Sitting of 12 May 1989

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

Active Citizenship
9.34 am
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I beg to move,
That this House confirms its commitment to the role of the active citizen and voluntary organisations in society.
It gives me great pleasure to continue to develop the theme that I chose for my maiden speech. I do not claim any special expertise in the subject; indeed, I see hon. Members on both sides of the House who have greater experience then I, both generally and in some of the more specific subjects that I shall touch on in my introductory remarks. I look forward to hearing their contributions.
The concept of active citizenship is hardly a new one. Throughout the ages, societies have progressed and prospered precisely because their members worked for the common good. However, the phrase has entered the political arena only in the past three years or so, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who is to reply to the debate, have both spoken, during their tenure of office, of the importance of citizens involving themselves in their communities—the emphasis being on communities rather than on the more impersonal and intangible concept of society. The affection of the public tends towards Edmund Burke's idea of "little platoons"—representing the best of Whig and Tory traditions—as opposed to great battalions.
Why the phrase "active citizenship"? It is precisely to distinguish the concept from passive citizenship, if citizenship it is, whereby responsibilities have tended to be ceded to the state. It is not just east of the iron curtain that the destruction of communities in the second world war led directly to the heyday of Socialist planners. The heartless tower blocks—the ghastly stark architecture and all that goes with it—also appeared in the West. These horrors are only now beginning to be knocked down and transformed. Active citizenship means more than simply casting a vote or writing a cheque—whether to the taxman for the state to provide, or to charity, to absolve one's conscience without further obligation.
The motion seeks to raise awareness of the vital role of the active citizen, both as an individual and joining others in voluntary groups to help the community generally. All the trends are now towards people taking greater responsibility for themselves and their families—in housing, through tenants' and housing associations; in education, through parent governors of schools, and, in health, through volunteers in hospitals, the local identity of which, I trust, will be enhanced by the proposals for self-governing hospitals. All that has been added to more traditional themes—lay magistrates drawn from all walks of life, youth club leaders, scouts, guides, St. John Ambulance, lifeboat men or simply membership of clubs and organisations with a charitable element. The desire to
1110
belong and the need to be needed are powerful human traits. As Abraham Lincoln reminded us, service to others is the rent that we pay for our place on earth.
It is all too easy, after a decade of major changes, with the emphasis rightly on enterprise and efficiency, for critics to portray an essentially materialistic society. Although I believe that to be unjust—all hon. Members can testify to the superb and inadequately recognised voluntary work done by so many in our constituencies—I suggest to the House that the well-established British tradition of generosity needs a gentle nudge in the right direction.
As we move towards the end of the century, a curious combination of trends is becoming evident. Not only do we have a general increase in prosperity; we have a population that is living longer, fewer people leaving schools and entering employment, earlier retirement and more leisure time. However, there will always be a section of our society that needs extra support.
With the permission of the House, I want to explore means whereby resources, both personal and financial, can be guided, without any form of compulsion, into worthwhile projects. We now have the wherewithal, but we need the enthusiasm and energy to put it to the maximum advantage. On this side of the House, at least, we have long believed in the idea of individual self-help. It has always seemed to me that this rather narrow and selfish concept should be widened to what I choose to call "community self-help".
I can think of no better example to prove my point than the emergence of neighbourhood watch schemes. They started without the direct involvement of the Government or the police, with the object of protecting property. Perhaps that is materialistic, but, equally it is both prudent and proper. Not only have those schemes increased from a bare two schemes in 1982 to 66,000 this year, but, as I have seen in my constituency in Wimbledon, the movement has developed through a network of co-ordinators into a social entity in itself. People get to know each other and to discuss the needs of others in their areas. Self-interest, therefore, has led to more neighbourly behaviour and, perhaps most importantly of all, social cohesiveness.
Local businesses have—perhaps not entirely altruistically, since advertising is involved—sponsored the production and delivery of newsletters. The success of the scheme has yet to be fully evaluated, although the trend for crime against property is downwards. It may prove to be an inexact science, but no one can discount the value of the cultivation of areas of common interest in an increasingly impersonal world.
A weakness in neighbourhood watch is often the understandable shortage of police manpower deployed in order to link up with the scheme. I suggest that the obvious remedy for that is urgent and vigorous recruitment to the special constabulary. It dismays me that in England and Wales the numbers have actually fallen from 17,000 in 1968 to 16,000 in 1987, and the picture in Scotland is very much worse. Although the increased recruitment of females is to be welcomed, it disguises the real drop in male manpower.
The appearance of so-called guardian angels in this country—in spite of the fact that they have impressed some of my colleagues—caused me deep misgivings. Why on earth should a vulnerable passenger on the Underground be reassured more by a bestudded vigilante, festooned with badges, than by the comforting sight of a

1111
uniformed special constable? We should have a campaign to recruit "specials" to act as a bridge between the regular police force and the public, and to help improve our record in law and order, which does not always bear close examination. Crimes against people may be far outnumbered by crimes against property, but we cannot tolerate our constituents being afraid of going about their daily lives, in spite of the sterling efforts of our police force.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Gentleman said about the special constabulary. Does he agree that it has a further advantge, in that it enables people who might wish to change careers and to join the police force in their late twenties or their thirties to see what it is like while being specials, and also gives the chief officers of police the opportunity to see what they are like while they are acting as specials? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a considerable advantage in recruiting to the police force people in early middle years with some experience of other jobs?
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I am well aware of the hon. and learned Gentleman's interest in the subject. I endorse his remarks entirely. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will comment with more authority and in further detail from the Front Bench.
Active Citizenship in uniform could also be developed in the reserve forces, which are very well represented in my constituency by the Territorial Army, sea cadets and air training units, for which a recruitment campaign was launched last year. As the last generation of employers who did military service pass into retirement, we, the only NATO country in Europe not to have national service, must ensure that society recognises the importance of releasing employees for such training. Although I recognise that this is not the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend, the importance of reserve forces to the country's defence is vital, and will I hope be the subject of a debate on another day.
The responsibility of employers leads to a third exciting area to be explored—namely the secondment by companies of employees to voluntary sector projects. I believe that this has been described by Ralf Dahrendorf as "social entrepreneurship". Mr. Dahrendorf can hardly be described as a Conservative. Our major companies, such as IBM, whose managers have discretion to allow up to half a day off per week to employees, British Petroleum and United Biscuits are now following the lead of companies in the United States. I welcome the fact, too, that the Civil Service is involved.
Once again it is a two-way process. The companies feel that their employees come back with broadened horizons, the employees feel they have achieved something themselves, and the Institute of Directors proclaims that the pro bono publico spirit is alive again.
Business in the Community, an association of major United Kingdom businesses, also works with local and central Government and voluntary organisations to revitalise life in local communities in a wide range of projects. For example, in inner cities it supports urban regeneration, not only in bricks and mortar and in providing jobs, but by improving the environment and the quality of life. People are encouraged to stop whingeing
1112
and to tackle issues from basic social needs to taking pride in their surroundings by the elimination of graffiti and litter.
More recently still, active citizenship has been addressed by the Prince's Trust and the Commission on Citizenship, under the patronage of the Prince of Wales and Mr. Speaker respectively. Those two organisations are jointly exploring means of giving opportunities to young adults from all walks of life, from the age of 16 to 25, to do voluntary work for from four to 12 months. That is clearly a critical time in young people's lives, as they move from dependency to independence. It is early days yet, but the Prince's Trust has already done a pilot scheme that may be complementary to the pioneering work done by community service volunteers. A recent paper, "Service for the Nation" published by the Royal College of Defence Studies, recognises the non-military possibilities of this type of initiative.
Again it is a question of providing a framework. It is not inventing a new and artificial breed. Ten per cent. of youngsters are already active in the voluntary sector, and their awareness of citizenship may now be increased by the inclusion of the subject in the restructured curriculum. I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that his Department works closely with the Department of Education and Science to recognise that citizenship, far from being a woolly sociological subject, has an important place in rounding the educational system, to go beyond mere academic qualifications. The hope is that prospective employers, following the example of the influence of the Peace Corps in the United States, will take positive note of those with voluntary work on their curricula vitae, before employing them.
In time, the scheme may be extended to adults, and to the retired. Energetic people with experience are increasingly ploughing back their expertise through organisations such as the Retired Executives Action Clearing House—REACH—which is an example of what I understand is fashionably known as "grey power".
Finally, I endorse the philosophy of the role of the voluntary sector in our society. There is a negative school of thought that thinks that the extension of Victorian values, of self-help and private charity is merely a cheap way of displacing the welfare state. However, the opposite is precisely the case. The voluntary sector not only allows extra resources to be provided, but manages those resources more efficiently than does the state. I see that as a most worthy move away from what Kingman Brewster, the former American ambassador in London, dubbed the "entitlement society".
Although there is always scope for improvement, the Government's record in this respect is excellent. In the last 10 years, the material support for the voluntary sector has risen 92 per cent. in real terms and now £280 million is provided annually, either by direct grant to over a thousand voluntary bodies or via the urban programme.
Mr. Stuart Randall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his interesting speech. When the community programmes were cut in Wimbledon, was any of the socially related voluntary work then taking place chopped, as it was in my constituency of Hull to a serious extent?
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hope that it is not

1113
impertinent of me to say that I suspect that I know more about the deployment of funds in the London borough of Merton than he does, but I bow to his experience in Kingston upon Hull, West. I could tell him of the vast range of organisations that are doing worthy work in Wimbledon, and which are critically examined every year to see whether they are fulfilling the criteria that I am putting before the House. Each year, we look at value for money.
That intervention takes me directly on to the figures that I gave the House, which do not take account of grants via local government. In fact, I have tried with little success to find the statistics that show the total sums so deployed. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, in the London borough of Merton alone, the budget for 1989–90 amounts to £600,000, ranging from the Wimbledon Guild, which specialises in flexible quick response to people in need, through Merton MIND and victim support schemes, and many other worthy organisations which I am sure are replicated in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
To quote the title of one of the leaflets produced by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, such organisations should not be "taken for granted". However, the other side of the coin is that voluntary bodies should always examine their own organisations critically, to avoid empire building and the sort of top heavy bureaucratic structure which is exactly what the Government are trying to avoid. The whole exercise is nonsense if the maximum resources do not reach the target.
While not detracting from the marvellous work done by national organisations such as the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the thrust of my argument for active citizenship implies a trend to more localised help within communities. I believe that people will respond more readily if they see in their own areas, the fruits of their efforts and generosity.
The House looks forward to the Government's White Paper on charities and their reaction to the Woodfield report.
Clearly, any recommendations for proper regulation of charities, combined with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent raising of the threshold for payroll giving, would increase both the confidence of the public, and the level of giving, already running at £12 billion per year. Perhaps within the Government's response, or in addition to it, my hon. Friend the Minister will examine the relatively new concept of community trusts, sponsored by the Charities Aid Foundation. Here again, the argument is to link needs and resources on a local basis. Thirty such schemes have already been established. As they have shown the initiative which has been so well rewarded in the United States, perhaps more core funding would now be appropriate.
In conclusion, the role of the active citizen and voluntary organisations, combined with the concept of community self-help, is not wishy-washy do-gooding, it is a hitherto inadequately explored area, whereby a practical framework can be put in place for the benefit of all.
I believe that hon. Members of all parties will accept that increased affluence and prosperity in a free enterprise society must be linked to greater responsibility for others. In that spirit I commend the motion to the House.
9.54 am
Mr. Alex Carlile: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on selecting this motion for debate this morning. It is a valuable opportunity to discuss both the good points and some of the deficiencies facing the voluntary sector. The hon. Gentleman is a rare if not a unique bird in this House, being both a doctor and a barrister and he has perhaps a broader opportunity than many, being a member of two professions that are under attack at present, to see the broad scope in which the voluntary sector operates and the problems that it faces.
The hon. Gentleman illustrated the diversity of the voluntary sector. Even in a rural constituency such as mine, one can see that diversity, with activities ranging through bodies such as the Red Cross, which is extremely active in rural areas, in citizens advice bureaux, and in new agencies such as the bilingual English and Welsh AIDS helpline. Along with many other organisations they make a most valuable contribution to the community.
However, I should like to sound a note of caution. We must be careful that we do not rely too much on the voluntariness of the sector. It is right and of great benefit to society that the voluntary sector should prosper. However, that prosperity will not develop if it is not funded adequately, and that means adequate funding from both local and central Government to give the sector the encouragement and the resources that it needs to operate in a way that will benefit society as much as possible.
Two particular parts of the voluntary sector are causing me concern at the moment. The first is the citizens advice bureaux and the second is law centres. I should make it clear that I do not criticise the citizens advice bureaux in any way. They make a wonderful contribution in probably every constituency in the country towards meeting the problems that people face. Our constituency surgeries are large enough as it is, but imagine what they would be like if there were no citizens advice bureaux. We would probably be there from Saturday morning until late on Sunday night. If, as in my constituency, one has to hold surgeries in towns that are 30 or 40 miles apart, one would probably never meet the need at all if the CABs were not there to take the main part of the burden.
Citizens advice bureaux face complex problems these days. The complexity of those problems and, above all, the range of issues that they meet have increased dramatically in the past 20 years or so. When I was a small boy and was made to shake tins—probably illegally because I was under age to do so—to help my mother to collect money for the local citizens advice bureau, it was a small organisation meeting a residual need. Today, citizens advice bureaux, all over the country meet a mainline and a frontline need.
Many of the problems that they face are complicated legal problems, relating to housing, social security, race relations or other legal issues. In some areas—I cite as an example the well organised CAB at Thamesmead—it has been possible for the CAB to have legally qualified organisers, people with professional qualifications and a wide range of competence which they are able to use when they meet clients and to train their volunteers. But the salaries which the CABs are able to pay to organisers of that quality are small, so that the pool of people who are

1115
willing to make what in many cases is the self-sacrifice to work in what must be regarded as vocational jobs of that sort is diminishing.
In areas such as that, it is difficult to obtain suitable volunteers; they are not coming forward because many people are frightened by the range and complexity of problems. In other areas, such as in my constituency, where there is a well-organised CAB in Newtown, although the manager is extremely competent but not professionally qualified, she is able to draw on a larger pool of volunteers, perhaps because it is easier to find suitable volunteers in a country area. But the number of volunteers is diminishing there too, again because of the complexity of problems and the difficulty of resourcing suitable training opportunities for volunteers.
In some areas, local authorities are supporting their CABs well. In others, they are less willing to support them, and blame the Government for the lack of resources. It would not be helpful if, in this morning's debate, I entered into a political argument over who was responsible for the short funding of CABs and similar agencies. What is important is for the Government to take the co-ordinating role in ensuring that CABs throughout the country are properly funded so that they can give the necessary service to deal with an ever more complicated work load and an ever-increasing number of clients.
In real terms, there has been a general decline under Conservative rule in the provision of law centres and advice through such centres. The great thing about law centres is that what one might crudely describe as expensive expertise is provided in them at low prices. In the average law centre there is a small number of full-time workers, many qualified as lawyers, and they also rely on volunteers. On the whole, the volunteers are practising solicitors and barristers who give their time free to assist the law centre. They are, therefore, a cost-effective system of provision of legal advice, even set against the £45 an hour legal aid rate for solicitors doing criminal work, about which we have read recently, let alone the apparently much higher rates required by solicitors in central London if they are not to go bankrupt.
There is a great need for law centres and that need will increase if the Government decide to introduce legislation that puts into effect a substantial part of the Lord Chancellor's proposed reforms. I shall not debate the merits of the Lord Chancellor's Green Papers. For the sake of this debate, I am prepared to accept that there will be changes and that one of them, whether or not it is justified, is the loss of solicitors' privileges in relation to conveyancing.
The consequences of that loss will be that in rural areas, a substantial proportion of solicitors' income will probably be lost to financial institutions. The same will apply in urban areas, particularly since the sale of council houses has provided solicitors with conveyancing income for some years.
It seems to be generally agreed that as a result of that —I do not want to exaggerate the position—there will be a diminution of the number of solicitors in practice in the less legally lucrative areas of the country, such as in small towns and in areas where there are large proportions of council housing and so on. That will mean less legal
1116
expertise being available in the private legal market. As I say, that is an inevitable consequence. It may be justified, but I do not want to enter that discussion today.
Those changes will result in a deficit in the availability of legal services. If there is not to be a three-tier legal service—one for large companies, one for the middle classes and practically none for the rest—part of the provision will have to be met through law centres. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office—certainly the Government—should shoulder a substantial share of the responsibility for co-ordinating and funding the provision of law centres and their funding.
I have in the past been opposed to the widespread provision of law centres in rural areas, much to the irritation of the Law Centres Federation. But it is clear that they will be needed in the future if the number of solicitors' offices in rural and medium towns diminishes, as seems likely.
The Legal Aid Board is moving towards franchishing and granting licences, as it were, for certain types of legal work to have local or subject monopolies. But it must be realised—as I am sure the Government realize—that one cannot just hand over large areas of legal work, for example, to the CABs because, with the best will in the world, they do not have the expertise and people to do it, and they must rely for legal advice, by and large, on legally qualified people. If the number of solicitors diminishes, there will not be so many appropriate volunteers. At present, many solicitors give their services free to CABs on a regular basis.
As a result of changes which will take place—the introduction of greater competition in legal services which will have the effect that I have described in the areas to which I have referred—we shall need to establish a better and public legal service for the community at large. The only conceivable way of doing that is thorough law centres. That would rely greatly on the principle of voluntariness and active citizenship, which the Government encourage.
I support that principle, but it is no use just talking about it; the Government must examine the areas where it is needed and do the pump-priming to ensure that the need is met. I predict that in two or three years from now, if the Government do not prime the pump of law centres, there will be the deficit to which I have referred.
In making these points I do not want to imply that there is a serious deficiency in the voluntary sector. However, if there is a deficiency, it is that resources cannot keep pace with imagination. Different types of voluntary services are flourishing in all communities, and that is to be welcomed. I hope that the Government will not merely talk about encouraging imagination but will provide the funding to enable the active imagination of the active citizen who wishes to help others to be put to useful effect.
10.9 am
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on raising this important issue. It is central to our time in terms of the need for an active citizenry, the number of people already involved, and the huge potential for involving many more of them. I speak partly as a member of Mr. Speaker's Commission on Citizenship, an initiative which will be of tremendous value to the development of active citizenship. In recent weeks, the

1117
commission enjoyed a philosophical seminar on citizenship. It was clear that there are serious and important differences of opinion about what a citizen is and what is meant by citizenship, but I will not pursue the matter today.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have shown considerable interest in the subject. My right hon. Friend recently held a meeting to discuss some of the ways forward. The only universal agreement was that we did not want a national, bureaucratised, expensive machinery to be established for involving citizens in the work to be done.
Why should we bother about active citizenship? My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has already covered much of the topic, but it will be convenient to refer to some of it again.
Modern developed industrial society is potentially alienating. Probably the most common single human ill in such a society is loneliness. Every week, general practitioners' surgeries are filled with people who have nothing wrong with them except that they are lonely and, because they are lonely, they are depressed, and their depression takes a physical form.
Half the demands on the National Health Service are psychosomatic. To a large extent, it is possible to relieve loneliness if only enough of us are prepared to take enough interest in our neighbour. It is true also that society is deeply lacking in self-confidence. It is an extraordinary phenomenon that even the most apparently self-confident people are extremely anxious about many things.
Yesterday, in the Children Bill Standing Committee, hon. Members talked about the fact that, of all the functions that a human being is called upon to perform, being a parent is probably the most demanding and certainly the one for which we have least preparation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said, tower blocks are designed to make it almost impossible for young mothers and fathers easily to find their peers with whom they can discuss their problems.
One of the features of psychiatrists' waiting rooms, marriage guidance—now called Relate—consulting sessions, drop-in sessions, Church groups and other service departments is that young parents imagine that their problems with their children are unique. They are astonished and hugely relieved to discover that most of what they are suffering is suffered by parents all over the country. Because they believe that their problems are unique and are based on a grievous fault, they are extremely unwilling to discuss them with someone in authority. That problem would easily be overcome if only we could devise methods by which acceptable helpers—the word "counsellors" is too pompous—or friends could be found to help people to develop the self-confidence that every parent needs.
Talking of self-confidence, hon. Members are well above average in their commitment to voluntary work and altruism. Contrary to popular belief, the curriculum vitae of Members of Parliament are studded with voluntary work. Nevertheless, I wonder how many hon. Members would feel confident when faced with various kinds of physical or mental handicap. I have been too sheltered from meeting various kinds of disability, and, confronted with the need actively to intervene, I would be nervous and, probably, grossly incompetent. By integrating children with special needs into mainline schools we would go a long way towards dealing with the problem. When
1118
confronted with someone having an epileptic fit, for example, most people would run away because they would not know what to do. There is a tremendous amount to be said for exposing people, particularly the young, not only to people who help the disabled but to people with disabilities.
One of the most remarkable experiments in our society is the Community Service Volunteers, of which I am a trustee. It frequently has two volunteers living arid working with a severely handicapped person. The most astonishing thing is not how much the handicapped person derives from it but how much he or she teaches the young people. Young volunteers who have done that work for six months or so say that they have been shaped arid hammered by the person whom they looked after. They feel that the benefit was substantially on their side.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I am listening with great care to what my hon. Friend is saying. He has put a new thought into my mind. Is he saying that we must review our definition of the active citizen to mean not only formal volunteers but parents as the primary form of active citizenship—almost the foundation of the active citizenship movement in this country—with their responsibility for their children and families?
Mr. Rowe: I am delighted if I have put a new thought into my hon. Friend's mind. His mind is already so full of thoughts that it is remarkable that another can be fitted in.
The relationship between donor and recipient is enormously reciprocal. All of us are volunteers at one minute and paid at the next, and sometimes simultaneously. We tend to think of one role being exclusive of the other, but that is not the case.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has pointed out, ours is in many respects a squalid country with litter in the streets, graffiti on the walls and many filthy streets and passageways. That is the product of a variety of factors, one of which is that too many citizens feel no sense of responsibility for the areas in which they live or through which they are passing.
The motor car has given us all a wonderful freedom, but it has also given us freedom to pollute the neighbourhoods of others. We have only to watch cigarette packets being hurled out of car windows and McDonald's boxes and other fast food packaging being dumped on the roadside to realise that people have no clear sense of responsibility in this regard, even in their own localities. We have now begun to realise that we can no longer address all the problems of society by paying someone else to deal with them.
Mr. Randall: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. Implicit in what he has just said is a definition of the active citizen. Does he believe that, as some people have written—especially members of the Conservative party—the active citizens are those with money which they pass down to those without, or does he believe that the definition of active citizenship should embrace everyone in our society? If he holds the latter belief, how would he encourage, for instance, the homeless and deprived to become active citizens? Surely that in itself presents terrific problems.
Mr. Rowe: In my experience, and no doubt in that of the hon. Gentleman, generosity tends to come more

1119
readily from the poor than from the rich. I find a remarkable willingness to assist others on the part of those who have not much themselves; that willingness is not always so evident among those who have plenty.
We have a tremendous opportunity to encourage others to take more control of their lives. The homeless are a particularly difficult problem, but I believe that we should assist that often rather fragmented group—I have seen a number of television programmes that demonstrate the astonishing networks within it—to become more articulate and co-operative. I do not think that the motivation is difficult to derive, provided that people are prepared to get out there and do it. Such organisations as the Simon Community, which works regularly among such people, have built up the rapport that makes that possible.
The crux of the matter—I am sure that this is what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) is teasing me to say, but I shall say it none the less —is that there can be no such motivation without some prospect of a result. Perhaps we need to consult the homeless more: given the opportunity, I think that many of them would come up with solutions to their problems that might well be much easier to accomplish than those that we are trying to present to them from above.
Personal growth is an essential element. One of the saddest features of many people's lives is their experience of an education system that has handed them information and tested them in ways that have often made them feel that they are always going to lose. Too many people do not believe that it is their responsibility or, indeed, a potential pleasure to achieve their own growth.
Yesterday the chairman of the Training Agency came to speak to a Committee of the House. He said that he believed that the solution to the training problems of which we are all so well aware was to encourage others to realise the ability to control their own learning processes. They should feel, he said, that training, the acquisition of knowledge and the enhancement of their job opportunities was a matter for them as much as for their employers: that rather than such benefits being handed out by some Government agency or employer, a partnership should exist.
My experience as vice-chairman of the Pre Retirement Association has shown me that the world is full of people who are frightened of retirement. They are terrified of having nothing to do, and cannot imagine ways of filling their time that will keep them occupied. Those who have no such opportunity become prematurely aged and, in many cases, the problem of the social services departments. But how many of us know people of 80 or 90 who are active to the point at which we almost wish that they would leave us alone because they are so full of ideas with which they bully us along? Such people often move very swiftly and contentedly from old age to death. We should encourage personal growth throughout people's lives.
We should not forget that active citizenship is often very convivial: it can mean getting out and meeting people, sharing ideas, being stimulated and stimulating others, and having good fun. It does not necessarily mean doing things only for other people. Myriad clubs have grown up where people can take part in dancing, bowls,
1120
bird-watching and a hundred and one other activities. If I may misquote John Donne, any man's misery diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.
What else can be done? Let me list some fairly altruistric activities. First, there is befriending. We must establish a better mechanism—a sort of dating agency—for those who would like to befriend others and are not sure how to set about meeting people who need befriending.
Computer dating agencies, which have brought an increasing amount of pleasure and romance to single people, could be used as a model for a wide variety of other partnerships, such as ones between those who wish to give and those who would like to share. More could be done about that. A range of activities is open to people who are prepared to be friends, and if those activities were taken up they would assist the statutory services.
I have spoken in the House previously about the value of social workers being accompanied by volunteers. Volunteers not only give social workers companionship and, sometimes, protection against violence, but are frequently able to form the kind of relationships with families that it would be improper for social workers to develop. Such relationships may well be more effective than statutory social work.
There is a huge and unmet need for respite for carers. There are six million carers in this country, some of whom are as young as eight. Many of them desperately need the opportunity occasionally to go out to have their hair done, go shoppiing, meet a friend, go to the cinema or even have a holiday. There is a huge untapped market of people who would be prepared to take on that kind of work. Just as job sharing is creeping into the employment market, voluntary organisations responsible for administering social schemes should look much more seriously at job sharing among volunteers, as that could bring continuous support for a person or family.
Counselling is a huge growth industry, about which I sometimes have reservations. I think that too many counsellors vicariously work out their own anxieties on the people whom they are helping. That is actually a slander, because many counselling organisations take much trouble to vet and train their counsellors. There is no doubt that counselling, whether of those who have been burgled, involved in an accident or have debt problems, is much easier for a volunteer than for someone working for the statutory services. If someone is brought in from the statutory services, the person being cared for often has a lurking anxiety that the law will be involved.
I am interested to see that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) is in the House, because if anybody is interested in advocacy, he is. Advocacy is an immensely important element that is greatly underestimated. If we in the Conservative party are serious about handing some power back to the consumer of the social services, we must make it easier for people to know what is available, what their choices are, how to make their choice and how to change it, if it turns out that they have made the wrong choice. Such a concept is frightening to many professionals. However, they should take comfort from the Italian hospital that, as a matter of course, attaches to all patients who come into the hospital an advocate to fight their battles for them, whether they be with the staff, over food or appointments, or merely to talk to them about their fears or whether windows are shut at the right time. Those advocates were greatly resisted when

1121
they were first introduced but the hospital now recognises them to the point of having two on its board of management.
We know how many primary schools have been kept going and made successful by the mothers who initially come to help because their children attend the school, but then find that helping children read, keeping an eye on them and helping in their play is such fun that they stay on long after their own children have left the school. We are much too shy about bringing volunteers into secondary schools. That is a large area of activity that is mutually beneficial. For example, how many men in local communities would enormously enjoy becoming unofficial coaches to a secondary school football team or whatever. They might want to be responsible for getting them to the matches. There is no reason why that should not become a growing part of the school provision, particularly in schools which, for all sorts of reasons, no longer feel that they can, or wish to, take teams away from the school. That would help to develop the partnership between the school and the community.
How long will it be before the police generalise the experiment being carried in Birmingham, Handsworth, where volunteers come out with them and interact with the public alongside the police? It diminishes the antagonism sometimes felt between Asian communities and an essentially white police force if some of the people going out with the police are Asian volunteers, who can speak to the public in their own language and with a clear understanding of their customs.
As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, there is a question about standards. One consequence of having so many volunteers interacting in these various ways is that people become aware of where the shoe pinches and have ideas about who makes a good manager, and who a bad manager, of the statutory services. They are given a much clearer idea of what would be cost-effective expenditure, and what would not. That would be a valuable challenge for the statutory services.
Since this is the House of Commons, which debates, among other matters, what Governments should and should not do, I shall say a few words about the Government's role in this subject. As I have said, it would be wrong to have some kind of great national bureaucracy, presided over by a Minister who tries to create active citizens. However, why does the Inland Revenue Staff Federation find it so difficult to persuade the Treasury to allow its staff to have more time for the type of activity that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon talked about? The IBM 10 per cent. rule that allows its staff to take the equivalent of half a day a week for voluntary activities has benefited the company enormously. It has provided the staff with a degree of self-confidence and flexibility of mind that more than repays the small amount of work that IBM loses. The company has discovered that the people who are trusted to go out for such activity, come back and wipe up the half day's work as though they had never had the time off. The Paraplegic Games are run almost entirely by IBM staff taking their 10 per cent. in a lump. I wonder whether we can persuade the Government to give a boost to a 10 per cent. club. There is already a 1 per cent. club and I think that businesses would enjoy the possibility of a 10 per cent. club, although they are sceptical because too many things are being wished upon them. However, I
1122
believe that this suggestion would be good for them. We are always hearing about the importance of training staff to be flexible.
One issue that Mr. Speaker's commission is considering is how we can accredit the sort of work that is done by active citizens. It is worth asking why only one school in the country has A-levels in the citizenship course. The answer is simply that traditional school teachers believe that citizenship should be done by less able pupils. That is a gross misunderstanding of what it is all about. If they have any sense, the employers of the future will be looking at active citizenship as an important part of someone's curriculum vitae. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will take a closer interest in all this.
This is not just a domestic British matter. We live in a global village. Once the aeroplane was invented, all sorts of things came under strain—not least the British citizenship rules. People can travel all over the world and stock markets can respond to each other's communications within seconds, so we must consider the active citizen in a worldwide sense.
Some traditional useful activities are going on. I am associated with HOST, the Foreign Office, British Council and Royal Victoria League joint activity for making foreign students welcome in British homes. One of the most disastrous features of bringing foreign students to study here—we should do much more of it; I am a great enthusiast for it—is leaving them entirely alone at Christmas and weekends and never bringing them into a British home. They either go home feeling that Britain is a cold, unfriendly place or, worse, they are taken up by people who want to undermine this country and return them to their countries positively hostile towards us.
There is a good deal of sponsorship and that is entirely appropriate. There are some telling advertisements pointing out that for the cost of one not especially expensive dinner in a British restaurant a child can be maintained for a year in some other country.
The active citizen working abroad is indispensable to the future of the world. It is no longer a case of de haut en bas—no longer does all the expertise rest in Britain and the West, to be taken abroad by some generous missionary in a topee. We find when we arrive at these countries that sophisticated voluntary organisations already exist there and have a great deal to teach us. One of the biggest organisations of all has learnt that lesson well. The Church of England has now understood how much it has to learn from churches in places such as Uganda. I hugely value this reciprocity.
If we can develop opportunities for active citizens of every age to share their experience and knowledge around the world, we shall do something to alleviate the astonishing problem that 15 per cent. of the world's population uses 85 per cent. of its energy. Over time, the great western democracies which have been so economically successful may be compelled to accept a slower rate of growth—or even a negative rate from time to time. It is extremely difficult to win a democratic election by promising people a slower rate of growth, but if enough people have been exposed to the opportunity of working alongside others in India, China and Africa, this sort of lesson will be more easily learnt.
Even in the European Community, some progress is being made. The Cumri Community Conservation

1123
Challenge, in which CSV has a part to play, includes an exchange with Portugal. It is good that the European Community is trying to build links across frontiers.
I believe with tremendous fervour that active citizenship is central to the sort of society in which we want to live. Millions of people have too little to do and too little self-confidence to understand what they can offer. They could be motivated relatively easily to give of themselves to others and, in so doing, to discover the great truth that giving of one's self to others enriches a person far more than any other human activity.
10.44 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on his choice of motion for debate and on the skilful way in which he introduced it.
I am delighted to be called to contribute to the debate because voluntary organisations, their membership and their contribution to British life are an essential part of the fabric of our nation.
The concept of voluntary work and service working side by side with the state is so familiar to us all that we sometimes tend to forget that such a tradition is not to be found in some of our European partners, or at least not to the extent that it is found here. It is a tradition that should be nurtured, encouraged and cherished and, as other hon. Members have said, never taken for granted.
It is impossible to exaggerate the importance and influence of the voluntary sector in all spheres of British life. We are told that there are more than 250,000 charitable organisations, but obviously the scope of voluntary organisations and activities goes much further than that. I want briefly to explore some of the reasons for their importance to us all.
First, there is the idea of voluntary effort being used to provide for a particular need. That represents a healthy desire on the part of communities not to depend on all solutions coming from the state. I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) imply—he may not have meant to do so—that the force and power of voluntary organisations is less in rural areas than in urban areas. I think he used the sentence, "Even in a rural area like the one I represent there is voluntary activity." I suggest that voluntary activity is especially strong in rural areas; it certainly is in the one that I represent. Communities that are scattered and far flung are accustomed to shifting for themselves.
The village in which I live has a population of about one thousand and is by no means atypical.
Mr. Alex Carlile: That would be a town in Montgomeryshire.
Mrs. Shephard: We also have villages of 25 inhabitants.
In my village there are two lots of almshouses, allotments, a parent-teacher association, a playgroup association, a sports and social club, a flourishing St. John Ambulance Brigade, a big youth section, a Women's Institute, a Mothers' Union and a forget-me-not club for the elderly—and I am sure that that list is incomplete.
Mr. John Patten: How many pubs?
Mrs. Shephard: We have no pub, which may account for the great success of some of the voluntary organisations.
Mr. Carlile: The hon. Lady is right to rebuke me for using the word 'even'. I agree that voluntary work is strong in rural areas. However, does she accept that in some rural areas in which, as in mine, there has been a decline in the cohesiveness of Chapel communities, there remains a considerable need to develop voluntary work?
Mrs. Shephard: I am not an expert on the decline or otherwise of Chapel communities. I defer to the hon. and learned Gentleman in that respect, although I must point out that in my village—I apologise for using a sample of one—the Chapel has moved itself to the neighbouring village, yet we have a flowering of voluntary organisations and activities. Whether the two are connected I would not like to say, but the Chapel's move does not seem to have made an appreciable difference. The position in Montgomery may be different.
This vast range of activities is run by volunteers from every social group. That point should be stressed because someone will certainly argue that voluntary activity is confined to the affluent middle classes. All the voluntary activities provide for different needs within the village and they enrich immeasurably the lives of those who give and those who receive. I should like to make a special mention of the playgroup movement, which flourishes in my village, in my constituency and throughout the country. Almost more than any other voluntary activity, the playgroup movement has encouraged the involvement of women from every social background, through the powerful incentive of the education, wellbeing and pre-school development of their own children. That truly powerful incentive has led to the involvement of women across the broadest social specturm and has provided them with the experience of running and organising an activity which directly benefits their own children, meeting other women in the processes and dealing with difficulties of organising an ongoing service.
The wide range of voluntary organisations should remind us that the voluntary sector sometimes provides a preferable service to that provided by the state, simply because it is different and therefore represents a choice. We can all find suitable examples, but I should like to mention a residential and day-care service for elderly and handicapped people. In one of the market towns in my constituency, Downham Market, two organisations run voluntary day care services for elderly people and for those who are physically or mentally handicapped. One of those organisations is based on the Methodist Church. How I wish that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery were still in his place. No doubt he will be able to read that key point in Hansard.
The day-care centre based on the Methodist Church has so many people wishing to help that there is a waiting list of volunteers, which at the last count was about 180 people, who could not be fitted in to the facility that the Church wished to provide. That may be something of a record, but it represents the desire of so many people to contribute and to give. Those organisations are examples of day care facilities for the elderly and the handicapped provided by volunteers, but closely enmeshed with the service provided by the statutory agencies so that referral

1125
may be made by the local health service, GPs, hospitals and social services to voluntarily provided day care centres.
The voluntary sector has greater freedom to experiment with different ways of providing care than has the statutory sector. The recipients of the care and those running private, voluntary and statutory facilities can benefit. I shall use an example not from my constituency but from the city of Norwich, the capital of Norfolk, which provides a wide range of models which will be of interest in the debate. The Great hospital provides a continuum of care for elderly people ranging from small houses to sheltered flats and bed-sitting rooms all within a beautiful setting near the cathedral. Medical care is provided on the premises so that the continuum of care provides tremendous security for the clients of the hospital. It is a very old foundation—I would not be exaggerating if I said that it was 500 years old. It has always been run by volunteers—together with paid staff—who give up an enormous amount of time to organise the affairs of the Great hospital for the benefit of the residents.
I used that example because it has inspired the statutory agencies in Norfolk, through Norfolk social services department and Great Yarmouth and Waveney health authority, to provide, in conjunction with the Broadland housing association a similar establishment for elderly people in Great Yarmouth. Thus the co-operation between the three agencies, with the help of volunteers in the WRVS and befriending, has established in Great Yarmouth a model of care which provides a continuum of care in a secure environment in which elderly people are tenants and not clients and that gives them an important sense of independence. They can choose how much care they need on a day-to-day basis. How invaluable it must be for an elderly person not to feel that he or she has to attend a communal meal but can have meals on wheels in his or her flat, provide his or her own meal or go into the dining room. They can exercise that choice every day. That model was based on the freedom to experiment in the voluntary sector which the statutory sector cannot enjoy, but it can benefit. Voluntary effort can also support the work of statutory agencies, and it is not always uncritical, and that must be a good thing.
The role of school governors, which, in one form or another is as old as the education system, is alien to education systems in France and Germany. What could be more logical than for interested consumers of a service and representatives of the local community to have a direct voluntary input into the provision of that service? How valuable it is for those providing that service that every community should have a group of lay volunteers with a specialised knowledge of that service. The new responsibility placed upon school governors by the Education Reform Act 1988, far from being a threat to those who work in the education system, as was maintained when the Education Reform Bill was passing through the House, has increased the understanding of the difficult and demanding role of teachers.
One school governor who is a successful business man with a small business, always had a certain disregard for people who received a regular salary cheque from the state and thought that teachers had an easy life, given the hours that he thought they worked and, as he put it, their 13 weeks' holiday a year. His close involvement as a governor of two schools under the Education Reform Act caused him completely to revise his opinion of the difficulty of
1126
teachers' roles, and the key managerial role of a head teacher of a school and has greatly increased his support for and appreciation of the education service. Those organisations and groups of volunteers which exist to support the statutory agencies can contribute to the statutory agencies and to the understanding of their work in the wider community.
We are all familiar with the many hundreds of thousands of groups that support and supplement the work of the statutory sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who has a deep knowledge of the whole of this subject, pointed out the practical help that volunteers can give to statutory agencies. We could all cite scores of marvellous examples in our own constituencies. The Friends of the Wayland hospital in Attleborough in my constituency have, in concert with the regional health authority, raised sufficient money to provide and equip a wonderful rehabilitation centre, which is attached to the hospital. The people involved in that organisation feel that they have a stake in the hospital and are deeply involved with it.
When the White Paper on the National Health Service is brought into effect, I hope that it will be appreciated that, through the setting up of hospital trusts, we can capitalise on local community support for our hospitals so that they can have a greater freedom to benefit from local enthusiasm. That point has been widely missed in the public reaction to the White Paper, but I am confident that it will emerge as people have the opportunity more closely to consider those issues.
By working with statutory agencies, voluntary groups can supplement statutory provision. I wish especially to mention the organisation Homestart, which will be familiar to many hon. Members. There is an excellent branch in Thetford in my constituency, and another in the west of south-west Norfolk. Homestart has a paid organiser whose task is to organise carefully trained and selected volunteers to work with families that are potentially in difficulty and nearing breakdown. They help to prevent a breakdown and the possible taking into care of the children of the family. The volunteers are often people who have been through difficult times themselves. The statutory social workers must accept that volunteers can often provide much more realistic and practical advice—another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent—than can social workers who have many cases on their books and who want to whizz in and out of homes at great speed. It is an extraordinary and effective use of volunteers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent made the excellent point that volunteering can and should be fun. Certain groups, which I shall describe as enthusiasts, can in pursuing their enthusiasms make a valuable contribution. Hon. Members could no doubt cite good examples of that. A large number of people in my constituency are deeply interested in the history of our area. Next month, a hardworking, skilful and gallant band of people at Swaffham, who have set up an excellent local museum, will have the satisfaction of seeing it opened by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. A similar venture at Watton, launched by a group of young enthusiasts, resulted in the opening of a museum about the role of the town of Watton during the last war. So strong is the commitment of such volunteers that they can infect a whole community with their enthusiasm.

1127
An interesting point that has not yet been mentioned is that those who are already grouped together to pursue an interest—for example, tennis, angling or potholing—have such a strong desire to help others that in many cases they feel that they have a responsibility not only to come together to enjoy their own interests, but to pursue a voluntary activity that will benefit others. In the market town of Watton the Loch Neaton angling club last summer equipped the local fishing water—I dare not call it a pond or I shall be drummed out of my constituency —and the surrounding grounds to enable handicapped people, especially handicapped youngsters, easily to gain access to the water's edge so that they can enjoy the sport of angling. I was fortunate enough to be asked to be present at a prizegiving for handicapped youngsters who, in many cases, had outstripped the prowess of non-handicapped anglers and caught large numbers of extremely large fish. This is not a fishing story; I actually saw the fish. It is another case of voluntary activity that should not be overlooked.
One of the most impressive marks of the strength of the voluntary sector is that certain tasks are wholly entrusted to it. In some cases, that is regarded with incredulity by our European neighbours. For example, they are amazed by our legal system, under which 98 per cent. of all criminal cases are, in the first instance, heard by lay volunteers—mainly magistrates who, although trained and expert, nevertheless are volunteers. It is only when we explain that system to visitors from, for example, France and Germany, that we appreciate how amazing it is.
Although south-west Norfolk has no coastline, I feel that I must mention the astonishing achievements of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which provides a lifeboat service for all our shores. I think that I am right in saying that it does so without any state aid. It is a superb, fantastic achievement, which is unique to Britain and of which we should be proud.
The spin-off from such a multiplicity of voluntary organisations—that rich texture of local personal involvement in all aspects of our national life—is the experience it gives of the workings of democracy and public life. Again, it is something that we tend to underestimate. Everybody involved in a club, a society or a voluntary organisation has to have experience of how to make that organisation work, of its procedures, of its annual general meeting and of nominations and seconding for elections. Boring as it may appear to some, our nation's involvement in so much voluntary activity gives a far greater number of people in Britain than in France or Germany a first-hand experience of the workings of the democratic process. Things sometimes go wrong, but that could also be said at national level.
We should not underestimate the importance in democracy of the educative process that is provided by voluntary activities. To no group is that experience more valuable than to women. Because of career breaks, women are more heavily represented than men in the voluntary sector. Indeed, their achievements lead many women to a greater involvement, or a desire for it, in public and political life. It is a pity that, within the public appointments network, there is not the sort of
1128
representation of women that their numbers within the population—52 per cent.—and their experience in the voluntary sector surely justify.
I warned my hon. Friend the Minister that I would be presenting to the House—and although he is not present, I do not shrink from doing so—a horrendous battery of statistics. When Ministers are exhorting the private sector and managers in the public sector to employ more women, to use their potential in the work force and to provide for them to return to work, can it be right that appointments to public bodies, which are within the gift of those Ministers show the following percentages? My figures are taken from 1987, and were my hon. Friend present I could say to him, given that he is chairman of the special ministerial group on women's matters, that I am confident that the figures will be far-outstripped and improved for 1989. In 1987, the percentage of women appointed to public bodies by the Home Office represented 30 per cent. of the total; by the Scottish Office, 29 per cent.; the Department of Health and Social Security, 26 per cent.; the Department of Trade and Industry, 22 per cent.; the Department of Employment, 16 per cent.; the Department of the Environment, 15 per cent.; the Welsh Office, 14 per cent.; the Department of Education and Science, 12 per cent.; the Department of Transport, 3 per cent.; and the Department of Energy, 0 per cent.
It is true that last year Cabinet Office public appointments reached 46 per cent. which is much more like it, but the Lord Chancellor's Department achieved only 18 per cent., telecommunications only 18 per cent., the Central Office of Information 14 per cent., and the Office of Arts and Libraries 12 per cent. The figures for women's representation on the boards of nationalised or privatised industries show that British Rail has two women, but the BAA, British Coal, the Electricity Council, the Post Office and something that I cannot read, but it is blameworthy, had no women at all.
Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend has given yet another reason why we are having so much trouble with British Rail in my part of the country.
Mrs. Shephard: How much more trouble my hon. Friend would be having with British Coal, which has no representation of women at all.
My hon. Friend the Minister has clear responsibility in this sector. I am confident that under his chairmanship of the ministerial group the position will be, and probably already has been, improved. Women must be allowed to use the invaluable experience that many of them gain from working in the voluntary sector to progress to public appointments or political life. I note that my hon. Friend the Minister is returning to the Chamber. He has missed all my compliments, but I hope that they have been noted down. I shall have to find a way of repeating at least one of my graceful compliments.
Many women approach political life via the voluntary sector and public appointments. We have only 41 female hon. Members out of a total of 650. If we are to use the potential of women to the extent that we should, the Government must put their house in order. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will make every effort to bring women's representation up to a level that reflects not only their number in the population but their potential, experience, skill and contribution to this sphere, which is within the Government's gift.

1129
The voluntary sector is alive, well and growing. One of its most splendid aspects is that young people, through experience in school, are encouraged to be involved in it. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent said that he knew of only one school that had pursued citizenship studies at Á level. I know of no secondary school in Norfolk that does not run a community involvement course for all its youngsters at some stage of the secondary school curriculum. It is certainly not confined to the least able. Norfolk values such experience for youngsters, which I am delighted to say has led to the involvement of many young people in voluntary activities in the county.
We are at an interesting time in the development and encouragement of voluntary activity within state provision. The reforms passed in the Education Reform Act 1988 and those proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients" place emphasis on the need for consumer involvement in the provision of state services. Via our unequalled tradition of voluntary activity, we can ensure that the voice of the consumer and the community are heard in state provision. I believe that we are better than anyone at such activity, and by harnessing that voluntary activity and enthusiasm into statutory provision we can move forward confidently using the rich tradition of the voluntary sector side by side with the splendid provision being made by the Government.
11.16 am
Mr. Harry Greenway: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on initiating this most valuable debate. The concluding remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) drawing attention to the need to appoint more women to nationalised industries and boards were extremely important. I wonder how many women are listed among the great and good of this land who are available for the special appointments to which my hon. Friend referred.
Mr. John Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene so early in his speech. I join him in expressing appreciation of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard). In the interests of open government, of which I am a strong advocate, I should say that at an earlier stage in her career I appointed her to a public appointment.
Mr. Greenway: There can be no greater tribute to the foresight of my hon. Friend the Minister or to the perception of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West in accepting the post.
Women are treated unequally. When they have had their families and return to paid or voluntary work, society does not allow them to return to the post that they left, yet they are much better people for the experience of having brought up children. In-service training or a suitable course would help to bring them up to date. They should be encouraged to come back into voluntary work or professional work at the point at which they left off, or even a little higher.
Women make particularly good magistrates. There ought to be many more of them.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: There are 42 per cent.
Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend says that there are 42 per cent., but that is not enough. My experience of women magistrates, particularly in children's courts, is that they always go to the heart of the problem. They never back off in the way that sometimes their male counterparts back off. I must beware of generalising, but I reiterate that women make outstanding magistrates and that there ought to be more of them.
I should not, however, like the nation to go the way of Ealing council. Its policies regarding women are excessive. There is a very expensive women's unit that disburses large sums of tax and ratepayers' money on promoting women's activities, particularly for lesbian women. I have mentioned on other occasions that advertisements can currently be seen all over Ealing that are directed at lesbians only. They are being invited to join courses in self-defence.
Mr. John Patten: Disgraceful.
Mr. Greenway: Yes, it is disgraceful, because it is discriminatory. Self-defence is valuable and important for all women. To make it available just to a handful of women, excluding all the others, is to discriminate against women who are not lesbians. I believe that women who are not lesbians are in the vast majority.
There are other activities for women on which councils such as Ealing spend money. They provide courses on subjects other than self defence for women, as well as free parties and binges, with transport provided. Men are excluded. The patronage of women does not promote voluntary activity of any kind. That is wrong and insulting.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard indicated assent.
Mr. Greenway: I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West agrees with me. [Interruption.] I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) for her support. It is disgraceful, and something ought to he done about it.
Before my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) leaves the Chamber, I should like to refer to his most interesting speech. I was a professional teacher for 23 years. I am a little concerned about the suggestion that volunteer parents should run school teams. The good, willing amateur is not always the best equipped to work with children. I should support his idea if he would agree with me—and I think that he might—that anybody who wants to coach a soccer, baseball, netball or other team as a parent ought to be trained in how to coach and teach children. It is a specialised job. It should not be given just to the enthusiastic amateur. He or she can do more harm than good.
Mr. Rowe: I explained to the Minister that I had to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate, for which I apologise. I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says. Two elements, however, need to be considered. First, if there are no activities, because the school does not have the resources to provide them, I believe that some enthusiastic amateur activities are better than none. Secondly, many people with remarkable skills are often excluded because they are not qualified teachers. Their skills should be welcomed in schools. I think that that trend will grow. However, I accept absolutely my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for speaking in such a welcome way from the Government Front Bench. If a person has a skill, that does not always mean that he can impart it to children. However, with that proviso, I go along with his happy intervention from that distinguished position, and I wish him a good day.
The weakening of the influence of the Church has gravely damaged—perhaps more than anything else—the volunteer spirit in our land. Jesus taught us to be good neighbours. "I am my brother's keeper" is fundamental to a willingness and a desire by the Christian individual or the Christian-influenced individual to go the extra mile, in any circumstances, if there is a job to be done. The Christian will examine his conscience and go and do it, if that is humanly possible. If there is a need for someone to run a youth club, or to help with meals on wheels, or to assist in countless other ways that are open to volunteers in our land, the Church has always taught that it is the duty of a Christian to give his time and talents without payment, as Christ did. That has always been part of the cement of the community of this land. The weakening of the Church has weakened that cement to the point of serious crumbling in some areas, which is very sad.
On the theme of its being more blessed to give than to receive, I believe that, in giving service of any kind, volunteers receive so much more than they give. The old lady who gives her time to look after a little child gets much pleasure and stimulus from being responsible once more for looking after a small child.
Volunteers also exercise polo ponies. Their riding has to be of a.certain standard, but a wonderful thing; they do not have to bear the expense of owning polo ponies but they have the pleasure of riding them, and sometimes being bucked off on a cold day. However, they get back so much more than they give by exercising those ponies, and an experience of life that they might not otherwise get because they are riding ponies of a particularly spirited and able kind that are not always available to the amateur.
School governors have been mentioned by many speakers. I do not want to be pernickety, but I have to fence a little, having rightly paid a compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West. School governors have not been around for as long as schools. Education was first brought to this land by the Church. Monks and nuns—well learned people—passed on their gifts to their pupils, but there was no question of school governors in the middle ages. School governors have arrived on the scene only in quite recent times.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Does my hon. Friend accept, nevertheless, that there has always been an involvement in education in this country of those who have not been teachers? My point was that there has always been a broader responsibility than that which is taken on by those whose task it is to impart knowledge. I feel confident that my hon. Friend will be able to accept that point.
Mr. Greenway: As always, my hon. Friend's confidence is well placed because I certainly accept that point. It is true to say that often teachers, such as monks, worked for no pay. Cardinal Hume, for example, was—and still is—an outstanding teacher. His unpaid service as a teacher has brought countless gifts to thousands of boys. He continues to teach as prelate and in his leadership of his Church. I am not, of course, saying that teachers should not be paid properly for their work, but so often, the man
1132
or woman working for altruistic reasons in teaching, as in other areas, seems to give so much more as a volunteer than the professional does.
I had experience of running the largest school in the country. When I asked teachers to do various tasks, they would say, "Harry, will I be paid extra for it?" I do not say that that is not a legitimate question for someone who has a family.
Mr. John Patten: Harry?
Mr. Greenway: They sometimes called me Harry and sometimes headmaster, but most often they called me sir and if they did not, I waited until they did. But increasingly, towards the end of my time in teaching, it was Harry.
I found that often when there was a demand for cash, the individuals concerned were not as good at the task as those who were prepared to do it for nothing. That seems to be an important principle, especially when applied to those masters and mistresses—if that is still a legitimate term in my profession——
Mr. John Patten: Very much so.
Mr. Alex Carlite: It is in the Conservative party.
Mr. Greenway: Perhaps I had better ignore that comment. The masters and mistresses who gave their time to run the debating society, to produce the school play or to take the team out every week did a marvellous job because they were doing it on a voluntary basis.
The headmaster of Harrow, Ian Beer, who was an outstanding head at three schools and played rugger for England—I have known him for 30 or 40 years—said recently that if the voluntary teaching of games in schools were phased out, as he fears it may be by the professionalism of teachers today who demand to work only within the hours set for them, teachers would lose a wonderful and special contact with their pupils. There is no doubt from my own experience of taking a team every Saturday throughout my time in the profession, whether cricket, rugger, hockey or riding, that that is true. I know that the relationships forged between teachers and pupils through those activities were of infinitely greater value than the relationships forged in the formal atmosphere of the classroom, especially when one was pressing towards examinations, which placed great pressures on masters and pupils.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I agree with the substance of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but does he not agree that teachers are much more likely to do important voluntary work such as he has described if they feel that they are valued as professional people? Does he not agree that teachers' salaries are still so low, especially considering the cost of living in London and other major cities, that they do not feel properly valued?
Mr. Greenway: I do not want to spend long on that point, but I had better take up the challenge. I received the Houghton award, so often spoken about, in 1974 from the Labour Government. By 1979, the value of that 34 per cent. increase had been eroded to nothing by the 27 per cent. inflation rate. Between 1979 and today, teachers' pay has improved by 30 per cent. in real terms and they are better paid than ever. I am not saying that there are not problems, such as the cost of housing, but they are better paid than ever before. There is also an increase in special

1133
posts for them, so there are big opportunities for teachers. At least half the profession today are in posts of extra responsibility or extra prestige and are paid for that, which is to be welcomed.
Members of Parliament have a special position as leaders in the community—as do others, of course. I have no doubt that all my colleagues in the House today play leading parts in the voluntary sector in their constituencies. I am the president or patron—mostly president because that is somehow a better title—of 58 voluntary organisations and there are two or three more in the pipeline. Among those is that fine organisation, the British Legion, in which people take enormous responsibility as volunteers for the community in which they live. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear the sound of support. Old comrades who are ill are visited by volunteers who take them food or perhaps a bottle of brandy or whisky, which they would otherwise be unable to afford. In Greenford recently, a young man in his 30s died from cancer, leaving a widow and young children. I am proud of the way in which my colleagues and friends in the Greenford branch of the British Legion rallied round the widow and children to look after them and give them love and support at a sad time. That is typical of the work that volunteers do in the British Legion.
Other hon. Members have mentioned scout and guide groups, and I am president of many. I also want to mention Age Concern, an organisation in which Members of Parliament and others who can find the time will be welcomed. Sometimes people who are together for 52 weeks a year are glad of the company of others, such as the good old president who breezes in and spends an hour or two with them, listening to their problems and talking them over. The same is true of those of more mature years who go to tea dances, about which we have heard so much.
I am president of the local branch of the Cancer Research Campaign and, like other branches, it raises thousands of pounds for cancer research. A young member of my family has been struck down by cancer and it is a great comfort to think that the treatment he is receiving has been made possible by the work of thousands of people who support the Cancer Research Campaign. I am glad to have put my own effort into it. Many volunteers work for that organisation because a member of their family has died from cancer or because they know someone who is suffering from it. Many people are cured today who would not have been cured without the efforts of such organisations.
Tenants' groups are important, as are the Red Cross and Arthritis Care—and I am president of the local branch. Some people suffering from arthritis can scarcely move and they need the support and encouragement of volunteers. Choirs and drama groups throughout the land are also warmly supported.
I want especially to mention a pub committee of 10 at the Plough in Northolt, which I formed six years ago because I heard that the Mandeville special school wanted to build a pool for mentally handicapped children. They were managing to get some money together but they were not going about it as constructively as they might because they did not know how to do so. I became the president of the group. We met once a month for four years and raised —70,000 and built the pool. The group made the most magnificent effort, raising funds in every conceivable way.
1134
They had their hair cut off, they grew their hair very long, they threw me into a swimming pool more than once and did all sorts of things.
The great thing about that group was that it was made up of ordinary men and women—housewives and lorry drivers, for example. None of them were professional people, but all had great hearts and all were determined. During those years, there were times when they said, "Harry, we can't stand any more." A couple would walk out for a month or two because of the tremendous pressure, but the hard core held firm and we eventually raised the money to build the pool, which was opened by Princess Anne last year. That was done entirely by the Northolt community and the Plough pub.
That is volunteering of the most constructive and wonderful kind. Why did they do it? One or two of them had children at the school. One of them told me, "My son cannot move. I think he might get some pleasure from being in warm water. He has nothing else so let us try to do something for him".
Many other things can be done within the community. The young can hold concerts for the elderly on a voluntary basis. The elderly love to see the young on stage, acting and singing for them, and the young can go out in the interval with cups of tea to give them extra pleasure. I am president of a group in my constituency that does that. Every year, we put on two concerts for pensioners. We attract 600 pensioners—all of them living in the constituency because it is a constituency effort—to each concert. We have some professional help and have to raise the money to pay for that, but otherwise the concerts are staged on an entirely voluntary basis. The more the young are integrated with the old, the more each will gain.
Trevor Huddleston is one of my greatest and longest-standing personal friends—although not, perhaps, always a political ally. I went to see him a few years ago when he was Archbishop of Mauritius. He is a wonderful man. No one else could have been so inspired in setting up voluntary groups. He had a hostel for the poor elderly, a hostel for the blind and an orphanage all on the same campus. The elderly loved the children, the blind loved the children, and the children loved the blind and the elderly. They were all integrated. Trevor Huddleston was inspired enough to set up groups of volunteers to raise the money for that. The leadership of such men has blazed a trail and set an example that the rest of us should study and follow if we possibly can. We can gain so much by doing so.
Voluntary lunch clubs for the elderly are enormously important. Sometimes local authorities set too much store by the numbers who attend, and they close them if they do not consider that there are enough people. I should like the principle to be established that a relatively small number can be regarded as constituting a feasible lunch club that can receive support from the local authority.
The travel pass for the elderly is enormously important, too, but some local authorities—in London anyway—seem to be threatening old people by not stating clearly that the pass will be reissued when it comes up for renewal. The Labour council in Ealing and other local authorities know very well that they must, by law, provide those passes. If necessary, under an amendment that several of us supported during our proceedings on the London Regional Transport Act 1984 they can be required to do so by the Secretary of State. Yet still the local authorities drag their feet as a means of exercising power over old people. They say, "We may carry on with the passes, but it is down

1135
to us." That is a cruel and unacceptable approach. The passes are elderly people's right and we should let them know that they are entitled to the passes and that they will have them regardless of what Ealing or any other council says. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), the Opposition Front Bench spokesman nodding his head in agreement.
Good neighbours are much better than good social workers, although that is not to decry the work of good social workers. Someone who cares about the person next door without being nosey is worth more than fine gold. That personal relationship will continue through thick and thin, whereas social workers necessarily come and go. However good a job a social worker or home help does there will be days when he or she will be required elsewhere and the continuity will be broken. The neighbour, on the other hand, is always there.
I end, as I began, by calling on the Churches to strengthen their efforts to teach individuals to be volunteers and to be committed to the community in which they live.
11.47 am
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on choosing this subject for debate and on his lucid speech. Wimbledon may be the home of tennis but, metaphorically speaking, Basildon has plenty of the round things that one needs to participate in the game. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on their excellent contributions.
I am particularly pleased to be able to participate in the debate because it gives me another opportunity to praise all those in my constituency who have done such good work. Before I do that, however, I wish to congratulate the Government on promoting the ethos of individual responsibility. If that concept had been advanced with more determination in the 1960s we should not have faced many of the difficulties of the past 10 years. I congratulate the Government on all the encouragement that they have given to active citizens and voluntary organisations throughout the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North struck a chord when he mentioned the difficulties that he has experienced with his Socialist council. I am convinced that Socialist-controlled Basildon district council has no concept of what being an active citizen, or being engaged in voluntary work, actually involves. If it did, my poor hard-pressed ratepayers would not be faced this year with the largest rate increase in the country—57·9 per cent. It is no good taking money from the ratepayers and saying that it is genuine giving. That is a ridiculous concept. It is because of the council's approach to these matters and because of its fiscal mismanagement that in my constituency we have the most expensive theatre in the country. Even if there were a bottom on every seat every day of the week, we still could not meet the overall cost.
Mr. John Patten: Who controls the council?
Mr. Amess: It is a Socialist-controlled council. It has a majority of one. The casting vote is held by a Liberal
1136
Member, who then announced that he was becoming an Independent, but on every conceivable occasion he has voted with the Labour party. However, he has not had the guts to come out as a Labour party member or, perhaps, the Labour Members will not have him in their party. It is disgraceful that the hard-pressed ratepayers of Basildon are faced with that enormous rate increase.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has heard me mention before the "I love Basildon campaign". I am delighted to tell him that we have made tremendous headway with that campaign, which is all about saying that we have a fine town and that we want to keep it that way. We are tackling the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent mentioned, such as litter, graffiti and vandalism. I shall be appearing unannounced in Basildon at various times throughout the night to discover what is going on there. I want to discover why we have little gatherings on street corners creating disturbances, when there is plenty for young people to do there. I shall also be visiting various parts of the town where there has been rubbish dumping. I want to see at first hand how we can encourage the whole community to participate in keeping the town the fine place that it is.
I am delighted to say that in Basildon we have a successful neighbourhood watch scheme. Some 526 schemes have been registered, covering 21,040 properties and helping 62,000 people. We also have five industrial watch schemes, three marine watch schemes and four hospital watch schemes. Six years ago Basildon had the highest reported rate of crime in Essex, but I am delighted to say that that is no longer the situation. The neighbourhood watch schemes have made a valuable contribution to the overall reduction in crime.
As someone who was born in the east end of London and lived there for 29 years, I can tell the House that it used to have a strong community spirit. The role of the active citizen and of voluntary organisations was paramount in the overall strength of that community. I deplore the way that—I believe through bad planning decisions in the 1960s—the community spirit has been somehow lost. I hope that what the Government are attempting to do in Docklands will restore the situation and will enhance the role of the active citizen and of voluntary organisations.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North who I believe within the next fortnight will be involved in national motivation week. That will make an active contribution to promoting the role of the citizen.
I am the Parliamentary unpaid spokesman for the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations. Most hon. Members have a hospital radio station in their constituencies. There are more than 300 hospital broadcasting services, involving some 11,000 volunteers, which broadcast to a listening audience of 250,000. For my sins, I used to broadcast in what was a cubby-hole in St. Andrew's hospital, Bow. I can speak first-hand of the magnificent efforts of those people who broadcast in our hospitals. The therapeutic effects of hospital radio has been proved time and time again. I do not want to miss the opportunity to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to encourage one of his colleagues in the Home Office to consider our case for community radio and to consider whether there is any way in which the Home Office could give us our own frequency. At the same time, will my hon. Friend the Minister have a word with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor to see whether he would consider zero-rating VAT on hospital radio broadcasting

1137
equipment, thereby treating us in the same way as people who are involved in talking books for the blind? We estimated that that would save us about £250,000 a year.
My hon. Friend the Minister may recall answering an Adjournment debate on 24 May 1985 about St. Luke's hospice. My hon. Friends the Member for Norfolk, South-West and the Member for Ealing, North also mentioned the role of hospices. On that occasion, I told my hon. Friend the Minister about the remarkable efforts of a couple called Trudy and Les Cox. I am not aware of any millionaires who live in Basildon. If there are any, they have certainly not come forward to join the Conservative party, because I would have tapped them for a membership fee. By and large the people who are involved in our hospice movement are very ordinary people. In just four years, they have raised more than £650,000 through all sorts of ordinary activities, such as raffles, jumble sales and tombolas. So far the largest donation from any company has been £10,000, for which we are grateful. We have not received any bequests. That money has been raised solely through the hard work of dedicated volunteers.
My hon. Friend the Minister will recall that Trudy and Les Cox were inspired to set up the hospice when they listened to the words of Dame Cicely Saunders who said, "You matter to the last moments of life and we will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but to live until you die". Until I went out recently with Trudy Cox, who is a district nurse, I had not appreciated the fact that not only is she trying to cope with organising the fund-raising activities for the hospice, but she is spending her time visiting people who are actually close to death, which in itself takes a tremendous toll on the individual. Trudy Cox originally started that work because she once knocked on the door of a house, a child came to the door, she went up to the bedroom and found that the mother was in bed dead with her children around her. They had not even realised that their mother had died. She said that, after experiencing that sort of scene, she would ensure that, through the hospice movement, she would never be put in such a position again. I just wanted to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that they are making marvellous headway. Indeed, we hope to open the hospice next autumn.
Mr. John Patten: That is a marvellous story.
Mr. Amess: The Women's Royal Voluntary Service in Basildon is very active and has 500 members. It works in the hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who unfortunately could not be here today, and to which it has so far given £23,000 worth of equipment, such as portakabins for the hospital grounds. The WRVS provides about 500 meals a week in the area and a luncheon club where all senior citizens from our area are invited to attend a day club. It also organises books on wheels and makes about 30 rounds per week. It will shortly help to start a tea bar in the new Basildon magistrates court. Again, my hon. Friend the Minister had to answer another Adjournment debate about the courthouse in Basildon. He will be delighted to know that Lord Mackay of Clashfern will be opening that courthouse next year. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his efforts in that area. Recently the WRVS supplied clothing, bedding and garments to a number of families who were unfortunately burnt out of
1138
their houses in the Felmore part of the constituency. I was delighted that last year one of its members was named in the Queen's honours list.
Basildon hospital League of Friends celebrated its anniversary last year and is an essential element of the voluntary scene in Basildon. It has raised £250,000 since the hospital was opened 25 years ago. It has a membership of roughly 300 people. A small army of volunteers work a five-day week in the hospital in the out-patients' canteen and the ante-natal cafeteria. There are two groups, one group works in the mornings and the other in the afternoons. They are the unpaid, unsung heroines of our hospital in Basildon. Recently they donated £30,000 to the day centre for the treatment of handicapped children. I could mention many other things about that group. One lady, aged 83, is still responsible for organising the volunteers in the ante-natal section.
We also have a branch of the Relate organisation in Basildon. It used to be called the Marriage Guidance Council. Unfortunately we live in a society in which marriage is not as popular as it used to be. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is in his place because I am sure that he will remember that when he and I were new Members of the House, I was one of those who tried, perhaps cack-handedly, to try to amend the legislation because I was against the reduction in the period before which one could obtain a divorce. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to intervene on that occasion. I believe that I and my colleagues who have a strong view on the subject have, sadly, been proved right. I am doing all that I possibly can to deal with those single parents in Basildon who are valiantly trying to cope with all the problems that must be faced when a husband or a wife leaves the family. I congratulate the Relate organisation in Basildon on all the voluntary counselling that it gives in the constituency. It is a magnificent organisation.
We all have St. John Ambulance brigades in our constituencies. We take them for granted, but we should not. Their members are always present at sports activities and conferences. They are unpaid enthusiastic volunteers.
I commend also the Samaritans, an organisation founded in 1953. We recognise that its work is secret and its members known by numbers, but they do a magnificent job in being the comforting source on the other end of the telephone. They deal with many traumatic cases and give reassurance whenever they are asked to do so.
I take this opportunity to mention also the national organisation called Life. My views on abortion are known in the House. I applaud the Life organisation which is responsible for dealing with those mothers who have had their babies and who then find that they are in financial difficulties with the care and maintenance of the children. I hope that if my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she might go into some brief details about the excellent work of the Life organisation.
The Scouts and Guides movements in Basildon, as throughout the country are absolutely magnificent. I was a member of the Scouts in Newham until the age of 17. It plays a remarkable role in keeping young minds occupied. Those young people might perhaps be on street corners without it, which is something that I intend to find out in the next few weeks when I participate in the "I love

1139
Basildon" campaign. We should pay tribute to all the national and local organisers of the Scout and Guide movements.
Basildon Boys Club and the Vange Boys Club are two well-organised groups in the constituency. Their members voluntarily organise young people in sports and leisure activities. They fund-raise week in and week out and they should be congratulated on their work.
Only recently I was asked to open a new centre for the Town Crier organisation in Basildon. It is manned by 30 volunteers who make tapes that blind people can enjoy. Again, I very much applaud their work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North mentioned the British Legion—another magnificent organisation. I very much hope that those people in Basildon who are in a position to do something will listen favourably to the British Legion's reasonable request that we have a permanent war memorial in Basildon. It is not good enough for us just to pay our respects at a tiny insignificant wooden cross. The British Legion very much wants us to have a permanent war memorial, not to glorify war, but to make sure that we never forget and that we never participate in war in the future.
We all have groups of the Rotary Club, the Lions and the Round Table in our constituencies. We should never take their work for granted, whether at Christmas, Whitsun or Easter, when they raise so much money from which local communities can benefit.
The Women's Institute in Basildon is certainly thriving and, again, I applaud its work.
The final organisation that I wish to congratulate is the Crossroads, care attendants scheme, which is responsible on a voluntary basis for giving care to people who have disabled children. It gives counselling advice and looks after the disabled people while the carers can take a holiday.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon on bringing this important matter to the attention of the House today. I applaud every person who is a member of a voluntary organisation. I abhor the very tiny percentage of the British public who, when a tin is rattled in front of them, or when they are asked to support something, say, "I am not going to have any part in it. Why should I? It is up to the state to do it all." That tiny minority of people are those who would not get off their backsides to help anyone. I deplore their attitude.
By far and away the overwhelming majorty of the British public are active citizens and participants in voluntary groups. No town is worth anything without the quality of its citizens, and I am proud that on both counts Basildon has plenty.
12.8 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heller: I shall speak only briefly to say that most hon. Members, irrespective of which political party they belong to, agree that we should support and give aid to voluntary organisations.
I have been a member of voluntary organisations more or less since I was old enough to join one. They have been varied. My first voluntary organisation was the Cubs, then the Scouts, then the Rover Scouts, and then all sorts of other organisations. The voluntary organisations of which I have been a member for longest is the trade union
1140
movement. It should not be forgotten that Members of the House are here because we are members of voluntary organisations. Political parties are voluntary organisations; we do not have to join them. We do not have to join the Church. Indeed, we do not have to join anything, but we decide to do so because we want to be active citizens and to play our part in society. On this subject, I agree with much that has been said today by hon. Members whose views on other issues would probably upset me.
The voluntary organisations in my constituency do a magnificent job. Young Church groups—of all religious persuasions, although they were started by Roman catholics—in my constituency raise money to decorate, and look after old people's houses and to be helpful to the old folk in other ways.
An excellent job is also done by the League of Friends of Walton hospital and other great hospitals. The Salvation Army in my area does a first-rate job. I am bound to admit, however, that because of the legislative changes that are being made by the Government, who are abdicating their responsibilities in certain matters, Church groups are beginning to do jobs that they should not have to do.
We must get the balance right between the work of voluntary organisations and the role of the state. I do not want our society to be run by a vast bureaucratic state organisation that has tentacles everywhere, determining what people should and should not do and think. That would be the worst possible society in which to live. It would be George Orwell's "1984" writ large.
It seems that there are tendencies even in our present society to move in that direction. For example, I saw on television last night how it is possible for little pellets to be placed in animals so that they can be traced wherever they go. Human beings are animals. People might want to put pellets in us so that we can be traced all the time. It is a horrific thought. Where is it all leading? I want a society that is a combination of voluntary activity—the active citizenship of the mass of the people—with the state taking a positive role, being responsible for certain groups in society.
I am a non-bureaucratic Socialist, basically what I would call a non-state Socialist. That does not mean that I do not believe in public ownership. I want public ownership to develop in many ways, adopting different ideas, but I do not want to see the creation of a vast bureaucratic society, and I would be the first to oppose such a concept.
I pointed out that I had belonged to many voluntary organisations. I will not name them all, but they include the Royal Air Force Association. There are many others which, if I am not a member of them, I have supported over the years and to which I still regularly give financial aid. They do a magnificent job. But I have supported and been a member of the trade union movement for the greatest length of time.
Whenever I think of voluntary organisations my mind goes back to 1947 when there was a great ship repair strike in Liverpool. About 20,000 of us took part and it lasted six weeks. During the first week, when the strike committee met—the whole thing was voluntary—we discovered that the local old-age pensioners' association had been used to gathering once a week at the Bootle Labour club for an afternoon's meeting. The old folk had not been told that we had taken the club over, and we did not know they were coming.

1141
In the event, lots of elderly people turned up for their meeting. Our senior shop steward and chairman was an Irishman named Michael Head, who had a beautiful tenor voice. He said, "We can't just leave all these old people sitting here. We must do something to entertain them. Let us put on a concert for them this afternoon". We did. He sang, some read poetry, others did juggling or played the piano. I had no idea that among the shop stewards and strikers was so much talent. It was an excellent example of voluntary action to provide the old folk with entertainment.
Throughout that strike we continued to entertain the pensioners every Wednesday at the club. They wanted the strike to go on for ever, though we did not. So popular were the concerts that more and more pensioners turned up each Wednesday afternoon. When the strike was over, many of those who had taken part in the entertainment continued to do voluntary work—not during the daytime because they were working—and, for the rest of their lives many of them went on to be involved in voluntary activities, whereas previously they had not thought much about it.
I commend to hon. Members in all parts of the House, and particularly to Conservative Members, a pamphlet on the role of trade unions which has just been produced by the Catholic Truth Society. It outlines in clear terms the importance of trade unions, and in many ways it is critical of the Government's attitude, policies and legislation on trade union activities. It points out that, in one sense, this great voluntary organisation is being undermined, even stopped in its tracks, by the type of legislation being introduced by the Government.
I supported the Solidarity movement in Poland from the day it was created. I am a passionate believer in solidarity. I do not want the Government to use legislation to stop the voluntary activities of trade unions. I do not want state-run and controlled trade unions. I repeat, I hope that all hon. Members will read that pamphlet, which is based on the teachings of the Church.
Indeed, I must tell those on the Opposition Front Bench who have been producing documents about trade unions that I wish that they, too, would read that pamphlet. It would do them the world of good because it is much better than much of what they have been producing. Such a first-class document is it that I wish they had read it before arriving at some of the ideas that they have, because they are only reflecting what the Government are saying.
Mr. Patten: I hope that I did not mishear the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks. I do not think I caught the names of the documents that he says he does not like, nor the authors of them. Perhaps he will tell the House the names of the people to whom he is referring. It is all a mystery to me, and I cannot imagine to whom he is referring.
Mr. Heffer: Time will tell. All will be revealed about which policies I do not like and about the policies in the documents I mentioned.
I welcome the debate because we should give all possible support to voluntary workers and organisations. They do a magnificent job, particularly those who help in hospitals. For example, they take books to hospitals in Liverpool.
1142
Hon. Members should not be divided on the issue. We must not use voluntary organisations as an excuse for not carrying out the responsibilities that the state must accept. Voluntary organisations cannot solve all the problems.
We used to have voluntary hospitals, and I am glad that there were. When I was 16, I had peritonitis. If the voluntary hospital had not been there, I would not be here now. We could not continue with only voluntary hospitals, we had to establish the National Health Service. It is like building houses for people who cannot afford to buy them. There must be council house-building schemes. The state has an important role to play, but I disagree with those who say, "Do not give anything to voluntary organisations." There must be a balance between the state and voluntary organisations.
For a long time I was a chairman of a theatre group. I did not act, but that caused all sorts of problems. The actors would come to me and say, "I should have had that part." I would say, "it is nothing to do with me; I am only running the organisation, and I have nothing to do with who is in what play." That was the Merseyside Unity theatre. Theatre groups do a magnificent job, whether they are village theatre groups or theatre groups in large cities. They all help to make life better by giving a wider view of society and creating greater understanding.
12.22 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: My remarks will be briefer than I intended, not only because other hon. Members wish to speak, but because the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has been waiting patiently for his opportunity. I have considerable sympathy with him. I know what it is like to sit in the House on a Friday, hoping to speak, and I trust that his wishes will be more fully realised than mine have been this year.
I add to the many and well-deserved congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on securing the debate on this important subject and on an eloquent speech. I apologise to him for having missed his opening comments. I was prevented from being in the House at the time. My hon. Friend has provided an opportunity for a wide discussion for which I am sure the House is grateful.
Much has been said about the ethos of voluntary work. We are dealing with a changing social climate. I reiterate the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). He congratulated the Government on promoting active citizenship and the role of voluntary organisations. Their achievement is more remarkable because it has been brought about at a time of national prosperity. When a nation is prosperous there is always a temptation for people to believe that the state can take care of everything because the money is available to do so. There is a temptation also for an individual in a prosperous society to salve his conscience merely by giving some of his disposable income to charity, rather than by playing an active role. I do not wish to imply any derogatory motives to people who give to charity. Without the considerable funds that charities need, they and other organisations would not be able to carry out their work. Consciences are often salved by putting money in a collection tin, or even by making a regular contribution, and the active part is too often ignored.
It is an achievement for the Government that, at a time of prosperity, they have been able to generate a climate in

1143
which active citizenship is regarded as an essential element of everyday life. Proof of that is the growing number of charities in the directory of voluntary organisations, which seems to get fatter each year. That implies that there is growing recognition of the individual citizen's role.
The background against which we are asking citizens to be more active is rather different from that of 20 years ago. Hon. Members have mentioned the decline in church attendance. That has had two effects: first, fewer people are available for voluntary work, and, secondly, it is less easy for people to find the help that they need. When congregations were large and a member of the congregation was in need, it would have been known by the rest of the church population—certainly by the vicar or priest—and action would have been taken before that person even had to ask. Without that base and with the increasing problem of loneliness and people having to cope on their own, there is not such a readily recognisable source of help for those who are suffering. Many of those who are driven to phone the Samaritans and take advantage of organisations that help people who are in despair, because they have not had the ready base of an extended family or of the Church.
The number of working women is increasing. That means that what used to be the natural source of voluntary work, particularly that which is most easily done by day, is drying up. With more mothers and grandmothers working, fewer people have time on their hands. I do not absolve men from their responsibilities in active citizenship, but it is generally recognised that housewives used to play an important part in social and welfare work and simply keeping an eye on the neighbours. They are no longer such a common feature of society.
Also, many families are breaking up into small units, so there are not the large families with a ready recognition of needs that there used to be. That has meant that more old people look to society rather than to their families for support. More old people are living on their own rather than receiving the care and attention of a large family.
I grew up in a generation whose grandparents were looked after at home—my grandmother was at home throughout my childhood—and I feel that the change is something of a loss to society. The daily mix of young and old, promoting an understanding of old people's interests, was a crucial education for me, although I was not aware of it at the time.
Although I appreciate that today such concerns are mainly the province of the Home Office, it is essential for us to inculcate in children from the start the ethos of looking after their neighbour and trying to find what he or she requires. In my constituency, Maidstone grammar school for girls has won itself a well-deserved reputation for the immense amount of social care and loving work performed by its girls. That work is often unsung, so I am grateful to have the opportunity to publicise it today.
I did not learn of the girls' work directly from them; I learnt of it by encountering the fruits of it, sometimes in the most amazing places. When, for example, I visited the Crisis at Christmas centre last Christmas, I was told that all the preparations—food, bedding and so forth—had been assembled by the girls, who had got up at 6·30 am on both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day to make those preparations.
1144
I thought that I had been brought up to a tradition of service, but I know that if, as a girl of 15 or 16, I had been asked to get up at 6.30 on Christmas morning, go to a relatively cold and unwelcoming place and warm it up and then do several hours' work, I would have taken a rather jaundiced view. Yet those girls did it voluntarily, and their work is deeply appreciated.
I have also visited Guide Dogs for the Blind, of whose Maidstone branch I am president. It has been trying to raise funds for a new training centre, and, indeed, has succeded in doing so. There I met the head girl of Maidstone grammar school—which by then did not surprise me, as the girls seem to pop up wherever there is such work to be done. It transpired that, not through sponsorship—that is, using other people's money—but through their own efforts and direct fund-raising, they had managed to raise enough money to train a guide dog. That is a remarkable achievement, the more so because it is only one of many. On another occasion, when I called on some old people in almshouses, I was told that the girls from the grammar school had just been round with some harvest offerings.
If every school taught such work as naturally as Maidstone girls' grammar and its splendid deputy headmistress Mrs. McCabe, we would found a society in which active citizenship would become even more important. Those girls are taught to operate as individuals. They are not part of a voluntary organisation for which collecting tins are produced; they are putting in their own efforts. Much has been said today about the relationship between charities and the state—always a fraught relationship—but the relationship between the individual and charities is also extremely important.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon spoke of the role that the citizen can play as an individual in combating crime. The one set of crime statistics that has undeniably shown a fall—although Opposition Members sometimes seek rather ungraciously to deride it—is the burglary statistics. The number of burglaries has undoubtedly declined: equally undoubtedly, much of that is due to the functioning of neighbourhood watch schemes.
We have an extremely efficient neighbourhood watch in Maidstone, and I was involved in setting up an equally efficient one in Fulham. Not only does the scheme deter burglars—which, after all, is its main purpose—but it calls citizens together, makes them aware of each other's needs and encourages them to play an active role. The alertness of an individual and his willingness to interfere and become involved is crucial to combating crime.
I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon is not present, as I am going to criticise an attitude which seems prevalent in society and which is backed up by the police and by official Home Office advice. I think that it has dangers. The following advice is enshrined in documentation from the police to the general public; if someone tries to snatch your handbag, let it go, because if you resist you may end up with some such injury as a dislocated shoulder.
That is the wrong advice. We are encouraging a social lack of will to combat crime. The criminal will not be deterred mainly by the thought of detection, although that is important, or by the thought of punishment, because that is often much too light these days, but by the fact that he will encounter resistance. Much street robbery and opportunistic crime is carried out on the spur of the moment because the individual is convinced that he will

1145
not meet with resistance. Therefore, we have created a society in which girls have handbags snatched on the Underground and nobody goes to their assistance, people are attacked, or even raped, in the street, the attack is witnessed, but nobody goes to their assistance. By that advice, we are creating a social attitude that we should not become involved and it is dangerous to interfere.
There is a happy medium between the gung-ho advice of, "Have a go, no matter what the risks" and the attitude of the priest and the Levites of old, who passed by on the other side of the street. There is no need to swing from one set of advice to another. The question whether to resist an attack or weigh in to help somebody who is being attacked is an individual decision. Official advice should not be given telling us to go a different way.
There must be a social will so that where we see crime, we try to stop it by the appropriate means. There are plenty of examples of valiant old ladies beating off burglars, much to the amazement of the burglars—not the old ladies—and of crime being stopped by children and the weaker members of society who rally round to help. It is up to all of us to do so. Any incident in which somebody is attacked in public and not helped, shames us all. That is why the Guardian Angels were greeted with cheers when they appeared.
Whatever reservations my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon may have expressed about the role of the Guardian Angels, that is the citizens' way of reacting to a situation that they are no longer prepared to tolerate. Whatever suspicions he or the police may have towards the Guardian Angels, the very same suspicions were held about Securicor, which is now regarded as a respectable and established everyday fact of life and an organisation which backs up the role of order in society.
Individual alertness and involvement are as important in crime as they are in the voluntary organisations, on which much of the debate has tended to concentrate. We should consider some of the voluntary organisations and their work because through them active citizenship can support and enhance the basic work of the state.
I shall take up the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon to comment on the organisation, Life. It is appropriate for me to comment on this organisation because one of its largest branches is located in Maidstone. It is tempting to think that Life merely acts as a political campaign, pressuring for the sort of changes in the law that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and I wish to bring about. However, while other organisations do that, Life has a large, ever-growing and extremely expensive-to-run charitable wing that looks after the needs of mothers who face unwanted or unexpected pregnancies.
The Maidstone branch of Life is run by an extremely remarkable man, Denis Neale. He is remarkable not only for the work that he has done for Life but for the personal circumstances in which he undertakes the work. Last year, when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) was introducing his Bill to curb late abortions, a large rally was organised in Maidstone which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, representatives of various churches and I were to attend. There were nearly 1,000 people involved in the rally and an enormous amount of organisation and co-ordination was involved including, for example, the co-ordination of the different churches, interest groups and charities, as well as the general public. That was a time-consuming task.
1146
Two weeks before the rally took place, Denis Neale's teenage daughter was involved in a car accident that left her paralysed for life. Denis Neale carried on at the wish of his brave young daughter, Vicky, and other members of his family. He continued with the goal he had set himself of organising the rally, and he has carried on since in the long-term purposes that he set himself—to make life easier for the young girls who find themselves pressurised by families into taking a course that they do not want to take. After that, some of them have to manage for themselves, sometimes in severe poverty and deprivation.
The counselling work that Life does for young girls who have been thus pressurised, sometimes, alack, comes too late. They have already had the abortion into which they were pressurised and they arrive at Life much too late, suffering from grief, guilt, uncertainty, fear and misery. In Sheffield, where Life has a massive organisation, there lives a young lady who is so distressed by what has happened that she can no longer pass the offices of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. She has been known to collapse outside them and to be an hour late for work because she has to make a wide detour around them. The state offers her nowhere to go, but she can go to Life. I hope that the friends whom she has found there will continue to supply her with the necessary support to lead a much happier life.
Some needs are obvious, others are not. A part of charities' role is sometimes to draw attention to aspects that the state has overlooked but which, after a few years, it then starts to deal with. A good example of that was the charity for battered wives, who have been a fact of life for centuries without having been recognised by the state as a group in need of special provision. Erin Pizzey and the charity for battered wives drew their plight to the state's attention, and the state has since recognised it and acted accordingly.
All sorts of people work towards these unrecognised ends. We are familiar with the splendid work done by organisations such as MENCAP, which operates very effectively in Maidstone. I also commend much smaller initiatives, such as the organisation called Spadework in Maidstone. It was set up specifically to cope with the needs of mentally handicapped youngsters who, having come of age, can no longer rely on the special provision of the state but are not ill enough to be institutionalised. They need some form of activity from which to earn their living, in the same way as the rest of us. Spadework set up an organisation that sent out groups of mentally handicapped girls and boys to do gardening. They look after people's gardens and charge a proper rate for the job. The organisation is run almost entirely by volunteers; the girls and boys must be supervised, work has to be found for them and the whole effort needs co-ordination. If for nothing else, I am grateful to them because they sorted out my garden not long ago——
Mr Alex Carlile: Would they do mine?
Miss Widdecombe: I am sure that they would be delighted to do the hon. and learned Gentleman's garden, but it would be rather a long way to go. I suggest that he has a similar organisation set up in his constituency, whereafter I am sure the youngsters will attend to his garden first.

1147
Active church groups do a great deal. I am especially grateful for the work of Dave King and his support group in Maidstone, which does so much on the council estates and in the less well-off areas for those in need.
There is a wide range of support schemes for families and for the victims of crime. The state has followed the lead of the charitable sector, and it is now generally recognised that the victim's problems do not end if and when the criminal is apprehended and convicted, or when the police close the file on the solved or unsolved case. That is another example in which charities are leading the state.
For all those reasons the work of voluntary organisations is important. But each voluntary organisation is comprised of individuals. One does not have to belong to a voluntary organisation to look after the needs of one's neighbour. We should teach our children from an early age to do simple things, such as doing the shopping for the old lady who lives down the road, and not just to leave the shopping on the kitchen table and go home, but to stay and talk and provide the companionship which that old lady may need. As they get older, children should be encouraged to do voluntary work, as the girls from Maidstone grammar school do. People should not use having a full-time job or having to look after a family as an excuse for non-active involvement.
We should all ask ourselves what we do for our neighbours apart from our paid jobs—I include in that Members of Parliament. Those who do not take on an immediately active role where they see need have no business to criticise the state for its lack of provision, or the number of people employed in any particular job, and ultimately have no business whatsoever to expect to rely on the neighbours whom they have not served.
12.46 pm
Mr. John Bowis: We have had a wide-ranging debate and a wide range of agreement. I agree particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) who suggested that Members of Parliament should lead the way and contribute to the voluntary sector.
I was surprised that the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) initiated so ably followed some of the lanes down which it has travelled, not least when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) spoke. Of course he was quite right to say that the trade union movement is a voluntary membership movement, but I shall not dwell on his eloquent opposition to the closed shop. I absolutely support his last point about the theatre and the role of the arts in society. He also referred to his membership of the Cubs. I, too, started my voluntary work as a Cub and I suppose that many of us can dyb, dyb, dyb and dob, dob, dob, together. Perhaps that sums up what is best in our society—doing our best for our fellow members of society in Britain.
We have talked about the beneficiaries and the organisers of voluntary work. But the crucial, key point is the role of the individual contributing as best he or she can. Very often the individual has a role at home, looking after the family, and as members of the family become elderly or disabled, that role is extended. People also play such a role
1148
at work, often through the vocational nature of their work. We should not underestimate the voluntary spirit when people give up a high salary to take on a role which they feel is more rewarding to themselves and to the people whom they serve. Many people use their spare time in a multiplicity of ways, taking on the role of the professional supporter of people in the community.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) asked Conservative Members about whom we were talking when we mentioned people who played a role in the voluntary sector. I suggest to him that everyone has such a role. It is a question not of financial status, but of individual will to use one's skill and abilities. I include those who, in theory, we think we are helping when, often, they are the very people who have something to contribute as providers of support and as contributors to their fellow sufferers. We should not, for example, underestimate the role of the disabled as voluntary helpers to their fellow human beings. Everyone has a role.
Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Does he recall that at the Conservative party conference last year the Home Secretary, when speaking of the role of citizens, suggested three ways in which they could provide help—first, being a parent governor of a school; secondly, involvement in neighbourhood watch; and thirdly, charitable giving. How does the hon. Gentleman think everyone would fit into those slots?
Mr. Bowis: It is obvious that not everyone can be a parent governor—he or she would have to be a parent with a child at school. Therefore, only a limited range of people could fill such a slot. I warmly support the role of individuals in their children's schools, in crime prevention and in other aspects of society, and also an individual's giving to charity and charitable giving as a whole. It may be the rich man, with his eye-of-the-needle problem, who should be giving more or it may be the widow's mite, which is just as valuable. I do not wish to discuss the party conference debate last October. It is important to accept that everyone has a role.
I wish to dwell for a moment on the way in which young people can contribute. Indeed, I am involved with certain organisations in that area. I think especially of an event in which I participated yesterday afternoon at the Emanuel school in my constituency, which is sited on the banks of the railway line where the Clapham junction train disaster occurred last December. I went to support the school and the many people who attended the unveiling of the memorial to the disaster, which was carried out jointly by one of the boys of the school and a survivor of the train crash. As we stood there—silent other than for the sound of passing trains below the edge of the embankment—our minds returned to that early morning when the crash occurred. We remembered the way in which those young boys and their teachers immediately went down the embankment, at some risk to themselves, to give comfort and succour. They were, first, saving lives; secondly, comforting the injured; and thirdly, supporting the rescue services. They did that not because they were organised to do so, but because they perceived a need. They understood how they, as individuals, could respond to that need, and they did so. It is an example of the best in our society when people of all ages, under all conditions, perceive a need and respond to it.

1149
While standing on the embankment during the unveiling of the memorial I was reminded of another occasion some years ago—less publicised and less sung —when there were great winter floods. At that time I was staying in my in-law's village in Warwickshire. The brook overflowed into nearby houses, one of which was occupied by an old lady. The village joined together and found shelter for her. However, that was not the end of the story; it was not just the British coming together. That lady's next-door neighbours, a young couple, went into the house and took out all the damp and ruined items, dried what was reclaimable and replaced those that were not. They then got out their pots of paint and redecorated the house so that when the old lady returned she would feel that it was her home, and not experience the aftermath of disaster that makes such experiences so much more traumatic. That is an example of young people perceiving a problem, believing that they could put it right and doing so.
Earlier this week, I visited the Cancer Research Campaign, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Every year it holds a major fund-raising event in Battersea park. I was there to present prizes and publicise the triple challenge that will take place this summer. It is a tremendously successful organisation that raises millions of pounds and is almost self-sufficient. The event was a combination of a professional fund-raising organisation and two sponsors, to which I pay tribute—Whitbread and the London Broadcasting Company. I pay tribute to the role that local radio stations play in London. LBC and Capital Radio have fine charitable connections with Battersea park. A well-run charity, industry and young people came together to raise money for a problem that they understood. My hon. Friends rightly said that people understand because, sadly, problems are brought home to them through their families and friends.
I was speaking to an organisation earlier this week called Projects by the Blind (Wandsworth), which is in my constituency. It provides reading and newspaper tapes for the blind and partially sighted. It provides a centre for companionship for such people during the day and offers creative work for those who can manage it, some of whom are partially sighted and some completely blind. The organisation has an element of self-help supported by the community. I used to call it "Projects for the Blind", but it proudly said "No, we are called Projects by the Blind". The blind help themselves with society's support. With a little help, pump-priming and back-up, such people are able to contribute to their wellbeing.
I work with other organisations that go way beyond our national shores and deal with the problems of the world, such as Hungry for Change and Results. They aim to find solutions to the massive global problems, and its results are so huge that one might find them difficult to comprehend. If it is broken down into the cost of saving a child's sight or rehydration tablets to cure diarrhoea, which can cause death, and one considers the cost of immunising a child, one realises how simply and cheaply British people can assist by saving or adopting a child elsewhere in the world.
If we can persuade individuals that there is a problem, as soon as they are aware of it, they understand it. If we can achieve solutions that are manageable to them, we shall begin to get movement. There is a range of problems, many of which have been mentioned in the debate, but there is a range of solutions, some of which cost nothing.
1150
It costs nothing to assist someone who is being attacked in the street—a matter that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone. I mentioned the boys of Emanuel school. It costs only time and effort to help.
Support, by means of cash in kind, is required from the public, various agencies and local government. Sometimes the cost is vast. Sometimes the cost is in terms of assisting the carer to take a break. We know about the virtues of respite. That is a form of pump-priming that we should not ignore. If money is directed towards solving the problems at a level that people can understand, they will respond and we shall begin to overcome some of the problems.
Hon. Members have referred to the difficult balancing act that has to be performed. There is a danger that state support can sometimes supplant the voluntary spirit. We need to examine the extent to which the state is taking over the solving of problems. Individuals who previously were involved and who would like to be involved again in voluntary work no longer feel that they are wanted and needed. There is a danger, as voluntary organisations increasingly become the agents of central and local government, that that feeling will grow.
Mr. Randall: Based on my own experience, I see exactly the opposite trend. In my own city, the financial constraints that have been imposed upon local authorities as a result of rate capping and other measures have led to the local authority's role being considerably diminished.
Mr. Bowis: That may be true in some cases.
Reference has been made to the voluntary hospital services. The hon. Member for Walton referred to them. When there were cottage hospitals the local community was very willing to support them. However, when cottage hospitals became part of the regional health service, the local community began to feel that they were no longer welcome and that they could not continue to support such a small part of a vast organisation.
I am not suggesting that we should go overboard either way; we have to get the balance right. Too often nowadays the first question asked by a voluntary organisation is, "Who will fund us?" The first question used to be, "How shall we raise the money?" Voluntary organisations now say that they want full time staff and premises. It is getting slightly out of balance. We ought to concentrate on those who benefit from the services and ensure that the resources that are available are devoted to them.
Society has to be careful about the extent to which it interferes. I support and have a high opinion of the dial-a-ride service. Unfortunately, it is now in danger of becoming bureaucratised. The need is seen to be so large that it is beyond the scope of any individual or voluntary organisation to cater for it. Consequently, the dial-a-ride service is looking to national and local agencies to provide support.
Another danger is that the bureaucrats tend to dictate to the users of the services what is in their best interests. The users of the dial-a-ride service are disabled. On the whole, dial-a-ride is very good at listening to the disabled because it is a local service. Increasingly, however, as London Regional Transport takes over the management of dial-a-ride in London there is a danger that it will want to provide a neat package that is suitable for the whole of London. It does not want to hear about the preferences of disabled people in my part of London. The service is in danger of being swallowed up by bureaucracy. The

1151
individuals whom we are seeking to help will suffer. There has to be a balance between the desire to assist and the rights of the individuals who are being assisted—the right of the disabled to mobility. Without wishing to take matters too far the other way, we must get the balance right between the individual contributor to charity and voluntary work and the role of the state.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone said, if we are considering ways in which the individual can become more involved, we must go back to the schools. She rightly highlighted some of the schemes at Maidstone grammar school, where the girls do great community projects. I also wonder whether we should not look at the role of children within schools. In my day, there was a far greater role for the pupil in the management of the school, cleaning, washing dishes and helping with the grounds, play areas and sports fields. I do not want to undermine the role of the school caretaker, but children seem to be brought up to assume that everything will be done by the caretaker. When they become householders, they will look at the snow that has fallen on the pavement, on which old people could fall, and they will say that it is the role of society to clear the snow. As President Kennedy said, we should ask not what our fellow man can do for us, but what we can do for our fellow man, and that is the message we want to put across.
Another aspect of voluntary work is that concerned with crime. I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that nowhere in London shows better success in beating crime than my area of Battersea. The police, the community, Wandsworth council, local firms and residents' associations have all got together to defeat crime. That is an example of voluntary action supported by the state locally and nationally.
I also support the point made earlier about the role of industry in supporting projects. In Battersea, a firm called Skillion decided that it would play a part by sponsoring some of the clean-up of the River Thames. It persuaded me to join various young people from Manpower in taking out some of the rubbish from the river bed. That was a splendid operation and should be repeated by other firms locally. In Wandsworth, we have signs which say, "Wandsworth the brighter borough environmental improvement scheme." Wandsworth council does that because it is a well-run council. I suggest that firms could do that as well, and we should then see signs saying, "Woolworth encouraging the brighter borough with the improvement scheme." Why should not the firms that became involved take some of the credit?
Moving up the age range, I wonder why we do not make more use of the skills of retired people. As the age of retirement comes down, so there is an increasing reserve of skills we should use. In further education, those practical skills are already used and secondary schools could do the same, as could the many areas of need in the community. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he could promote through his colleagues the idea that every local authority should build up a register of skills and volunteers available, which should be tied in with the needs of the voluntary sector. Such a register would bring everybody together in the community to contribute and we should have played a valuable part.
1152
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this topic. As Members of Parliament, we see the best of voluntary organisations in our constituencies and we see some magnificent work. If we come back to that moment at Emanuel school, we see that the best work of all is when an individual sees a problem and goes out to do something about it on his own initiative.
1.9 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground: I join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on the motion. I am sorry that I could not be here for the early part of the debate.
I particularly welcome the way in which my hon. Friend has worded the motion. Too often our discussions of voluntary organisations turn to thoughts on what they should or should not be doing, on which there is a division of opinion. Some fear that voluntary organisations will carry out functions that should more properly be carried out by public bodies, while others appear to suggest that they should be carrying out functions that could be carried out by public bodies under their statutory powers.
I particularly welcome the fact that the motion simply celebrates the existence of active citizenship and voluntary activities. That is an appropriate emphasis. Judging by my constituency experience there is a mass of flourishing voluntary organisations of all sorts—on the whole happily and effectively doing what they set out to do and not particularly worried about the discussions that I have just described. They can see that there is a job for them to do and they get on with doing it.
I am fortunate in having two remarkable voluntary organisations in my constituency which provide me with accommodation for my surgery. Unlike many hon. Members, I suspect, I hold my surgeries in premises owned by voluntary organisations. That is a way of showing the importance that I attach to their work.
I was interested by what my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) said about the role of a voluntary activity in keeping law and order. I share her reaction to what was said when the Guardian Angels came to England recently. It was interesting to note that, whatever the official reaction may have been—from the police and other authorities, there was quite considerable support among the public at large for the idea of active citizenship as represented by the Guardian Angels. I am aware that American experience of the work of the Guardian Angels varies but when I went to the west coast of America, I found what I saw of their activities impressive and thought that it justified the public's reaction.
I welcome the greater emphasis on volunteer work by the Metropolitan Police. In areas of south London the police have accepted a role for a form of special constable working with neighbourhood watch schemes. That is an interesting development which could well be copied by other areas that are interested in incorporating the services of volunteers in the process of keeping law and order. Similarly, I am interested in the announcement made in the past few days about a new type of volunteer in the Metropolitan police, who will be dressed quite differently from a police constable, in a uniform that the public can easily identify as being that of a volunteer.

1153
I was interested in the exchange between the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) about the extent of involvement throughout the community in voluntary work and in the concept of whether there was any social limitation on the activity of the active citizen. I share completely the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea that there is a role for the active citizen throughout the community. I believe that, wherever one is living, there is a role for the active citizen.
I would like to stress the role of the active citizen in relation to the environment and to pay tribute to the work of the amenity societies throughout the country and to the Civic Trust. I have been heavily involved for many years in the amenity society where I live. I believe that the environment of an area very much reflects the activity over the years of active involved citizens. Areas with consistently active citizenship in relation to the environment and proposals for an area have often managed to retain their character and their amenities and have reasonably sympathetic forms of development around them.
In areas where that is more difficult, there is still a role for the active citizen. In the past two or three years I have been especially concerned with the problems caused on council estates by thoroughly anti-social tenants. Very often, a minority of anti-social tenants makes life a misery, rather than a pleasure, for a great number of people living around them, especially in blocks of flats, but also on housing estates. I am delighted when I see one or more residents prepared to stand up to that conduct—to complain, to organise neighbours to bring it to a stop and, if necessary, to galvanise the local authority into taking action, if necessary by threatening or bringing eviction proceedings. Unless such anti-social behaviour is tackled, very often there is little remedy for the living conditions of the people concerned. It is a counsel of despair to say that all the others should move out and get transfers rather than be willing to face up to the problem in the first instance. I applaud those active citizens who are prepared to take action and to give evidence against anti-social tenants.
I am happy to say that the local authority in my area is eventually prepared to respond, where it is satisfied that there is a sufficient number of people genuinely concerned about the behaviour of anti-social tenants and willing to give evidence and to do something about it. That is an important element of active citizenship which applies in places where living conditions are extremely difficult. The role of an active citizen is potentially one of great importance when it comes to improving such an environment for large numbers of people.
I welcome the debate and I associate myself with all the remarks about the importance, the role and, indeed, the flourishing character of voluntary organisations. However much time we may spend developing and talking about statutory functions, which must inevitably happen in parliamentary debates, it is good that we have spent some little time talking about those things that we would regard as fundamentally important and, perhaps, even more important than many of the matters that we have to spend very much more time discussing.
1.19 pm
Mr. Stuart Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on bringing this motion before the House today. It has been interesting to hear the views of hon. Members of all parties, although I note that most speeches have come from Conservative Members. That is probably because this subject was promulgated by the Home Secretary last October when he made a major speech at the Conservative party conference on the active citizen in the context of crime prevention.
Three hon. Members have made particularly interesting points. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) talked about getting the balance right, which is at the nub of this whole issue. Although we have heard hon. Members of all parties talk about the various organisations that we all have in our constituencies and the benefits of them—the Christian ethic has come through strongly—I believe that there is a strong political element at the heart of this matter and that is what I should like to address.
This is a philosophical issue. The hon. Member for Wimbledon made an excellent speech in getting his case over. I am not saying that I agree with him, but he made a number of philosophical points that I should like to address. Essentially, I believe that at the heart of this matter is the balance between the role of the state and that of the voluntary organisations.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I have waited all morning for the privilege of raising this point. Today I received a letter from the Scotttish Council for Voluntary Organisations, expressing great interest in this important debate and enclosing a five-point charter for the voluntary sector. I should like my hon. Friend's comments on two of those points. The first point relates to the acceptance of the voluntary sector as a complement to, not a substitute for, state provision. The second point relates to the need to recognise that independent voluntary sector comment is vital to our democracy. In other words, voluntary groups should not simply be seen to be participating actively in communities; they believe that people's views about how to shape our society and about Government policy are also important. Does my hon. Friend agree with those observations?
Mr. Randall: Yes, I do. There is no doubt in my mind that there can be no dispute about the importance of the active citizen and the voluntary organisations in which such people tend to work, although of course, they do not belong to organisations. There can be no dispute across the House about that matter. I would support general acceptance of that view on democratic matters.
A number of philosophical points hinge on the question of balance. I believe that individualism must be allowed to flourish; that bureaucracy must be controlled and that people who work in the areas to which hon. Members have referred must be given every opportunity to do their job properly. What we have seen from the Conservative party —this is where it becomes political—has been fits expression of the way in which the roles of the state and the voluntary and charitable organisations fit in with its views of Victorian values and with the notion of Lady Bountiful dishing out the goodies——
Mr. John Patten: That is 1960s claptrap.
Mr. Randall: I am sure that when the Minister of State replies to the debate he will be able to address that point.
Even newspapers such as The Sunday Times, which is hardly a Labour-supporting newspaper, are expressing views about the shift towards Victorian values and philanthropy being the thing of the day. Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Wimbledon said that during what he claimed to be the present period of greater prosperity, the well-off should share their financial benefits with others. His remarks had a philanthropic ring about them.
I refer to the notion that the wealthy—the top 2 or 3 per cent. who have done very well thank you out of the Government's tax regime—should help out and give. We have heard how charitable giving has been on the increase while the role of the state has been cut back, all expressed in terms of the removal of the dependency culture and so on.
We have an ultra-capitalist Government who are very Right-wing—that is clear and nobody would dispute it —and who are pursuing avidly their philosophy of rolling back the frontiers of the state. That has been manifested in the way in which local authorities have been constrained. Indeed, the whole of the public sector has been constrained and, as a result, we are witnessing the failure of large areas of social policy. That, in turn, is causing a breakdown of law and order.
That is why a Home Office Minister has been present throughout, and will reply to the debate. This is a home affairs matter. The Government see the voluntary organisations as the mechanism to overcome anti-social, criminal, unacceptable behaviour in society. That is what it is all about, and the Home Secretary made that clear at the last Conservative party conference and at a meeting of the Industrial Society earlier in the year.
We have heard some commendable speeches, and the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) made a balanced and moderate speech.
Mr. Bowis: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that comment.
Mr. Randall: It is sometimes awful to receive praise from the opposite side of the House. The hon. Gentleman made a wise speech which fitted in with the direction in which we should be going. There was, however, in his and other Conservative speeches, a certain amount of goody-goody stuff, and I say that not in a disparaging way.
Hon. Members have been addressing the whole question of the ethos of how individuals should operate in society. If Conservative Members want to see pupils cleaning the schools—[Interruption.] I remember serving the custard during school dinner time. I am not complaining about remarks that have been made on that score or about the need for people to have a feeling of responsibility. The Christian ethos came through, and I totally support that.
All of that was good stuff, but until my right hon. Friend the Member for Walton spoke, I felt that the debate was rather off-beam, with the Conservative argument being presented with emphasis on their ultra-capitalist way of running the economy, with their obsession for the market, which is causing a breakdown in society. The degree of homelessness, crime and so on is making many
1156
people, including Conservatives, react to the sort of society we now have. As I say, the voluntary organisations are seen as a mechanism for countering that.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the description of my hon. Friends of people from all sections of society who are happy to give their time for nothing fits in with his description of a capitalist society?
Mr. Randall: Many people, including most hon. Members, are prepared to give their time. I welcome philanthropy, but I do not want society to be dependent on it. Much has been said about the way in which companies give. I welcome charitable giving, but what happens when an economy drops? Economies are cyclical. If certain services are reliant on that kind of giving, it must be consistent. If there is a recession and profitability drops, charitable giving will become vulnerable and we will let down people. The hon. Lady's argument has serious defects. State funding should be encouraged.
The interaction between the state and voluntary organisations is important. The participation of people in voluntary organisations clearly shows that there tends to be a higher rate of participation when a local authority is involved. From our experience in voluntary organisations, hon. Members know that a core of a few full-time people adds a terrific stimulus to an organisation and makes it more effective.
I do not know where the hon. Member for Wimbledon got the subject of the debate. Perhaps it came from the Whips' Office. [Interruption.] Conservative Members now want to push the subject as part of their underlying philosophy, because of the failure of social policy in this country.
Mr. John Patten: That is a monstrous allegation.
Mr. Randall: The Minister will have an opportunity to comment.
Why have the Conservatives waited 10 years to do this? The oil money has been flowing for some time. The reason is that the Government are in schtuck over the crime figures. Violent crime figures are still rising, and the Government do not know what to do. That is at the heart of the issue.
As a result of the Government's extreme economic policy, society is divided. No hon. Member would argue that it is not greedy and selfish, and that self-interest prevails. That is the essence of Thatcherism—"I'm all right, Jack; pull the ladder up."
Mr. Ground: Is not the debate the complete antithesis of what the hon. Gentleman has said? The people who are involved in the great mass of voluntary organisations doing things for other people are not behaving as the hon. Gentleman suggests that they should.
Mr. Randall: The hon. and learned Gentleman made an interesting speech. He said that he wanted all people involved as active citizens. I share his view. However, it is difficult to get people to participate when they are losing out. How do we get the homeless, those living in poverty, those who have drug or alcohol problems, and split families to participate? We do not. They are trying to survive day by day. The Government's social policy, which has emanated from their extreme economic policy, has resulted in a role for voluntary organisations and the

1157
active citizen. All I am saying is that in a divided society it is much more difficult to motivate people to give encouragement to others.
Mr. Ground: I am sorry to interrupt a second time; but one of the voluntary organisations of which I spoke—the Feltham community association—is providing work and activity for those who are unemployed and find it difficult to obtain employment.
Mr. Randall: Voluntary organisations are taking up many of the problems, but the Government's funding policy is preventing much of that work. The operation of the community programme has resulted in 16 voluntary workers in my city losing full-time jobs, and in the ending of much good social work. The Government have placed emphasis on projects connected with economic development, and on capital rather than social programmes.
Active citizenship should not be limited to the prosperous and beneficent minority whom the Conservative party generally wishes to perform that role —the "crumbs from the table" syndrome. The Government tell people that it is their duty, and we welcome that, but those who talk of duty should also talk of rights. The recipients of voluntary services should have certain rights. I have not time to go into detail, but I believe that everyone should have the right to a reasonably decent house, good health, education and, in the case of the elderly and those unable to cope, proper care. We have not really defined the active citizen today, and perhaps the definition is too complicated for us, but we have not defined rights either—although I do not think that the Conservative party would support that notion in any event.
How far do the Government want to go in charitable giving? That is an important philosophical question. I think that when my hon. Friend the Member for Walton talked about the balance, he was referring indirectly to the relationship between the public sector and the voluntary sector, supported by charitable giving. I fear that the thinkers and researchers in the Conservative party want to dispense with local authorities and arrange for all the work to be done by the voluntary sector, although whether it is able to do so will depend on a number of economic factors. I find that prospect very worrying: I think it is immoderate. Local government is being prevented from doing good work. I know that the Minister will agree when I say that my local authority in Hull is excellent. Its members are terrific people, and their good work has been hampered.
I have mentioned social policy. The Secretary of State for Social Security said in a speech yesterday that welfare groups would find poverty in paradise. That does not help the position; we are talking about people who are essentially losers. We must ensure that voluntary organisations are funded properly, for a service of adequate quality cannot be provided otherwise.
The debate has been interesting and I congratulate the hon. Member for Wimbledon on initiating it. I also congratulate the voluntary sector on the terrific work that it does in Britain generally. Everyone should be an active citizen. We must establish the framework of how we run this country's economy and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said—we must keep in perspective the balance between the voluntary sector, aided by charities, and the public sector.
1158
The Government have developed their policy to combat crime, and we welcome that. However, so far the policy has created inequality and a divided society and has not solved the problems. Until we get rid of the Government and have a more moderate economic policy in this country, I am afraid that matters will continue to deteriorate and the Minister will still have to cope with the high levels of crime in this country.
1.41 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) referred to his days doling out custard at school. I hoped that with the onset of convenience Socialism, he might dole out a few new-style Labour party policies about the active citizen and the voluntary sector but, alas, we heard nothing new during his speech. The one thing he said with which I could agree was that it was good fortune that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Goodson-Wickes) was successful in finding time for his debate today and for propounding his thesis with clarity and eloquence. All hon. Members in the Chamber are pleased to have been here for the debate.
The theme of the debate was one that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon developed in his notable maiden speech and it is an interest that he has held consistently since he came to this place. Therefore, it was all the more insulting for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West to suggest that the topic was foisted on my hon. Friend. If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West has any decency, he will stand up and I shall give way to give him the opportunity to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.
Mr. Randall: I do not need to apologise to the House. If there was anything offensive in what I said, I would apologise. The hon. Member for Wimbledon and I know each other from Committees. The Government are determined to have this policy accepted because of the failure of their economic policy and the crime that has ensued.
Mr. John Patten: If the hon. Gentleman is not going to apologise, he should sit down and not waste the time of the House.
There is an ancient history to the concept of active citizenship. People have long wanted to help their fellow men and women in their village, community or town. It is a concept with which we are familiar and is not something new that has been dreamt up by the Conservative Government. From the time of Rousseau, philosophers such as Burke, Lincoln, and Ralf Dahrendorf, have talked in their writings about the active citizen.
In an amazingly lightweight effort, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said that he did not know what an active citizen was. I had better give him a definition that he can chew over. I borrow it from an excellent article that I wrote—for nothing—on the subject in The Guardian six or eight months ago. My definition of active citizens is that they are, quite simply, those who make something more than a solely economic contribution to their communities. They not only care and say they do, but act on their caring instincts. The crux of the definition is that, for them, good will is necessary but not sufficient,

1159
and the contribution that they make is one that is clearly visible, even if not always measurable in a quantifiable sense.
Active citizens act for a range of reasons—to help others, to put their skills to the best possible use and to enjoy the active life and rewards that go with voluntary work, for instance. It can be very enjoyable to make new friends, to undergo training, to learn new skills and, above all, to help others. I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about that.
Many of those who come within the category of active citizens would not necessarily recognise themselves as such. They would certainly not expect their daily activities to be debated on the Floor of the House, which is why I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon has given us today.
In many ways the model active citizen—the idea of the volunteer, the productivity of the volunteer, the free-thinking nature of the volunteer, the innovative way in which volunteers do things—has served as a paradigm for the Government when developing our thinking in recent years about the importance of devolving power from the centre to communities and individuals. As several of my hon. Friends have said, there are numerous examples of that in Government policies of recent years —school governors, the opportunities for NHS hospitals to become self-governing units, the opportunities that my noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside is giving to people in housing co-operatives and housing management units to run their own affairs. So the Government have learnt from the good example of the active citizen and the voluntary sector and an appreciation of that has been evident in all the contributions today, through which I intend to run in the order in which they were made.
I turn first to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) not only because he spoke first but because he is leaving shortly to be an active citizen in his work with the National Records Office. He raised two important points: the first was the need for adequate funding for the voluntary sector from the Government. I should remind him that public sector support for the voluntary sector now runs at £2 billion and direct grants given by central Government to the voluntary sector run at about £280 million a year. That represents an increase of 221 per cent. in Government support for the voluntary sector since 1979.
A similar amount of support, although not quite as much, has gone to the citizens advice bureaux, to whose work in his constituency the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery paid tribute, as do we all to those in our constituencies. The hon. and learned Gentleman wove them into a rather appealing argument about the need to preserve the solicitors' conveyancing monopoly so as to ensure that there are at the same time enough solicitors to give free help to legal aid. That was one of the most ingenious arguments I have heard for a long time. If I am ever in trouble in the courts I shall go to the hon. and learned Gentleman—if he will take my brief.
The main responsibility for funding local citizens advice bureaux lies with local authorities. That has been so since 1948, when the law was changed to enable them to provide that support. Funding is primarily a matter for each local
1160
authority to decide, taking its priorities into account. The Government rightly fund the service, and our grant to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux now runs at almost £9 million—up 167 per cent. in real terms since 1979. So our support for the voluntary sector through grants to the CAB is formidable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made a remarkable speech which I hope will be widely read by the professionals in the voluntary sector. He knows as much about volunteer work as anyone in that sector and spoke from the heart about important issues such as job sharing among volunteers and being cautious about developing counselling services too far—because of the dangers of becoming too bureaucratic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) spoke next. Before she came to this place, she gave valuable public service as the chairman of two health authorities. I remember reshuffling her from North-West Norfolk health authority to Norwich health authority. There can be no greater form of active citizenship than chairing a health authority. She said that, like many other things—and I would choose neighbourhood watch—volunteerism is not only for the affluent classes. I found it rather offensive that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, who has now left the Opposition Front Bench, suggested that volunteerism was only for those who were affluent and middle class. The hon. Gentleman is more interested in speaking to other hon. Members than in listening to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West pressed me quite hard about the number of women that we were appointing to public bodies. I can tell her that 21 per cent. of Government appointments to voluntary bodies and statutory and public bodies are women. We give considerable grant aid, for example to the important "women into public life" campaign. We continue to fund that campaign, and many Departments appoint women to more than a quarter of their posts. The Departments which show major recent increases in the appointment of women include the Department of Social Security, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office. However, one of the problems we face is that we do not receive enough nominations of younger women in their 20s and 30s and the public appointments unit would be extremely pleased to hear from people who want to nominate younger women, as we receive very few such nominations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is president of some 58 voluntary groups in his constituency. That shows how many active citizens there are in Ealing, North and how lucky they are to have such an active Member of Parliament. I look forward to the 100th birthday celebrations that my hon. Friend mentioned. He talked about the relationship between churches and volunteering, a point also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) in her notable speech. He also gave me one of the most engaging pieces of information that I have ever heard in the House—that a number of volunteers freely give up their time to exercise polo ponies in Ham. I have long thought that polo was a sport for the very rich. The thought that active citizens freely give up their time to subsidise that sport by riding polo ponies is a new and interesting development of outdoor relief for the rich. Perhaps we will soon have new monastic orders such as "the little sisters of the rich" rattling tins and asking people

1161
to give to those who have never known what it is to want. I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing that to the attention of the House.
Basildon of course figures large in the interests of its Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) told us about the "I Love Basildon" campaign in which he plays a major part. When they open me up post mortem, they will find Basildon on my heart. As a Minister I have visited Basildon more often than any other place in the country. I have answered more Adjournment debates on Basildon than on any other issue.
My hon. Friend reminded me of a couple of the Adjournment debates to which I replied during my ministerial career in different Departments. I am glad to learn that some of the things for which he was pressing have come true. He referred to the Adjournment debate some years ago about the magistrates' court in Basildon. I am extremely glad that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will be opening the new magistrates court in Basildon—proving that Adjournment debates can be worth while.
I remember an Adjournment debate many years ago in which hopes of building a hospice in Basildon were expressed. I was a junior health Minister, which in those days was a modest post. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon said that the individuals involved hoped to raise enough money to open a hospice. How marvellous it is that only four years later Mr. and Mrs. Cox and others have raised £660,000, and the hospice may soon be erected.
My hon. Friend asked me to mention to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the zero rating of hospital equipment. I shall have a gossip with him about that, as I will with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who is responsible for radio issues, about community radio when I see him on Monday.
The hon. Member for Walton made a remarkable speech, which reminded me of the one he made, to which I listened with equal care, when, to my surprise, I found myself winding up a debate on Anglican Church issues. There were some echoes in his speech today of the one that he made on that occasion.
The hon. Member for Walton at least had an intellectually coherent view of future Socialist policy for the voluntary sector. Although I did not agree with all his speech, I found it intellectually appealing to hear him clearly set out his view of the right mixture of voluntary and state provision. The hon. Gentleman referred to it as "non-bureaucratic Socialism", and I see him nodding in assent.
The hon. Member recommended that hon. Members should read some books and dissented from what he fears will appear in the Labour party's policy review. Perhaps I can swap him a book, if he has not read it already, by a distinguished one-time hon. Member and Foreign Office Minister, Mr. Evan Luard, whom you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will probably remember. He wrote an excellent book entitled "Socialism without the State".
Mr. Heffer: I have read it.
Mr. Patten: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has read it. It may have influenced his thinking and led him some way towards a positive attitude on the voluntary sector.
Evan Luard was my Labour party opponent in 1979. Being a political canvasser or campaigner is a form of
1162
active citizenship. In 1983, he became my SDP opponent and, as an active citizen, slogged the streets for it. Alas, he was deselected in favour of a passing Guardian journalist. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and I experienced passing Guardian journalists being sent to our constituencies of Bath and Oxford, West and Abingdon. I beg The Guardian to send them again and again. Nothing is better for a Conservative candidate than a journalist from The Guardian. I dare say that I shall not be so lucky in the future; perhaps it will be someone from the Sunday Sport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone made a powerful speech. She said that one does not have to be a member of a voluntary organisation to help people. That is what this debate on active citizenship is about. The examples that she gave of young people shopping and giving time to the elderly were telling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bow is) referred to payroll giving. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is currently having new forms printed for the upper limit of £480. They will shortly be available and I will ensure that hon. Members who attended the debate receive one.
Mr. Stuart Holland: And the Minister.
Mr. Patten: I have already asked for one, I shall send one to the retiring hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) when he begins his new job in Florence, in which I wish him well, so that he can contribute substantially.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea rightly drew our attention to the fact that the level of giving in this country is lower than the United States.
Last, but by no means least, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) reported that he has a good relationship with the voluntary sector in his area—so much so that he holds his advice surgeries in its property. I expect that many hon. Members feel that we might as well move into the citizens advice bureaux offices anyway, or that they might as well move into ours, so close is the relationship between us and the people in the voluntary sector.
My hon. and learned Friend also made a number of important points about the need to involve special constables in the areas from which they were recruited. It is most important that they should be used for policing purposes in neighbourhood watch areas as we try to build up the role of the active citizen.
My hon. and learned Friend also referred to the importance of the active citizen in looking after the environment—a speciality of my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development who has done so much to stress the importance of environmental issues in the context of overseas aid. We shall be having a debate soon on that point. It will be a very interesting debate, so I do not intend to take up much more time. However, this debate has been so good that it is important to reply properly to all the points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West is concerned about the relationship between the active citizen and crime. It is extremely difficult to be an active citizen if one is working in the teeth of local opposition. I am sad to say that there are areas where that is the case. The London boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hackney, Haringey and Lambeth still refuse to build a proper partnership between the police and the public, through the police consultative

1163
committees. In his annual report to the Home Secretary, published yesterday, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis said:
"I am disappointed that the hope I expressed in last year's report, that the majority political parties in the boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hackney, Haringey and Lambeth would begin to participate in their local consultative groups has not been realised."
That is very sad. I invite the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, to whom I shall happily give way, to say that he will visit those councils and try to persuade them to take an active part in the police consultative committees, which involve active citizens in their areas as well as the police and the local authorities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to stand up and respond to me.
Mr. Holland: In the case of Lambeth, which the Minister mentioned, it is relevant to point out that the entire reorganisation of the Metropolitan police was undertaken by the police after consulting Marks and Spencer and other commercial bodies. There were no consultations with either the Members of Parliament for the area or local councillors. That is the kind of treatment that many of these boroughs have had from the Met, and it is much to be regretted on both sides.
Mr. Patten: As that was probably the last opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to intervene during one of my speeches, I was happy to give way to him, since his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, leading for the home affairs team—and they need some leadership
1164
—on the Opposition Front Bench simply refused to say that he would encourage Labour boroughs to play their proper role in local police consultative groups.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Patten: I must give way to my hon. Friend, because I referred to his constituency.
Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. When Government Whips give an assurance to Back Benchers, is there any way in which that assurance might be upheld?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I well appreciate and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am afraid that this is a matter over which I have no control.
Mr. Greenway: Ealing has a very good police consultative committee on which I and the other Members of Parliament for the borough sit. It is widely representative of the community. We have to deal with the Ealing council's anti-police committee, on which the council spends a large sum of public money, and it is always denigrating the police.
Mr. Patten: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North has said it all.
It remains only for me to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon on his excellent speech and on the way in which he has created so much interest in the importance of the active citizens and voluntary organisations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House confirms its commitment to the role of the active citizen and voluntary organisations in society.

International Debt
2.5 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the crucial role played by the World Bank, and, in particular, the International Development Association, in promoting development and alleviating the debt problems of the Third World; therefore urges Her Majesty's Government to support a generous real increase in the resources of the International Development Association in the forthcoming negotiations for its ninth replenishment; recommends that in future assistance provided by the International Development Association should be on grant terms, and that all outstanding International Development Association credits should be adjusted retrospectively into grants; and believes that measures of debt relief, such as the Brady plan, and new funds for the International Development Association would be a major contribution to restoring economic and social development in the Third World.
This will be an all-too-brief debate. I must say first that there are times when I think that I am not exactly the Minister's favourite Member of Parliament. On this occasion, so little do I feature in his thoughts that he does not appear to be listening to the point I am making. However, by way of compensation for keeping him late on a Friday, I assure him that if he finds it possible to accept my rather modest motion, I shall do my best to arrange the kind of reception for him in Glasgow that Daniel Ortega experienced last week.
We have had an interesting debate on the role of voluntary organisations and I feel confident that organisations such as Oxfam, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, the World Development Movement, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and War on Want would feel that the week before an extremely important meeting in London dealing with world debt is an important time for us to have this debate and to give the Minister an opportunity—alas, an all-too-brief one—to respond to what we have to say.
This debate takes place against a background of a cut in aid to Africa of 26 per cent., or £600 million, which does not balance the excellent efforts of organisations such as Band Aid and Sport Aid, which feel that, on top of their efforts, there is a great need for us to address ourselves to the problem of debt. The debate gives us an opportunity to talk about the influence of the World Bank, the International Development Association, and, of course, the Brady plan. We do so in the knowledge that the ninth replenishment meeting of the International Development Association will take place in London next week.
The Minister knows that IDA provides generous loans on generous terms to the poorest countries and that every three years, the replenishment comes up for debate. We hope that the Government will approach the meeting positively. We want to see a generous replenishment next week as we realise that the present figure of $12 billion is somewhat inadequate. We should—and I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity to tell us this—attempt to exceed that figure next week, especially as the United Kingdom share has declined noticeably.
All this takes place at a time when we know that the British people are generous in their approach to these matters, but also at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus of £15 billion in the last Budget. It is not as though the resources are not available if the will is there. We must not have a world in which the poorest
1166
countries are subsidising the rest of us and in which we do not appear to be taking steps to remove the dreadful problem of debt.
I want to quote the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) from the important speech he made on 29 March to the Overseas Development Institute and the Royal Institute for International Affairs. He said:
"Either way both lenders and borrowers in the 1970s made some awful financial decisions. But the real tragedy is that the resulting debt crisis, far from encouraging forgiveness, has relentlessly ensured that the sins of the fathers have been visited on children in the third world."
I am delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend pursues these matters with vigour.
Our contribution and approach should be those of the last Labour Government. They did not have the resources in oil that this Government have experienced, yet under Judith Hart, we had a far better record. The Minister will recall that under IDA 4, the Labour Government's contribution was 11·1 per cent. Under IDA 5, it was 10·6 per cent. and under IDA 6, it was 10·1 per cent. Under the Tories, our share under IDA 7 was 6·7 per cent. and the same under IDA 8, so I look forward to a huge increase to make up for those lost opportunities when the Government tell us about their approach to next week 's meeting, which is important because the replenishment of the agreement will apply until 1993.
The views contained in the motion are widely shared. On the future, the motion makes it clear that grants should be offered in some cases, if only because we have seen in the past that loans do not always make economic sense. I am delighted to say that, on that point, I speak not only for my hon. Friends but for a clear majority in the House. That was made clear in a letter addressed to Mr. Barber Conable, the president of the World Bank in spring 1988, signed by 400 hon. Members including 169 Conservative Members. It said:
"When IDA started lending to the Third World's poorest countries in the early 1960s, its terms were amongst the most concessional of any aid donor. However, since then the governments of many donors such as the United States, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, have switched to providing nearly all of their bilateral aid to the poorest countries on grant terms."
The letter continued:
"In the discussions beginning this year on the ninth replenishment of IDA, we urge that you put proposals to donor governments that the funds they supply for IDA should then be provided to the poorest countries on grant terms."
That letter was signed by Lord Oram, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and was supported by more than 400 hon. Members altogether.
Having endorsed that aim, as I hope we shall, should we not do something else? Should we not consider that 0024;32 billion of credit are outstanding which the poorest countries owe to the World Bank? Should we not accept that that is a major problem inviting a response? The countries concerned are flat on their backs. Over the years, some of them have grown out of their difficulties. We accept that South Korea, for example, would not qualify for any arrangements; indeed, it might be invited, in its new role and with its new status as a developing country, to contribute to countries whose need is so great.
There is a case for multilateral aid being grant-supported rather than being based on loans. There is also a case

1167
—many have supported this view—for writing off much of the debt retrospectively. There is nothing new about that proposal. I shall try to be fair to the Minister, even though he does not always make life easy for me, by saying that even this Government have accepted in their bilateral aid policy that there is a case for grants instead of loans. They have carried on Judith Hart's policy, and I am delighted to see her successor, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) here. I give the Government credit for doing that, but why do they not apply that important concept to multilateral debt and introduce it into the meeting next week. The World Bank has a major influence on these matters. It is the largest source of multilateral aid to Africa at the moment, accounting for 25 per cent. of the total.
An article in The Times of 5 April, referring to the recent meeting of the Group of Seven said:
"The meetings of the Group of Seven, International Monetary Fund and World Bank which ended yesterday were characterized, as usual, by surface harmony. All the participants claimed to support the letter of the communiqués while going on to interpret them in ways which were blatantly at odds with each other."
There is a need for some form of leadership, but not of the sort that we have seen so far in the Government's representations.
In a previous debate I asked the Minister to comment on the Brady proposals. We have had little debate so far on these matters in the House and, especially, on the Brady proposals. I refer the Minister to a comment in the Financial Times on 19 April:
"By emphasising voluntary debt reduction, accelerated with financial support from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, the US has implicitly recognised that—at least for countries taking the right kind of economic measures —ability to pay should be a factor in deciding what countries should pay."
It added:
"One could not expect banks to support the moral argument. However, there are strong financial arguments to suggest that they should try to embrace the Brady proposals as convincingly as possible."
For reasons out of my control, time is not on our side, but we sincerely ask the Minister and the Government at least to consider the contents of the motion. We recognise the awful problem that debt represents to the developing countries—to the poorest of the poor. We see no good in the Chancellor seemingly giving with the one hand and then very definitely taking away with the other. Debt represents an enormous problem. It leads to hunger and to poverty, which strike a major blow to the quality of life of millions of men and women in the Third world.
I believe that Great Britain has a contribution to make towards the economic and social development of the developing world. Next week we have a responsibility to make such a contribution to solving those problems. I urge the Minister to consider these matters seriously, because poverty in the Third world represents perhaps the biggest threat to peace apart from nuclear weapons. The problem invites a major response from the Government and from the Minister.
2.16 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Christopher Patten): I am glad to have the chance again to discuss in the House the important issues of aid and
1168
development. I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his good fortune and his choice of subject.
The motion refers to the "international debt crisis". That well-worn phrase can tempt us to see the problems of sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America in the 1980s only in terms of international debt. That would be wrong. Those two regions in fact owe not much more than half of total developing country debt. There are some very heavy debtors in Asia. Yet Asia in the 1980s, unlike Africa or Latin America, demonstrates a consistent run of strongly positive growth in per capita income figures. We should, perhaps, rather talk of Africa and Latin America suffering a "development crisis", and not focus purely on debt in seeking the causes or the remedies of those countries' economic difficulties.
The motion, perhaps rather unhelpfully, refers us not to the causes of debt problems, but to their remedies. I propose to deal briefly with the situation in Africa, before turning to comment on the recent proposals for middle-income debtors, which are specifically mentioned in the motion. I have often said before that the key to Africa's economic recovery lies in the policies pursued by African Governments. More and more are now pursuing economic reform programmes agreed with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. There are also encouraging signs that economic performance in recent years has been better in those countries which have adopted adjustment programmes than in those which have not.
However, we have long recognised that many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, with incomes typically around $350 a head, will never be able to repay all the debts that they owe. We have played a part in recent initiatives to alleviate the debt burden of sub-Saharan Africa. In April 1987 we launched an initiative to help those poorest, most indebted countries, which were prepared to shoulder the difficult responsibility of restructuring their economies. The initiative called for the writing-off of old aid loans and the rescheduling of other official debt on concessional terms.
Britain has taken a lead in implementing the first part by cancelling nearly £1 billion of old aid loans or providing equivalent relief. The Chancellor's second proposal formed the basis of the agreement reached at the Toronto ecomomic summit in June 1988. Nine countries have now had their official debt rescheduled on concessional terms in the Paris Club and more are likely to follow in the next few months.
In the multilateral institutions, the Government have played their part in providing financial support for the poorest debtor countries pursuing economic reforms. We have agreed to provide up to £327 million over 14 years to subsidise loans from the International Monetary Fund's new enhanced structural adjustment facility. That is enough to subsidise one sixth of total lending and makes us the largest single contributor to the subsidy account. Seven of the poorest most heavily indebted countries already have programmes supported by that facility.
At the World Bank we have pledged £250 million over three years in association with the bank's special programme of assistance for Africa. I shall speak later of our specific contributions to the International Development Association, a subject referred to in terms in the motion and to which the hon. Member for Monklands, West referred at some length.

1169
The position of Latin American countries is very different from that which I have just described. Their incomes per head are typically five or six times as high as those in Africa. The bulk of their debt is owed to commercial banks. Given that they are starting from a higher base than African countries, it is even more true that prospects for growth depend on their economic policies. Economic reform can do more than debt reduction to improve the prospects for growth and for rising living standards. It can also do more than debt reduction schemes to help countries to overcome their debt difficulties. Sensible policies form the basis for a long-term recovery of creditworthiness. They are also important in meeting short-term financing needs. Confidence in a country's economic management will encourage investors to put their money into a country and will discourage residents from putting their savings elsewhere and adding to the problems of capital flight.
Mr. Stuart Holland: Surely the Minister recognises that one feature of the Brady plan is that it recognises that debt cannot be repaid. Is the Minister not aware that Brazil has halved its imports since 1981 and that that has had a major effect on United Kingdom exports? Studies, such as that carried out by Gabriel Palme of Cambridge university, have shown that up to a quarter of a million jobs in the United Kingdom have been lost because of forgone exports to indebted countries. Therefore, it is not simply a question of internal management, on which the Minister has made some substantive point, but a matter of looking at global trading as a whole.
Mr. Patten: May I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), say that if this is the last opportunity that the hon. Gentleman will have for intervening in one of my speeches, that makes this an even less happy day than would otherwise be the case, given that it is another birthday for me. I have always enjoyed the intellectual jousts that I have had with the hon. Gentleman in the House and I hope that the fact that he is moving to the humbler surroundings of Florence will not mean that we shall not have the opportunity of such exchanges in the future.
However, I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the Brady plan, to which I look forward to returning. I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman is right in what he says about our exports to Brazil. I think he will find that there has been hardly any change in the last few years.
Mr. Holland: What about Latin America?
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to Brazil. With me on the Government Front Bench is the Minister for Trade, who knows much more about these matters than I do, but I do not think the position is precisely as described by the hon. Gentleman.
Just as in Africa, debtors in Latin America require external finance to support their economic reforms. That is why we have supported the recent decisions of the IMF interim committee to encourage further voluntary debt reduction by the commercial banks. But that raises questions about the respective responsibilities of the public and private sectors. I do believe that the right sort of debt reduction can have an increasing role to play in meeting those financing needs.
1170
Many have called for what I consider the wrong sort of debt reduction—debt reduction brought about by taxpayers bailing out the banks. All along we have taken the view that management of their existing debts is a problem that banks must sort out with debtors. If the banks have lent unwisely, they must face the consequences.
In their negotiations with debtors, banks have developed a range of innovative financing arrangements. Some of those involve an element of debt reduction. Chile, for example, has reduced its debt by about a quarter, largely by means of a vigorous debt-equity programme. But overall, the impact of debt reduction has so far been small in comparison with the total stock of debt.
In the years since 1982, Governments have done a great deal to help middle income debtors. We have provided financial assistance through rescheduling Paris Club debts and providing new lending through the IMF and the World Bank. We have also maintained a strong commitment to an open multilateral trading system and general stability and growth in the world economy.
The consequence so far has been that Governments have done more than their share. Commercial banks have rescheduled principal payments. The Paris Club has been prepared to reschedule interest, too. Together with substantial new lending by the IMF and World Bank, this contribution from the official sector has provided far mote resources for debtor countries than the new money and debt reduction provided by the banks. Overall, while exposure of commercial banks to the 15 most heavily indebted countries has risen by 17 per cent., that of the public sector has risen by 107 per cent.—over six times as fast.
That injection of funds by Governments and the international institutions has given the banks some breathing space to restore their balance sheets. The danger of systemic collapse of the banking system has been averted. Banks are now in a position to increase the rate of debt reduction. But we believe that this remains a matter for commercial banks to negotiate with the countries concerned. To abandon now our policy that Governments should not finance reductions in bank debt will only increase the already disproportionate burden being borne by taxpayers.
The agreements reached at the IMF and World Bank spring meetings in discussion of Secretary Brady's proposals to which the hon. Member for Monklands, West referred in interesting terms, are designed to support this sort of voluntary negotiated debt reduction—what I referred to earlier as the right sort of debt reduction. Secretary Brady's initiative consisted of ideas for further work. It was not a blue print. The interim committee agreed, with United Kingdom support, that those ideas should be pursued further. It also reiterated the cardinal principals of the existing strategy—the need for fundamental and convincing economic reforms in debtor countries, the need for a case-by-case approach, and the principle that official creditors should not subsidise private lenders. It was agreed that the IMF and World Bank should set aside a part of their policy-based lending to facilitate debt reduction operations for countries undertaking sound economic reforms.
It was agreed that the two institutions should work out specific proposals to put to their respective boards, and we are now playing a full part in the further detailed work that is going on. No details have yet been decided. We are also participating fully in the international review of tax

1171
regulatory and accounting obstacles to debt reduction which Secretary Brady has proposed. In those further discussions, Britain will seek to ensure that, as agreed, official lending supported by the taxpayer will not substitute for private lending. We shall, therefore, be looking particularly carefully at proposals for additional interest support mechanisms. We want support for debt reduction to go where it can be effective—to countries undertaking strong economic reform programmes. We shall want to see——
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Private Members' Bills

  LICENSING AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for consideration read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Consideration deferred till Friday 26 May.
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I bring to the attention of the House the fact that the Bill has the full support of the Government and has been supported throughout the procedure. It is now clear that an English Tory Member has sabotaged a Scottish Bill and——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Nothing has occurred that is out of order.
  Mr. Hood: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just made the point that an English Tory Member has stabbed the Scottish people in the back.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order read for consideration in Committee.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Committee Friday 9 June.

  CONTROL OF LITTER (FINES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 May.
  Mr. Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear any of my hon. Friends object to the Bill. It has all-party support——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business to get through. Nothing has taken place that is out of order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that. Perhaps we can get on.
  Mr. Burns: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that that was not a point of order. Perhaps he will let us get on with the business.

  BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONORARY CITIZENSHIP) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.

  TROPICAL HARDWOODS (CONTROL) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 May.

  ABOLITION OF DOMESTIC RATES ETC. (SCOTLAND) ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 May.

  COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE (DAMAGE, ARBITRATION, PREVENTION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 June.

  GAMING MACHINES (PROBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.

  BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 June.

  FOOTBALL SPECTATORS (No.2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 June.

  HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 May.

  HOUSING ACT 1985 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  ROAD TRAFFIC (BREATH TESTS) BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [24 February].
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  HARE COURSING BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  REQUIREMENTS OF WRITING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  FIRE SAFETY INFORMATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 9 June.

  RIDERS OF EQUINE ANIMALS (WEARING OF PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 19 May.
  Mr. Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry if I caused any confusion with my earlier point of order. I was merely going to ask whether it would be possible for you to read the title of my Control of Litter (Fines) Bill again: I do not believe that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) could possibly have objected to it, as so many people—including Labour Members and Labour local authorities—support——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that I had made it clear to the hon. Gentleman when he sought to pursue a similar point earlier that it was not a point of order. Nothing that has happened has been out of order.

Post Office
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville]
2.35 pm
Mr. John Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for responding to this debate. Our two earlier debates were answered by two Ministers with the same name: at least this one provides some variety from the plethora of Pattens.
I am not sure how much experience my hon. Friend has of his post going astray, but he lives, I believe, in one of the longest-inhabited castles in the land, so perhaps the Post Office has had time to get it right in his case. Sadly, that is not most people's experience. I believe that Woodrow Wilson once said that people would endure their tyrants for years but would tear their deliverers to pieces. I do not know whether he had postal deliveries in mind, but I know that some of my constituents have.
The Post Office is a topical subject this week. All sorts of things have been delivered that should not have been, with the Leader of the Opposition—if he is to be believed—receiving mail that the Post Office denies having delivered at all. Too often, however, the postal service can only be described as hopeless, and typical of a service that has no competition.
Competition is not, I suggest, a political panacea, but it has a good track record in achieving higher quality at lower cost. Let me quote from that gospel that I am sure my hon. Friend takes nightly to bed with him, the Conservative manifesto:
"The Conservative Government has created a framework in which once again enterprise can flourish—by cutting red tape, by denationalising state-owned companies, by removing unnecessary restrictions … by keeping down prices through extending competition, and by ensuring access to open trade".
I can almost hear my hon. Friend singing that refrain into his shaving mirror every day. The manifesto goes on:
"Competition forces the economy to respond to the needs of the consumer. It promotes efficiency, holds down costs, drives companies to innovate and ensures that customers get the best possible value for money."
All that is true, unless we are talking about the postal service.
The manifesto also says:
"We have fostered a new spirit of enterprise"—
except, as it should have confessed, in the Post Office. It says:
"The British instinct is for choice and independence"—
unless, apparently, we want to post a letter.
Why, I ask my hon. Friend, have we been so timid about bringing the consumer the benefits of competition in the postal service? Who is frightened of competition? Surely it is not my hon. Friend, and surely it is not the Government. Can it really be the chairman and board of the Post Office? Only a few years ago I remember talking to senior Post Office executives who were excited at the prospect of privatisation and gearing up to win in a competitive world. I wonder what has happened to those people. Are they now terrified by the idea of giving the British public a bit of choice? Have the men of enterprise become the mice of protectionism—or, as my hon. Friend might say, have the lions become donkeys? I fear that they have. My constituents think that they have, and they do not like it.
I have already raised the non-deliveries over Christmas, the anti-consumer decision to close sub-post offices
1176
because bureaucratic tidiness is valued more highly than customer satisfaction, and the cost to business of lost letters. One mail order firm tells me that it loses £1.2 million worth of packages every year, and the Periodical Publishers Association, which spends £90 million a year on post, says that less than 50 per cent. of items posted first-class arrive the next day. I refer my hon. Friend to the response given last November in the House by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs who, when asked about disruptive postal services in London, confirmed that:
"during the period November 1987 to October 1988, there have been a total of 55 industrial disputes within the letters business, four within the parcels business and eight within the counters business which affected postal services in the numbered London postal districts".—[Official Report, 8 November 1988, Vol. 140, c. 139.]
I am tired of raising the issue of lost letters, late deliveries and diminishing service to the public. Surely, it does not have to be that way. Surely, there must be a better way. If the Post Office does not believe me, it should ask the Post Office. It is that very same Post Office which today resists public choice that, in 1981, faced up to the newly competitive world of express mail and produced a winner in Datapost. As a result, we have choice of courier, reliability of service and reasonable cost. Jobs have been created in the private sector and, by and large, consumers are satisfied. That should have been no great surprise, because parcels have always benefited from competition. The Post Office has never had a parcels monopoly. As a result, it has had to provide a service that competes in cost and quality with the best of the private sector alternatives.
Will my hon. Friend announce today the timetable for launching the parcels service into the private sector? I presume that the appointment as its managing director of the former managing director of DHL, Mr. Nelson, was made with this in mind, but the timetable has been a long time coming. Likewise, the counter services should also be on their way to the private sector. We await the date for their lift off into free enterprise.
I should have thought that the success of the Government's 1981 policy on express mail and the lessons of competition in parcels, would be part of the catechism for DTI Ministers and officials. I am sorry to say that I am not sure that that is the case. The latest DTI report, produced by the wonderfully entitled Institute of Logistics and Distribution Management, does not seem to be aware of the success that has been achieved in this area. For example, it calls for the creation of a working party to monitor the industry and identify its needs when such a working party not only exists, but is chaired by the DTI. It proposes taxpayers' support for research initiatives, when the industry is quite happy to continue to finance its many research projects out of its own money.
My task today is to tempt my hon. Friend down the path of competitive righteousness and away from protectionist leftishness. As he knows, in 1981 the postal monopoly was suspended for letters and packages for which there was a charge of £1 or more. That is clearly too expensive to attract customers, and so it is uneconomic for firms to set up to provide an alternative service. That £1 requirement could be abolished without any threat to the Post Office. A 5p levy could be charged, as suggested in the report of the London School of Economics, so that the Post Office was compensated for its rural and so-called uneconomic services, and a viable choice would emerge for the public in many parts of the country.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised the spectre of uneconomic rural areas. Is he aware that research shows that it is cheaper to deliver mail in rural areas because there more labour is available and there is no problem of Postman Pat's van travelling through crowded streets. Therefore, that is a complete non-argument.
Mr Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that valid point. At the moment, I am merely seeking to bend over backwards to show that there is no threat implied to the Post Office in terms of the cost to it of continuing these services. I hope that my hon. Friend's point will be logged at Post Office headquarters and the DTI.
I hope that the Minister will soon respond to the LSE report. For now, I shall put aside the more comprehensive proposal and ask for at least a step in the right direction. Let me ask for half a loaf now, and let us settle for a 50p requirement.
As I understand it—my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to confirm this—that has been agreed in principle. Therefore, what are we waiting for? Not even the chairman of the Post Office could conceivably object to that modest step towards customer satisfaction. It will hardly threaten the mighty Post Office. After all, good as it is, the private sector handles just 25 million items a year, while the Post Office handles 50 million a day. Projections are for mail to increase from 1·8 billion items a year to 2·5 billion, so there is plenty of scope for everyone.
If we move towards a world of postal alternatives we begin to free the public from being held to ransom by industrial disputes. In theory, the Secretary of State now has the power to lift the partial monopoly in the event of a postal strike, but he has not chosen to do so on any occasion to date—and what if he did? Who would come galloping to the rescue with an alternative service? I suspect that nothing would happen and that there would be a deafening silence, because no one has been allowed to set up even an embryonic competitive business. If we had a limited choice there would be some point in lifting the monopoly completely in the event of a strike; and perhaps it would make a strike less likely in the first place.
Internationally, we do not suffer from the same sort of monopoly as we do domestically, but threats are being realised and opportunities to liberalise the international post missed. We have two more years of the presidency of the Euro Centre for Post and Telecoms—the CEPT—and I hope that we will use them to promote a new liberal framework. I understand that there will be an opportunity to do that this autumn at the Universal Postal Union congress.
For example, the situation surrounding Remail needs clarifying. Remail seeks the best mix of post and courier services, here and abroad, for the consumer, and the simplest way to achieve that would be to remove article 23 of the UPU convention, which is a bar to Remail and must surely be contrary to the treaty of Rome, at least in spirit and possibly in law.
Substantial business is at risk. I know of one firm which earns £150 million a year from this service. While we are at it, perhaps we can give the private sector parity of treatment with the Post Office at airports and customs. Why do we require courier parcels to have triplicate forms travelling separately from the parcel, while Post Office
1178
parcels get by with a single sticker? And why is trans-shipment not possible for the private sector without having to go through Customs twice?
Overall, there is a danger of the DTI protecting the Post Office from the Department's own competition policy. Not content with smothering competition at home, it seems that the Post Office is setting out to stitch up the European market with its counterparts in other EC countries. Its purpose is to keep out unwanted competition from the private sector. Our couriers have lodged a formal complaint with the Commission, and it seems likely that the Post Office will be singled out as the leader of an anti-competitive ring. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will not defend that, and I trust that his Department has submitted evidence in support of the couriers' case.
We also await, I believe, a European green paper on postal services. Its purpose is to consider whether a postal monopoly should be permitted. Again, I hope that the Government are resisting this idea with their customary vigour. We should instead be putting forward a regime of developing competition, based on 1981 steps that were found so successful, and the steps that I hope my hon. Friend will be able to announce for the British market.
With 1992 on the way, the Post Office and its British competitors ought to be competing for business throughout Europe. I am sure that private sector firms would be eager to do so, but, sad to say, the Post Office seems to want to stay at home and put up the shutters.
Britain can be proud of its postal achievements in the past and it can be proud of the success of the express service industry, public and private, that has resulted from the Government's deregulation in 1981. We need the same success for the post. Perhaps the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should have a look at the postal monopoly—it seems to be looking at everything else—but, meanwhile, I ask my hon. Friend to make market sense of the exemption level and reduce it to 50p.
Finally, as a postcript, will my hon. Friend explain why we perpetuate a unique restrictive practice within our own Palace of Westminster? If a courier delivers here, every envelope must have a stamp in addition to the cost of the hand delivery. That is one Post Office monopoly at which even the Post Office must blush with embarassment. I suggest that we consign it to the history books.
2.48 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): I am glad to have this opportunity of standing in for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs to reply to the cogent and effective speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). The House well knows that he has a long record of attention to the failings of the Post Office and of vigorous action on behalf of his constituents and other consumers to try to correct them. As recently as February of this year he set out his views in a speech introducing a ten-minute Bill. No person could honestly deny sharing many of the feelings that he has articulated, either in principle or from personal experience.
Equally, we must recognise that the Post Office is more than just another nationalised industry. The length of time for which it has been in existence, its pioneering role in world postal services and its historical links with the Crown make it a national institution. Its services are

1179
available to all members of the population and all have an interest in securing its efficient and effective operation. We often take for granted aspects of it which are far from the norm in other countries. We have the privilege of letters and parcels being delivered to our doors, wherever in the United Kingdom we live. That involves calling on more than 23 million private and business addresses.
Moreover, since Rowland Hill established the penny post in 1840, we have had a universal tariff so that it costs no more to send a letter from Lands End to John O'Groats than it does to send one from my hon. Friend at Westminster to his constituency in Battersea. However, my hon. Friend raised an interesting point about the cost of rural deliveries, which I had not heard, but we shall certainly take it into account. It defies ready acceptance that it should cost less to send a letter from London to Caithness than from London to Battesea, but I should certainly welcome further information on that.
It is not widely realised that there is no statutory obligation on the Post Office to charge a single tariff for all letters of the same class and weight, irrespective of the distance carried; but it has always done so as a matter of custom and practice for the past 150 years, although it is argued that such equality of treatment is uneconomic.
Mr. Bowis: I wonder whether the same principle is applied to the parcels service where there is competition and therefore a better public service.
Mr. Clark: Parcels are delivered all over the United Kingdom at the same cost. The price varies only in relation to their weight and in some cases to their size, but the tariff is universal whatever the distance.
Since it ceased to be a Government Department and became a public corporation some 20 years ago, the Post Office has transformed itself into a profitable organisation, run on commercial lines. It has had a sustained run of profitability for at least 10 years. In each of the last two financial years it made profits of well over £100 million. It has managed to sustain that high level of performance while maintaining letter tariffs which compare very favourably with those of other European countries, some of which do not even aim to provide such a high basic level of service. That improved performance, and the economic recovery of recent years have combined to create a rapid increase in demand for postal services during the past 10 years.
Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend has just put forward an argument for the retention of any monopoly. Any monopoly can produce what it calls a competitive price, but how do we know whether that price is competitive when there is no competition?
Mr. Clark: I do not know whether I mentioned a competitive price. However, it is perfectly true that it should not be hard for monopolies to produce profits. At present, the Post Office handles some 46 million individually addressed letters every day. In the course of 1987–88 it handled 40 per cent. more letters than it had done a decade ago, and 25 per cent. more parcels, with growth—particularly in letter services—expected to continue. That growth has undoubtedly presented a
1180
challenge to Post Office management and employees in terms of meeting the need simultaneously to maintain and improve quality of service and targets.
Against that background, there has been an unfortunate rise in the level of disruption by the work force. There has been a high level of localised disruption, often an unofficial response to changes in working practices. In the financial year 1988–89 there were 278 disputes in Royal Mail Letters, resulting in the loss of more than 1 million working days. Industrial action on that scale has had an impact on the Post Office's financial position, the volume of business it handles and the quality of service to the consumer. The strike had an effect on letter delivery performance that far outweighed the duration of the strike—or at any rate it uses that as an excuse. In the previous financial year, 1987–88, letter delivery performance improved to its highest ever level—an average of 88.7 per cent. of first-class letters met the Post Office's target of being ready for delivery by day B, the day after date-stamping, with approximately 95 per cent. of second-class letters ready for delivery by day D, the third day after date-stamping.
Those figures fell short of the Post Office's letter performance targets of 90 per cent. ready for delivery by day B for first-class letters and 96 per cent. ready by day D for second-class letters. The strike affected first-class letter performance in particular for some months. This year's performance has sunk below the level that I mentioned earlier.
Perhaps more important, the small print of those criteria refers to "ready for delivery", which is not the same as "delivered". It is a let-out for the Post Office, which possibly explains the fact that it manages to discharge its functions up to the target that it has given itself of up to 90 per cent. It may explain why, in our experience, first-class letters are unreliable almost to the point that one can no longer use them for any serious transaction and assume that one's correspondent will receive the news or document within 24 hours.
The undertaking that second-class letters will be ready for delivery by day D is a pretty feeble target. Irritatingly, it is widely rumoured that second-class post is often not delivered, even when it is ready to be delivered and no first-class post is standing in front of it, simply because, I am searching for a euphemism but am forced to fall back on the adjective "bureaucracy", says that it is within the target that they should be delivered on day D and therefore they must wait until day D.
The letters business employs 160,000 staff. The Post Office has been experiencing difficulties over the past 18 months recruiting and retaining staff in areas in which demand for labour is high, which has had an effect on the efficiency of its service.
Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend has listed the Post Office's delivery problems. Some hon. Members have been raising such problems for years. I refer my hon. Friend to when the matter was raised with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who said:
"The Post Office has a monopoly and if this kind of thing continues we shall have to consider … reducing the monopoly threshold from the present level of £1."—[Official Report, 1 December 1988; Vol. 142, c. 871.]
That was December and we are now in May. Is it not time to act?
Mr. Clark: The speed with which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister moves is sometimes subject to criticism. If my hon. Friend wishes to press her to act more speedily, I suggest that he takes advantage of the bi-weekly occasions when she answers questions.
My hon. Friend's most recent intervention illustrates the fact that there are those who argue that the only way in which the Post Office can be efficient and genuinely responsive to consumers' needs is to subject it to a greater degree of competition by abolishing its statutory monopoly over the conveyance of letters and/or subjecting it to market disciplines through privatisation.
Some increase in competition could be achieved by reducing the current £1 monopoly threshold. Plainly, to take it as far as the standard minimum tariff or below would effectively eliminate the monopoly. But we do keep under consideration the topic of a further reduction in the threshold and, were specific proposals to be made, this is a subject on which we should be obliged to consult the Post Office—that is to say, the board and the chairman. We have also reaffirmed on several occasions our readiness to suspend the monopoly in the event of industrial disruption which resulted in a serious decline in the quality of the letter service.
1182
My hon. Friend has referred on previous occasions to the privatisation of the Post Office. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during the last general election campaign that privatisation of the Royal Mail was not contemplated because of its special character. What I have said about the role of the letter service in the community bears that out, I hope. However, there are other aspects and functions of the Post Office that are generally understood to be outwith the definition of the Royal Mail.
I hope that my hon. Friends will be able to draw some encouragement from what I have said. I leave it to them to interpret it, using their own decoding devices. The Post Office's performance and the measures that it is taking to improve its quality of service are being watched closely and will be valuable as testimony in helping us to decide what further developments are in the best interests of the community and the consumer. I reassure the House that we are constantly considering practical ways in which to encourage the Post Office to become even more efficient and to provide an even more effective service.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Three o'clock.

WALES

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent by his Department on advertisements on commercial television in each of the last live years, listed by each television company.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The Department's only spending on television advertising during this period was £20,000 on the Welsh element of the misuse of drugs campaign. Details of spending with individual television companies is commercially confidential.

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends the Welsh Office agricultural department to make available to farmers throughout Wales application forms for grants under the farm and conservation grant scheme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The appropriate forms are now available.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the figures for investment by the Welsh Development Agency since its inception.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 5 May 1989]: Capital investment on mainstream Welsh Development Agency programmes is as follows:

  £ million

  1976–77

  15

  1977–78

  26

  1978–79

  24

  1979–80

  22

  1980–81

  49

  1981–82

  48

  1982–83

  47

  1983–84

  44

  1984–85

  50

  1985–86

  43

  1986–87

  49

  1987–88

  71

  1988–89

  81

  The figures do not include the special provision of about £120 million which was made available to the WDA to tackle the needs of Wales arising from the steel closures in the late 1970s and early 1980s. For details of this provision, I refer to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) on 18 January 1988 at column 612.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Soviet Union
  Mr Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise as a matter of urgency in the current CSCE information forum the recent arrests of dissident publishers in the Soviet Union, and the terms of the new articles of the Soviet penal code published on 11 April.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The two Russians recently arrested for distributing material in Moscow were subsequently released.

  We are deeply disappointed by the 8 April decree containing amendments to Soviet criminal legislation. We are making this clear to the Soviet authorities both in Moscow and at the London information forum. We hope that the new Supreme Soviet, when constituted, will have the opportunity to alter the decree radically, so as to bring it into line with Soviet public statements and their international commitments.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy initiatives he intends to take with regard to the 1990 fourth review conference of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; how many preparatory committee meetings are expected to take place; and where such meetings are to be held.

  Mrs. Chalker
  There are three preparatory committees prior to the NPT review conference. The first took place in New York from 1 to 5 May. The second will be held from 11 to 18 September 1989, and the third from 23 April to 4 May 1990, both in Geneva. As a depositary power, we attach great importance to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and shall be working actively for a constructive and successful review conference.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what United Kingdom representation was present at the first preparatory committee meeting of the fourth review conference of the 1990 nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference; and if he will make a statement on its outcome.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom delegation at the first preparatory committee, held in New York from 1 to 5 May, consisted of four officials and was led by an official from the science, energy and nuclear department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The preparatory committee successfully resolved a number of administrative questions relating to the review conference.

TRANSPORT

  Railways (Investment)
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the volume of investment in railways in the United Kingdom, France and West Germany in 1987–88 and 1988–89; and what sum this investment represents per capita in each of these countries.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department has no readily available information on railway investment in France and West
  545
  Germany. The figures for rail investment by British Rail, Northern Ireland Railways and London Regional Transport are as follows:

  1987–88 Cash

  1988–89 Prices

  1988–89

  BR (£ million)

  526

  563

  596

  NIR (£ million)

  5

  5

  4

  LRT (£ million)

  274

  291

  271

  Total investment (£ million)

  805

  859

  871

  Investment per capita (£)

  14·14

  15·09

  15·30

  Notes:

  1. Per capita figures for both years are based on the mid-3;1987 figure for United Kingdom population of 56,937,000.

  2. 1988–89 figures are forecast outturn.

  3. The BR figures include investment in freightliners, BRML and BREL but exclude the laying of continuous welded track, which BR do not classify as investment.

  Airport (Essex)
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has been approached by any consortium seeking permission to build an airport on either Foulness Island or Maplin Sands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  No. My right hon. Friend has seen only press reports suggesting airport development off the Essex coast.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his long-term policy for airports includes the building of a new international airport in Essex, or offshore from the Essex coast.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The 1985 White Paper "Airports Policy" (Cmnd. 9542) set out the strategy for airport development in the south east to meet demand to the mid-1990s. This strategy did not include a new airport off the Essex coast but foreshadowed a substantial role for Stansted airport. My right hon. Friend is currently awaiting formal advice from the Civil Aviation Authority on the adequacy of airport capacity to 2005.

  A1
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce his conclusions on the inspector's report into the alterations to the A1 between Wetherby and Dishforth; and when work will commence on these improvements.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment hope to announce their decision in the summer.

  It is too early to give a reliable estimate of when works will commence. The date depends upon the time needed to complete the outstanding statutory procedures, which include publication of the compulsory purchase order.

  Toll Motorways
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has made of toll motorways on the European continent; and what are the conclusions in relation to their feasibility in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department keeps in touch with developments and experience in the operation of toll 546
  motorways in Europe. We are keen to encourage the private sector to come forward with proposals for privately funded roads. It will be up to promoters to consider the feasibility of such schemes, including any proposals for motorways. The Government will shortly issue a consultation paper on private finance for roads.

  Package Holidays
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is prepared to take to secure passenger comfort and redress against protracted delays and inconvenience for those travelling on package holidays by air.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At a conference held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last November to analyse air traffic congestion, airport authorities were asked to develop contingency plans to cope with delayed passengers. A number of important initiatives were proposed which were reported to a follow-up conference held by the Civil Aviation Authority in March. These included improved communications and passenger information within airports, additional accommodation and facilities, and the provision of entertainment. Plans are also being developed to provide passengers with advance information about delayed flights.

  Whether or not holidaymakers who suffer protracted delays are entitled to redress will depend on the terms of their contract with the tour operator and on any scales of compensation the tour operator may publish. It would ultimately be for the civil courts to resolve any disputed claim for compensation in respect of delays in the light of all the circumstances. It is possible for holidaymakers to take out insurance against protracted delays in certain circumstances.

  Birmingham Relief Road
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire of 3 November,Official Report, column 765, if he has yet received his inspector's report on the public inquiry held in May 1988 on his Department's proposals for the Birmingham northern relief road; and if he is yet able to make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Yes. It arrived last month and is being considered.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  County Courts (Jurisdiction)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General what changes he proposes in the use of rateable values as indications of jurisdiction in county court cases.

  The Attorney-General
  As part of the Government's programme for implementation of the civil justice review, announced on 6 April, the upper financial limit of the county courts' jurisdiction in actions for the recovery of land will be removed. Arrangements will be made for any transitional period there might be between the abolition of the domestic rating system and that of the county court limit, if this proves necessary.

  In some cases, however, it will still be necessary for the substance of a claim to be quantified, and various options are being considered by the Lord Chancellor.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will set up a study of the operation of the civil procedures related to domestic violence.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The Law Commission is carrying out a review of the courts' civil jurisdiction relating to domestic violence, other molestation and rights of occupation of the home. This review will examine both important areas of procedure and the remedies available. The commission hopes to issue a discussion paper later this year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Institute for Japanese-European Technology Studies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contribution has been made to the Institute for Japanese-European Technology Studies; and over what period contributions will continue to be made.

  Mr. Forth
  Neither the Department of Trade and Industry nor the Department of Education and Science has given specific financial support to the Institute for Japanese-European Technology Studies, but my Department welcomes this initiative and is represented on the institute's external advisory committee.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current level of inward investment in the United Kingdom; and what was the comparable figure for 1978.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The latest available information on the level of inward investment in the United Kingdom is given in table 9·1 of "The United Kingdom Balance of Payments —1988" (the CSO pink book). A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Advertising
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been spent by his Department on advertisements on commercial television in each of the last five years, listed by each television company.

  Mr. Forth
  I am advised by the Central Office of Information, through which the Department buys such advertising, that the detailed information requested is commercially confidental. The Department's total expenditure on television advertising in the last five years was as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  32,000

  1985–86

  nil

  1986–87

  nil

  1987–88

  4·6 million

  1988–89

  13·2 million

  1provisional.

  Iraq
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list, in real terms, the size of United Kingdom exports to Iraq for each of the last 10 years.
  548
  Mr. Alan Clark
  The value of exports to Iraq for each of the last 10 years is given in the following table. The information is not available in real terms.

  United Kingdom exports to Iraq 1979–88

  Value in £ millions

  Year

  Value

  1979

  201·2

  1980

  322·1

  1981

  623·9

  1982

  873·7

  1983

  399·9

  1984

  343·1

  1985

  444·7

  1986

  443·8

  1987

  271·7

  1988

  412·1

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Note:

  1988 figures are provisional.

  British Shipbuilders
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has received the annual report and accounts of British Shipbuilders for 1987–88.

  Mr. Newton
  In accordance with sections 17(9) and 18(6) of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, I am today laying before each House copies of British Shipbuilders' annual report and accounts for 1987–88.

  British Overseas Trade Board
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what criteria govern how the members of the British Overseas Trade Board, listed in the 1987–88 report from pages 32 to 38, treat their commercial interests when taking decisions as members of the British Overseas Trade Board; and whether a register of members interests is compiled and a financial declaration made where relevant.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: The British Overseas Trade Board advises on overseas trade and the official export promotion programme. The board itself does not take decisions on the provision of services or other forms of assistance to individual businesses and conflicts of interest do not therefore arise. Of the bodies listed in pages 32–38 of the annual report, only the Overseas Project Board considers matters involving official assistance to individual businesses, and members are specifically excluded from advising on cases in which they have an interest. A full register of members' directorships and financial interests is maintained by the Department.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the percentage of total pensioners' income in 1988 represented by the state retirement pension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. The 1986 family expenditure survey shows that 59 per cent. of pensioners' average gross income was derived from all social security benefits.

HEALTH

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish(a) details of the monitoring he intends to instigate on his reform programmes for the National Health Service, (b) which organisations will be carrying out which pieces of monitoring and (c) the criteria used for measuring success.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Health authorities will be expected to monitor progress on the review locally, and the NHS management executive will monitor progress over the country as a whole. The test of success will be the extent to which reforms help the NHS to provide better quality services for patients.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the extent to which places in refuges for victims of domestic violence are below the level of one family place, namely for a woman and her children, per 10,000 of population.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have any central records of the numbers of family places available in refuges. However, the national voluntary organisation, Women's Aid Federation (England), estimates that there are approximately 1,755 family places in women's refuges in the United Kingdom.

  This represents one family place per 25,844 of the population aged 16 and over.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental hospitals have been closed in the past year.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply 22 March 1989 c. 671]; The information requested is now available and is in the table. It comprises the mental illness hospitals/units which we are aware were approved for total closure in 1988.

  Hospital

  District

  Clifton

  York

  High Wick

  Southern Derbyshire

  Whitecroft

  Isle of Wight

  Hungerford

  West Berkshire

  Crossley

  Halton

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Industry (Employment)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for(a) the Yorkshire water authority and (b) the Severn Trent water authority, how many people were employed in the water industry in 1979, 1985 and each subsequent year to date.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The information is published in "Waterfacts 1988," a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  Stack Emission Tests
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the results of stack emission tests carried out by HMIP on industrial plants.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The results of tests carried out by HMIP on emissions to the atmosphere are not generally published because many of them are of an investigative nature rather than routine tests for compliance with emission limit values. Test results are often summarised for individual premises in the district annual reports that are made available locally.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will discuss with local authorities ways of increasing the number of refuges for the victims of domestic violence and of providing them with more adequate and secure funding.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is for individual authorities to assess the local need for refuges and to make, or encourage others to make, appropriate provision. We give support to refuges through the urban programme and housing investment programmes, and the Housing Corporation also funds refuges provided by housing associations.

  Peak District National Park
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether the Peak District national park can remain in satisfactory condition within the financial provision currently available; and what further moneys will be made available in the current and succeeding financial years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In determining the amount of national parks supplementary grant in respect of each national park authority's expenditure, my right hon. Friend takes account of the authorities' detailed functional strategies and the recommendations of the Country-side Commission. NPSG for the Peak District national park for 1989–90 is £2,461,900, an increase of 10·3 per cent. over 1988–89 and 25 per cent. higher in real terms than the park's settlement in 1979. I cannot anticipate future years' settlements.

  Nuclear Plants (Sites)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications of the European Court decision of September 1988 over implementation of the Euratom treaty article 37 in regard to the Electricité de France nuclear plant at Cattenom for future United Kingdom nuclear plant siting.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no implications for the United Kingdom.

  Land Register
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Hams of 26 April,Official Report, column 937, if he will breakdown the 37,805 acres by ownership and region and if he will give details in each case as to how the land came to be placed on the register.
  551
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: I have placed tables in the Library giving a breakdown by owner and region of land added to the register in 1984–88. There are separate tables for land subsequently removed from the register before the end for 1988 and for land still on the register at the end of 1988.

  The land was entered on the register because information supplied by the owners indicated that it satisfied the conditions set out in section 95(2) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Books and equipment (separate figures for hooks and equipment not available)

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Special schools

  Year

  Cash £

  Real terms £

  Index

  Cash £

  Real terms £

  Index

  Cash £

  Real terms £

  Index

  1978–79

  10·40

  21·22

  100

  22·88

  46·69

  100

  24·32

  49·63

  100

  1979–80

  12·05

  21·04

  99

  25·24

  44·08

  94

  26·65

  46·55

  94

  1980–81

  12·34

  18·18

  86

  25·73

  37·91

  81

  30·96

  45·62

  92

  1981–82

  14·37

  19·27

  91

  29·22

  39·20

  84

  38·34

  51·43

  104

  1982–83

  14·63

  18·32

  86

  30·62

  38·34

  82

  38·11

  47·72

  96

  1983–84

  15·08

  18·07

  85

  31·74

  38·03

  81

  41·83

  50·12

  101

  1984–85

  16·37

  18·77

  88

  34·26

  39·29

  84

  46·38

  53·19

  107

  1985–86

  17·14

  18·54

  87

  36·40

  39·38

  84

  46·13

  49·91

  101

  1986–87

  18·30

  19·21

  90

  42·14

  44·24

  95

  67·77

  71·15

  129

  1987–88

  19·94

  19·94

  94

  47·92

  47·92

  103

  84·78

  84·78

  171

  Queen's University
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the total number of applications for post-graduate certificate of education courses received by Queens' university, Belfast for courses commencing 1986, 1987 and 1988 were for physics, chemistry and mathematics; and what level of qualifications they had already obtained.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Numbers of applications were as follows:

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Physics

  38

  40

  34

  Chemistry

  50

  59

  62

  Mathematics

  56

  63

  59

  Information about the level of qualifications of applicants is not available.

  Youth Training Programme
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the 1989–90 financial allocations to Northern Ireland's education and library boards for YTP schemes; and how much of this has been allocated by each board for special needs provision.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The board's estimates of YTP expenditure for 1989–90 have only recently been received by the Department of Education and are now under consideration. I hope to be able to advise the hon. Gentleman of the allocations approved and the amounts included for special needs provision later this month.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  School Expenditure
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing the latest figure for expenditure per pupil on(a) books and (b) equipment and comparable figures for each year since 1978–79 in (i) primary schools, (ii) secondary schools and (iii) special schools in cash and real terms using an index of 100 for 1978–79.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

PRIME MINISTER

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will co-ordinate ministerial action to ensure that victims of domestic violence receive full information regarding the legal, counselling and housing help that is available for them.

  The Prime Minister
  Information about the help available to victims of domestic violence is best provided locally. Some statutory and voluntary organisations already issue leaflets. The ministerial group on women's issues is co-ordinating Government action and will consider outstanding needs when it meets on 15 June to discuss the recently published Home Office research on this subject.

  British Intelligence (History)
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Prime Minister when publication of the official history of British intelligence in the second world war will be completed.

  The Prime Minister
  Volumes I, II and III of the official history of British intelligence in the second world war by Professor Sir Harry Hinsley and others have been published; part 2 of volume III was published in February 1988. Volume IV (security and counter-intelligence) by Sir Harry Hinsley and Mr. C. A. G. Simkins and Volume V (strategic deception) by Professor Sir Michael Howard are being prepared for publication towards the end of this year or early next year.

  Efficiency Unit (Scrutiny)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister what topics have been covered in the efficiency unit's scrutiny programme in the last financial year.
  553
  The Prime Minister
  The 1988–89 programme of scrutinies carried out in association with the efficiency adviser and the efficiency unit are:

  Cabinet Office

  Government economic statistics

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise

  Administration of the integrated tariff

  Running cost implications of information technology

  British Council

  Inward visits

  Ministry of Defence

  MOD support for military associated functions at schools and universities

  Defence accommodation stores

  Department of Employment

  Inspection rating system (HSE)

  Fraud investigation (with DSS)

  Department of the Environment

  Control of administrative expenditure in non-Departmental public bodies

  Home Office

  Grants made under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966

  Magistrates' courts

  Inland Revenue

  Schedule D procedures

  Internal post

  Northern Ireland Office

  Land Registry

  Overseas Development Administration

  Administration of aid-tying rules (with DTI)

  Scottish Office

  Prison buildings

  Department of Social Security

  Fraud investigation (with DE)

  (Under Franchise Programme) Overseas branch (Newcastle central office)

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Administration of aid-tying rules (with ODA)

  DTI economic statistics

  Further topics for scrutinies are being discussed with Departments.

  A number of other scrutinies are also being conducted according to full scrutiny disciplines and with guidance from the efficiency unit:

  Metropolitan Police

  Civil staff recruitment and retention

  Police abstractions from duty

  Provincial Police Forces

  Scenes of crime function

  Driver training

  Communications

  Sick absence

  Transport management

  Community relations

  Attendance at court

  Stores and printing

DEFENCE

  Japanese Companies (Collaboration)
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of any projects worked in collaboration with Japanese companies.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence is involved in no such projects.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation and National Insurance
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify the distribution of gains in the 554
  Budget from each item where (a) tax or (b) national insurance changes were made other than normal indexation, according to income bands as follows: less than £5,000 per year, £5,000 to £7,500, £7,500 to £10,000, £10,000 to £12,500, £12,500 to £15,000, £15,000 to £20,000, £20,000 to £30,000, £30,000 to £50,000 and above £50,000; and if he will indicate the percentage of total (a) tax and (b) national insurance changes accruing to each group and the percentage of the total numbers of (a) taxpayers and (b) national insurance that each group comprises.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: The changes in income tax rates and allowances other than those for indexation are the changes to age allowances and withdrawal rate. They will cost about £15 million in 1989–90. About 15 per cent. of this cost will go to taxpayers with income less than £5,000; about half to those with incomes between £5,000 and £10,000 and the rest to those with incomes between £10,000 and £14,000. The total number of taxpayers who will benefit is about half a million; about 2 per cent. of all taxpayers. Further information is not available.

  The required information for national insurance contribution in the year 1990–91 (the first full year of the proposed NICs structure) is estimated to be as follows:

  Distribution of NICs gains and gainers in 1990–91

  Earnings1 £000s

  Gains £ billion

  Gains per cent.

  Numbers2per cent.

  <5·0

  0·15

  5

  13

  5– 7·5

  0·30

  11

  14

  7·5–10·0

  0·55

  20

  17

  10·0–12·5

  0·50

  18

  16

  12·5·15·0

  0·40

  15

  13

  15·0–20·0

  0·50

  18

  15

  20·0–30·0

  0·30

  10

  9

  30–0·40·0

  0·05

  1·5

  1·5

  40·0+

  0·05

  1·5

  1·5

  Total

  2·80

  100

  100

  1 Earners with weekly earners below the weekly lower earnings limit assumed for 1990–91 are ignored. Insufficient information is available on those earning £50,000 and above and so the table shows figures for £40,000 and above.

  2 Numbers are of national insurance class 1 standard rate contributors earning in excess of the lower earnings limit.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to his answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, of 25 April,Official Report, column 470, if he will list any rules relating to the holding of Government debt by insurance companies and pension funds.

  Mr. Lilley
  I still do not know which rules the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If he would care to write to me about this matter, I would be happy to respond.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers of Inland Revenue tax returns issued and received in each year from 1979 to the latest year available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: The approximate numbers of personal tax returns issued at the start of every tax year from 1979–80 onwards are as follows:
  555

  (millions)

  1979–80

  9·79

  1980–81

  9·11

  1981–82

  8·35

  1982–83

  7·88

  1983–84

  8·00

  1984–85

  7·92

  1985–86

  7·64

  1986–87

  7·35

  1987–88

  7·30

  1988–89

  7·31

  1989–90

  7·97

  No central record is available of the number of returns received.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for 1979 and 1987–88 the number of cases of tax fraud detected for which the amount recovered exceeded(a) £100,000, (b) £500,000 and (c) £1,000,000.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: The numbers of settlements in cases of tax fraud, categorised by the amounts recovered, including appropriate interest and penalties, were:

  1988–89

  £

  100,000 – 500,000

  517

  500,001 – 1,000,000

  32

  over 1,000,000

  18

  Figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report the total number of Inland Revenue staff currently employed in investigating tax fraud, and the number employed in 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: Inland Revenue resources, expressed as units of full-time staff, employed in investigating tax fraud are:

  Number

  Year to 31 October 19801

  1,265

  Year to 31 March 1989

  2,752

  1 The earliest year for which figures are available.

  Estimated Number of Tax Units1 (millions)

  Not liable to income tax

  Liable to income tax at reduced rate only

  Liable to income tax at basic rate (excluding higher rate taxpayers)

  Liable to income tax at higher rate

  All tax units

  Aged2 units

  1978–79

  4·4

  1·0

  1·4

  0·1

  6·9

  1988–89

  5·0

  —

  2·4

  0·2

  7·6

  1989–90

  4·9

  —

  2·4

  0·2

  7·5

  All tax units

  1978–79

  7·7

  3·1

  17·6

  0·7

  29·1

  1988–89

  110

  —

  19·9

  1·3

  32·2

  1989–90

  11·0

  —

  19·8

  1·5

  32·3

  Tax Investigations
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of Inland Revenue tax investigations settled(a) with and (b) without prosecution for tax recovered between (i) £0·1 million and £0·5 million, (ii) £0·5 million and £1·0 million and (c) over £1·0 million from 1979 to the most recent year available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 May 19891: (a). No records are kept of the total amounts of tax recovered from investigations which result in prosecution. However, the numbers of prosecutions categorised by the amounts of tax in respect of the matters brought before the court, were:

  1979

  1988–89

  100,000–500,000

  3

  6

  500,001–1,000,000

  —

  1

  over 1,000,000

  —

  —

  Figures for intervening years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (b). The Inland Revenue keeps records of total settlements only (that is, tax plus interest penalties where appropriate). Details of settlements categorised by amounts of tax alone could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report the numbers of staff currently in post in the Inland Revenue division dealing with schedule D evasion.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: The number of Inland Revenue staff, expressed as full-time units, employed in dealing with Schedule D evasion for the year ended 31 March 1989 is 2,135.

  Tax Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will give the number of tax units(a) not liable to income tax, (b) liable to income tax at the basic rate and (c) liable to tax at rates higher than the basic rate in (i) 1978–79, (ii) 1988–89 and 1989–90;

  (2) if he will give the number of tax units over pensionable age (a) not liable to income tax, (b) liable to income tax at the basic rate and (c) liable to tax at rates higher than the basic rate in 1978–79, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answers 8 May 1989]: Estimates are given in the tables.
  557

  1 Single people and married couples.

  2 Single people aged 65 and over and married couples in which one or both members are aged 65 or over.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report the amount and share of pre-tax income accruing to (a) the top one per cent., (b) the top five per cent., (c) the top ten per cent., (d) the top 25 per cent., (e) the bottom 70 per cent., (f) the bottom five per cent. and (g) all taxpayers in each year 1978–79 to 1988–89 and the amount and share of tax liability for each of these groups.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: Estimates are given in the tables for 1978–79 and 1983–84 to 1988–89. Information for other years could be provided

  Group of taxpayers

  Top 1 per cent.

  Top 5 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  Top 25 per cent.

  Bottom 70 per cent.

  All taxpayers

  Year

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Share per cent.

  Amount £ billion

  Gross incomes before tax

  1978–79

  5·1

  5

  15·0

  15

  24·3

  24

  45·9

  45

  51·0

  50

  102·8

  1983–84

  9·7

  6

  28·3

  16

  45·0

  26

  81·7

  47

  82·0

  47

  173·7

  1984–85

  10·9

  6

  31·4

  17

  49·6

  26

  89·3

  47

  88·8

  47

  188·8

  1985–86

  12·9

  6

  35·7

  17

  55·9

  26

  100·5

  47

  100·0

  47

  212·6

  1986–87

  15·1

  7

  40·8

  17

  63·2

  27

  112·5

  48

  107·3

  46

  232·9

  1987–881

  16·7

  7

  45·2

  18

  70·1

  27

  124·5

  49

  116·7

  46

  255·8

  1988–891

  19·0

  7

  51·3

  18

  79·4

  28

  140·4

  49

  129·8

  45

  286·5

  Income tax liabilities

  1978–79

  2·3

  11

  4·9

  24

  7·0

  34

  11·5

  57

  7·7

  38

  20·2

  1983–84

  3·8

  11

  8·5

  26

  12·2

  36

  19·5

  58

  12·5

  38

  33·4

  1984–85

  4·2

  12

  9·3

  26

  13·3

  38

  21·1

  60

  12·4

  35

  35·4

  1985–86

  5·0

  13

  10·6

  27

  14·8

  38

  23·2

  60

  13·6

  35

  38·8

  1986–87

  6·2

  14

  12·7

  29

  17·3

  40

  26·5

  61

  14·5

  34

  43·3

  1987–881

  6·9

  15

  14·0

  31

  18·8

  41

  28·4

  62

  14·8

  32

  45·6

  1988–891

  6·0

  13

  13·5

  29

  18·6

  40

  28·6

  62

  15·2

  33

  46·4

  1 Provisional; Includes estimates of occupational pension contributions and Investment Income not reported to tax offices.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report the total amount of tax recovered from tax investigations in each of the individual cases where the recovered amount exceeded £1 million.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: The total amount of tax recovered from the 43 investigation cases settled in 1988–89 where in each case the amount recovered exceeded £1 million was £132 million.

  Married man with non-earning wife and two children

  Multiples of average male earnings

  Proportion of gross earnings:

  ½

  1

  l½

  2

  3

  5

  10

  1978–79

  Income tax

  -4·1

  14·4

  20·6

  23·6

  32·0

  47·1

  64·7

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  5·6

  4·2

  2·8

  1·7

  0·8

  VAT

  —

  2·7

  2·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  Income tax

  -1·0

  12·0

  16·4

  18·4

  20·6

  22·4

  23·7

  NICs

  7·9

  8·4

  6·8

  5·1

  3·4

  2·0

  1·0

  VAT

  —

  5·0

  5·7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1978–79

  Income tax

  -11·l

  6·4

  15·2

  19·7

  25·9

  32·9

  50·6

  NICs

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  6·5

  5·4

  3·4

  1·7

  VAT

  —

  3·4

  3·4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  Income tax

  -10·6

  7·1

  13·1

  16·0

  19·0

  21·4

  23·2

  NICs

  5·4

  7·5

  8·3

  8·4

  6·8

  4·1

  2·0

  VAT

  —

  5·9

  6·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  558
  only at disproportionate cost. All estimates of income are based on information reported to tax offices and collected through the annual surveys of personal incomes. For years before 1985–86, estimates exclude employees' contributions to occupational pension schemes and some investment income on which tax is deducted at source. Estimates are based on the surveys of personal incomes for years up to 1986–87 and projections of the 1986–87 survey for subsequent years; the latter are, therefore, provisional.

  I regret that information on the bottom five per cent. of taxpayers is not available.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of gross income paid in income tax, national insurance contributions and value added tax by(a) a married man with a non-earning wife and two children and (b) a married man with an earning wife and two children at one half one and half, two, three, five and 10 times national average earnings in 1989–90; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: The information requested is in the table.
  559
  Notes:

  (1) Average male earnings in 1989–90 are assumed to be £273–10 per week, 7½ per cent. higher than in 1988–89. This represents a real increase of over 30 per cent. since 1978–79.

  (2) Child benefit is treated as a negative income tax.

  (3) Earners, including working wives, are assumed to pay Class 1 NI contributions at the contracted in rate. The figures for NI contributions are financial year averages.

  (4) The two earner couple is assumed to have joint earnings equal to the various multiples of average earnings, split between husband and wife in the ratio 60:40.

  (5) The estimates of VAT are derived from the 1985 Family Expenditure Survey and are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. Estimates cannot reliably be made outside the range of 75 per cent. to 150 per cent. of average male earnings.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing tax and national insurance contributions less child benefit, where appropriate, for 1989–90, and comparable figures for 1988–89 and 1978–79, with the multiples of average earnings as half, two-thirds, one, five and 10 times for (a) a married couple with part-time working spouse, (b) a married couple plus two children with part-time working spouse and (c) a single person.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: The information requested for a single person is given in the table. Figures for married couples with part-time working spouse have not been given, as they will depend on how much the part-time worker earns.

  Payments of income tax and national insurance contributions by a single person (£ per week) in current prices

  Multiples of average male earnings1

  ½

  ¾

  1

  5

  10

  1978–79

  10·93

  17·04

  29·25

  242·17

  625·97

  1988–89

  30·67

  45·10

  73·87

  459·94

  968·14

  21989–90

  31·53

  47·03

  77·96

  492·81

  1,039·01

  1 Full time males on adult rates (all occupations), using illustrative assumption of 7·5 per cent. growth in earnings between 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  2 Financial year average of pre- and post-October regimes for employees National Insurance Contributions.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer at the 1989–90 tax rates announced in the Budget of the married man's tax allowance in excess of the corresponding single person's allowance; how much of this cost is attributable to taxpayers aged below 65 years; and what is the weekly value of this extra relief to the married man paying income tax at the standard rate.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: The direct revenue cost, at 1989–90 levels of income, of the married man's allowance in excess of the single person's allowance is estimated at £4·9 billion, of which £4·1 billion is attributable to those aged under 65. The extra relief is worth £7·64 per week to a basic rate taxpayer not entitled to aged allowance.

  Budget Gainers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the gain per individual arising from each relevant component of the 1989 Budget, both at current prices and net of indexation for those at one half and three-quarters of average earnings, average earnings, and one and a half, two, five and 10 times average earnings; and if he will provide comparable figures for each budget since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 May 1989]: Individuals will benefit directly or indirectly from many
  560
  Budget measures. These gains will vary according to their specific circumstances, as well as their level of earnings, and it would be impracticable to attempt to estimate the effects of all the measures listed in table 4·1 of the 1989 Financial Statement and Budget Report, let alone for each Budget since 1979. Information on the effects of specific measures may be found in the press notices issued each Budget day by Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Medical Officers
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that any officers who have applied for medical officer training and are subject to disciplinary action are released as a matter of urgency.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The existence of disciplinary charges against prison officers awaiting transfer to hospital duties does not in itself preclude their posting. If the hon. Member has a specific case in mind, perhaps he could let me know.

  Police Arrests
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested by the police in the United Kingdom in 1988; how many of those arrested were cautioned and how many were charged, and if he will provide a breakdown by police force area.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information on arrests is given in the table. Numbers of persons who were cautioned and numbers prosecuted in each police force area for indictable offences are published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", supplementary tables: latest figures are for 1987 (table S3.7(a) for cautions and table S3.3(a) for prosecutions). The coverage of figures on arrests is wider than that of indictable offences, so arrests are not directly related to cautions or prosecutions. An arrest may not result in the arrested person being cautioned or prosecuted.

  England and Wales 1987

  Police force area

  Arrests1

  Avon and Somerset

  36,290

  Bedfordshire

  15,694

  Cambridgeshire

  17,239

  Cheshire

  23,310

  Cleveland

  24,670

  Cumbria

  14,591

  Derbyshire

  20,126

  Devon and Cornwall

  27,704

  Dorset

  13,478

  Durham

  21,762

  Essex

  35,140

  Gloucestershire

  12,428

  Greater Manchester

  109,963

  561

  Police force area

  Arrests1

  Hampshire

  52,052

  Hertfordshire

  20,538

  Humberside

  35,106

  Kent

  46,808

  Lancashire

  47,881

  Leicestershire

  20,945

  Lincolnshire

  17,282

  London City of

  3,702

  Merseyside

  54,088

  Metropolitan Police

  n.a.

  Norfolk

  17,232

  Northamptonshire

  14,193

  Northumbria

  60,206

  North Yorkshire

  16,656

  Nottinghamshire

  37,423

  South Yorkshire

  35,859

  Staffordshire

  34,585

  Suffolk

  12,010

  Surrey

  18,582

  Sussex

  32,448

  Thames Valley

  48,199

  Warwickshire

  10,625

  West Mercia

  25,027

  West Midlands

  93,562

  West Yorkshire

  70,640

  Wiltshire

  9,846

  Dyfed-powys

  8,803

  Gwent

  16,338

  North Wales

  18,092

  South Wales

  46,901

  England and Wales

  1,298,024

  1 Covers notifiable offences and some summary offences.

  n.a. Not available.

  Prison Officers Association
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he last met the chairman of the Prison Officers Association; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend last invited the chairman of the Prison Officers Association (POA) to meet him on 29 September 1988. Discussion centred on the urgent need for prison officers to end industrial action which was contributing significantly to the unacceptably high number of prisoners—around 1,700—then being held in police cells. A number of more general points were also discussed.

  Prisons (Disturbances)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the prisons in England and Wales where inmates have gone on to the prison roof during a disturbance within the prison during the last three years;

  (2) if he will list each prison in England and Wales where there has been a disturbance among inmates for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the three years up to 9 May, incidents involving a substantial number of inmates acting in concert and leading to significant damage occurred at the following prisons and remand centres:
  562
  10 May 1986 to 9 May 1987

  Her Majest's Prison, Wymott.

  10 May 1987 to 9 May 1988

  Her Majesty's Prison, Bedford.

  10 May 1988 to 9 May 1989

  Her Majesty's Prison, Ashwell.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Canterbury.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Haverigg.

  Her Majesty's Youth Custody Centre and Remand Centre, Hindley.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Lindholme.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Northeye.

  Her Majesty's Remand Centre, Risley.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Rollestone.

  Her Majesty's Prison, Swansea.

  Inmates climbed on to the roof during two of these incidents—at Risley and at Canterbury (where one inmate climbed on to the roof).

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will consult police chief constables about the value of appointing domestic violence liaison officers in every division;

  (2) if he will request police forces to have available an information leaflet on sources of help for victims of domestic violence and to offer it when appropriate.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall be exploring with chief officers the scope for fresh guidance to the police about these and other issues identified in the recent Home Office research study on domestic violence.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what protection is available to victims of domestic violence if the case goes to court and the assailant is released before the court hearing; and if he has any plans to increase protection.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A defendant may be released on bail subject to any conditions which are considered necessary to prevent his interfering with witnesses or committing offences. If he breaches the conditions of bail, he may be re-arrested. The police also have discretion to provide suitable protection to the victims or witnesses of alleged offences where they consider it necessary. We have no plans to increase the existing protection provided by the police and courts.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many areas the police are involved in a multi-agency approach to the problem of domestic violence; and if he will take steps to encourage such development.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Comprehensive information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but I understand that the majority of police forces have arrangements which include helping victims of domestic violence to contact other agencies which can provide help and support. We shall be considering with the police whether anything more needs to be done.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will request police chief constables to record domestic violence incidents separately and to ensure that a note is taken of whether violence is used or threatened;
  563
  (2) if he will take steps to improve the police system of recording statistics on domestic disputes and domestic violence: and if he will ensure that a record is kept of the number and nature of calls for assistance coming from individual households where there have been allegations of domestic violence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall include the collection and use of records of domestic violence in discussions with chief officers.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a comprehensive national survey, backed up by local surveys, of domestic violence so as to provide improved information on its prevalence, nature, causes, handling by the authorities, and effect on the victim and enable the identification of more effective preventative measures.

  Mr. John Patten
  The ministerial group on women's issues will consider the need for further research when it meets next month.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he has given to the police to use when assessing which cases of domestic violence are passed to the Crown prosecution service for its decision on prosecution.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The criteria to be applied when considering whether charges should be brought in cases involving domestic violence are the same as for any other offence.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a research study to investigate whether there is any difference in the likelihood of a police arrest when violence is domestic rather than non-domestic.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend will consider the possibility of research in the context of discussions with chief officers about domestic violence.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any information on the proportion of requests for assistance from the police that are due to a domestic dispute.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. Home Office records relate only to recorded crime, and not to all incidents to which the police are called.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is planning to reduce the escalation of domestic violence in the light of the finding in his Department's research study, "Domestic Violence", that domestic violence escalates over time.

  Mr. John Patten
  I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to a question from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has regarding the percentage of cases of spousal homicide in which there had been earlier requests to the police for assistance.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None. The information routinely collected on homicide cases does not enable us to establish whether the homicide was preceded by previous calls for police help.
  564
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the police force has received training in the handling of domestic violence; who has the responsibility for providing the training; who advises on its content; and who monitors how successful it is.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  All new entrants to the police service in England and Wales receive a basic training in dealing with offences of domestic violence as part of their initial training at district training centres. For more senior ranks, there is a session on domestic violence in the inspectors' management development course. These courses will be monitored by the central planning and training unit and the forces themselves.

  The provision of further training in forces is a matter for chief officers to decide. They will devise and update any training on the basis of their analysis of operational and training needs in their force area. Chief officers may invite other agencies—such as victim support schemes—to participate in in-force training if they consider that this would make a constructive contribution to the quality of training provided.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek information from the Tottenham police force regarding the effectiveness of its multi-agency approach to tackling domestic violence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Evaluating the effectiveness of the Tottenham unit is primarily a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. We shall, however, be seeking further information about the specialist units set up by the Metropolitan police, and about initiatives in other force areas, as part of our review of procedures to deal with domestic violence.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Metropolitan police for a report on the effects of their 1987 guidelines which called for domestic violence to be treated as seriously as assaults occurring in the street.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Implementation of force orders within the Metropolitan police district is the responsibility of the Commissioner. I understand from the Commissioner that the force order relating to domestic violence is currently the subject of a full evaluation which is due to be completed by the autumn. My right hon. Friend is asking to be advised of the outcome.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there have been any police deaths when police have been called to assist with alleged domestic violence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Records for the years 1977 to 1987 show that 24 police officers were victims of homicide and that none of them died as a result of being called to incidents of alleged domestic violence. Records for 1988 and 1989 are not yet available.

  Information about earlier homicides could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the last year for which figures are available, what percentage of incidents involving non-domestic violence are eventually recorded as(a) crime reports and (b) incident reports; and what are the corresponding figures for domestic violence.
  565
  Mr. John Patten
  I regret the information requested is not available. Some information about the incidence, reporting and recording of domestic violence is published in Home Office research study 107, "Domestic Violence: an overview of the literature".

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the last period for which figures are available, in how many homicides was there(a) a female

  Homicides currently recorded1 in England and Wales in which the victim was the partner2 of the principal suspect

  Year

  Male victims

  Female victims

  Killed by partner2

  Killed by partner2

  Total (= 100 per cent.)

  Number

  Percentage

  Total (= 100 per cent.)

  Number

  Percentage

  1982

  299

  15

  5

  258

  120

  47

  1983

  255

  18

  7

  227

  96

  42

  1984

  296

  17

  6

  241

  102

  42

  1985

  281

  16

  6

  256

  116

  45

  1986

  322

  17

  5

  254

  123

  49

  1987

  395

  23

  6

  240

  92

  38

  1 As at 1 June 1988; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  2 Spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, lover, or former lover.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the last year for which figures are available, how many court orders were made under the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 to protect wives and children from violence; in what proportion of the cases a power of arrest was granted; and how many arrests were subsequently made.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information relates to the number of orders made under sections 16(2), 16(3), 16(6)and 18 of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 in England and Wales. The latest figures are for 1987 and can be found in "Home Office Statistical Bulletin 20/88", a copy of which is in the Library. Information is not collected centrally on the number of subsequent arrests.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his estimate of the prevalence of assault arising from domestic dispute;

  (2) what is his estimate, for the last year for which figures are available, of the proportion of the four types of assault, namely common assault, actual bodily harm, malicious wounding and grievous bodily harm, which arose from domestic disputes;

  (3) if he will seek to improve the statistics about the prevalence of domestic violence by requesting a sample of chief constables to provide information on the total of all reports of domestic violence in a set period using all forms of police records;

  (4) if he will take steps to enable the amount of violence that is domestic to be separately identified in the publication "Criminal Statistics".

  Mr John Patten
  An estimate of the national prevalence of domestic violence is not available. An ad hoc survey of offences of violence recorded by the police, identifying those offences which were domestic, was carried out in 1988 and it is hoped to publish estimates based on it later in the year.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics he has on the number and percentage of times that allegedly assaulted women subsequently withdrew their complaints.
  566
  victim and (b) a male victim; and in what proportion, in each case, the murderer was a spouse, co-habitee or lover of the victim.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on victims of homicide and their relationship to the subject is published annually in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales" (Chapter 4 of the latest issue, Cm. 498), a copy of which is in the Library. The table gives the figures requested for the years 1982–87.

  Mr John Patten
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of domestic violence have been pursued by the Crown prosecution service since the service started operating; and what were the comparable figures of prosecutions by the police over the period immediately before the Crown prosecution service came into operation.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is not possible from the information held centrally by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Home Office to identify prosecutions in this category.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend to chief constables that unless there are exceptional circumstances there should be an arrest in all cases of life-threatening domestic violence.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend is confident that the police make full use of their powers of arrest where people's lives are at stake. It will, however, be one of the issues covered in discussions with chief officers about domestic violence.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the Hetherington/Chalmers report on war crimes; when he expects to publish the report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the replies given to questions from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 11 May 1989 and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) on 18 April 1989 at column 92.

  Antanas Geicas
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that Antanas Geicas does not leave the juridiction of United Kingdom courts; and if he will make a statement.
  567
  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend has no powers to do so.

  Hillsborough Disaster
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont Dark) of 28 April,Official Report, column 702, what steps he is taking to reimburse the South Yorkshire police authority for the costs arising from the public inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A meeting is to be held between Home Office officials and officers of the South Yorkshire police authority shortly to discuss the representations made by the authority over the costs of the inquiries being undertaken by the West Midlands police.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Aujeszky's Disease
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his reasons for retaining Aujeszky's disease in category 3 rather than moving it to category 1.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 2 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) at column 81.

  London Food Commission (Research)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the European Commission has subsidised the London Food Commission's research into European consumers' demand for quality food; whether the questionnaire on 1992, "Consumers and Food Policy" is part of that research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Commission of the European Communities has awarded the London Food Commission a contract to study and report on product differentiation in the European Community which involves issues of food standards, food quality and consumer choice. Although the EC Commission has also awarded a grant to meet the costs of this project, I have no precise information regarding its value. The 1992 questionnaire to which my hon. Friend refers is not part of this study and was circulated independently by the London Food Commission before the contract was awarded.

  Pollution (Advice)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by year, how many farms in the three counties of Yorkshire were visited by his staff and advised about methods of controlling agricultural pollution in each of the last five years; and what percentage of farms this represents for these counties.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information is not available in the form requested. ADAS advisers have provided farmers with advice on control of agricultural pollution in response to specific requests, and in the course of advising on other matters.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action has been taken by his Department to give farmers information about bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle; and how many animals on average per week are being identified as having it.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Information about BSE is available from the Ministry's animal health offices and is also provided by the veterinary officers who inspect each suspected case. In addition, information is disseminated through the farming and general press and media and to the farming unions and other farming organisations. On average, 140 to 150 cases are confirmed by post mortem examination each week.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what are the procedures for determining whether cattle submitted for compensation under the bovine spongiform encephalopathy notification scheme are genuine suspected cases;

  (2) what information he has concerning the number of cattle submitted as bovine spongiform encephalopathy suspect by their owners but not subsequently accepted as suspect for compensation purposes by ante-mortem veterinary inspection;

  (3) what is the total number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy compensation claims submitted to his Department to date; what proportion of claims submitted have been met at (a) 100 per cent. and (b) 50 per cent. of the value of the animal; and what veterinary ante-mortem inspection takes place of cattle that are submitted under the notification procedure for bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is a legal requirement for any owner or person in charge of an animal he suspects may have bovine spongiform encephalopathy to notify the divisional veterinary officer. The case is investigated and if BSE is suspected a restriction notice served confining the animal to the farm. A number of inspections may be necessary before the Ministry veterinary officer is able to decide whether the cause is BSE. If he is able to eliminate BSE as the cause restrictions are lifted. However if he is convinced that the animal is affected with BSE it is compulsorily slaughtered, the head removed so that the brain can be examined for definitive diagnosis and the carcase either incinerated or buried. Once slaughtered an automatic payment of 50 per cent. (up to a ceiling) of the valuation, undertaken when the animal was first put under restriction, is made. If BSE is not confirmed following examination of the brain the remaining 50 per cent. is paid.

  The numbers of cattle put under restriction in the period 8 August 1988 (when the slaughter policy was introduced) to 5 May 1989 are as follows:

  Number

  Restrictions imposed on suspect cases

  4,794

  Restrictions lifted because of alternative diagnosis

  214

  Suspect cases slaughtered

  4,101

  Suspect cases still under restriction

  479

  Of suspect cases slaughtered:

  positive cases

  3,351

  negative cases

  329

  Results pending

  421

  569
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) pursuant to his answer of 14 April,Official Report, column 748, on what dates and in respect of which period of time these cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle were reported to him;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 14 April, Official Report, column 748, what information his Department presented concerning the incidence and location of confirmation of bovine spongiform encephalopathy infection in cattle at slaughterhouses or fatstock markets.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The period of time concerned was provided in the answer given to the hon. Member on 14 April, at column 748. The additional information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is now taking and whether he intends in the near future to take any steps to monitor cattle at non-EEC export approved slaughterhouses for bovine spongiform encephalopathy infection.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The law requires any person who suspects bovine spongiform encephalopathy in an animal under his charge to notify the Ministry. This includes suspect BSE cases identified at slaughterhouses, details of which are being monitored.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all species of animals known by his Department to have been infected by transmittable spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 9 March at column 621. BSE has also been transmitted into mice experimentally.

  Publicity
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library details of each major publicity campaign mounted by his Department in 1985–86 and each successive year, including in each case the objectives of the campaign, the intended audience and the outcome of the monitoring of the achievement of the intended objectives, and national research conducted for him by the Central Office of Information together with a note of the intended objectives in the campaigns in 1989—90.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 2 May 1989]: I have today placed the detailed information requested by the hon. Member in the Library. The information supplied covers all MAFF inspired publicity campaigns not just those which may be considered as "major".

SCOTLAND

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many projects in Scotland have been in receipt of European regional development fund aid in the period May 1979 to May 1989; and if he will list these in the Official Report.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 May 1989]: Over 2,100 projects in Scotland have received European regional development fund assistance since May 1979. Awards in the same period have totalled over £736 million.
  570
  While it would not be practical to list every project in the Official Report, examples of major projects which have received funding are the awards of £18·6 million for the Western Isles Cable; £11·2 million for the Scottish exhibition centre in Glasgow; £6·4 million for the Edinburgh city bypass; £5·2 million for the Lochmaddy/ Tarbert/Uig ferry and terminals; £2 million for the Carron valley reservoir, Stirling; and £1·7 million for the Windygates bypass, Kirkcaldy.

  Also included in the overall project total are projects under the national programmes of community interest for Glasgow (£68·2 million award), Tayside (£20·7 million) and West Lothian (£26·7 million). In addition the `non-quota' steel, shipbuilding and textile programmes attracted a total of £20 million in assistance.

  Assessment of Achievement Programme (Report)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish the 1984 assessment of achievement programme English report.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: The report will be published in May 1989, along with the reports on home economics and technical education.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the 1983 P4 sample used by Northern college researchers in the assessment of achievement programme—second round mathematics—changes in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988, was numerically representative of all the divisions in Strathclyde and the remaining 11 regions and island education authority areas.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: The sample was not a simple random sample of all Scottish P4 pupils in state supported schools. The sampling proceeded in two stages: first, a sample of primary schools was drawn; and second, from within these schools, samples of P4 pupils were drawn. The numbers of pupils, on which the statistical results of the survey have been reported, were properly representative of Scottish education authorities.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for both the 1983 and 1988 sample used in the assessment of achievement programme—second round mathematics—changes in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988, the proportions of schools in each of the 11 regions and islands education authority areas and for each education division of Strathclyde.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: The assessment of achievement programme is not designed to provide comparisons between education authorities or between schools. The sample sizes used give reliable feedback on performance at national level only. Information relating to identified schools or education authorities is not released under the terms of an agreement with the Association of Directors of Education of Scotland (ADES).

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether similar numbers of children with special needs were included in both the 1983 and 1988 samples used by Northern college in the research work carried out on the assesment of achievement programme—second round mathematics—changes in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988.
  571
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: The sampling procedures used in 1983 and 1988 were designed to provide a nationally representative sample of pupils in mainstream state-supported schools.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total amount of money being spent annually on the assessment of achievement programme through which the Scottish Education Department monitors standards in Scottish schools.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: Planned expenditure in 1989–90 is £170,000.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish details of the 1988 sampling used by Northern college in the research on assessment of achievement programme—second round mathematics—changes in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988;

  (2) if information on the social background of pupils was collected in 1988 as part of the research carried out by Northern college on the assessment of achievement programme—second round mathematics—changes in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forstyth
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: Details of the sampling procedures will be included in the final report of the 1988 assessment of achievement programme second round mathematics project.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will give details of the brief given to Northern college for the preparation of the interim report on changes in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988;

  (2) if he will give the date when the steering committee responsible for the research programme carried out by the Northern college on the assessment of achievement programme—second round mathematics—changes in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988, agreed to ask for an interim report;

  (3) if he will give the date on which the Northern college was asked to prepare the interim report on the assessment of achievement programme—second round mathematics —changes in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: Preliminary analysis to provide a comparison of performance on common items used in 1983 and 1988 was carried out by the assessment of achievement programme central support unit, Scottish Council for Research in Education. This analysis was discussed at the assessment of achievement programme mathematics project steering committee meeting on 24 October 1988. The committee agreed to give this matter priority and the researchers were asked to prepare a paper which subsequently formed the basis of the interim report.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Northern college was asked to prepare an interim report on the internal research brief given to them on the assessment of achievement programme—second round mathematics—change in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988.
  572
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: An interim report was produced as a result of concerns arising from a preliminary analysis of the survey results.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any discussions took place between the Scottish Office and Northern college regarding the contents of the interim report changes in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988 before the report was published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: Yes.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the names of the steering committee responsible for the research programme carried out by the Northern college on the assessment of achievement programme—second round mathematics—changes in performance at P4 and P7 between 1983 and 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: The members of the 1988 assessment of achievement Programme mathematics project steering committee are:

  Position held

  Mr. D. Dunn

  Assistant Headteacher, Banff Academy, Grampian Regional Council

  Mr. N. Henderson

  Principal Adviser Primary Education, Lothian Regional Council

  Mrs. S. Livingstone

  Principal Teacher of Learning Support, Wallace High School, Central Regional Council

  Mr. D. Macdonald

  Mathematics Adviser, Highland Regional Council

  Mrs. C. McWhirter

  Headteacher, Gilburn Primary School, Tayside Regional Council

  Mr. W. Mein

  Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools (Chairman)

  Mr. G. Thorpe

  Scottish Council for Research in Education

  Mr. B. Semple

  Principal Research Officer, SED.

  Local Authority Services
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide capital allocations to regional authorities in order for them to improve services in areas which do not benefit from the full range of local authority services at present.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: Yes. On 27 February my right hon. and learned Friend announced capital allocations to regional councils for the year 1989–90 which were 16 per cent. above those for the previous financial year. This generous level of increase will enable regional councils to carry out capital works of well over £400 million in 1989–90. It is for authorities to distribute these resources in their areas, in the light of the needs of each region.

  Community Charge
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend the law so that a lower
  573
  rate of community charge is paid by residents of areas which do not benefit from a full range of local authority services.
  574
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 May 1989]: No. Local authorities that set the personal community charge payable in their areas at too high a level in relation to the level of services they provide will be accountable to their electorates. That is one of the main advantages of the community charge over the old domestic rating system.

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

Victoria Tower: Restoration
Lord O'Neill of the Maine Lord O'Neill of the Maine asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to carry out restoration work on the Victoria Tower in order to bring it up to the standard of the rest of the Palace of Westminster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the work on the Victoria Tower and the south elevation, overlooking the Victoria Tower Gardens, will form the next phase of the stonework restoration programme. Work is on schedule to start early in 1990 and will take about two and a half years to complete.
Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. However, I sometimes wonder whether the Government appreciate that this magnificent building is at the heart of the Commonwealth. Are the Government aware that tourists are surprised to see a black tower emerging from a beautiful honey-coloured Gothic building?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we hope that shortly, within the two and a half year period, the black tower will become a compatible honey-coloured tower.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, as the lower House is now externally in pristine sparkling form, is it not fitting that the House which is first in dignity should not lag behind like a dowdy dowager but should be speedily restored to its youthful splendour? Can the Minister assure the House that the commercialisation of the PSA, welcome as it is, will not delay this further?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, like great wines, its great beauty may take a little longer to be forthcoming.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to learn that the Victoria Tower is the next phase, but can the Minister tell the House why there is this substantial gap between the completion of the last phase and the phase now proposed?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, one of the reasons why the Victoria Tower is slightly behind schedule is the damage sustained during the October storm, which resulted, I believe, in the tower above the Central Lobby requiring work earlier than scheduled.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the sub-committee on works of art in this House has on more than one occasion drawn the attention of Ministers to the ill effects of this delay? Has the
862
Minister also observed the hoardings outside the Victoria and Albert Museum, which I understand have been erected to pay for its face lift? Will the Government counsel the Mother of Parliaments to take such a course?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is a matter which I shall obviously have to draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Lord ensure that the timetable will be adhered to? Otherwise some of us may never see the completion.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House when the ceiling in the Lobby will be visible again? I have never seen it and I am worried about the passing years.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, nor have I, but if the noble Lord would like to table a Question I shall be more than pleased to provide an Answer.
Lord Morris: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that the Victoria Tower's most important incumbent is in no way inconvenienced in the course of the work?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that great attention will be paid to all the Bills which reside in the Victoria Tower. For that reason, when the work is carried out it will be done by air blasting rather than water blasting to ensure that no possible damage can occur.

Women and New Business Starts
11.10 a.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle Baroness Platt of Writtle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the proportion of recent new business starts undertaken by women, and what encouragement they are giving to this development.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in the last two years nearly 80,000 more women have become self-employed and this is a quarter of the overall increase in self-employment. Since 1979, the number of women in self-employment has more than doubled, having increased by 113 per cent.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I welcome that news from my noble friend. Often when setting up a new business, whether to begin with it is faltering or very successful, there are problems of liquidity for which the enterprise allowance can be of great assistance. Can my noble friend tell the House how many women are taking advantage of the enterprise allowance scheme?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the proportion of women taking part in the scheme to which my noble

863
friend refers has risen from 11 per cent. of the total when it began in 1983 to the current figure of just below 35 per cent. Under the scheme 34,000 women received support to start up new businesses in 1988–89.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to tell the House what support is available to women who may wish to rejoin the workforce after a spell of caring for their families but who wish to do so by way of self-employment? Are any special arrangements available?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the arrangements to which I have already referred are of course available to women in the circumstances mentioned by the noble Baroness. I am not sure that it is necessary to provide additional support over and above that. As I said, the present scheme appears to be working very well.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, in view of the importance of the tourist industry in this country and the need to encourage conferences, can my noble friend the Minister say how much help has been given to women who wish to set up hotels (particularly small ones), in view of the fact that many such hotels are now run extremely successfully by women managers or deputy managers?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not in front of me the figures relating to small hotels only, but I shall certainly make enquiries and write to my noble friend.

The Defence Budget
11.13 a.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What extra resources have been provided for the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force since 1979.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the amount of the defence budget in 1989–90 is £20,143 million. The corresponding figure for 1978–79—the last year presided over by our predecessors—was approximately £7,500 million.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has given us some very impressive figures as regards money. Can he assure the House that the value for money will also increase?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as my noble friend is well aware, as regards defence procurement we are now applying a much more commercial approach to our procurement process which I believe has rendered very considerable overall advantages to the armed forces. Since 1979 we have ordered 64 major vessels and 82 combat aircraft for the Navy, seven regiments of Challenger tanks for the Army and over 500 aircraft for the Royal Air Force.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that it has been reported in the press that
864
there is a manpower problem associated with the armed forces. Can the Minister say something about that in view of the increase in resources?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the matter was discussed by your Lordships the other day. There are one or two areas where the numbers are below the level that we regard as desirable. However, that is nothing like the problems that would exist if the new Labour Party defence policy were to come into play.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, despite the figures he has given, there are areas where the amount spent has decreased in the last 10 years—for example, in the field of training? What worries defence experts is the fact that the Government have gone on piling commitment after commitment, both nuclear and others, on to the defence programme without any proper review, leaving the defence programme over-extended and under-funded. I ask the Minister what he intends to do about that?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is nothing like the under-funding that will take place if the noble Lord and his colleagues come to have responsibility for these matters.
Noble Lords: Answer the question!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I understand the Labour Party defence policy now proposed, it provides for no increase in expenditure. I cannot imagine how that will meet the commitments about which the noble Lord is expressing such concern.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that, despite the impressive figures that he has given for the increase in defence expenditure in monetary terms since 1979, that expenditure has declined in real terms since 1985?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no, I shall confirm no such thing because it is not the case.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the resources which the armed forces now have and will have, will enable them to help local authorities in major peacetime disasters? The armed forces now have large quantities of transport, catering equipment, fire fighting and earth moving equipment and so on, all of which can be put to good use, and good training use, in helping local authorities. Can the Minister give us some idea of the freedom that the armed forces will have to give that help?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the essential purpose of the armed forces is of course to confront the military threat that we face. But the role that my noble friend points to is an important one for the armed forces to be able to fulfil in appropriate circumstances. They are certainly very willing to do that when they have the capacity and capability to do so. That situation will certainly continue.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has enjoyed himself in making remarks about the Labour Party defence policy. Will he please comment on reports in responsible newspapers of this country that are giving the entire nation concern; namely, that there are grave doubts whether the Trident missile will ever be made or maintained?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I have no such doubts. The Trident programme is on course, very successfully, and, frankly, at slightly less cost than was originally anticipated. I can assure the noble Lord and the House that the first Trident submarine will put to sea on the day proposed long ago.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his preoccupation (and that of his colleagues) with Labour Party policy this morning is an indication that they really fear that the Labour Party has a credible policy which will appeal to the electorate?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, anybody who really imagines that the newly proposed Labour Party defence policy is credible had better read it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can the Minister give any further information regarding the particular categories in which the armed services are short of manpower? Not very long ago the noble Lord answered a question of mine which showed that there had been three times the number of applications for posts in the armed forces compared with the number of people recruited. I believe that about three-quarters of a million people had applied but only a quarter of a million had been recruited. It seems that the matter is out of balance somewhere.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we certainly do not accept every applicant for enrolment in the armed forces. We must be careful to ensure that those that we do enrol are capable, after the necessary training, of fulfilling the duties that we shall ask them to carry out. Sometimes we have to take the view that that is not likely with all the applicants.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in his initial reply the noble Lord failed to give the comparative figures in real terms. Would the Minister be good enough to do that? As regards the Labour Party programme, will the Minister pay attention to the result of the by-election in the Vale of Glamorgan?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the real growth in the defence budget over the period to which I have referred was between one-fifth and one-sixth, which is a substantial figure indeed. More importantly, not only are we increasing the money in real terms as well as in cash terms, but we are getting better volume for the money we are spending because of the tauter procurement process.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that no one is challenging the rise in expenditure in real terms for the dates that he gave? I asked whether
866
it was not true that there had been a decline in defence expenditure in real terms since 1985. May we have the figure?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that depends on which years one takes, and whether one includes 1989–90 or the year before the one to which the noble Lord referred. The real growth this year, for example, is between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I specifically asked whether expenditure had not fallen in real terms since 1985. May we have that figure—if not now, will the noble Lord send it to me?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the overall figure for the period between the financial year 1985–86 and the current financial year, 1980–90, shows a very small percentage growth; rather less, I agree, than for some of the earlier figures, but certainly a growth.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, do the extra resources provide any additional benefit for the cadet forces of the three branches of the armed services? Apart from being a first-class educational experience for young people, do they not provide a long-term beneficial result for the three forces under discussion today?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The cadet forces have a considerable importance and the resources made available to them over the years to which I have referred have grown considerably. For the first part of my time in the Ministry of Defence I was responsible for cadet forces, and I fully appreciate their importance, which the noble Lord has underlined.

Public Sector Projects: Private Funding
11.22 a.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they have relaxed the Ryrie rules affecting the private funding of projects in the public sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Ryrie rules are obsolete. They were devised in 1981 to apply to nationalised industries. Eight years later most of the industries have been privatised.
In those areas of the infrastructure where the public sector remains the major provider, the Government welcome proposals for private funding as long as they offer better value for money than conventionally financed alternatives. Privately funded projects are taken into account in planning public expenditure. To encourage proposals for new roads my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary has recently promised not to reduce the road programme on a scheme-by-scheme basis to offset privately financed projects.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while the Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred to the road programme in particular, can we take it that this relaxation of the Ryrie rules will also apply to other public sector projects—for example, those undertaken by local authorities, hospitals and schools? Apart from transport, would they cover heating projects concerned with energy efficiency and conservation? This needs to be clearly stated and I wonder whether the Government will so enlighten us.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as concerns the public sector and nationalised industries, the Government are happy to approve proposals for private financing of public sector projects provided they offer better value for money than the publicly funded alternative.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I declare an interest in companies that want to undertake some of this work. May I press the noble Lord for a full statement about the total effects of this relaxation? Is he aware that the announcement was made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a speech outside Parliament? Apparently all we can get hold of is a press release of that speech. This is a matter of great importance to private enterprise companies interested in this work. Should there not be a fully considered statement to Parliament with copies placed in the Library and elsewhere so that companies will know the guidance which they must follow?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall endeavour to see whether I can place a full copy of my right honourable friend's speech in the Library. A Green Paper on private finance for roads will be issued shortly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is there not a great and deplorable contrast between the relaxation of the rules for the central government public sector and the increasing tightening of the rules for local government which will be intensified in the Local Government and Housing Bill now before another place?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are talking here about the Ryrie rules, which are now obsolete. They were a source of confusion and policy has moved on since 1981. That is why they have been retired. As for the comparison between financial constraints on local authorities, I am not certain that I can answer that question on this occasion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the rules are now obsolete. Is he aware that the rules have been ridiculous from the beginning and are partly responsible for underinvestment in the nationalised industries over the years since they have been in operation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in that case the noble Lord must be pleased that they have now gone.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, in his replies the noble Lord has referred only to the roads programme. The
868
noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked about a number of other areas in which the relaxation of these rules may apply. May we know, and does the speech to which the noble Lord referred indicate, whether the relaxation goes wider than the roads programme?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have already answered that question by saying that outside the roads programme—in the nationalised industries and the public sector—the Government would be happy to approve proposals for private financing of public sector projects provided of course that they offer better value for money than the publicly funded alternative.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in considering projects of this kind in the future will the Treasury still be taking the line that the cheapest way to raise money is for it to do so in the public sector? Is this not regarded as the biggest inhibitor to private funds being put into public projects?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords, the first and foremost principle is that private finance for a project is justified if, and only if, it provides the best value for money. Secondly, the Government need to take into account the existence of privately financed projects in their public expenditure planning. However, the most important thing is value for money.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, has the Minister any idea how much more private finance of the water industry will cost the taxpayer and water consumer as opposed to public finance?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, noble Lords have taken a long time discussing the water industry in the past few days and will no doubt take quite a time longer. The noble Lord will have the opportunity to ask that question then.

The Parole System in England and Wales
11.28 a.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydalerose to call attention to the Report of the Review Committee of the Parole Board for England and Wales, The Parole System in England and Wales (Cmnd 532) and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking those noble Lords who have put down their names to speak today. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the first of the line of distinguished chairmen of the Parole Board, is especially sorry that he cannot be here, but he has been good enough to give me his views. I hope that I am not out of place if I go on to express a mild regret that no one holding high judicial office has felt able to speak. But there it is.
When we debated prisons on 30th November the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, had only just appeared. In a reply to a subsequent Question on 7th March

869
the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said at col. 1356 of the Official Report that comments on the report had been asked for by 10th March. Since that closing date is well past I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about the views of government today. However, I am bound to say that I have been around too long to be too optimistic as to what will happen.
Parole in this country has not had a very long history. I cannot help recalling that when I moved from the Treasury to the Home Office in the summer of 1966 the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was in the throes of deciding what to put in a forthcoming Criminal Justice Bill and parole was very high on the agenda. The idea in this country had its origin I believe in a committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and had been elaborated in a White Paper issued by Sir Frank Soskice, as he then was.
It is not without interest that when the parole provisions under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 were introduced there was no provision for a parole board nor, at first, when the idea of a board was conceded, for that board to have any responsibility for reviewing life-sentence cases. I propose to say no more today about life-sentence cases in view of the inquiry currently under way by your Lordships' Select Committee, except perhaps just to make the passing comment that the media so often manage to get it wrong, in that life-sentence prisoners were released on licence long before parole was ever thought of. They still are; and they are not released on parole.
At the time of the 1967 Act, prisoners in general were able to earn remission of one-third of a determinate sentence by virtue of good behaviour in prison. The amount of remission permitted had its ups and down, but by then it had pretty well settled down to this figure of one-third, not on any particular ground of principle. The introduction of parole meant that a prisoner, in addition, could be considered for release under supervision for a further third of his sentence, subject to his serving at least 12 months in custody. Therefore a prisoner who received, say, a six-year sentence could be released after two years. After that he would spend two years on parole under supervision and then he would have no further commitment.
The theory was that parole related not to the prisoner's behaviour in prison—that was taken account of by remission—but to his prospects on release. I shall not weary your Lordships by going over the history of parole since that time, except to say that in my view two mistakes were made. The first—the disadvantages of which only became apparent in the light of experience—was to reduce the minimum qualifying period of custody from 12 months to six months. That change, carried out under statutory powers, took effect in 1984 and aroused hardly a whisper of criticism at the time.
The second mistake, the objections to which were only too glaringly obvious at the time, was the decision of the then Home Secretary—announced, as I recall, to a Conservative Party Conference in 1983—that in general parole would not be given to
870
those sentenced to more than five years' imprisonment for offences involving drug trafficking, sex, arson or violence.
The consequences of both those decisions were among the problems which led to the setting up of the Carlisle inquiry in July 1987. The first one added a considerable burden to the resources needed to handle cases and also gave rise to anomalies which caused great dissatisfaction, both to those who received sentences and to those who imposed them. For example, because of the minimum period of custody required, prisoners sentenced to terms of imprisonment of different lengths could end up by qualifying for release on the same day. That was not the only anomaly; and it all added still further to the blurring which had developed between remission and parole.
The second decision raised doubts about the whole concept of parole, although in the end courts accepted that Sir Leon Brittan had not exceeded his powers in making that change without parliamentary authority. The practical results were disquieting. It meant that the sentences which the judges had thought appropriate to impose in open court were handled by the Executive in different ways, according to the nature of the offence.
There were quite a number of other considerations, apart from those two, which called for examination. There were the frustrations of prisoners going through the exercise of having their case for parole considered at the one-third point of their sentence, and having all their expectations aroused, when there was really no conceivable prospect of them being granted parole. There were great and increasing delays and, underlying it all, there was the feeling that no one quite knew what a sentence imposed by the court would mean in practice. Even now we often hear on the news bulletins that a person has been sentenced to, say, 14 years' imprisonment; but no one knows how long that sentence will last. The only reasonably certain assumption being that it will not last 14 years.
There was an accumulation of considerations in this respect which called for an outside inquiry. That inquiry was carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and his colleagues with great expedition and thoroughness. A clear report, and one which was unanimous on all the main issues, was presented to the Home Secretary last October. I am sure that all those interested in penal affairs must feel grateful to the committee for its achievement. It is right to add, for the sake of the record, that a comparable inquiry has been carried out in Scotland under the chairmanship of Lord Kincraig. That committee's report, which took account of the Carlisle Report, was submitted in March of this year.
The Carlisle Report aimed at devising a solution which would result in more meaning being attached to the totality of a sentence passed by the court. A basic conclusion was that a distinction should be drawn between the short and the long sentence, and that for the short sentence there should be an end to discretionary parole. The committee drew the line at the period of four years.

871
For those individuals who were sentenced to four years or less—that is, the great majority—the committee recommended that release should take place at the half-way stage of the sentence; but that the individual should remain at risk for the totality of the sentence in the sense that if reconvicted he could be required, in addition to any fresh sentence, to serve what remained of the original sentence.
Further, as regards sentences of 12 months or more and up to the maximum of four years, the committee recommended that the individual should be supervised on release up to the three-quarter point of the sentence. I shall illustrate what that means. A prisoner sentenced to three years' imprisonment, for example, could be released after 18 months but would be subject to supervision for nine months and still remain at risk, if reconvicted, during the last nine months of that period. All of that information would be known when the judge passed sentence.
For those individuals serving more than four years, the committee concluded that discretionary parole should be retained. Such sentences concern serious criminals who should not be released to society without an individual assessment. However, the committee thought that the earliest time at which a prisoner could be considered for parole should be at the half-way point of his sentence and not after a third of the sentence had been served. If a prisoner failed to get parole, he should be released after two-thirds of his sentence. All discharged prisoners should be subject to supervision up to the three-quarter point of the sentence and should be at risk for 100 per cent. of the sentence. I hope that I have got this right; it is all a little complicated. I was comforted to see that the Home Office press notice at the time managed to get it wrong, but I gather that this is now fashionable in government departments.
One added set of recommendations was that the relevant dates could be postponed on account of misconduct in prison. I add this as being contrary to the view which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, frequently puts to us, with his customary eloquence. My own experience makes me wonder how prison discipline could be maintained unless there were some mechanism for extending the period of detention if a prisoner seriously offended against prison rules.
One can argue about some of the committee's recommendations; I propose to do so myself in a moment. But it all adds up to a pretty sensible approach. It would restore meaning to the sentence passed by the court; it would reduce the office work and cut down delays; it would be comprehensible to the courts and to the prisoners; it would end the blurring of remission and parole; and it could not be criticised as being soft—at least not with any justification.
The committee also thought—and I think that the Scottish committee went along with this—that there should be no attempt to hand out different treatment according to the nature of the offence. The committee thought that questions of deterrence and punishment were for the court when deciding what sentence should be imposed and that the test of whether the prisoner, if released, could be a danger
872
to the public should apply to all, without differentiation. I for my part certainly go along with that.
However, although I hope that the broad concept is acceptable, there are obviously points on which opinions will differ. For the long serving prisoner who does not get parole it is still proposed that he should be released at the two-thirds point and in the case of a sentence of, say, five or six years, the period of supervision between that point and the three-quarter point would be quite short.
Then there is the question whether it is right to put the dividing line between short and long sentences at four years. The Scottish report goes for five and there are those who would prefer three, as I myself am inclined to do. I am not at all easy about a recommendation that the parole board should normally give reasons for its decision to refuse parole. The committee recognised that there must be some exceptions when someone gives information on the understanding that it will not be disclosed to the prisoner. There is, for example, the case of a wife whose enthusiasm for getting her husband home is rather less than the impression she herself has managed to convey to the husband. However, in going beyond that I find it a little hard to accept that prison officers and others reporting on parole would be as frank and as helpful as they should be if they knew that their views could be disclosed, especially perhaps the prison officer who would have to continue in close contact with the prisoner. To give reasons sounds attractive, but the difficulties I perceive are not simply those of a former bureaucrat in love with secrecy.
I also do not agree with the proposal that the parole board should become an executive body with complete responsibility and that the Home Secretary should no longer have any locus in individual decisions. The Scottish report comes to a different decision and so, I know, does the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The Home Secretary would not often overrule a recommendation. He would still be barred from authorising release if the parole board had not recommended it. But with his responsibilities for penal policy, I think it right that he and not a proxy should remain accountable to Parliament for the discretionary release of prisoners guilty of very serious crimes.
It is perhaps worth recalling that when the 1967 Act was before Parliament the fear was expressed that if the Home Secretary were left a free hand, he might go around letting out inmates in droves far too early, whereas it turned out in practice that successive Home Secretaries had to turn down a few recommendations for release which in their view were premature and could have jeopardised the whole of the parole system in the public eye.
However, to go back to basics, what is in issue here is whether we should retain a system of parole based on release at a particular point of the sentence, followed by a period of supervision in the community. I believe that we should and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, agrees. It is not always remembered that the fact that many thousands are sent to prison each month also means

873
that there are thousands each month who leave prison and return to the community.
I cannot help thinking that it is better that as many as possible should be subject to skilled supervision as they seek to re-establish themselves in the outside world—many of them persistent offenders who are simply inadequate and find great difficulty in standing on their own feet—rather than that they should serve some proportion of their sentence and then come out cold, with no further obligation and no one to give them any help and supervision.
I have nearly finished, I realise that I have gone on for some time but it is difficult to handle the subject, even leaving out great chunks, without taking up a bit of time. I point out that 120,000 people have already been released on parole, with immense savings in both human and financial terms. Experience on the whole is mildly encouraging in that those released on parole tend to re-offend less seriously than those not released under supervision. If anything remotely favourable can ever be said about any aspect of penal policy, it must be something quite special and unusual.
The proposals of the Carlisle Committee, as I understand them, are not aimed primarily at reducing the prison population, and their effect at worst would be broadly neutral. But the committee is right to emphasise that all that it proposes depends in the end on a sensible policy and that without it there might arise the need for a root and branch review of sentencing law and practice. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
11.47 a.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, this is the second time within a short period that I have had the good fortune to follow the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in a debate in this House. The other occasion, as the noble Lord said, was on 30th November last year when he initiated a debate on alternatives to imprisonment. As that debate took place within five days of the publication of our parole review, I had the opportunity on that occasion to address your Lordships and to set out in general terms the conclusions that we reached.
If I may say so, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord that he should have chosen to have a debate on the report itself. I thank him for the kind remarks that he made about the work of the committee. It was a great honour to be invited to chair that committee. I was most fortunate in its membership and I know that all members would wish me to say that we were extremely lucky in the very high standard of support that we received from the secretary and the assistant secretary from the Home Office, who worked with the committee. If, as some people have been kind enough to say, the report is at least readable and well argued, whether or not one agrees with the conclusions, the vast majority of the praise for that must go to William Fittall for the work he did as secretary of the committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, mentioned that parole had a short history in this country. It is interesting to note that the history of
874
the idea of conditional release is somewhat longer and starts with the principle of the ticket of leave which applied in the 19th century to those who had been transported to Australia. It is also interesting to note that the Select Committee on Transportation set out in 1837 the terms of the ticket of leave. The committee stated, with regard to the earlier conditional release of these people, that:
"This indulgence on the whole has a very useful effect, as it holds out hope to a convict if he behaves well and is liable to be re-assumed in case of misconduct".
It is equally interesting to note that when the system of transportation was ended, and the idea of the ticket of leave was carried forward with those who were instead sentenced to penal servitude in this country, it immediately caused an outcry of concern in this country when, for the first time, people realised that those who had been convicted of serious offences were being released earlier than the date on which they need have been released.
The Review Committee's report was published in November of last year. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, the Home Office asked for comments on it by 10th March. I understand from a recent answer given to Mr. Wheeler in another place that a substantial body of comments has been made. If there is one message that I wish to put to the Government today, it is that even if the problems of parole are not at the moment the political flavour of the month, the fact is that does not mean that those problems have gone away. We were set up as a committee to carry out this review because of the very real feeling that existed that the parole system was not working properly. We found as a committee that that concern was fully justified and that many of the individual criticisms made of the parole system were justified.
I suggest to the Government and to my noble friend who is to reply that those criticisms of the parole system will continue until the system is changed to meet them. What, then, are the criticisms which I believe are justified? Clearly, it is not the principle of the idea of conditional release itself. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, 120,000 people have been released earlier than they otherwise would have been with enormous savings in human and other resources and with a very low failure rate. The committee strongly emphasised the importance of our belief that release on supervision back into society was better than people being released back into society unsupervised. However, the particular problem, as we see it, is that as operated the system has lost judicial support and has lost much public support. It has led to an enormous, unnecessary increase in the work of the probation service and of the prison service. The system has also been treated with a good deal of cynicism by prisoners and offenders themselves.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that much of that loss of support stems from what he described as the two mistakes that were made in 1983. Certainly, the loss of judicial support for the scheme, stems very much from the decision, which I believe to be wrong, to reduce the minimum qualifying period for parole at that time. That decision was taken for the very best of reasons. The effect of that

875
decision has been that the vast majority of offenders today who are sentenced to shorter terms of imprisonment are released at a third of their sentence, or six months from the date of their sentence. That involves something like 80 per cent. of those sentenced to up to two years' imprisonment.
That meant, in practice, that the gap between what the sentencing judge had decreed and what was happening in effect had become too great. Those who were sentenced to, let us say, two-and-a-half years or 30 months imprisonment, because 30 is simply dividable by three, were in fact serving probably only 10 months. The whole of the sentence would be completed after 20 months, in that there was no form of supervision or means to recall beyond that time. The effect of having a minimum qualifying period meant that the differentials between different sentences were substantially affected. In some cases they were totally eroded. Judges found that after having given one man 12 months, another 15 months and another 18 months because they believed there was a distinction in the part those men had played in a particular offence, all those people came out of prison on the same day, six months after their sentence had been passed. We believe, with great respect, that that cannot be right.
However, I also suggest to the House that the whole principle of attempting to have a selective system of release for the shorter term prisoners cannot work. If a selective principle of release is to be effective, those who are deciding the date of release should do so on criteria different from those which a judge has used in imposing a sentence in the first place. If they use the same criteria, all they are doing is resentencing in secret the person whom a judge has sentenced in open court. One cannot with sentences of 18 months or two years take different matters into account when considering the prisoner's parole, from the matters which the judge considered at the time of sentencing.
We came to the conclusion that, as regards shorter sentences—we took shorter sentences to mean all sentences up to and including four years—the fundamental principle must be fairness between the individual prisoners and proportionality of sentence to be served. If that is adhered to, one will not get the situation where a person with a longer sentence can be released either at the same time or even earlier than someone with a shorter sentence. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, we suggested that rather than having a selective system of release for all sentences up to and including four years' imprisonment, prisoners should, subject to their good behaviour, be released back into society after they have served 50 per cent. of that sentence. But, as a means of giving a reality to the sentence as a whole, prisoners should remain under sentence in society for the whole 100 per cent. of the sentence. If during that other half they commit any other offence, they can be returned to prison not only for the new offence but for any outstanding period between the date of committing the crime and the end of the previous sentence they were under.
As we believe in the idea of supervision, we have also stated that those who are released from prison
876
in this way, should be under supervision until they have served three-quarters of their sentence, provided the sentence originally was one of 12 months or more. We believe that such a system is simpler, much fairer and much more readily understood. I believe it would be wholeheartedly supported by the judiciary which has the responsibility for imposing sentences. It is surely right that when a person receives a sentence of two or three years' imprisonment, he should know what it means, and not know that his date of release will depend on someone else making decisions about him in private.
It is surely right that the offender should know that if he has a longer sentence than another person, he will serve proportionately the same amount of that sentence; namely, he will have a longer term in prison than the man who received the shorter sentence. I believe that a system under which a person has to serve 50 per cent. of the sentence inside, is released under supervision if he behaves, until three-quarters of the period of the sentence has passed, and is under risk of recall for 100 per cent. of the sentence would restore reality to sentencing. It would also answer the criticisms that have been made, particularly by the judiciary, of the effect of parole at present.
I understand that there is concern in some quarters as to whether the proposals in relation to sentences of less than four years would have an adverse effect on the prison population. We dealt with that issue at paragraph 295 of our report. As the noble Lord said, in general terms our report is neutral so far as concerns prison numbers. We recommend that these people should come out subject to good behaviour after serving 50 per cent. of the sentence. The average time spent in prison by a person serving a sentence of up to four years at the moment is about 51 per cent. Of course there is a risk that as a result of people re-offending during the second half of their sentence there could be an increase in the prison population. We believe that the extent to which that would happen would be counteracted by a new approach to sentencing as a whole. We made it absolutely clear in our report that we believe that returning reality to the full sentence will mean and should mean a reappraisal of the length of sentences that are passed.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships the same example as I gave when I spoke in debate on 30th November. At the moment if one passes a sentence of three years' imprisonment the chances are that the prisoner will spend 12 months inside and 12 months under supervision, and then his sentence is completed. Therefore, if one thinks that he should serve 12 months inside one may well pass a sentence of three years. Rather than passing a sentence of three years with 12 months served inside and 12 months on probation, surely it is better that the court should give a sentence of two years knowing that that means that 12 months will be served inside prison and there will be supervision for the remaining 12 months and a risk of recall during the last 12 months.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend when he comes to reply whether circuit judges themselves have

877
indicated that they believe that the introduction of reality into sentences would be taken into account in sentencing. At the moment I have no doubt that there is a certain amount of compensation and sentences are longer than would otherwise be the case to take account of the effect of parole. I believe that our recommendation would tend to bring down the generality of sentences in that area.
I apologise if I am talking for too long, but perhaps I may now turn to the other half of our proposals concerning sentences of more than four years imprisonment. There, of their very nature, the considerations must be different. Eighty-six per cent. of those offenders are in prison for offences involving drugs, sex, violence or arson. They are the much more serious and worrying offences. We believe that it is right to retain a selective system of release for those people because there are new criteria which can be looked at in their cases. We believe that they can and should be reviewed by the Parole Board as at present. All of those people will come back into society. We believe that it is important that where possible they should come back under supervision rather than be without supervision at all.
The present restrictive policy, to which the noble Lord referred, we found to be flawed in principle and harmful in practice. It attempts to differentiate between people given the same length of sentence on the basis of the effect of the crime that they have committed. Yet that surely is a matter for the judge at the time of sentencing. He, when deciding the length of sentence, takes into account whether violence has been used, whether there is a sexual nature to the offence and matters of that nature. If at the end of the day, having taken into account all the matters which he should take into account, the judge decides that the right sentence is one of 10 years, it seemed to our committee that the same principle should be applied to the release of that man, whether the 10-year sentence was for fraud or for armed robbery.
The harm in practice is that, while we know that many of those people will not receive parole until a very few months before their release, their cases have to be reviewed after they have served a third of their sentences. The result is an enormous waste of time in nugatory reviews carried out by the probation and prison services of the cases of people whose chances of release are practically nil.
Therefore, we recommend that in future selective conditional release on parole should apply to those people, but the parole eligibility date should not start until they had served 50 per cent. of their sentence. At that time all people, irrespective of the nature of their offence, should be looked on on the same basis. The test should be to weigh the risk of their committing a further serious offence at a time when they might otherwise still be in custody against the benefit to society and to themselves in releasing them under supervision in the hope of there being less likelihood of their committing further offences in the future.
I noticed that in his reply when the report was published the Home Secretary said that some of the recommendations raised difficult questions in the
878
context of the Government's policies for ensuring the public is adequately protected. Perhaps I may tell the noble Earl why I believe that our proposals will provide greater protection for the public than exists at present.
First, we are not advocating that the worst offenders should come out on parole. All we are saying is that after serving 50 per cent. of their sentence they should all be looked at on the basis of a similar test. But in applying that test of risk of reconviction, clearly the nature of the offence for which they have been committed in the first place and their criminal history are relevant issues in deciding whether there is a risk of their continuing to offend in future. Secondly, what is the present position? If people do not get parole at all they come out at the two-thirds point without any supervision whatever. The sentence is completed at 66 per cent.
Under our proposals, if prisoners do not receive parole they would still come out under a degree of supervision at the three-quarter period of their sentence. If they were granted parole after serving between 50 and 66 per cent. of their sentence, again they would be under supervision until three-quarters of the period of their sentence had passed. All of them would be under the risk of recall to prison if at any stage during the whole length of the sentence passed by the court they committed some further offence.
Therefore, we believe that the extended period of supervision in society, with supervision for the worst cases where at present there is no supervision, and the deterrent effect of reconviction during the whole length of a sentence, which at the moment ceases after two-thirds of the sentence, would enhance the protection of the public from such offenders rather than the reverse, as the Home Secretary's answer seemed to imply. I urge the Home Secretary to accept that it is in the interests of the protection of the public. It was certainly with that intent that our proposals in that area were put forward.
Perhaps I may finally say that, as the noble Lord mentioned, we also made many points concerning procedure. I should have liked to have had an opportunity to reply to some of the remarks made by the noble Lord. We believe that it is right that a person should be told the reasons why he is not given parole, difficult as that occasionally might be. We believe that it is right that a person should know what is said in the reports written about him if they are the basis on which the decision is to be made. It is interesting, somewhat to my surprise and despite what the noble Lord said about the concern of the prison service, that the prison service is in favour of the prisoner knowing what is said about him. It believes that more misunderstanding results from the prisoner thinking that a prison officer has said something critical about him than would arise from his being allowed to see what has been said about him.
Finally, we believe that tremendous savings could be made if the Home Office made the Parole Board an executive body. I am not talking about life sentences where the person can be kept in for the whole of his life. The Home Secretary may well wish

879
to have day-to-day control in those matters. But, in those cases where one is merely dealing with the time of release at some point between 50 and 66 per cent. of the period of the sentence, it is unnecessary for the Home Secretary to have direct responsibility for each individual case and for the Parole Board to be advisory. It is enormously wasteful with regard to the duties required to be carried out by the parole unit in the Home Office. We believe that it mars and blurs the responsibility of the Parole Board in respect of the decisions that it takes. That is not the situation in Canada. We were impressed by the way in which the parole board works over there.
The effects of our proposals would be to reduce the load on the board from some 24,000 cases a year to 4,000 cases a year. We believe that the board itself can well look individually at 4,000 cases a year. One would no longer need a local review committee. The handful of decisions which are at the moment rejected by the Home Secretary each year do not justify the retention of that complicated system.
I apologise for having spoken for longer than I intended. I have attempted to outline some of the aspects of the report that we are debating. I hope very much that, when my noble friend comes to reply—although I appreciate that the Government will not yet have had time to come to a conclusive opinion—he will give encouragement that the recommendations of the report are being considered with care. I believe that they have the support of those whose criticisms led to the setting up of the committee. They would enhance the present system of conditional release. Obviously, as one of the authors of the report, one hopes that one's efforts over a period of a year will not merely be confined to the waste paper basket, but will be enshrined in legislation.
12.11 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as we expected, we have listened to an interesting speech. My normal pleasure at following the noble Lord is somewhat obscured on this occasion because I cannot offer him unqualified congratulations on the report. I cannot go even as far as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who speaks with special authority and who gave a kind of broad approval. I should say, although it hardly needs saying, that I speak entirely for myself. The view of my party will be expressed by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs towards the end of the debate. I am proud to think that she is now Chairman of the New Bridge for ex-prisoners which I was instrumental in starting. It is flourishing under her chairmanship more than it ever did under mine. At any rate, my noble friend will give the views of our party.
I agree with anyone who says that this is a first class report. If a student submitted it for a Ph.D. at a university, he would receive a doctorate with acclamation. It will therefore always be of great value to students of the subject. However, if I am asked whether, in my opinion, it should be put into operation immediately, I am afraid that I must reply with an unhesitating negative. I shall first of all
880
discuss the report as matters seem to me at the present time, and then on a certain hypothesis which will appeal more to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. For me, the crucial paragraph—I shall not speak for long—is paragraph 298. The noble Lord said a good deal to that effect this morning. The paragraph states:
"We have proposed the scheme which we have described above in the hope and expectation"—
I repeat that word, "expectation"—
"that it will be accompanied by the changes in sentencing which we wish to see".
That is the whole assumption of the report. In my view, it is a totally unjustified assumption, but it is the explicit assumption in the report.
The changes that the committee wishes to see are reductions, and that is made plain in the same part of the report. I cannot imagine a greater triumph of hope and expectation over experience. In debate after debate in this House, we have called attention to the ever increased sentencing—a combination of the wisdom or folly of the present Government and judiciary. Why we should expect a sudden change on that point defies my intelligence. I need not go over the whole history of the efforts made by Mr. Whitelaw—now the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw—when he was Home Secretary to persuade the judges to reduce their sentences. Nothing of the kind happened; indeed, the opposite happened. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, was by implication quite critical—indeed, he was explicitly critical—of the change in 1983 which the report described as marking a watershed.
In paragraph 33, the report states:
"It seems clear to us that [those changes in 1983] were the main reason why the judicial and political consensus, which had hitherto existed, broke down".
Anyone who has ever listened to the debates here knows that there is no consensus and that there has not been since that time. The idea that there will be consensus in the future seems to me far too optimistic. After all, we have a Prime Minister who favours hanging. That is one way of reducing the prison population, but it is not the recommended way. I rather think that it appealed to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in the past. At any rate, we have a Prime Minister who, at Conservative Party conferences, openly distances herself from her well-meaning Home Secretary, Mr. Hurd. We have to face that situation. We live under a certain form of government for which I do not hold the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, responsible. I have always regarded him as a liberal-minded Conservative, which may have been awkward for him in his Cabinet days. At any rate, it is not his fault that we live under those conditions and must face them.
Therefore, I believe that it would be absolutely disastrous to introduce reforms based on the expectation that there would be a reduction in sentences when most of us have no reason to suppose that such a thing could possibly occur. In the previous debate, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was judicious.

881
Other people supporting him including the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who opened the debate—the choice of the Back-Benchers here—called for more severe sentences. The idea that all that will change and that there will be reduced sentences is a fantasy. It would be monstrous to introduce a report which I believe would, but might at least on any calculation, lead to an increase in the prison population. That idea is totally unacceptable to me and to anyone who calls himself a penal reformer.
However, let us try to assume that that point is covered. I do not think that it will be covered in practice, but in the years to come it might be. We might find some policy for reducing sentences and something on those lines might be reasonably considered. I do not want to dismiss the report as though I knew better than the committee. Of course, I do not. I have learned many things from the report which will always be of immense value. I heartily endorse some of its conclusions; for example, the denunciation of secrecy and the ghastly delays which cause more agony than almost anything else. The acceptance at last of the idea of the reasons being given for refusing parole is most welcome from such an official body. There has been a great deal of thought about supervision, which I do not have time to discuss now, but which is of great interest. I do not share the noble Lord's optimism about the possibilities of supervision, but I still believe that it should be explored in every possible way. I should like to express my humble admiration for the amount of thought that has gone into the report on the question of supervision.
I must now give, in a sentence or two, my answer to the question: supposing that sentences were considerably reduced, are we to favour the report even on that unreal hypothesis? Perhaps I may be a little biased in this matter.
The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to the committee of which I was chairman and it has also been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. It produced a report entitled Crime—A Challenge to us All. That was a committee which is credited in the report with making the first explicit call for the setting up of a fully fledged parole system. As the chairman of that committee, I must express gratitude on behalf of us all. I cannot remember who suggested the idea of parole to the committee. It did not come from me, although by that time I had been concerned with prisoners for many years. It may have come from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I shall give him credit for it anyway, although the look he gives me now makes me unsure whether or not he remembers making such a suggestion.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I regret that I cannot even remember whether I was a member of the committee.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, then I shall give the credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, who is not with us this morning. I spoke to her yesterday and she definitely remembers having been a member of the committee and in fact she played a very important part on the youth side.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to interrupt him again, he has reminded me that I was in fact a member of the committee and I remember now that it fell to me to retire along with the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, from time to time to see whether we could come to some satisfactory conclusion in the deliberations of the committee.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord advances in his recollections of the committee. Before the end of the day he may even claim the credit for having invented the parole system. But wherever it came from, it: was suggested by our committee.
I stand here today an unrepentant believer in parole. The committee of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, does not quite abolish parole but it does go a long way in that direction. It reduces the number of prisoners to come under consideration for parole from 24,000 to 4,000. When the time the number is down to 4,000 I expect that someone will just chop off the last 4,000. As an unrepentant believer in parole, I believe that this report sounds the death knell of parole. I am entirely against it and feel that it has been a great mistake.
What is so magical about parole? These issues are all matters of opinion, and there are arguments to support other methods of release. But in my eyes parole is the one way of giving some motivation to prisoners to improve their moral life both in prison and later. To remove that inducement and hope which is now given to many people who are very short of hope would be a wicked thing to do. So I am entirely opposed to anything that goes so far to destroy the parole system.
There is an argument which I shall touch on only briefly, and which the noble Lord has already mentioned; namely, that if there is a very short time for parole, there comes a point at which it becomes absurd when someone is only in prison for a few months. However, speaking more broadly, it is argued that the judge has passed sentence and it takes a long time (I do not think I am misinterpreting the noble Lord) before another worthwhile opinion can be given.
I think the noble Lord underestimates the value of the LRCs, and I must suggest that he underestimates it because he wants to abolish them. They must include of course the governor or deputy-governor. In my opinion it is in the nature of things that a prisoner is examined more carefully by an LRC than he would be by any judge. To throw away all that machinery is a disastrous aspect of a disastrous policy.
I am sorry to speak so strongly, but it is how I feel. I prefer to end with a perfectly sincere tribute to the noble Lord, for whom I have so much regard, on his having produced a memorable report. So long as it is not put into operation, it will have done nothing but good.
12.24 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, in my view this is an admirable report. I am sad that the

883
noble Earl, Lord Longford, may not perhaps have read the whole of the report.
The Earl of Longford: Yes I have, my Lords.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Well, my Lords, he seemed to be talking about a different report from the one that I have read. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, on its contents. It is full of common sense, as one would expect it to be having regard to the chairman and to the great practical experience in ordinary life of the members of the committee. It is clearly and logically presented in language that can be readily understood. It sets out the history of the system, the way in which it works, its weaknesses and its failures. It then spells out the committee's own recommendations, stating frankly and succinctly the reasons for them. As a lawyer, I must say that it is a contrast to the opaque mish-mash of the Green Paper that we debated on 7th April.
The committee point out that at a time when the courts had been provided by Parliament with an array of non-custodial sanctions, nevertheless the numbers of people being sent to prison had increased and so had the lengths of sentences. Very early in the deliberations of the committee it was found that the question of parole was inextricably bound up with sentencing policy. However, the terms of reference made no mention at all of that.
It is with that central aspect of the report, which was not mentioned at all by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that I want to deal in my contribution to this debate. I wish to highlight a number of passages in the report and then ask the Minister to tell the House the Government's reaction to them. On the very first page of the report the committee refer to experiencing:
"a sense of puzzlement that we as a country appeared to find it necessary to resort to an expensive and unsatisfactory sanction"—
that is, imprisonment—
"more widely than most of our neighbours".
At paragraph 236 the words of an American writer are quoted with approval:
"Expediting the release of prisoners while doing nothing to stem the flow of admissions is like bailing water from a boat without repairing the gaping hole in its bottom".
It is to that gaping hole that I wish to direct your Lordships' attention.
At paragraph 217 it is noted that:
"as a society we should be aiming to send fewer people to prison".
And again in paragraph 208:
"All the time that our society persists in seeing imprisonment as 'real punishment' and every other form of sentence as a species of 'let-off our prison population seems unlikely to fall significantly".
At paragraph 295, to which the noble Lord has just referred, we find what I suggest is the key passage in this report:
"the new scheme that we have proposed … should provide the springboard for a thorough reassessment of present sentencing levels. We therefore recommend that the implementation of our proposals should be accompanied by a determined attempt on the part of the Government and the judiciary to secure a corresponding reduction in sentencing at all levels".
884
That is a recommendation on the part of the Government.
The report contains a large number of recommendations, as we have heard. Spelt out in passage after passage is the fact that the implementation of these recommendations demands a clear commitment from government and judiciary to reduce the length of sentences across the board. I ask the Minister to tell the House without equivocation: will the Government undertake this commitment and with it undertake to discuss with the judiciary how best to achieve the required result?
As we have heard, the report recommends the supervised release of short-term prisoners at one-half of the sentence served—the last half to be served in the community. I am wholeheartedly in favour of supervised release and of the non-selective approach for the short-term prisoner for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has so clearly indicated.
I am also very supportive of the emphasis that the report places on the role of the probation services on through care, as it is called, and the provision of a release plan for every prisoner and provision of adequate resources to make this possible. However, my one quarrel with the committee is that it rejects release at one-third of the sentence served. The reason for that rejection is clearly because the committee was convinced that the judiciary would not accept it. The judges demand that a sentence passed in court should, so far as possible, mean what it says. In the minds of the judiciary that still means that the sentence should involve incarceration. The judiciary still finds it extremely difficult to hoist in the concept of a sentence of imprisonment meaning that some of it shall be served in incarceration and some in the community. The constant reference to sentences meaning what they say always involves sticking to the old—what I would now describe as out-of-date—concept of punishment: that is, that prison sentence means a sentence served in prison. A prison sentence now in civilised democracies throughout Europe means a sentence which is partially served in prison and partially served in the community.
The fact of the matter is that under the present parole system thousands of prisoners have been released into the community at one-third of their sentence without any harmful effect on society. Indeed, the 1986 figures indicate that 11,000-odd of the 15,000 short sentence prisoners considered were given such parole. The report recognises that under its recommendations such prisoners will serve a higher proportion of their sentence in prison than hitherto. I find it difficult to go along with that. In its proposal, the committee says that prisoners should remain at risk to the end of the sentence period. If they re-offend then the court will have power to order the balance of the sentence to be served as well as any new sentence which may be imposed. As the committee frankly says, the result of that may well be a substantial increase in the prison population whereas, as NACRO points out, their release at the one-third stage would reduce the prison population by over 8,000 at the present time.
This concession to the judiciary can be justified, as the report makes abundantly clear and as has been

885
made clear again today by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, only by an equivalent concession by the judges that they will reduce present prison tariffs. Whether this can best be achieved by strengthening principles which have already been laid down by the Court of Appeal, or whether (and I quote again from the report),
"the Government should go further and invite Parliament to define more precisely the limits within which the judicial discretion should operate",
is not for us to determine.
The last passage that I should like to quote is from paragraph 297 of the report. It states:
'Much hinges on … the commitment of the Government to work for lower overall sentences. There is the risk that the disappearance of release at a third and the increased liabilities which we propose for the latter part of the sentence could add, possibly substantially, to the prison population".
The first part of the next paragraph was quoted by the noble Lord recently. However, I should like to underline the final sentence.
"If these changes were not forthcoming, and the scheme which we have recommended had a significant adverse effect on prison population, we are satisfied that the case for a root and branch review of sentencing law and practice, and its interaction with early release mechanisms, would become irresistible".
Those are very strong words indeed. The ball is therefore planted firmly and clearly in the Government's court. The House will want to know, I am sure, where the Government intend to kick it. As some of us have argued for years, the key to the overcrowding problem, the disgrace of the remand situation, the introduction of minimum standards, the unrest in the prisons, and an effective and acceptable system of parole, lies in the hands of the judiciary working in co-operation with a determined and committed Government.
Here is an official report that spells it all out. Will the Government at long last now sit down with the Lord Chief Justice to respond to this report and take positive measures to plug what was referred to as the gaping hole? The judiciary is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. The report makes it abundantly clear that its recommendations cannot be implemented without the co-operation of the judges. The noble and learned Lord is not here to participate in this important debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, pointed out in his opening remarks. That is surely regrettable and gives further fuel, along of course with the recent Green Paper, to those who support the idea of a ministry of justice. In the noble and learned Lord's absence, perhaps the Minister will tell the House whether discussions have already taken place over the past six months between his department and that of the noble and learned Lord. It is not so much Green Papers that are needed as green lights on the road between Queen Anne's Gate and Great Peter Street. In six months surely those lights have at least changed to amber.
I end what I have to say by simply commending some of the more important recommendations. I differ strongly from the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. That the Home Secretary should cease to be responsible for individual parole decisions, and that the board should shoulder that duty except for "lifer" cases, surely must be sensible when one reads in the report
886
that at the moment the Home Secretary is in law responsible for every single decision. We all know that 90 per cent. of the decisions which are made in regard to these short sentence releases were in fact made by LRCs. Would it not be infinitely more sensible to take this duty away from the Home Secretary and make it realistically the duty of the expert board? I agree very strongly with the idea that prison governors should serve on the board in the future. That there should be open reporting and reasons given for refusal of parole I could not support more strongly, having dealt with many cases of clients who, regrettably, have gone to prison. On those rare occasions when that has happened during my professional career I have seen the suffering which people undergo. There is the trouble and disturbance which is caused by prisoners having no idea why their applications for parole are turned down. There are the endless discussions between those who have succeeded and those who have failed. Surely we have reached a point in our democracy when we can grow up and be adult about the matter and men and women can be told perfectly straightforwardly why they had been refused parole, except on rare occasions. Surely we have reached that point. I have never been able to understand the difficulties which exist in that.
I believe that it is right that the LRCs should be abolished because they have grown and grown under the previous system. The Leon Brittan restrictions should also be abolished. I also strongly support the view that there should be ethnic monitoring of parole decisions and there should be a simplification of the supervision procedures in relation to young offenders.
All those proposals appear to be eminently sensible. I strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, said in his speech about the overall effect of those recommendations giving greater protection to the public than they do at this time. That argument appears to be overwhelming when one reads the report. With anxious anticipation I await the reply of the Minister to the matters which I have raised in order to hear the Government's intentions.
12.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I greatly welcome the debate and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing it. We are also greatly indebted to noble Lords who have already spoken in the debate from great experience and commitment to this field.
I speak as a layman in these matters but as one who is aware that public concern about the level of crime in our society goes deep and is widespread. I recently attended an open day at the Home Office and was amazed to learn that by the age of 28 one-third of the male population of this country will have been convicted of an indictable offence—that is, one in three. Much of that may be petty crime, but crimes of violence are on the increase. Certainly none of us can be complacent. The Church recognises that there are deep reasons for the malaise. Nevertheless, the response to the problem of crime must be a penal system which represents an adequate

887
deterrent to offenders. That must be one of its purposes, as well as a concern with reformation and public safety.
Surely it goes without saying that any penal system must be concerned with the need for proper and effective treatment of prisoners. In a civilised let alone a Christian society the system must be one that is in itself humane, just and comprehensible to those who are subject to it. It must also be workable within the resources at our disposal. Among those resources are our prisons where the Church is involved through the ministry of prison chaplains of all denominations. They, as much as any of us, are aware of the enormous pressures that the prison service has to bear in terms of overcrowding and of the resultant tensions that build up within the institution when left to bear the brunt of custodial sentencing at a level which appears to bear no relationship to available prison accommodation. The report that we are considering today recognises that the present parole system does little to ease these problems and can actually exacerbate them, despite the dedicated service of those who serve on review committees.
Over the years the parole system as we have it has given the impression of being both arbitrary and complex and has, through the delays inherent in an overburdened process, fuelled frustration and uncertainty within our prisons. What is more, although early release is a mechanism whereby overcrowding in prison may be controlled, our parole system has manifestly not achieved that objective. I am told from the inside, as it were, that the sense of inequity and disappointed expectations that the system has generated together with the tension created by waiting for Parole Board decisions, have had a detrimental effect on the morale of prisoners, their families and hence on the whole penal system. The effect of the present system on those categories of prisoner excluded from its provisions is of course dispiriting to the point of despair.
There needs to be a change and the present proposals offer a beginning. The introduction of a clear and comprehensible system that treats all prisoners alike within the limits mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, can be constructive only when it comes to trying to persuade offenders that the system plays fair and that justice is for all.
Not that the report is starry-eyed. The need for probation officers to monitor the progress of those granted parole or a conditional release is clearly recognised. It is to be hoped that should the proposals be implemented, Parliament will not be starry-eyed about the resources that will be needed by the probation service to carry out this role. One of the thrusts of the report is to bring back meaning into the entire sentence through the licence conditions under which parole or release is granted. However, that puts the onus very much on already overburdened probation officers and we must be clear about that and be prepared to provide what is needed.
That applies also to the prison service. The report assesses the opportunities that the proposed reforms
888
will provide in preparing prisoners for their release. It suggests drawing up a sentence plan for each prisoner serving more than four years' imprisonment with a view to preparing him or her for return to society. Such proposals offer an important opportunity to place renewed emphasis on the rehabilitation of prisoners. But if that is not to be just wishful thinking which will leave probation officers to pick up the pieces, it is vital both that this preparatory work is well thought out and, crucially, properly resourced.
I welcome the report. Its proposals are just and humane. I believe that the penal system must treat offenders as human beings if it expects them to behave as such in the outside world. Uncertainty, disappointment, secretiveness and apparent arbitrariness bring about the frustration, resentment and ultimately the anger which have all too often seen our prisons in chaos.
The proposals contained in the report will not answer all our problems but they may help to alleviate some of the factors that cause "dis-ease". However, if we go along this particular road we must not be half-hearted in our commitment to provide the necessary infrastructure to make it work. Neither must we demur from taking a critical look at our propensity to view custodial sentencing as the only effective way of dealing with crime, which plainly it is not.
12.50 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate, particularly with his final sentence and with his demand for more resources. We have seen something of the kind go wrong over the fresh start for the prisons. That could have gone through with far less trouble if a little money had been pushed into it. The same will apply to anything which happens following the report.
Having said that, I believe this is a particularly good report. As has been said, one would expect it to be so from the quality of the members of the committee, all of whom have fairly extensive experience of the problems we are discussing—and that is by no means always the case. I congratulate the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, on having achieved unanimity with so many experts; a very difficult object to achieve. I eagerly support the noble Lord, Lord Allen, in asking the Government to tell the House what they think about the issue after seven months. That may seem a short time for the Home Office but it is a very long time for the people concerned: prisoners, probation officers, prison officers, governors and so on. Therefore, we must have some indication from the Government that they feel as friendly towards this report as I do; and as do all the speakers today with the possible exception of my old and noble friend Lord Longford who did not seem to approve of it very much.
My noble friend Lord Hutchinson, who as a member of NACRO (of which I am president) is likely to agree with me, has seized on the most important passages in the report, though not directly linked with parole. The rather subtle point is that which describes the Government as,

889
"failing to grasp the nettle of sentencing reform, but finding it more convenient to allow judges a free hand and to restrain the size of the prison population more covertly".
That is a very insulting remark and I am glad it was made. Anyone who reads it carefully will see that it is no compliment.
The report also states that,
"there will be no alternative to a root and branch review of sentencing law and practice".
That has been raised by every speaker and I shall not say much more about it. It is perfectly clear that the parole scheme cannot put right that which is wrong. It cannot put everything right that is wrong but that is no reason for not trying to do so. My view on the report is that, on the whole, I agree with it.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. Let us suppose that in fact there is no reduction in sentences. Would the noble Lord still favour the report although it is based on the assumption that there will be a reduction in sentences?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the answer is, yes. The present situation is appalling. To consider the report in relation to the crisis in the prisons is akin to a doctor presented with a patient who has terminal cancer and a sprained ankle but who nevertheless spends his time on the sprained ankle. It is still worth doing so. The report is about fairness and justice and not basically about the prison population which, of course, is a far more important aspect. That is very much the line taken by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson.
I shall follow the report itself a little and move away from the prison population. We have an argument on this subject most years. I have told the Government what to do on at least three occasions. I know they will not do it. Overcrowding in the prisons is perfectly curable given the will, but the will is not there. However, I shall not discuss that matter any further this afternoon. In point of fact, the parole system is a very important part of the whole. It may as well be right and this report will largely put it right.
I well remember in 1967 urging my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who I may say needed no urging, to go bravely ahead with the introduction of the new parole scheme. We can all be happy that he did so. The fact that 20 years' experience has suggested improvements and even some changes in principle in no way derogates from the scheme's remarkable success. It has demonstrated that many sentences can be reduced in length without significant risk to the public. The report states that one in five parolees re-offend after release but that most of their offences are petty. Only 5 per cent. of the offences are serious enough to justify revoking the licence. That compares extremely favourably with the percentage of reconviction within two years of all prisoners, which stands at 55 per cent. If we could get it down to 20 per cent. of the whole, of which only 5 per cent. is serious, that would be very much better than the ordinary average which occurs everyday under the present system.
890
The scheme proposed in the report should do even better because, as the report clearly shows, there is good evidence to suggest that supervision for a period on release leads noticeably to less re-offending than continuation in prison. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hutchinson in regretting that, for the under-four-year cases, the date of release is to be increased from one-third to a half but I am prepared to give that away in order to bring the judiciary with us. If we can obtain agreement we would at least have something right in the prison system instead of, as at the moment, more or less nothing.
The report defeats its own argument about this when it states:
"It matters little from the point of view of public safety whether prisoners at the lower end of the scale spend nine months in custody or six and the sooner they can be released, the better".
Hear, hear, I say to that.
I was glad to see some reference to the Prior Report. It is particularly disappointing that the Government have rejected its main proposal that boards of visitors should cease to be disciplinary. I hope that when the changes recommended in this report come to be made the Prior recommendation can be made, too. My last thought is that every Home Secretary has too much to do, so the proposal to give the parole board the duty to make its own decisions instead of making recommendations to him must be a sound one. I endorse the view that parole boards should contain prison governors. That is important and we must endeavour to meet that objective.
I should like to make a final point. I wish we could occasionally get a Law Lord to our debates. I have an enormous respect for the judges. They are just like everybody else, only cleverer. If we can put forward proposals to the Home Secretary which he believes are worth trying, and if he can persuade the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, with himself, to talk to the judges then I believe that they would try out such proposals, whatever they may be, in a proper and loyal way. If they do not attend our debates, the cannot know what we think. However, perhaps that is asking rather a lot.
If the Government accept the report more or less in its entirety, which they should, it will remain essential reading for students of criminology for many years to come. The background chapter tracing the history of remission from the ticket-of-leave man, whom most of us first met in Dickens, right up to today, is most clearly told. The reasoning is impeccable throughout the report. I await the Government's verdict with impatience and with the hope that they will accept its main recommendations without further delay.
1 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I welcome the decision of the Government to provide time for this important debate, and I join with everybody else in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for having agreed to introduce it. Like both of my noble friends I deeply regret that we have no member of the judiciary present today. It seems quite astonishing with a debate of this importance and character that we find ourselves in that position.

891
I propose to divide my speech into two sections. The first will deal with those matters on which I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and his colleagues. Secondly, I shall deal with those matters where I find myself not agreeing with them. Perhaps I may first turn to those matters on which I suspect that we are all largely agreed except perhaps for the noble Earl, Lord Longford. As they are generally accepted I shall probably spend less time on them. I accept one of the committee's most important recommendations; namely, that discretionary release should be abolished for those prisoners serving the shortest sentences. I am sure that is right, and I welcome the fact that nearly everybody has agreed to it. At the moment the parole system is submerged under an avalanche of paper. The arrangements for short-sentence prisoners introduced by Sir Leon Brittan, have proved to be a failure. Their inconsistencies have undermined judicial confidence in the entire system and they have been of only marginal benefit to those affected.
When they were introduced I believe that all of us were prepared to accept them largely on the ground that the Government were not prepared to go any further. I believe that we all accepted that they were probably the least attractive of the options available to the then Home Secretary. I consider that Lord Carlisle's recommendation that we should have a four-year cut off is probably right. But as the committee itself recognises, there are problems associated with its related recommendation that their non-discretionary system should be applied at 50 per cent. of sentence rather than the present discretionary system which can operate at one-third of the sentence.
I believe that unless this significant change were to be accompanied by the most stringent review of present sentencing practices, for the reasons cited by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, the long-term effect could be to increase our already intolerably high prison population. One has always to look at changes of this character with the greatest caution. I can well remember being involved with the decision to introduce suspended sentences. They had a most dramatic long-term effect on the prison population of a kind that was not anticipated at the time it was introduced.
A large number of the shorter-sentence prisoners currently released after serving one-third of their sentence provide only a fairly minor threat to our society. But they represent a major proportion of the entire prison population. If they are to be released in future at the 50 per cent. stage and without any prospect of a change in the level of sentencing in the courts (together with all the other related recommendations of Lord Carlisle's committee) we could face yet another significant crisis in our prisons. So I welcome the committee's recommendation that the new scheme should be accompanied by action by both the judiciary and government to reduce the current levels of sentencing.
I say that though I have some sympathy for what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said. Governments of different persuasion have used phrases of this
892
kind for the past 20 years. Unless there is a determined effort to do something, there is a risk that the prison population may rise notwithstanding the many other admirable proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and his colleagues. I am well aware of the resistance of the judiciary to what I am about to say; but I suspect that in the longer term we shall not make any significant progress in this direction until we have a sentencing council.
I come now to another issue of high importance also dealt with in the report. That is the introduction of the so-called restrictive parole policy by Sir Leon Brittan in 1983. In that year he told the Conservative Party conference that he proposed to introduce a new policy for all those sentenced to more than five years' imprisonment who had been convicted of offences involving sex, drug trafficking, violence or arson. He said that in future, save in the most exceptional circumstances—and he said that in order to protect himself from judicial review—he would not agree to parole except for a very short period at the end of the sentence.
This policy has had two effects. First, we have had demonstrated to us the sheer absurdity of the policy. A judge sitting in the Crown Court deals with successive cases on the same day. In the first he sentences a robber to five years and three months for robbery. In the next case he has before him a man who has stolen the life savings of a large number of elderly people. He gives the thief a longer sentence of seven-and-a-half years because he believes he deserves more severe punishment. But what is the effect of Sir Leon's policy? The man who received the seven-and-a-half year sentence has the opportunity of coming out on parole on first review at the two-and-a-half year stage and well before the man sentenced to the shorter sentence who is almost automatically prevented from having his case seriously considered by the parole board. It is a truly nonsensical policy. It seemed that in 1983 and everything that we have seen since has justified the view that we expressed on that occasion.
Secondly, there is the serious damage inflicted both on the parole system itself and and on the prisoner's family. As the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Carlisle, said, although those affected by Sir Leon's restrictive policy are almost certain to be denied a significant period of parole, they have to have their cases reviewed by the local review committee and the parole board. Prison officers, the junior governor grades, prison probation officers, chaplains, consultant psychiatrists and home probation officers, all have to prepare detailed reports as though those cases were to be considered on their merits. But of course they all know perfectly well that they are not going to be considered on their merits. It is a cruel farce. As the noble Lord's committee rightly said, the policy is flawed in principle and harmful in practice. I say to the noble Earl that it will be an absolute disgrace if, whatever the Government do as regards the other recommendations of the noble Lord, this deplorable policy is not changed.
I now turn to those matters where I have some serious doubts as regards the committee's recommendations. On this matter I fear that I do

893
not share the views of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. These matters relate to the giving of reasons for adverse parole decisions and to the proposal that inmates should be given access to all the reports prepared on their cases. To some extent these recommendations are interrelated. Perhaps I may deal first with the argument about reasons. I accept at once that in principle it is desirable to do this. While I was at the Home Office I supported the idea. At that time what I meant by giving reasons was different from what the noble Lord and his colleagues have proposed. I considered that we should give generalised reasons for the board's concern. For a time the Parole Board did that and for a not inconsiderable period. They decided to identify, as an internal exercise, those matters that gave rise to concern.
However, as chairman of the Parole Board I became increasingly sceptical about the desirability of this approach. While in Sydney I had the opportunity of talking to the judicial chairman of the New South Wales Parole Board and his colleagues, who had introduced just such a policy. They told me that far from ending the argument about the giving of reasons, it had had exactly the reverse effect. It had, if anything, made inmates less satisfied. They wanted not a standardised reason for concern but a full and detailed explanation as to why they had been refused parole.
Later I had the opportunity of meeting a panel of the Parole Board of the State of Wisconsin when it was interviewing inmates at a medium security prison. I came away a firm opponent of the idea of interviewing prisoners. I very much welcome the majority recommendation in the noble Lord's report. But here again the Parole Board of the State of Wisconsin gave standardised reasons for concern when denying parole. It was abundantly clear from the demeanour of all concerned, including the inmates who were given the reasons at the hearing, that they resented this deeply.
I consider therefore that we have in this matter a clear choice—either to give a clear statement of the board's view, setting out in reasonable detail why an inmate has been rejected for parole, or to give no reasons at all. I do not believe that the giving of a generalised reason for concern is a serious option. It might of course make the decision ECHR proof, if I may so describe it, but it would I believe cause nothing but trouble in the prisons.
I now propose to say why I agree neither to the giving of detailed reasons nor to the provision of all the reports in an inmate's dossier to the prisoner. Perhaps I may start by making a rather obvious point. The inmate wants release. That is his interest. I fear that I do not share the view that he will find it entirely satisfactory to have an impeccably argued case as to why he is not to get parole. I believe therefore—this is one of the few matters on which I do not agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford—that if reasons were to be given there would continue to be complaints about the arbitrariness of the system. It would not dispose of that at all.
I do not propose to deal with the administrative problems associated with such a policy. However,
894
they are rather more significant than the noble Lord and his colleagues imagine. I propose to illustrate the practical problems which would be associated with the introduction of this policy. I should like to look at the case of a man with a long record of violence. Perhaps there have been several cases of unlawful wounding, one or two cases of actual bodily harm and finally a sentence for grievious bodily harm. His principal problem is drink. Sober he can be a fairly reasonable man; drunk he is viciously violent.
In such a case—and there are many of them—the board pays a great deal of attention to the area of his drinking problems. When he is in prison he does not have access to drink—at least we very much hope that he does not. In such circumstances the board will want to look especially carefully at the home circumstances to which he will return. Does the wife really want him home? Do the children want him home? The wife when interviewed by the home probation officer is often ambivalent. There may be some residue of affection for her husband. The marriage may have lasted through several prison sentences. But when drunk he may have beaten her and he may have beaten the children. The probation officer will ask the question, "Will you have him home despite his past behaviour?" She may indicate that she has told her husband on a visit to his prison that they would very much welcome his return home, but she confides to the home probation officer that she is not certain about this. She may add that she has formed a new relationship which of course she has not disclosed to her husband.
In such a case a panel of the board may conclude that the home circumstances report is not satisfactory and that without a stable domestic base he should not be released. Two questions arise. If the recommendation of the noble Lord's committee were to be accepted, the prisoner would first be told that despite what his wife had told him on the visit to prison, he was being rejected for parole because of what she had told the home probation officer. That information would be given to a man with a long record of violence who would eventually emerge from prison possibly deeply indignant about his wife's conduct and determined to wreak vengeance upon her. And of course, if he obtained full disclosure of the home probation officer's report with the other papers in the case, he would then read for the first time that she had formed a possibly temporary relationship with another man. The consequences for the wife, in cases of this character, could be extremely serious.
To cases of that kind I suppose that the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, would respond that paragraph 336 deals with the point. There it is said that the board should have a discretion to deny full disclosure where this would cause "specific harm". A single member of the Parole Board could, it suggests, give his consent to withholding a particular document before the rest of the dossier was passed to the prisoner. But two questions arise. First, as he is to receive the remainder of the dossier, it would be obvious to the prisoner that the only document removed was the home circumstances report—and

895
thus that it is something that his wife said is the real reason for him being denied parole. Secondly, when the home circumstances report is prepared, is the woman in this and other cases to be warned formally that the entire contents of the report of the interview will be furnished to her husband?
It seems obvious that that will have to be done. But will that not make it less likely, as the minority report of the Kincraig Committee on the Scottish parole system has pointed out, that the Parole Board will receive honest expressions of opinion in some of the reports submitted to it? I could deal with other groups of inmates whose cases could cause significant problems, but because of the constraints of time I shall not do so. All I shall say is that I remain unconvinced that these proposals are desirable.
In conclusion, I hope that there will be significant changes in the parole system. I very much hope that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and his colleagues will not be ignored as were the recommendations of the Prior Committee. However, the first priority has to be to restore confidence in the system, damaged as it has been by the changes introduced by the last Home Secretary. That confidence will not be restored—on this matter I very much agree with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said—until the present intolerable delays in the system are eliminated.
If a prisoner is to be released on his parole eligibility date, the papers have to arrive with the board six to eight weeks before that date. Yet we have recently been told by the Parole Board that in the second half of 1988 only a very small minority of cases submitted to the board met this timescale, and many arrive after that time. That causes entirely justifiable anger both to prisoners and to their families. But it is worse than that; it is leading to a totally unnecessary increase in the prison population. It seems a little odd that we have heard the noble Earl telling us how sorry he is that remand prisoners are being sent to police cells and kept there in intolerable conditions, at a time when he and his colleagues are presiding over this truly absurd situation.
I hope that the noble Earl will deal with this matter when he comes to reply to this debate. I say that because I think that there is a significant concern about the issue. I also hope that one of the results of this debate will be that he will be able to assure us that such substantial delays will no longer occur. I trust that he will also be able to tell us that the bulk of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and his colleagues will be accepted by the Government.
1.20 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying, despite the slightly cool reception which my noble friend Lord Longford gave to these proposals, how very much the Labour Party welcomes the thoughtful and thorough analysis of the parole system which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and his colleagues have produced. I should
896
also like to congratulate the authors on the very elegant draftsmanship which made the report extremely easy to read.
We believe that the report is both logical and coherent, based on the important principles of restoring meaning to the sentence yet, at the same time, retaining an awareness of the practical constraints. It also reflects the concern felt by many of us that our system of parole has been confused, over-complex and unjust and therefore is in urgent need of reform. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for his report and we are also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for allowing us to debate the matter today.
In his introduction, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, gave a characteristically clear and comprehensive account of the contents of the report; and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, added to what he said. Many points have already been mentioned, so I should merely like to stress some of the points made on the positive side of the report and also to mention certain proposals which give cause for alarm.
First, we very much welcome the report's reference to crime prevention. It says:
"The contribution which the courts and prisons alone can make to reducing crime is strictly limited".
On these Benches, we have always argued that a thoroughgoing properly resourced national crime prevention scheme is required. We agree with the comments contained in the report that prison should only be used as a last resort and that custody should no longer occupy such a central place in our sentencing structure.
Secondly, I very much welcome the thorough and comprehensive account of the sentencing and release mechanisms in other jurisdictions. Surely we should take note of what is being tried out in countries with similar cultures and demography to our own—and countries which also share the same problems—in order to provide a background against which the strengths and weaknesses of a particular system can be assessed. In a country such as ours, which sadly—indeed, it is often repeated in this House—still has the greatest number of people in prison in relation to its total population, surely anything we can learn from other countries by way of research and experiments about sentencing policies and early release mechanisms must be of great importance. I am very happy that the report focused on what is going on abroad, because very often we do not take that aspect seriously.
We entirely agree with the report's view that the restricted policy in granting parole to those sentenced to more than five years' imprisonment for offences involving, sex, drug trafficking, violence and arson, introduced by Sir Leon Brittan in 1983, is—and every speaker has mentioned this point—as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle quoted:
"Flawed in principle and harmful in practice".
In our view the parole board should consider each prisoner's case for release on its individual merits, rather than in accordance with a blanket policy announced in advance covering whole categories of offenders.

897
During my service on the Select Committee concerned with murder, of which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is also a member, we found from evidence given by witnesses, and from our visits to prisons, that one of the major causes of unrest, in the sense of injustice in prison, is the fact that this policy was brought out by the Home Secretary at the time. Prisoners have resisted it more strongly than any other measure. While serving on that Select Committee we also came to appreciate more and more the importance of introducing much greater openness into the release process.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not agree with what I am about to say because I have now heard him giving his arguments—indeed, they are most potent arguments—as to why he would not like to see the reasons for a refusal of parole given to the prisoner concerned. However, I should like to stress what the report says on this issue. It says:
"The advantages of open reporting far outweigh any disadvantages".
It goes on to say:
"Secrecy breeds rumour and suspicion".
I believe that that is true. The situation would not be perfect; indeed, there would be many problems, such as those which have been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on many occasions. However, on the whole it must be right—and other countries lead us in this way—to have a more open system.
I started with an open mind on this subject but after hearing evidence from those most closely affected as regards the caring of prisoners—notably, the prison officers and the probation officers—to the effect that more knowledge and more openness would actually help them in their care of prisoners, I became convinced that this policy was right.
The other part of the report which I should especially like to support is the emphasis on the preparation for release and the need for more resources to be devoted to after-care. I do so, as my noble friend Lord Longford said, in my capacity as chairman of New Bridge for Ex-prisoners and I should like to say that through our voluntary associates who visit prisons, and through our scheme of finding jobs for prisoners on their release, we have learnt how very little is done in real terms to prepare prisoners for their eventual release into the community.
I know that there are successful pre-release employment schemes operating in a small number of institutions, but unfortunately the places are very limited indeed. Therefore the majority of prisoners are discharged without any real preparation. For instance, in Britain a prisoner may be allowed one short period of home leave towards the end of the sentence, whereas in West Germany, Holland and Scandinavia long-term prisoners are entitled to as many as six periods of home leave per year. We must remember that in those countries the level of the prison population is a great deal lower than ours.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a short example of the experience of a New Bridge client who is serving a sentence in Grendon. By his own account he has greatly benefited from the therapeutic regime
898
which is in operation there. He has gained insight into his behaviour and perhaps will never again be in a better position to change. He is currently serving his fifth prison sentence and he is 30 years of age. He wrote a letter to his New Bridge voluntary associate in which he says:
"In here"—
That is to say, Grendon—
"it's easy to keep up the determination, or conform to the therapeutic regime that surrounds us 24 hours a day. The test will come out there in the big bad world, and, as you know, that scares me half to death".
He goes on to say:
"I really need the help that you seem to be offering. I want to stay out of prison. I want some support. I want to feel needed and useful, I want to have friends … I want to get it right the next time, that's all I mean".
I think that that demonstrates the compelling need to consider how prisoners can best be prepared for discharge. After all, it is very difficult for those who want to stay out of prison when one morning they find themselves outside the prison gates with about £20 to £50 in their pockets, with nowhere to live, no work and wrestling with exactly the same problems as they had when they were locked away.
I implore the Government to take heed of the recommendations in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and to put greater emphasis on rehabilitation. They should do this both from the humane point of view and to try to bring down our grotesquely high reconviction rates.
Finally, perhaps I may touch on the part of the report about which most, if not all, noble Lords have spoken—namely, the proposal to end parole and introduce automatic release for those sentences of under four years. We certainly welcome this from the point of view that it would eliminate the unfairness of the present system, arising from the inconsistent approaches which have been described by previous speakers. It would relieve the prison and probation services of a very great burden of administration. It would also be of enormous benefit to the families who live in anxiety and uncertainty.
Like most speakers, we would prefer to see the supervised release of short-term prisoners take place after one-third of the sentence rather than one-half, as recommended in the report because of the danger which again every speaker has brought out that there could be an increase in the prison population. The Carlisle review opted for automatic release for those serving under four years. Had they opted for one-third of the sentence, as has been mentioned today, it is calculated that the prison population would be reduced by 8,000 people.
I know that the report stated, and every speaker has repeated, that the new scheme is proposed in the hope and expectation that it will be accompanied by changes in sentencing. Here I agree with my noble friend Lord Longford. Surely one cannot rely on just hoping. Sadly, we see no evidence that a sentencing review will occur. We fear that the result will be a higher prison population. Many noble Lords have mentioned that it is sad that nobody from the judiciary is with us today. But I fear that members of the judiciary are often not very interested in what

899
goes on in prisons; their interest is merely in the sentencing policy.
We very much welcome the report. The only change we ask for is that a complementary part should be added to the report whereby the Lord Chief Justice should issue guidelines to judges to reduce sentences. In this way a package would be made out of the Carlisle recommendations. Its only adverse effect—namely, a danger in the rise of the prison population—would be counteracted. But if, as we fear, this does not come about, we should like to see a new sentence introduced whereby the short-term prisoner spends one-third of his time in custody and two-thirds on release. That would move the bounds away from prison towards supervision. Like other noble Lords, I very much look forward to what the Minister will say. I hope that he will seize the opportunity which this carefully analysed report has offered to the Government and tell us that they will not turn their back yet again on some very serious proposals for improving the arrangements within our prisons.
1.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, one in which, as always, your Lordships have expressed considerable concern about the plight of prisoners and how best to deal with them. The House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for giving us the opportunity to debate this very important subject. The noble Lord referred to the fact that the date by which the views on the report should have been sent to the Home Office was 10th March. He said that he hoped that the Government would be able to give their views today. I am bound to tell him that on several occasions your Lordships have expressed a desire to hold a debate on the subject of the report by my noble friend Lord Carlisle before the Government had made up their mind on it. The debate today has provided your Lordships with that oppportunity.
I notice that the noble Lords, Lord Hutchinson and Lord Donaldson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, all said that they hoped that the Government would give their views. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, did so because it was he who specifically asked in a Parliamentary Question for the opportunity to have a debate. I rather fancy that if the Government had come forward and if I were to say this afternoon exactly what the Government proposed I should have brought the Tower of Babel down upon me for not having listened to your Lordships' views before the Government had made up their mind. So I resisted the opportunity to tell your Lordships exactly what we proposed to do. That resistance is quite easy because we have not yet made up our mind and we are considering the report very carefully. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that we are not turning our backs on the report. It is very valuable and we intend to look into it and consider it most carefully.
The report which my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and his committee produced was the
900
result of tremendous research and a very well-considered appraisal of the whole system. Its conclusions have been wide-ranging and have provoked a great deal of thought and interest. Whenever we come to discuss parole, prisons or punishment, those are always matters which exercise the minds of your Lordships. It is right that noble Lords should have the opportunity to discuss them today.
I was encouraged by the letter which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, read, I think from a prisoner or an ex-prisoner to New Bridge, explaining how he wanted to keep out of prison and to keep on the straight and narrow. That is one of the most difficult tasks that the whole system of prisons involves—to enable a person both to be confined and yet to have hope and opportunity for the future and to be given the chance to gain self-confidence. It is a theme which has run through the remarks of all noble Lords—to try to find the best way of achieving that.
I am bound to say that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is always entertaining in his speeches. I think that he was the only person to dismiss my noble friend's report in a fairly cavalier way. Even if, as my noble friend, Lord Carlisle, said, it meant shorter sentences, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, dismissed the report because he was very sensitive to maintaining the parole system. I understand his sensitivities. However, I never expected that he would introduce the subject of hanging in his debate. He has a breadth of ingenuity in bringing in totally irrelevant matters, even though they are enormously interesting, such as my own personal views on the subject. I cannot see what that has to do with the debate today, I just admire the noble Earl's ingenuity in extending the debate into that realm, where I do not propose to follow him.
I wish to pay a particularly warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and his committee, who have given up a lot of time and have immersed themselves in a very difficult matter in order to try to help us all: the problem of parole. As my noble friend said, it may not be the flavour of the month but the problem will not go away. We recognised that there was a problem. That is why we asked my noble friend to chair this important committee. The result was that the committee realised that the problems which we were concerned about were real and genuine. The committee highlighted them and made some very useful recommendations.
Members of the committee came from all parts of the country and a great effort was put in by them which has resulted in a clear, succinct and interesting report, for which your Lordships and many others will be most grateful. I wish to thank my noble friend and his committee for all that they have done.
The report made it perfectly clear that the committee was by no means anti-parole. That will please the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The committee pointed out that since 1967 over 120,000 prisoners have been released earlier than they otherwise would have been, with enormous benefits in resource terms, both human and otherwise. So parole does seem to work.

901
It was valuable to hear the views of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on the drawbacks of the present system. He referred to a sense of inequity and desperation on the part of those who are inside prison and who are affected. I thought the speech of the right reverend Prelate was a particularly thoughtful and understanding one. I can well understand the desperation of those who are involved. However, parole has advantages. It is a significant fact that those who are released on parole are much less likely to be reconvicted within two years of their release than are those who do not receive parole.
It is not just a matter of the frequency with which people re-offend. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, touched on this point. Recent research has shown that when those who are on parole commit further offences, the new offences are less serious than the ones for which they were originally sentenced.
The committee also paid tribute to the commitment and hard work of all those who are involved in the parole system. That is something that I also would like to endorse. The parole system in England and Wales depends very largely on the involvement of a large number of members of the public who sit on local review committees at prisons without being paid, and who apply themselves unstintingly to what is a very demanding task. They act on reports which are prepared by members of the prison staff and the probation service, all of whom perform their tasks with great dedication and professionalism.
Members of the parole board are paid, although as some of your Lordships may be aware, far from handsomely. Many of them are busy professional men and women who give their time to advise on these difficult decisions. As my noble friend said in his report, all this is in the best tradition of public service in this country. The Government are grateful as indeed I know your Lordships are, to those who are presently involved and all those who, over the last 20 years, have been involved in this very important work.
We were glad that the committee recognised the strengths of the parole system. That will have given the noble Earl, Lord Longford, some degree of comfort. In particular we were glad the committee recognised the part which is played in it by a large number of people throughout the country. But, as we have heard over the past couple of hours, the committee made some telling criticisms of the existing system with which its major recommendations were concerned. I would like to refer to one of the more practical issues which certainly worries me immensely. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to this issue. The committee was particularly concerned, as we all are, about the delays which are occurring in the consideration of parole cases. It thought the delays meant that the system had become unworkable in practice. I do not agree, but I do think that the delays which are now occurring are unacceptable.
We have always aimed to give prisoners a decision on whether or not they will be granted parole by the
902
date on which they become eligible for parole, or by the anniversary of that date if they are serving a longer sentence. Although a large proportion of cases are not suffering from delays, there is nevertheless a substantial number where we have not met our targets, and this we consider is unacceptable.
The problem arose from the steady increase in the number of longer sentenced prisoners who are eligible for parole. These are the cases which are considered by the parole board and which have to go through the whole process of consideration by the local review committee, then preparation within the parole unit of the Home Office and consideration by the board. It is a thorough and careful process. There are a large number of papers to read and digest. People have to be given a chance to do this. It all takes time. However, I realise that that is not a good excuse; it is merely a fact.
Parole delays, after all, cause a great deal of distress and anxiety both for individual prisoners and for their families. They also contribute quite unacceptably to the overcrowding in prisons. It is by no means a sensible use of resources to allow a release to be delayed. Therefore we have taken a number of steps to remedy the situation. Perhaps the most significant of these is increasing the number of staff who are available to deal with the cases in order that the cases may be put before the parole board more swiftly. We are also increasing the size of the parole board itself, and we have made a number of changes to working practices which should also help. We accept the criticism of the existing system in this respect. Indeed it was one of the reasons why the committee was set up in the first place. However, I would not like anyone to think that we had just waited until the report was available before we made any changes. Improvements to the system are being undertaken all the time.
At the heart of the Carlisle Committee's proposals for change is the suggestion that the existing parole and remission arrangements should be replaced by a system of conditional release after half the sentence has been served. For those who are serving sentences of over four years, this release would be selective. It is also proposed that prisoners who have been released but who are convicted of a further offence, should be liable to return to prison to complete their original sentence.
We were grateful for the assistance of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow in explaining his report so clearly. However, I am bound to make it quite clear that if the proposals of the committee are implemented, they could have far-reaching consequences in terms of resources. It would not be right to take any decisions without giving very careful thought to how much the cost would be. Under the proposed arrangements, some prisoners, who at present become eligible for release when they have served one-third of their sentence, will not be eligible until one-half has been served.
The argument of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow was that sentencing would come down. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, posed a very pertinent question when he asked the noble Lord, Lord

903
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, whether he would still be in favour of the report if sentences were not reduced. The noble Lord replied that he would still be in favour of it.
However, unless sentencing practices were to change, some people would spend longer in prison. Some people may think that is a good thing, others may think that it is a bad thing. However, whatever one feels about that, it would have a considerable impact on the prison population in a system which is, as your Lordships know only too well, already seriously overcrowded.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that the Government had no will to alter the system. I do not think that is either fair or true. There is a large-scale prison building programme in progress at the moment. It is by far the biggest programme that has been undertaken in this country for a century. The programme is now well under way and we do not want to jeopardise its success by adding to the problem if it is not necessary.
The question of the relationship between sentencing practice and early release procedure is a very complex one. The Carlisle Report recognises that present sentencing tariffs have evolved within a particular framework, and that if the framework for early release changes, sentencing levels will need to change or at least be looked at.
The committee recognised that there was an artificiality in trying to revise release mechanisms independently of a review of sentencing. My noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow said that judges had indicated they would impose shorter sentences. I was not aware that the judges had said that. We have received comments on the report from a number of members of the judiciary. When the Government have reached their conclusions on the recommendations, we shall need to consider the sentencing implications with the judges. I know that that will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, asked whether we had discussed the report with the Lord Chancellor's Department. The answer is that we have.
We clearly need to consider carefully the views of the judiciary on the implications for sentencing practices before we can reach any conclusions on the resource implications of those proposals. When radical changes are proposed, we obviously have to be aware, among other things, of their financial implications, which could be considerable.
However, our prime duty is to ensure that the public is adequately protected and that offenders are adequately punished and have adequate means for getting back into society. Where it is consistent with fulfilling those duties, we should aim to have a system of parole or early release which is logical, straightforward and easily understood by the public, the judiciary and the offenders themselves.
I have tried to give an idea of the context in which the Government are considering the recommendations of the Carlisle Report. As I have explained the Government have not yet made up their mind on my noble friend's proposals. It would,
904
therefore, have been wrong for me to pre-empt our decisions or to indicate that we have reached any firm conclusions. However, I can assure my noble friend Lord Carlisle and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who both expressed concern, that we are looking at the report with great care and thoroughness.
The debate has been timely, coming as it does while we are still developing our ideas on the future of the parole system. If the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and others of your Lordships feel disappointed that I have been unable to give a firmer indication of what the Government propose to do, I hope that you will consider that it is, among other things, in deference to your Lordships in order that the Government should have the benefit of your views on my noble friend's report. The whole debate has provided a valuable contribution to the development of our views and I can assure the House that we shall consider most carefully the points which have been raised.
1.52 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long. The debate has brought out that this is both a very complicated and important issue. I certainly had not expected the Government to come along today with cut and dried decisions before noble Lords had had an opportunity to express their views. However, I am just a shade disappointed that the noble Earl has not been able to go a little further. We have been given no indication of any possible timetable or of any possible issue of a White Paper or any indication of what happens next. In particular, we have had no reaction to the criticisms which have been universally expressed of the 1983 decision about those serving more than five years for crimes of sex, violence, arson and so forth. I hope that before very long the Government will be able to come to some decision on that issue if we ask a Question about it within the next few weeks.
I think that one can claim that the contributions made to the debate by noble Lords—leaving aside the introducer of the debate—who know quite a lot about the subject will be helpful to the Government and will add to the various contributions they have received in response to the invitation for comments on the report. I think that it has been of particular value that we have had this opportunity for the chairman of the committee to speak to us and tell us about the committee's conclusions and the reasons for them. For my part I should not have minded if he had gone on for rather longer.
I should like to say one word about the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I enjoyed his characteristic and entirely foreseeable comments on the somewhat controversial issues which I ventured to raise in my opening remarks. I make the very mild complaint that he said that I had not commented on the underlying problem of the sentencing policy of the courts; I ended my remarks by saying that those underlay everything else. However, I realise that that was at the end of a rather long and boring speech and if by then his attention had wandered I make no complaint.

905
It is quite true that one of the issues which has come out very clearly from many of the contributions to the debate is the question of sentencing policy. I shall read very carefully what the noble Earl has said on that issue and I hope that perhaps some members of the absent judiciary may also do so.
I should also like to say a word to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I think that he is too gloomy in saying that this report spells the death knell of parole.
I have some knowledge of the pigeonholes at the Home Office, which are quite voluminous. I end by saying that I hope that this report will not be consigned to those pigeonholes. As the Minister conceded, this is not a problem which will go away. I hope that it will not be all that long before we have some further reactions from the Government on the committee's recommendations. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Control of Smoke Pollution Bill
1.57 p.m.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is very likely that man has been afflicted by smoke pollution since the dawn of civilisation though it is first recorded in this country in 1257 when Queen Eleanor is said to have left Nottingham for Tetbury on account of the smoke nuisance. There followed in 1273 a prohibition on the use of coal in London on the grounds that it was "prejudicial to health". There are references throughout succeeding centuries to smoke pollution, which was caused mainly by coal burning, and to a range of attempts to tackle it.
The first concerted attempt to control smoke pollution came in the Public Health Act of 1875.This declared any fireplace not consuming its own smoke as far as possible or producing black smoke, except from a domestic chimney, to be a nuisance. The Act allowed a defence that the fireplace was constructed to consume its smoke as far as practicable and that it was being carefully attended.
In 1890 and 1891 smogs in London caused increased numbers of deaths and bronchitis. Sporadic action followed. That included the setting up of the National Smoke Abatement Institution in 1882, the Public Health (London) Act 1891 and the formation of the Committee for the Investigation of Atmospheric Pollution in 1912.
In 1926 the Public Health Act of 1875 was amended, extended and consolidated. The Public Health Act of 1936 provided for the abatement of industrial and domestic smoke nuisances and the making of by-laws regulating the emission of smoke. The first recorded completely smokeless housing estates were built in 1936, and in 1946 private legislation for the first time enabled local authorities to establish smokeless zones.
It was, however, the severe smog in London in December 1952 which led to the Clean Air Act of
906
1956. Everyone is aware of the great improvements which have resulted from that Act and the subsequent Clean Air Act of 1968. Total smoke emissions have been reduced by 85 per cent. and the sulphur dioxide content by 50 per cent., with two-thirds of all urban premises covered by smoke control orders. The 1968 Act extended the 1956 Act to remedy a number of deficiencies. For example, it gave the Secretary of State power to direct local authorities to make smoke control orders.
Similarly, since 1968 further deficiencies have emerged. The Bill seeks to remedy two of them. Clause 1 of the Bill provides that nuisance emissions of non-dark smoke from dwellings not in a smoke control area can be deemed to be a statutory nuisance for the purposes of the Public Health Act 1936 (and, in Scotland, the Public Health Act 1897). It is an offence under the clean air Acts in most circumstances to emit dark smoke from a building. It is also an offence to emit any form of smoke from the chimney of any building within a smoke control area, except by exemption or the authorisation of the Secretary of State.
Smoke is divided into two categories—dark smoke and non-dark smoke. Those categories and the gradings within them are not purely picturesque or descriptive terms. They are determined according to the Ringelmann chart. I hope that I have pronounced that correctly. That chart is to smoke pollution what the Richter scale is to earthquakes. It is part of the scientific basis for determining the pollutant factor in smoke.
The Act also provides that, when non-dark smoke is emitted other than from the chimney of a dwelling, it may be deemed to be a statutory nuisance; that is, a nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. Thus, there are controls over the emission of dark smoke from buildings wherever they are located and over the emission of non-dark smoke within smoke control areas and from buildings other than dwellings outside smoke control areas.
There is no good reason why non-dark smoke from dwellings outside smoke control areas should not be subject to some sort of control. Smoke emissions of this type are not likely to be a hazard, but can cause discomfort and distress, preventing people from opening windows or enjoying their gardens. They can also deposit dirt on washing that is hanging outside. The defence already contained in Section 16 of the 1956 Act will remain that best practicable means have been used to prevent the nuisance. The use of fuel authorised for smoke control purposes would constitute best practicable means.
Clause 2 provides for additional controls over the emission of dark smoke from industrial or trade premises. Local authorities have found a number of practical difficulties in enforcing the prohibition contained in Section 1 of the Clean Air Act 1968 against emission of dark smoke from such premises. The most common difficulty is associated with illegal burning at night when the colour of the smoke cannot be assessed. Problems also arise when it is not the occupier of the premises who causes the offending emissions. An example is where vehicles or cable are burned in the open at a scrap yard to destroy paint,

907
upholstery and plastic coatings. The residual metal is then suitable for melting in a furnace without causing air pollution problems during the melting process. The vehicles and cable should be burned indoors in a building equipped to deal with the resultant pollution which can include CFCs and dioxins.
Under the Bill, it will become an offence to burn any material on industrial or trade premises unless it is a fuel exempted for the purposes of use in a smoke control area where combustion would be likely to give rise to the emission of dark smoke. It will therefore no longer be necessary to prove that dark smoke was emitted. The current clean air defences will remain; namely, that contravention was inadvertent or that all practicable steps were taken to prevent or minimise the emissions. As an additional safeguard, Clause 2 gives the defendant the chance to prove that no dark smoke was emitted.
The other problem tackled under the clause allows for the prosecution of any person who causes or permits dark smoke to be emitted from industrial or trade premises in addition to the person occupying the premises. At present, only the occupier of the premises is liable for conviction.
There has been wide consultation on the drafting of the Bill. A consultation paper was issued by the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Development Department and the Welsh Office in December of 1986. Sixty out of the 64 respondents commenting on the proposal which is now in Clause 1 were in favour. The objections from the coal industry that authorised fuels could be held to create a statutory nuisance are met by the defence that all practicable steps had been taken to prevent or minimise the emission of dark smoke. Fifty-four out of 58 respondents favoured the second proposal. Those objecting claimed that existing controls were sufficient. However, the evidence is that that is not the case.
As noble Lords who followed the progress of the Bill in another place will recognise, it will be necessary to table two minor amendments to the Long Title of the Bill after Second Reading. Those are merely to secure consistency between the Long Title of the Bill and Clause 1. It was realised after First Reading in another place that only part of Section 16(1)(A) of the 1956 Act should be repealed and hence the Long Title should refer to the amendment of that section and not its repeal. For procedural reasons, it was not possible to amend the Long Title in another place. The two amendments to the Long Title will make no change whatever to the substance of the Bill.
The Bill comes at a time of increasing public awareness and concern about pollution and has been drafted in response to the realisation that the existing legislation is deficient. I feel that its proposals will receive overwhelming support in the country at large and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
2.8 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches we certainly give a warm welcome to the intention of the Bill. I am absolutely certain that the Bill will not suffer the fate that overtook it in another place on Third Reading. The noble Earl spoke in terms of the progress of the Bill at Third Reading. I know that Mr. Andrew Hunter stood up at 9.35 and sat down at 1.53. That may be progress but I believe that some delaying tactics were employed. Unfortunately the Bill was set down in the agenda at a place where it was used for quite legitimate parliamentary purposes and we have an extraordinary debate in the parliamentary record on the very modest Bill before us.
It is remarkable to see the pleasure of visitors to London or elsewhere in the country who have not been here for some time at the cleanliness of the air and the buildings. Noble Lords will know just how detrimental was the polluted air that we breathed many years ago. On the face of our buildings one could see the dirt and grime. One could reflect that some of it must have found its way into our lungs. The clean air movement is something for which we should be very grateful indeed.
The noble Earl introduced the Bill very fully and lucidly. His speech will make good reading on the record. We are very grateful to him. There is, however, a point which needs to be tackled and I should like either the noble Earl or the Minister to deal with it. Under "Financial and Manpower Effects of the Bill" it states:
"The Bill has no financial effects or effects on public service manpower".
I should like to hear a little more about that statement. My honourable friends in another place raised, quite legitimately and forcefully, the nonsense of such a phrase. Any measure of this kind will be a nonsense unless the public can see, first, that it is needed and, secondly, that it will be enforced, whether by the inspectorate of pollution or by local authority environmental health officers.
The evidence brought to the attention of Parliament in another place, again largely produced by my honourable friends, shows that some questions need to be asked. There is a current shortfall in the number of environmental health officers required to carry out their existing functions, which do not just entail policing or monitoring measures such as those contained in this Bill but also encompass a whole range of other matters. I am not competent to fix the number of additional hours that will be needed but it must amount to a number of additional hours. Only this morning I noticed in the newspapers some comments on this matter. I also picked up a document which has just been published—namely, the Review of the Crown Prosecution Service. I remember sitting in this House in 1984 and listening to the debates on the establishment of the Crown Prosecution Service. I was told then that it was estimated to require 2,500 staff and that it would release some 600 police officers for other duties. The House accepted that advice.

909
Now this review issued by the National Audit Office states that:
"in April 1985 … staff requirements would be 3,750 and the Treasury subsequently approved a total complement of 3,755 … the complement was subsequently increased to 4,497".
Noble Lords who were present in the Chamber last night, as I was, will recall the debate on the staff requirements of the Director General of Electricity Supply. The argument then was that the Government anticipated that 115 staff would be required. Every one laughed at that point. Perhaps someone can tell me where to find the evidence to support the statement in the present Bill that there will be no financial effects on public service manpower. Does it mean that there will be an additional burden placed on a depleted staff? Will it simply mean that the work which is not being done now will continue to remain untouched and that an additional duty will be laid upon the officers, who will of course be unable to carry it out? The House is entitled to an explanation of those words.
I hope that my comments will not detract in any way from my belief, which I want the Minister and the noble Earl to understand, that this is a first-class piece of additional tidying-up legislation which is much needed. I very much hope that we shall see it implemented and carried into effect as quickly as possible.
2.14 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, it would surely not be appropriate for a Bill of this kind to receive its Second Reading without a word of support from the Democrat Benches. Of all the political parties the old Liberal Party was the greenest the earliest, although others are now trying to follow its lead and to catch up with its record.
The Clean Air Act 1956 has been a massive success. The government at the time—it was the time of Suez—were one of the most incompetent governments that we have had for many a decade. However, this Act was in my view wholly positive and successful. I always recall it as an example of the work of democracy in action. The first borough to institute itself as a clean air zone was the borough of Woolwich as it then was, which was my constituency. I recall a public meeting there which was called to explain the requirements of the Clean Air Act to my constituents. The people tasked to do that were the chairman of the relevant borough council committee and the leader of the council. The Member of Parliament was in the safe position of chairman of the meeting.
The hall was packed with infuriated constituents who had all come to complain about the government pushing their fingers into their own private hearths, telling them not to burn their own traditional favourite fuel, even in the kitchens and bedrooms. The hall could not contain the mass of people. For vigour, passion and relevance I have never heard better questions. However, the answers were calm, well informed, patient and polite. The questioning and answering went on for two or perhaps three hours until gradually one saw the audience
910
acknowledging defeat. Finally, in a good humoured way it accepted the lead of the borough council. It was a small thing perhaps but a remarkable instance of what free speech and democratic practices can do. As a result, Woolwich is totally transformed, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble Earl have said. The appearance of London, for instance, is quite changed. The health of Londoners has improved.
We look forward to a reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. We give our warm support to the Bill of the noble Earl and to his all important amendment.
2.16 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing this Bill, which offers two useful amendments to the Clean Air Acts 1956 and 1968.
The Clean Air Acts have served us very well over the years. Since 1956, 6,000 smoke control orders have been made, covering about 9 million premises. That is two-thirds of all urban premises. Total national smoke emissions have declined by 85 per cent. and sulphur dioxide by 50 per cent. in London, 95 per cent. of which is covered by smoke control orders, and visibility has increased from 1·5 miles to 4 miles. Whereas 40 years ago central London enjoyed only half as much winter sunshine as Kew, levels in central London have now increased so that they match those at Kew. That is not bad for an incompetent government, to use the description of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on the introduction of the 1956 Act.
Nor has improvement been confined to London. Other cities such as Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield are now completely covered by smoke control areas. Improvements in visibility and winter sunshine levels have been just as notable as in London.
The smogs which used to engulf our towns and cities are now, thankfully, a thing of the past. The nation's health has accordingly improved. Smoke and sulphur dioxide, especially in combination, aggravated bronchitis. Today death and discomfort during high pollution incidents have been all but eradicated.
While these massive improvements are laudable, I am not suggesting that they have engendered any complacency on the part of the Government. Many new air pollution problems have emerged during the past 30 years, with changing technology, a greater understanding of our environment and the considerable advances that have been made in our ability to detect and analyse potentially hazardous emissions.
We have done much in response to these new problems. We have, for example, agreed to major action to cut emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from existing large combustion plant operated by the Central Electricity Generating Board, at an estimated cost of £2 billion. We have signed the NOx Protocol to the UN/ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution.

911
There are now over 7,600 outlets selling unleaded petrol and unleaded pumps are being opened at the rate of about 250 a week. More than 14 per cent. of all petrol sales now of unleaded petrol. The last two Budgets created a substantial tax differential in favour of unleaded petrol.
We have been in the forefront of moves to achieve worldwide reductions in the use of CFCs. In the UK the British aerosol industry will phase out non-essential use of CFCs as propellants by the end of 1989, thereby allowing the UK to achieve the Montreal Protocol target of a 50 per cent. cut in CFC consumption 10 years ahead of schedule.
We have also undertaken a thorough review of air pollution legislation and in December 1986 we published a major consultation paper. We have implemented some of the consultation paper proposals in regulations made earlier this year. We intend to take forward the bulk of the remaining proposals and to legislate for a system of integrated pollution control during the course of this Parliament.
But, while we in government are concentrating on tackling the many serious global and national questions, it is right that my noble friend should remind us of the distress that can be caused by pollution at the local level. Local smoke pollution can cause severe individual hardship. I am grateful to my noble friend for providing this opportunity to alleviate two such problems through this Bill.
As with much legislation that has been on the statute books for a good many years, practical experience of using the powers throws up areas where the original legislation is either being abused or is capable of improvement. The Bill looks to extend the two Clean Air Acts of 1956 and 1968 in two minor, yet important, ways.
Clause 1 is concerned with the control of non-dark smoke from chimneys of private dwellings outside smoke control areas. Over the last few years my department has received a considerable number of complaints from members of the public who have suffered from such nuisance. At present they have only the option of taking out a private prosecution. This Bill will enable local authorities to act on their behalf to require abatement; I therefore welcome it.
I welcome also Clause 2, which is designed to close loopholes that have arisen in the enforcement by local authorities of the control over dark smoke emissions. It will allow them to prosecute for illegal night-time burning where the colour of the smoke cannot be assessed and to take action against anyone—not just the occupier of the land—who causes or permits dark smoke to be emitted.
912
The Clean Air Acts continue to provide the basis for effective control over air pollution from smoke, grit and dust. But they have their weaknesses. The two amendments proposed in this Bill will serve to overcome some of them and so to enhance the effectiveness of the Acts in two important areas. They tackle both domestic and industrial smoke pollution and will provide significant local remedies for parts of the country that the existing provisions have not been able to reach. As such, they will provide significant relief.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to the evidence of financial imposition. When the consultation paper was issued, all the local authorities which responded believed that the proposals would ease the enforcement and not be an imposition.
I congratulate my noble friend upon introducing the Bill and I commend it to the House.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for his kind words about the Bill. He raised a point concerning the manpower and financial implications. When I took on this task I was of the view, and I still am, that the existing resources available for implementing the Clean Air Acts would be sufficient to deal with the implementing of the provisions of this Bill. However, I shall look into that matter again.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down I wish to say that I acknowledge and appreciate without question his belief that no further manpower will be required. However, I gave two illustrations; they were the estimate of the numbers required for the Crown Prosecution Service and the numbers given last night for the requirement of the Director General of Electricity Supply. I am well aware of what needs to be said in respect of a Private Member's Bill in order that it be accepted as such without financial consequences. I heard what the Minister said, but I hope that local authorities believe that the provisions can be accommodated. However, the evidence clearly shows that environmental health officers are at present under enormous stress and strain and are in short supply.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the point at a later stage in the Bill. I ask that this Bill be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past two o'clock.

  WATER: NEW CONNECTION CHARGES
  WATER: NEW CONNECTION CHARGES
  NATO RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
  NATO RULES OF ENGAGEMENT