to be a small minority of people in a hostile housing market.
  Mr. George Howarth: Is it not equally implausible to have a benefit through the tax system for owner-occupiers which is equally undiscriminatory?
  Mr. Rowe: I believe that it would be good if the Conservative party could return with more zeal to the pursuit of what the party originally came to power to achieve, the removal of all forms of perk. All perks distort the working of the economy and I have often said in this House that I believe in a guaranteed minimum income which would remove many of those specific allowances and grants — for example, mortgage relief or housing benefit — the effect of which is always to distort the market. Given that we are a long way from achieving that now, I want to support the tenet of my hon. Friends to reduce the number of households dependent on housing benefit.
  The rates payment is particularly absurd. The idea that one should meet public expenditure costs out of public expenditure by paying for it through an administrative system which adds enormously to the cost of the whole system is wholly absurd. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) said that the cuts in housing benefit will affect the quality of housing provision. One of the most disquieting features of the housing benefit system as a whole is that many people are making a very fat living out of providing substandard housing, simply because they know that the state will meet the cost. This is not the debate in which to try to work out ways of preventing that, but I consider it one of the weaknesses of the system.
  The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made much of the poverty trap in which the young may find themselves. In my view, people over 50 or 55 who decide, with perfect rationality, that it is not worth getting up early, waiting for a bus and paying a large fare to go to a job that will yield them only £5 or £6 a week more than they would receive on benefit are fully entitled to remain at home. However, that is surely the worst decision that young people can make. Hon. Members who tell them that they have no need to go to work and that it is disgraceful to expect them to do so, because they will receive only £5 or £6 more than the benefit level, are doing them a serious disservice.
  I realise that, in some parts of the country, young people experience enormous difficulty in finding work. In my part of the world, however, work is plentiful at present. Young people who decide to work, even if it is for a very small net reward at the beginning, frequently rise quickly to a level of wages considerably higher than the level on which they began. They also find it very much easier to move from one job to another. It is the old story: it is far easier to get a job from a job. It may sometimes be very tempting for young people not to work, because they are told by their elders, and by those who ought to know better, that it is not worth it because the differential
  1272
  between wages and benefit is not enough. Such people are doing themselves and their future careers considerable harm.
  A curious outcome of the widespread and radical reforms gradually being introduced in the system of income support, rating and so forth is that some of the poorest of my constituents will receive considerable benefits. By a strange quirk, when the community charge is introduced, they will be reimbursed on the average level for the 20 per cent. they are expected to pay. That is because the frugal local authorities, which are very well run in my part of the world, have succeeded in keeping down their expenditure to a remarkable degree. I realise that that does not operate throughout the country, but it nevertheless underlines the enormous benefits to be derived from living in an area with a good record of frugal local government.
  We are aiming not only for clarity, but to reduce the number of people in the trap—for trap it is. While, as always happens, some unfortunate families and individuals will lose considerably, and others will lose slightly, the majority of those who will be excluded from housing benefit will find that they can survive far better than they ever expected. One of the emasculating effects of a large benefit programme is that more and more people are sucked into it, because it becomes less and less attractive to make the effort to avoid it. I do not blame them; it seems an entirely sensible thing to do. Nevertheless, it is a worrying phenomenon that the number of people eligible for housing benefit is rising, at a time when unemployment is falling sharply.
  I remind hon. Members that, although the capital sum is low, it is higher than it was before the introduction of the regulations. One of the hardest questions of public policy is, "How do we look after the frugal ant, rather than the frivolous grasshopper?" How do we persuade those who have carefully set aside—often with considerable difficulty — a proportion of their earnings over many years, and built up a small sum against a rainy day, that it is just to give virtually the same benefit at the end of the day to someone who has not done that, and may even have gloried in not doing it?
  The more that my hon. Friends can do to secure a higher capital sum over the years, the better I shall be pleased. I agree with Opposition Members that £6,000 is not a very large sum, although many more people now have such a sum, partly as a direct consequence of the present Government's taxation policies. I shall be delighted if I discover that the new-look Labour party's policy is so to operate the taxation system that it too will increase the number of people who find it relatively easy to build up substantial lump sums. We have already heard that the Opposition's target would be a much higher sum.
  I should prefer to move in one fell swoop to a guaranteed minimum income, of which housing benefit would be just a part, rather than an entirely separate benefit. However, I support the regulations.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: Before I discuss the regulations in detail, let me make one or two comments about the surprises I received from the Minister's opening remarks. For instance, I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman suggested that the measures would simplify the previous system, without pointing out that it was the present Government who caused chaos

  1273
  throughout the country with the regulations that they brought in in 1982–83. They are responsible for the misery that many claimants suffered in my city of Manchester at that time.
  I believe that the new regulations will again cause misery and chaos, because not enough time, thought and effort has been allowed for local authorities to introduce them properly.
  I was also surprised that the Minister tried to isolate housing benefit from housing policy in general. Only recently, the Minister for Housing and Planning, when discussing the move to deregulate all rents in the private sector, said publicly and openly that he would turn to the Department of Health and Social Security to support that deregulation through housing benefit. The Minister denied any relationship between housing benefit and the Tory Government's general housing policy.
  I was surprised to hear that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) believes that, if one has £6,000 in the bank, one should not receive any benefit from the state. Does she say that, if one has £6,000 in the bank, one should not receive mortgage tax relief? It is exactly the same. She wishes everyone to have an open-ended commitment to mortgage tax relief, but she denies poor people's rights to housing benefit if they have £6,000. What hypocrisy we hear from the Tory Government.
  I distance myself from the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), who said that one goes cap in hand to receive benefit if one is poor. Before I was elected to the House, I worked for the Stockport health service. I saw the poverty and the needs of the people of Stockport. To make ends meet, they rely on income support through the housing benefit. It is deplorable for the hon. Gentleman to represent such people, claim that they go cap in hand, and, at the same time, accuse Manchester of helping needy people. We should dissociate ourselves from such remarks.
  I shall identify the proposed changes in the backdating arrangements for housing benefit, the provision for extra housing benefit in exceptional circumstances, and the abolition of the local housing benefit scheme. Before I refer to them in detail, I associate myself with remarks made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), who made a strong case for Manchester. I also represent a Manchester constituency. My hon. Friend said that the cuts, which are estimated at £500 million—the Minister admitted that we are talking about £640 million—will seriously affect the people of Manchester. On the basis of the £500 million cut, we estimated that nine out of 10 Manchester claimants will lose some of their housing benefit, and that one in 10 such claimants will lose the benefit altogether. The Government claim that the combination of the changes in income support, family credit and housing benefit will alleviate the effects of the cuts and that no one will be made worse off. The Minister admitted that his figures do not give a realistic impression of the amount that will be cut from housing benefit.
  We in Manchester computed the effects of the combination of the changes to family credit and housing benefit. We found that practically all low-income families will be no better off and that many will be worse off. Taking into account different combinations of family types, incomes, rents and rates, we found that there were poverty traps. No one on a low income will gain anything
  1274
  from the changes. Also, taking into account the Government's unforgiveable decision to limit free school meals to families who receive income support, the effect of the changes will be even more dramatic. In Manchester, families will lose £2·25 per child each week. We have estimated that 11,000 children will suffer. That will compound the effect of the cuts that we are discussing.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who believes that benefits should be paid in cash and not in kind?
  Mr. Bradley: We are talking about income support for all families. A crucial element of income support is free school meals. Up to 80 per cent. of schoolchildren in my constituency rely on free school meals. The cuts will cause them severe hardship. Free school meals will be denied to them.
  Furthermore, housing benefit claimants will be the only ones to suffer no transitional protection from benefit cuts. That will seriously undermine the budgetary arrangements of many low-income families.
  Pensioners will be seriously affected by the cuts. One in five people in my constituency are pensioners. Many of them live on state retirement pensions. Many of them have been thrifty and have managed to put a little money in the bank. Conservative Members claim that £6,000 is a lot of money. It is not a lot of money for pensioners who have worked throughout their lives. Their benefit will be removed and they will suffer because they have put some money in the bank for emergencies or for peace of mind in old age. The Government are attacking the peace of mind of old people in my constituency of Manchester, Withington.
  The regulations presently allow a local authority to backdate a claim for housing benefit for up to 12 months, if, in its opinion, the circumstances are exceptional. The regulations allow authorities a wide discretion for backdating to alleviate hardship. I have sat on numerous housing benefit review boards. They have used that discretion to ensure that people who are entitled to their benefit receive it. We have used it to ensure that their hardship is alleviated. From April 1988, when the regulations come into effect, backdating may be used only if the claimant proves that there is good cause for his failure to make that claim throughout the period for which the backdating is sought. That is a much more restrictive measure.
  Many of the circumstances that are currently used for backdating will be denied. Many local authorities will not be able to use the circumstances that now constitute the interpretation of good cause. For example, ignorance of entitlement— I stress the word "entitlement" — will not be considered to be good enough cause for backdating. Matters such as illiteracy or limited English in respect of the interpretation of forms will no longer qualify a claimant for backdating. I hope that the junior Minister will say that backdating will be used as widely as it currently is used by local authorities.
  It is hard to understand why such restrictions are considered to be fair when they refer to a person's legal entitlement to benefit. For example, a taxpayer is allowed seven years in which to rectify the backdating of his income tax assessment. So he may refer back seven years,

  1275
  without penalty, to receive the income tax refund to which he is entitled. We are talking about restricting housing benefit for 12 months. It is another example of the Government looking after the rich and denying the rights of the poor.
  Backdating is further exacerbated by the change in subsidy arrangements. Currently, backdating attracts a 90 per cent. subsidy. From April 1988, it will be cut to 25 per cent. The Government have stated that their objective is to encourage responsible administration by local authorities. The effect of the subsidy change will be precisely the opposite. It will discourage authorities from carrying out their legal duty to pay backdated benefit, even when the regulations require it.
  I now refer to the extra housing benefit for exceptional circumstances. Currently, extra housing benefit can be paid to cover all general and water rates. With the draconian decision to force all claimants, however poor, to pay water rates and 20 per cent. of eligible rates, it is not clear to me whether local authorities will have an opportunity to give extra help to poor people who cannot afford such bills. If this facility is not made available, many more people will suffer severe hardship. But if it is, since no subsidy is payable on such extra help, the cost to hard-pressed local authorities to alleviate such hardship will be astronomical and prohibitive because of the cuts in support that they have suffered. I hope that the Minister will clarify what is eligible for housing benefit payment over and above the 20 per cent. that local authorities now have to pay.
  My next point, which is crucial to Manchester, concerns local housing benefit schemes. The present legislation allows local authorities to operate schemes on a more generous basis than the national model scheme. Since 1984, Manchester has used that power to enhance standard housing benefit claimants, thus benefiting such claimants. In 1986–87, it cost £1 million. It did not attract subsidy, but we considered it essential to eliminate hardship among low-income families and to allow local needs to dictate how we interpret and use the housing benefit scheme. That power is removed by these regulations. The loss of such a local scheme will increase the general losses of claimants in Manchester. We have estimated that over 30,000 claimants will be worse off and will lose benefit because of the abolition of the local scheme.
  In Manchester we shall publicise these changes because we believe it right that people should know what their entitlements will be. We know that the Government will support that view because we have seen, time and time again, how keen they are to publicise changes in legislation. They spend thousands, if not millions, of pounds on advertising new policies such as the right to buy or those in other sectors of social security payments. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will spend the same amount of money to tell people exactly how much benefit they will lose under these regulations?
  We have been told that we should not consider these changes in isolation, and I certainly will not. I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Manchester, Withington, in June. It was a seat that we won for the first time, and that was precisely because over the past eight years many people have been ground down by cut after cut in pensions, benefits and housing benefit. Cut after cut of housing benefit has ground them into poverty, so they reacted by kicking out the Tory at the election.
  1276
  Since I have been in the House I have witnessed a continuation of that policy. In the past few weeks there have been further miserly increases in pensions, the freezing of child benefit and cuts in the real value of benefits. We are now debating the introduction of further cuts in benefit. People in Manchester have said that enough is enough. We shall oppose the Government all the way on these issues. We in Manchester will ensure that people understand that when their rents or rates increase and they are in financial hardship, the blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of the Tory Government.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: I have enjoyed the style of Labour Members' speeches, but I have been increasingly surprised by their content. Nobody could deny that the existing rules on income-related benefits are anomalous and odd. The rules on eligibility for supplementary benefit say one thing and those for housing benefit say another. For supplementary benefit, investment income is ignored, but more than £3,000 of capital deprives one of benefit altogether. For housing benefit, capital is ignored but investment income is taken into account. That is not particularly sensible, and it creates anomalies. However, just as important, it creates confusion in the minds of people who need housing benefit. We must remember that we are talking not of want but of need. People at the poorest end of the income scale are not often best placed to be able to understand the welter of different regulations that apply to different benefits. I can say with confidence that few people understand the differences between these regulations and still fewer understand any need for them.
  I welcome these new regulations because, by drawing together income-related benefits, the differences disappear and the rules are simplified. They are welcome and long overdue. However, there must be a rider to that. Confusion can be created not only by regulations, which themselves are complicated, but by frequent changes to them. The more the law is changed, whether by statute or statutory instrument, the more those who need benefits and those who administer them are kept in state of bewilderment. It is all very well to have a new law that is simpler but it does not help if the people who administer it have just caught up with the old one.
  Frequent changes generate a cost in themselves, even if in the long run they are simpler and cheaper to administer. They need new books and forms, and extra training for those who administer them. That extra cost must be taken into account and cannot be ignored.
  While I welcome the new regulations, I hope that they will be the last changes for a long time. There may be imperfections in them—no law is perfect—but as long as we can live with them we should leave well alone.
  I welcome the regulations for several reasons. The main one is that they concentrate available resources into the hands of the poorest of our society. In that regard, the Government have two duties. The first speaks for itself —to provide support for those who cannot provide it for themselves. The second duty is just as important—not to provide support to those who can support themselves. They have a duty not to provide support to those who can rely on their own resources. If we provide support to those who have their own resources and for those who do not need it, we create a dependence on that

  1277
  support and on Government. I congratulate the Government on being the first to have the courage to challenge that dependence.
  Protests will be made about these regulations — we have heard some this evening. The reason for them is that dependence on Government support has already gone too far and continued for too long. There will be protests from those who feel that the Government should give an ever-increasing amount of money to an ever-increasing number of people. In a sense one can accept that the motives and intentions of those people are good. However, one must remember that the Government have provided more money for social benefits than any other in history. Increased money for social benefits is a commodity that is more valuable than the promises of Labour Members. Further, the extra money that the Government provide is valuable in itself.
  Broken promises and promises that cannot be kept—one has to be fair about this: promises have been broken by the Labour party whenever it has formed a Government—are not only valueless but are cruel and disillusioning. Unkept promises of extra money build expectations that cannot be fulfilled. They create hopes and spending patterns. They lead to dashed hopes, debt, disillusion and misery. That is why the Government's approach, an approach of cautious support for the poorest in our society and a support that can be delivered, is one that I welcome. It is in the interest of our society. It is the right approach, it is valuable and it works.
  8.30 pm
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: I was interested in the remarks about debt made by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). None of us likes the idea of people getting into debt. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that under his Government the situation in my constituency is such that the citizens advice bureau has told me that the biggest increase in the category of advice being sought is that related to debt. Therefore, I suggest that he should have a word with his right hon. and hon. Friends on that matter.
  We have had a bracing doctrine advocated by Conservative Members. It is the doctrine that, by making people worse off, we are spurring them into action. That doctrine was advocated by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford and by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who represents what must be the one constituency in the country where work is plentiful. That bracing doctrine seems to overlook the fact that, of the 5 million households that will lose money, over half are pensioner households. I wonder what extra efforts Conservative Members intend to spur those pensioners to — or are they not being considered in the matter? Perhaps they are being overlooked by Conservative Members. I suggest that they should brief themselves a little better on that subject. When they do they will learn in addition that 300,000 pensioners will lose all their housing benefit. Therefore, that bracing doctrine is faulty.
  During his opening speech, the Minister was asked two questions by one of his hon. Friends. As they were asked by one of his hon. Friends, I listened hopefully with the conviction that they would be answered. However, they were not. I want to return to those questions in the hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer them in his
  1278
  reply. The first was: what is the maximum amount that will be lost? We did not receive any answer to that. I do not know whether the Minister has not bothered to work it out or whether he did not want to tell us. The Minister said that, however much people were losing, they would be the better off among claimants. He brought forward no evidence to substantiate that. We are entitled to ask the Minister to take the question more seriously.
  The second question was: what would be the Minister's answer to a thrifty pensioner with £6,000? Again, there was no reply. There was an attempted justification for the capital cut-off, but there was no answer that hon. Members on either side of the Chamber could use as guidance when approached by constituents on that matter. My answer to such constituents will be that they should blame the Minister and the Government for taking a wholly unreasonable attitude. The Minister asked what our cut-off point would be. He was told that it is not necessary to have a cut-off point, because the income from capital is taken into account. That is by far the most sensible, flexible and reasonable way to approach the matter. It obviates the need for constantly looking at rigid capital values and altering them through the House or by ministerial diktat. We have not heard a word as to what is wrong with the present system of taking income from capital into account rather than having a draconian cut-off point.
  Instead of answering the questions, the Minister engaged in some diversity tactics. He talked about complexity, especially the complexity of housing benefit supplement. We all know about that complexity. We are not saying that housing benefit supplement is the perfect answer to the problems of our constituents. In fact, we object to housing benefit supplement. Although I was not a Member at the time, I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends fought it at the time on the grounds that it was wholly unreasonable and far too complex.
  Conservative Members like to engage in simplification processes, but with the result that people always lose money. There are always more people who lose than gain from their simplification. It is handy to have simplifica-tion, which saves having to give housing benefit at the present level to 5 million households and saves having to give housing benefit at all to 1 million households. What a handy disposition of events. I am sure that the people in those households would swap simplification for a little more complexity giving a little more money in their pockets.
  Another red herring was the statement that implied that the coming of computerisation justified these regulations. I am waiting with fascination to hear the reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who said that local authorities' computer programmes will not be working in time to operate these complicated matters. I remind the Minister of that question because I am interested in the answer.
  We have heard a lot about the fact that somehow people are well off, that they should not need the benefit, that, if they do, it is because they are in some way feckless and that, if they pulled their socks up, they would see that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I do not know what sort of problems are taken to Conservative Members when they hold their advice sessions. I can tell them that in Preston one of the biggest problems is that of fuel poverty. I think that that is the case

  1279
  in most of the constituencies represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Fuel poverty is a real killer, and it will be exacerbated by the provisions in the regulations.
  Rent arrears are a difficult problem for local authorities, and it is a fact that the incidence of rent arrears will increase, because of the regulations. I wait with interest to hear the Minister's answer to those points.
  Conservative Members repeatedly say that there is no bottomless pot. They examine stringently the benefits that go to the poorest members of the population and engage in the fine tuning of such benefits. They are perpetually changing the regulations. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, who said that he did not want many changes, must be sorely disappointed in the Government whom he supports, because they produce changes every year in Bills of greater and greater complexity, as some of us know to our cost.
  Against that background, it is remarkable that for the Government there is an absolutely bottomless pot when it comes to mortgage interest tax relief. We have two kinds of income-related benefits in this country. We have the kind of benefit that is cut when one's income increases —the kind of benefit dealt with in these regulations— and the kind of benefit that increases when one's income increases. Mortgage interest tax relief falls into that category.
  Let me make it perfectly clear that I do not advocate the abolition of mortgage interest tax relief, but that I certainly advocate that mortgage interest tax relief should be granted only at the standard rate. [Interruption.] The point is that it increases at a greater rate. One gets it at the top rate. If one's taxable income is more than £41,200 and one pays 60 per cent. tax, one gets mortgage interest tax relief at 60 per cent. The rate goes up. That position is untenable. I see the Under-Secretary of State nodding. I hope that he will have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor about this.
  Mr. Portillo: No.
  Mrs. Wise: Oh, he is not nodding. I am disappointed.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: He is just being rude, as usual.
  Mrs. Wise: In that case, I shall take no notice.
  Mr. Favell: Does the hon. Lady accept that while mortgage interest tax relief has been fixed at £30,000 for eight years, housing benefit has taken more and more people into the net?
  Mrs. Wise: We have heard the figures relating to mortgage interest tax relief. Mortgage interest tax relief now costs £1,100 million more than housing benefit. The cost of mortgage interest tax relief has increased, and the gap between one kind of help and the other has widened at an enormous rate. I have the utmost confidence in the figures cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. I shall be more than interested if Conservative Members wish to rebut those figures, but I doubt very much whether they will.
  The fact is that the social policy that says that it is useful to help people to buy their own homes — I do not quarrel with that—is not extended to those people who cannot become owner-occupiers because they cannot take on the onerous burden of a mortgage. Those people must suffer the most. They are in a poverty trap so deep that when the regulations are introduced they will suffer a marginal tax rate of 91 per cent. if they get help with rent
  1280
  and rates only and of 98 per cent. if they also get family credit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston pointed out, no hon. Member suffers a marginal tax rate of 98 per cent. or even of 91 per cent. Therefore, the Government's idea of targeting is partial.
  In his opening remarks, the Minister appealed to us to consider the large issues and told us not to look at the detail. It is difficult to follow that advice because topics such as this involve a mass of detail — even after the Government's so-called simplification. It is especially difficult not to focus on the detail, given that the Minister's definition of detail includes the 20 per cent. contribution to be made to the rates. I know that he includes that in his definition because, when asked why he rejected the advice of his housing benefit review team, he said, "We cannot be expected to follow it in every detail." In the Minister's eyes, the 20 per cent. contribution to rates that is now to be levied as a minimum on all households is a mere detail.
  There is something deeply sinister about the 20 per cent. proposal. All of a sudden, the Minister and his hon. Friends stop talking about targeting—a word that has dropped from the lips of Conservative Members over and over again during the debate but which does not seem to apply to the 20 per cent. rule. In relation to that rule, it appears that it does not matter how poor one is. One can be the poorest of the poor, but one still has to find 20 per cent. of the rates. With that proposal, targeting goes right out of the window. The Minister's justification for that is interesting—even threatening. He talks about the need to keep local government accountable and says that unless people pay towards the rates and feel the impact of the rates, local government will not be truly accountable. That is a dangerous doctrine, and it ignores the fact that one feels financial impact very differently according to one's income. I contend that the impact of having to pay 20 per cent. of rates, if one is extremely hard up, is much greater than the impact of having to pay 100 per cent. of the rates if one is comfortably off.
  The yardstick that the Minister uses is extraordinarily crude. It becomes even more crude when the poll tax looms on the horizon. Then targeting goes even further into the distance because, no matter how well off one is, one will pay a flat rate. The idea that one should pay according to one's means and still have the Government accountable to one is abandoned at that stage. That doctrine is dangerous as well as unfair. Every hon. Member has been elected in part through the votes of those who do not pay income tax. It could therefore be held that there is not sufficient national accountability of Government to people.
  The logical extension of their doctrine of accountability in local government is that only those who pay income tax should have a vote in national elections or alternatively that everyone, regardless of income, should be brought into the income tax act.—[HON MEMBERS: "What about other taxes?"] There is, of course, indirect taxation, and even the poorest of the poor cannot escape VAT. That is one reason why Labour Members are hostile to indirect taxation and why it is always easy to obtain our support for pleas to the Government not to extend VAT to other goods and services or to increase its rate.
  We dislike indirect taxation, but surely even Conservative Members would agree that the link in the public mind between the tax they pay on the goods they buy and Government policies is tenuous. Indirect taxes are popular on the Conservative Benches because they bear on

  1281
  the poorest, regardless of their ability to pay, and there is no direct understanding of the burden being placed on so many people by the Government.
  If Conservative Members are saying that indirect taxation is sufficient qualification for people to fulfil some democratic criterion, why can they not stretch that to cover local government as well? Why do they say that there need be no minimum income tax payment in order to qualify for a vote, yet there must be a minimum payment of rates, or of poll tax when it comes, to ensure the accountability of local government?
  This is an attempt to interfere with the results of local government elections. The Conservative party has tried time and again to bring local government into disrepute by focusing attention on the high rates that they have created by the withdrawal of rate support grant. Higher rates in Britain do not derive——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Lady is going very wide of the regulations before the House.
  Mrs. Wise: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Minister made a strong point that the 20 per cent. minimum payment, which is part of the regulations, is justified by the need to make local government accountable. In referring to the rating system, I am really only following along the track that was first opened for me by the Minister, and, indeed, by the regulations. I promise not to go too far along that track. I understand your worries and I do not intend to treat this as if it were the Second Reading of the Bill which will implement the poll tax, which I hope will be long delayed. However, the extent of the increase in rates, and the need to remind people of the fact that it is their local representatives who fix them, has all been brought into much higher relief simply because of the withdrawal of so much rate support grant. Had it not been for that, less attention would be placed on the rates and the position that we face would be quite different.
  Local and national Government are accountable to people as citizens. They are accountable not to taxpayers and ratepayers but to those human beings who make up the community. It is disgraceful that the Government and the Minister should make accountability appear to depend on any other yardstick. In the future, can we expect a new Representation of the People Act entitled "Representation of the Taxpayers Act". Any move in that direction is retrograde.
  The Conservative party should remember its own emphasis on the importance of targeting when it comes to rates payments. I wish that the Conservative party would realise that, without enough income, people will be unable to pay 20 per cent. of the rates or the poll tax. That is why there will be an increase in debt—an increase in fuel debts and in rates, rent and mortgage arrears. Even now people are unable to maintain their mortgage payments. That will be the result of our passage along the road on which Conservative Members are taking us tonight. It is extremely reprehensible and unfair, but I know that it is no use asking them to think again.
  The Labour party will give any Conservative Members who are seriously interested in targeting—in particular, I have in mind the hon. Member who identified himself as a son of a general practitioner and who referred
  1282
  approvingly to the attendance allowance—an opportunity to improve targeting of the attendance allowance by extending it to babies, and perhaps some will join us on that particular issue, if not in our views on housing benefit.
  We are entitled to answers to the questions which have been put to the Minister not only by ourselves, but even by some Conservative Members also.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Hugo Summerson: I want to echo the concerns voiced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and I want to concentrate on one aspect of the regulations.
  Aylesbury and Eastbourne are, comparatively, rich areas. My constituency of Walthamstow is not. It is getting more prosperous but it is not yet the Mayfair of the east end. Between 20 and 25 per cent. of my constituents are pensioners. The numbers of the elderly living alone are projected to increase. The numbers of the very elderly—those aged 85-plus—are also projected to increase.
  Those pensioners have worked hard all their lives. Many of them have fought for their country. They have saved. They have a pretty poor view of those who do not work and who sponge off the state. They have retired, owning their own homes and with the income from their savings to supplement their pensions. Their savings will not be very great. They will not be greatly in excess of £6,000 but they will in many cases be more than £6,000.
  So far, so good. But in April this year their friendly Labour council increased the rates by a disgraceful 62 per cent. The average rates per household soared from £450 to £720. Many people have been forced into accepting help and it is not surprising, with the increase in the pensioner population across Britain of over 1 million since 1979, and the enormous increase in rates in many Labour-controlled areas over the past 10 years or so, that the cost of housing benefit has soared.
  The answer lies in the community charge, which will bring accountability to all the Labour-controlled areas. That is the short-term answer. In the long term, the answer lies with a negative income tax.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am getting a little lost. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the community charge and the negative income tax, neither of which is directly relevant to the regulations. I hope that he will address himself to those.
  Mr. Summerson: I will return to the pensioners of Walthamstow who have looked to the Government with hope and confidence to shield them from the effect of the rate increases. Many of my constituents have been hit hard, but they will now be hit again by the changes to housing benefit. They do not want supplementary benefit. They do not want income support. All they need is help with their rates. But now the Government are going to take that away. The community charge will help them, but that is not due until 1990. There is a gap of two hard years which will cost them dearly. How is that gap to be filled? I ask the Minister for an assurance that that limit of £6,000 will be reviewed at the earliest available opportunity.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Ian McCartney: This evening we have been treated to two appalling displays — first, of ministerial incompetence, and secondly, the violent

  1283
  prejudice of the Champagne Charlies on the Conservative Back Benches. The Minister so comprehensively rub-bished his own legislation that I thought that I was listening to an Opposition Front Bench spokesman. In comprehensively rubbishing his own policies and regulations, he then twisted the knife because, in outlining the changes that were necessary — the so-called simplifications — he indicated that those simplications are not to assist those on benefit, but to assist the Government in taking benefit from 1 million people and substantially reducing the right to benefit of a further 4 million people. The agument is not about simplification for those entitled to housing benefit but about the ability of the Government to use regulations to reduce the rights of many households.
  It is not the first time since 1982 that the Government have tampered with passported housing benefit. This is the seventh attempt by the Government to cook housing benefit resources. It is also their second major attempt to transfer responsibility for administering housing benefits to local government, not to improve administration or to make it easier for claimants, but to put local government at the sharp end of the Government's attempt to reduce resources in the public sector and to those most in need. It is the local authorities that will face the brunt or those changes. The Government have not even got the courage of their own convictions to tackle the system of benefits and to administer that themselves. Through the regulations, they are trying to pass on the responsibility for the shambles that will ensue.
  The Makerfield constituency is situated in the south Lancashire coalfield and for historical reasons has a large number of people who rely on housing benefit. In some estates, between 70 and 75 per cent. of households are on some form of housing benefit. We have the highest number of sickness benefit claimants in the United Kingdom. It is those people that the Government will affect most by the changes announced in the regulations. There has never been a Government who have made so many attempts to transfer responsibility for administering poverty from central to local government. The Government are in the business of divesting themselves of their social and moral responsibilities. Having first created massive unemployment and pools of pensioners who live in poverty, they seek to transfer responsibility for that to local government. In doing that, they hope that local government will be blamed for the loss of income, the loss of resources and the chaos that will ensue.
  Conservative Members—who have shown so much prejudice this evening—have suggested that some of my constituents are frivolous grasshoppers. There are imperfections, but people go cap in hand. A Conservative Member even suggested that the lash of poverty will somehow give them the opportunity to do something better with their lives. The reality is that the lash of poverty does not provide opportunities but denies opportunities to thousands of people in my constituency. My constituents do not want to live on benefits, they want the opportunity of jobs, a decent pension and to live in dignity in their old age. We do not want to have to go through complicated legislation or continual attacks on housing benefit.
  We want dignity, the right to equal opportunities and to fairness. The benefit regulations attack that. On the one hand, there are unfettered allowances for mortgage tax relief, but the benefit regulations attempt further to erode the rights of the poor in our communities. I believe that
  1284
  the Government will return later in this Parliament to erode even further people's rights to housing benefit. They will do so because they will have to tackle the problem of the continuing bill for mortgage tax relief. I should like that benefit to be scrapped and replaced by a universal benefit that is related to housing need, whether one lives in private or publicly owned housing.
  Four groups of people in my constituency will be affected by the regulations. The first such group are low-paid single people, many of whom have been on YTS and, having come off that scheme, are now working in low-paid jobs and receiving between £70 and £80 per week gross. Such people live in housing that is hard to heat, often on council estates. As they have come off YTS after a certain date, they are now not entitled to heating allowances and, because their properties are difficult to heat, a large proportion of their income is taken up in heating costs. However, that group will be further attacked and their income further eroded.
  Secondly, I should highlight the fact that in my constituency a huge proportion of families who are on benefit will receive a cut in their rights to free school meals some time in April. That will amount to a loss of about £1·80 in real benefit per week per child to families who need that service.
  The third group arc pensioners on occupational pension schemes. They include miners and people who have worked for Heinz and the other big manufacturers in Wigan. Those people's rights to benefit will now be severely curtailed and they will lose benefit because of their occupational pension schemes.
  The fourth group has been much discussed this evening — persons with capital above the £3,000 and £6,000 limits. At present rates, £6,000 results in about £12 per week interest. In my constituency many people of pensionable age have that so-called little nest egg for two reasons. First, they use it to help the family, to help with the grandchildren, with Christmas presents and holidays. That is something simple which, in the last years of their lives, gives them a little dignity for all the work and effort that they have put in over the years, often in industries that have exploited them throughout their working lives.
  The second reason why they keep their little nest egg is to pay for their funeral. I have seen many people at my surgeries, both when I was a councillor and since I have been a Member of Parliament, and one of the concerns of many elderly people involves the changes in benefit that erode their little piece of capital and thus the possibility of them having the dignity of proper funerals at the end of their lives. When one considers that the average cost of a funeral in the Greater Manchester area is over £1,000. the limit of £3,000 does not go a long way. However, the Government are attacking the whole concept of maintaining that allowance.
  The invidious and insidious part of the legislation is that the Government are attacking the concept of those people having capital in the first place. The Government are forcing them to get rid of that capital and until they do so their rights to benefit will either be eroded or taken away altogether. That is an insidious attack on a group of people who have contributed so much to our society in terms of wealth creation, and by their ability to fight for our freedoms in the second world war.
  The taper system is an infamous piece of legislation. There is a real attempt to use it in a sharp way so that people, by the smallest change in their personal

  1285
  circumstances, will either lose their rights to benefit or suffer some reduction. By that simple change in the mechanism, a huge number of people will lose their right to benefit. It has been calculated that about 700,000 pensioners will come into that category. In April next year, more than 1 million people will lose their right to benefit altogether—about one in seven of all claimants. The Minister has already said tonight that the loss of overall benefits will accumulate to £640 million—£140 million more than my hon. Friends and I had calculated. So the Government have admitted that the reductions in benefit are even more severe than we had at first thought.
  Contrast this with the Prime Minister's ability to earn a great deal of tax relief on her mortgage and to enjoy a £40 a week reduction in her rate bill with the introduction of the poll tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) went into great detail about the way in which the taper operates and forces people into the poverty trap, forcing them into a marginal rate of taxation in excess of 90 per cent. That is a real attempt to change the balance of wealth in this country. It is part of the Government's overall policy to take away from the poorest members of the community and redistribute the money to those who already have so much.
  Some of the other provisions locked away in the regulations are probably some of the most insidious of any with which we have had to deal—for example, amenity charges in sheltered accommodation. Such charges are now included in some certificated cases, but, following the introduction of the regulations, fixed charges for heating and water will be phased out. That is an attack on pensioners because it is they, almost exclusively, who are in sheltered accommodation, public or private.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) highlighted the way in which the regulations will affect water charges. From 1 April, people on supplementary benefit will be unable to have them taken into account. On the issue of unreasonable costs, I recently received a letter from the director of housing of Wigan metropolitan borough council, who said that the authority is concerned about these changes, because they take into account the Government's changes brought about by the deregulation of rents in the private sector. The private sector landlord will allow rents to rise to such a level that the claimant will be penalised, because the landlord will be able to charge whatever market rent he can get.
  According to the regulations, claimants will have to pay rent levels that the local authority will not be allowed to cover because of unreasonable rent levels. So the Government are reducing people's rights in the private sector to have a fair rent fixed and, by means of another piece of legislation, they are trying to prevent local authorities from taking account of the fact that landlords are unleashing market rents on us. A large number of young people in the private sector will be affected by that.
  I turn now to local government administration, which will be a shambles, just as it was before. Local authorities will be short-changed by £25 million for the introduction of the new scheme. They will spend £50 million on introducing computer systems and training staff, yet their reimbursement will total only a maximum of £25 million. Rent and ratepayers in the local authority areas will have to make up the difference.
  1286
  Furthermore, the draft regulations were originally six weeks late. Then the guidance notes were a month late, and the regulations have only now reached us. Yet local authorities will have to implement them by I April next year. It has taken the Government two years to reach this point, but they expect underfunded and under-resourced local authorities to make this major change so quickly. They are doing it in such a way as to blame the local authorities if difficulties arise. I say to rent and ratepayers: "Do not blame your local authorities — blame the Government for their incompetence and malevolence towards local authorities, tenants and ratepayers."
  In my constituency, part of the Wigan metropolitan borough council, the authority stands to lose something like £40,000 because of the total cost of the introduction of the scheme. That £40,000 will be borne by the local ratepayers. The people stand to lose between £900,000 and £1 million a year because of changes in the benefit regulations. That represents a massive reduction in the resources available to my constituents. It is totally unacceptable and unrealistic that Wigan should bear such costs and it represents a major attack on local government finance. At the end of the day, those least able to pay and least able to gear themselves to the changes will be most affected. Those on low incomes and young people trying to make a start in life and trying to make something of their lives will be handicapped by the introduction of the regulations.
  Conservative Members will be condemned by the introduction of the legislation. We shall not let them forget what they intend to do to pensioners. We shall ensure that the constituents of every Tory who has spoken today will know what they have said about pensioners and the so-called workshy, lazy young people. We shall make sure that, back home in their constituencies, the constituents know what their Member of Parliament thinks about them.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Lewis Stevens: I shall be brief. First, I must say that some of the comments by Opposition Members appear to be from people still fighting not only the election of 1987, but that of 1983, and even as far back as 1935.
  The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) suggested that we are trying to bring local government into disrepute. I totally reject that. However, the Labour party has managed to do that extremely successfully.
  The policies that have initiated the regulations were established in the Social Security Bill in 1986 and were put to the electorate this year. Those policies were well understood, both in general concept and in practical effects. The simplification that has undoubtedly been brought about is important. People can now understand far better how their housing benefit will relate to them. The assimilation of the various housing benefits on to the same base is important. It is also important that those benefits will be on a net base rather than a gross base. That will give help to many people.
  Although with any changes it is right to say that there will be losers and gainers, within the proposed Social Security Act there will be a considerable number of gainers. It is not surprising that the Opposition have almost totally ignored the fact that many disabled people will gain as a result of the Act and as a result of the housing benefit regulations. It is also not surprising that the

  1287
  Opposition easily omit the fact that the family credit system that we have introduced will also extend help to far more people than was expected or was available under FIS. It was necessary to do something about housing benefit. My hon. Friends have said several times that, with one third of households receiving that benefit, it had got out of hand.
  Some people may suggest that the large number of recipients of that benefit was due to our economic policies, but they should consider the economic policies that were followed in the late 1960s and between 1974 and 1978. Those policies were likely, at some point in the future, to bring about a significant and dramatic change in the industrial life of our community. The effect of those policies was to bring about redundancy and unemployment. That was the catalyst that led to great change in the amount of social security benefits that had to be paid.
  Various Acts have tried to bring about the best results and the necessary targeting of those benefits in the best way. The social security measures which will be implemented in the spring next year will achieve that to some extent. although not to the extent that many of us would wish. They do not go far enough. There are certainly some reservations about the £6,000 capital limit. It is strange that Opposition Members who once said that £1·80 was a lot of money now say that £6,000 in capital is not. Surely there is a contradiction somewhere along that line.
  If we sensibly examine further attempts to put money where it is most needed, housing benefit, with some reservations, is the target at which we were aiming. I know that the House will give it the support which it deserves.
  9.20 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I concur with the last few words of the speech of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens). I wish that the House would give the regulations the support that they deserve, which is to be roundly defeated.
  The Minister of State expressed the hope that Opposition Members would set these provisions in the wider context of the whole policy. I shall try to oblige the Minister by examining in a wider context the Government's claims that these regulations and the framework of changes target help on those in greatest need. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who no doubt we shall see in her place shortly, asked, in the bewildered manner that suits her so well, how anyone could oppose such a goal. I will tell the hon. Lady, and she can read it in the Official Report.
  It is a question of how such groups are defined and where such a policy leads. The Second Reading of the Social Security Bill revealed that those excluded from the hon. Lady's category of needs include epileptics, the young unemployed, those with small occupational pensions and others. We accept meekly the accusation that some of our categories of need are, by her standards, far too wide. Indeed, we thank God that it is so. I shall examine what the Government said about targeting.
  Several hon. Members spoke about the early years of the housing benefit scheme. Few Conservative Members have examined its wider context, as the Minister suggested. When the Government came to power, they expressed all the concern that Conservative Members could want about what they called the indiscriminate subsidy to public sector housing. They announced their intention to reduce that
  1288
  subsidy—and, indeed, the Government have been as good as their word. The subsidy to council housing has fallen by more than £1,500 million, and the figure must now be substantially more. When the Government made that commitment, it was pointed out that if the subsidy for council housing were reduced, council house rents would rise and that might cause problems to those in the community who are less well off. Indeed, that was the result. Equally, at the time, we were reassured that. as rents rose, those in need would be protected through housing benefit. We were told that it would be all right because housing benefit would be targeted on those in greatest need and they would be protected against rent rises.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), in what I understand was an excellent speech, which I regret I did not hear, said that he had heard the Secretary of State for the Environment talk about housing benefit as a cushion against rent rises. Many Conservative Members argued against the cushion of housing benefit protecting those in the greatest need, and asked how it came about that still, today, 7 million households receive housing benefit. They suggest that the fact that 7 million households receive housing benefit proves that the scheme is over-generous. I can understand how hon. Members find it strange that 7 million households should still be getting housing benefit when the Government have made seven attempts during the past few years to cut housing benefit, yet so many people remain entitled to it. The answer to hon. Members' questions— which, unaccountably, the Government did not offer—is that they appear to have failed to notice that, while council house subsidies have been withdrawn, council house rents have increased by 155 per cent.
  During that period when the withdrawal of the public sector housing subsidy gave rise to this colossal increase in council house rents, not only have the poorest not been protected by the targeting of housing benefit, but steadily, year in year out, and occasionally even twice a year, the Government have cut housing benefit.
  As rents rise, more people become entitled to housing benefit—more money—and the Government have used the consequences of their cut in general subsidy as an argument for cutting the specific subsidy that is supposed to help the poor. That, indeed, puts the Government's devotion to those in greatest need in the wider context. That leaves aside the impact of the rise in rents, the impact on those who are entitled to housing benefit, and the effect on the millions of people who can no longer afford to pay their rent at all because they are unemployed. We have seen the numbers of such people rise substantially in recent years. Under this Government, targeting has probed to be a euphemism for cutting public support.
  I shall now turn from the main issue of targeting to some of the details of how the Government are targeting in these regulations. A number of those details have been highlighted in the debate. There is the bar, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) spoke. to meeting the cost of alarms that are intended precisely for those who are living independently and who are unable to take advantage of sheltered housing which, because of the way that the Government have cut housing subsidies, is in short supply. Those people are living independently in the community. That is what the Government say they wish to see, but now those people face the prospect of the withdrawal of support for the provision of the alarms that will help them to remain independent. By living

  1289
  independently, those people save the community hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of pounds, because that is what it would cost if such people lost their cherished independence and had to go into homes or hospitals. The loss to those people could well be about £5 a week, because that is the amount of the payment for such alarms.
  The Minister of State talked about the treatment of lone parents. He spoke with what appeared to be some pride about the way in which lone parents have a slightly higher premium in housing benefit than in income support. For some reason he did not think it necessary to say that the increased housing benefit premium under the new system in no way compensates for the loss to those people of having the same base for the treatment of benefit as a couple. That applied under a previous scheme.
  There is the treatment of what are known in the Government's scheme as non-dependants. A non-dependant is somebody who is not of school age or in full-time education but who is in work. He will now be expected to contribute £8·20 a week to rent alone, and that amount will be deducted from his family's housing benefit. The total contribution that such a non-dependant would have to make on rent and rates together means that two working teenagers would probably be expected to contribute almost the whole housing cost for their family home. That is the proposal by a Government who say that they believe in the unity of the family. The Under-Secretary of State told us the other night that the Goverment believe in giving the family moral support. No doubt that is in lieu of any other kind of support.
  Some hon. Members drew attention to the difference between the way the Government treat those who seek public support through housing benefit and those who seek it through the subsidy given in mortgage interest tax relief. I have just highlighted the way in which the non-dependants of people drawing housing benefit are treated. One of the issues not mentioned in the debate is that there are about 1·25 million non-dependants in households that receive mortgage interest tax relief, but those non-dependants are not liable for a single penny.
  Some hon. Members spoke about the recommenda-tions of the housing benefit review team. The Minister of State was rather misleading when he spoke about that. It is from the work of that team that these proposals stem. His comments were a little misleading, although my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in an intervention corrected him in two respects. He omitted to mention the complete opposition of the review team to the suggestion that 20 per cent. of rates should be payable by those on even the lowest income. The review team said:
  "it would be unrealistic to suppose that even a small proportion of housing costs could be met at the expense of other personal requirements. We believe that 100 per cent. help with housing costs for those on the lowest incomes is the only fair way of meeting their needs".
  That could scarcely be more at variance with the Government's proposals.
  I listened with astonishment to the hon. Member for Edgbaston when she suggested that people on income support should be grateful that 80 per cent. of their rates were being contributed. Presumably she had not studied with care the comments of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the housing benefit review team. That
  1290
  review team was handpicked by Ministers and given a remit of no increase in the scheme, so it was not falling over backwards to be generous to claimants.
  Hon. Members have referred with approval to the way in which the rates taper is being increased and asked why owner-occupiers with an income or a small occupational pension should be protected in this way. I would like to — I hesitate to say remind — draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that the housing benefit review team, which studied these matters in detail, was not as restrictive as Conservative Members have been this evening. It recommended a rates taper along the lines of the Government's proposals, but it did so in the context of another recommendation—that the Government should explore the possibility of extending housing benefit support to those very individuals towards the cost of their mortgages. It was a quid pro quo that there should be support through housing benefit for those with mortgages and that, therefore, it would not be so harsh if the rates taper were at the level proposed. Again, we have deviated substantially from the Government review team's suggestions, although I recognise that the Government were not bound by those recommendations. They have taken only the less generous recommendations and ignored all those that might have been more generous.
  There have been some references to the thresholds at which housing benefit ceases to be payable. I want to make just one comparison because so many others have been drawn tonight. Before April 1983, a single pensioner would have lost entitlement to housing benefit when he had an income of £94·35 a week. From next April, he will lose entitlement to all housing benefit when his income reaches £64·51 a week. The level of income at which housing benefit is payable has fallen in cash terms, never mind real terms, by £30 a week during the past few years in which the Government have been steadily cutting housing benefit.
  In some cases, the marginal tax rate of households paying tax and national insurance and receiving rent and rate rebates would rise by 90 per cent., and even up to 97 or 98 per cent.—a 97p or 98p in the pound withdrawal for every pound increase. I would like to contrast that with the highest rate of tax payable at 60p in the pound and with the fact that it is paid only on taxable income above £41,200 per year. That is an interesting contrast with the level at which a single pensioner begins to lose rebate—£3,354 gross, not taxable, income per year.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan asked what would happen to the housing benefit scheme in the future. Like other hon. Members, I have been contacted by a number of housing associations and by the National Federation of Housing Associations. As the Minister of State asked, I am considering the wider context of these regulations. Those organisations are desperately worried that the combination of the Government's proposals to force them to raise money on the private market, and therefore to raise their rents will seriously disadvantage the very people whom they exist to serve.
  We have a couple of interesting examples of what housing associations fear will happen once they have to charge the rents that they expect to have to charge if this package of measures goes ahead. They suggest that a London bus driver on average rostered earnings for driver-operated buses, aged about 30, married, with two children aged 7 and 11, with no other earned household income and paying the rent that they expect to have to charge of about

  1291
  £45 a week, will get no assistance in rent or rate rebate. In the context of the remarks made by Conservative Members about the scheme being too generous, that is a most interesting comparison.
  The housing associations also use the comparison of a nurse who similarly would lose all entitlement to support at a gross wage of £158 or £159 a week. They point out that, in the case of the bus driver, the amount he is expected to contribute has gone up from 12 per cent. to 22 per cent. of his income since 1982, and, in the case of the nurse, from 20 per cent. to 38 per cent. Those figures put in clear focus the observations of Conservative Members about the over-generosity of the housing benefit scheme.
  There has also been reference to the lack of transitional protection. In the income support scheme the Government made much of the fact that transitional protection will be offered and that those drawing benefit at present will continue to receive the same cash sums. Of course, that does not apply to housing benefit where, in the overall package and in the wider context, some of the worst losses will arise. I remind the House that in 1983, when the scheme was introduced, because it involved substantial taper changes and losses of £1 or £2 a week in some cases, the Government thought it right to introduce transitional safeguards. Today, when some individuals are facing losses as large as £10 and more a week, no transitional safeguards are offered. That is because the Government think they can get away with having a saving as their overall target.
  Apart from the uncomfortable facts of what the Government are doing in the regulations under the cloak of targeting, a second major question arises in the wider context — the direction in which the pursuit of this policy is slowly but inexorably taking us. I want to set it clearly on record that that direction is no less than the demolition by stealth of the welfare state. The hon. Member for Edgbaston and other Conservative Members continually ask in these debates how we can object to the theory of targeting help on those in greatest need. What they seem not to appreciate is that they are targeting help not on those in need but only on those in the greatest need.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) favoured the House earlier with a definition about giving cautious support to the very poor. It is that which sets apart Conservative Members from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and which sets apart a welfare state that tries to prevent poverty and enhance independence from a scheme of poor law relief.
  Those schemes of the past in their many forms were based on excluding from help all but the destitute and refusing help to the merely desperate until they became destitute. 'The hon. Member for Edgbaston talked about it sapping human initiative if someone else paid the bills. Had the hon. Lady been here for the end of the debate —she was not here for the opening—I could have told her that it saps human initiative to see everything that one—has worked for and achieved—in the case of a pensioner for the whole of his life—stripped away bit by bit by bit in the name of targeting help only on those in the greatest need.
  The hon. Lady referred to the old Labour party and wondered what it would think of us criticising the Government for a cut-off rate for capital of £6,000. One could see the hon. Lady on a board of guardians. Of course, it was the meanness of the means test and the effect it had on families to which the old Labour party objected
  1292
  so much. The hon. Lady and any other hon. Member who attempts to make a similar observation should realise that the old Labour party, today's Labour party and any conceivable Labour party exists because its members reject with every fibre of their being that tight, narrow, smug, vicious definition of means. The echo of those definitions which created humiliation and fear for so many in generations past, makes us certain that we are right to reject the regulations.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled opened this debate by posing a series of questions to the Opposition and hoping that they would contribute by spelling out some of their proposals. My hon. Friend the Minister is an incorrigible idealist because, unfortunately, we have listened very carefully and hearkened to what the Opposition have said, but we have been disappointed.
  The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) informed us that he had proposed some negotiations between the Opposition and the Government. I assumed that he was indulging in some kind of fantasy. He seemed to believe that the election had resulted in a hung Parliament and that we were in some sense negotiating the Government's policy. The Government's policies are quite clear. However, the Opposition's policies are unclear.
  While I am on the subject of the fantasy of a hung Parliament, I want to welcome back in his absence the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). He has returned to our debate having lost his leader and his party. He was therefore unmuzzled and his contribution was all the more interesting for that.
  I notice that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) is in the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he would ask me to comment on concessionary coal. The position with regard to all the benefits that we are aligning is that if the family or person concerned receives cash, that should be taken into account in assessing their resources over and above the various levels of disregard that are set down. It has long been the case that concessionary coal delivered in kind has been disregarded, and it will continue to be disregarded under the new system. However, if the payment is made in cash instead of in kind, it will be treated as a resource and taken into account.
  That seems to be absolutely right. Why should there be an advantage for one group of people who receive cash and no advantage for another group? The anomaly is that the coal is not valued and taken into account. However, the hon. Member for Normanton will realise that there are good reasons why valuing it would be very complex.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for replying to my question. Will he also consider the fact that some of the chronically sick and disabled people from the mining industry who receive payments in lieu of fuel receive it because of their chronic illnesses? Those illnesses do not qualify for additional payment through the DHSS. Therefore, it is important that the payment in lieu of fuel sustains additional health care for retired miners and their widows. Will the Minister have some compassion for those people?
  Mr. Portillo: There is no shortage of compassion. However, we must be concerned with fairness. If money is received by one set of people that is not available to others be disregarded, it is very unfair.
  My hon. Friend the Minister asked that hon. Members should not treat housing benefit in isolation during the debate. Some hon. Members were good enough to follow that good advice. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) offered us some figures which he said took account of overall effects. We shall be interested to see them, but I have some doubts about them. The hon. Gentleman embarked on a discussion about family credit in which he referred to the ending of free school meals, yet he did not mention the fact that we are building into the family credit rates of compensation for the loss of free school meals which are more generous than the free school meals. The hon. Gentleman's starting point for his argument was extraordinary.
  As a number of hon. Members did not take the good advice offered by my hon. Friend the Minister and consider all the benefits together, perhaps I should remind them of the figures. We have been perfectly frank. We have set out all the figures in tables. Taken together, the reforms will produce about 3·65 million losers, of whom about 2 million are pensioners. On the other hand, they will produce nearly 5 million who will either gain or experience no change, and about 2·32 million of those are pensioners. Whether we take pensioners as a group, or take all claimants as a group, there will be more gainers than losers. Let us therefore nail the Opposition's assumption that the reforms will produce more losers.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) wanted to know what advantages he could offer his constituents. The expenditure reduction in housing benefit is matched by new money going into income support and family credit and many claimants will gain more from those benefits than they lose from housing benefit. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the difficulties that his constituents face, not only in claiming housing benefit but in claiming other benefits. The new capital rules are more generous to those on supplementary benefit, and to those on housing benefit with only smaller amounts of capital, whose investment income will be ignored for the first time. Moreover, an extra £220 million will go into family credit. The hon. Gentleman can tell his constituents about that, as he specifically said that many of them were on very low wages.
  The steeper rent taper, which has been discussed a good deal in today's debate, must be seen in context. The Opposition Front Bench looked a bit puzzled when my hon. Friend made this point. It must be seen alongside the fact that the starting point for calculating rents under the new system is 100 per cent., whereas under the present system it is only 60 per cent. That is a crucial difference. It means that, even with the steeper taper, those with unavoidably high rents—for example, twice the national average — will receive more help all the way up the income scale, and poorer households, below the current needs allowance, will receive more help, even at below average rents.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), in her wind-up speech, produced a document from the National Federation of Housing Associations. The document, I am afraid, is entirely wrong, because it misses that crucial point. It applies the taper which will be introduced in April as though the starting point for rents
  1294
  were still 60 per cent. I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady's examples, gripping though they were, simply are not correct. The changes that the people whom she cited will actually experience are minimal.
  The hon. Member for Livingston came up with his own example. He talks about a couple in Newcastle with, I believe, two children, and the loss that they would sustain on housing benefit. The hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap of regarding housing benefit in isolation. He clearly did not bear in mind the family credit advantage that that family is likely to have.
  Mr. Robin Cook: That family's current income is £110·90 net. Taking account of housing costs, loss of free school meals — that is perfectly fair, as the Minister mentioned an offset in family credit—and family credit entitlement, its net income on 1 April next year can be estimated at £99·54. That is a loss of £10·40, even allowing for the other elements of the package, and taking account of the fact that its housing costs will rise by some £3 on top of the present level. Not only does that family face a savage loss in housing benefit ; it also faces a savage loss in net income.
  Mr. Portillo: If, by any chance, those figures were calculated for the hon. Gentleman by the National Federation of Housing Associations——
  Mr. Cook: They were not.
  Mr. Portillo: —they may be open to a certain amount of doubt. But we shall examine them carefully.
  Mr. Cook: They were provided by Newcastle council.
  Mr. Portillo: I am afraid that Newcastle council has not put me entirely at ease on the matter.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. One hon. Member at a time.
  Mr. Portillo: Many Conservative Members were extremely interested and concerned about capital. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) were concerned about the capital limit. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) asked how the Government will explain to the thrifty that money will not be payable to them through their housing benefit if they have more than £6,000 in the bank. That is a real dilemma. If we have a system that gives money to people in need, how do we ensure that giving it to people who actually need it does not then discourage people from being thrifty?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) made the point to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne that we must ask how we justify to taxpayers, many of whom may be extremely poor and have nothing in the bank, the proposal that they should pay money to provide benefits to people who have more than £6,000 in the bank. The Government have got that balance just about right. Some of my hon. Friends have asked us to look at that level. Of course, in common with all other aspects of the reforms, we shall be sensitive to the way in which they apply in practice.
  I found it difficult to take the criticisms from the hon. Members for Livingston and for Preston (Mrs. Wise). They elucidated the principle that we should take account only of people's investment income. I am bound to ask why, under a Labour Government, for supplementary

  1295
  benefit purposes, any income over £1,200 was assessed on a tariff income — not on the basis of what people actually earned—of 25p for every £50 that people had in the hank. That is a much higher rate of tariff than we are assuming in the regulations. Of course, we are operating from a much lower level of capital.
  Mr. Robin Cook: Not for housing benefit.
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member says, "Not for housing benefit." My goodness, we invited him earlier to tell us whether he believed in aligning the benefit. I, possibly wrongly, inferred from his silence that he wants to align benefits. If he wants to align benefits and he sticks by what his Government did when they were in office, which is to have the crippling tariff income system, he must be confused.
  The hon. Member for Withington had a similar shot at his own foot. He vigorously complained that, with the housing benefit, we are introducing an overpayment restriction for back claims for 12 months, and that we are introducing the concept of needing to show good cause. If he wishes to find the inspiration for that, he will find that the concept is perfectly clear in the Social Security Act 1975. We have simply extended that principle into the present housing benefit regulations.
  In his thoughtful remarks, the hon. Member for Livingston was a trifle disappointing in regard to marginal tax rates. He seems to ignore the basic dilemma. If one is trying to direct help to the people at the bottom, establish a family credit system that helps people who are in work, and target any of the benefits, one will end up with high marginal rates of withdrawal. We recognise that. That is the dilemma with which we have had to wrestle. In wrestling with it, we have achieved a great deal, but the hon. Member for Livingston did not care to refer to that.
  We have abolished marginal rates of withdrawal of over 100 per cent., with which the hon. Gentleman's Government happily lived. I can see no defence for withdrawing more than the amount that people are receiving in benefit, thus making them worse off as they earn more money. However, that is a position that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends put up with. After April, rates of withdrawal of more than 100 per cent. will have been abolished, and overall the total number of people with marginal tax rates over 90 per cent. will fall from 112,000 to about 70,000, which is a cause for some congratulation.
  The hon. Member for Livingston referred to three creatures that crawled out of the legislation when he shook them. For the sake of hygiene, as much as the hon. Gentleman's enlightenment, we should knock some of them on the head and deal with them. Help with service charges for people in rented accommodation can be provided through the housing benefit system. The regulations do not change the conditions that presently exist. The only confusion that may have arisen is if local authorities have not been applying the regulations as they exist.
  The majority of people, including pensioners who live in the community, are owner-occupiers and, by definition, qualify for any help with service charges under the rules of rent rebates or allowances, which is the main source of help within the public sector. In providing help for people on low incomes in rented accommodation there has been scope for including, within the eligible rent service charges,
  1296
  four amenities that are an essential part of the accommodation. Such amenities may include heating and lighting and communal sectors of maintenance such as lifts. Our policy has been to include alarm systems within this provision, where they are an essential part of the accommodation. That is carried forward in these regulations.
  For those who do not live in such accommodation, but who may have a special need for alarm systems and other personal services, the main source of help, as with owner-occupiers, must come from local authorities.
  Mrs. Beckett rose——
  Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Livingston mentioned help with heating charges, which he claimed were being excluded from housing benefit. The hon. Gentleman should look more carefully at the regulations. Heating charges are not generally eligible for help under housing benefit. The current scheme gives help to some people on supplementary benefit who pay fixed fuel charges with their rent. People on standard housing benefit receive no help with fuel charges.
  Thus, apart from anything else, an important matter of equity arises—the unfairness between one set of people and another. If some people in accommodation are being forced to pay unusually high charges for electricity or heating, it cannot be right to increase subsidy through housing benefit. The important aspect must be to deal with the root causes of why the charges are high and to introduce new systems so that electricity and heating are not wasted. That is why we are phasing out these benefits over a five-year period.
  The hon. Member for Livingston was wrong in his sweeping generalisation about the effect on housing benefit of a period spent as a patient in hospital. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood the present provisions or those that we are discussing. It is not an unthinking alignment with income support. It has been recognized—this is what I said to him from a sedentary position—for 40 years that, where the state is providing for a patient in hospital and for that person's maintenance, double provision should not be made from the public funds for that maintenance.
  That has been a long-established principle, and if the hon. Gentleman looks at the regulations he will see that housing benefit will not be automatically withdrawn. If the patient is receiving income support there will be no change in his housing benefit. I think that he was far too sweeping in his assumption in that regard. Those who are not receiving income support will have their entitlement reassessed and single claimants will usually find that their benefit reduces but, because the new assessment takes account of reduced social security benefit, couples where one partner is in hospital will also find that their housing benefit does not change.
  I said at the outset that I was disappointed by the fact that the Opposition did not tell us what they would do about housing benefit. They have not set out their stall for us at all. All we have heard is a good deal of whingeing about the cuts that the Government are allegedly making. We have heard a whole load of hyperbole, a great deal of wrongly directed comment and a refusal on their part to look at the reforms in social security as a whole. Those reforms are putting as much money back into the system as they are taking out. They are giving a better deal to

  1297
  people and are directing money to those who are most in need. It is for those reasons that I commend the regulations, which are the final element of the three packages we are putting before the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 188.

  Division No. 75]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Devlin, Tim

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Dicks, Terry

  Alexander, Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Allason, Rupert

  Dover, Den

  Amess, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Amos, Alan

  Durant, Tony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Ashby, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Fallon, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Farr, Sir John

  Baldry, Tony

  Favell, Tony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bellingham, Henry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Benyon, W.

  Forth, Eric

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Body, Sir Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Boswell, Tim

  Fry, Peter

  Bottomley, Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gardiner, George

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowis, John

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bright, Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Gorst, John

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Gow, Ian

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Burt, Alistair

  Gregory, Conal

  Butcher, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Butler, Chris

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Butterfill, John

  Grist, Ian

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Ground, Patrick

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grylls, Michael

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hannam, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')

  Churchill, Mr

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Harris, David

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hayward, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cope, John

  Heddle, John

  Couchman, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Cran, James

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Hill, James

  Day, Stephen

  Hind, Kenneth

  1298

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Newton, Tony

  Holt, Richard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Howard, Michael

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

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

  Onslow, Cranley

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Page, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Paice, James

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pawsey, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Irving, Charles

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jack, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Jackson, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Janman, Timothy

  Raffan, Keith

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Redwood, John

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Renton, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Riddick, Graham

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Knapman, Roger

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Knowles, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knox, David

  Rost, Peter

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lang, Ian

  Ryder, Richard

  Latham, Michael

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lightbown, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lord, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Sims, Roger

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maclean, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Madel, David

  Squire, Robin

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Mans, Keith

  Steen, Anthony

  Maples, John

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marlow, Tony

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Miller, Hal

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Mills, Iain

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thorne, Neil

  Moate, Roger

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thurnham, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trippier, David

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Trotter, Neville

  Mudd, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Needham, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Neubert, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  1299

  Walden, George

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Waller, Gary

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Walters, Dennis

  Wolfson, Mark

  Ward, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Yeo, Tim

  Warren, Kenneth

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Watts, John

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Wells, Bowen

  Whitney, Ray

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Wilshire, David

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Flynn, Paul

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Foster, Derek

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Foulkes, George

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Fraser, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Galloway, George

  Barron, Kevin

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Battle, John

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Beckett, Margaret

  George, Bruce

  Beith, A. J.

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Gould, Bryan

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Graham, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boyes, Roland

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hardy, Peter

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Haynes, Frank

  Buchan, Norman

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Buckley, George

  Henderson, Douglas

  Caborn, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hood, James

  Canavan, Dennis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cartwright, John

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Coleman, Donald

  Illsley, Eric

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ingram, Adam

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Janner, Greville

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cox, Tom

  Kennedy, Charles

  Crowther, Stan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cummings, J.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lambie, David

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Lamond, James

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Darling, Alastair

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Litherland, Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Livingstone, Ken

  Douglas, Dick

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Dunnachie, James

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McAllion, John

  Eadie, Alexander

  McAvoy, Tom

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Ian

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McFall, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McKelvey, William

  Fisher, Mark

  McLeish, Henry

  Flannery, Martin

  McTaggart, Bob

  1300

  McWilliam, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Madden, Max

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maxton, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Short, Clare

  Meale, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stott, Roger

  Morley, Elliott

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Murphy, Paul

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Nellist, Dave

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Brien, William

  Vaz, Keith

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wall, Pat

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Waller, Gary

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  Patchett, Terry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Pike, Peter

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Wilson, Brian

  Radice, Giles

  Winnick, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Redmond, Martin

  Worthington, Anthony

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wray, James

  Reid, John

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, George

  Mrs. Llin Golding and

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  Rogers, Allan

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 3rd November, be approved.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees en Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  COMPANIES
  Ordered,
  That the draft Companies (Mergers and Divisions) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 9th April, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. —[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

  SUPREME COURT
  Ordered,
  That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 26th October, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Sir Peter Hordern be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Tim Smith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  Question agreed to.

  Gipsies (South Leeds)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have 15 minutes in which to raise a matter that is of the greatest concern to my constituents. I have agreed with my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that they may intervene briefly, because the matter does not concern just south Leeds. I seek not publicity, but change. The publicity has existed for over 25 years. The Morley part of my constituency is not affected. To put it bluntly, the people in south Leeds have had enough. They think that nobody in authority cares. The consensus in south Leeds is that if those in authority lived in south Leeds, something would be done. I warned that there was a danger of violence, and there was recently. I warned that we were on the brink of violence. I will not go into it, but there was such violence.
  I have chosen the title for this Adjournment debate carefully. I have chosen not only the word "gipsies" but
  "travelling people, itinerants and tinkers"
  because all sorts of words are used. My first question to the Minister is, "What is a gipsy?" I do not know what a gipsy is, although I remember that years ago I thought I knew what a gipsy was. However, these people in my constituency have JCBs, E-registration cars and patio furniture, but they do not pay taxes. They do not fit into the category of gipsy that I thought I knew about years ago.
  What is the law? I have received letters from the Secretary of State saying that local authorities have a duty to provide areas, but for what? How is a gipsy defined? Is it anybody who does not want to live in a house? If a person goes to an area, does the local authority have a duty to provide the encampments—or whatever they are called? I know what the word means because we have one in south Leeds.
  I can tell the Minister what the problem is because I have gone through all my correspondence. The problem is the illegal extraction of electricity from lamp posts; the illegal extraction of the water supply ; refuse; lavatory use; defacation outside the windows of ordinary people; JCBs breaking down the mounds that have been put there by the local authority; the clean-up costs of moving the tarmac; the smell and the causes of the smell that I encountered on the West Granges in the summer, and the ruination of a new rugby league pitch on which the local authorities have spent money. If anybody else had dug up that pitch there would have been hell to pay, but because it was done by gipsies nothing happened. I can tell the story of the Hunslet athletic institute. Parents are not keen on young girls going there in the evening and if they do so they must be accompanied. I can tell of packs of dogs, and of factory owners who have told me about break-ins. Shop stewards have banded together to tell me that something must be done. I can tell also of the noise from generators. Something must be done.
  The local authority's job is to remove the gipsies under certain conditions. However, these days when in Hunslet in south Leeds, the local authority seeks to remove "the people"—the itinerants and the travelling people—to a site a solicitor steps in because those people have their own lawyers. They then go to court and the judge, of course,
  1302
  knows exactly what he is doing, but he does not know much about Hunslet and it is two, three or four weeks before anything is done about the problem. Imagine what the people around there think when they see what is happening. They say to me, "If we park a car on a pavement somebody tells us that we must move it, but this lot can stay here for weeks on end before anything is done." The problem is more difficult on private sites than it is on public sites — whatever is meant by that — malthough there has not been such a case recently, because to all intents and purposes British Rail property is private.
  In a letter the Secretary of State has told me that it is
  "a duty on local authorities to make adequate provision for gipsies residing in or resorting to their areas."
  That is what the law says about gipsies, but I do not know what it means. The letter went on to state:
  "The Leeds City council are at present pursuing a programme of site provision to cater for the large numbers of gipsies illegally camped in the area".
  That does not mean a thing. I quite understand that when Leeds city council, which is Labour-controlled, comes up with a scheme for sites in all parts of the city, those parts of the city do not want to know. I can understand that and can understand why, at local elections, people say, "Keep them in Hunslet where they have been for 25 years. The people of Hunslet do not count. The people in south Leeds —the old industrial area—can lump it." In effect, that is what has happened and the people in Hunslet and in south Leeds have had enough.
  My neighbour north of the river—the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) —told me something that I did not know. There is a site in the old city of Leeds—in south Leeds. It is a designated area, and there are stronger controls on gipsies there. You could have fooled me, Mr. Speaker. If the gipsies move in and camp in the new parts of the city, there are now powers to remove them because there are no sites there. I did not know that. In the Morley part of my constituency, and, I suspect, in the Bothwell part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton—which is the new part of the city—since 1974 the powers available have not been strong enough to remove them.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me this brief intervention. The description that my right hon. Friend has given of these people exactly fits those in my area—the Bell Hill site in Rothwell. They, too, destroy fields of vegetables, and the area is blighted by their destruction and despoliation. The people in my area are fed up to the teeth with the impression that is being given to people who enter Rothwell from the motorway and the city of Leeds. So I concur with everything that my right hon. Friend has said. It is time there was some action on this issue.
  Mr. Rees: There is enormous anger in Hunslet about this matter. As I have said, I understand why nothing is done in the rest of the city. There are arguments in the city council, so there is no movement. Nevertheless, something will have to be done.
  We need more small sites. We have done everything possible in south Leeds and people there have had enough. People do not bother about us about education or anything else in south Leeds. We are not a middle-class area in which people write letters to the papers about education. We get the fag-end of the stick on everything in Leeds, and the gipsies are part of that. If there are extra

  1303
  sites in other parts of the city, they come out of Government grants. If Leeds spends money on gipsy sites, there is less money for other things. It is important there should be a separate grant for gipsy sites, because that is a national problem. The money should not come out of Leeds' budget.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: The situation in south Leeds is deplorable. People elsewhere in the city can see the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents have had to face. That is why, when the city council proposes to put a large gipsy site into the green belt in my area—in Meanwood—there is so much opposition and anger because of the intrusion into a beautiful area. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the city council has met the statutory requirements for the provision of sites, we are possibly in danger now of appearing to be an authority that is so positively geared to providing help for these people that we are attracting more and more of them? The more we provide sites, the greater the problem becomes.
  Mr. Rees: That may be so in the future. However, there is only one site in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson). The reason why the itinerants are attracted to my area is that it has eight or nine unofficial sites, and, because of a weakness in the law, nothing is done about that.
  My second point concerns police powers, about which the Leeds city council will have to do something. The other evening I praised the work of a woman police inspector when we were heading for real trouble. Six weeks ago the position was reminiscent of Juliet Bravo. In a letter to me, the Home Secretary pointed out that there are new powers under the Public Order Act 1986. He said:
  "The new power applies only to trespassers who intend to reside on land"
  —the travellers or gipsies certainly intend to reside on land. They are not just popping in for an evening.
  "The police can only act after the landowner has requested the trespassers to leave and they have refused. In such cases if the police reasonably believe that damage has been caused"—
  that is not difficult to come by—
  "that the landowner or his family or employees have been threatened, or that 12 or more vehicles have been brought on to the land"—
  Twelve vehicles? We have had 60 or 70 vehicles. The police, because of shortage of manpower, have not been involved because they have been waiting for all the legal stuff to go through the courts. It goes on and on. The Home Secretary continues:
  "even if the trespass itself is not in breach of the criminal law the police can still take action if other offences are likely to be committed."
  I should have thought that that is pretty difficult to prove.
  I had a letter from someone in Surrey who told me that when a camp was established in his area the police went in one evening and found 21 stolen vehicles. That is the nature of the problem. These people are not the gipsies for whom I want to do something. There is a real problem for the people who live near such camps and police powers are insufficient. I am asking for the necessary powers for the local authorities and for the police.
  On 13 October 1987 one of my councillors, Ian Hugill, wrote to Leeds council. He pointed out that the gipsies had been camped in eight areas all through the summer. He wanted to know what would happen at Hunslet Grange where houses have been knocked down and the ghastly
  1304
  blocks of flats have gone. What would happen at the waste ground at West Grange, the waste ground at Stourton Grange and the land adjoining Lakeside court? What would happen to the land at the station at Hunslet Moor and the space behind the properties 319–327 Hunslet road? What would happen to the waste land adjacent to Middleton Broom tip? My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton will know that area, because a colliery used to be there. Ian Hugill also asked about the spare land adjacent to the industrial estate in Government street. I checked with the council last Saturday and it said there were no travellers on those sites except at Bell Hill, which is on the edge of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. However, what will be done? All my people say that the so-called gipsies will come hack to those areas and nothing will be done by the local authority and the police. The problem will go on and on.
  Will the Minister meet all the parties of Leeds city council and ask what they intend to do? I hope that there can be a meeting of all the councils in west Yorkshire because when the so-called gipsies leave my area they will probably move on to the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. They have speed of movement on the motorway so while we are shot of them for a short time the problem still goes on.
  This week I was given a document from local councils, parish councils and similar bodies. It contains a list of what they want the Government to do. In conclusion, that document states that the minimum requirement is the rapid provision of suitable sites. However, there is not the faintest chance of the rapid provision of such sites. Therefore, I hope that there may be a meeting in west Yorkshire to discuss this matter. I do not want to be vindictive, but these people with their money and cars are not gipsies and I want to be absolutely sure that the people of Hunslet should not face the same problem with those people year after year.
  A few weeks ago the vicar of Hunslet wrote to me and said that Hunslet is under siege and that he and the councillors had done all that they could. That is a cry for help.
  This is the first time in 25 years that I have had an Adjournment debate. I have sought the debate because something must be done, yet nobody has bothered about the problem. I ask the Government to do something quickly because those eight sites will fill up extremely quickly. There ought to be small sites in different parts of the county. However, there should be no more sites in south Leeds at Hunslet. We have had enough. I ask the Minister to listen sympathetically to what I have said.
  10.34 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) for allowing me to contribute to the debate.
  In April, I led a delegation from Bradford to see the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). He wrote to me in May and his letter says:
  "You raised the question of whether other Districts in West Yorkshire were making adequate provision for gypsies. The 1968 Act requires that each Metropolitan District should provide adequate accommodation for gypsies residing in or resorting to their areas. The minimum requirement is that each District should provide not more than 15 caravan pitches … The Regional Office has, however, already written to both Kirklees and Calderdale seeking details of their proposals to make adequate provision for gypsies."

  1305
  Coincidentally, the present Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is to reply to this debate, wrote a letter to me which I received this morning. Her letter says:
  "As a follow-up to your meeting with Dick Tracey earlier this year the Department's Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Office wrote to the Districts of Calderdale and Kirklees about the provision of gypsy sites in their areas. Their responses indicated that both Councils are currently considering the provision of sites;".
  I can tell the Minister that they have been considering sites for a very long time. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South has said, that there is an urgent need for Kirklees and Calderdale to make some provision. If those councils would make that provision, it would alleviate the pressures on Bradford and Leeds and on the other districts that have complied with the law. The authorities in west Yorkshire that have flouted the law that has been in existence for 20 years, are intensifying the problems in areas that have made provision and have complied with the law.
  10.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) for raising the issue of gipsies in the south Leeds area. I know that it is a subject close to his heart and one that he has raised before in the House, in correspondence with my Department and other Government Departments, and elsewhere in his local press. I have also noted the contributions to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) and by the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien).
  I share wholeheartedly the right hon. Gentleman's concern for the residents of south Leeds and for the need to ensure that public order is maintained and the law upheld. It is common ground between us that gipsies, like any other people, must comply with the law. I hope that it is also common ground that the way forward is through the provision of adequate sites for gipsies. The Government are fully committed to this approach. Indeed, we see the adequate provision of official sites as the key solution to resolving problems of the sort raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  This debate comes at an opportune time, because it was only last February that my right hon. Friend announced his conclusions following the review of policy for the provisions of gipsy sites. He concluded, after a painstaking examination of responses to a consultation letter and after considering the analysis of those responses by an independent adviser, Professor Gerald Wibberley, that the way forward was to continue for the time being with the present legislative duty to provide sites coupled with the additional controls available through designation. This was also the consensus, but we accepted that there was a need for better information on gipsies in order to establish better targets at which authorities could aim. We intend to tackle this vigorously as soon as we have the necessary research facilities.
  However, I am convinced that already in the last six months we have become much more aware of the situation regarding gipsies and other groups, not only in south Leeds but elsewhere in the region and nationally. This improved information will be of great use in our
  1306
  discussions with the relevant local authorities on the provision of sites. I must say how grateful I am to the right hon. Member for providing much useful information to my Department, not only in this debate, but on the other occasions on which he has raised this issue with us.
  I think it might be helpful if I were briefly to outline what the law has to say on the subject of gipsies. County councils, London borough councils and, as in this case, metropolitan district councils, all have a duty to provide sites for gipsies in their areas. In London boroughs and the metropolitan districts, that duty is restricted to a duty to provide for up to 15 caravans at a time. However, it is the case that in a number of London boroughs and metropolitan districts there are many more than that number of gipsies who have by long custom been encamped in those areas. Where this is so, and authorities can arrange for their accommodation, they should do so.
  When my right hon. Friend can be satisfied that adequate provision exists for the accommodation of gipsies in a particular area, or that in all the circumstances it is not necessary or expedient to make adequate provision, he will be able to consider an application from the local authorities who have the statutory duties to provide accommodation that the area should be designated under the provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968. Designation gives the authorities greater powers to control unauthorised camping by gipsies in their areas.
  We recognise that there is a problem of interpretation of the statutory definition of gipsies. The Act defines them as
  "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin".
  Local authorities have generally been able to decide who meets this statutory definition for site provision, but the definition is wide and there is increasing concern that other groups may seek the benefits which the Act provides.
  Dr. Hampson rose——
  Mrs. Roe: I am sorry; I cannot give way. I have a lot to say in a short time.
  We are committed to examining the scope for further clarification of the issue and we are at present working on a circular which we might issue, after consultation, to local authorities to give them further advice on this and other matters. But I have to stress that the onus of deciding who is a gipsy for the purposes of the statutory duty will have to rest with the local authorities themselves, in the light of the statutory definition.
  The question was raised whether gipsies with flashy cars are gipsies. The statutory definition does not make a distinction but authorities providing sites can, and do, make charges for rent and rates.
  I do not wish to minimise the difficulties that exist in some areas, but I think it would be right that the House should recognise the progress that has already been made in the provision of sites. At the beginning of this year, there were about 245 local authority sites in existence, providing approximately 4,000 pitches for gipsy caravans. Additionally, we believe that at least 2,000 pitches are being provided on private sites. We recognise, however, that there is still a need for as many as 3,000 to 4,000 pitches to accommodate the considerable number of gipsy caravans for which there is as yet no legal provision.
  It is also relevant to refer to what the Government already do to help local authorities to carry out their statutory responsibility. I must draw the right hon.

  1307
  Gentleman's attention to the fact that we make 100 per cent. Exchequer grant available for sites provided by the local authorities, and we have currently set aside £5 million this year for that purpose. We have issued advice to local authorities, in circulars and in research reports, as a result of which there is now a considerable weight of advice on the location, design and management of sites, as well as on the promotion of private site initiatives.
  We supplement the formal advice with regular and informal liaison between my Department and individual local authorities, as they may require, to help them to move towards the fulfilment of their statutory duty. We shall be ready to offer such informal advice to any of the west Yorkshire authorities which seek it regarding the adequacy of their proposals for sites, but we cannot set arbitrary quotas for individual districts.
  In short, we have a legislative package which balances a duty to provide sites with the availability of special controls on unauthorised camping. We try to operate it sensibly, and we are convinced that it can be made to work, if there is the will to make it work. As I have said, we are considering what further general advice we can give to local authorities to help them to do the job; and we shall continue to examine within the Department the procedures that are operated, in order to see how we can make them operate more smoothly and efficiently in support of the work that local authorities have to do in this matter.
  Unfortunately, the position in south Leeds is complicated, as we have heard from the right hon. Member. There is a history of conflict in the area and an unmet demand for further sites in the city. Partly for historical reasons, only the old Leeds county borough area has presently designated district status.
  I understand, firstly, that Leeds city council is pursuing a programme of site provision for the large numbers of gipsies currently illegally camping in the south Leeds area. This extra provision, together with the 36 pitches already being provided at the authorised site at Cottingley Springs, could bring the overall position up to a level where a designation order for the whole of Leeds might be considered. If this is granted, Leeds will be in a much stronger position to deal with illegal encampments and sudden increases in the numbers of gipsies. I say this, of course, without prejudice to any decision that my right hon. Friend takes, should an application for designation come before him.
  The House will be aware of my earlier statement on the effectiveness of the current legislation in controlling gipsy sites in local authorities designated under section 12 of the 1968 Act, in the answer I wrote to my hon. Friend, the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) set out in Hansard of 13 July.
  The provision of official sites by the private and public sector is also crucial in helping to identify quickly the circumstances in which eviction and possibly legal action might be appropriate. I have already explained that designated district status would help to take more effective action on illegal camping.
  1308
  On the more specific charges of breaches of the law and public order, the right hon. Member has, to my knowledge, already sought advice from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Government's attitude on this is quite clear and firm. We fully understand the annoyance and nuisance that can be caused by itinerants and other trespassers. We are well aware of the general distress that can be caused to ordinary citizens by groups of people who have scant regard for the laws of our society.
  The new powers introduced in the Public Order Act 1986 may be relevant for the circumstances outlined by the right hon. gentleman, although I have to say that, in general, we consider that the powers available under the caravan sites legislation are the proper solution to unauthorised camping by gipsies, since they are coupled with provision of sites. Just as clearly, the onus is on the landowner to consider whether such trespassers should leave their land. On those sites owned by Leeds city council, where illegal camping occurs, it clearly falls to the council to consider whether to instigate such action or decide whether there are other temporary measures that could be taken to ease matters. The right hon. Member will no doubt be taking this point further with his friends and colleagues on the city council, where such circumstances exist.
  The right hon. Member has referred to vacant sites in south Leeds which are attractive to gipsies. He mentioned the site of the former Hunslet Grange flats. Leeds city council intends to carry out an open space scheme. It also intends to use a site in Middleton, where some Reema blocks are to be demolished, for further open space schemes to improve the environment of the surrounding estate.
  Consequently, I trust that the right hon. Member will accept my contention and belief that there are grounds for optimism, although we all recognise the real problems that are occurring in south Leeds. I have set out how we have fairly and squarely faced up to making adequate provision for gipsy sites, not only in south Leeds, but throughout the city and also nationally.
  The current framework for provision allows suitable sites to be set up with little financial cost to the local authority, and our experience is that well run sites, meeting the likely demand generally, do not give rise to conflict in the way that unauthorised sites do.
  That conflict occurs now on illegal sites is undesirable. We have heard some evidence of the types of real problems facing the residents of south Leeds. Conflict, of course, adversely affects not only the permanent residents in conventional housing. I am also concerned that the vast bulk of the gipsy community, who are as law-abiding as the average citizen, should also have the opportunity to live in a safe and ordered environment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Dangerous Weapons
  Dangerous Weapons
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Replica Firearms
  Replica Firearms
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974
  Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974
  Dog Excrement
  Dog Excrement
  Nottinghamshire Police
  Nottinghamshire Police
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Industrial Espionage
  Industrial Espionage
  Firearms
  Firearms
DEFENCE
  Aircraft Losses
  Aircraft Losses
  NAVSTAR Guidance Satellite
  NAVSTAR Guidance Satellite
  Chemical and Biological Research
  Chemical and Biological Research
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Stock Exchange, Tokyo
  Stock Exchange, Tokyo
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  World Recession (Contingency Plans)
  World Recession (Contingency Plans)
  Lonrho
  Lonrho
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Capital Development Loans
  Capital Development Loans
  Grande Carajas Project
  Grande Carajas Project
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  University Veterinary Schools
  University Veterinary Schools
  Education Act 1980 (Appeals)
  Education Act 1980 (Appeals)
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
PRIME MINISTER
  Corfe Mullen
  Corfe Mullen
  Greenock and Port Glasgow (Enterprise Zone)
  Greenock and Port Glasgow (Enterprise Zone)
  Education Bill
  Education Bill
  Pulloxhill
  Pulloxhill
  Wales
  Wales
  Leith
  Leith
  Inner-city Areas
  Inner-city Areas
  Warwickshire
  Warwickshire
  Sir Philip Woodfield
  Sir Philip Woodfield
  Richmond Yard
  Richmond Yard
  European Council
  European Council
  State Visit (Cancellation)
  State Visit (Cancellation)
  Engagements
  Engagements
ENERGY
  Coal Industry (Investment)
  Coal Industry (Investment)
  CEGB
  CEGB
  Alternative Sources of Electricity
  Alternative Sources of Electricity
  Information
  Information
  CEGB (Capital Expenditure)
  CEGB (Capital Expenditure)
  Oil Exploration Licences
  Oil Exploration Licences
  Continental Shelf (Orders)
  Continental Shelf (Orders)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council
  Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  South Africa
  South Africa
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Divis Flats
  Divis Flats
WALES
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  Craig y Nôs Castle
  Craig y Nôs Castle
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Haemophiliacs
  Haemophiliacs
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  GEC Ltd., Treforest
  GEC Ltd., Treforest
  Education Act 1980
  Education Act 1980
  Welsh Sports Council
  Welsh Sports Council
EMPLOYMENT
  Hotels (Classification)
  Hotels (Classification)
  Career Development Scheme
  Career Development Scheme
  Sweatshops (Leicester)
  Sweatshops (Leicester)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Health and Safety Inspectors
  Training Schemes
  Training Schemes
THE ARTS
  Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries
  Regional Expenditure
  Regional Expenditure
  National Heritage Memorial Fund
  National Heritage Memorial Fund
SCOTLAND
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Nurse-Patient Ratios
  Nurse-Patient Ratios
  Dial-a-ride
  Dial-a-ride
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Rates and Water
  Rates and Water
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
  Industry (Aid)
  Industry (Aid)
  Health Service (Rates)
  Health Service (Rates)
  Fish Farms
  Fish Farms
  Manufacturing (Electricity Prices)
  Manufacturing (Electricity Prices)
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
  Dundee
  Dundee
  Accident Statistics
  Accident Statistics
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
  Job Training Scheme
  Low Pay
  Low Pay
  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Patients (Statistics)
  Patients (Statistics)
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities
  Scottish Development Agency
  Scottish Development Agency
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Lord Chancellor
  Lord Chancellor
  Treasury Indemnity Certificates
  Treasury Indemnity Certificates
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  World Economy
  World Economy
  Public Borrowing
  Public Borrowing
  International Financial Situation
  International Financial Situation
  Central Unit for Purchasing
  Central Unit for Purchasing
  Bank of England
  Bank of England
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities
  Benefit Statistics
  Benefit Statistics
  Haemophiliacs
  Haemophiliacs
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Salazopyrin
  Salazopyrin
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Birmingham Health Authorities
  Birmingham Health Authorities
  NHS (Emergency Planning)
  NHS (Emergency Planning)
  Housing Benefits
  Housing Benefits
  Benefits (Dundee)
  Benefits (Dundee)
  Kidney Stones
  Kidney Stones
  Blood Products
  Blood Products
  Tax Rates and Benefits
  Tax Rates and Benefits
  Smoking and Health (Conference)
  Smoking and Health (Conference)
  Home Help Service
  Home Help Service
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Rent (Agriculture) Act
  Rent (Agriculture) Act
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Fish Farming
  Fish Farming
  Quick-frozen Foodstuffs
  Quick-frozen Foodstuffs
  Sheep Variable Premium
  Sheep Variable Premium
  Bread-making Wheat
  Bread-making Wheat
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  National Farmers Union
  National Farmers Union
  Fishing Quotas
  Fishing Quotas
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Agricultural Produce
  Agricultural Produce
  Sheep
  Sheep
  EC Agricultural Expenditure
  EC Agricultural Expenditure
  Eutrophication
  Eutrophication
  Illegal Fishing
  Illegal Fishing
  Alternative Land Use
  Alternative Land Use
  Fish Disease
  Fish Disease
  Wool Board
  Wool Board
  Organic Farming
  Organic Farming
  Fruit and Vegetables
  Fruit and Vegetables
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Horticulture Industry
  Horticulture Industry
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Radiation
  Radiation
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Rhizomania
  Rhizomania
  Food Quality
  Food Quality
  Beef
  Beef
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Fish
  Fish
  Liquid Milk
  Liquid Milk
  Access to the Countryside
  Access to the Countryside
  New Zealand Butter
  New Zealand Butter
  Intervention Food Stores
  Intervention Food Stores
  Food (Destruction)
  Food (Destruction)
  Milk Quota
  Milk Quota
ENVIRONMENT
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Markets
  Markets
  Rates
  Rates
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Royal Docks
  Royal Docks
  Sports Policy
  Sports Policy
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Air Transport: EC Voting System
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 ratification of the Single European Act has extended majority voting in the European Community to air transport and, if so, what is the position concerning the delayed agreement on air capacity and market access in the Community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, yes. Proposals made under Article 84 of the treaty can now be adopted by the Council of Ministers acting by qualified majority. Consequently, the current proposals on capacity and market access are now subject to this procedure.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, in view of that reply can the Minister say whether market access and air capacity will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the transport ministers' council? If so, will they be able to be decided by qualified majority voting?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes. We believe that the aviation package will be on the agenda on 7th December. The substance of the package was agreed unanimously in June. Intensive bilateral negotiations are continuing with Spain, aimed at resolving the Gibraltar problem. However, it was never the intention that formal adoption of the package should depend on the outcome of bilateral talks.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister did not answer my question about majority voting. Does he realise that this is a very complicated subject for us laymen? Can he tell me whether it is correct that despite ratification of the Act, should the Council of Ministers wish a matter to be decided by qualified majority voting this can be done only if the Commission agrees with what the Ministers wish to put forward? If that is true, does it not mean that it is the Commission which decides these matters and not the Council of Ministers, whatever the Ministers may wish to propose?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, no; that is not quite right. The Council of Ministers may adopt a proposal that is before it by qualified majority. Article 149 of the treaty requires unanimity if the council is to amend the Commission's proposals. If the Commission's proposals are not to be amended, they can be decided by qualified majority.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in the light of the certainty of majority voting, can the Minister say what effect this could have on any United Kingdom policy decisions on air regulation and use of our airports? I ask that in view of the reference by the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to the London space being overcrowded. Can any of our policies be affected by majority vote?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that they could be affected by qualified majority voting. However, on the noble Lord's second point about capacity, the possible effect of liberalisation on the underlying trend towards larger aircraft was taken into account in the 1985 White Paper, Airports Policy. While it is true that liberalisation can tend to increase the number of aircraft used on certain routes without a proportionate increase in passengers, the ratio of passengers per air transport movement has remained stable at Heathrow over the past five years while at Gatwick the ratio has increased by 14 per cent. over the same period.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if majority decisions are in order at this meeting, can the Minister inform the House whether the liberalisation of air fares will be a matter that can also be dealt with at the same time? When we are talking about liberalisation, apart from access we are talking about making the nonsense of the comparison of scheduled air costs which are operated by a pseudo cartel in Europe comparable with the charges made elsewhere.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes. I tried to indicate that the whole package that was agreed in June by the Council of Ministers but which is held up at present by the dispute with Spain is subject to qualified majority voting now; and that could happen on 7th December.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while I am sure that the Minister is correct, perhaps I may ask whether I correctly understood what he said. If the Council of Ministers wishes a matter to be decided by qualified majority voting, and if the Commission does not approve of the proposal that the Ministers are wishing to put forward, can the Council of Ministers do that and not be overriden by the Commission demanding a unanimous decision?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the Council wishes to amend the Commission's proposals—which is not the case at present—it can do that only by unanimity. If it wishes to adopt the proposals which have been produced by the Commission it can do that by qualified majority voting.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am talking about matters proposed not by the Commission but by the Council. I am sorry I was not clear. If the Council of Ministers wishes to put up a matter to be decided by majority voting, and if the Commission does not approve of what the Council of Ministers is putting forward, is it correct that the Commission can overrule the Council and decide that the matter must be decided by unanimity and not by qualified majority voting?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the Commission has made or approved the proposal, the Council of Ministers can then use qualified majority voting. If, however, the Council wishes to amend or alter the Commission's proposals, that has to be decided by unanimity.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any truth in the article I read in the paper yesterday about his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary's discussions with the Spaniards, saying that the Spaniards would be allowed to use Gibraltar? Has he any further comment to make on the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have been having intensive bilateral talks with the Spaniards. These are still going on. Senior officials are engaged in intensive discussions and will be talking further next week. The Foreign Secretaries meet together at the end of this month and hopefully in time for the 7th December transport council.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply.

Children: Special Health Needs
3.8 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: 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 are the criteria for determining the number of children in need of special provision by each regional health authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, mentally and physically disabled children are one of the Government's priority groups as set out in Care in Action. It is, however, for individual health authorities to determine the level of services provided, taking into account available resources and local needs and circumstances.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that there are huge disparities over the country between different area health authorities? is he satisfied, in view of the fact that this is a priority area for the Government, with the provision in different areas?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, thanks to the warning given me by the noble Countess, I have investigated this matter. I have been advised that resources for children with special health needs are not at issue in any region of the country.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. Is the Minister aware that there are no beds for respite care in Worcester area health authority, for example?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes; that is as I have been advised. But that does not necessarily mean that there is need for those beds within a health authority. Many of those matters, as the noble Countess will know well, are decided on a regional basis.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government feel that they do not have any responsibility to suggest target figures? is that not part of their responsibility in providing a National Health Service? Is it not true that there is a very great deal of variation between different regions in the service they provide for the group of disadvantaged children about whom we are talking?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows better than anyone that the regional planning system covers all the activities in a region. Those are reviewed annually both by officials and Ministers. I can advise the House that we are currently devising ways to help health authorities to improve their monitoring, which is one of the problems.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the hospitals in the centres of our larger cities, to which people are brought from the outer areas for specialised treatment, continually claim that they are underfunded and cannot carry out such a function? My colleague the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, referred last week to the Manchester Eye Hospital. Will the Minister look into this situation? We believe that such underfunding is grossly unfair.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the greatest respect, the Question on the Order Paper is addressed not to acute services but to the requirements of children with special needs. If the noble Lord would like to address a Question to the Government generally on the point that he makes, I or one of my noble friends would be delighted to answer it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the therapy professionals, such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists and speech therapists, are very important in this group and that there is a shortage of these important people in many health authorities? Will he do as much as possible to encourage them to stay in the health service?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; indeed all the therapies that the noble Baroness mentions are extremely important to children with special needs. The Government are encouraging authorities to raise their recruitment of these specialists. I am advised that that campaign is going well.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, can the Minister tell me how many children with mental handicap there are in the different authorities, and whether he is satisfied with the provision for them now and in the long term?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a little general at this moment; but I can advise the House that there are no children with mental handicap in hospital in either Somerset or Worcester.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord look again at the situation within the Worcester Area Health Authority? I have had a number of parents asking me to raise this matter in the House. They are very concerned that there are no places for respite care. Perhaps the area health authority could be asked to reach parents of children in mentally handicapped groups.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. I shall certainly take on board the point that the noble Countess has just made.

Iran/Iraq Conflict
3.12 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have conducted any negotiations with any other nation to agree a common policy towards the Gulf conflict.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, we have played a leading role in discussions of Iran/Iraq at the United Nations Security Council. The conflict is also discussed regularly within European Political Co-operation and bilaterally with a range of countries.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I acknowledge that there are formidable practical difficulties in getting full-scale liaison. Does he agree that there seems to be better co-operation from the USSR, and that the British and American naval presence in the Gulf work very well together? Does he further agree that, although the difficulties are enormous, the Government do not regard them as insuperable? Will we try to move more closely towards unified action by all those involved in the Gulf?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is already wide international consensus on the need to end the conflict in the Gulf—I am sure the noble Lord is well aware of that—and to support Security Council Resolution No. 598. That has been demonstrated best by the Arab support that came forward at the Amman Summit. We have co-operated closely with our European partners since the conflict began and have issued numerous common statements. The important thing is to try to concert and co-ordinate a common line.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, as there is a United Nations policy on this matter, can the noble Lord tell us what success it is having in achieving peace?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, we still hope that it will be possible to further the aims of the Security Council Resolution No. 598. That must remain the key. It is also important that we support the freedom of navigation of all waterways such as the Gulf, and that is demonstrated by the presence in the Gulf of
290
naval forces from five Western European Union members: ourselves, France, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the present ad hoc naval arrangement that we have in the Gulf is working satisfactorily? Can he say a word about the four mine-sweepers and confirm the reports that we have received that they are making a valuable contribution?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the four mine-sweepers are making a valuable contribution. The arrangements for concerting and co-ordinating the approach of the naval forces there is much better done locally than by any other agency. I also assure the noble Lord that that is going particularly well.

Electricity Lines: Underground Replacement
3.14 p.m.
Baroness Strange: 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 power to direct that electricity lines replacing those which were damaged in the recent hurricane should be laid underground; and if not, whether they will take power to do so.
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his courteous but brief reply. Does he not agree that this might be a splendid opportunity to benefit the environment by removing some of the electricity cables and wires which are blocking out the views of our beautiful countryside like a tangle of old knitting?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is too early yet to reach conclusions on the lessons to be learnt from the damage caused by the hurricane which struck the South-East of England in the early hours of 16th October. However, it is already clear that much of the damage was caused not only by falling trees, which gave rise to faults to overhead lines, but also by roots pulling up underground cables.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether a buried cable is not less vulnerable than an overhead one from the point of view of enemy bombardment, terrorist action or future storms?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is right in certain respects, but installing underground cables normally costs between three and 10 times the expense of putting up overhead lines. I have here a list of eight technical reasons for not putting electricity cables underground, but I do not feel that the House will thank me for reading it out now.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I am not quite certain whether his answer, no, was to the first or the second part of the Question, or both? Is he aware that the Government probably do have power to give a general direction if they so desire, but they may not wish to? Does he accept that it could be more environmentally damaging, as well as a lot more expensive, to put cables underground? Does he agree that probably the correct answer is not to put underground all the cables that were brought down on that awful night of 16th October but for all the electricity boards to review their policies with regard to electricity cables which habitually fall during normal winter gales?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. Electricity boards are required under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1957 to take into account any effect that their proposals might have on the natural beauty of the countryside, any flora, fauna, features of special interest, buildings or other objects. Before boards are permitted to place new overhead lines they are required to obtain consent from the Secretary of State for Energy, who before granting consent takes into account any objections received.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that cost is a very big factor, in that it goes on to the consumers' electricity account in the end? That is significant and it is another reason why we should not want to put everything underground. I speak as a member of the London Electricity Board, the services of which are entirely underground and did not suffer any damage, but those cables were placed at great cost.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. I believe that I said that the cost of installing cables underground is between three and 10 times that of overhead lines. For the higher voltages, lines can be up to 40 times more expensive.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is there any danger to underground cables in the event of flooding or if they are broken by a digger or something of that kind?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should have thought that there was considerable danger from the latter.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, for those who live in wooded areas and who have regularly suffered over the years from interruptions in electricity supply, would it not be a sensible long-term policy selectively to put cables underground? I feel that here there is a question of saving money in the short term but incurring much more expenditure in the long term?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree, but it will be up to the consumer to foot the bill. The House might like to know that for private lines to houses the first 60 feet laid underground is laid free of charge and the balance is paid for by the customer, the cost being a matter of negotiation with the electricity board.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that it is claimed that it is actually harmful to health to live too close to an overhead electricity power cable and it might therefore be safer to have underground cables from a health point of view?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it depends on which was there first, the electricity cable or the house.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that underground lines also generate heat? They have to be cooled and damage to the environment occurs because they have to have cooling stations above the ground. That can be more harmful than overhead lines.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is one of the items on the list that I have not read out.

Business
3.20 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the fire at King's Cross Station.
It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will be adjourned for a period at approximately 7 p.m. and that during this adjournment the Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987 and the Welfare of Calves Regulations 1987 will be taken.

Associated British Ports Bill
3.21 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clauses:
("Petty theft to be a summary offence.
. Theft, where the value of the property alleged to have been stolen does not exceed £75, shall be a summary offence and a person convicted of such an offence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 40 I start with two premises. The first is that justice delayed is justice denied. The

293
second is that our magistrates can be trusted to deal justly with the accused who come before them. According to the Judicial Statistics for 1986, page 43, table 5, the average time it takes for a case to be called in the Crown Court is more than 14 weeks in England and Wales as a whole and almost 25 weeks in London. That time of anxious suspense is no shorter for the innocent than it is for the guilty. During that time the anxieties of the accused sharpen while the witnesses' memories fade. It is therefore itself a kind of punishment. It is meted out to the innocent as well as to the guilty and it is a means of reducing the certainty of justice when it is delivered. To reduce it, all other things being equal, must be a good thing.
It is government policy to speed up the process of the courts. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I quake somewhat to see on the Woolsack, has quite recently stated his commitment to that cause. There are various means available to him but neither appointing more judges nor building more courthouses will achieve that in anything like an acceptable length of time. The process within a law court may be very slow but the process of building one makes it look like greased lightning. If we are to bring significant relief to the system within the next few years we need something else. What I propose will bring that something else from the moment of implementation.
The offence of the petty theft of items of low value at present provides the Crown Court with 10 per cent. of its case load and consumes only a little less of its time. My amendment would simply convert that offence from an indictable to a summary status. In other words, it would transfer the hearing of the case for such offences from the Crown Court to the magistrates' courts. Your Lordships may think that to remove the threat of imprisonment—which is what the amendment does—is to take too light a view of the offence, but let me remind your Lordships of what that offence consists. It is the taking of property without the use of any violence to the person and without the causing of any physical damage to a house or vehicle in the process. This is a non-violent crime and I am increasingly persuaded that we are too free with our sentences of imprisonment for crimes of this nature.
The threat of imprisonment may be a deterrent in many cases but I learnt a sad fact when I had charge of the prison system, first under the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and then under the right honourable Member for Richmond. I am referring to the fact that nothing but nothing makes a person more likely to go to prison than the fact that he has been sent to prison before. Imprisonment is certainly a punishment. It is often a deterrent. But in no sense is it a reliable cure for crime.
The maximum fine I propose is at level 4 on the scale, which is now £1,000. In Committee my noble friend Lord Renton wondered whether that was enough. Both my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton raised in Committee the questions of aggregation of the values of the objects stolen if several instances were brought simultaneously to trial and of the treatment of second and subsequent offences. I had hoped that in taking my amendment away for consideration Her Majesty's Government
294
would have responded to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter's suggestion that they should propose a line on this at the Report stage. They have not tabled an amendment of their own and I hope they will at least vouchsafe us the line.
What are the objections to what I propose? They will be very ably deployed, no doubt with devasting effect, very shortly after I have sat down. A principal difference between the Crown Court and the magistrates' court is that in the magistrates' court there is no jury. There are just three magistrates, three Justices of the Peace, or a single stipendiary magistrate. It is argued—and some noble Lords may seek to argue today—that petty theft is an imprisonable offence and that the conviction for an imprisonable offence is such that it ought not to be awarded without the safeguard of a jury. That is wide of the mark because I have proposed to remove the sentence of imprisonment for the crime.
It is worth noting that only recently your Lordships passed in Committee, without a whisper of doubt about its appropriateness, Clause 36 of the Bill, which comes immediately before the new clause that I propose to insert. That provided without a murmur of dissent for magistrates to hand out sentences of six months in cases of common assault and battery. As for criminal damage, an earlier clause now allows them to deal with that on their own up to a maximum value of £2,000. I say that in parenthesis but it tackles the question of stigma which I know will be deployed this afternoon. The stigma of an imprisonable offence does not arise. The question of stigma for dishonesty arises in plenty of cases with which the magistrates deal already.
That might itself give a tiny help to the prison system by keeping a handful of prisoners out of it but the amendment would have an effect on our prisons far greater than that. It would reduce significantly the number of people held in them. One of the most acute reasons for overcrowding in our prisons arises from the large and growing number of prisoners held on remand awaiting trail for offences other than those which we are now discussing. On average there were about 6,000 of them in 1979. By September 1987 there were more than 11,000. They find themselves in some of the worst conditions in the whole prison system; sharing with at least one other a cell designed in the days of Queen Victoria to hold one person. Moreover, they may find themselves in such conditions for about 22 hours a day if the system is not working properly, and during the night time with the chamber pots of all the occupants as well, because there is no internal sanitation.
That is not a pleasant experience and it is not in any sense a force for rehabilitation. It is all that can be provided in most local prisons. I recognise what has been done, what is being done and what it is planned to do in the way of providing new accommodation and improving the old. Nonetheless the remand wings of our prisons are among the most cramped and overcrowded in the whole system. A major factor in the build up of this enormous pressure is the time it takes to bring a remand prisoner to trial in the Crown Court.
I am not sure whether I have even yet put this problem into proper perspective. Perhaps it will help

295
your Lordships if I say that in the south-east region of the prison system no fewer than 22 per cent. of all male prisoners and over 33 per cent. of all female prisoners have not been sentenced to imprisonment or anything else. The vast majority of them are still awaiting trial, and still waiting for the Crown Court to have the time to hear their case. Only Jarndyce v. Jarndyce could look at that with any equanimity.
Why does the Crown Court take so long? It is because it is clogged up with work, and some of that work, 10 per cent. of it, ought not to be before it in any case. That 10 per cent., estimated by the Home Office to consume more than 8 per cent. of its time, could and should be removed from it at once; and that it what this amendment would do.
These are powerful and persuasive arguments. Faced with powerful and persuasive arguments, the Government usually fall back, when all else fails, on the question of money. Proposals which they find admirable in other respects are regretfully rejected because of their cost. I have done it often enough to know. In this case, however, the boot is on the other foot. Costs, as in any change, there would certainly be. Against any savings in the Crown Court there must be set a significant increase in the work done by the magistrates' courts. That would doubtless require a transfer of resources to meet it: 80 per cent. from central government and 20 per cent. from local authorities. But even that would not be a net increase. Roughly 10 per cent. of all cases now sent to the Crown Courts from the magistrates' courts require full committal proceedings. Committal proceedings can be very protracted. We have painful memories (have we not?) of the Jeremy Thorpe case to remind us of this.
The whole of that load of committal proceedings would be lifted from the magistrates' courts by this amendment. Nonetheless, there would be an addition and it would have to be met, as I say, 80 per cent. from central government grant, but that would happily be outweighed by the savings in the prison Vote. Happily again, both Votes belong to the same department.
A remand prisoner has more privileges, costs more to maintain, and lives in greater squalor that any other. The net average cost of keeping him on remand is from £12,000 to £15,000 a year. This is one of those rare occasions where we in Parliament can present to a hard-pressed department almost ready made a chance of making savings in its own programme without adding to the costs of another.
Whatever my noble friend is instructed to say, there must be jubilation, I should have thought, at that prospect in some parts of Queen Anne's Gate, not far from the Home Secretary's office, and even a hint of a smile on the dour face of the Treasury, for once. There must be a sharp drop also (must there not?)—I would ask the Minister whether he could quantify this—in the cost of the legal aid programme since the cases that we have taken out of the Crown Court, if we are wise, will be so much cheaper to pursue.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice spoke strongly for this measure in Committee. He has written since to me to say that he regrets he cannot be
296
here today but he remains in favour of what I have proposed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, said in Committee that he wished to support with all the force he could the amendment that I put then. He also has written in support and saying that he has to be elsewhere. I think I have deployed sufficient arguments to warrant a reply. I shall reserve the rest of my powder to reply to the reply. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, there is a famous English institution which has as a motto, as I recollect, "I mean well". I would wish that that motto be applied to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, this afternoon. There is not the slightest doubt that the purpose that he has is a worthy one; namely, the speeding up of justice, the saving of money to the Treasury, and also economising on the legal aid fund. But before one speeds up justice one has to be sure that justice itself is going to be granted. Looking at matters first of all objectively and then from the point of view of the defendant, may I quickly summarise the reasons why we on these Benches would oppose this amendment.
First of all, your Lordships will appreciate that the penalty for theft in regard to values under £75 would be limited to a fine. Those over that amount would be imprisonable. I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment, if you were sitting as the sentencing judge or magistrate, which would your Lordships regard as the grimmer offence: someone who stole a radio from a Rolls-Royce, the radio being worth more than £75, or the person who stole the last £5 of a widow? I believe I know the answer. In those circumstances I ask your Lordships to consider before you would pass an amendment which would make the stealing from the widow a matter for a fine and the stealing of a radio from a Rolls-Royce possibly a matter for imprisonment.
I turn to the next point. It is not an original one so far as I am concerned but one which I remember was raised in Committee. The noble Lord who raised it will forgive me if I do not remember his name because I would wish obviously to give him credit for it. It was that as you have this amendment before you your Lordships will observe that if somebody keeps on stealing something below £75 and makes sure that his valuation is precise, and possibly can afford to have an official valuer with him on each occasion, it would mean that he could perpetrate 20 thefts of this kind below £75 knowing that when he appears before the friendly and now familiar face of the local magistrate the magistrate will only be able to administer a fine.
I turn lastly to the justice from the point of view of the defendant. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was quite right to forecast that this point would be made. It is an obvious one but nevertheless a true one. The stigma of theft is one of the gravest that can be put against anybody's character. Not to have the opportunity of being tried by his peers, as for all serious crimes, would be quite wrong whatever the value of the thing alleged to have been stolen, even if it were a bottle of milk.
I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me in conclusion—and I promise in conclusion—to tell you of a case that I shall always remember. I was a young advocate at the time and I was appearing in Bow Street magistrates' court. The case before mine was a

297
case of a tramp who was wandering down Charing Cross Road and was alleged to have stolen somebody's wallet. The magistrate heard the case very quickly. He was a just magistrate. The fact that he heard it quickly did not mean that he was not giving due attention to the case. He heard the story of somebody wandering down Charing Cross Road who was accosted by the tramp, who asked him the time. He gave him the time and tramp hurried away. He thought he noticed that his pocket was touched. He immediately felt in his pocket and found a wallet missing.
The tramp was hurrying away and the gentleman concerned called out, "Stop thief!" After what appeared to be a lapse of time when something could have been thrown away, the tramp was stopped and he was duly arrested by a police officer who came from the nearby vicinity. He appeared in the court and gave evidence and told the magistrate, in my hearing, that he really wanted to know the time and that he had hurried away because he was due to meet a pal somewhere near Trafalgar Square. The magistrate said, "There is too much of this going on. I have heard that story before. Guilty. I want this man remanded for a report".
I then conducted my case, and I was asked by the clerk of the court if I minded being interrupted. I said, "Certainly not". The man, having travelled down Charing Cross Road, reappeared in a flustered condition. He told the learned magistrate that he had been home, had looked at another of his suits and found the wallet inside. He wanted to apologise to the court and to everybody concerned. The magistrate, being the man that he was, said, "Call this man up at once. Of course he will be acquitted. The day's hearing has not yet finished and I can deal with the matter in that way. I must not say again that I have heard this type of case before".
Juries have not heard that type of case before and that is why our system of trial by jury is so valuable in our criminal law.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Elton most warmly. I am also pleased to hear that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, also support the proposal, although they are unable to be present.
I speak in support of the proposal because of the experience of judges who have had to deal with trial by magistrates and trial by jury. Our magistrates are of first-rate quality. They are the best citizens in the land, intelligent and well able to deal with such cases. They are well aware of the burden of proof: that a man is not to be found guilty unless the case is proved against him beyond reasonable doubt. Trial by magistrates is a first-rate tribunal. I should not like to say the same about trial by jury, although I have the greatest regard for it in all serious and important cases.
Let us think about the matter. As my noble friend said, justice delayed is justice denied. That applies to both sides; not only to the accused but also to the prosecution. If witnesses are to be called, let them be called as soon as possible, while their memories are clear, and not after a delay of 14 months. Delay is
298
advantageous to the defendant; it does not help the prosecution.
In my experience, ordinary, decent folk charged with petty theft—for that is what it is—would say, "Let us get it over with now and decide the matter before the magistrates so that I shall know the worst now". I fear that the right to trial by jury is abused—and I shall say it plainly—by some lawyers representing the accused. They will say that they want to elect for trial by jury because they know what will happen. The case will not be tried for six or nine months, or whatever it may be, until the Crown Court can take it. Mark you, how good for the lawyers! Legal aid will be available, the lawyer will be able to delay the case and, although I think it is wrong, he will hope to have a better chance of getting his client off. In other words, I am afraid that a request for trial by jury is sometimes abused by lawyers defending the accused. There are all the reasons which have been given by my noble friend.
Are the Crown Courts to be filled with what many judges consider to be trivial cases? I agree that they are small cases but important to the individual. But do not let Crown Courts be filled up with such cases. Let the magistrates, a first-rate tribunal, deal with them. I am sure that most defendants would agree with that view. I support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, my experience is much less than that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. However, perhaps it has the slight compensating factor of being rather more recent. I should like to dissociate myself entirely from the view of trial by jury which has just been put forward. I believe that it flies in the teeth of the evidence. I believe the evidence is perfectly clear; that of every 100 cases which are tried by a jury, selected at random but presided over by an experienced judge who has not been selected at random, 99 cases would have exactly the same result if they had been tried by a stipendiary magistrate or by lay justices.
Of course there is the occasional marginal case where views may vary, just as there would be if the same case were tried by two different courts of lay justices. However, if one looks at the acquittal and conviction rates and at the inquiries that have been made of the views of trial judges of the verdicts in cases where they have presided, one inevitably comes to the conclusion that a jury is a thoroughly dependable part of our criminal system. I am deeply sorry that such a distinguished noble and learned Lord should venture to cast doubts upon the system.
Equally, the noble and learned Lord is not right when he says that advocates elect trial by jury because, to use his words, there is a better chance of getting an accused off. There is not. Advocates elect trial by jury for a simple reason. In a jury trial one has the opportunity to obtain all the evidence of the prosecution in advance, to study it and prepare and plan the answer on behalf of the defence. It is for that reason that lawyers elect for trial by jury and for no other.
In those circumstances, I suggest that that argument—which might be at the back of the minds of some members of the Committee but which is at

299
the front of the mind of the noble and learned Lord—is not a reason for supporting the amendment. Nor was it a reason put forward, if I may say so, in a moderate, clear and well-argued speech by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I believe that the issues are those of expediency and eventually of principle.
On expediency, it is said that trials might come on more quickly if they are dealt with by magistrates. In the case of contested charges of dishonesty I am not sure that that is right. Today the vast majority of committal proceedings are purely formal. The case is dealt with instantly before the magistrates' court and does not occupy 30 seconds of the court's time. The case will go to the Crown Court in perhaps four, six, eight or 10 weeks—whatever the normal waiting time for a case. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will say that that is too long, and I agree. Nevertheless, the case will be heard in that period of time.
If it is a contested case of dishonesty that is liable to last for two or three days, the same case will take at least the same period of time before being heard in a magistrates' court because of the pressure of work upon them. That applies particularly to lay justices in rural areas, who inevitably find themselves sitting the odd half day or two a week and who find it difficult to assemble together for two or three consecutive days in order to try a case of that nature.
In those circumstances, it is not right to say that cases will necessarily be tried more speedily if we remove them from the Crown Courts. The other argument is that the pressure on the Crown Courts is so great—and there is so little pressure on the magistrates' courts—that it is a way of doing a balancing act. Noble Lords who serve with such distinction as lay justices will know perfectly well that that argument is inaccurate. Lay justices are under the same pressure of time as are the Crown Courts.
One is then left with the issue of principle raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Is it right to say that because some offences of dishonesty happen to involve less than £75 they are somehow less serious than other offences which involve a larger sum? It is clear that the alleged theft of £1 may have far more serious consequences for some people than the alleged theft of £100,000 has for others.
The idea that one can fix an artificial limit of £75 is almost indefensible. Let us take an absurd example and suppose the theft concerned a piece of antique furniture. One would have the Gilbertian situation that before the case began the Crown would argue that the so-called Chippendale was worth only £74; but the defendant would argue to the contrary, saying that he would call expert evidence to prove that it was a genuine Chippendale, worth thousands of pounds and that therefore he was entitled to trial by jury. One cannot differentiate between offences of dishonesty on the basis of the sum involved.
I should like to make one final observation which I have made before and which I make no apology for repeating. In supporting the right of a person who is charged with an offence of dishonesty, a conviction for which may affect his whole life, his standing in his family and the community, to have trial by jury, I am
300
in no way criticising the competence or ability of lay justices. Of course it is not a criticism. But if there is a trial by jury and a verdict of guilty or not guilty is given by 12 people who are chosen at random from the community, that verdict is one that the whole community and the defendant himself accept as final. In those circumstances I suggest that the balance of argument is overwhelmingly against this amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I wish that I had been able to speak to this amendment at Committee stage. Unfortunately at that time I was on the steps of the Throne and could not speak from there.
I have very great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and much sympathy with his intention in moving this amendment, but I cannot support it. I could not support it even if the maximum sum involved were only 75p. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, emphasised the stigma that is cast on the character of an individual for his lifetime by a conviction for theft however paltry the amount involved. It has not at all the same effect as a conviction for a parking offence or speeding on the motorway.
I wonder how many noble Lords, and especially noble and learned Lords, have any idea of the ease with which one can inadvertently shoplift. I know it is easy because I have done it on two or three occasions. However, I have been lucky enough to get out of the shop without being arrested and, having realised what I had done, quickly returned to pay for the goods that I had with me. On one occasion early in the morning I went into Selfridges to buy an umbrella. Having chosen an umbrella I looked around for a till or an assistant in order to pay but the entire department was empty. I walked through the shop looking for someone to whom I could offer the money but on the way my eye was caught by a rack of belts. Since I wanted a belt, I paused, hung the umbrella over my arm and looked through them. Not finding a belt that I liked, I walked out of the shop, but by then I had completely forgotten the umbrella that was still over my arm. As I was walking down the street a few minutes later it started to rain and I was about to open the umbrella when I remembered that I had not paid for it. I managed to return to Selfridges and pay for it, without being caught.
Such things are all too easy. Just in case any of your Lordships think that such things happen only to middle-aged women, I must tell them that it is not true. I told the story only a couple of days ago to a youngish Peer, who said, "Yes, exactly the same thing happened to me in the local supermarket not long ago". It is only too easy to take goods if one is preoccupied or suddenly distracted, for example, by meeting a friend.
I think that in those circumstances it is quite unacceptable to deny the victim a trial by his peers, however long it may take, and the chance of clearing his name and character.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, of course I realise that there are arguments on both sides of this matter. I must say to the noble Lady who has just spoken that on the facts of the case that she has

301
anecdotally recounted, in my experience certainly she would have been acquitted either by a jury or by a magistrate. I do not take much notice of such stories. However, I should like to bring forward one or two factors of which, at any rate at this stage of the Bill, I do not think the House has been informed—although perhaps the House was informed of them in Committee but I was not present on that occasion, for which I must apologise.
The argument has quite a long history behind it. When first I was Lord Chancellor I learned of a case that took up a day and a half of the Crown Court's time. It concerned a man who was charged with stealing not a bottle of milk, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, but an empty milk bottle I wonder whether that is really a rational way to conduct criminal justice.
The James Committee, formed under the chairmanship of the late Lord Justice James, came to the conclusion that smaller thefts, at any rate in principle, should be triable by magistrates and that it should not rest entirely with the defendant to say whether or not he should be tried by magistrates. I remind the House that in an appeal against conviction or indeed against sentence from the magistrates there is a complete rehearing by the Crown Court, which consists of again considering the evidence on both sides. My view is that for a case of such a lack of importance that is an adequate safeguard for the burden and standard of proof which is quite rightly demanded in criminal cases.
When the James Committee report ultimately came to be implemented by the then Labour Government, I sat approximately where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, is now sitting, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, produced an amendment not very different from that of my noble friend Lord Elton today. It was then my painful duty to have to tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—and I hope that he will not complain that I have broken a confidence—that I had been informed by the Conservative Whips that, although I supported the amendment of the then Labour Government, it would not go through the House. So, in order not to waste the time of the House the amendment was withdrawn. However, sooner or later we must grasp the nettle, whether or not it takes the exact form that my noble friend Lord Elton has proposed.
I attach a very great deal less importance to the stigma argument than did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Let us take the case of the late Professor Joad, who effectively stole from the railway company (or whatever it was at that time) the money represented by the ticket for a journey between Reading and Paddington—I think it was Paddington. He could only be tried by magistrates. He told a totally untruthful story and he was convicted. However, if he had taken a book of the same value from Woolworth's, with the same dishonest intent, then morally and in the sight of God he would have been neither more nor less guilty than he was when he stole the money from the railway company. The idea is absurd that a stigma attaches to the act of stealing because it is technically stealing in
302
English law but not to stealing from railway companies. The maximum penalty that Professor Joad could have been given and was given by the magistrates was, I think, a 40-shilling fine. But the stigma attached to him was absolutely identical. In fact, it ruined him, because the BBC, who at that time was his principal employer, would not employ him again for ever and a day.
If I were asked myself—and I do not put myself forward as one who would dare cast the first stone at anybody else—would it do me much more harm in the eyes of the public if I were to commit a deliberately cruel act on a dog or steal a book from a railway bookstall, I think it would do me far more harm to be convicted of a cruel act to a dog or neglecting a child. These things are triable summarily only, but I would be entitled to trial by jury if I took the book. I regard this as wholly irrational and we do not want therefore to approach this matter in quite the emotional way that some people are inclined to do.
I remember the very tragic case of Lady Barnett, who was quite a habitual shoplifter, as subsequently emerged. She was quite rightly, in the state of the then existing law—because in the state of the then existing law you were not allowed to know the case for the prosecution, except for the bare allegation—advised by her advisers to go for trial by jury, which of course she had the right to do. I believe that she would have had exactly the same result had she been tried by magistrates, but with this rather considerable difference. The publicity which the delay and the double hearing of committal and trial by jury attracted so affected her that she took her own life. I am quite sure that she would be alive today if the amendment proposed by my noble friend had been the law.
I think that there are very strong arguments on both sides. I took the point—and if he will allow me to say so it was very well made—of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The habitual offender who habitually steals on a small scale is far worse than the person who steals once and rather a lot. My own view, for what it is worth, is that it should rest with the magistrates' court and not simply with the defendant to say whether a case ought to be tried by jury or whether it could be dealt with adequately by magistrates. There are of course cases of very small thefts which raise rather interesting and complicated points of law; and this is a point which has not, I think, hitherto been raised in this debate. I think that they should go to the Crown Court, because a good question of law on a case of theft is rather worth discussing between lawyers, even with legal aid, though it is rather expensive.
But simply as a matter of principle, I must say that having viewed the point more than once in the past 17 years I would side with my noble friend Lord Elton. However, I am not absolutely sure that the way to do it is to reduce the penalty and limit it to a relatively modest fine and not leave it to the discretion of the court to consider whether the seriousness of the facts demands the time, expense, anxiety and delay involved in a jury trial, and whether the case cannot best be dealt with in the magistrates' court, subject of course to the right of appeal by way of rehearing if the defendant feels that he is aggrieved by conviction.
4 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble and learned Lord and support the amendment, in so far as it should be right to have summary trial rather than the expensive and long drawn-out procedure of going to a higher court. The only thing that concerns me, as with the noble and learned Lord, is whether you should have a fixed penalty.
As your Lordships know, I work in the field of crime prevention and I can assure the noble Lady that the one-off person who actually makes a mistake is not the person we are dealing with in the courts. It is a group of persons who set out deliberately to steal vast sums of money, which does not cost the shops the money; it costs us, the honest customers. The price is put up because of the losses. So the idea that the shop has to bear the loss is quite ridiculous.
I think that a real villain will work out whether it is worth having a go to steal something worth £75 or over, if he is going to be caught and then fined only a certain amount. It is rather like putting your money on the pools. You make a balanced judgment. So I think that there is great merit in the new clause, but we have to be careful of the fixed penalty.
I feel very often that barristers, counsel, suggest to their client "If you go before a jury you will get off—. I think that is one of the reasons for what happens. Of course they will all deny it, and naturally any Members of your Lordships' House who have to declare an interest will deny it. But to me there is little doubt that there is a good case for saving the time of the higher court in the case of offences which can be dealt with easily and sharply. The only qualification I have is about the question of the penalty.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she agree that the advice a barrister gives to his client on the question of going to trial may depend very much on who is sitting on the Bench?
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I think that rather makes it worse. I remember that when I was sitting as a magistrate the street traders had got it weighed up. When they came into court in Great Marlborough Street and saw three women—and we were sensible judges—they would pass the bush telegraph out to the others saying "We have got three women in there today. Who is coming up next week?" The answer would be "Oh, so-and-so", to which the reply was "Oh, he is very easy meat". Your Lordships must know that people have their own assessments. Thieves and villains are not idiots. They are only idiots when they are caught.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Elton, when he moved his amendment quite a time ago, referred to a point which I had made when we discussed a similar if not identical amendment on the Committee stage. That relates to the fact that under his amendment as it now stands, and as the amendment stood at the Committee stage, in no circumstances can a sentence of imprisonment be imposed—if this becomes law—in respect of any theft of less than £75.
304
Your Lordships have discussed the matter rather on the basis of one single offence, and you may well think that it is not necessary to consider imprisonment in respect of one such offence. But what is to happen in one of the two following cases, one of which I mentioned on the Committee stage? Suppose that a pickpocket—that is the type of person who commits this kind of offence—robs in the course of a lucrative evening eight or 10 people of money, watches or anything else worth about £60 each. As I understand the amendment, those would be separate charges and in respect of none of them could the person concerned be sent to prison, because he would not have committed any one offence in respect of theft worth more than £75.
The other example is the case of the persistent offender when it is the second, third, fifth, fifteenth, twentieth or thirtieth offence of this kind with which he is charged. There are petty thieves, particularly of the pickpocket type, who, it would seem to me at any rate, should in many cases be sent to prison for a substantial term. They will not be discouraged by a fine. If they are making quite a good living out of minor thefts, even if they are fined quite substantially, they will regard the fine perhaps as nothing more than the tax paid on their earnings. At the present rates of taxation on high earnings, the fine would probably amount to less than the income tax on somebody's high salary.
This amendment is surely incomplete as it stands. I understood my noble friend to admit that when he said that he had hoped that Her Majesty's Government would put down a further amendment to deal with these points. He rightly drew attention to the fact that Her Majesty's Government have not done so. That presents your Lordships with a simple question. Are we prepared to say that, however many thefts are committed either at the same time or in succession in respect of items worth less than £75, the person concerned cannot be sent to prison? If your Lordships do so decide we shall see a substantial increase in the very large contemporary volume of petty thefts. For that reason if the matter stands as it now stands I should feel bound to vote against the amendment of my noble friend.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, most of us would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, but it is not on the point of this amendment. The amendment concerns how somebody should be tried. If the effect of that trial means that certain sentences which are passed would be inadequate, it is for the Government to put that right.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the amendment he will see that it prescribes that the only penalty for conviction for such an offence will be a fine.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, if that is so I have not entirely followed the amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord would correct it. On the principle of the thing, I find myself on the noble Lord's side. I was very much involved in the tragic case of Lady Barnett. I was a close neighbour of hers

305
and I knew her very well. She was a beautiful woman, and most intelligent and charming. She did a great deal of public service. She had a charming husband, but a defective son, to whom most of her life was devoted.
When this awful thing was hanging over her one of the people who was loyal to her throughout. and whom I admired enormously for it, was the first wife of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. She was a very loyal friend to Lady Barnett. I feel equally with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that if there had not been the hanging about that is involved in a jury trial. Lady Barnett might have got over her difficulty.
On the question of the advantage of a jury trial, I agree that it very rarely affects the result. The result is normally what the judge wants, directs and leaves. But a jury trial has, if I may say so, the effect of enormously improving the behaviour of a judge. Judges without jury are often quite intolerable. They have nobody to play to. It can be a penance to have to conduct a case in front of a judge in those circumstances. If there is a jury, they play to a jury and they are apt to behave themselves.
I put it in that way. But as regards these very small cases the whole emotional build-up to the trial is a weight which I do not think should be put on people who are charged with trivial offences. Of course the pickpocket and the perpetual offender should he liable to a proper penalty but that can be adjusted.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, a few minutes ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, referred to the debate that we had in this House 10 years ago on exactly this question. I then, as he rightly said. defended a Bill which contained a proposition of this kind. It was not a question of an amendment being moved but of its being a proposal of the then government. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord who is not able to be with us today, but it is an open secret that the Lord Chancellor's Department at that time was far more enthusiastic about the proposition than was the Home Office.
When this matter came to this House it did so in the context not only of severe criticism of the then government because of the proposal—the figure was then £20 rather than £75—but it met with a storm of criticism in this House. That criticism was led by the late Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I think it is right, in view of the fact that two noble and learned Lords have spoken in favour of this amendment, to remind the House, particularly those Members who were present, what Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest said, because it comes to the central issue of principle which we are discussing this afternoon.
I quote from Col. 672 of the Official Report of 27th January 1977. The noble and learned Lord was moving an amendment at that time to exclude the particular provision from the Bill. He said:
"Take the case of a man charged with stealing a £5 note. Supposing he says, 'I am entirely innocent, and I want this matter investigated in the way in which it has always been possible for someone placed as I am to have it investigated'. He may say, 'I can well understand
306
that there were circumstances which caused some people to take a mistaken view. I can well understand how it comes about that I was charged, but I am absolutely innocent, and I want to run no risk whatsoever. I want to have this case fully investigated. I want to have the case for the prosecution developed so that I know fully what it is. If I go for trial I will have a professional judge, and there will he 12 of my countrymen who will be deciding whether I am guilty or not. I am convinced that they will, without doubt, say that I am innocent'".
That was what the noble and learned Lord said on that occasion. I am bound to say that I found that and the rest of his speech almost entirely persuasive, and for rather different reasons, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will recall, did the then Lord Chancellor. He eventually accepted the amendment and it was as a result of that excluded from the Bill.
I remember the briefing I had then from the Home Office on this issue. The research indicates that it does not make an enormous amount of difference whether a trial is held at a magistrates' court or at a Crown Court. because the percentage acquittal rates are remarkably similar. But that is not the central issue. If I may say so, the central issue is the one which the noble Baroness raised half an hour or more ago in relation to a shoplifting charge.
On the rare occasions that I have sat in court and heard cases of that kind being argued I have often found the issue to be extremely evenly balanced. What was the motive of the woman who it is alleged stole some groceries? I think that if that woman feels that her whole reputation is at stake—that is what we are discussing, a blameless reputation—she is entitled to a jury trial if she wants one. She may be mistaken, but in my view she should have the absolute right to insist on a jury trial. It would be a profound error were we to pass this amendment. We should become involved in some absurd discussion regarding the price of the goods involved, whether they amounted to £74 or £76. That is especially so when, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, there are other implications in the amendment, particularly in relation to the penalties which can be exacted.
I return to the central issue. If a man or woman believes that his or her entire reputation is involved, it would be wholly wrong for us to prevent them facing trial at the court of their choice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I opposed this amendment, in a slightly different form, in Committee. The amendment has the support of three of the noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches and of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, and therefore one has to approach the reasoned justification for the amendment with some care. The whole argument in justification, which I propose to suggest is entirely flawed, warrants the most serious and careful attention.
In opposing the amendment, I have much in mind the mild reproof so aptly delivered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, in Committee, that we should not indulge in "any sort of histrionics". I accept that emotive content ill serves any process of reasoning, and that we must approach this subject, for there are two points of view, on the basis of reasoning and nothing else.

307
I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that the examples given by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, would, if she were charged, have resulted in an acquittal in any form of trial. But that, perhaps, is beside the main point of the discussion. This is a matter upon which I feel deeply, but I shall keep my personal feelings out of it. To shorten the matter, I wish to support, for the sake of the record, everything that has been so ably said by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Wigoder, and to accept their process of reasoning which was moderate and closely put together.
What is the justification? In effect, on analysis, there are three heads, the first of which is to relieve overcrowding in prisons. But other means are available, and it would assuredly be possible to limit first convictions for these offences, where the value is under £75, to a fine, even if convicted on indictment before a jury. Therefore, the logic of that argument, I submit, is flawed, and the logic of each head of argument for justification is flawed.
In any event, the amendment is not apt to deal—and this is the crucial point on this form of drafting, taken first by my noble friend Lord Boyd?Carpenter—with a series of similar charges or with the persistent offender when a sentence of imprisonment, albeit suspended, is the only appropriate sentence.
The second justification is to relieve the congestion in Crown Courts. Other means must be found which do not dilute the quality of justice.
The third and last head is the saving in public expenditure in the context of jury trials, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, tells us cost some £4,000 a day. The noble and learned Lord said:
"On any rational basis, sentiment apart, trial by the justices, with no option for jury trial … seemed to be the obvious answer",—[Official Report, 26/10/87; col. 373.]
but surely if and only if costs are the predominant concern. Again, I respectfully submit that the argument is flawed because in this matter cost should never be the predominant concern. It is understandable if one takes the standpoint that cost is the predominant concern, as the noble and learned Lord did when he referred to jury trial as a luxury. But I do not, with respect, take that standpoint. It is for that reason that I suggest that the argument is flawed. If it is a luxury where the value of the goods stolen is £100, I suppose that it is no doubt an extravagant luxury to have a jury trial where the value of the goods stolen is £75.
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, referred to stealing milk bottles and shoplifting a tin of beans. But the value of such matters is no more than £1 or so, and the amendment goes far wide of any such minimal mark. There is no proposal before your Lordships in this amendment, or in any other, to limit the value to, say, £5—a few milk bottles or a tin of beans—or to establish some sort of petty pilfering offence triable by magistrates. That proposal is not before your Lordships and it is not involved in this amendment. Therefore, the reference made by the noble and learned Lord was quite beside the effective mark.
308
I suggest that the rational objection to the amendment rests upon some simple propositions. First, the essence of this offence is dishonest intent in circumstances where a conviction can not only change a man's life but alter his whole way of living and adversely affect his means of livelihood with grave social and other consequences.
Secondly, objection is taken because if it is right, and it is assuredly right, that the essential factor is dishonest intent, must it not inevitably be wrong in principle in such circumstances to treat the value of goods stolen as a determining factor to exclude trial by jury?
I am interested to know the answer when my noble friend replies to each of those objections, which I hope are reasoned objections, and which are not put forward in any emotive vein.
The third simple proposition is that trial by a stipendiary (a single professional) or by a Bench of magistrates on an issue of dishonest intent affords no substitute, in the eyes of the accused, for the safeguards of the composite wisdom of a jury. Other points have been made respectively by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. They stand on their record. They are valid points and require no repetition.
The last objection to the amendment is that the incidence of the exclusion is arbitrary, haphazard and wholly unacceptable. It is wholly unacceptable that an absent-minded professor who walks out of a bookshop forgetting to pay for a book to the value of £74 has no trial by jury; and if the value is £80 has a trial by jury. In those circumstances, if value is to be the crucial issue determining whether there will be a jury trial, then on the border-line cases one will be driven to a preliminary trial on the issue of value—how absurd, what a waste of time, how arbitrary, how unsatisfactory.
For these reasons, which I hope are sufficiently reasoned for your Lordships, I hope that the House will not accept the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, in my opinion, the debate has gone on much too long as lawyers' debates tend to do.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice, described juries as a luxury. They may he. What is real luxury is prison. We cannot afford to send petty offenders to prison on the scale that we do. I have been working all my life to try to stop this—the situation has become steadily worse with crimes getting pettier and pettier and sentences more and more frequent. Therefore, I could not support my noble colleagues by voting against the amendment. The amendment is not correct in my view and needs a good deal of handling, but I shall certainly not vote against it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Elton raised this matter on Second Reading and in Committee I thought it right to approach it with an open mind. During the Committee debate and again this afternoon powerful arguments have been made in support of my noble

309
friend's amendment and equally powerful ones against it. I do not need to weary your Lordships now by repeating what other noble Lords have already expressed most persuasively. But I have taken very careful note of what has been said.
I sense that there is considerable agreement that by and large minor cases of theft can and perhaps should be tried in the magistrates' court. My noble friend Lord Elton and other noble Lords have drawn attention to the sizeable reduction in Crown Court business and, to a lesser extent, the prison population, which would be effected by the amendment. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have rightly pointed out that there would be a corresponding increase in the workload of the magistrates. I sense that there is somewhat less widespread agreement about whether a tine of £1,000 is the right maximum penalty. Some noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, have argued that while this may be adequate for first-time offenders more severe measures are required for persistent offenders and especially the "professional" petty thieves.
My noble friend Lord Elton said that his case was absolutely indisputable
"if all other things were equal".
But of course not everything else is equal in this world.
Where I detect a profound difference of view is in the issue of principle which lies at the heart of the matter: the availability of jury trial for those charged with offences of dishonesty. Many noble Lords have argued—and opinion has certainly not split along party lines—that it would be wrong to remove jury trial from an offence which society views with such seriousness and which carries with it a special stigma; a conviction for theft, albeit a minor theft, is sufficient to destroy a person's good reputation. I should say that I should not myself defend this view with quite the passion which has been elicited by, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I think it is right to acknowledge that many offences are entrusted to the magistrates to try, including some which can have a damaging effect on a person's career or reputation. But I am bound to recognise the force with which noble Lords from different Benches in your Lordships' House have opposed the amendment on the deeply and sincerely held belief that it is wrong in principle.
I answer now the question of my noble friend Lord Elton about legal aid savings. We estimate that if 10,000 petty theft cases were transferred from the Crown Court to the magistrates' court, the reduction in legal aid expenditure on those cases would be of the order of £2·8 million. Whether such savings would materialise in any particular year is dependent on whether other cases are brought on earlier.
My noble friend Lord Elton has done the House a great service by raising this most important and difficult matter in a way that has enabled it to be thoroughly analysed and explored in debate. I believe that the issues are finely balanced. I am bound to say, however, that the very strong doubts that noble Lords have expressed and the absence of general agreement on the principle underlying the
310
amendment make me doubt whether it would be wise to add such a provision to the Bill at this stage in its progress. In the clauses that we have earlier agreed, we shall be providing some much needed relief for the Crown Courts. I should prefer to leave it at that. Much though I sympathise with my noble friend's motives in bringing forward this proposal, I therefore hope he will not press it to a vote; and, if he does so, I fear that I could not advise your Lordships to amend the Bill as he proposes.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to those noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I am almost equally grateful to those noble Lords who have resisted it, thus bringing into the open the forces that I have to overcome. It is always easier to defend an enemy that one sees.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, put me in a new position. Members of another place have often been quoted to me but never members of still another place, as the late Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest now sadly is.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—I shall speak only briefly to his speech—said that in making imprisonment available on subsequent offences but not on the first offence we should relieve the pressure on the prisons. Relief of pressure on the prisons will come not from a change in sentence for the offence; but as a result of relief of the load on the Crown Court that will come from converting the offence into a summary offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, reminded your Lordships that magistrates too are very busy. It is difficult to give an exact comparison of statistics with those that I have given for the Crown Court. If your Lordships refer to Issue No. 33 of the Statistical Bulletin published this year by the Home Office. they will see in table I that the average time from charge to completion on an indictable offence is 74 days, on a summary non-motoring offence, 54 days, on a summary motoring offence, 71 days and on all offences, 68 days, compared with 98 days in the Crown Court.
A number of your Lordships said that to be charged with this offence is the worst possible slur on a person's character and that magistrates are not up to taking a decision on such matters. In fact, magistrates take a decision whether or not to send someone to prison for six months under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and I do not doubt that they do so in other respects. These are relatively minor considerations.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that sooner or later we shall have to grasp this nettle. He is doubtful whether we shall seize it in this form. I said at the Committee stage, and I repeated it in my introduction, that I believed that there was room for improvement in this amendment because it did not tackle the question of cumulative offences nor did it tackle the question of the aggregation of values in individual offences tried together. I asked about that at the beginning of this debate. I had hoped that the Government would give us a line on this matter, but they have not. Therefore this is something which I shall have to take on board myself and I cannot do it at this stage.

311
I shall consider coming back to your Lordships at Third Reading, making these provisions and collecting several of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Paget, on the way. I repeat that justice delayed is justice denied. Magistrates' courts deliver justice. When I return, if I do, at Third Reading I shall have no hesitation in running up the flag that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, ran up so often in engagements with me in the past by reminding the people sitting behind him, when he makes his points again, that this is not a party political issue and that they should vote according to their views.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he kindly remind me of any sentence that I uttered which made this a party issue? Does he remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, rose in the course of this debate and very resolutely, as is her way, opposed everything that I had said?
Lord Elton: My Lords, reversing the words of the noble Baroness makes it better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

King's Cross Station: Fire
4.41 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport about the fire at King's Cross Station last night. The Statement is as follows:
"At about 7.40 p.m. last night a fire broke out at King's Cross Underground Station on an escalator connecting the underground ticket hall to the Piccadilly Line platforms. Thirty people have lost their lives as a result of the fire. There has been extensive damage to the station ticket hall.
"The injured have been taken to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, University College Hospital, Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, and the Whittington Hospital. Ten people are still detained.
"I am sure the whole House would wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families of those who have died and to those who have been injured.
"I should like to pay tribute to all those involved in the rescue operations, especially the fire service, one of whose members lost his life in the fire, the Metropolitan and the British Transport Police, one of whose officers is seriously injured; and to the ambulance service, the hospitals involved and the staff of the London Underground. They all worked with the utmost bravery in apalling conditions to deal with the casualties and with the large numbers of members of the public who were trapped underground by the smoke and flames. Without their dedication, the numbers of casualties would undoubtedly have been even greater.
"I have decided that a formal investigation should be held into the disaster, conducted under the provisions of the Railway Acts. The evidence will be heard in public. I hope to be able to announce very shortly, after discussion with my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, the name of a senior lawyer to head the inquiry. The inquiry will be assisted by a member of the department's railway inspectorate and by an expert in fires and fire prevention. The detailed arrangements for the inquiry will be announced as soon as possible. It will be for the inquiry to establish the causes of the disaster and to make recommendations to ensure that all possible lessons are learnt. Its report will be published.
"London Regional Transport, in collaboration with the police and fire services, is already examining the causes of the accident and its findings will be made available to me and to the formal investigation.
"I understand from London Regional Transport that the Metropolitan and Circle lines through King's Cross are operating normally. Services on the Victoria, Piccadilly and Northern lines were suspended this morning but LRT hopes that they will be resumed later today, although initially trains will not stop at King's Cross station. It is too early to say when normal services will be resumed.
"Every year the London Underground carries over 750 million passengers. I deeply regret that its generally fine record of safety has been marred by this accident. I am sure the thoughts of all honourable Members of this House are with the injured, their families and those who have been bereaved".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating this Statement given by the Secretary of State. Although little of practical value can be said at this stage, it provides an opportunity for the whole House to join with the Secretary of State and the Government in expressing sympathy to the families of the 30 persons who have died and to the many who are injured, some of them critically.
It also provides an opportunity for every noble Lord to join in the tribute which has been rightly paid to all members of the emergency services which were listed in the Statement. It refers to their dedication. This is instanced by the fact that one member of the fire service has lost his life and a member of the police service has been critically injured. I was very impressed, as I am certain were other Members of the House, by the report made during the radio news this morning that all grades of members of the hospital services returned to duty without being recalled to their respective posts.
I am very pleased that there is to be a formal investigation in public and that it will not only establish the causes of the disaster but will also make recommendations. I am also pleased to note that the full report will be published. This will be a vital inquiry. I hope that not only will the causes be looked

313
into but that there will also be investigation into structural factors which may be involved.
I share the tribute paid to the London Transport staff. I hope the investigation will look into the kind of training which is given to the London Transport staff, because they are always the first people who have to be on site when a tragedy of this nature occurs.
The Statement also refers to the excellent record of the London Transport Underground service, and I am sure we all share that view. It also refers to the way in which various sections of the management have endeavoured to return services to as near normal as possible. I am grateful for the Statement and I share in both the tributes and the expressions of grief.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The whole House and the nation will have felt a deep shock at the tragedy which struck last night to people going innocently about their purposes through the mundane job of simply getting home from the office or going for a night out. It is terrible to think that people left their homes and families yesterday morning and that a number of them simply did not return. It is also tragic that a number of them did return but will never be the same again because of the awful injuries they sustained.
Not unnaturally, there is a sense of rage at the casual nature of this tragedy and a sense of impotence that we are unable to do very much about it today. There is a great danger in these circumstances of making instant comments and of coming to instant judgments. There has been a lot of wild speculation in the newspapers. I do not think the press has acquitted itself particularly well today.
We would all like to ask questions; we would like to know something about the adequacy of staffing levels and of training; we would like to know some of the reasons for the rapid transfer of the fire to other parts of the system and about the flammability of some of the materials. These are questions which will be put to the inquiry and will be dealt with by it.
The Government are to be congratulated on the speed with which they called this inquiry into being, on the fact that evidence is to be taken in public and also on the fact that the results of the inquiry will be made public.
I also join in the admiration which has been expressed for the fire, police and ambulance services and the Underground staff. There were undoubtedly many examples of great heroism shown last night. It is something of which those services can be proud. The nation mourns those people who have died. We want the inquiry to find out whether there was any real reason for this tragedy or whether it was a random lightning strike. We all wish to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. We thank the Minister for his Statement.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of the Statement. I join in the tribute to the marvellous
314
work done by the emergency services last night and I am sure that all noble Lords would wish to do that.
The inquiry will be a thorough one. It is required under the Act to investigate the cause of the accident and all the circumstances attending it and to report on these and any other relevant matters. Of course that will include any recommendations designed to prevent a recurrence. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that that will include the adequacy of training of LRT staff.
With regard to speculation in the press, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I am not going to speculate about what might have been the cause of the accident; that will be for the preliminary inquiry of the LRT, the fire services and the police themselves, which will then report to the main inquiry. However, if anything is found which needs urgent attention, I give an assurance that urgent attention will be given to it without waiting for the inquiry to report.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
4.50 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 39 [Amendments relating to committal for sentence]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 27, line 4. leave out subsection (4)
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 is consequential to the amendments made in Committee to bring about the introduction of a unified custodial sentence of young offenders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 42:
Before Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
("Life imprisonment maximum sentence for murder.
. In section 1(1) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, for the word "sentenced" there shall be substituted the word "liable".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put my name to this amendment but I was not expecting to speak first on it. However, perhaps I may do so by reference briefly to what I said in Committee.
In many cases in the crime of murder it is quite clear that the offence was not premeditated and that the offender has never offended before and is most unlikely to offend again. Then there are cases of manslaughter, or in Scotland culpable homicide, which become such because of the diminished responsibility rule. Those offenders are far more dangerous to the public than those who may be tried for a murder which involves a family situation. In the dangerous diminished responsibility case, the judge is expected to impose a sentence which can be infinitely variable up to life. For murder, although there may be all sorts of extenuating circumstances, the penalty must be life. That is an inappropriate sentence for certain types of murder and it devalues the life sentence, which should be kept for very serious types of offences.
This amendment alters the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act. If it commends itself to your Lordships it will be necessary to keep Scotland in line and to make a consequential amendment to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, but that can be done at a later stage in the Bill. In that short way, I commend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for my delay in speaking to this amendment but I was held up outside the Chamber. Perhaps I may say a few words about it because I moved it in Committee.
I begin, in deference to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, by quoting a few words from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, in the case of Hyam. I do not know whether this has already been quoted. He said:
"It is no longer true, if it ever was true, that murder is necessarily the most heinous example of unlawful homicide".
The majority of murders are committed within the family environment, usually by persons of hitherto good character and often in situations of great deprivation or overwhelming stress. Those cases in no way merit a life sentence and such persons tend to be released at an early stage in their sentence, often giving rise to ill-informed public disquiet and a disruptive sense of injustice within prisons. Surely a sentence should always reflect the incidence of the offence.
Another matter which arises is that artificial ways round a mandatory sentence have grown up and have created a happy hunting ground for criminal lawyers on the scent of doctrines of provocation, self-defence and diminished responsibility in order to reduce such charges to manslaughter. The law is constantly bent, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor well knows, often with the blessing of the judge, the lawyers and the medical witnesses to see that proper justice is done in a case where all concerned are anxious that a verdict of murder should not be registered in that case.
I suggest that this is undesirable and dilutes the deterrent effect of the ultimate sentence. It also puts one type of offender into an impossible dilemma. He who denies the act of killing itself therefore cannot set up a defence of diminished responsibility if in fact he is a person who is in some way mentally affected. If he is convicted, nonetheless, he cannot then receive a psychiatric disposal.
The time served by a life prisoner for murder will at present vary greatly, many being released on licence long before those serving life for more serious offences such as rape, arson or robbery. Many judges on the Bench would strongly welcome an unfettered discretion to sentence appropriately in cases of murder and to be spared the unpleasant and often apparently cruel task of imposing a life sentence on someone who will in fact be released in only a few months.
I am sure that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made in Committee has already been referred to, but he and a number of his noble friends
316
took the view that this amendment showed a disappointing reluctance to go further and abolish entirely the distinction between manslaughter and murder, having but one offence of unlawful killing. I assure the noble Lord that we are not timid but rather judicious; and surely with this amendment the Government would have no excuse to defer a decision on the grounds that the Law Commission or some other galaxy of lawyers would settle down to gnaw away at this bone for the next two or three years.
In Committee we heard many of those favourite phrases from the Minister, reading his official brief, about "leaps in the dark", "radical upheavals" and "risky courses". I would suggest that none of those is appropriate for this amendment as it stands. If the House accepts this amendment (as I hope it will) it might well be desirable to introduce at a later stage a ceiling on the determinate sentence of, say, 25 years, reserving a life sentence for offences deserving of a penalty in excess of that maximum.
Equally, I would suggest that it might well be wise to implement the suggestion of the all-Party penal affairs group with the introduction also of a reviewable sentence, as recommended by the Butler Committee, for dangerous offenders with a history of mental disorder who do not qualify for compulsory hospitalisation. Those people are at the moment given what is often called a merciful life sentence on the basis that they will be let out when the authorities think it wise to do so. That again perhaps is not a very appropriate way of dealing with them.
The amendment clearly follows a recommendation by the Butler Committee, the advisory council, a substantial minority of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and most recently the all-Party penal affairs group. I have great pleasure in supporting it.
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly record support for the principle of the amendment on the basis of the reasoning that has been advanced without repeating my support for it at Committee stage (at cols. 424 and 425) of Hansard.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. Murder is still murder, and the judge who has to decide the sentence for it has a most difficult task. Is it not right—as when it was a capital offence. so now—that the sentence should be declared by the law? The present word is "sentenced", and it should remain.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has said, I spoke at Committee stage in support of the proposal that life imprisonment should become the maximum rather than the mandatory sentence for murder. I therefore support this amendment.
I do not want to repeat what I said then. What I intend to do today, which I hope will be of some assistance to the House, is to outline in some detail the case for making changes in the way that life sentences are administered. But I think the better place to do that is on the next amendment, Amendment No. 43. In the meantime, I would simply

317
say that this amendment is desirable. As the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, pointed out, it falls short of the more radical approach towards a reform of the law of homicide, but it is certainly a substantial improvement on the present situation and should be supported for that reason.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, while I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment, it raises only one small part of a very much larger problem. The problem is being dealt with piecemeal, whereas it needs to be dealt with in its entirety. In saying that I refer to the offence of murder.
The present law of murder is in a most perplexing position. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, mentioned R v. Hyam, a case decided some 17 years ago. It has a nostalgic flavour because I was the judge who gave the direction which has given rise to a fair amount of dispute over those 17 years. The problem arises because one part of the ingredient of murder, is not only an intention to kill but an intention to do grievous bodily harm. The case of Hyam was a dramatic case. A discarded mistress, anxious to scare away the woman who had taken her place, poured petrol through the letterbox then put a newspaper through the letterbox, using that as a means of igniting the petrol by setting fire to the newspaper. Her alleged intention was merely to scare away the rival. She drove away having made sure that the house was on tire. The net result was that the rival escaped with one son unharmed. Two children were burned in the fire.
The direction that I gave was that if the defendant knew it was highly probable that she would cause grievous bodily harm to anyone in the house that was sufficient, and the jury convicted by 11 to one.
That was supported in the Court of Appeal and by a majority of three (query four) in the House of Lords. Very recently there was the case of Maloney in 1985. This was an odd case in which a stepfather challenged his stepson after they had been drinking too much to a contest as to who could load and fire a gun first. In obiter dicta in your Lordships' House—it was not necessary for the decision—it was indicated that Hyam had confused intention with foresight. That approach was followed by your Lordships' House in Hancock, a case which noble Lords will remember occurred during the miners' strike when two lumps of concrete were thrown over a bridge. Very recently there was the case of Nedrick (which was a male Hyam) who put paraffin through the letterbox, and then set fire to it resulting in the death of the woman with whom he said he merely wished to level a score. He was convicted of murder, but on appeal manslaughter was substituted.
The law is in an unsatisfactory position. It needs to be reconsidered. As I think my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor knows, it was the subject-matter of a very impressive paper given by my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley in a lecture in Israel which is about to be reproduced in the Law Quarterly Review. This underlines how necessary it is to consider introducing the words "wickedly reckless" which are used in Scotland and taking out of our law the intention to do grievous bodily harm.
318
I would submit to your Lordships' House that until the offence of murder has been properly considered, to tinker with the mandatory sentence now on the basis that the law is unsatisfactory as it stands because under the cloak of murder so many types of activity are comprised, is a premature activity which should not be undertaken. If the matter is left, it may stimulate what I hope will occur, and that is very necessary: that the Law Commission undertake a review of this offence as soon as possible.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Criminal Law Revision Committee, in considering the topic that is the subject-matter of this amendment, said:
"Indeed it is uncertain what sentencing pattern the change would produce".
That is that this particular change would produce.
"we, the majority, think that the adoption of such a course would be a leap in the dark which ought not to be taken especially in the present situation with regard to crimes of violence generally".
I think this shows that, although my noble friend Lord Caithness was accused by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, of reading the phrase from the official brief, the truth is that it was not quite as original as that. It had already been used by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and used carefully, and in the light of a very careful consideration of the difficult problem which this amendment raises.
However cautioned against reading too much from the official brief, I just summarise the position as I should like to put it before your Lordships. One has to remember the history of the matter. As I listened to the debate being opened, I could not help remembering the opening words of the speech of Dean of Faculty Inglis defending Madeline Smith in July, 1857. Your Lordships will remember that he began by saying:
"Gentlemen of the Jury, the charge against the prisoner is murder. and the punishment of murder is death: and that simple statement is sufficient to suggest to us the awful solemnity of the occasion which brings you and me face to face".
I believe that although that was quite a long time ago, the crime of murder is still a crime which has a very special place in the attention of our people. I accept that the circumstances in which people are convicted of murder may vary greatly from occasion to occasion. That point has been well taken by a number of your Lordships. Certain defences have been open: the defence of self-defence—not in order to bring the charge to one of manslaughter but, if successful, to acquittal altogether—and certain defences such as diminished responsibility, which have the effect of reducing the charge to manslaughter.
My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has pointed out the difficulty which now surrounds the definition of the charge of murder. That difficulty is reflected when one looks at the various circumstances in which people may be convicted of murder. I have had the privilege of seeing both in draft and in its finished product the very interesting and thought-provoking lecture which my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley delivered as the Lionel Cohen lecture in the Hewbrew University of Jerusalem in May this year. In my opinion that lecture makes a

319
very important contribution in relation to the development of the law in this area.
I think that simply to introduce this change without doing more would put a tremendous responsibility on our judges. It would do so without any guidance whatever as to how the public regard the various levels of murder that might occur. It would widely be seen as a weakening of the law in relation to crimes of violence at a time when crimes of violence are certainly not on the decrease.
Since the debate in Committee, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and some others of us have been giving very careful consideration to this subject. There is no doubt that it is an extremely difficult subject and one upon which there are many different and reasonable opinions, and some of them have been manifested in your Lordships' House this afternoon. This being a lawyers debate—having regard to what was said about lawyers—I shall be brief, so I shall not attempt to summarise all the different views that exist. There is no doubt that there are a number of different views, all eminently respectable and held by people with different experience and different authority in this field. All these views merit consideration and I believe they merit very close consideration before any substantial change is made in this area of the law.
The Criminal Justice Bill is a very extensive measure which already contains a good deal of controversial matter as your Lordships' debates at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report show. I venture to suggest that it would not give this subject the prominence that it deserves to attempt to deal with it by way of an amendment now, particularly in the absence of any real consensus developed upon this difficult question. Although I thoroughly understand the arguments put in favour of the amendment. which I see have a great deal of force, there are a great many other arguments in the opposite direction. It would not be right at this stage to pass the amendment. I believe that the law in this area requires review and very serious consideration. The precise machinery of review is a matter on which your Lordships' views would be important. I look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say about that when the other amendments touching on the same matter are debated this afternoon. I certainly and very definitely suggest that it would not be wise to pass the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, we have all listened with great attention and care to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. What he said followed a speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner to which we also gave great attention. As I understand it, that speech ended with a suggestion, with some urgency behind it, that the Law Commission should immediately examine the very difficult field to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and others referred in the past.
Is the noble and learned Lord able to tell the House that at an early opportunity the Law Commission
320
will be asked to deal with this matter with a view to our seeing its recommendations and considering the whole matter, as the noble and learned Lord suggested, in one light?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with leave of the House, I am not in a position at this moment to indicate exactly how this might best be attempted. The Law Commission is an obvious candidate for carrying out such a review. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, well knows, there is also in existence the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which has considered this matter. The best form in which this issue might be taken forward is a matter upon which the Government have not been able to reach any decision. This afternoon I am not able to say precisely what ought to be done. I submit that something ought to be done before the amendment would be regarded as right to pass.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, as this has almost accidentally become my amendment perhaps I should reply. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord has managed in a sense to change the question from whether a life sentence is necessarily appropriate for a conviction for murder to whether there should be a radical look at the whole offence of murder and the offence of culpable homicide. As I understand it—although in Committee we discussed the broader question—the amendment is purely on the issue of whether it is appropriate that all people properly convicted of murder should receive a life sentence. I remind your Lordships that among others in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, was very clearly of the view that this caused considerable difficulty in his experience as a judge. I should have thought that if we are to have a general review it may be encouraged by your Lordships' House voting in favour of the amendment. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that the views of your Lordships' House should be sought.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 43:
Before Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
("Abolition of minimum periods of life imprisonment.
. Section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, rather less breathlessly, I seek to move this amendment. Its purpose is to seek to abolish the power in the court at present to recommend when passing a sentence of life imprisonment the minimum period that should elapse before the offender can be released on licence. The amendment will not require a great deal of further consideration and thought. It is an amendment that should now be accepted.
Since their introduction in 1965, such recommendations have been resolutely followed by the prison authorities and Secretaries of State and in only seven out of 244 cases have prisoners been released earlier than the recommended date. The purpose of the power was described by the Minister in Committee as being to enable the judge at trial to lay down a marker when sentencing in a particularly

321
abhorrent case. That may have been the purpose but the fact of the matter is that this is simply not consistently done and the use of the power over the years has been shown to be both inconsistent and haphazard. Some judges believe in using the power. Some judges believe in never using the power. Each judge has his own subjective criterion as regards the operation of the power.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill—a most experienced judge—made an eloquent plea for the repeal of this power which he described as outmoded and outdated. He pointed out that the power was introduced as a political compromise during proceedings on the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill. He was supported in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and by my noble friend Lord Hunt, a former chairman of the Parole Board. It was the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, as chairman of the Parole Board, who disclosed, much to the astonishment of most noble Lords, that, since the case of Handscomb in the Divisional Court, trial judges in all cases where life sentences are imposed, whether mandatory or discretionary, are now required to write to the Secretary of State expressing an opinion on the number of years the prisoner should serve to meet what are called "the requirements of retribution and deterrence". It is apparently on this period—which, to the distaste of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is called by the officials "the tariff"— that the first review of such a sentence by the Parole Board will be allowed to take place. We know that, as a result of a further political decision made by the former Secretary of State, Mr. Leon Brittan, in any offence of violence no review whatever of such a sentence can take place before 17 years have passed.
The result is that a power to be used in certain serious cases only in relation to the mandatory life sentence—and described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, as I have reminded the House, as outmoded and outdated—is now apparently being operated in every single case where a life sentence is passed, and in circumstances where the accused person and his advisers will know nothing about it and will know nothing about the number of years the trial judge decides should be served before that person is considered for release on licence.
In those circumstances, is it not now essential to get rid of this power, whether it is operated openly before the court or clandestinely within the Home Office? I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment extremely briefly because the proposition has been so ably covered by my noble friend. I shall presume to repeat to your Lordships on Report what I told those noble colleagues who were present at the Committee stage. I spoke then of my own personal experience in the early years of the Parole Board when such cases as we are now considering came before it. I said then that this had an extremely inhibiting and indeed almost prohibitive effect on our deliberations on the "merits" of the cases, if that is the right word, and on the favourable circumstances which may well have
322
obtained—and did obtain—a considerable number of years after sentence had been passed.
I recalled to the Committee a considerable number of such cases on which the label of a minimum term had been placed by the sentencing judge but as regards which nevertheless, despite that inhibiting factor, we saw fit to recommend to the Home Secretary after an appropriate interval of time release on life licence. In the six years that I was chairman of the Parole Board I recall only one such case which received release on life licence.
I make that point because we were dealing with all the cases of life sentences for the offence of murder. A number did not have such a minimum recommendation attached to them, yet the crimes as we saw them, considering the nature of the offences and their gravity, were considerably more grave than those on which the minimum sentence had been recommended by the sentencing judge. I concluded by saying that I felt then (and I feel now) that the procedure laid down in the Criminal Justice Act 1967, by which, following a favourable recommendation by the Parole Board, the Home Secretary has by statute to consult with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge in making his decision, is totally satisfactory and much fairer than the inconsistent application by some judges to some cases of the minimum recommendation. I am very much in favour of the amendment.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I just wish to repeat the arguments that I have made previously on this point. The judge, in sentencing a man who has been convicted of murder, is expressing public opinion on the matter. The judges should carry public opinion with them. When it is a particularly horrendous murder the judge should express that opinion by saying and recommending that the man should not be let out of prison until after 10, 15 or 20 years, whichever it may be. It is in answer to public opinion that the death penalty has now gone. On the other hand of course it can be reviewed, and I would deplore any private communications by the judge to the Home Secretary or anyone else as to what the length of time should be.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I should like to echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has just said as to how we should address ourselves to this subject. We need to accept the public must be reassured that persons who are convicted of murder—the gravest crime in the criminal calendar—are properly punished and are not returned to society too soon.
I want to contend this afternoon that the way the mandatory life sentence has evolved over the past 20 or more years has led to confusion between judicial and executive functions; a review procedure of ever-increasing complexity; and widening opportunities for injustice. I should make clear at the outset that none of this was planned or intended by this Government or their predecessors. It is simply, as is so often the way in our legal history, the way things have turned out.

323
If we go back, as we must, to 1965 when capital punishment for murder was abolished, it then became mandatory, as was explained on the previous amendment, for a person convicted of murder to be sentenced to imprisonment for life. Thus, uniquely, the sentence is not imposed by the trial judge; the sentence for murder is imposed by Parliament. It is simply pronounced by the trial judge. He has no power to vary it.
But the court may, at its discretion, declare the period of time which it recommends to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which should elapse before the Home Secretary releases the convicted person. That proviso is included in Section 1 of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965. Therefore we have here the first way in which the judiciary can influence the period of time to be spent in custody, although it is Parliament which has prescribed the sentence of imprisonment for life. As we shall see, successive procedural layers have been added in the years that have followed the legislation in 1965.
The objections we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, one of my predecessors as chairman of the Parole Board, are that the practice is haphazard and inconsistent. Some judges use the power; other judges do not. It is generally employed by a sentencing judge to reinforce the denunciation and feeling, of abhorrence of society as a whole towards the circumstances of a particularly grave crime of murder.
However, it is not always so. In the case of the Moors murders—I say this in the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who has taken such an interest in the case—there was no minimum recommendation. In the case of the murder of Mrs. Mackay by the Hosein brothers, a most notorious case, there was no minimum recommendation. But let us cling on to one central fact: the recommendation is made in open court by the trial judge from the Bench at the conclusion of the proceedings.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on one point? Can he tell us whether in fact in the cases he mentioned, and in other cases where there has been no public recommendation until recently, there were private communications and, if so, were they taken note of by the Parole Board?
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, I should like to come to that when I describe the current procedures, including the private advice given by the sentencing judge to the Home Secretary. There has been a long-standing facility—as noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches who have tried murder cases will be aware—that at the conclusion of a murder trial the judge can write to the Home Secretary. That facility has become formalised in order to set a date when the case of a life sentence prisoner can first be considered for release on licence.
This difficulty does not arise with determinate sentence prisoners because those who are sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment have a statutory right
324
under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to have their sentences reviewed after serving one-third, or a minimum qualifying period, whichever expires the later. This right to be reviewed at the one-third point, and annually thereafter, is not to be confused with the actual release of the prisoner which may, or may not, be granted at any stage between one-third and two-thirds of his sentence.
It has already been pointed out that some of the changes in parole practice which were announced by the then Home Secretary in November 1983 concerned life sentence prisoners. Instead of the timing for the first review being set by a joint Home Office/Parole Board committee, of which I was the chairman at the time (two noble Lords opposite preceded me in that capacity), the Home Secretary declared that he would look in future to the judiciary in the shape of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available, for an initial judicial view on the requirements of retribution and deterrence.
When expressed in terms of a period of years that advice becomes the judicial tariff—if we use that word for the purposes of debate—in the case. Some three years before the expiry of the tariff the case is referred to the local review committee at the prison and subsequently to the Parole Board. I come now to the question put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. It is at this stage that the Parole Board becomes aware of the advice on tariff that has been given by the trial judge to the Home Secretary, but not before.
When the Parole Board considers the case it does so primarily, although not exclusively, on the basis of the risk to the public if the prisoner is to be released on licence. If the Parole Board does not so recommend, then the Home Secretary has no power to release the prisoner. If the board does recommend in favour of release, then the final decision remains with the Home Secretary.
Parliament has never agreed that the ultimate decision should he transferred from him, as the Minister accountable to Parliament, to an appointed body. He does not have to accept the advice he is given. It is he who is answerable, and it is he who has the responsibility in the last resort. By law he is also required to consult, before releasing any prisoner, the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available, before doing so. Under the current procedures, this is the second judicial consultation. The first is to set the tariff, the second, perhaps many years later, is when the actual release of the prisoner is being contemplated. I apologise at this point for the complexity of what I have described. If, as I believe, life sentence procedures are becoming increasingly complicated and unsatisfactory, in this House we have an obligation to try and grasp in outline how they work in practice.
We are not at the end of the story yet. The latest superimposition on a far from straightforward procedure is that, in response to a decision of the Divisional Court in the Handscomb case, the judge is now being asked to write to the Home Secretary in every life sentence case, through the Lord Chief Justice, at the conclusion of the trial giving a view on the period of imprisonment necessary in the interests of retribution and deterrence. This requirement

325
applies irrespective of whether the life sentence was mandatory, in cases of conviction for murder, or whether it was within the discretion of the court, as it is in cases of manslaughter and other offences which carry liability to life imprisonment as the maximum sentence. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that that concludes the descriptive part of my speech.
Where are we now? From 1st October 1987 there is a new situation. In all cases of murder there is the mandatory life sentence, imposed by Parliament, that cannot be varied by the court. As we heard on the previous amendment, this distorts the whole sentencing process. In particular, it throws undue emphasis on the defence of diminished responsibility. Most people who have studied the penalty for murder believe that without diminished responsibility, thrown in as a make-weight in the Homicide Act in the 1950s, the present system could hardly have survived at all. Now, no sooner has the trial judge pronounced the sentence, with or without a minimum recommendation, than he sits down to advise the Home Secretary in his private letter of the minimum period of imprisonment which, in his view, the circumstances of the crime warrant.
By this devious route we have arrived at precisely the position which was rejected in 1980 by the Criminal Law Revision Committee—referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—in their 14th Report (Command Paper 7844); namely, that recommendations in every case would inevitably come to resemble a determinate sentence. That is a powerful conclusion with which it is hard to disagree.
My Lords, I believe there is only one way out of the morass in the short term. I am encouraged by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said about a longer-term review. He has told us that he is prepared to refer the law of murder, and the penalty for murder, for a more thorough and careful inquiry before committing the Government to legislative change. I support that and was pleased to hear what was said.
However, we need a short-term expedient. It seems to me that the right way to approach this, paradoxically, is to preserve the power which Lord Hutchinson's Amendment No. 43 seeks to remove, substituting a public recommendation in open court in all life sentence cases for the private advice which is currently given by the sentencing judge to the Home Secretary. Justice should be as open as possible. Often it is an ideal that is difficult to achieve, but here is a way in which it could be achieved.
I confess to some reservations about the appropriateness of attaching a judicial remedy to what is essentially advice as to how a Minister should use his executive authority. Nevertheless, if we are selecting the least objectionable alternatives and trying to evolve a defensible system until the noble and learned Lords' review can get to work, I accept that there is a case for judicial recommendations in open court to be subject to a two-way appeal to the Court of Appeal. That is the subject of the next amendment, Amendment No. 44.
For those reasons, it does not seem to me necessary to press Amendment No. 43. Indeed, to do so would
326
shoot my fox because I want recommendations on tariff to be made, as I have argued, publicly in court at the conclusion of the trial, rather than privately in a letter to the Home Secretary. On the right to appeal, I am in sympathy with the broad aims of Amendment No. 44.
My Lords, I am afraid I have spoken for some time on this amendment, for which I apologise, but it is a matter of considerable importance.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, as a supporter of the next amendment, which is in my name. Therefore I have found much of his speech persuasive, certainly as far as the wholly unsatisfactory character of the present arrangements are concerned. The House has now had the advantage of listening to one of my predecessors as chairman of the Parole Board and also my successor. I do not quite know what the collective of Parole Board chairmen should be. Perhaps "a cell" would be the most appropriate. I think that all three of us who have dealt with this matter over a number of years have come to the conclusion that the present arrangements are profoundly unsatisfactory.
I do not share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who is the only uninhibited opponent of this amendment we have so far heard this afternoon, who finds the idea of making a minimum recommendation extremely satisfactory because in his view it meets public anger, public anxiety, at the time of the trial and at the time of conviction.
That view is extremely difficult to support on the basis of the evidence, part of which was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. If your Lordships look at some of the most notorious cases where people have been tried for murder and convicted, you will find that the trial judge did not make a minimum recommendation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, rightly said, there was no minimum recommendation in the Moors murder case; there was no minimum recommendation in the Hosein brothers case—the murder of Mrs. Mackay. There was no minimum recommendation in the case of the M.62 coach bomb when Judith Ward blew to pieces a number of service families travelling on a coach. There was no minimum recommendation in the Birmingham bomb case either.
In all four cases there was no minimum recommendation. Yet in other cases which my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will have seen—and I certainly saw— there have been minimum recommendations which attracted far less public concern than the four cases I have cited. The reason for that is as follows. A number of judges will now not make minimum recommendations. A number of previous judicial members on the Parole Board told me that they had not done so, and that they would not do so. Their view was that it was far better to leave the matter to the Home Secretary of the day, acting on the recommendation of the Parole Board. The present legislative situation is wholly understandable in the context of the political situation of 1965 when

327
Parliament passed the Death Penalty Abolition Act. I find it far less satisfactory to have the situation remaining as it is on the statute book.
I do not think that one can exaggerate the effect that the minimum recommendation has on the Parole Board. Before the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, became chairman, there was a committee of the board presided over by the chairman of the board. The vice-chairman was always a High Court judge and there were also a member of the board, a consultant psychiatrist and two Home Office officials. At about the three year stage they took a preliminary view as to how long a convicted murderer, or life sentence prisoner, would serve. I believe that the procedure was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, when he was Home Secretary. I think that there was a great deal of advantage in the system and I regret the fact that it was eliminated.
As a result, I must have considered over 800 life sentence cases. The idea that the minimum recommendation cases were by far the worst we considered was a view impossible to sustain. I became increasingly worried about the fact that my colleagues—understandably, in my view—took the view that if a judge had made a minimum recommendation they were bound to take the most serious view of it. Therefore, one had two categories of life sentence cases; those which were looked at upon their merits, and those which were not looked at wholly upon their merits. I think that that situation is unsatisfactory and it is time that Parliament changed it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, the amendment is not acceptable for two short reasons. First, it would not be acceptable to the general public in the present state of the law, pending a general review. Secondly, as has been explained by my noble friend Lord Windlesham, would it not shoot his fox, which I find rather an attractive fox? That applies particularly to the form of Amendment No. 44 which I supported at the Committee stage. It is another matter if the recommendation is made in open court. I believe that Amendment No. 43 would not be apt. However, I accept the point that in this area there is a case for short-term measures along the lines of Amendment No. 44, pending a general review. I oppose Amendment No. 43.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, will consider not pressing Amendment No. 43 and pressing Amendment No. 44. If one examines Amendment No. 43, one is saying that a judge should never express a view as to how long a life sentence should be. I believe that there is a difficulty in saying that; and, logically, a judge must be considered to have a view of the appropriate life sentence. The answer should be that all the recommendations which are now made privately should be made publicly, so that the person sentenced can appeal if he is so advised. I hope that that course will meet with the noble Lord's approval.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords feel deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I am wholly persuaded. Any recommendation made should be made in open court so that it is understood by the public and the defendant and—although this anticipates the next amendment—so that it is reviewable.
When dealing with the previous amendment, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack invited comments as to how this matter—which is, at the moment, in a mess—should be reviewed. I am in a difficulty because I think that the Criminal Law Revision Committee has already committed itself to the view that the offences of murder and manslaughter should remain distinct and should not be amalgamated into one offence of culpable or criminal homicide.
In his draft criminal code, Professor Smith, in accordance with his usual practice and the universal practice, has not gone against that latest recommendation. Therefore, the draft criminal code, which is now being examined by the Law Commission, maintains that distinction.
I respectfully suggest that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack might consider asking the Law Commission, in consultation with the Criminal Law Revision Committee, to look at the problem urgently and immediately and to present an interim report.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I am entirely in agreement with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Having been thoroughly converted by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I find it hard not to be allowed to vote on his amendment and I feel strongly about that.
My noble and learned friend put forward the idea that the sentence should be the subject of comment by the judge, and it would be wrong to say that he should not make a comment and recommendation on it. It is not the judge's sentence; it is Parliament's sentence. The judge has no discretion about the sentence so why should he make a recommendation on a matter which is not his responsibility?
A point which has always weighed on me is that when the matter goes to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, two issues must be considered. First, what was the crime; secondly, what has happened to the man since? Has he changed? How has he changed? The judge's recommendation can only be based on the first question, so one is asking the Committee to accept the worst evidence. It is evidence which is no longer relevant because it comes from a man who has considered only half of what should be considered.
I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, will give the House an opportunity to vote on this amendment. I have heard the observation of the noble Lord who sits behind him to the effect that the amendment would not be acceptable to the people. We have seen a certain sample of the people here. Almost all of them have been persuaded by the noble Lord, and I think that we ought to be allowed to express our swing of opinion.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to point out to the noble Lord that on this occasion I am not being led by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. If anybody is to give the noble Lord an opportunity, it will be for me to give it to him
Lord Paget of Northampton: I am extremely sorry, my Lords.
6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is perhaps an interesting comment on the difficulty in this area of the law that in support of the last amendment some noble Lords argued in favour of giving a very wide discretion indeed to judges when passing sentence, ranging from small sentences up to life imprisonment in cases of murder; whereas when Parliament gave a discretion to the judges whether or not to declare a minimum period, a degree of uncertainty arose about the uniformity with which the judges exercised that discretion. That is illustrative of the difficulty in this area. but I do not press the point further than that.
In 1965, when Parliament changed the law in relation to this matter, it gave judges the power to declare the period recommended to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which should elapse before he orders the offender's release on licence. That was a discretion whether or not to make a recommendation at all; and then of course, if the court decided to make a recommendation, it was empowered to suggest the period recommended. In 1972 that provision was the subject of consideration in Scotland by a committee headed by the Lord Justice-General—I think it was before he actually took up that appointment—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie. In 1980 during discussions on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, the Government proposed that the recommendation of the committee headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Emslie, should be put into effect and it was noted that as a consequence there would be an obligation upon the judge in every case to state a minimum recommendation. I rather think that that is the line that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is suggesting.
However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, whom I am very glad to see in his place, and other noble Lords in this House raised a question first at Committee stage and then at Report stage about this proposed change in the law following the Emslie Committee's recommendation, and the House voted on the matter. The result was that Parliament decided that there should not be an obligation in every case to declare a minimum recommendation. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, will remember the eloquent speech that he made at the Committee stage against the imposition of a general obligation of that kind. So we are in a very difficult area in which to make progress by complete consensus.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I ask whether the situation has not been transformed since those earlier debates by the newly introduced practice in which the
330
trial judge is asked to write in private to the Home Secretary in every instance giving an opinion on what should be the period to be served in the interests of retribution and deterrence?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I intended to try to deal with that point. I agree that the development of the practice of correspondence, which has been necessary between the trial judge and the Secretary of State right from 1965—and which, as one would expect, has been entirely accurately described by my noble friend Lord Windlesham—is a circumstance which might well change the situation. Certainly for my part I should have been glad to hear the views of experienced judges upon the matter.
I think that it is at least questionable whether judges could be forced to write in every case and give a minimum recommendation, but in practice, as the noble Lord said, I think they do so. They have always been consulted. The statute required that, before releasing a prisoner who was sentenced to life imprisonment under the Act, the Home Secretary should consult the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge if he was available. The result was that the trial judge was consulted a very long time after the event. Your Lordships may feel that even the memories of trial judges fade somewhat over such a period of time and that there is an advantage in the more modern procedure under which the trial judge immediately gives a view upon the matter.
The present situation is certainly quite a difficult one but it is not one in which I could advise your Lordships to accept this amendment. It seems to me that this amendment does not do anything to improve the situation. Indeed, despite the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, with all his great experience, which has persuaded at least the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, and I am sure many other noble Lords, the amendment should not be accepted if your Lordships accept my submission.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, it appears from our debate quite clearly that there has been only one voice to support the present procedure. That voice came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who suggested that this provision was essential in order that the judge could express the opinions and feeling of abhorrence of the public. I am hound with the greatest respect to ask him: what about a case of diminished responsibility, or a case of arson, or a case of rape, or a case of robbery? In all such cases, when the judge wishes to impose a life sentence, should not that feeling of abhorrence be expressed?
Of course it is and always has been open to the judge at trial to make whatever observations he likes, including expressions of abhorrence and so on, during the sentencing process. No doubt he does that very well, as, with some exceptions, the judiciary usually do in relation to all serious criminal offences and not only in cases of murder, which, as the House has already heard and I think will agree, is very often a less serious form of crime than the others to which I have just referred.

331
It also seems quite clear from the debate that everybody who has listened to the arguments accepts—must they not?—the views of the three distinguished chairmen of the Parole Board, to whom we have had the privilege of listening. I shall not rehearse what they have said, but their various descriptions of the effect of this particular part of the law that we wish to remove in the Bill can be summarised in the words "distorting the whole sentencing process", "a morass", "a mess" and so on. When we know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, with all his experience, wishes to get rid of this power of the courts, and after hearing of the effects that this power has on the sentencing process, surely we must conclude that the time has come to abandon it.
To the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I say that the view that one would be shooting his fox by getting rid of this power is surely not correct. I am not an expert in shooting foxes; I am or was better with birds. However, surely if we remove this power altogether it leaves the judge at trial in the position of passing a life sentence—full stop and finish. In imposing the sentence he can add anything that he wishes to add, to reflect his view of how abhorrent the particular offence is. He may express the view, which often judges do, that he sincerely hopes that this person will not be released for a very long period. Those observations that he makes in public will be recorded for ever.
He will then be consulted in the normal course of events, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just said, at the time when it is being considered whether the person should be released. That is surely an advantage, not a disadvantage as has just been said, because by then the trial judge will have had time to see the reports on the person concerned. Moreover, time will have elapsed, public opinion in relation to one offence as opposed to another may have taken a different course and so on, and reading back through the papers and his observations at the time he can, of course, express his view and be consulted.
The present requirement is a purely administrative matter. It is not a matter of legislation; it is a matter of administration which can of course be altered overnight. That is a matter for discussion. That is a matter for the chairman of the Parole Board to raise with the Secretary of State. But in this House at this moment with this Bill before us, we are dealing with legislation; we are not dealing with administration. If there is a mischief going on at the moment—and quite clearly there is— in the relations between the Secretary of State and the judiciary, and it is not due to legislation, then it is no business of ours at this moment when we are discussing this amendment. The first thing we have to do is to get rid of this power, let things get back to where they ought to be and I suggest that the judge imposes a simple sentence of life imprisonment.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord before he sits down, if indeed he was about to
332
sit down, whether his final remarks take account of the recent change announced by the Home Secretary in July, and introduced on 1st October, by which all judges are asked when passing a life sentence to write to him through the Lord Chief Justice? That was in response to a decision in the Divisional Court. If the Home Secretary had not made the change on his own initiative the previous system would have continued. It was in response to a ruling of the court. Has the noble Lord taken that point into account?
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I say in reply that I most certainly have taken that into account, because the ruling of the court in Hanscomb was not a ruling that judges should make a recommendation of this kind or that kind. That is my recollection, but I may be wrong. If the ruling of the court was specifically that judges had to make a recommendation, then I would agree with the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham. But I was under the impression that it was a ruling of the court that the present procedures meant that persons were not having their sentences considered at a time when they ought to be considered, and that something had to be done to see that they were considered at the proper time. As a result of that ruling, this instruction has been issued to the judges which is a very different matter. But in all the circumstances, I am certainly minded to test the view of the House on this matter.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 43) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 121.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jay, L,

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Avebury, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bottomley, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mulley, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Foot, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gallacher, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L. [Teller]

Ypres, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

333

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Joseph, L.

Abinger, L.

Kimball, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kitchener, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Atholl, D.

Lawrence, L.

Balfour, E.

Long, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Buckmaster, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monson, L.

Caccia, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Caldecote, V.

Moyne, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Onslow, E.

Carnock, L.

Orkney, E.

Cathcart, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Coleraine, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Portland, D.

Cottesloe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cox, B.

Reay, L.

Craigavon, V.

Romney, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

De La Warr, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Denning, L.

Sandford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Shackleton, L.

Dormer, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Dowding, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Somers, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elton, L.

Stockton, E.

Forlescue, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strange, B.

Fraser of Tullybelton, L.

Stralhcona and Mount Royal, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Goold, L.

Swansea, L.

Grantchester, L.

Terrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Havers, L.

Trafford, L.

Hertford, M.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hood, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Windlesham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 44:
Before Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
("Right of appeal against minimum recommendations in murder cases.
.—(1) A person in respect of whom a court has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State under section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the recommendation.
(2) On an appeal under this section the Court of Appeal may—

(a) quash the recommendation which is the subject of the appeal, and

(b) in place of it make such recommendation as they think appropriate;

but the Court shall so exercise their powers under this subsection that the appellant is not more severely dealt with on appeal than he was dealt with by the court below.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of a number of my noble friends. The object of the amendment is fairly simple. It was dealt with in part during our last discussion, when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, indicated his own broad support for it.
The purpose of the amendment is to give a convicted person the opportunity of appealing against a minimum recommendation. It does not require a great deal of effort on my part to demonstrate the significance of the minimum recommendation. I dealt with that briefly during the previous debate. However, to make my point I shall rely upon the language of Home Office Circular No. 55 of 1984, which states:
"The expectation is that a prisoner in respect of whom a minimum recommendation has been made will be detained for at least that period unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise."
Successive Home Secretaries and successive Parole Boards have obviously taken that injunction extremely seriously because between 1965, when the provision was introduced, and the end of 1986 there were 244 minimum recommendations. In only seven cases were prisoners released before the end of that recommended period. When I was chairman of the Parole Board there was, I believe, only one such case and in that case a Royal Prerogative issue was involved, which was why the then Secretary of State decided to release that prisoner.
As I pointed out during our debate on the previous amendment when recalling my own experience in considering somewhere in the region of 800 life sentence cases as chairman of the joint committee between the Parole Board and the Home Office, the recommendation by the trial judge of the minimum sentence that a prisoner should serve in prison was decisive as regards the Parole Board. I can think of no case on which I sat where there was any attempt made by any member of the Parole Board to challenge that minimum recommendation. That was partly for the reason that I gave when reading out the contents of the Home Office circular. They also knew, apart from anything else, that if a trial judge had made a minimum recommendation of 20 years, for example, it was highly unlikely that any Home Secretary would choose to ignore it. A Home Secretary would have to be a bold man to ignore the publicly expressed view of the trial judge in a highly publicised case and release that man in defiance of the view of that trial judge. He would need courage to face a possible outburst of public criticism at that stage, and that would of course be followed by even more savage criticism were the offender to reoffend while on life sentence licence. That could bring a Home Secretary's career to an abrupt end. As we all know, that particular post has enough problems at the moment without Home Secretaries wishing to find

335
new ways in which to entrap themselves in painful situations.
That is the background. I can think of very few—indeed no—members of the judiciary with whom I have discussed this matter and who have had Parole Board experience who have not expressed to me their private disquiet about a situation in which there is no appeal against the trial judge's minimum recommendation. That is unacceptable. That situation consigns a prisoner to a term of imprisonment on the basis of a publicly expressed minimum recommendation. It gives that man no right whatever to challenge that decision, despite the fact that it has a decisive effect upon, first, the Parole Board and, secondly, the Home Secretary. That in my view is wholly unreasonable and unacceptable.
I can understand why the House took the decision that it did on the last issue. I think it was a mistake but nevertheless I can understand the reasons for it. However, to refuse to give a man a right to appeal in such a situation as I have described would in my view be wholly wrong. I have, I am glad to say, some substantial support for that view. The Criminal Law Revision Committee, whose views we have discussed this afternoon in relation to other matters, has acknowledged that the power has operated "somewhat haphazardly". That is a pretty substantial English understatement. It has sometimes acted in a fairly bizarre way. The Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended in the light of that view that:
"if the power were retained, recommendations should be treated as part of the sentence; that the provisions applying to appeals against sentence in the case of determinate sentences should apply equally to recommendations; and that a trial judge making a recommendation should state publicly the factors on which he bases his recommendations."
At the moment there is no requirement at all for the trial judge to give any indication of the reason for his recommendation. The giving of reasons might then in such a situation, were the trial judge to indicate the reasons for the recommendation, be of assistance to the defence in deciding whether an appeal should be made, and to the Court of Appeal itself were such an appeal to be heard.
In paragraph 72 of its report, the Criminal Law Revision Committee argued that, if those proposals were implemented,
"the practice of making judicial recommendations is likely to become established upon a more regular footing because the Court of Appeal will, over a period, be able to set out guidelines as to the circumstances in which a minimum recommendation should be made and the level of such recommendations".
That is a powerful argument. It has the authority of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. It is an overwhelmingly sensible view.
There is of course an even more powerful argument as to why that view should be sustained this evening. We have the advantage of having here the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who was the Lord Advocate. The recommendation made by the Criminal Law Review Committee for England and Wales already exists in Scotland. In Scotland, as the noble and learned Lord will confirm, the right of appeal against such recommendations was introduced in 1980 (in other words by the present
336
Government) by Section 43 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. As that provision has been introduced into the law of Scotland and as prisoners in Scotland are entitled to appeal against a minimum recommendation, prisoners in England and Wales should have a similar right. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, there is obviously a good deal of force in what the noble Lord has said in justification of a right of appeal against one of these minimum recommendations. It seems to be a reasonable proposition. However, I am bound to say that I part company with him on the terms of his amendment, and in particular the last three lines, which provide:
"but the Court shall so exercise their powers under this subsection that the appellant is not more severely dealt with on appeal than he was dealt with by the court below".
I can see no reason to insert that provision. I do not see why, if the Court of Appeal thinks that the recommendation was insufficiently firm, it should not say so and substitute its own views. That, after all, follows the general line of these appeals which are a both-way option. If one decides to appeal, believing no doubt, that one has a good case, one has to contemplate taking the chance that the appeal may fail and that its failure may result in the sentence being strengthened. For that reason, I could not support the amendment as it stands.
It is wrong to make the provision merely one way. If one thinks of the matter from a practical point of view, it is of course a standing encouragement for everyone who has a recommendation from the trial judge as to his minimum sentence to go to the Court of Appeal. Such a person stands there with nothing to lose. It is a safe option for him. Your Lordships would find that, if the law were to be so amended, the Court of Appeal would have a substantial amount of wholly unnecessary business forced upon it; whereas, if the Court of Appeal has the option to increase as well as to decrease the recommended figure, then those who advise the convicted man will have to consider carefully whether they have a good and satisfactory case which it is worthwhile taking to the Court of Appeal and using up the court's time. Unless the noble Lord is prepared to drop those last three lines, I shall feel bound to vote against his amendment.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I am nervous about this amendment. In a way, the recommendation is not a sentence by the judge; it is a recommendation which is not in law enforceable, and the Secretary of State is not bound by it. I think that that is expressly set out in the Act. I know that in practice the recommendation has been treated as fairly binding on the Parole Board but, on the other hand, in point of law it is only a recommendation. Therefore, it is not a proper case for appeal.
I wish to make a further point. If a judge is to be subjected to appeal whenever he makes such a recommendation, the great majority of judges will not make any recommendation; in other words, we will obtain the same effect by a side wind. I do not think a judge should be deterred from making a recommendation when it is a particularly horrible

337
case. He can make a recommendation as to the minimum sentence which the person should serve. It is only a recommendation. Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I do not support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, as I said on the last amendment, I am generally in favour of this amendment. If the judge's recommendation has no influence it should not be made, but we know, from what we have been told, that it has some influence. As it has some influence, and as judges are fallible, the accused should have the right to have the recommendation reviewed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
Like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I find the last three lines unacceptable in the present circumstances. I think I know why the noble Lord included them. Although I have forgotten what the measure was, a provision implementing a recommendation of a committee or commission presided over by Lord Donovan ensured that when there was an appeal against sentence, the appellant would not run the risk of having his sentence increased. If I am right in that, and that is the thinking behind this amendment, the matter must be reviewed in the light of the decision that your Lordships took, and which, sitting on the Cross Benches, seemed to be supported overwhelmingly by argument; namely that the prosecution should also be entitled to test the adequacy and propriety of any sentence. If that provision applies to a sentence, it should apply to any recommendation which has the same effect. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will indicate that, if the amendment is carried, he will not be averse at a later stage to the removal of the last three lines.
Lord Somers: My Lords, speaking purely as a layman, I wonder whether there is not a slight danger with this amendment. If my memory serves me correctly, minimum sentences were first introduced because of the strong public feeling that many dangerous criminals were being given sentences which were far too lenient. If we quash that power entirely, I wonder whether it will be in the interests of the public, who, after all, deserve the protection of the law.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, when either the noble Lord on the Woolsack replies to the debate, or one of the noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench with experience of the Scottish system speaks, perhaps they could tell us if the appeal in Scotland is one way or two way.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, having been given that invitation, I should say that, on my understanding, the right of appeal is one way only. That is subject to correction. In Section 205(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, which was steered through by the noble and learned Lord, the then Lord Advocate—no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to speak better than I can on his reason for doing so—nothing is to be found to suggest that there is any power to increase the sentence. It is my understanding that there have been five such appeals
338
which have not increased, or indeed decreased, the recommendation.
On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I comment with some hesitation as he has more experience than a recent arrival such as myself. If the noble Lord likes Amendment No. 44 apart from the last three lines, I should have thought that there were various steps that he could have taken, and indeed can still take on Third Reading, to put the matter right.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is of course open to the mover of the amendment who agrees that there is a defect therein to withdraw it and to table it in an amended form at the next stage.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, that course is open to the mover of the amendment at this stage, as I am advised, by moving the amendment with the omission of the last three lines, should he so wish. I mention that not as a recommendation but as an indication of what I am advised is the procedure.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment, which seeks to give a right of appeal in respect of the minimum recommendation, obviously has something to be said for it, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter observed. However, there is the problem that this minimum recommendation is entirely discretionary. The right of appeal here in question does nothing therefore in relation to those cases in which there is no minimum recommendation.
As I understood my noble friend Lord Windlesham, that is one aspect of the present situation which from the point of view of a completely logical and satisfactory system is somewhat unfortunate. It may be a question whether it is right to add to those cases in which a minimum recommendation is given this additional right of appeal. The result is surely hound to be that there is some further authority; namely, the authority of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), in respect of the particular case in which there has been an appeal.
Against the general background that the noble Lord has described, I wonder whether it is right for us to go ahead and make this change to one part of the present system without making changes to the rest of it. It is true of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out, that in 1980 in relation to Scotland the Government proposed an appeal of this kind. The method used in the legislation was to deem the recommendation part of the sentence and to make it subject to the same rules of sentence which generally provide that it cannot be increased on appeal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, the other procedures have developed a good deal since 1980 and there is a recognised procedure which has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, as an administrative procedure but still a procedure that has been publicly recognised and intimated by the Home Secretary in the light of developments that have taken place. in particular the judgment of the Divisional Court in the Handscomb case. In that situation I wonder whether it is right on

339
the basis of the present system to make this change in isolation. It would be useful to know what those noble Lords with experience of the Parole Board—we are happy and privileged to have the benefit of the presence of no fewer than three of them—may have to say about that.
The point made in relation to the earlier amendment is that the person who is the subject of a minimum recommendation is placed in a special rather significantly different position from others who are the subject of a mandatory life sentence. If some of these are selected as people who have been the subject of consideration by the enhanced authority of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), the position is worsened by making such distinct situations even more different than would be the case if there were no appeal. The minimum recommendation is declaratory only, as was pointed out. It is for that reason no doubt that it has not up to now been the subject of a right of appeal in this country. If it was an ordinary sentence, one feels sure that from the beginning it would have been the subject of an appeal. It is not an ordinary sentence; it is something out of the ordinary invented as part of the arrangements for dealing with the abolition of capital punishment and a substitution of a mandatory sentence.
It is a special provision. Your Lordships have already heard just how special it is and how its existence in certain though not all cases makes it more difficult than it would otherwise be for the Parole Board to operate with complete fairness over the whole field with which it has to deal. The same problem applies to the Home Secretary. After all, one has to look at the situation from the point of view of administrative justice as the Home Secretary seeks to develop it. The Parole Board of course has its responsibilities in the same field.
I am not entirely persuaded that to add this right of appeal would necessarily produce a better overall picture of justice either for the Secretary of State or for the Parole Board. In that state of matters, it humbly seems to me that your Lordships might be wise not to pass the amendment. Your Lordships have expressed views that my right honourable friend will be very interested to read and consider. I doubt whether there is sufficient consensus on the best way forward for us to pass the amendment at this stage. I suggest that the wiser course might be not to do so.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, for a variety of reasons, not least the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I do not propose to press the matter today. I wish to reflect upon what they said about the last three lines of the amendment. I understand that there is a procedure under which I can tonight withdraw the last three lines of the amendment. I am not sure that that is the most sensible way of proceeding.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not tonight made one of his most persuasive cases. First, he asked—rather rhetorically, if I may say so—about the attitude of each of the three chairmen of the Parole Board—two past and one
340
present. That has been made absolutely clear. They are in favour of this amendment. I do not believe it creates the immense problems that he perceives are likely to follow for the Parole Board. Otherwise, I do not believe that the three of us would have taken that view.
The noble and learned Lord then says that it will also create hideous problems for the prisoner because he will have to consider whether he is not going to make his position worse by appealing to the Court of Appeal. There is the danger that with the "enhanced authority", as I think he described it, of that tribunal the prisoner would get himself into a worse position. That is a matter which the prisoner and his advisers would have to reflect upon. It is one of the matters they would have to consider before deciding whether to go to appeal in the first instance.
The noble and learned Lord continued by saying there is a third person about whom he is very concerned, and that is the Home Secretary. Why in fact should the position of the Home Secretary be made any more difficult. It is difficult enough already, as I am sure we all accept, in a whole variety of cases. Why should the position of the Home Secretary be more difficult because the Court of Appeal is asked to make a decision? The issue which the Court of Appeal would be determining would not be precisely when the man or woman concerned was to leave prison; it would be deciding only whether the minimum recommendation should be varied.
As to the rest of the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, he said quite rightly that the minimum recommendation is a discretionary matter. I think the noble and learned Lord later accepted to some degree that that does not begin to justify saying that although it is in fact entirely discretionary, a man should be debarred from the right to go to the Court of Appeal. As I have indicated, and as the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham, and my noble friend Lord Hunt have agreed, these minimum sentence recommendations are in most cases decisive so far as the Home Secretary and the Parole Board are concerned.
The language of the Home Office circular which I invite the noble and learned Lord to look at, re-emphasises the decisiveness of that minimum recommendation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said that he was fearful that if there was a right of appeal in such cases the majority of judges would be deterred from making a minimum recommendation in the first place. I have already indicated that a very substantial number of judges are deterred at the moment because they do not happen to believe in minimum recommendations.
A number of judges will not, as a matter of principle, make such a recommendation because they prefer to leave it to the Home Secretary. Others sometimes do, giving no reason at the time. Because the matter is (a) decisive in terms of the length of sentence, and (b) unreviewable by the Court of Appeal, it results in a most unsatisfactory situation.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has said, a minimum recommendation is not by itself a sentence. But in only seven cases since 1965 has it in

341
fact not been a sentence. That is a situation which we have to accept. I am deeply troubled as also are a number of members of the judiciary from my own direct personal knowledge. They have observed the character of cases over a number of years as members of the Parole Board. In some cases a minimum recommendation has been made by the trial judge and in others with some of the most notorious criminals coming before the criminal courts, no minimum recommendation has been made. Those two categories of cases are in reality treated totally differently and I can see no justification for such a situation.
I would have undoubtedly pressed this matter to a vote this evening were it not for the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
I hope that the Government will between now and Third Reading, look at this matter again. I certainly would not necessarily fight for every dot and comma on this particular amendment. But the issue of principle is clear. At the moment there are two categories of life sentences; and in one category a prisoner is maybe serving a far longer sentence on the basis of a minimum recommendation which is not reviewed by the Court of Appeal, and in the second, the case will he considered entirely on its merits.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 45:
Before Clause 41. insert the following new clause:
("Functions of Prison Disciplinary Tribunal.
.—(1) For the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it by this section there shall be a body known as the Prison Disciplinary Tribunal.
(2) Notwithstanding any previous enactment, where a prisoner is charged with any serious or repeated offence against discipline for which the awards the governor can make seem insufficient, the governor shall not refer the charge to the hoard of visitors but may, after investigation, refer the charge to the Prison Disciplinary Tribunal.
(3) The Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State may make rules for the membership of the Prison Disciplinary Tribunal, the proceedings of the Tribunal on charges referred to it and the imposition of penalties by the Tribunal.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Prison Disciplinary Tribunal to inquire into any charge referred to it under rules made under subsection (3) above and, if it finds an offence against discipline proved, to impose penalties as prescribed by those rules.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not think we shall get through this amendment in five minutes. In those circumstances would it not be better to break for supper?
Lord Denham: My Lords, it is very difficult when one has arranged to have an adjournment at about seven o'clock, to have it before seven o'clock because there may be noble Lords who wish to take part in the discussion. We always adjourn between seven and half-past and that will give the noble Lord a little leeway.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am very sorry to keep noble Lords from their supper hut I have no alternative.
342
There are two amendments here, and with the leave of the House I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 but to vote on them separately. There are two issues and the first is that disciplinary duties should he removed from the duties of the boards of visitors. That means that something else must be set up to carry out those duties. That is as far as Amendment No. 45 goes.
The second is that any tribunal which is set up to carry out such work should be constituted in a way that it stands as a judicial tribunal and will he empowered to act for all prisoners and thereby maintain consistency in its decisions.
Amendment No. 46 lays down the composition and procedure of such a tribunal which is recommended by the Prior Report. First, I refer to Amendment No. 45. I remind the House why the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and I some years ago and Mr. Peter Prior and his colleagues last year, urged that these disciplinary duties should not belong to or be part of the duties of the board of visitors. The proper duties of the board are to look after the interests of prisoners and staff; to be available to hear complaints; to be easily seen when going around the prison and to do so frequently. It is also its duty to support the governor in his efforts to obtain approval for improvements from the Home Office, and in emergencies to act as a direct line to the Home Secretary. If there is a crisis and it has been allowed to get out of hand, it has a direct line to the Home Secretary and this is an important part of its duties although seldom used.
We think that the board must be seen to be on the side of the prisoners. It must be a group of people to whom the prisoners can turn. We think the disciplinary duties are a real disadvantage towards creating the best atmosphere.
I am not going to say any more about this because it seems obvious. There was a good deal of support for this in Committee. I hope that when we come to vote on Amendment No. 45, noble Lords will find that they can support that amendment whatever difficulties there may be in the Government's view of executing it. That is something which the Government have to sort out for themselves.
As regards this amendment, not only do we have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe,who unfortunately cannot be here, but also the support of the Opposition. We have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. For nearly a year we had the support of the Government, too, from their White Paper last year until the cataclysmic change of heart of the noble Earl on 25th February last when he announced that nothing would he altered beyond the revised disciplinary code. The noble Earl explained to us in Committee that this was because of a lack of agreement as to the type of tribunal to be set up. However, as the Government agree that the combination of friendly help and the issuing of punishments by the same body is unsatisfactory, I hope that the House will at least accept the first amendment and leave it to the Secretary of State to make up his mind as to the form of tribunal required. If that is accepted, we can then

343
discuss Amendment No. 46 which deals with the legal machinery recommended by the Prior Committee.
Noble Lords must remember that the penalties concerned can be very severe. The maximum loss of remission was 180 days, but I am glad to say that it has now been reduced, with the Government acceptance of one of the Prior recommendations, to 120 days. However, that amounts to a sentence of an extra three months' imprisonment. Remission, of course, is a privilege but one which can only be forfeited by proved misconduct and it is utterly wrong that sentences of this kind should be handed out without the proper judicial supervision.
I repeat what was said in Committee. This tribunal has the support of all people professionally concerned in this field with the exception of the majority of boards of visitors; but, curiously enough, there is an Association of Visitors Boards which supports the amendment. It is also supported by the Magistrates' Association, the Law Society, the prison governors' branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants, the Prison Officers' Association, our own, parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group, NACRO, the Howard League and the Prison ReformTrust. When one backs this up with two very careful reports, one chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the other by Mr. Peter Prior—10 years apart but very nearly making the same recommendation—one is certainly confronted by what appears to be an obstinate refusal.
Kai Lung, that very good adviser, once said:
"A prickly mimosa is defence enough for a naked man armed only with a just cause."
Our cause is just but we are naked against the in-built majority on the other side, and the Home Office protection of the Minister is certainly prickly enough. This is a non-party issue. What may and, I am afraid, will happen is that a number of strange faces who have not listened to the argument will come into the House and support the Government in their determination not to put right what is admitted to be unsatisfactory in a sphere which is increasingly tense and difficult.
My own belief and the belief of my colleagues and the other people who support this amendment is that one of the provisions which can do most to ease the tension in a prison is a really effective board of visitors. We believe that unless at least Amendment No. 45 is carried and, preferably, Amendment No. 46, the possibility of strengthening the position of prison governors will be missed. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not know whether it is convenient to intervene at this moment and whether it interferes with the dinner arrangements, but I hope noble Lords will indicate if they are becoming hungry and would rather that the debate was adjourned at this point.
I would have put my name to these amendments were it not that I had misgivings about the drafting and the machinery; but as to the principle, I confess I have no doubt at all. Where the liberty of the subject is concerned and he is liable to imprisonment it seems to me that he is entitled to a tribunal with a legally
344
qualified chairman. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has deployed all the arguments which I shall not repeat. Having indicated a generally favourable view in Committee, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having written me a long letter setting out his views. The noble Earl must have worked fantastically hard between Committee and Report and it is a matter of regret, under those circumstances, that I was not persuaded by his letter. I only desire to say that it is many years since I had responsibility for prison administration, though of course when I went on assizes, like other judges on circuit, I invariably visited the local prison. However, even so, my experience is long out of date.
We had a rather similar problem in the Percy Royal Commission on mental health of which, I suppose, I am the last surviving member. There was a question of the liberty of persons who were compulsorily detained on the ground that they were considered to be of unsound mind. There again, there were visitors who visited the mental hospitals. I do not, for a moment, equate that with the prison visitors but there is that parallel. We discussed this matter at great length and came to the firm conclusion that a mental health review tribunal should be set up, legally chaired, and that was accepted without demur when the Mental Health Act 1959 was passed.
If it was necessary in that case—the liberty of the subject being a concern—to have an independent tribunal, legally chaired, it seems even more necessary in the present case for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson.
I thought that the recruitment argument that was put forward by the noble Earl in his most helpful letter was overdone. I do not believe that if we managed with the Mental Health Review Tribunal we would really have any difficulties in this field. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition let me say at once that we support this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, indicated. Possibly the power of our support may be measured by the brevity of my speech.
In those circumstances perhaps I may merely emphasise the following points. The board of visitors at the present moment—a body whose main function is regarded as being one of listening to complaints from prisoners and seeing whether they are justified—has the power to impose up to 180 days' loss of remission. If they happen to be consecutive offences that limit of 180 days can obviously be exceeded. It seems transparently obvious that it is the wrong body to be able to do this, to have the respect of the prisoners or to carry out its proper objective functions. That is the first point.
Secondly, this is not the view of some Members of your Lordships' House who have decided to put some revolutionary amendment down at Report or any other stage on this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out, this was the view of the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The previous Home Secretary, Mr. Leon Brittan, set up a committee which was chaired by Mr. Peter

345
Prior. This is the very recommendation—as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, with very little difference—put forward by the Prior Committee and the Jellicoe Committee.
The third point is that everybody seems to agree with this proposal except the Home Office administration at the moment. I say "at the moment" because I am hoping that there will have been a change of mind over the last few minutes, having heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and myself—I cannot think of a more convincing trio! I hope therefore that the noble Earl will have changed his mind.
However, the only other people who have put forward any doubt about how to form an alternative body, or to suggest that an alternative body should not be formed in the way mentioned in this amendment, are the boards of visitors. I have an idea that they may feel that there is some reflection on the way in which they have dealt with these matters in the past. That is not so, and one would have thought that their objection at the moment—which I understand may be fairly active but not very active—was the only reason for this amendment not being passed.
When I said that there was no objection to the procedure before, l must tell your Lordships, without wearying you with the cases involved, that there have been a couple of cases—a recent one before the Divisional Court—where the rights of prisoners were very definitely looked at and where what had happened in regard to procedure was frowned upon by the court, and indeed certain principles were laid down.
We now have the opportunity of carrying out the recommendation of two responsible committees. One never knows why committees are set up by Ministers unless they intend to give very serious consideration to their recommendations. We have that opportunity now; the noble Earl has it. I hope that he will take advantage of the opportunity.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, these amendments afford us a further opportunity to consider the prison disciplinary system. As I understand the noble Lord, the two new clauses he has tabled are intended as alternatives. One, identical to the one we discussed in Committee, is intended broadly to implement the Prior Committee's proposals for a new Prison Disciplinary Tribunal, with a circuit judge as president, legally qualified chairmen and lay members. The other, as I understand it, is intended in effect to implement the proposals in the White Paper on the prison disciplinary system (Cmnd. 9920) for a new lay body, which would be separate from boards of visitors, to deal with the more serious breaches of prison discipline.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, they are not alternatives. They can be alternatives but they can both be passed. If noble Lords pass the first you leave open the exact construction of the tribunal. If noble Lords pass the second, you fill that in.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has been able to correct me there. In that case I should say "and/or". I explained in some detail in Committee why the Government had decided not to proceed with the White Paper proposals for this new lay body. I also explained, however, the steps we were planning to take to improve the existing adjudication arrangements, principally by accepting in large part the Prior Committee's recommendations for a new code of discipline and various procedural changes and by providing hoards with the assistance of court clerks or solicitors. I recognise that these plans do not go as far as some people would wish, but I believe that they hear a close scrutiny as serious and worthwhile improvements to the present adjudication arrangements—improvements which, I may say, will involve a lot of hard work to put into effect.
As anyone who studied our White Paper of October 1986 will know, we gave careful consideration to the Prior Committee's proposals for a new disciplinary body. At this stage I should like to emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we did give serious consideration to the proposals. I am sure that he would be the first to agree with me that it is for the Government in some cases to institute these committees but it is for Parliament to decide at the end of the day which of the proposals it would like to see implemented and not necessarily to accept the committee's proposals carte blanche.
We also looked, as we were bound to do, at other possible options, in particular the use of magistrates and their clerks, and the option which the White Paper actually favoured, that of separate lay panels, assisted by qualified clerks. As the White Paper made clear, we recognise the arguments in favour of a tribunal of the kind suggested by the Prior Committee, but in the end we were persuaded, and remain persuaded, against such a tribunal because it had, in our view, serious disadvantages.
First, we consider that a tribunal system with a circuit judge as president and legally qualified chairmen (barristers or solicitors of not less than seven years' standing) would simply be too weighty a body for the business with which it would have to deal. It would certainly be more weighty than the magistrates' courts but it would be dealing with behaviour which, even if it corresponded with a criminal offence, would not in fact be serious enough to merit referral to the magistrates' courts.
Secondly, although the new clause to implement the Prior tribunal talks disarmingly of no fewer than four legally qualified chairmen, let us be quite clear that, as the Prior Committee itself recognises, bearing in mind the number of cases (about 3,500 a year) and the geographical spread of our 120 or so establishments, we should need in the region of 80 part-time appointments. The pool from which these appointments would have to be made would be the same one from which circuit judges, and other judicial officers, principally recorders and assistant recorders, are appointed. The depletion of that pool by the number of appointments in question would be singularly unwelcome to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, particularly at a time of growing pressure on the Crown Court.

347
Thirdly, an essential ingredient of an effective prison disciplinary system is the ability to arrange adjudications speedily, ideally not more than three to four weeks after the alleged offence. We have very serious doubts about our ability to convene panels chaired in the way the Prior Committee envisaged as quickly as would be desirable, and this was a factor which we thought it right to take into account.
Finally, I refer to a point on which the new clauses are silent. The Prior Committee suggested that its proposed tribunal would need its own administrative backup, regionally based. Our estimate was that this would require some 25 additional staff, plus accommodation and support services. Moreover, this estimate was based on the assumption—as the White Paper pointed out, a questionable assumption—that there would be no need for these staff to act as clerks at adjudications.
As I have indicated, we looked at two other options. We concluded that, taking all factors into account, the Prior tribunal was not the right way forward, and that the option for separate lay panels, assisted by clerks, was.
However, this solution gathered very little support. The proponents of the Prior tribunal saw it as inadequate, while the opponents at best were unenthusiastic. We listened to, and took note of, these views. We wanted to proceed by agreement, but that agreement was not forthcoming. We decided therefore, that if progress was to be made on the non-structural aspects of Prior we should have to forgo the idea of separating the adjudicatory and watchdog functions. I acknowledge candidly that this was a pragmatic response. I have to say also that as I became more familiar with the work of the prison department and indeed the work of boards of visitors, the more I became convinced that boards could cope and were coping very well with their adjudicatory functions. Far from being undermined by judicial review, the existing adjudicatory arrangements have both stood up well to the test of judicial review and have benefited from the guidance which has emerged from judicial review. I have also become convinced that the benefits to be obtained from the separation of the watchdog and adjudicatory functions are largely theoretical, and that they would have a serious practical cost in terms of the upheaval they would cause. In this connection, I have to say that we could well face serious difficulty in securing the services of sufficient numbers of suitable lay people to meet the requirements of both a new adjudicatory system and the important existing watchdog role which boards of visitors discharge.
While I have the highest regard for the legal profession—my regard is even greater having taken the Bill through its stages to date— and, indeed, for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, as a Minister in the department reponsible for the magistrates' courts I cannot accept that the importation of legally qualified chairmen is essential to achieve fairness. We have a proud tradition of summary justice administered by laymen and women, assisted, of course, by professional clerks. This is the model that we consider to be appropriate for the prison visiting system. I would go further and
348
say to the noble and learned Lord that there are a number of magistrates on boards of visitors. Of the 1,529 members of boards of visitors, 628 are serving justices of the peace. My maths, fairly elementary as it is, calculates that to be some 41 per cent. of boards of visitors. I repeat to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that we shall be giving the boards legal advice from now on. That is one of the recommendations of Prior that we have accepted.
There is another point which was not raised at Committee— I should have raised it and I apologise to the House. We await, and are about to receive, the thematic review of the outgoing Chief Inspector of Prisons on grievance procedures. This will provide an opportunity to look comprehensively at the way in which prisoners' grievances are handled. This in its turn has implications for the role of boards of visitors.
Since the last stage I have discussed at great length with members of boards of visitors, both for and against, and other members of the prison service what their attitudes are to our decision, given what was said by your Lordships in Committee. They have all said that we are right to be doing what we are doing. Perhaps some of them do not like it, but in the present circumstances they believe that the Government have taken the right decision.
Let me conclude by saying this. First of all, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given us this further opportunity to discuss the prison disciplinary system. Secondly, while the Government are grateful to the Prior Committee for the valuable work it did and for the many recommendations we are pursuing, we do not think that it got it right with its proposed tribunal. Thirdly, we accept that our proposed lay panels do not command sufficient support. I see no prospect of finding acceptable new structures in the foreseeable future.
I did not differ from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, when he said that the boards of visitors must be effective. I believe that they are effective and will continue to be effective with the proposals which we have in mind and which we have discussed tonight. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that, while we differ on whether or not the new machinery is necessary, he and I share the objective of improving the disciplinary system and I therefore hope too that he will be able to accept my argument this evening.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, we concluded in Committee that I was unlikely to agree with the noble Earl and I do not think he expects me to do so today. I am disappointed because I carefully raised two amendments so that if the noble Earl found, in his rather delightful phrase, that he could make only a pragmatic response to my request to set up a tribunal—a pragmatic response meaning a reasonably stated excuse for doing nothing about it—he could take the first amendment and say, "We have already told you that we agree that these disciplinary matters should be separated from the caring or friendly duties of boards". They mentioned this in the White Paper and he has twice half said and half withdrawn it (I believe this seriously). The noble Earl could have given us some encouragement to pass

349
the first amendment and then told us what the Government could do in the form of a makeshift system. He could have said, "We will see that there are at least three magistrates on every board"—if there are 41 per cent. that means that there are jolly nearly two already—and could have said, they shall sit separately and have a separate function to deal with such cases." That would have gone some way in the right direction, although not as far as I had hoped for. To give one absolutely nothing at all, except that there is to be a disciplinary code to be administered by the same people—people whose administration of it we object to anyway—is a poor response.
The noble Lord spoke of the Prior suggestion as being too weighty. Conditions in prison are not the same as conditions outside. Ordinary magistrates' courts can deal with a three-month prison sentence, which is what we are talking about under the new code. It is a very big sentence for the man already serving it, who is expecting to get out on a certain date. It needs a weighty tribunal to satisfy him and his colleagues.
Lastly, if it is true that the Prison Governors' Association and the prison officers staff have told the noble Earl that what has been decided is absolutely splendid, in spite of it not being what they want, that is not the kind of response I have received.
For the reasons I gave in my opening remarks we shall not win this because the people who will be voting have not listened to the argument, do not know anything about it and are treating it as a party matter. I shall display that by putting the matter to the vote.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 45) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 65.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jay, L,

Avebury, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Blease, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. [Teller.]

Morton of Shuna, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hooson, L.

Ullswater, V.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Caldecote, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Atholl, D.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Balfour, E.

Carnock, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Coleraine, L.

Belstead, L.

Colwyn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

350

Dormer, L.

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mountevans, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elton, L.

Nelson, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Orkney, E.

Goold, L.

Romney, E.

Grantchester, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Somers, L.

Hooper, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strange, B.

Joseph, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kitchener, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L

Lawrence, L.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lyell, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Windlesham, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wise, L.

Marley, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved]
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this may be the appropriate time to adjourn the Report stage. I suggest that we do not resume before 8.35 p.m. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and. on Question Motion agreed to.

Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987
7.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. With your Lordships' permission, it would be convenient to discuss together both instruments standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The battery hens regulations implement a European Community directive which lays down minimum welfare standards. I ought to say straight away that the Government welcome the principle of Community safeguards for animal welfare. The directive means that there will now be welfare standards in all member states. For the first time there will also be statutory rules with the force of law behind them, which will be a new development in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
The regulations are being made after full consultation with interested parties and follow the provisions of the directive pretty closely. They fall into two parts. General requirements, such as cleaning and proper daily inspection, are contained in the schedule and will apply to all cages from 1st January 1988. The more specific standards, such as the minimum floor area and cage height, are laid down in the main body of the regulations. These more exacting provisions will come into effect from 1st January next year for new cages. But for existing

351
cages a generous phase-in period had been provided, so that producers will not need to comply until 1st January 1995.
To many people the most important provision is the minimum space allowance per bird, and here we have taken the figure of 450 sq cm contained in the directive. The Government said at the time that we were disappointed with this figure but that it was the best we could get in Brussels. We would have preferred to get Community agreement on 600 sq cm, but that was not possible. With one exception, therefore, we have kept the directive's figure of 450. The exception concerns cages with small numbers of birds. Most cages contain four, five or six birds and this provision will not apply. But where there are only one, two or three we believe it is right to allow them each more space. This is because birds in larger numbers can to some extent share each other's space. Such sharing is not possible when there are only small numbers.
The directive contains a provision for a scientific review in 1993. The idea is that the Commission should come forward with a report on developments and possible amendments to the directive for discussion in the Council of Ministers. My department will keep in touch with the welfare societies, the egg industry and those engaged in R&D over the next few years so that we can be fully prepared to take part in those discussions. We would expect them to include both welfare and industry concerns.
My department has had representations from the egg industry about the effect of these regulations on the so-called A-frame cages, which make up about a third of all cages in current use. These cages have an inward-sloping back and therefore have limited headroom. The effect of the directive's provision on cage height, combined with our own rules on floor space, is that some producers might have to take several birds out of the cage to make it comply fully. We accept that this is a problem for a minority of producers, although even these people would not need to change until 1995. In view of their concern we are prepared to keep the position in the industry under review over the next few years. If there is still a significant problem by the time the directive comes up for review in 1993, we shall consider seeking an amendment to it. or possibly to our own regulations, to deal with it.
To conclude on battery hens, I know that there is a wide spread of opinion as to how stringent these rules should be. The Government have to strike a balance. We believe that these regulations—which set statutory standards for the first time—will help to protect the welfare of the birds. If we find that they create a continuing problem for the industry, we shall undertake to see what further action we can take.
I should now like to turn to the Welfare of Calves Regulations, which are intended to ban veal crates. The veal crate is the most intensive form of husbandry used in the cattle sector, and consists typically of a narrow high-sided individual box, in which the animal is unable to turn round. The system is coupled with a diet which is low in iron and which contains no roughage. This can distort the
352
development of the rumen and increase the risk of digestive problems, as well as causing the calf to become anaemic.
There has been widespread and long-standing concern about the welfare of calves in crates. This was raised as long ago as 1965 by the Brambell Committee, which looked into intensive livestock systems. The welfare code for cattle, first published in 1971 and revised and strengthened in 1983, makes several recommendations which are breached by the crate system. When the code was revised, the Government hoped that it would mean the end of veal crates; but this has not happened. We have therefore decided that the time has come for legislation.
The regulations will apply to all calves kept in single pens or stalls. They will set conditions which effectively rule out the features associated with crates. Other rearers of calves in single pens will have no difficulty meeting these provisions. First, we shall require the width of all such pens to be not less than the height of the animal at the withers—a precise point at the top of the shoulder. We shall also require the calf to be able to turn round without difficulty. These two measures will deal with the problem of confinement.
On diet, the regulations will require sufficient iron in the daily ration to maintain the calf in full health and vigour. Calves over 14 days old will also be required to have access to enough digestible fibre so as not to impair rumen development.
I know there is concern that, although we are banning crates here, we still export calves which will go into crates on the Continent. We are anxious to see similar rules applied in other member states, and are pleased to be able to report that the European Commission is already working on a calf directive. We are helping them with their preparatory work and will certainly support a Community-wide measure as soon as it is tabled.
Finally, my Lords, I can assure you that the calves regulations are being introduced for sound welfare reasons. Producers using them have already had several years of official discouragement, and there are other systems available. We said at the end of last year that we would phase them out over three years, and the regulations will come into effect on 1st January 1990. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th July be approved. [2nd Report front the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Trumpington.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we are delighted that the noble Baroness has brought these regulations forward for discussion. There is no question, particularly so far as concerns the battery production of eggs, that there is a lot of feeling one way or another and I think that these regulations should help to give some succour to the people who feel that battery egg production should be banned altogether.
Whatever one may think of battery egg production there is no doubt that it produces cheap eggs. I looked at the egg stall in a supermarket no later than this morning and found that half a dozen eggs, which

353
I am pretty certain were all battery-produced eggs, were 56p a half dozen and free range eggs were 79p for half a dozen. They were No. 4 size eggs. That makes a tremendous difference of 46p a dozen between eggs produced by battery production and by free-range production, and somebody told me that they did not think that free-range farmers were making much of a profit even at those prices. Whether of course the supermarkets are taking too much profit on them I do not know, but that is the difference. We have to look at that side of it when discussing the abolition of battery egg production altogether. To be fair to these figures, the smaller the egg the difference is not quite so great.
Over the years there has been the development of different batteries, which the noble Baroness mentioned, and fresh regulations. As regards the regulations, I have been handed the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments report on these regulations, and I must admit that it is pretty hard on them. No doubt the noble Baroness has had pointed out to her what it says. It is a little vague. It says:
"Most of the requirements in the Schedule seemed to the Committee to be extraordinarily vague. Given that the breach of these requirements would constitute a criminal offence, the Committee inquired whether it would not have been possible to tighten up the terms of the Directive rather than reincorporating them virtually wholesale?"
When one reads some of the regulations—particularly the one on the angle of the floor—they are difficult to understand. They make a point of what exactly eight degrees means as against 14 per cent. The committee gives a sketch which explains it to a layman, but I think that the noble Baroness should take note of these matters.
The other point I want to raise on the regulations is the question of:
"'laying hens' means adult female domestic fowls which are kept on agricultural land for egg production".
Does that cover a battery on cement at the back door of some smallholding, or a private house where somebody has a bit of land? I presume it does, but there are these things in the regulations which are, as the committee says, a bit vague. Because they will be criminal offences they will need to be cleared up a bit.
As I said earlier, and as the noble Baroness said, there have been changes in the design of batteries and these regulations create a problem. I understand that the alterations that the Danes made a few years ago have been much to the loss of the Danish farmers who have lost a great deal of business to the Dutch because the regulations were so hard.
We welcome what the noble Baroness proposes to do about the A-frame battery, which is a good battery in that it allows the droppings to drop clear of the other cages, and also one can see the birds much better. From a husbandry point of view the birds are much easier to see because there is light coming in from the top on every layer of cage whether there be three or four. I think that these regulations could create the following situation. I gather that if they were carried out to the letter they could reduce the number of hens in an A-battery by up to 60 per cent., and that would mean a considerable loss to the farmer.
354
I do not know how long batteries last. I installed a battery just after the war. It certainly lasted 10 or 12 years; I sold it, and I think it is still going. It may seem a long time to 1995 but it passed very quickly. I think that the noble Baroness mentioned that in 1993 they would look at the regulations again so that they could do something by 1995.
As we all know, there is tremendous competition in the EC in the egg market. Anything that would put our farmers at a disadvantage would be most unfair. Therefore we welcome the point that the noble Baroness made.
On the question of the calves, of course nobody likes the veal calf system at all. We know the reason for keeping them from turning round of course: for control. The food had no roughage, but nowadays one cannot buy food without the proper fibre and so on.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness has any thoughts about whether the regulations for calves should deal with the fact that veal calves are always kept in darkness. There is no word as to whether we ought to stop keeping them in the dark.
On the question of calves in general, I was brought up in Aberdeenshire where it will now be an offence to tie up any animal. I left Aberdeenshire and have not been on a beef farm for a long time, but my noble kinsman may know of a whole host of cattle tied up in what we call byres that are well looked after and perfectly happy.
In Denmark I saw sows tethered in wide stalls and bedded on straw. One could not have seen a better bit of husbandry than that. We need to look closely at the suggestion that farmers in the North-East are being cruel to cattle by keeping them tied up in byres.
With regard to the regulation about the height and the width—the height being the height up to the wither—I think it would be much better to take an average size calf and give a figure. I can imagine a joiner coming along to make some calf pens, trying to catch a calf to measure its withers and then deciding how wide to make the pen. I feel that is a little vague.
However, we welcome these new regulations to help the situation in animal husbandry, particularly intensive animal husbandry. Apart from the points that we have made, we give them our blessing.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we, too, from these Benches welcome the regulations. I must say that I welcome them much more wholeheartedly than my noble kinsman. I should hope that the regulations would not only improve the temper of the critics but would do something for the hens as well. As a farmer I detest the battery system. I know that it produces eggs and, as my noble kinsman said, they may be cheaper; but free-range eggs would certainly be worth half as much again as eggs produced in a battery. The system is widely abhorred.
Another kinsman of mine shows many schoolchildren round his farm. They go into the calf house and the the milking parlour which are very modern. They go into the piggery. They are extremely interested. However,when he takes them into the battery house a hush falls on the children. I think that this is universally felt.

355
Therefore I welcome the small step forward in the regulations. I am not unaware of the fact that in this kind of case we must protect our producers who are driven by commercial factors to produce in this way, as against our comrades on the continent.
I hope that the Government will take a lead in pushing for further regulations. I thought it delightful that the cage is sloped in such a way that the droppings fall clear. I have no doubt that that is absolutely admirable, but why should the bird have to bend down every time it wants to defecate? It appears to me to be most cunning, but it is still not at all a good system. Therefore, I hope that the Government will work towards getting it abolished throughout the EC. We shall then have far better eggs. The hens will take up some of the land that at present is used to produce surplus food. We should produce from that land something worthwhile and worthwhile eating. While paying due regard to the competitive nature of the industry, I do think that this is a step forward.
In the case of the calves I do not think that there is anything with which to quarrel. I cannot see that the colour of the veal that we eat should be obtained by depriving the calf of any vital element in its growth, particularly as calves may be intended for veal but given fodder at a later stage.
I can assure the noble Baroness that from these Benches I welcome the regulations. I recognise the practical difficulties of the industry. However, I hope that the Government will push for regularisation of the position on batteries inside Europe and progress to abolishing them altogether.
8 p.m.
Lord Elliot of Morpeth: My Lords, I seek to take part in the discussion on the regulations which are before us, mainly because in another place in the parliamentary session 1980 to 1981 I chaired the Select Committee on Agriculture and with 11 of my colleagues in another place spent an entire parliamentary session looking into the conditions in which eggs, meat from pigs and meat from veal calves was produced. Our inquiry was a natural follow on to the Brambell Report which my noble friend mentioned in opening this evening. It was also very much in response to a great deal of public disquiet at that time about what had become known as factory farming. I believe that there is a great deal of public disquiet about factory farming today, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who has just spoken, has indicated.
I was interested in his comments about schoolchildren being taken round a farm. I can fully understand the reaction of young people in seeing hens particularly in their natural condition in a farmyard and then seeing them in the battery system.
Back in 1981 my committee produced our report and our recommendation for battery hens was that Community agreement should be sought to obtain through regulation a minimum of 750 square centimetres per bird in battery cages. We also very strongly recommended that 550 square centimetres was the absolute minimum that could possibly be reasonable.
356
I therefore welcome, belated as they are, Recommendations (1)—(3) which are before us tonight. I regret very much that birds in cages of four should just have 450 square centimetres. My committee further recommended that agreement should he sought in the European Community on a statement of intent, that after a period of five years egg production should be limited to approved methods which would not include battery cages in their present form.
The date of that report which I signed was 2nd July 1981. The new regulations represent, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has suggested, a modest step forward on the humane front. The new regulations representing this modest improvement in welfare are not effective until 1st January 1995—food for thought for those of us who sat on that committee those years ago. My colleagues and I on that Select Committee were fully aware of the economic consequences of our recommendations. Throughout our report— as those of your Lordships who have read it will note—we appreciated that regulation must be on a Community basis if the United Kingdom producer was not to be disadvantaged. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, speaking for the Opposition. However, we did not hesitate in our conclusion. The report summed up our feelings, and I should like to quote from paragraph 149:
"Despite the conflicting arguments our conclusion is clear: we have seen for ourselves battery cages, both experimental and commercial, and we greatly dislike what we saw. We think that, provided that a move away from them was carried out over a reasonable period of years, and provided that it was made in concert throughout the Community, then so far as can be estimated at present the economic consequences would not be prohibitive, the likely price increases need not he unacceptably large, and consumers would adapt to them as they have to much else".
Since the production of our report—since I wrote that paragraph- progress has been deplorably and abominably slow. I hope that our strong recommendation, made at the time of the report, that research into alternative, more humane methods of egg production will continue.
What is happening with regard to the hopeful work which was being carried out at that time at Gleadthorpe on the aviary system or the work at Celle in Germany on the get-away cage system? The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, spoke of the use of land. I remember that during the course of our inquiry in 1981 a witness stated that the straw yards system—which was a reasonable system and certainly more humane than the battery system—was at a disadvantage because it would take precisely five times as much land as the battery system. We are now looking for alternative uses for land so perhaps it may not be too had a thing if the straw yard system were to be considered once again.
I believe that public opinion has moved with regard to battery and free-range produced eggs. Free-range produced eggs are now more freely available than at the time of the production of our report. I live in the heart of Northumberland where we can obtain free-range eggs easily. When I am in London I live in the heart of the metropolis, as my noble friend knows, because we are neighbours. I have no difficulty in obtaining free-range eggs here and I think that it is an improving trend. There is, however, no

357
doubt— and we would be foolish if we did not recognise it—that a caged system of some kind will continue for a long time to come. The economics of the situation still demand it.
I hope that more research will be undertaken and that in the near future further steps will be taken. I regret that action since the production of a report, on which 12 Members of another place, including myself, did a great deal of work has been so long in coming. During the course of that we experienced a great deal of distress at what we saw. I hope that it will be not too long before we have a further step forward.
I welcome the requirements laid down in the draft regulations as regards veal calves. The Select Committee's recommendation that, above all else, a calf should have the ability to turn round is met. That is a good thing, whether it is measured by the withers or in another way. It will now be possible for a veal calf to turn round and that is an enormous step forward in the name of humanity. It was a deplorable sight to see rows and rows of calves unable to turn round in the full period of their short lives. Considering the deplorable conditions in which we saw them kept, one felt a certain amount of relief at knowing that their lives would be short. I welcome the new regulations but I regret that they will not come into force until 1990.
The committee strongly recommended that the production of loose housing for veal calves should be given full consideration by the government of the day. I hope that the advantages of loose housing are still being borne in mind by Her Majesty's Government.
As the past chairman of a Select Committee which looked into the subject closely and carefully, I welcome the recommendations, but with the reservation that they have been too long in coming and that they are much too modest.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I welcome the recommendations in the sense of welcoming not half a loaf as being better than no bread but a single crumb. The regulations have a few things to recommend them but I think that they may be harmful in confirming to the public that the Government approve of intensive farming. I do not disapprove of intensive farming merely from a humanitarian point of view. I dislike it also because of the danger to the consumer. The animals, which live an entirely captive and unnatural life, become delicate and subject to all kinds of disease. They have to be injected with antibiotics and, as everyone knows, calves must also be injected with hormones. It is that which makes the meat eaten by the consumer unnatural and possibly even dangerous.
It is a pity that the regulations were not prepared in English. For those noble Lords who do not understand European, I should like to point out that 1,000 sq. c. equals a rectangle of approximately 19½ in. by 7½ in. It could be a different measurement but it is a small space in which a hen must spend its entire life.
On the other hand, I am glad that the food for calves has been improved. It is much better than the food they are given in France. There they are made
358
anaemic because the French public demands white veal. I am thankful to say that we in this country are not quite so particular.
The noble Baroness said that the regulations are put before us in order to keep in step with European standards. Why on earth should the European Commission dictate to us as regards our domestic affairs?—on international affairs most certainly, and one can understand that. But it seems to me that our domestic regulations are entirely beyond its business and I cannot understand it. However, I dare say that I am one of those old-fashioned people who like England to be England.
I do not like the regulations. I do not like intensive farming but, on the other hand, they might he a great deal worse.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, at the risk of being tedious, I shall complain once again about the indiscriminate way in which important business is raised during what is supposed to be a break for supper. I hope that the Procedures Committee will look very closely at the convention to see whether something better cannot be arranged.
I think that this debate reflects matters of much greater importance than the regulations themselves would suggest. I find it extremely congenial to be in the company of those who are interested in this subject, but I deplore the fact that the majority of noble Lords go to join in the social life available at Westminster, while some Members remain behind to do what they believe to be their duty. One day I shall become so impatient that I shall do something rash. I shall bring in my own sandwiches and have my own working supper. It will shame all those who are enjoying the amenities of Parliament to a greater extent than are those now present in this Chamber. I shall leave the matter there.
Of course the draft regulations are welcome, but they are 22 years behind the times. The Brambell Committee, which has already been referred to, began the analysis of the new development of intensive animal husbandry. The committee was set up by a Conservative Government in the summer of 1964 and reported in December of the following year when a Labour Government was in power.
At this point I must say that I deeply regret that the Labour Government in 1965 was so shamefully weak that they did not do something much more positive then. I share the responsibility for that, and I can only offer in extenuation the political circumstances in which the Brambell Report was received. At the beginning of 1964, the Conservative Government made a very generous farm price settlement. I am sure that they had no ulterior motive for doing so. When the Labour Government took office later that year and had to deal with the Farm Price Review in 1965 (of which body I was chairman) something had to be done to curtail the rising costs of agricultural support. But with a tenuous majority in the Commons, it was difficult to follow one unpopular measure with another. When the then Minister of Agriculture, my noble friend Lord Peart, who I very much regret is unhappily unable to be with us on these occasions, was going round the country to meetings of the National Farmers' Union, he had

359
dead chickens thrown at him on account of the discontent with the Farm Price Review of 1965.
We should have grasped the nettle then, but we never have our time over again. These regulations are of the same type (though in some respects not as good) as those recommended by the Brambell Committee 22 years ago, which shows just how long it takes to make progress. People say that one cannot stop progress, but my experience has been that it is hard to get it going, and in this particular connection it certainly has been difficult.
We are now in the European dimension whereas in 1965 we were not. In 1965 we were masters in our own house although, admittedly, the rivalry in prices and production between agriculture in this country and Europe was still present. However, at least it was not governed by the disciplines and laws of the European Community. I was strongly in favour of Britain joining the EC as I realised that it would mean entering a new dimension and bring a new discipline that we should have to accept in the interests of the common advancement of policies throughout Europe. Today we are confronted with one of those policies.
One of the traits that I so much deplore in the human species is the way in which we treat animals. Our attitude seems to be that animals are either for slaughter, for domestication or for imprisonment. We put them behind bars, and when it comes to intensive animal husbandry living creatures stay behind some very small bars indeed. I make no apology for referring first of all to calves, which have probably suffered most. The Brambell Report recommended some quite positive conditions under which veal calves should be kept. The consumer fad for white veal is an abomination because we make the calf do its own bleaching by the manipulation of its food intake, by keeping it in darkness and not allowing it reasonable room for movement. There is not the slightest doubt that when we see a regulation about prevention of cruelty, cruelty is exactly what we mean. Cruelty, whether it be cruelty to animals to children or whatever, is of itself an evil thing. We have raised it to the level of a criminal offence in our statute law. It appears again in these regulations. This is the first time that regulations of this kind in respect of either poultry or calves appear in statute. Up to now we have relied upon voluntary compliance with a code of practice.
I am not a person to decry the nobility of response to voluntary effort and compliance with agreed standards which may not have the backing of statute law but have a strong moral influence behind them. Nevertheless, we now have these regulations, which appear 22 years after Brambell, to deal with calves. We are dealing with calves because the deterioration in the treatment of calves during the intervening period has been more than public opinion can take. I believe that that is another aspect of the situation in which we find ourselves at the present time. The mood of the consumer— which is expressing itself more and more in disquiet and distaste for many of the methods used in the production of animals as food—lies behind these regulations, welcome as they are. The deepest worries are aroused in the consumer
360
by the amount of doping that goes on, the hormones that are pumped into animals, and the whole range of laboratory techniques used in the treatment of animals in confined areas.
With the decline in the need for intensive arable production in our farming industry there will be a strong demand that some of the land should be used to give more space to animals that are now kept in cages, crates and other confined spaces. That will be a good thing. As for cost, one of these days we shall have to preach the doctrine that the animals come first, and if they cannot be produced at the cost that one wants to pay, they will have to be produced at the cost that one cannot afford to pay. We shall then see what your priorities are. The public has not really been tested on its priorities. We have kept food prices low; we have kept rents low; we have kept everything essential low, in order that many disposable incomes can rise for use in many directions less desirable and less needful than those which should come first in domestic expenditure.
By 1993 or 1995—I do not suppose for a moment that I shall be here to see it—something will be moving in this field which it will be impossible to disregard, and all these square centimetres, inches, slope of the floors and slats will be going out of animal production. I sincerely hope that it will.
On calves we have practices which have grown up and become intolerable, and which are now to be made unlawful. We are creating criminal law tonight in the supper break and I think we should understand that that is so. I welcome that. Even so, looking at the draft order on calves, I find some difficulty in satisfying myself that charges will stick and convictions will be made under such loose phraseology as we have in the regulations. This is the reason why, unwelcome as it may be sometimes, it is necessary to prescribe fixed dimensions and precise conditions to which conduct can be related.
If you look at the regulations, there are one or two conditions for keeping a calf which—I do not know—may be somewhat difficult to prove. They read:
"the calf is free to turn round without difficulty".
How difficult should it be for a calf to turn round without difficulty? Your Lordships know what the lawyers make of the construction of words in statute law when they get busy, and the absence in the draft regulations of something more specific about space and room for calves is to be regretted.
I am not part of the indiscipline that has kept us running late with our supper break; and I am not feeling constrained by any suggestion that we have an informal timetable on this debate—we have not. The House cannot resume on the Criminal Justice Bill until we have finished. I think that we should finish in our own time. It is important to assert our right, if we are to discuss matters during the supper break, to extend the supper break to fit our feeling of discharging our duty, which is what I am doing.
I once described the battery hen, as the most miserable being in the feathered world, and I think that is still true. Here we have more specific regulations on space to be available. The nub of the problem about the regulations for the battery hen is

361
the difference between the standards that we wanted and those which were obtainable, and the extent to which the regulations alter the directive of the EC on minimum space. That is really what is bothering the industry and is probably perplexing other people, too.
This arose when we knew of the directive of the EC earlier this year. I remember commenting on the fact that we should receive an EC directive on a lower minimum standard than we were asking the industry to provide under the voluntary code in this country, and a great many producers have sustained their business on a higher standard of space than that provided for in the EC directive. But the draft regulations depart from the EC minimum in the case of cages containing a smaller number of birds.
It is interesting to bear in mind that Brambell recommended that no cage should contain more than three birds. Now we are talking about one, two or three as if they are the smaller fry. The real business of keeping poultry today is with five and six in a cage—a sort of flock—so that they can use each other's space. The trouble about using each other's space is that you get in each other's way and that leads to all sorts of bad habits in all species. Even human beings crowded together can scarcely behave themselves in a decent fashion. It is not a hit surprising that we get cannibalism and other malpractices from one bird to another.
But the industry is saying what the regulations, as drafted, require them to do in the future, not now—and this is another feature of these regulations which we must remember. It is a phasing-out and a phasing-in process which could last a long time. For calves it is two years. For poultry it can be seven years, with a review to begin before that so that the period might not be extended unless absolutely necessary.
But it will be in the law, it will be in the regulations, and they will have the force of an Act of Parliament. The industry will have to adjust itself to the prospect that when that time comes these regulations may become fully effective. This may give rise to problems of relationships with production costs in Europe and other matters related to the EC.
But one of the things we must require in the interval is some evidence of compliance—enforcement, indeed—of the EC directive in some of the countries in Europe. We may think that 450 cm2 is a bit on the low side, and it is; but countries that have no minimum standards will have to comply with the EC regulations or should do. We want to be very clear that that is likely to be possible.
Altogether I think that this is a much more auspicious occasion than one would have realised. It is the first time that we have put in the statute law conditions in these two fields of intensive animal husbandry. That itself is a notable step. Secondly, it is the first time that we have standards set out in a European Convention. We are now part of the European dimension and that we have done for the first time and lent our influence as best we could in the European discussion.
Therefore I think I can chide the Government with having no idea how to celebrate their
362
achievements—certainly not in the supper break. There ought to have been something much more notable in the reception given to these regulations than has been possible in the rather secondhand shop conditions in which we are debating this matter at the present moment. But it is an achievement and the Government have to be commended on that. Here we have something on which to build, and bring the future consideration of this problem into the pool. I sincerely hope that this is the beginning of the next phase in the treatment of birds and domestic animals and will set in motion not an extension of this system, but a departure from it and to embrace much more civilised conditions for keeping our animals in the future. A country that cannot treat its animals decently is not worth much in the estimation of posterity. We might as well make up our minds that if we cannot be great at least we can be civilised.
Lord Wise: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I wish to follow on one point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, regarding agricultural land. Why is it necessary for those words to be included in the regulations? It could be because a number of battery hens are kept on land which is not agricultural land. There could also be a few calves which are kept in back gardens and therefore not covered by these regulations. I think that they should be covered by the regulations.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hives: My Lords, at the risk of a cold supper I must say a few words about the battery hen. I have kept hens all my life under every different system. I started off with free range hens then I progressed on to straw yards and dropping pits. I have tried all the different systems and I ended up with the battery hen system. In my experience hens which are kept in well run batteries are happier and better looked after than hens which are kept under other systems. They are also very productive.
In the case of a straw yard there is always the worry of rats, which are very difficult to keep out of straw yards. Farmers tend to drop eggs on the straw. Perhaps they do not pick those eggs up and they may get picked up the following day. All those problems are involved. There is also bullying among the hens.
The ideal way to keep hens is to have about 10 hens and a cock in a farmyard where they all have room to spread. That is fine and lovely but once one starts to increase the number the hens begin to fight and bully. The hens get miserable and some get their bottoms pecked. If one puts them into cages in a well run battery house, anyone who walks into that battery house, who knocks on the door before he goes in and walks down the rows quietly finds that the hens will talk to him. They are as happy as Larry. They produce lovely eggs.
The nigger in the woodpile as regards eggs is when they reach the shop. More damage is done to eggs when they get into the shop than ever happens to them on the farm. The first thing people notice when they enter a shop is that the eggs are stuck in the window. The sun pours in on them and they are subject to evaporation. If people want a decent egg they should get it as soon as they can from the hen

363
and keep it in the right conditions, with the right humidity and with the appropriate ventilation. If it is kept under those conditions and sent straight to the customer the customer will get a beautiful egg and he will never be able to tell the difference between an egg that has come from a battery hen and one that has come from the outside. However, if that egg is taken into a shop, is warmed up and then cooled down, the customer will get a horrible egg. I agree that such an egg is horrible. There is a very noticeable difference between a really fresh egg and one which has been battered about.
My speech may have meant that we shall have our supper a little later but I had to say something about the battery hen.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this debate has certainly reflected the level of interest and concern that is expressed by a wide cross-section of the public on these subjects. As I am deeply concerned about any cruelty to animals, after listening to the powerful pleas by the noble Lord. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the contrasting remarks of my noble friends Lord Hives and Lord Wise, I feel like a rather battered old bird myself. I shall try to answer as many points as I possibly can as fast as I can.
I am very grateful for the welcome by the noble Lord. Lord John-Mackie, for the regulations. The vague drafting that he talked about is the result of having tried to follow the directive as closely as possible. As regards agricultural land, which the noble Lord mentioned in the context of drafting. the definition comes from the enabling Act, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1968 which applies to all commercial farmers and smallholders. As regards calves being kept in darkness, the Government's welfare code requires that calves have suitable lighting. I hope that that is reassuring.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the darkness provision is in a code, not a regulation.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I see. With regard to the height of calves' withers the code was deliberately designed that way to cover animals of different breeds and sizes. I imagine that one would take the largest calf and choose its wither height.
On the question of A-frame cages, at the industry's request we have already obtained an important concession from the Commission that the directive's height requirements should apply only over the minimum cage area. Without that A-frame cages would have been ruled out. We shall keep the position in the industry under review.
My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth, whose work as chairman of the Select Committee was widely respected, brought up several points and spoke about the time lapse. I shall return to that in a minute.
364
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, does not approve of these draft regulations because they are certainly aimed at improving the lot of just those animals and birds about which he worries and for which he suffers. He brought up the question of hormones. They are banned in poultry and calves. I hope that that will reassure him. The Community ban is on the way for other classes of livestock.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, raised the question of government support for intensive farming. The risk to consumers is no greater than that from other foods. Intensive systems produce clean, good food, which most people want. People can buy alternatives if they wish to. They can even become vegetarians.
The response to the Brambell Report, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was that the Government passed legislation, which was the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. We set up the advisory committee, which is now the Farm Animal Welfare Council. I am sure that the noble Lord knows that we started the work on welfare codes.
As regards the enforcement of regulations, my department's veterinary staff will be responsible for that. They will use their clinical judgment. If need arises we shall prosecute.
My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth and many other noble Lords would like to see cages banned, but most eggs are produced under the battery system and no practical substitute has yet appeared. Free range and other systems have their place but they involve greater costs and hence greater prices, which most consumers seem unwilling to pay. The free range system in particular requires a considerably higher quality of stockmanship than is generally available.
Alternative systems are unlikely to take over from the battery system and there is no realistic prospect of a ban on cages. We are of course supporting research in this country and in other EC member states into alternatives to the battery cage. At our own farm in Gleadthorpe we are carrying out a trial into the aviary system. Early results have given some encouragement. There is a long way to go but that work and the work at Celle must continue.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshic, that we shall continue to press for improved measures of care within the EC. as we have always done in the past. As regards enforcement in other member states, the directive specifically sets up the procedure for the Commission to check up on national arrangements. If others fall short. we shall pursue the matter in Brussels.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, hit a nail on the head when he spoke of the past. The Government have a delicate balance to maintain when helping animals; in other words, it is the art of the possible. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Elliott, as I said, deplored the length of time that it has taken to arrive at this stage. I remind your Lordships that we have the opportunity to progress even more through the review of the Community directive in 1993.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Welfare of Calves Regulations 1987
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th July be approved. [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 41 [Life imprisonment for certain firearms offences]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
("Parole Board review of life prisoners who have served ten years.
The following subsection shall be inserted after section 61(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967—
"(1A) Without prejudice to his earlier release under subsection (1) of this section, the Parole Board shall advise the Secretary of State on the release on licence of every person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life after he has served ten years of his sentence and thereafter at intervals not exceeding five years".")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not think that anyone will complain that up to now I have taken up too much of the time of the House and, therefore, I hope that I shall be allowed to open this amendment slowly. I emphasise that I am speaking on behalf of the All-Party Penal Affairs Group, unless I am told otherwise.
Noble Lords: Yes!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, subject to the views of any of the members of that group who happen to be present, I am speaking on behalf of the All-Party Penal Affairs Group, which is a solid body. I do not want anyone to think that this is a personal whim of mine. My old friend Evelyn Waugh, 20 years or more ago now, when Harold Wilson was forming his Cabinet, wrote to the mother of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, my wife!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I see that the House is in a boisterous mood today, and that is good. Evelyn Waugh wrote to the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. He said that he was glad that I was not going to be Home Secretary because otherwise we should all have been murdered in our beds. There is the danger that noble Lords might associate me with that position. I shall make certain that this is considered to be a solid amendment by reading a passage from the report of the All-Party Penal Affairs Group. It is long, but the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is accustomed to hearing speeches much longer than any that I shall make. One of the report's conclusions was:
"(a). A life-sentence prisoner's 'consideration for review' should always take place when he or she has spent three years in custody. It
366
should be carried out by a joint committee of representatives of the Home Office and of the Parole Board, in consultation with the judiciary".
I am not concerned with the details. But:
"(b) If the 'consideration for review' does not fix an earlier date for review by the local review committee and Parole Board, the prisoner should first be reviewed"—
I come to the point of the amendment—
"after 10 years in custody, and should subsequently be reviewed at least every five years, with more frequent reviews whenever appropriate".
There now comes a point that I have just mentioned to the noble Earl, and he may not have had time to consider it. It is important:
'Reviews should be in two parts—first, a decision on whether the prisoner can be given a date for release; and, secondly"—
I emphasise this point—
"an examination and consideration of the prisoner's condition and 'career plan'."
It is not just a question of saying that the prisoner should or should not come out after 10 years and be placed on parole or licence. Consideration of the prisoner's future is to be part of the task. It then states:
"The prisoner should be informed of the reasons for the review's conclusions".
which of course we have demanded many times in the House.
I suppose that I have been associated with parole for as long as anyone here. I have been involved with it in a pre-natal position. That takes me back many years. The committee of which I was chairman led to the establishment of parole. I have always defended the principle of parole and always will. That does not mean that I have been inhibited from criticising it.
I recommend the book of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to everyone. That is free publicity. He may do the same for me on some occasion. It is an impressive book, not that I agree with most of it, of course. However, it is well worth reading. He was in charge of the Parole Board. We have all these other chairmen of the Parole Board. They make an impressive collection of witnesses. I support the Parole Board. That does not mean that I am incapable of criticising it. I shall do so again. I am not concerned tonight with general criticisms of the Parole Board. I am thinking only of life prisoners.
Life prisoners present a problem for even the most convinced and idealistic supporters of parole. There are many reasons for parole, including control of the prisoner after he comes out. It is usually said that its main attraction is that it holds out hope for the prisoner. I think that there is a little more to it than that. It holds out to the prisoner the prospect of earlier release as his moral character improves. It is a tremendous inducement to the improvement of the moral character of these fallen brothers—those who have gone wrong. That I think is a tremendous moral argument for the parole principle.
Parole of course conflicts with the idea that judges should have the last word. When a man comes up for some awful offence, they say that he should serve so many years, and that cannot be altered. Parole provides that after a certain number of years, the prisoner's moral behaviour will affect his release. That is a tremendous argument for parole. However,

367
with life prisoners it is not easy to say at what moment parole should be considered. It is easy enough if a man is a train robber, although 30 years ago the parole system had not come in. However, let us take the train robbers. Their 30-year sentences were cut to little more than one-third. It is easy enough to do that with long sentences.
There is undoubtedly a problem with life prisoners. At what moment is it right to consider them for parole? That matter can be gone into in great detail. No dispassionate person hearing our earlier discussions could think that the parole system was satisfactory. We are told that it is entangled, in a mess and so on. However, I am not concerned with that point now.
There are about 2,000 life prisoners. How can we do justice to them and treat them in a Christian way? When I say "Christian", I am using the term broadly. We all remember Lord Attlee's reply when, towards the end of his life, he was asked whether he was a Christian:
"I accept the Christian ethic. Can't stand the mumbo-jumbo"
I am interpreting the Christian ethic. Some people call it the Judaeo-Christian ethic. It is a basic system of humane treatment. It is treating people, even the so-called outcasts, as all part of the same human race as ourselves. Anyone who starts from that premise, is on the right path. I am not just thinking of the courts. I defer to the great judges who sit sentencing people to life imprisonment. No doubt they do it quite correctly, I am sure from high motives. I submit a thought in passing to any high judges present in the Chamber that anyone who sentences a person to life should look him up some years later to see how he is getting on. I think that judges would pass rather different sentences if they made closer contact with the prisoners whom they had sentenced. However, that is an irrelevance.
We have then the sentence and we have the prisoner, a man who has probably done something absolutely awful. Many years later, what hope is held out to him? I should say that the very least hope that one can hold out to him is that after 10 years his position will be looked at and considered dispassionately. I do not count it as dispassionate consideration if some Home Office official looks at his papers and reports to the Home Secretary that there is nothing much to be done about him at the moment. There should be a dispassionate consideration; the local review committee would start there and then would come the machinery of the Parole Board. All that must come at some time; the question is when.
There is no magic in the figure 10. If anything, I think that 10 years is rather too long. I am trying to be conciliatory. A society cannot possibly call itself Christian even in the broadest sense if after 10 years it is not prepared to look at a human being whom it has sentenced to life imprisonment. I therefore plead for this as a minimum.
It may be said that it is bad luck on the prisoner and is not very kind to him if he gets a rebuff. I always suspect that argument. I think that it is like the people who say that for a prisoner to remain in prison is in his own interests. On that subject I think that one
368
must consult the prisoners. As to whether prisoners would be ready to take their chance of not being released for many years but at the same time being considered for parole, I am sure that 99 out of 100 would wish to be considered for parole. I stress one point that I made earlier: under the proposals of the all-party group, a look would be taken at the prisoner and consideration would be given as to how he would be treated in prison.
Those are the main arguments in favour. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is more qualified to speak on the matter. I have had this long experience of prisoners. I have listened to the high legal luminaries who understand the legal process so much better than I do, but one's mind goes to the prisoners, the people serving these long sentences. I implore the House to make provision for more humane treatment. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment of the noble Earl. He has spoken in moving terms about the human aspect of the matter. While I am entirely in sympathy with the case that he has made, I wish to say a brief word about the practical angle of the matter. I speak of the matter of management of life sentence prisoners in our prisons. Anyone who has served in a disciplinary capacity, in a social welfare capacity, indeed, in whatever capacity, in one of Her Majesty's prisons containing lifers—Kingston Prison at Portsmouth contains only lifers—will endorse what I say when I tell your Lordships of the difficult job that they have to manage men and women serving life sentences. There may be a lack of co-operation, there may be violence and there may be misbehaviour of one kind or another borne of sheer despair in their situation. In some there may be deep depression and apathy. I am not trying to express undue sympathy for people who have committed appalling crimes when I say that this creates serious management problems.
To that one must add the human aspect of the matter expressed to your Lordships by the noble Earl. The two together cannot be coped with adequately without keeping hope alive. On that one essential there is unanimity throughout the prison service. The governor grades, the main grades of the prison service, the prison medical service, the probation officers and the social workers who work in the prisons are unanimous on the problem and on the need to keep hope alive.
Your Lordships may forgive me if once again I drag in my own experience, which I know is that of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich as erstwhile chairman of the Parole Board. This goes back a long time. When I became the first chairman 20 years ago, there were a great many such forgotten men. That is the key expression: "forgotten men". Their files lay piled up in the office of a certain senior Home Office official—this is ancient history—and they were forgotten. That is the background of which I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is aware.
I went to the then Home Secretary with my vice-chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. We persuaded the Home Secretary to set up a joint committee of officials of the Home Office and members of the Parole Board to clear up the backlog

369
and deal efficiently and logically with the cases of life prisoners. It had a remarkable effect on the morale of the people serving life sentences in our prisons. I say that only from the practical point of view. It made the difficult task of the prison staffs and everyone working in the prison context that much easier. That committee has since been abolished. As my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said earlier in other words, more's the pity. But that is water under the bridge.
There is no question, in my view, that markers need to be set down for men and women who have committed no matter what dreadful crimes. They need markers to which they can look forward. I think that it is right that they should be looked at the first time and know that they will be looked at 10 years later. It may well be that the Parole Board will ask for another formal review earlier than five years ahead. That is another marker put down. These people will then know where they stand and will look forward to that next occasion.
I respectfully disagree with the Minister, who in Committee said that it was cruel to keep them in this kind of uncertain situation. Of course they are in an uncertain situation if they are serving an indeterminate sentence. They need landmarks of hope to help them look forward to the next stage. It may be that in the long run very few will come to terms with the fact that it will be a very long time, if ever, but at least for the time being they will work and hope for their eventual release. Quite apart from the humane aspect, it is the practical aspect that I wish to emphasise. I am one of those who believe that the destruction of hope should have no part in the otherwise perfectly proper element of retribution in our criminal justice system.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Longford and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have said in terms more eloquent than I can what is to be said in favour of the amendment.
The Scottish Parole Board has been very critical of what might be called the moving of the goal posts. It is clear from the recent troubles in Scotland that the changing of the rules about parole and the abolition of hope for prisoners on long sentences has been a factor, though not perhaps the decisive one, in the trouble in prisons in Scotland, of which there has unfortunately been too much recently.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, listening to the debate this evening some of your Lordships may have gained the impression that the Home Office did not have a structured organisation to deal with this particularly important matter. It might be helpful if I set out the present situation.
In every case the present practice where a formal review date is set for several years ahead is that full reports are submitted by the prison to the Home Office at least every three years so that the prisoner's case can be considered. In addition, prison governors are asked to report at any time any special circumstances or exceptional progress made by the prisoner. At all stages, if reports suggest that there
370
might be grounds for bringing forward the review date, this will be carefully considered by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
When a prisoner has been detained for 10 years the prison reports are always considered by a Home Office Minister. I do not think that this careful process could be described as throwing away the key. In fact it ensures that the cases are fully considered and indeed more frequently than the noble Earl's amendment envisages.
The noble Earl would substitute for this system—or graft on to it, I am not sure which—a system whereby the case would be automatically referred to the Parole Board after 10 years of sentence and at least every five years thereafter. I do not think that that would improve the prisoner's prospects of release one iota. The system of regular reports from prisons and the referral to Ministers at the 10-year point is very well able to determine whether there is a realistic prospect of early release. If there is, consideration will be given to bringing forward the formal review date.
If there is absolutely no prospect surely it is positively damaging to the prisoner and to his family to institute a formal review. I know that the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have reconfirmed their view today that they do not share this view. I do not expect to be able to persuade either of them tonight. I strongly believe it because of the many letters I receive from the families of prisoners who have been formally considered for release on licence but turned down.
The noble Earl said in his Committee speech that to deny hope to long-term prisoners is a grievous sin. I do not quarrel with that. I think it is wrong to encourage hopes which are not firmly pinned to reality. If the release of a prisoner cannot even be contemplated after 10 years' imprisonment that is hard for him to accept. But it is better that he should be under no illusions about it. That applies even more strongly to his family, who will quite understandably grasp any ray of hope. It is bound to cause distress if an unrealistically early review is put in train.
We have to recognise that the abolition of capital punishment would inevitably mean that some prisoners will serve very much longer sentences than people have normally experienced in our penal system. That is a price which has to be paid. However painful and distressing it may be to some people, we must bear in mind that our society expects to be protected by its parliamentary representatives on this matter.
To answer the specific point raised by the noble Earl when he mentioned the All-Party Penal Affairs Group's recommendation about the review of a life-sentence prisoner's conditions and career plans, these are factors which are bound to be taken into account in the consideration of such cases by the Parole Board. I do not believe that they can be sensibly looked at independently of the question of release. It seems to be bound to be an empty exercise if release is not foreseeable in the near future or where there is not a reasonable prospect.
The noble Earl has pursued this matter with patience and persistence for many years. Indeed this

371
evening he put his case with deep personal conviction. His commitment to the cause is not in doubt. Your Lordships will have the pleasure in some 28 minutes' time of seeing that for yourselves on television. He will be there to show your Lordships. I am equally persistent and I regret to say that I oppose him on this matter.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the splendid tone which I have always encountered from him. I gave him hardly any notice. I suppose I might have hoped at the back of my subconscious that his department would have examined carefully the report of the All-Party Penal Affairs Group. I doubt whether that has been so. There was the idea that the review should include an examination and consideration of the prisoner's conditions and career plans. That is something of which the noble Earl certainly has not had very much notice. Therefore I do not expect him tonight to deal with it thoroughly.
As General MacArthur said, "We shall return", and quite often and quite strenuously, to these ideas. I do not know that tonight there is much more for me to add. If the noble Earl really wonders whether prisoners would like to take the chance of coming before the review board and possibly bring turned down more than once, all I can say is let him put it to the test. I know the answer that he will get and it will not be the answer he has given to the House this evening. However, we shall come back to these matters. Now I can do no more than ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 49:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Reduction in eventual custodial sentence.
. At the end of subsection (6) of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 shall be added the words "except for such periods of time as his liberty has been restricted under section 21A of the Child Care Act 1980".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if, before formally moving the amendment, I ask the noble Earl whether he can say that his Amendment No. 113A is substantially the same as Amendment No. 49. If that is so, I will not move my amendment and he can deploy his arguments when we come to Amendment No. 113A.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
("Annual parliamentary approval for holding prisoners in remand or in penal establishments.
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, where a person is in the custody of a constable whose duty it is to take him to a prison, remand centre or young offender institution in which his detention is authorised by law, the person may not instead lawfully be detained overnight in the custody of a constable unless it is impracticable by reason of distance or weather conditions to take him to the prison, remand centre or young offender institution until the following day.
(2) The secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that subsection (1) above shall not have effect in an area specified in the order for a period not exceeding twelve months.
(3) No order under subsection (2) above shall be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an issue which we debated at the Committee stage. I said then that we would certainly come back to it and that is what we are doing now. This amendment raises major questions of principle and I propose to deal with the matter in some detail. The background of this problem can be set out fairly briefly. I dealt with it in Committee, but nevertheless I think it is right to remind the House of the background of the problem.
It was very nearly unknown for prisoners, whom I will describe as Home Office prisoners, to be kept in police custody before the time when the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, became Home Secretary. There were a few occasions when women prisoners from, say, rural parts of West Wales might have been kept overnight in police custody for obvious operational reasons but, by and large, it did not happen.
The noble Viscount was then confronted with a dispute organised by the Prison Officers' Association. He asked for the co-operation of the police, which he secured, in making police cells available for Home Office remand prisoners. Indeed, the situation was in some respects so serious that in some parts of the country chief officers of police were asked in certain circumstances to take control of a local prison if prison officers walked out. They undertook to do that and in my view it was right for the Home Secretary to ask for that degree of co-operation and for the police to respond in the way they did. So much for the period of office of the noble Viscount.
We then come to Mr. Brittan. We still had Home Office remand prisoners in police stations for a variety of reasons. By now it was not an industrial relations problem. The situation was caused by the chronic overcrowding in local prisons. I shall not burden the House or, indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, by reminding him of the terms of Mr. Brittan's celebrated article. We can very nearly quote it verbatim. It was an article by Mr. Brittan in The Times newspaper in January 1984 when he proudly announced that there would be no more remand in police custody save in the most exceptional circumstances. As we all remember, and there is some dispute as to whether it was within 24 or 48 hours, Home Office remand prisoners were soon back in police custody. That pledge from Mr. Brittan lasted for a remarkably short time.
This situation has continued until the present day. The number has gradually increased, month by month, with some periods when there was a check in the numbers and, indeed, sometimes a small reduction. When we last discussed this matter, it was in the midst of, or very nearly at the end of, a further industrial relations dispute involving the Prison Officers' Association, which had withdrawn co-operation. I cannot remember the precise phrase used to justify its wholly unacceptable behaviour. Nevertheless, as I made clear in the House on the last occasion, I do not believe that there was the slightest

373
justification for the campaign then waged by a number of local branches of the POA. They were, in my view, disgracefully irresponsible and caused nothing but grief to prisoners and their wives.
Therefore, on that issue I have total sympathy with the Government's view. I believe that the Government were then right to ask for the co-operation of chief officers of police, which they secured—not only of the Metropolitan Police but a large number of chief officers in police forces in other parts of the country.
The Wandsworth dispute then came to an end and we all welcomed that. Indeed, we can see from the numbers that when the dispute ended it had an immediate effect. That is true. Unhappily, although that dispute at Wandsworth ended, accompanied as it was by a number of disputes at other prisons including Wormwood Scrubs, the numbers in police custody remained astonishingly high.
That situation is disclosed in a Written Answer given to me by the noble Earl today which presumably will appear in Hansard tomorrow. Incidentally, I am grateful to his officials for having secured a prompt answer to this question. I realise that they inconvenienced themselves considerably and as the result is not altogether helpful for the Government I am even more grateful. It was a very honourable course. My question asked for the number of people kept in police custody since 1st September this year. The reply shows that the number peaked on 20th October this year at 1,320 men—a staggering figure—and 15 women kept in police custody.
The House should be aware of what being kept in police custody means. It means that London remand prisoners were being sent to Cleveland, County Durham and South Wales. One can just imagine—and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who is here will I am sure agree—the problems facing a legal adviser trying to construct a defence in those circumstances. However, as I have indicated, that was the problem which in my view, was brought about by the action of the POA. As soon as that dispute came to an end there was a sharp reduction in numbers.
However, the numbers of men in custody now are more than twice as high as they were on 1st September this year. On 1st September this year there were 315 males in custody. On Tuesday this week, 17th November, there were 753 in custody—an increase of about 140 per cent.
The noble Earl and I had a slight exchange in Committee when we discussed the number of women prisoners. He said that at one stage they had fallen to zero, and indeed the figures show that that is true. But, unhappily, on Tuesday the figure was not zero; it was 57. That number of 57 is the highest for the last three months. As I indicated in Committee, many of these women prisoners, as we know perfectly well, are seriously disturbed and distressed women who are being kept in custody because courts have absolutely no idea what else to do with them. In many cases reports are being requested from psychiatrists and others and these women are being kept in conditions which the metropolitan police have disclosed are wholly deplorable. We have had the position where,
374
as I indicated in Committee, divisional commanders and others in the metropolitan police have been inviting the press and television to look at the conditions in which remand prisoners are being kept in their police stations. Cells intended for use for prisoners for perhaps seven or eight hours are now being used for periods of three, four or five weeks—in one case a man was kept in custody for 41 days—and the conditions have been described both by the police and by members of the boards of visitors as really disgraceful.
I repeat the point. Conditions are not only as I have indicated, but they are being experienced by people who have been convicted of no criminal offence whatever. It would be no excuse if they had been convicted, but the fact that they have not been, and many of them will not be, convicted, or, if convicted, will not be sentenced to a period of imprisonment, makes the situation even worse.
I have dealt with the position with regard to the living conditions of the prisoners. I have also indicated the amount of indignation caused to many chief officers of police at the deplorable misuse of police resources. Police officers are being taken off the streets in order to act as gaolers. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the degree of indignation felt by a number of chief officers who have expressed their feelings to me. They do not have the slightest doubt that they are being asked to do other than run a permanent second prison system. It has now continued for four years and to many of us it is beginning to look remarkably permanent.
There is then the second point with which I dealt a few moments ago of the situation confronting many lawyers. We are talking primarily, although not wholly, about remand prisoners. There have been a number of cases where sentenced prisoners have been kept in custody as well, but by and large it is a remand prisoner problem. I raised the question with the noble Earl, as he will remember, during the Committee stage of the Bill. I spoke to his private office on 5th November. Once again they were extremely helpful to me. I asked them to assist me by giving me the answer to the question that had been raised by the Law Society; namely, why was it that its members were constantly trying to find out where their clients were, and finding great difficulty in getting through to the prison department of the Home Office for its answer to that question? I may say that they made no complaint—quite the reverse—about the courtesy with which they were treated when they eventually got through. However, the problem that they encountered in simply getting someone to answer a telephone was remarkable.
This is what the noble Earl says in his answer to me in a letter dated 9th November, dealing with a number of other matters:
"As you probably know, the Metropolitan Police provide a public enquiry line at their B11 base to supply information on the whereabouts of prisoners in their custody. This ad hoc arrangement, never intended to be permanent, comprises one operator, one telephone and one computer terminal. It does get very busy"—
says the noble Earl. I am sure that that is true—
"sometimes making contact difficult. But given that all concerned are striving to end the use of cells, the police are understandably reluctant to make any further investment of equipment or manpower for this

375
temporary facility. As the numbers drop the difficulties you have described should ease".
As I have indicated, that is said in the context of the easing of a problem described by the noble Earl in which there has been a 140 per cent. increase in the number of remand prisoners and nine times more women prisoners being kept in custody than there were on 1st September this year.
I do not blame the Metropolitan Police for the attitude they are adopting, because why should they add to their manpower and resource problems for what is in reality entirely a Home Office problem? I do not believe that it is right—and I am sure it was not the intention of the noble Earl—to stand behind the cover of the Metropolitan Police to explain why members of the Law Society cannot get through on the telephone for a simple answer to the question, "Where is Mr. X, a client of ours who has been remanded in custody?". In my view it is clearly the responsibility of the prison department of the Home Office, as I am sure the noble Earl will, on reflection, agree.
The complaint made by the Law Society is not against the Metropolitan Police. It is the sheer problem of getting through on the telephone to the officials who are dealing with this problem in the prison department. These people are overwhelmed, I am sure, and why should they not be given this astonishing increase in numbers? People are being remanded constantly for relatively short periods of time and they are being moved often from police station to police station, as chief officers of police have confirmed to me.
In short, I look forward to hearing from the noble Earl when he replies to this debate—quite apart from all the other considerations we are talking about—why this problem still continues to cause so much anxiety to the Law Society and to many solicitors in London. What does he propose to do about it?
The purpose of the amendment is clear cut. It permits the use of police cells in any future problem arising from an industrial relations crisis in the prison department by the use of the affirmative resolution procedure. In fact the Home Secretary would be enabled to act in an emergency situation of the kind faced by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, at the beginning of his period of office and by the present Home Secretary only a few weeks ago. Secondly, it permits the use of overnight accommodation in police stations where it is clearly necessary to use that for operational reasons. That is as it should be. It is the only way of guaranteeing that we do not face a problem should this method become a permanent feature of our penal system.
The only answer for the noble Earl—I had better not say the "only answer" because he was courteous enough to deal with a number of other issues on the last occasion—but the only argument of substance used by the noble Earl on the last occasion was when he asked, "What is the point of having the affirmative resolution procedure because Parliament would never deny the Home Secretary powers of this kind?". I tried to point out to him—I shall deal with
376
this matter fairly briefly—that this has not been the experience in similar use of the affirmative resolution procedure. One only has to look at the very special situation—and special it is—of the Prevention of Terrorism Act to see the number of inquiries that the Home Office has instituted to allay parliamentary anxiety before the renewal of those annual resolutions. We only have to consider the inquiries of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, all of whom were asked to look into the situation in order to deal with anxieties expressed in Parliament. If we were to get anything of this kind on to the statute book Home Office Ministers would be far more concerned to allay parliamentary anxieties than is the case at the moment.
Finally, I must make it clear that if we do not start to take in Parliament a much tougher line on this whole range of issues, the problem of people being kept in squalid conditions in police cells will become a permanent feature of our prison system, a system in which there is no independent oversight of what is going on and no boards of visitors of the kind that exist in normal prisons to deal with the problems of remand prisoners. The Government should also face the fact that not only is there deep disquiet among many Members of this House but there is also growing anger in the police service about what it is being asked to do. No soft words expressed by Ministers will turn away that wrath. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is distressing that at this hour and in a not too crowded House a matter of such importance is being discussed. Because of the lateness of the hour all I shall say is that I have listened attentively to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. From these Benches I wish to support what he has said and I re-echo the words that he used in regard to the anxiety of members of the Law Society as to the position in which they are continually being put as a result of these matters, the hardship that it entails and the injustice, very often, that is entailed too.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I feel that this is such a serious matter that I must rise to say that I agree with what my noble friend has said. It is a deteriorating situation and that is always frightening. I do not want to be difficult with the noble Earl, who is as fully aware as we are of the troubles. I want him to realise that for better or worse matters are becoming too serious to be left. We shall have to come back again to this. We shall watch it very carefully. It cannot be allowed to go on as it is. I very much hope that the noble Earl will have something to say to comfort us but I am not at all clear what that could be.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, gave notice in Committee that he would return to the matter of prisoners in police cells. I know that this matter greatly troubles him and other noble Lords and I fully understand and sympathise with the arguments he has put forward so persuasively both in Committee and today. For his part, I hope that he accepts, as I have

377
always sought to make perfectly clear, that the Government do not consider, and never have considered, that it is right and proper to put sentenced or remand prisoners into police cells.
In regard to police cells, we have a prison governor on permanent duty with the B-11 branch of the Metropolitan Police at Lambeth. While prisoners are in the hands of the police, however much we might wish it otherwise, surely the police are in the best and in fact the only position to provide the information as to prisoners' whereabouts.
When speaking to his amendment in Committee the noble Lord put forward a memorable argument, which I hope he will not mind my quoting here. He said:
"I believe that were there to be a requirement of this kind on the Home Office it would have the most remarkable effect in terms of concentrating minds in that department of state".—[Official Report, 27/10/87; col. 521.]
That caused more than a little surprise in the prison department where minds have been greatly concentrated on this issue for some time.
I mentioned in Committee the bold measures taken earlier this year, including the opening of a temporary prison in an army camp and the reduction of some 3,000 in the prison population as a result of the change in remission rules for short-sentence prisoners. They had been preceded by and were succeeded by continuing efforts by management and officials to squeeze the last measure of capacity out of the prison estate.
It is a process I have supervised very closely but in the end we are faced with facts like this: our local prisons and remand centres are holding over 21,000 prisoners in accommodation designed for fewer than 15,000. The amendment slightly gives the impression that this is a problem which could be solved if only there were the will; that if we only pulled the magic lever our police cells would be empty tomorrow. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, really believes that, but perhaps I may be permitted to set this debate in the context of the long-term issues of the prison population.
We must be clear that we are not talking about a new or short-term problem. The prison population has been growing fast since the end of the war. Our prisons are now holding twice as many inmates as in the late 1950s. Recent years have seen unprecedented growth. In 1982 we were planning what we would do if the unthinkable happened and the population were to reach 46,000. In July this year we had over 51,000–4,000 more than the previous year.
Recent years have seen even bigger surges than that. Between 1984 and 1985 the population leapt by 5,800. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary's measures on remission in August this year reduced the population by 3,000. It has increased by 1,000 since then. And what of the future? Our projections of 1,100 a year based on long-term trends are nowadays looking decidely optimistic. We could be facing increases of 3,000 to 4,000 annually. How does one deal with numbers like that? Your Lordships might be forgiven for wondering why we do not have even more prisoners in police cells than we do now. The fact that we do not is entirely due to
378
the supreme efforts which this Government and the prison department have been making to find room for the relentlessly soaring population.
We have implemented one change after another in ingenious ways of making the best use of all available space. At this moment for example we are in the process of converting a youth custody centre in the north of the country to serve as a remand centre providing places at Risley and Manchester which will enable police cells to be cleared in the North. In the South we have drafted more staff into Ashford Remand Centre, and 171 extra places are now becoming available. We are creating new places at Brixton; we are squeezing the last measure of capacity out of our prisons in the South East. We have been moving prisoners from one part of the country to another. We are leaving no stone unturned in our efforts to meet the demands placed upon us by the courts.
At the end of the day the only way in which to cope with more prisoners coming from the courts is to provide more prison places. That is why we have embarked on the biggest building programme in history. With the new additions announced this year we shall have 18 more prisons in six years' time than we have now. We are looking forward confidently to reaping the fruits of our major investment in prisons. The first fruits have already been plucked. Others are ripening on the vine. Four new prisons will open next year at Little Hay, the Mount, Swaleside and Garth, providing nearly 2,000 places. Full Sutton has recently opened, and there are others on the way.
Our efforts are of course not confined to providing more prison places. We must attack the problems of remand in particular in other ways. That was pointed out in Committee by several of your Lordships, including the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who spoke about the need for more bail hostels. I referred then to the serious effort my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I were making in this area, and I am pleased that I can now tell your Lordships the outcome of our endeavours.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been able to secure additional provision for both bail hostels and hostels run by voluntary organisations in the after-care field. Taking bail hostel provision first, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has decided to expand the existing network of probation and bail hostels by creating nine new bail-only hostels in the next three years. Currently there are 102 hostels providing 1,861 places. The majority are available to people on bail. They handle about 3,500 a year. When complete the new hostels will add about 200 places to those currently available, and if, as we confidently expect, the new hostels can match the occupancy level of existing hostels, it should mean that about 900 people a year who might otherwise have been remanded in custody will be able to remain in the community, albeit under supervision, while they await their trial.
I have described some of the substantial measures the Government are taking for the long term and the short term to attack the problem of prisoners held in police cells and the growing prison population more generally. Perhaps I may now invite your Lordships to consider what contribution this amendment would

379
make. The procedure it proposes would be both unproductive and unnecessary. It would be unproductive because it would not contribute in any way to solving the problem of overcrowding which leads to the use of police cells. It would not provide one single prison place. All it would achieve is to provide an additional opportunity for Parliament to debate the issue at intervals. But it is not necessary to secure legislation for that. Your Lordships do not lack the ingenuity to secure a debate on such an important matter.
The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Donaldson, referred to the fact that the subject would be brought before your Lordships again. I find the idea of an annual set-piece debate a supreme irrelevancy in the present difficulties. The amendment raises, but does not offer a solution to, some considerable difficulties.
The noble Lord's amendment acknowledges the need to use police cells to hold the occasional prisoner overnight where the court is some distance from the prison establishment or where weather conditions prevent the offender from being moved until the following day. That only meets part of our difficulties. We have seen how quickly events such as industrial action on a limited scale can lead to a build-up of prisoners outside prison. The recent industrial action took its toll. During the Recess, it would not have been possible, short of recalling Parliament, to lay a statutory instrument.
I must put this question to your Lordships: what would we be expected to do with prisoners whom we could not get into prison nor hold in police cells? I find no answer in his amendment. We are in the business of finding answers. We are working very hard at it. The noble Lord and I are working to the same end. This amendment wills the end but it does not will the means. The Government are resolute about providing the means.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, obviously I welcome the announcement which the noble Earl made. Indeed, it was not an announcement; it was a re-repetition of the Statement made by the Home Secretary the other day in relation to bail hostels. I welcome that. I remember that one of the first decisions I made in the Home Office was to increase the number of bail hostel places. The then government inherited a difficult problem so far as bail hostels were concerned and acted fairly expeditiously in dealing with it. Certainly there is nothing between the present Government and ourselves on that. Inevitably one can make the point that it could possibly have been done some substantial period of time ago; nevertheless it is welcome and I do not in any way wish to diminish the importance of the matter.
The noble Earl's speech was, I am afraid, a totally despairing performance because at least in January 1984 Mr. Leon Brittan did indicate that he was actually going to stop this practice totally. He wrote his article with the full authority of the Home
380
Secretary. However, the speech made by the noble Earl tonight is an indication, that this practice is now becoming very nearly a permanent feature of our penal system. He made no suggestion, no prophecy, no indication whatever, that this burden was going to be removed from the police. Has he told the Association of Chief Police Officers that this is the position of the Government? I do not think he has. I think a number of chief constables, were they to read the noble Earl's speech and note the general language used in that speech would be extremely apprehensive about how long this problem was going to continue. So much for that.
Secondly, the noble Earl asks, "What can we do?" We could presumably do something about Rollstone Camp, using that just as an illustration. No doubt the noble Earl can tell me subsequently by correspondence. He announced at the time of the Wandsworth crisis that something was being done at Rollstone Camp to take some of these prisoners. I do not know whether that has been proceeded with or not.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can clarify that. Rollstone Camp was opened on a temporary basis, as the noble Lord knows, for about three months. It took category C prisoners. It is not suitable for taking remand prisoners. My Lords, we have been able to disperse those category C prisoners around the other establishments. Therefore, Rollstone Camp has now been closed and the staff have been distributed elsewhere. Some have been distributed to Ashford, which I mentioned would take 171 prisoners.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if this power had been on the statute book, I suspect that Home Office Ministers would have found it possible to make Rollstone Camp a remand prison. It would have taken them some time to achieve it but it would not have been as difficult as the noble Earl suggests. However, he and I can continue that argument in the future. We face the problem that the noble Earl's response is to deny the assertion that this amendment would concentrate the minds of Home Office Ministers more thoroughly than would be the situation were it not to be passed.
If the noble Earl and his right honourable friend had to come to Parliament once a year and justify a continuance of this wholly disgraceful situation, both he and his right honourable friend know perfectly well that fairly dramatic steps would be taken to alleviate the problem. It may well be that the Treasury would also be in a more accommodating mood. However, the noble Earl informs the House that this debate would be an annual set-piece irrelevance. As Miss Mandy Rice-Davies said on a celebrated occasion: "He would say that, wouldn't he?" I beg to move. We propose to vote on this matter.
9.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 44.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hunt, L.

Carter, L.

Longford, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Morton of Shuna, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Hooson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Atholl, D.

Hooper, B.

Balfour, E.

Joseph, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Kitchener, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Brentford, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Caldecote, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Romney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Dormer, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Elton, L.

Trafford, L.

Goold, L.

Trumpington, B.

Gridley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
("Tighter criteria for prison sentences on adult offenders.
.—(1) Where a person aged 21 years or over is convicted of an offence, the court may not pass a sentence of imprisonment on him unless it is satisfied—

(a) that the circumstances, including the nature and the gravity of the offence, are such that a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate; and

(b) that he qualifies for a sentence of imprisonment.

(2) An offender qualifies for a sentence of imprisonment if—

(a) he has a history of failure to respond to non-custodial penalties and is unable or unwilling to respond to them; or

(b) only a sentence of imprisonment would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him; or

(c) the offence of which he has been convicted or found guilty was so serious that a non-custodial sentence for it cannot be justified.

(3) Where a court passes a sentence of imprisonment on a person aged 21 years or over, it shall be its duty—

(a) to state in open court—

(i) that it is satisfied that he qualifies for a sentence of imprisonment under one or more of the paragraphs of subsection (2) above;

(ii) the paragraph or paragraphs in question; and

(iii) why it is so satisfied; and

(b) to explain to the offender in open court and in ordinary language why it is passing a sentence of imprisonment on him.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 51 and ask the leave of the House to consider with that Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. They are not at all dissimilar—in fact, they are very alike—and Nos. 52 and 53 are only minor variants of No. 51. I attach very great importance to this amendment, and I most sincerely hope that the noble Earl will be able to give some comfort at the end of the debate on this amendment when he comes to reply. I do not propose to speak for long, but I hope to persuade him that this amendment is merely the culmination of a process which has been going on ever since 1982.
The new clause seeks to lay down tighter criteria for imposing prison sentences on adult offenders, and they are very similar to the criteria already contained in Clause 114 of the Bill in relation to young offenders. I should like to substantiate what I said a moment ago about this being a continuation of a process which has been going on since 1982.
The truth is that in 1982 the Government themselves brought in a provision for restrictions on courts on sentencing juvenile offenders to prison. When the Bill came to this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull (and I am very glad to see she is in her place) expanded on the original content of the Bill and made it into what is now Section 1(4) of the 1982 Act. That has, I think, been welcomed by all and sundry as a very remarkable step so far as juvenile offenders are concerned.
I should like to give just one illustration. An editorial in the journal Justice of the Peace welcomed the clause and said that they found it much clearer and that it was,
"an emphatic and structured approach to the task in hand. one which we would guess the courts would find easier to operate".
It has proved to be easier to operate and in the interval the All-Party Penal Affairs Group has worked hard on providing material for what is now Clause 114 in this Bill. As I said, it is substantially the same as my Amendment No. 51 for adult offenders.
The first question which I should like to ask the Minister is this. Why, if it is appropriate to have Clause 114 in the Bill, it is not also appropriate and logical to extend the same terms to apply to adults? If he would only agree to do that, perhaps not in the very wording which I have proposed here, then I think he would be extending in a perfectly logical and progressive way a provision which was initiated by a Conservative administration in 1982, has been expanded in Clause 114 of this Bill, and would logically extend to adults by accepting an amendment such as I propose. That is the historical approach that I hope will appeal to the noble Earl.
So far as I can recall, when this matter was raised in Committee the main objections of the noble Earl were that this was the kind of thing that was being done already and that it was not necessary because,
"We should prefer to give emphasis to the guidance of the Court of Appeal on the sparing use of custody and on the energy and imagination of the probation service in developing demanding alternatives to custody and ensuring that the courts are fully aware of their existence".
Those are impeccable sentiments with which I of course agree but none of them should preclude what I am proposing. They are not strictly alternatives.

383
They are all reinforcing each other. I am proposing another development which would help to reinforce those sentiments, together with the proposals that the noble Earl detailed in Committee, and fewer adults would be sent into custody.
Here I must recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his experience as Minister of State in the Home Office. At the beginning of the proceedings today he said:
"Nothing—but nothing—is more likely to send a person to prison than the fact that he has been to prison before".
One of the great effects of this amendment would be that the courts would have to be very chary of sending particularly first offenders to prison. They would have to give their reasons for not doing so. So this is yet another means of sending fewer people to prison and therefore helping to ease the current very serious prison population problem. On those grounds too I should have thought that this is yet another tool in the hands of the Government and of the courts to proceed with the process which we all wish to see proceeded with from all different angles: from the court itself, from the probation service and from anyone else concerned with the offender.
As regards matters of detail, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said in Committee that it was not proper to give instructions to the higher judiciary, as this clause seeks to do. I would not of course presume to give any instruction to judges as regards what sentences they pass. That would be quite improper but it is proper—on reflection I would hope that the noble and learned Lord would agree—for Parliament to lay down in statute the overall powers of sentencing in courts and, if they see fit, to lay down statutory guidelines governing the use of those powers.
Out of deference to the noble and learned Lord I have put down Amendment No. 52, which only applies to magistrates' courts and not to the higher courts. If that was the only objection that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, had I should be very happy to see Amendment No. 52 incorporated instead of Amendment No. 51.
I have purposely taken only a short time to move this amendment because I very much hope that if none of these three variants on the theme which I am proposing is agreeable to the noble Earl he can go away, think about it and come back with a government amendment of his own on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am very glad to give support to my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton in moving this and the related amendments. Any part that this Bill can be made to play in addressing the most chronic problem in our penal system, which is the excessive resort to imprisonment and the excessive length of prison sentences, is bound to be welcome. These amendments are aimed at that end through statutory guidelines, which should impose constraints on resort to imprisonment for adult offenders. It is logical that the same criteria applied to juvenile courts, already agreed by the Government, should be applied when considering disposal by the courts of adult offenders.
384
The other important point about the amendment relates to consistency. In Committee the noble Earl admitted, in mild terms that consistency of sentencing by magistrates' courts leaves a little to be desired. That is masterly understatement. We must take the opportunity provided by the Bill to do something about the use of imprisonment by the courts and not merely think in terms of building more custodial establishments to cater for the courts' decisions.
The Bill is proceeding with little so far having been conceded to that end by the Government. If we fail to put something into the Bill effectively to deal with the problem, we shall be seen by history to have failed to take the opportunity. I therefore support the amendments.
10 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Henderson and Lord Hunt. I moved an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill 1982 which recommended stricter and more consistent criteria for custodial care. That has proved to be a success. There has been a drop in custodial sentences from 7,900 in 1981 to 4,500 in 1986. That is a drop of 3,400. If we could have a drop of 3,400 in those in custodial care in our prisons it would greatly help us.
I shall make two points from a social worker's point of view. Prison officers, social workers and probation officers consider that there are a number of people who should not be in prison and who could be dealt with outside prison. That is something that must be thought about.
I shall take up the point about consistences made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I have talked to my colleagues in different parts of the country, and they say that the criteria by which custodial care is meted out is different in different parts of the country. That gives rise to a great feeling of injustice, especially if prisoners from different parts of the country are put in the same prison. For those three reasons, I support the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, from these Benches I also support the amendments. The history of advice coming like confetti to instigate magistrates to use compensation orders is an illustration of how such advice does not work and how it has been necessary to introduce legislation. It is also common sense to have guidelines. Guidelines are laid down by the Court of Appeal in England. We do not have sentencing guidelines in Scotland.
It is remarkable that we sentence more people to imprisonment than any other country in the democratic world. We are the only English-speaking country which is not undertaking a review of sentencing policy. This is a small measure. I hope that it is one that the Government can accept. I also hope that they may be able to indicate that a general review of sentencing policy instead of a sporadic increase in sentencing powers will be the Government's policy in future.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, the Government are not persuaded that restrictions of the kind proposed in the amendments are as effective as some of your Lordships have argued. During the course of the Criminal Justice Bill 1982, we accepted amendments introduced by my noble friend, as she said, relating to restrictions on the sentencing of young offenders. I cannot agree that those restrictions should be extended to those over 21 years of age.
Of course the argument for avoiding a custodial sentence where possible applies to all offenders, but I think your Lordships recognise that it must apply with special force to young offenders. That is why we were able to agree to the provisions in the 1982 Act which are now extended and developed in the Bill. That is the crux of the difference between us. We think that it is important to put an extra spotlight on young offenders. We should lose that if we were to accept the amendment.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. I understand the noble Lord's reasoning for singling out magistrates' courts to receive the guidance that he envisages. However, I am not at all convinced that Amendment No. 52 would achieve the consistency that he desires. I certainly share the noble Lord's objective that we should be seeking a greater consistency in approach to sentencing, but I cannot see how the amendment would help in that regard. Much valuable work is already being carried out by magistrates. This is something that concerns not just your Lordships tonight; to their credit a number of magistrates are looking at their own practices and consulting locally to try to ensure a more consistent approach to sentencing. That must surely be the right way to tackle this. I do not believe that a statutory framework is either necessary or desirable.
Amendment No. 53 deals with those who have not previously received a custodial sentence. I agree entirely that the Government should reflect carefully before sending someone to prison for the first time. I am sure that this is what already happens. Each case must be looked at individually. It is very important that the courts should not be fettered in their discretion to deal with each offender as the circumstances demand.
Your Lordships will be aware that the law already contains one statutory restriction on the use of custody for adults. That is in the precise area with which Amendment No. 53 deals. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, stressed what my noble friend Lord Elton said earlier, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, referred to guidelines. I refer both noble Lords to Section 20 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, which precludes the imposition of a prison sentence on a person who has not previously served a sentence of imprisonment,
"unless the court is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate".
I cannot see that it is necessary to add to this in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, suggests. The law already recognises the special position of those who have not previously
386
been to prison. I am satisfied that Section 20 of the 1973 Act deals adequately with this.
I appreciate the strength of feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on this issue. I assure him that I understand the motivation behind the amendments and agree with him in principle. However, I believe that the provisions of the 1973 Act already meet one of the amendments and that there is a difference in the principle that we are employing between young offenders under 21 and adults.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, can the noble Earl spell out what that difference of principle is? That is what I find difficult. I cannot see why what is effective for young offenders cannot be effective also for adult offenders.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are all very concerned about anyone going to prison for the first time and we are particularly concerned about those under the age of 21 who might be sent to prison for the first time. We therefore thought that it was right to accept the amendments of my noble friend to the Criminal Justice Act 1982 which put the extra spotlight on young offenders in order to keep in the minds of us all that they require something a little special. Some of the spotlight that we have put on them would be dimmed if we were to extend it to adults also. That is the difference. It is for that reason that I am not persuaded that either of the changes are required or that the steps which the noble Lord has proposed will be the right ones to meet our objectives.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I still do not see that there is any principle stated. If one extends the purport of Clause 114 to adults it is suggested that one would somehow dim the spotlight which is on young offenders. It does not seem to me to dim it in the very least. It seems to me to be really a logical progression to move from the original 1982 provisions to Clause 114 and then to extend it to adults as I have suggested.
The noble Earl, very kindly referred to my feelings or my motives. It has nothing to do with me. The expression of opinion has come from all around the House, including from the Benches behind the Minister. This is not a personal matter and it is not a party matter. It is something which has been considered by the All Party Penal Affairs Group. The group considers it to be a reasonable progression of a slow process which has been taking place since 1982. It would be well for the Government to accept the thinking on these lines and to carry on the process which the group initiated. It has facilitated the spread of this way of thinking and this is an opportunity for taking one step further.
I very solemnly ask the noble Earl if he will read again what has been said tonight to see if he can conceivably try to persuade his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to think again about this matter and to extend these criteria to adult offenders. It is late at night and I do not intend to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Increased periods of imprisonment for default]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 35, line 25, at beginning insert—
("(1) In the Tables in section 31(3A) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 and paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, for the entries relating to amounts not exceeding £10,000 there shall be substituted—

An amount not exceeding £50

5 days

An amount exceeding £50 but not exceeding £100

7 days

An amount exceeding £100 but not exceeding £400

14 days

An amount exceeding £400 but not exceeding £1,000

30 days

An amount exceeding £1,000 but not exceeding £2,000

45 days

An amount exceeding £2,000 but not exceeding £5,000

3 months

An amount exceeding £5,000 but not exceeding £10,000

6 months

(2)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter which we debated at the Committee stage. On that occasion the noble Earl began his speech by saying that there was nothing between us on the issue. Although at the end of that debate it looked as though there was a chasm between us, I am glad to say that there has been a bridging of the gap. As I understand it the Government are now not proposing to oppose this amendment. Indeed, they intend to support it.
Perhaps I may briefly give the background to this matter. As I said during the Committee stage of the Bill on an amendment not precisely in the same terms as this—
Lord Denham: I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way. I understand that my noble friend is accepting this amendment. It is quite late in the evening and I am wondering: is it really necessary for the noble Lord to speak to this if it is going to be accepted?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I propose to speak briefly to it. It is essential for the record to point out when the Government make a concession which has an effect on the prison population. It is necessary to explain why we have now reached this degree of agreement. I will be brief but I intend to make the case to explain why it is we attach great importance to this question. These are important matters and it is right that they should form part of the permanent record.
The situation is that the average number of fine defaulters in prison on any day last year was 511. That amounted to somewhere in the region of 11 per cent. of those in prison serving six months or less. I think it is generally accepted by all of us that it is essential that there should be as a final penalty a prison sentence for those who wilfully decline to pay their fines. That, indeed, is what we said on the last occasion and I emphasise that particularly in the context of some of the debates earlier this afternoon.
The Home Office indicated in a letter to me, signed by the noble Earl, that it believes this amendment would have the effect of reducing the average daily prison population by about 150 and the effect would be greatest in the local prisons where overcrowding is at its worst. I believe that this is a modest but useful amendment and I am grateful to the noble Earl for being so accommodating. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord said when he started his speech, there is nothing between us.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 61, insert the following new
clause:
("Amendments to Game Act 1831.
In the Game Act 1831—

(1) In section 30 (penalty on persons trespassing in the daytime upon lands in search of game, etc.) for "level 1" there shall be substituted "level 2" and for "level 3" there shall be substituted "level 4".

(2) In section 31 (trespassers in daytime in search of game, etc., may be required to quit the land) for "level I" there shall be substituted "level 2".

(3) In section 32 (penalty in case of five or more persons found armed in daytime in search of game, etc.) for "level 1" there shall be substituted "level 4".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment to give magistrates and police greater powers to deal with poachers. Although I received support from your Lordships, and sympathy from my noble friend, I accepted that my amendment was not quite right and might involve police officers chasing lurcher dogs round the countryside.
However, where I failed the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, succeeded for me when he moved his amendment to Clause 59 in Committee on the problem of lack of powers of forfeiture by the magistrates. I am pleased to note that his concern is being dealt with tonight in Amendments Nos. 57 and 58, to which my noble friend Lord Caithness has put his name. In fact, Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 would solve 90 per cent. of the problems I raised in Committee concerning lurcher dogs.
I ask my noble friend, who kindly wrote to me, to explain either now or on Amendments Nos. 57 and 58, why he felt it best to deal with my problem in Amendments Nos. 57 and 58. In particular, I wonder if my noble friend could explain why in his interpretation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act a dog is an "anything" and a field or a wood is a "premises".
I repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and indeed to the Government for dealing not just with the problems of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, but also mine. Despite my noble friend's concession, I suggest that this tidying Amendment No. 55 is necessary and I ask your Lordships to give it your consideration.
The amendment increases the fines that the magistrates' court can impose. I propose that for a number of reasons. First, Sections 30, 31 and 32 of the Game Act 1831 are totally out of line with corresponding legislation. For instance, while the 1831 Act allows only level 1 fines, which must be under £50, the Night Poaching Act decrees level 3 fines of £400. The Firearms Act imposes level 4, and, indeed, imprisonment. The Public Order Act imposes levels 3 to 5 and imprisonment, and the Deer Act imposes level 4, imprisonment and confiscation. I could continue but I shall not further delay the House.
If my noble friend does not like my amendment I should be particularly interested in his reasons as to why the Deer Act allows the magistrates so much greater latitude as regards punishment. Secondly, by setting the lowest level of fines for those offences, the result is that the prosecution try to catch an offender under another Act; for example, Section 20 of the Firearms Act or, indeed, Sections 4 or 5 of the Public Order Act. Indeed, I suspect that my noble friend Lord Caithness may produce these Acts as a reason for not accepting my amendment. So be it. However, I ask the Government to bear in mind that that puts these poaching offences, which should be dealt with summarily by the Bench, into the Crown Court. That, if I can use an agricultural phrase, is an extremely bad thing to do, and it is extremely bad law. For instance, it delays the operation of justice by putting it into the Crown Court, it costs the taxpayer a lot more and it overloads the courts. I am sure noble Lords will agree that the magistrates' court is the correct place for these offences to be dealt with.
Section 30 of the Game Act, about which I am talking, allows fines up to the level 3 but only if five or more are trespassing. I totally fail to understand why, if only four appear, it is reduced to level 1. Why, if they are carrying a gun, and they are charged under Section 32, can the offender, or offenders, again be charged only up to level 1? All in all, I think it is a fairly marvellous mystery.
Finally, I repeat that poaching today is not what it was in 1831 when the 1831 Act was enacted. It is now organised crime for profit, sometimes large profit. It destroys the peace of the countryside, and that of my sheep, causes cruelty and often leads to rustling and other crimes. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the magistrates should be given more latitude in dealing with these offences, as suggested in my amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I share my noble friend's concern about poaching which has prompted this amendment. I know that there are a lot of people in the countryside who come onto farmers' land, search for game and often behave in a threatening manner when approached. Obviously the law must give sufficient protection against the worst excesses of their behaviour, and I think it does. Nevertheless I think I can advise your Lordships to accept only part of my noble friend's amendment.
The first two parts concern Sections 30 and 31 of the Game Act 1831, which deal with offences of trespassing on land with intent to search for game and failure to give a name and address to an authorised person. Trespass is not in itself a criminal offence. I do not condone the activities of trespassers in these situations, but these sections do not deal with the chief mischief which concerns us all—the taking of game. The law already provides a higher penalty of £400 under the 1828 Night Poaching Act and, as my noble friend will also know, it is covered in the 1862 Poaching Prevention Act. Sections 30 and 31 of the Game Act deal with less serious matters and I do not think an increase in penalties is either necessary or desirable. For those reasons I ask your Lordships to reject the first two parts of the amendment.
390
The third part concerns those who are armed with a gun and use threatening or intimidating behaviour while trespassing in search of game. Threatening anyone with a firearm is a most serious offence, as I am sure the House will agree. I am sure that all noble Lords are aware of the strength of the Government's determination to crack down on firearms. In practice the police and courts are already able to deal with armed trespassers under Section 20 of the Firearms Act 1968, with penalties of a fine up to £1,000 and/or three months' imprisonment. But as a general principle it must be right that all offences in the statute book should attract an appropriate penalty, and for this reason I am able to accept the third part of the amendment in principle. If my noble friend is content to withdraw his amendment today I should be happy to discuss with him between now and Third Reading a form of words to give effect to the third part of it.
I should like to deal quickly with the additional question posed by my noble friend. During the Committee stage my noble friend raised the question of the power of the police to seize dogs or vehicles belonging to or in the control of persons apprehended on suspicion of poaching. The discussion touched upon the question of the police powers, given under Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which enable them to seize items needed as evidence. My noble friend asked whether the power extended to fields or woods, and also whether dogs could, where appropriate, be seized. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I briefly clarify the position on those two points.
First, there is the question of the place where seizure may occur. Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 refers to the powers of seizure of "premises". The word "premises" is defined in Section 23 of the Act as "any place". I am assured that this definition allows seizure in fields or woods; in fact anywhere a poacher may be.
Secondly, there is the question of seizure of a dog. Section 19 of the 1984 Act empowers a constable to seize "any thing". It will not surprise my noble friend if I say that "any thing" means just that and it allows a poacher's dog or dogs to be seized in appropriate circumstances. I hope that this brief explanation will he helpful and reassuring. I fully appreciate the concern of my noble friend that the powers of the police to deal with this should be adequate and I am satisfied that they are.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Earl deal with one point? I welcome the fact that he is not attracted by subsections (1) and (2) of the amendment, which I think many of us would have found difficult to support. I do not wholly understand why he is endorsing an approach which leads to this extraordinary increase from level 1 to level 4 in the last subsection of the amendment. Will he deal with that point?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord. I thought that I had covered that. We wish to discuss that with my noble friend between now and Third

391
Reading on the basis of the general principle that it must be right that all offences in the statute book should attract an appropriate penalty. As we are dealing with firearms—we consider it to be a very serious matter when somebody goes equipped with a firearm to commit any crime, whether it be trespass or going for game—we believe that a suitable penalty should be in the statute. At the moment we do not consider the penalty to be adequate. That is why I wish to consider this part of my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for accepting the last part of my amendment. I am disappointed that he cannot look at the other two parts.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the concession that my noble friend has given me is no more than I could obtain from Section 20, Part II of the Firearms Act, which no doubt the noble Lord knows better than I do. It is not really a concession and I am rather surprised that the noble Lord asked that question.
I graciously accept the concession that my noble friend has given but—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the reason that I asked the question was that if there is a provision in existing legislation there is obviously no need for the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I wish that we could pass the whole amendment, as the noble Lord will realise. Unfortunately my noble friend can give me only a little, but a little is better than nothing, I suppose. That is all the more reason why we should consider the other two points. I know that my noble friend is very busy between now and Third Reading, but I hope he will look again at the points I have made. I am trying to give the magistrates more power and taking work off the Crown Court. However, bearing that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the hope that my noble friend will bring something forward at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 61, insert the following new
clause:
("Causing death by reckless driving—increased minimum disqualification period.
. In section 93 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section I of this Act, the court shall order him to be disqualified for such period not less than two years as the court thinks fit unless the court for special reasons thinks fit to order him to be disqualified for a shorter period or not to order him to be disqualified." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, three weeks ago in Committee I moved an amendment to raise the minimum period of disqualification for persons convicted of causing death by reckless driving from one year to three years. The amendment attracted a good deal of support, and the view was expressed that, if anything, three years was too short a period for disqualification for an offence so catastrophic in its consequences.
However, there were contrary objections both from the Government and the main Opposition Front Benches, who argued that a three-year minimum was too long. I therefore reluctantly withdrew the amendment with a view to coming back with a compromise amendment designed to attract the widest possible consensus and support. This is the amendment we are discussing now.
The two noble Lords who spoke against the amendment three weeks ago argued that a three-year driving ban was too long for those convicted individuals whose jobs depended on driving; for example, heavy goods vehicle drivers or commercial travellers. Although that is a somewhat difficult proposition to agree with, I have tried to meet the objectors half-way by reducing the minimum disqualification period to only two years. We are, after all, talking about a very serious offence. We are not talking about death caused by mere careless driving. We are talking about drivers, whether drugged, drunk or stone cold sober, who have killed a fellow human being or human beings by driving recklessly. In other words, we are talking about manslaughter in all but name.
Most of us would agree that non-suspended custodial sentences are nearly always justified for this kind of offence, and possibly longer sentences than have generally been awarded hitherto. The important point is that those whose reckless driving has produced such appalling consequences should be kept off the road for as long as possible. It seems quite wrong that such a serious crime should attract a minimum period of disqualification no longer than one applicable to a very much less serious offence.
The objections raised against my amendment three weeks ago were essentially based on the argument that a longer period of disqualification would be unfair to those "killer drivers", as the tabloids would describe them, whose jobs necessitated the use of a car or commercial vehicle. But even supposing that people in that position were lucky enough to escape prison, they would still have to find a non-driving job anyway, given that the law as it stands at present requires them to be disqualified for a minimum period of one year.
I submit that to be kept away from a steering wheel for an additional 12 months hardly constitutes an unacceptable hardship in the circumstances. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and in doing so say that my society, RoSPA, is also fully behind the amendment. RoSPA has openly expressed its concern on more than one occasion.
There are many cases of drivers causing death by reckless driving and in most cases the driver gets a fine and a ban, but only occasionally a prison sentence. The longest prison sentence on record for reckless driving is two and a half years. In many hundreds of cases each year where death has resulted from irresponsible behaviour at the wheel of a car, the degree of culpability is such that if any other

393
weapon had been used—such as a gun, a knife, a broken bottle or even bare hands—the killer would have been charged and convicted of murder or manslaughter, for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. When the weapon is a car, however, the most horrendous acts of violence go virtually unpunished. It is as though a killer with a motor vehicle has become an acceptable form of homicide.
It is imperative that penalties imposed by the courts should reflect the severity of the crime. In June 1984, the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, stated that the courts were treating the crime of reckless driving as less serious than it was, than Parliament intended it to be and than the public regarded it. I hope that if my noble friend cannot accept the amendment tonight he will seriously consider it before Third Reading.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I shall not delay the House more than one minute. I want to make one single point. I have never understood why those whose livelihood depends on driving and who are convicted of reckless driving on killing a person expect leniency from the courts. Surely anyone who is dependent on driving for a livelihood should bear this in mind all the time he is driving. They cannot afford to take reckless risks; still less can they afford ever to kill somebody on the road on that account. I have no sympathy for those who look to the courts for leniency when they are convicted when what is needed is more care by those who face the greatest risk of losing their livelihood.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said. We are very much in debt to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for having put down this amendment, albeit in a slightly different form from one that appeared at the Committee stage of the Bill. Parliament, politicians, journalists and many others have for a long time—and indeed sometimes judges too—had an over-relaxed attitude towards people who kill others while driving cars, and even when they are sometimes very nearly insensibly drunk at the time that they do so.
The reason why politicians of all parties tend to talk about taking "a tough line" when it comes to firearms offences and many others is often the fact that they do not see themselves in the position of ever being involved in an armed robbery or anything of that kind. But they do see themselves all too often in the position of being the driver of a car who might unfortunately kill someone.
To be frank, most of us know perfectly well—those of us who drive cars and drink, and I would imagine that most of us are in both those categories—that from time to time we have driven a car when we have been dangerously near the limit, putting it as delicately as possible. It seems to me that these double standards have applied—double standards which have been increasingly causing public concern.
We have had this tragic spectacle of this gentleman and his children sitting down in Downing Street after the death of the mother of the family. We have had increasing public disquiet expressed both in the
394
newspapers and on television recently. We have had a major campaign in the United States on exactly the same issue. The least we can do where a driver deprives somebody else of his or her life is to say that they should be disqualified for a period of two years save in special circumstances where the court believes that it is right to apply a lesser sentence. I think that is the right way to approach this, and I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise only to make two points, and that quickly. The first point I would make is that I would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, fundamentally if the view were taken as a result of his speech that Parliament either in this House or in the other place has ever taken a lenient view of drunken driving. In my judgment whenever there has been a discussion in your Lordships' House or elsewhere people have risen from all sides of the House to condemn it, to point out its dangers and to say that people who do it are criminal.
I do not know what the activities are of the people on the Alliance Benches, for whom I have a great respect. But talking on behalf of my own Benches, and I hope on behalf of others Benches in this House. I do not think that it is the common practice for Members of your Lordships' House or of another place to imbibe and then drive afterwards. I hope we have a more responsible view of our public position. If that is not too pompous I now pass on to my next point, which I hope is not pompous at all. What is pompous to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not necessarily the way in which we would define pomposity in the rest of the House.
So far as my second point is concerned, it can be equally brief. I think that your Lordships may be misled. I tried to make this point at the Committee stage when this amendment was before your Lordships. Your Lordships may be misled into thinking that "special reasons" are reasons advanced on behalf of the party's individual circumstances. They are not. The court cannot in regard to special reasons take into account that the accused earns his living by driving.
Special reasons are defined by the courts as meaning special reasons relating to the offence itself and not in regard to the individual who perpetrates it. I thought that your Lordships ought to know that, and therefore know that, regardless of any point that may have been made perfectly properly in this debate about the individual circumstance of the accused, your Lordships may feel that, once you have the safeguard that mitigating factors in regard to the offence itself can be taken into account, it is quite proper to pass this amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this is an emotive issue and I am sure that we all have sympathy with the intentions behind the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said, his amendment would increase from one to two years the minimum period of disqualification for the offence of causing death by reckless driving. He rightly argues that this is a serious offence and that the courts should deal severely with those who commit it. I would not argue

395
with that, but I have to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that there really is no evidence that the courts are not taking these matters seriously.
I shall turn in more detail to disqualification in a moment. First, I should remind your Lordships that disqualification is not the only penalty available for this offence. The maximum penalty on conviction on indictment for causing death by reckless driving is five years' imprisonment. In 1985, 95 people were sentenced to immediate imprisonment for this offence. Of those 95, 35 received sentences of between one and two years; one received a sentence of between two and three years; and five received sentences of between three and five years.
The courts have also used their powers of disqualification to the full. One year is the minimum period of disqualification, yet nearly 90 per cent. of those people disqualified were disqualified for more than two years and over 30 per cent. were disqualified for more than five years. So the evidence indicates that courts do take a serious view of this offence.
This is a difficult area in which we would be reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the courts to sentence as they see fit. I took note of the remarks made in Committee when this issue was raised on an earlier occasion and I have thought very carefully about it since. I have also listened with great care to what your Lordships have said this evening. I find the argument that there should be a difference in the maximum penalty for reckless driving and for causing death by reckless driving persuasive and I am swayed by the strength of the opinions expressed. I am prepared to accept Lord Monson's amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, that is a most gratifying reply. I should like to say how grateful I am to noble Lords in all quarters of the House who have spoken in favour of the amendment and to the noble Earl and the Government for accepting it. I think that the general public, who have recently demonstrated such anguish and concern over this problem, will also be very grateful to the Government. Once again, I thank the noble Earl and all those who have supported the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Forfeiture—general]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 57.
Page 41, line 17, at end insert ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 57 and to speak to Amendment No. 58. These amendments remove from Clause 62 the link between the value of the item to be forfeited and the maximum fine the court could impose for the offence.
I accept the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in Committee that the link is not necessary or even an altogether desirable one, and that the magistrates' power to make a forfeiture order should not be restricted in the way envisaged in the clause.
The purpose of the provision is to deprive the offender of the tools of crime or of unlawfully held property. That may be a right and proper course to take even if the value of the property forfeited exceeds the maximum fine for the offence. Indeed, as the noble Lord pointed out in Committee, the connection between the offence and the forfeited property may in some cases be indirect. When we debated this matter in Committee I was concerned that unless some restriction was retained, we might see excessive forfeiture orders being made. However, on reflection, I find the noble Lord's arguments the stronger. I therefore brought forward these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should like to say thank you on behalf of my noble friend Lord Irvine whose arguments in Commitee appear to have been persuasive.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should also like to say thank you.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 41, line 21, leave out from ("making)") to end of line 28.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 not moved.]
Clause 82 [Compensation.]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 62.
Page 61, leave out lines 16 to 30.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 62 in the name of my noble friend, and also speak to Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65. The amendments raise the question of what happens when there is an acquittal by a jury or on appeal after a forfeiture order has been made.
The Government's position is that there should be no power for compensation unless there has been serious default by the investigating or prosecuting authorities. I suggest that that is mean-minded and misguided. The amendments are directed to removing that barrier. If, in the end, the person is acquitted, it is a necessary consequence that the law regards them as innocent. It is wrong that an innocent person should suffer loss at the hands of the Government for something for which he is not responsible. For that reason Amendment No. 64 provides for the case where a defendant, although acquitted, brings suspicion on himself and allows the court to deprive him of compensation. Short of that, I suggest that an acquittal is an acquittal and it should be recognised as such. That is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord's proposition is that anyone who is acquitted and has suffered loss as a result of the processes of justice should be entitled to the opportunity of seeking compensation. But the Government do not believe it would be in the best interests of justice to adopt this radically new approach to the issue of compensation. The noble Lord is saying that any acquitted person

397
deserves the chance of compensation. We are saying that an acquittal is an acquittal and let no one doubt it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if the noble Earl will give way, I am not saying that any acquitted person is entitled to compensation. We are saying that any acquitted person who has had his property taken possession of by the Government is entitled to compensation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for clarifying that point. But we do not accept the proposition that all acquitted persons should be able to secure compensation from public funds. We do not think it right that the person whose prosecution failed on a technicality should be entitled to benefit in this way, nor the person who by his actions brought prosecution upon himself. This is why Clause 82, like the Drug Trafficking Offences Act before it, establishes the test of "serious default".
I wonder whether the noble Lord does not in fact accept that case at least in part, for his amendments would seem to suggest so. They suggested that there should be a general entitlement to compensation, but that this should be qualified by a power of the High Court to refuse or reduce compensation if someone has invited prosecution by bringing suspicion upon themselves. I should like to pause for a moment on the implications of this. The danger, it seems to me, is that it will put the High Court in the quite unacceptable and invidious position of distinguishing between classes of acquitted person. The High Court could be drawn into having to pass judgment on the judgment of the court which acquitted the defendant. An advantage of the "serious default" criterion is that it avoids this wholly undesirable situation. It concentrates the High Court's attention, properly, on the issue of whether the prosecution, through recklessness or error, was responsible for a state of affairs which should never have been allowed to happen. It does not make the High Court address the question whether someone really deserved to be acquitted or not.
The second point concerns "substantial loss". It would be for the High Court to say what is "substantial", but it is not the intention to exclude losses which are relatively small but have a serious effect on the loser. However, we think it important to exclude minor and wholly opportunistic claims and that is the purpose of the word "substantial".
Against that background I believe that the present criteria in Clause 82 are the right ones. They ensure that there is an opportunity for compensation where something has gone seriously awry with the investigation or prosecution causing substantial loss, but they do not extend to other cases. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that on this matter there is a difference of view between us and that we think it would be wrong to depart from the established principles. Nevertheless, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, the established principles, of course, were established as far back as 1986 in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act. This is
398
rather like saying, "This tradition will start from tomorrow". But if the noble Earl considers that my amendment will give difficulty to the court, what does he think about serious default? Does he not think that any lawyer worth his salt would have tremendous fun in court wondering whether the fault of the prosecution was serious or trivial? Lawyers would have great fun with that. However, on the basis that this may be a matter to which we shall return on another day, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 96, insert the following new
clause:
("Compensation for miscarriage of justice.
. The Secretary of State shall make provision for the payment of compensation to any person who has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and whose conviction has subsequently been reversed, or who has been pardoned, on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be very brief and say to your Lordships that we are now dealing with a rather different matter from the preceding amendment, however meritorious that amendment might be. We are dealing with the question of miscarriage of justice, in which there has been a final conviction and thereafter as a result of an inquiry or new evidence it has been found that the person concerned was completely innocent of the alleged crime of which he was convicted. We are asking in justice that compensation should be available in those cases. At this late hour I very much hope that this very reasonable amendment can be accepted, so that we can terminate our proceedings on a happy and proper note. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I put my name down to this amendment because it expressed a feeling that I have had for some time. I wonder whether the Government would consider the provision of a modest—and I stress the word "modest"—degree of compensation to all those who are wrongfully arrested or detained and not only to those who are wrongfully convicted. That would reconcile the public to the greater number in toto of wrongful arrests and detentions that take place today as an inevitable consequence of greater police and Customs and Excise activity, which is itself an inevitable consequence of the more dangerous times that we live in compared, for example, with the 1950s.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, moved an identical amendment to this one in Committee. I indicated then that the Government would be willing to look sympathetically at the case for an amendment for these purposes and on that basis the noble and learned Lord was willing not to press the matter. The purpose of such an amendment, as is the purpose of this one, would be to enact the provisions of Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

399
The speeches made in Committee made fully clear to me the strength and urgency of your Lordships' feelings on this matter. I am therefore ready and able to give the undertaking sought from me at that time and can confirm that the Government will bring forward an amendment for the purpose of enacting the provisions of the article to which I have referred.
There was a further undertaking that I believe your Lordships sought from me, which was to introduce an amendment before the Bill left this House. I regret to say that I am not optimistic that this can be achieved. I alluded to the difficulties during Committee. Essentially they are that the drafting of a suitable amendment will be more complex than might appear to be the case from the noble Lord's amendment, and will require discussion with a variety of interests within government.
We need to give careful consideration to the meaning of the words—I quote from the article—"final decision" and to the making of detailed arrangements, which, in the amendment before us, are not addressed as directly as they would need to be. I believe your Lordships will accept that for an amendment of this nature and with the purposes envisaged it would not be appropriate simply to make general provision for the payment of compensation. We must consider carefully exactly how that provision should be made.
I therefore think it unlikely that the amendment can be ready by Third Reading and I am sorry that this should be so. I can however assure your
400
Lordships that we shall definitely bring forward the necessary provision in another place and, if it is adopted, there will, of course, be an opportunity for your Lordships to consider it when the Bill returns to this House. I am sorry that I cannot go further than that, but I hope that on that relatively happy note the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be satisfied.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, relatively happy is the right term and I readily thank the noble Earl for his courtesy in the way he has dealt with this amendment, which was originally moved, as he rightly said, by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. We look forward to the possibility of the Government's amendment being available by Third Reading, but if that is not so the undertaking is perfectly satisfactory and I am obliged to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at four minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY: POWER STATION BUILDING PROGRAMME
  ELECTRICITY SUPPLY: POWER STATION BUILDING PROGRAMME
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CUSTODY
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CUSTODY
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES: DISCHARGE INTO AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES: DISCHARGE INTO AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
  DRIVER TESTING
  DRIVER TESTING