Sitting of 13 July 1990

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

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother
9.34 am
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to assure Her Majesty that this House profoundly shares the great joy of the nation on the occasion of the forthcoming ninetieth birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother is one of those precious people who were born in the reign of Queen Victoria and who are still enriching the life of our nation. In inviting this House to congratulate Her Majesty, we think also of all those who have attained so notable an age and have lived through so much history and have contributed to that history, but few can rival Her Majesty in the responsibilities that she has carried or in the services which she has rendered, or in the joy that she continues to bring.
Those born in 1900 suffered the agonies of the great war of 1914–18. She shares with others, then in their teens, the experience of losing close relatives. She herself nursed and administered to the wounded, seeing her Scottish home turned into an emergency hospital while she was a girl. These things helped to form that compassion which has been a mark of her service to the nation. No mere formality for her to be patron of the Red Cross, or to do all that she could for nurses in our hospitals.
In 1936 she was called to serve our people as the Queen of King George VI and in doing so became the first person of English and Scottish parentage to be the consort of our sovereign. Soon the nation found itself again in a great war which imposed exceptional burdens upon the King. These he faced with a strong sense of duty and determination. Throughout the war and the years of hardship immediately after he was sustained and encouraged by his Queen. Nothing endeared them more to their people than their decision to share the hazards faced by their subjects by remaining at the centre of the bomb-scarred capital during the blitz. The inspiration that she and the King provided during that struggle for freedom and democracy sealed for ever the place that she holds in our hearts.
Since the death of the King and since becoming Queen Mother she has not in any way diminished her service to public life. On the contrary, her circle of friendship is ever widening. She is an energetic traveller, especially to the countries of the Commonwealth, which is so important to her and whose people's affection for her matches our own.
The Queen Mother has delighted in being colonel-in-chief of historic regiments such as the Black Watch and the Queen's Own Hussars and in being the leader of the Women's Royal Naval Service.
590
All of us who were privileged to witness the birthday tribute to Her Majesty last month—a unique occasion—saw the great depth of affection and loyalty that flowed out to her from people of all walks of life and from all parts of the country. Each, as they marched past in parade, showed in their faces their happiness at being able to pay tribute to the Queen who continues to give so much of her time and personal interest to the hundreds of organisations which serve the community and which form the strong threads in the tapestry of our national life. It was a joyous and fitting tribute to Her Majesty.
The warmth of her affection for the nation is mirrored in the affections of the nation for her. She has come to symbolise the continuity of the royal family across four generations. The Queen's realms and Commonwealth owe her a debt that can never be repaid. May we continue to be blessed with her gracious presence for many years to come.
9.39 am
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I have great pleasure in supporting the Prime Minister's motion that a message be sent from this House to congratulate Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother on her 90th birthday and to send her our warmest greetings.
This beloved and gracious lady has an incomparable place in the heart of the nation. Who else could have inspired a pre-birthday pageant which included an Aberdeen Angus bull, a selection of dachshunds and chickens, five mayors of the cinque ports, nine Old Contemptibles and 55 Fellows of the Royal Society? They represented but a small sample of the 300 civil and military organisations and activities supported and encouraged very actively by the Queen Mother in her long public life. It was the sort of spectacle that did her justice—a mixture of great fun, slightly unpredictable, entirely human and with the right shade of regality.
Today we can join with that celebration and send the gratitude of the House for a lifetime of truly meritorious service.
The Queen Mother's genius has been and is to fuse her love of family with her instinctive and strong sense of public duty and love of country. She has brought a spontaneity and energy to public life which has won her countless admirers all over the Commonwealth and all over the world. Her personal patriotism has always been distinctive and of the highest order, particularly, as the Prime Minister said, in war time when, with unrehearsed and heartfelt phrases, she identified herself completely with the people enduring the misery and the perils of the blitz. At that time and on so many other occasions, her courage and strength of character have been exemplary.
Following the death of her beloved husband with whom she shared so much, it would have been easy and understandable for the Queen Mother to have gone into retirement or semi-retirement. Instead she stayed to serve, and both our country and constitutional monarchy have benefited from that courageous decision.
The vivacity of the Queen Mother, her personal kindness, her formidable memory, her ability to make everyone feel special, her dignity and her intuition are not just charming qualities; they are the attributes of someone who has greatness. But despite that status, and despite the fact that she has attained great age and rightly commands great respect, she is the least stuffy and remote of great grandmothers. She is pre-eminently the Queen Mum, and

591
the affection which that unique title conveys is chief amongst all the feelings held about this remarkable woman. With that affection, we thank her today for all that she has done and all she continues to do. We bid her happy birthday, and we wish her many more hale and hearty years to come.
9.42 am
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I join the Leader of the Opposition in warmly endorsing the Prime Minister's proposal that a message be sent from the House to congratulate Her Majesty the Queen Mother on the occasion of her 90th birthday next month.
There has been a common thread running through our comments today. They have all expressed joy at the Queen Mother's impending birthday and thanks for the joy that she has brought us all over her long years of service to the nation. She is a truly remarkable person whose personal warmth, sharp wit and infectious gaiety have won her a special place in the hearts and minds of the British people.
The Prime Minister is right to remind us that, as consort of King George VI during the difficult years of the war, her loyalty, steadfastness and courage were indeed an inspiration to our nation. Throughout her life she has devoted herself to serving the public, bringing her unique brand of radiance and enthusiasm to every engagement, at home and abroad.
My colleagues and I would like to join the whole House in sending our warmest congratulations to her on her 90th birthday and wishing her continued health and happiness.
Mr. Speaker: The Father of the House.
9.44 am
Sir Bernard Braine: I am honoured to support the motion and to pay my tribute to a very great lady. As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have said, the Queen Mother has long held a warm and special place in all our hearts.
The motion rightly refers to Her Majesty's lifetime of service to the nation, and of course to the Commonwealth, and to the universal affection in which she is held. It is not difficult to see why. When fate decreed unexpectedly in the 1930s that her beloved husband should become King, she filled her new role as Queen with a natural grace which must not only have been a great support to him but which endeared her to us all. The explanation of course is that Her Majesty has always liked people. She radiates a gentle friendliness and interest wherever she goes which puts everyone at ease. There is a certain magic in her ability to unite hearts and affection.
My generation in particular can never forget the war years when, with the King and the people, she shared the dangers of living in our blitzed capital city. It would have been understandable in those grim days, when we were threatened with invasion and later with mass destruction from the skies, if the royal family had moved to a place of comparative safety. There was never any question of that. We know from her Majesty's own words:
"The children will not leave without me. I will not leave without the King, and the King will never leave";
and so it was, and the nation has never forgotten.
592
So today the House and the whole nation salutes a great lady, and wishes her a very happy 90th birthday and years more of good health and happiness.
9.47 am
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I, too, support the Prime Minister's motion that a message of congratulation and good wishes should be sent to the Queen Mother on her 90th birthday. I do so on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party, and on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland where reside some of her most loyal admirers.
I am just a little too young to remember what happened during the war, but the service of the Queen Mother during that time has become a legend. During the past 20 tragic years we in Northern Ireland have seen it repeated in the Queen Mother's attention to that part of the United Kingdom. Her frequent visits to Northern Ireland have been an inspiration to the people living there, and the affection which each person there has for the Queen Mother is beyond my ability to describe.
I recall her last visit to my constituency and remember that gracious and regal lady stepping unaided from the helicopter on to the lawn and up on to the dais, again unaided, to speak to her loyal subjects. In endorsing what has been said by previous speakers, I emphasise that the people of Ulster love the Queen Mother and have a special affection for her.
9.50 am
Sir Alan Glyn: On behalf of my constituents in Windsor and Maidenhead, I should like to add my congratulations to those of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, in moving the motion so adequately and beautifully, expressed every facet of Her Majesty's life. The Queen Mother has many public duties. The parade showed the 300 institutions in which she has always shown an interest. Above all, the Queen Mother has always found time to take an interest in and look after all sections of our nation. She has a particular affection for Windsor. She moved there in August 1931 and since then she has shown an interest and particular affection, almost a family affection, for my constituents. Her Majesty has graced many events and we are proud to have her in our royal borough.
It is with great pleasure on behalf of my constituents that I endorse all that has been said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others in wishing Her Majesty good wishes on her 90th birthday and for the future.
9.52 am
Mr. Ian Stewart: I have the honour to represent north Hertfordshire, which includes the village of St. Paul's Walden, where the Queen Mother spent much of her early life and to which she has always remained attached. On behalf of my constituents, I express to her our affectionate thanks for all that she has done in the district—supporting so many causes, particularly St. Mary's church, Hitchin, and the successful appeal for the new theatre in the town that bears her name. I look forward to many such occasions in future when we shall see her again; and I wish her many happy returns for her sake, of course, and also for ours.
9.53 am
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Queen Mother is a Scot and proud of the fact, and we are proud that she has chosen to spend much of her leisure time in the north of Scotland, in my community, where she is a welcome visitor every year. She will come this year shortly after her strenuous birthday engagements, and we hope that she will find relaxation in our midst. She symbolises the unity of the nations of the United Kingdom and is someone we are proud to acknowledge as a friend in the community.
9.54 am
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I had not thought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but the Father of the House urged me to do so. For the past 12 years I have had the great privilege of welcoming Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to Parliament's own church, St. Margaret's, when she attends an event that uniquely encapsulates her qualities. She comes every year to the dedication of the field of remembrance, which is a remarkable and moving occasion. She comes to commemorate those days when she lived through two world wars.
One of the most remarkable attributes of the Queen Mother is that she takes time. She always overruns the programme, speaks to everyone and makes them feel special, as has been said this morning. When she goes away she leaves a glow of remembrance and affection for her which will never be dimmed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, to assure Her Majesty that this House profoundly shares the great joy of the nation on the occasion of the forthcoming ninetieth birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
Ordered,
That the said Address be presented to her Majesty by such Members of this House as are of Her Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council or of Her Majesty's Household.—[The Prime Minister.]
Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That a Message be sent to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, to offer to Her Majesty the heartfelt good wishes of the House upon the occasion of Her Majesty's forthcoming ninetieth birthday, praying that, in universal affection and gratitude for a lifetime of service to the nation and the Commonwealth, Her Majesty may long continue in health and happiness.—[The Prime Minister.]
Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Neil Kinnock, Mr. Paddy Ashdown, Mr. James Molyneaux and Sir Bernard Braine do wait upon Her Majesty with the said Message.—[The Prime Minister.]

Policing in London
[Relevant document: 1989 Report of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner (Cm 1070)]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
9.55 am
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): The Metropolitan police are in many ways unique and have certainly some unique responsibilities, including responsibility for the security of this House, of other royal palaces in London and diplomatic premises. It is because they are unique that over the years Governments of all parties have taken the view that the Metropolitan police cannot be accountable to anyone but Parliament, and should be so answerable through a senior Cabinet Minister. The Labour party, without the burdens of office, now considers different arrangements are needed. Those would include involving local authorities in setting operational priorities and controlling the police.
Unfortunately, whilst most local authorities in London have an excellent record of working constructively with the police, it is not true of all of them. Until very recently five then Labour-led boroughs refused to co-operate with police consultative groups, and some still refuse to do so. Some refused to help neighbourhood watch initiatives; and some refused even to allow the police into schools. The situation seems now to be improving.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Which are the local authorities that do not allow police into schools?
Mr. Waddington: I was referring to the past, and I cannot give the authorities. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is satisfactory to hand over the control of the police to local authorities that were recently refusing to have neighbourhood watch schemes and allow police into schools, that is a strange state of affairs.
Mr. Harry Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. The tragedy and wickedness of it is that the Inner London education authority upheld pressure from some left-wing teachers not to allow police into schools—
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Where?
Mr. Greenway: In Hackney, for example, and Ealing. As I said in the House yesterday, when Labour controlled Ealing council Labour councillors did not attend the consultative police committee for the four years of their control. What is more, they had a staff of 10, headed by the deputy leader of another Labour council in London, who did nothing but disrupt the work of the police. What the Home Secretary says is correct.
Mr. Waddington: When I was last in the Home Office as Minister of State we had enormous trouble trying to get Labour local authorities throughout London to set up police consultative groups. Some of them flatly refused to do so. At present, Islington, Hackney, Haringey and Brent councils are still refusing to carry out their duties to set up consultative bodies.
Mr. Chris Smith: The Home Secretary must know that the London borough of Islington has co-operated fully and participated in the

595
police consultative group in Islington for the past three and a half to four years. I am a member of that group and attend its meetings, and the borough has always co-operated with it. The Home Secretary's information is wrong, and I hope that he will withdraw what he has said.
Mr. Waddington: I said a few moments ago that, until recently, five then Labour-led local authorities refused to co-operate with police consultative groups. Let me repeat what I was saying—
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Mr. Waddington: I shall not give way because I must first deal with what I was saying before. I said that until recently five then Labour-led local authorities refused to co-operate with police consultative groups.
Mr. Chris Smith: Where?
Mr. Waddington: I shall give way in a minute. I can say precisely which those authorities were: Brent, Ealing, now happily free of Labour control, Hackney, Lambeth and—[Interruption.]—Islington.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary get his facts straight and get another message from the Box while I am making this intervention. Will he apologise to the borough of Islington, which for a long time has mounted a most effective campaign against crime in the borough and has a police consultative group, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I are both, as Members of Parliament, members? Will the Home Secretary withdraw the suggestion that the borough of Islington is not concerned about the safety of its citizens or the high rates of crime in it? It has made an enormous effort to solve such problems. Councillor Sawyer, the chair of the Association of London Authorities police committee, puts enormous effort into trying to improve, by democratic means, policing in London.
Mr. Waddington: If I am wrong, I unreservedly withdraw my remarks. I am just checking with my officials in the Box, and if the note that was passed to me was wrong, I withdraw the contents of it unreservedly. I was given to understand that the list was Brent, Ealing, Hackney, Lambeth and Islington. If the note was wrong about Islington, I unreservedly withdraw what I said. I notice that there has been no challenge on my statement that Brent, Ealing and Hackney flatly refused until recently to set up police consultative groups.
Sir William Shelton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, until this year, Lambeth council had refused to allow the Lambeth police consultative group to meet in the town hall? I am delighted to say that, this year, for the first time, it is prepared to make premises available.
Mr. Waddington: That is one improvement, but I have related a shocking history. If Opposition Members are correct, I apologise, but the fact that they were able to show that just one of the local authorities I mentioned had behaved correctly does not say much for Labour control of local authorities in London.
Mr. John Fraser: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that one of the first consultative groups to be set up in this country was in Lambeth? It was set up with the full co-operation of the local authority, myself and John Tilley, who was also a Member of Parliament. We took the initiative to set up the group and, after the riots, worked closely with Lord Whitelaw to do exactly that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw his remarks and confirm that there is adequate co-operation between Lambeth council and the police.
Mr. Waddington: I have a clear recollection of that matter. The Lambeth council would not set up a police consultative group in accordance with the guidelines that call for the involvement of local councillors, local Members of Parliament and local voluntary groups. As it refused to abide by those guidelines, it would not set up the group required of it—later required of it under legislation.
Miss Kate Hoey: I came along this morning to hear from the Home Secretary about current policing and what is happening; I did not come along for a lecture about what happened in the past. Will the Home Secretary please tell us what is happening now and what will happen in the future?
Mr. Waddington: I shall certainly do so, but I was only pointing out that, first, I must justify the present system of accountability as I would be surprised if the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not mention the Labour proposal to do away with it. I think that it is correct that I should be responsible to the House for the activities of the Commissioner and the Metropolitan police. That is why I am here today. The present system is right, not least because of the attitude of Labour local authorities towards policing in London in the past. It would be odd to give power over the police to the very local authorities that have continuously attempted to undermine and obstruct them. History demands that we should therefore have no truck with proposals that would hand over control of the police in London to those local authorities.
The Labour party says, of course, that its proposals would improve accountability. All I can say is that I suspect that many chief constables are quite happy not to be under constant and thorough scrutiny by the National Audit Office and by the Public Accounts Committee as is the Metropolitan police. They are quite happy not to have their activities scrutinised on the Floor of the House following the presentation to the House of an annual report. The Metropolitan police are also in a real sense responsive to the people of London, their primary and most important customers.
In this debate and at regular meetings attended by myself and the Commissioner, right hon. and hon. Members and the local authorities associations have the opportunity to put their points of view and express their concerns and what they believe to be the concerns of London people. The elected representatives can make known their views and demand a response, and, perhaps even more importantly, the police at divisional level are closely in touch with the people whom they serve every day through the operation of police consultative groups, lay visitors schemes and more informal contacts. The police, therefore, learn of their concerns. I repeat that there is no

597
doubt about the accountability, no doubt about the responsibility and no doubt about the readiness to respond.
For all their uniqueness, the Metropolitan police face problems common to all police forces. They must be effective in preventing and combating crime: they must keep the peace; and they must try to reduce the fear of crime and support and care for the victims of crime. Like all other police forces throughout England and Wales, the Metropolitan police must deliver a quality service to the people they serve.
Work to prevent and combat crime is seen by most people as the core of police business; and there is no disguising that the criminal statistics recorded by the Comissioner in his annual report make sober reading. In 1989 there was a 5 per cent. increase in notifiable offences. Of particular concern is the increase in violent crime. However, violent crime remains a small proportion of all crime—7 per cent. in the metropolis and 6 per cent. in the country—and most violent crimes result in little or no injury to the victim. None the less, we and the police must engage in a thorough and continuing search to reduce violent crime so that all our citizens, especially those who through age, sex, infirmity or the colour of their skin are special targets, can be protected from those who prey on them.
Over the years the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has said a number of things about the causes of crime. He has made a series of utterances that conflict with each other. In recent times he has attributed crime both to unemployment and to too many people getting too rich, too quick. Today we will probably hear that crimes occur because we have not joined the exchange rate mechanism.
Mr. Hattersley: I know that the Home Secretary likes to ponder on such profound matters. Why does he believe it is impossible for crime to increase among the poor because they are poor and among those who have been encouraged to get too rich, too quickly and too unscrupulously? Why cannot those two things happen together?
Mr. Waddington: I find it most extraordinary that in different debates the right hon. Gentleman comes up with different solutions. Perhaps he will study the matter a little more deeply and come up with his overall solution, which I am sure will suit us all. I am content with the notion that the explanation for crime has evaded people for years and years, and I imagine that it will continue to do so for many years to come.
In my experience, it is nonsense to say that unemployment is a cause of an increase in crime. We had far worse levels of unemployment between the wars but a lower incidence of crime. When I was called to the Bar in the early 1950s, the pundits were saying that the cause of the increase in crime was greater affluence rather than too much poverty. We shall await the right hon. Gentleman's next utterances, which I am sure will be quite as profound as the ones he has voiced so far.
The truth is that there is no single or simple explanation as to why some turn to crime and some do not. However, we do know that those minded to commit crime, those who have no inhibitions about stealing other people's money or property are always on the look-out for easy pickings. A quarter of all crimes are thefts from or of cars and we therefore need better car security. I have emphasised that
598
in my discussions with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. However, people to not always lock their cars of secure their homes. A quarter of all car crime happens because people leave their car doors unlocked. A quarter of all burglaries are of premises that are unlocked and into which the burglar can walk without even needing to force entry.
Crime is not something with which the police can deal on their own. However the Commissioner's report bears witness to the constant and at times courageous struggle against crime waged by his force. While the war is still raging, the police have won some encouraging battles. Seven per cent. more crimes were cleared up in 1989 than in the year before. Muggings—street robbery and snatch theft—fell in the metropolis by 9 per cent. which is particularly encouraging in view of the public's great concern about this offence.
There is also great concern about the violence to which women are exposed, both inside and outside the home. The first step towards tackling this problem effectively is to encourage women who are victims of these crimes to report them immediately to the police. To this end, the police have concentrated on developing improved facilities for the reception and treatment of victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. There are now eight fully operational rape victim examination suites in the Metropolitan police district. The domestic violence units which the Metropolitan police have pioneered over the past three years, of which there are now 35 in the Metropolitan police district, are widely recognised for the sympathetic and practical support that they offer to individuals who experience violence in the home. The Commissioner records in his annual report that 42 per cent. more incidents of domestic violence were reported in 1989 than in 1988. This is a terrible indication of what goes on behind closed doors and drawn curtains in London, but the fact that these incidents are being reported when they were not in the past is also a significant indicator of public confidence in the force's ability to respond effectively and positively to this problem.
The Metropolitan police have adopted a similar approach to the problem of racial attacks and harassment. The recent valuable report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs stressed the importance of well-publicised declarations by chief officers in encouraging further reporting of racial incidents. I greatly welcome, therefore, the Commissioner's repeated and public commitment to tackling this problem—backed up by a campaign to encourage the reporting of such incidents. It is not just a question of talk. The Metropolitan police have taken action. They are closely involved in a multi-agency project to combat attacks in Newham. They have increasingly deployed specialist racial incidents squads and mounted ad hoc targeted operations. There are now 15 racial incident panels in the Metropolitan police district. Again, the success of police activity and the encouragement that victims have received to report this crime have been in part the cause of the 22 per cent. increase in racial incidents in the statistics.
The police fight crime best when they are working together with the local community. Street crime in Brixton has declined dramatically in the past three years—with 1,200 fewer victims in 1989 than in 1986. This is a considerable achievement, which we can all warmly commend, and it is significant that the Brixton police operations, which have included enhancement of the

599
robbery squad by a third, have had the full support of the Lambeth police-community consultative group and the Brixton divisional consultative team.
That partnership between the police and the public is at the heart of the Commissioner's crime strategy and is one that the Government wholeheartedly endorse. In that context, it was again encouraging to read in the Commissioner's report of the many new crime prevention initiatives that began last year. There were more than 10,000 neighbourhood watch schemes in operation in the Metropolitan police district by the end of last year, covering more than 1.3 million households. The involvement of businesses through the sponsorship of newsletters and the funding of videos and in other support services for watch schemes is especially important and encouraging. There is also a cabwatch scheme involving over 6,000 cabbies, and 64 pubwatch schemes. There are 34 adult crime prevention panels and six youth crime prevention panels in the Metropolitan police district. Clearly the message is getting through—crime is everyone's problem and it is up to all of us to help the police in every way we can to solve it.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the pubwatch schemes, which have been set up throughout the Metropolitan police area, are of special value? In the village of Harefield—which is a community in my constituency isolated from the rest of the area by about two and a half miles of metropolitan green belt—this scheme has proved to be exceptionally effective. It is especially suited to a small and isolated community. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say to what extent he hopes that the pubwatch schemes can be extended because they are of great value to the community, to the publicans who serve the community and to people who enjoy a peaceful drink in a pub?
Mr. Waddington: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that matter because I did not want to give the impression that the pubwatch schemes are peculiar to the metropolitan area. They are springing up throughout the country and they are making a valuable contribution where they are already in existence.
It would not make sense to leave the issue of partnership between the police and the public without mentioning the Metropolitan police special constabulary. The contribution of the special constabulary is of enormous importance, not as a substitute for regular officers, but as a supplement to them. I am happy to pay tribute to their public-spirited service.
Crime statistics are regarded by many as the only measure of police effectiveness, but this is a simplistic view and fails to recognise the many important services, besides the prevention of crime and the apprehension of offenders, which the police undertake on our behalf.
The Metropolitan police was the first force in the country to provide assistance to the ambulance service when industrial action by ambulance crews put the public of London at risk by leaving a shortage of accident and emergency cover. The Metropolitan police devoted 650,000 man-hours to providing cover. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are profoundly grateful for the dedicated response of police officers in helping to protect lives in this way.
600
The Commissioner's report also lists numerous examples where the police were called upon to help to preserve the difficult balance between the democratic rights of every citizen to demonstrate and march peacefully, and the right of others to go about their lawful business with the minimum of disruption. It is rarely appreciated that in a very real sense the police act as guarantors of the rights to demonstrate and march, working closely with organisers to ensure that major events pass peacefully and to the satisfaction of everyone. When matters get out of control, it is the police who are always in the front line. It is they who are assaulted, spat on, vilified—all for the terrible sin of protecting the public.
The scenes of violence and disorder that occurred in central London on 31 March, during and after the demonstration against the community charge, were an absolute disgrace. The police were subjected to sustained assault by a hard core of determined troublemakers. I am happy to pay tribute again to all the officers concerned for the courage they showed in the face of outrageous and barbaric behaviour.
I consider of particular importance the service that the Metropolitan police offer to the victims of crime. They have made considerable and welcome strides in this area since 1989, referring 108,000 victims to support schemes. One of the aims of a project implemented last year was to give priority in criminal investigation work to the victims' needs and to providing victims with a quality service, and I am pleased to see that one of the Commissioner's aims for 1990 is to keep the needs of victims at the forefront of the police response to crime.
The Metropolitan police, like all police forces, provide a multi-faceted service to the people of London, and it is up to them to find how to improve continually the quality of that service. There is, of course, much to support and commend in the work that the police already do. Day in, day out, the men and women of the Metropolitan police—civilians and police alike—work diligently and courageously for us to improve our quality of life. But although the polls show that a large majority of the populace are satisfied with the service that the police offer, worries are sometimes expressed about the lack of civility of a minority of police officers and some members of the public express concern about a tendency for the police to become remote and insular. I suppose that in a way it is not surprising that they should develop an insular approach. Too often the police are subject to undeserved and unfair criticism which must sometimes make them feel embattled and alone. We should not, however, disguise the fact that there are problems—with which, I am glad to say, the police service as a whole is beginning to grapple.
The year 1989 saw the launch both of the statement of common purpose and values and the Commissioner's PLUS programme. The Commissioner is deliberately opening up the Metropolitan police to legitimate criticism and to a searching examination of the service which they can offer and which is demanded of them. PLUS is nothing less than an attempt to change the whole culture of the Metropolitan police—to get the police to listen to the public, to understand what they want, and then to deliver a high-quality and steadily improving service. PLUS is a worthy and exciting initiative that demands the full support of the House.
PLUS carries with it some risks, however. Some think that improvements generated by it will come quickly and easily. But a programme of change on this scale will take

601
many years to complete. Of course, that is not to say that there will not be benefits along the way. I hope to see an increased emphasis on victims, a better response to the public's priorities, a new sense of corporacy within the Metropolitan police, better strategic planning and better value for money. Above all, I want to see improvements in basic standards of courtesy and service. The other risk is that, by accepting that change is necessary, we may damage the morale of those thousands of police and civilian staff in the Met who already deliver a high-quality service. But PLUS is in part about ensuring that everyone in the Met lives up to the standards of the vast majority—and the vast majority need not feel that they are unappreciated. We recognise that they shoulder considerable burdens. No one should forget for a moment the assaults that they endure: there were nearly 5,000 in the Met last year—an 18 per cent. increase on the year before. It is right that we should demand much from the police, but in doing so we should recognise what they have to put up with and be grateful for what they do for us.
A high-quality service is one that provides value for money, and we must continually look for value for money. In the current financial year the Metropolitan police will spend about £1.25 billion. The taxpayer and the charge payer have a legitimate interest in seeing that the money is used to best advantage. In the Met increasing efforts are being made to provide that value for money by civilianisation—189 posts were civilianised last year alone; through efficiency scrutinies, which have already saved more than £4 million a year; through the introduction of devolved budgeting, so that managers at local level can use their expertise to provide the best possible service; and by increasing the amount of time that officers spend on street duties, which is what the public undoubtedly want. As the measured work load of the Metropolitan police has increased by more than five per cent. in the past year, those are considerable achievements, but much remains to be done. The Commissioner estimated, for instance, that up to 1,500 further posts within the organisation could be civilianised. We will have to pursue that and other opportunities for value for money with increasing vigour.
The Metropolitan police must make full use of the human resources available to them on the labour market, and I am glad to say that they are one of the most advanced services in the country when it comes to providing equal opportunities in employment. But it is very important that the work force of the Met should become more representative of the people of London, now so diverse in race, and I know that the Commissioner is deeply committed to that aim. I was pleased to attend the launch in March this year of the Metropolitan police's report based on six years of collaboration with the Equal Opportunities Commission to promote equality of opportunity within the force. There is still much to do, but the Met is on the right road.
It is the job of Government to ensure that the metropolitan police have the resources that they need for the proper policing of the metropolis, and no one can seriously doubt that we have carried out properly our responsibility in that regard. Since 1979 expenditure on the Metropolitan police has gone up by 72 per cent. in real terms. There are 6,000 extra police officers, and many other officers have been freed from desk jobs to carry out the real tasks for which they have been trained as a result of the policy of civilianisation.
602
Until 1979, the Labour Government starved the police of resources, officers left the police in their thousands and morale plummeted. By May 1979, forces in England and Wales were 7,710 below establishment, and in the Met there was a 16 per cent. shortfall. Within a week of taking office, our Government implemented the Edmund-Davies pay award in full and we have honoured the Edmund-Davies formula ever since, so that police pay is now up 41 per cent. in real terms over its 1979 level. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Is that all?"] I think that 41 per cent. represents a very big improvement in police pay.
Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary has forgotten that he vetoed arbitration on the police rent and housing allowance. He has also forgotten that the chairman of the arbitration panel said that that was an integral part of Edmund-Davies. It is nonsense to say that he has honoured the Edmund-Davies settlement.
Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman had better read the Edmund-Davies report again. He is talking sheer nonsense. We have honoured the Edmund-Davies formula and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well from the debate that we had the other night that it would have been an irresponsible Government who did not do something about police rent allowances, not least because they rose by 57 per cent. in the Met last year. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the more money is spent on rent allowances the less is available for other services. We could not have continued with the old arrangements, so a new formula had to be created. The right hon. Gentleman also knows of the protection given to all existing officers as a result of red circling.
The right hon. Gentleman has made some very strange statements recently about what might happen if the government of Britain fell into the hands of the Labour party. He does not like me quoting what he said at the Police Federation conference, but what he said in the House on 25 June is enough to frighten the living daylights out of the police:
"'Of course, until the negotiations are completed, Edmund-Davies will be honoured.'"—[Official Report, 25 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 117.]
If that does not mean that the right hon. Gentleman would try to negotiate his way out of Edmund-Davies, I am a Dutchman—and I am not a Dutchman.
Labour claims to support the police. However, that claim has no credibility when we consider what has happened in local authorities in London. We did not see much support from Labour for the police during the miners' strike. We saw no support for the police from Labour at Wapping when the police were protecting the rights of ordinary men and women to go to work and were attacked and reviled for doing so. I am sorry to have introduced a political note which the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook does not like. However, I cannot see how I could have started this debate without referring to my responsibilities here and the folly of the Labour party's proposals to change the system of responsibility for the Met.
I remind the House that we are here today to debate specifically policing in London as a result of my duty to come to the House and report on the Commissioner's annual report. That report sets out a remarkable record of achievement in circumstances as difficult as those to be found in any large city in the world. The respect in which our police service is held world wide is demonstrated by

603
the large number of officers sent from overseas to study and train here. I hope that the House will demonstrate today its full support for the police service in the work that it is doing for us.
10.31 am
Mr. Roy Hattersley: In preparation for today's debate I read the Hansard reports of the debates on this subject that have taken place over the past 11 years under Whitelaw, Brittan and the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). This is the first occasion in a decade when a Home Secretary thought it right to begin his account of the year's work of the police in London with the type of political knockabout that is more appropriate to young Conservative beetle drives, thus confirming again the growing opinion that the present incumbent is neither psychologically nor intellectually equipped for the office that he holds.
As the Home Secretary asked about control of the police in London—his words, not mine—and about responsibility and accountability, let me make several things absolutely clear. No serious person, and that includes the three predecessors of the present Home Secretary, could ever believe that the scrutiny that is possible for a Home Secretary extends as far as desirable in a democratic society. I do not know how much time the Home Secretary, with his many duties, actually spends in dealing with the London police in his capacity as the authority for the metropolis. I suspect that he spends very little time indeed. The idea that today's debate amounts to anything like proper scrutiny of the police in London is clearly nonsense.
I am not quite sure what the Home Secretary wants in that regard. At one point he said that many chief officers—I assume that he means chief officers outside London—would be pleased to avoid the scrutiny of the National Audit Office and of Parliament. He was implying that what happens in the provinces constitutes less control of the police than what happens in London. The Home Secretary then suggested that the elected police authorities, which are working so well outside London, would somehow be tyrannical for the capital. That is clearly nonsense and is not even a view that is held by progressive policemen.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is not it much more serious than that? Is not it clear that in his opening remarks the Home Secretary, knowingly or otherwise, implied that the Labour party's programme would introduce borough police control? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our proposal is to introduce to London what is, in effect, common now in Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool? If that is so, and my right hon. Friend can confirm it, should not we ask the Home Secretary to withdraw everything that he said about the future plans of the Labour party in London? Unless he does that, he can surely be accused of misrepresentation. Perhaps he has been ill informed. Should not we clear that up now? Otherwise the media will no doubt use what he said and be misinformed.
Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the idea of borough control is nonsense. As far as I am aware, that has not been advocated by anyone in any forum or in any political party. I am not sure whether the
604
Home Secretary advocated it because during those passages he lost his place twice and became confused when the messages from the civil servants Box brought him false information, which he had to withdraw. I do not know what the Home Secretary said, but if he said that we proposed borough control he was talking absolute nonsense.
I want to pass on from the more silly side of the Home Secretary and deal with the real subject of debate—that is, policing in London during the year covered by the Commissioner's report. Last year at the opening of this annual debate, the then Home Secretary offered this judgment:
"Recorded crime figures do not tell the whole story, but they give an indication of what is happening."—[Official Report, 30 June 1989; Vol. 155, c. 1213.]
Today the Home Secretary rather downgraded the recorded crime figures as an indication of anything. No doubt he was influenced this year, as his predecessor was last year, by the trend in the figures. Last year the Home Secretary who upgraded the importance of the figures was speaking against a background of a reduction in recorded crime. This year, the indicator of what is happening shows a very different story and the Home Secretary has tried to downgrade it.
The Commissioner's annual report for 1989 revealed an annual increase in recorded crime of 5 per cent. The Home Office statistics for the first quarter of this year suggest that the increase in crime in London is accelerating at a frightening rate. According to the Home Office statistics, recorded crime in the Metropolitan police district increased between April 1989 and March 1990 by 7.6 per cent. Some 54,700 more crimes were recorded in the Metropolitan police area last year than in the year before. The total of notifiable recorded crimes has increased to 777,800—more than three quarters of a million. If the pattern of recent years is maintained, between 16 per cent. and 18 per cent. of those crimes will be cleared up. Of more than three quarters of a million crimes, only 120,000 will result in a prosecution and a conviction.
Mr. Shersby: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one interesting facet of the crime figures relates to sexual offences? In his report, the Commissioner makes the important point that although reported sexual offences rose by 23 per cent., that was due particularly to
"the increased numbers of victims having the confidence to report the offences."
Mr. Hattersley: I want to consider the individual categories of crime in a moment. However, I gladly concede, and by doing that compliment the Metropolitan police, that one of the reasons why crimes in that category show a higher number is because of the sensitive and progressive way in which the Metropolitan police now deal with them. There is therefore an increasing willingness on the part of the victims of those crimes to report what has happened.
However, I suspect that in other areas, in particular burglary, the tendency is increasingly not to report the crime. The assumption in some areas is that burglary is a common feature of life and that the burglar will not be caught. As I said, between only 16 per cent. and 18 per cent. of crimes are cleared up. Therefore, small burglaries are taken for granted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): Burglary is one of

605
those crimes that will be reported whatever the percentage of clear-up, because insurance companies require the matter to be reported to the police in most cases before they will reimburse the householder.
Mr. Hattersley: I am delighted to have an opportunity to go into the serious technicalities of the matter. I discussed that point with the Metropolitan police when we considered "Crimewatch" and the vetting and screening systems to which I shall refer in a moment. My information is that burglaries are reported in a way that does not always enter the statistics. An insurance claim simply requires a claim number and that is provided if a phone call is made to the police station. However, that is very much a formal report. I remain suspicious that other cases are not taken to insurance companies anyway.
The Under-Secretary of State may be right that burglaries that are sufficiently large to justify an insurance claim go through the process of getting a report number, which insurance companies want. However, the hon. Gentleman must understand that, in many areas, there are constant burglaries, which are important and distressing to the individuals who have been affected, but they do not cover matters that the people affected regard as appropriate for insurance claims and therefore do not come under his rule.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: It is an important matter. The right hon. Gentleman was saying—I hope that I misunderstood him—that a formal report to the police of a burglary would not find its way into the formal statistics. If he is saying that, it is a matter of real concern, and I should be grateful if he cleared up that point. I should like to pursue it outside the House with the relevant police authorities.
Mr. Hattersley: I propose to deal with that subject when I refer to crime screening, when it would be sensibly and seriously considered.
The whole House will agree that the figures on clear-up rates and total reported crime make terrifying reading. Despite that, in a sense—perhaps in every sense—the Metropolitan police are to be congratulated on the year's record, for the increase in crime in London is less than the increase in crime throughout England and Wales. The latest statistics show a national increase of 10–5 per cent.—the biggest increase in history—up to the largest total level of recorded crime in history.
The national increase has occurred most dramatically among non-metropolitan forces—13–9 per cent. in Northumbria and 11–6 per cent. in west Yorkshire. In other cities, the increases have been much smaller—1·4 per cent. in Merseyside and 2·8 per cent. in the west midlands—in other cities, that is, except London. If we are to debate this subject seriously, one matter that we must examine is why, when other metropolitaan areas have seen small increases in their crime rate, crime has risen so much faster in London than in other cities. The answer is clear. Despite increases in establishment, police forces all over the country are much more overstretched than they have ever been before.
Increases in manpower have not matched increases in duties, and officers are deflected from their primary duties of prevention and detection by tasks that they should not necessarily perform. Although that is true of all police forces, it is particularly true in London, with the special duties exercised by the Metropolitan police, the special problems of policing the capital, and the additional
606
burdens about which the Commissioner speaks in his annual report—additional burdens that overstretch the police in London more than the police are overstretched in the rest of the country.
The police will say, and no doubt have said to the Home Secretary, that, over the past 10 years, their additional duties have far overtaken increases in manpower. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 imposed additional obligations upon them. Many other items of legislation that have been passed by the House requiring extra police duties have stretched the force, but, in London, the overstretch is particularly acute, and that is why I believe that the crime rate in the capital has risen faster than in any other city. A passage in the Commissioner's report dealt with exactly that matter. Talking about special London demands and special demands on his force, he said:
"These demands have included the requirement of Home Office prisoners to be held in police cells, the vetting of jurors and the continued development of London. In addition, this year my officers have also helped to police the Underground, assisted with maintaining order in Wandsworth Prison, and worked alongside the Army and voluntary services to maintain London's emergency ambulance cover."
Like the Home Secretary, I echo our gratitude to the police for all that they did in those particulars, but we cannot deny that, while doing that, they were unable to fulfil what many people would regard as their primary and most important duty: the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals when crime has been committed. Five thousand officers—400 to 700 a day—were employed in Wandsworth during the prison officers' dispute. No allowance was made for that in the total police establishment. They were officers who should have been deterring and detecting crime. No wonder crime increased by 7·6 per cent.
Sir John Wheeler: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's arguments very carefully. Of course, they are complicated and important. However, does he agree that some organisations, such as the Prison Officers Association, have caused that additional duty to be imposed on the Metropolitan police? Should not the right hon. Gentleman condemn that irresponsible action by another service of the Crown, which required a more loyal service of the Crown to take its place? That might apply, of course, in other respects, such as the disorders in Trafalgar square. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will not be unmindful of the policing of the Notting hill carnival. Over three days, no fewer than 5,000 police officers—almost the strength of the second largest police force in the country—are required to police one event.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman can allocate blame if he wishes. We are agreeing on the basic principle. We are subscribing to the view that was set out by the Commissioner, that the police in London face special problems because the capital's policing makes extra demands on their time and resources. On the prison dispute, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to heap the burden wholly on prison officers. I am not at all sure whether in many prisons, "fresh start" has worked in the way in which the Home Office promised. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman believes that the Government are right. In the hon. Gentleman's opinion, the Government are right in every particular. If the Home Secretary prophesied four years of flood and famine, the hon.

607
Gentleman would tell him that he was quite right to do so and would give his total support. I take a rather more objective view of such matters.
In some cases, the Government must take some responsibility—indeed, direct responsibility—for the overstretch that has occurred. For example, the London ambulance dispute caused the police in London perhaps the most seious problem of the year. In the Commissioner's words, 30,272 police man days "were worked … by officers who would otherwise have been available for normal police duty".
That was extraordinary.
Mr. Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, throughout the ambulance dispute, which was caused by Government obduracy anyway, there were numerous requests from the Police Federation that officers should not be involved in the dispute because they simply did not feel able or qualified to do the important and serious job of taking London's road casualties to hospital?
Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend is right in one particular, but I go further. The Police Federation formally doubted the officers' ability to perform the task properly. The Police Federation formally said that it was sympathetic with the ambulance workers, but it rightly accepted the burden of maintaining the emergency service, because that was its duty. Whether its judgment about the merits and virtues of the dispute was right or wrong, it is undeniable that, because that dispute was prolonged for such a period because of the extent of the dispute, 30,272 police man days were spent on a task that was not the officers' primary duty.
If the Government are not prepared to take action and understand the need to avoid situations in which police are diverted from their proper task and proper functions, they must take some responsibility for an increase in crime of 7·6 per cent. Clearly, diversions from proper duty had a substantial part to play in bringing about that increase.
Mr. Shersby: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although the Police Federation expressed its concern about the strike and about the difficulties that were faced by the ambulance workers and the unions that represent them, the officers nevertheless carried out their duties loyally and with considerable distinction? Is he aware that, in Birmingham, which I visited during the strike, the police, together with the Army, actually succeeded in considerably cutting the call-out time for emergency cases? As a result, that technique will probably be of great benefit to ambulance workers in future.
Mr. Hattersley: I have twice congratulated the police on the way in which they performed their duties during that time. If the hon. Gentleman would like me to do it a third time, I shall do so gladly and willingly because those are the emotions that I felt before and still feel now.
Having discussed and described the problems facing the police because of the special problems, extra duties and the difficulties of overstretch, the Commissioner's report then refers to the difficulties of policing in a changing environment. He talks about—
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hattersley: Yes, but this is probably the last time.
Mr. Cohen: The policing of that dispute raises an important point. It cost millions of pounds, yet the Government have not put up a penny. The health authorities are having to foot the bill and to close hospitals and reduce their services as a result. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a scandal and that the Government should have put up the money?
Mr. Hattersley: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend, but if I follow him down that route, it will divert us from the main task, which is to discuss policing. However, as my hon. Friend well knows, I agree that that is a strong point.
Although it is not a point of similar passion, my next point is a point of equal strength and, as I said, was made by the Commissioner when he discussed the problems of policing in the changing physical environment of London, with all its building sites and road developments. However, the Commissioner did not mention a second problem which I believe certainly exists and which is visible to anyone who travels around the capital. In my view, it is impossible to see the dilapidated housing estates, the decrepit Victorian housing and the derelict shops without believing them to be a breeding ground for crime, especially when they are located side by side with leisure facilities which, because of the squeeze on local authority budgets, are inadequate or run down. The reduction in council spending on repairs and renovations to old peoples' flats, on adequate road lighting and on the redevelopment of vacant land, must have had a substantial effect on the crime figures for London over the past year. Preventing local authorities from spending money on the things that prevent crime is a futile and foolish saving, especially if one then wonders why crime has occurred and spends even larger amounts detecting small proportions of it.
I describe all those difficulties in mitigation of the statistics and to allow me—I hope with justification—to offer congratulations to the Commissioner and the London police on the way in which they have faced up to their task in those uniquely difficult circumstances.
I very much support the themes of the Commissioner's strategy statement for 1990 and welcome the way in which the annual report demonstrates that many of those themes have been successfully carried out. The strategy statement stipulates three essential principles of policing policy—a close relationship between police and people, quality of service, and value for money. I hope to deal with each of those themes briefly, but first I want to suggest a fourth ingredient for successful policing—police morale. I say that because I am told from every side—I suspect that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who speaks on these matters, will confirm it in a moment—that at no time in recent history has police morale, especially in London, been lower than it is today. That is partly because the police are overstretched and overworked. It is also partly because the police feel that extra burdens have been placed upon them without proper recognition of their difficulties. In addition, it is immediately because the Home Secretary has vetoed the arbitration award on their rent and housing allowance. By doing that, the Home Secretary has convinced many police officers that he will ride roughshod over their proper negotiating procedures and that he therefore has no respect for them or for the way in which they have worked over the past 10 years.

609
I noticed yesterday that the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten)—the Obadiah Slope of the Government—urged that when hon. Members meet policemen or women, they should treat them all with proper respect. I could not help wishing that the Government had sufficient respect for the policemen whom they meet to implement their latest award on rent and housing allowance. Talking about respect is not as important as doing the things that maintain and increase police morale. There is no doubt that police morale both in and outside London has deteriorated over the past year.
I refer now to the three aspects of policing that were specified by the Commissioner and shall deal first with the drive for an improved relationship between police and public. The Home Secretary was right to draw attention to the campaign that the Commissioner has launched to reduce and—I hope—to obliterate racial harassment in the capital. That has threee distinct beneficial results. First, it reduces harassment. The simple fact of its intention is obviously much to be desired. Secondly, it also increases the general opposition to racialism in all its forms by making the country aware of it. Thirdly—and not least important—it helps to convince the ethnic minorities of the capital that the police officers are their friends and that it is right for them to join the Metropolitan police and to expect a successful career in it. As the Home Secretary has said, it is essential that policemen and women from the minorities are recruited. I have no doubt that the racial harassment campaign, demonstrating that the police have formed good intentions in that particular, will encourage that process.
I also commend the progressive elements that are demonstrated in the report's comments about the incidence of domestic violence, in which there has been a depressing increase of 42 per cent. in the past year. However, sympathetic treatment is now to be increasingly provided by the police. That may have contributed to the statistical increase, but at any rate it will result in women being more willing to report such matters in the hope that those perpetrating the offences will be deterred and convicted. The report is most progressive and, therefore, much to be commended in its whole attitude towards attacks on women.
When considering the institutions of the police, it is important to realise that, in some ways, the police—more than politicans—have made progressive stands. When I read what the Commissioner said about the complaints machinery, and as I shared and endorsed his view that we must conclude investigations into complaints against policemen much more swiftly than at the moment, I could not help recalling that it is the deputy Commissioner, Mr. Dellow, in his capacity as chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland who now talks about a wholly independent police complaints procedure. That is a much more progressive idea about the matter than anything that has been accepted by the Government. I have no doubt that in many other ways also such progress can come from the police themselves, not least from the Metropolitan police.
The most direct and most visible form of co-operation between police and public is the neighbourhood watch scheme. When the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, I hope that he will tell us something about that. Like the Home Secretary, I very much commend and support the other watch schemes that have been
610
established, but neighbourhood watch has come to be the litmus test—the visible example—of police and public working together. This year's Commissioner's report states that although the number of schemes in London increased during the year under review, it did not increase at anything like the speed by which it increased in the previous year. Can we be given any information on what has brought about the deceleration? Crime Concern, which I am always reminding the Home Secretary is not one of the revolutionary organisations about which he is so worried and which is chaired by his nominee—a Conservative Back Bencher—has said that the problem with neighbourhood watch is not lack of co-operation from authorities, but lack of funds from the Home Office. Can we be assured that the judgment made in general by neighbourhood watch about the deceleration in the progress of the schemes—it is not actually stagnation—is not, at least in London, because of the absence of finance? It would be a tragedy if those generally successful schemes were held back simply because the money is not available.
Another area in which the relationship between police and public has been under scrutiny and is much discussed is crime screening. Two years ago, the then Home Secretary told the House that crime screening meant that 80 per cent. of reported crimes were not investigated, and he defended that policy. Fortunately, he was wrong—not wrong to defend the policy, but wrong in his description of it. The real scheme, as amended and set out in November 1989, ensures that every reported crime is at least examined for investigation. Although it is not mentioned in the report, and the Home Secretary—the police authority for London, manifest and made flesh—did not think it worth reporting today, it is something that we should pause and consider for a moment or two. It should be welcomed for its ingenuity, its concentration of resources on the areas where they are most needed and the improved relationship that it provides between the police and the public.
I shall refer to two elements for special commendation from the seven or eight principles on which screening is now based. Crime investigation at local level should focus on the needs of the victim, and it is important to ensure whenever possible that a victim of a crime knows what action the police have taken, even when the police do not have enough evidence to proceed. Victims should know that the police have not simply let the case drop.
The final point in the seven-point plan is that there should be an increase in the numbers involved in the investigation of crimes. That is an essential element. It is not as important as the numbers available for the prevention of crime, because the public take the sensible view that it is better to prevent a crime than to detect the perpetrator of a crime once it has been committed. I strongly support the concept of screening as amended and announced. I hope that the Home Secretary will look at it carefully, and take a direct interest in it, and—if he is still in office this time next year—will think it right to say a word about what, after all, has been the major operational initiative of the Metropolitan police over the past year.
Perhaps the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary will tell me if I am wrong—I should be delighted to be contradicted—but I believe that the obtaining of a number for insurance purposes is sometimes no more than a formality. The essential point relates to burglaries that are not regarded as appropriate for insurance.

611
My next point may be regarded by some hon. Members as trivial, but it is one of the matters on which the public and the police enter into trivial dispute, and that should be avoided. It concerns the free flow of traffic in London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will forgive me for trespassing on his property, but I believe that one of the things that prevent a proper relationship between police and public is the irritation caused to the public by traffic problems.
Let me give two examples. Those of us who live in and around Westminster know that the councils of our area are most assiduous in dealing with the parking of private cars in private areas. Those who are members of permanent residents' schemes have only to park on a meter for a few moments after 9.30 am to be clamped or fined. I do not object to that, but it does not move the traffic in London or avoid the irritation that does so much damage to police-community relations.
What causes constant problems and irritation is the sight of vehicles constantly parked in arterial roads in a way that prevents the free flow of traffic; vehicles parked on yellow grids at crossroads, preventing the free flow of traffic in the opposite direction when the lights change; and a policeman on the spot watching it all happen and taking no direct action. I give that example because I believe that we should do all that we can to avoid the small irritations between police and public.
Mr. Waddington: I ought not to take over the functions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but it is part of his policy to ensure that in future the police will be able to concentrate on the job of enforcing the law in the circumstances to which the right
612
hon. Gentleman referred. The local authorities alone will look after street parking when it is allowed, so that the police can concentrate on illegal—true—traffic offences.
Mr. Hattersley: How pleased I am to be educated in that way.
Mr. Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hattersley: No; I should just like to finish this last sentence, as it sums up all that I have been trying to say.
I believe that the Metropolitan police are to be congratulated on what they have done in the past year. Progress depends on three things: provision of the right resources, the avoidance of diversion from their proper tasks to those of secondary importance and the growing co-operation between police and public. That, above all else, is what we should strive to achieve, and I hope that, after a bad start, the debate may contribute to that end.

Royal Assent
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Act 1990

Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Act 1990

Term and Quarter Days (Scotland) Act 1990

Access to Health Records Act 1990

Rights of Way Act 1990

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990

Gaming (Amendment) Act 1990

Social Security Act 1990

Policing in London
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
11.5 am
Mr. Michael Shersby: As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales; I wish to declare that interest.
I am glad that we are talking today about the policing of London. It is right and proper that the House should have the opportunity to discuss the policing of the metropolis, especially in view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's special position as the police authority. London Members are also in a special position, inasmuch as they have special opportunities to discuss with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis the operational policing of the area for which he is responsible. In some respects, London Members have a special bird's-eye view of the way in which the police operate, which is not always shared by our colleagues in other parts of the country.
As the House knows, London is policed by the Metropolitan police force, which is by far the largest force in the country. It is comprised of officers of all ranks, whose courage, dedication and professionalism is directed towards serving the people who live in London. That is their job, and they do it with great distinction. As a result, in 1990 London is still one of the best policed cities in the world, and the London police officer is still regarded as a friend and protector by all decent law-abiding citizens.
My purpose in speaking is partly to underline the achievements of the Metropolitan police in protecting the public, and partly to alert the House of the continuing problems that they face in serving Londoners. First, there is the question of resources. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has told the House today that this year the resources at the disposal of the Metropolitan police amount to £1.25 billion; that is a substantial sum of money, which is provided by the taxpayers and community charge payers of this country and deployed by the Metropolitan police with great care to ensure that it is stretched in a way that enables them to carry out their important task.
I do not want to rehearse again the long discussion that we had some days ago about rent allowance and provided-accommodation allowance, but I am glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend repeat his promise that the Government will adhere to the Edmund-Davies formula in respect of police pay. That is a key component of police remuneration and his promise will, I know, be important to police morale.
The Commissioner has reported to us in what I think has been one of the most interesting reports that we have examined in recent years. The report explains that police resources are being stretched to the limit, especially by the additional demands now being made on his force—for example the demand to house Home Office prisoners in police cells, jury vetting and the provision last year of 81 uniformed officers on a temporary basis for the British Transport police. This was done to achieve a high-profile uniformed presence on the underground and to supplement an existing anti-robbery campaign. There was great public concern about the ability of individuals to
614
travel in safety on the underground and the provision of those 81 uniformed police officers went a long way to reassuring the public that the underground was safe.
As a result of that initiative, the Commissioner tells us that reported crime on the underground was reduced by 2·3 per cent. in 1989. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will agree that this is one of the happier crime figures at which we are able to look. Robberies were reduced by 39 per cent. to 470 crimes—another police success story. Those 81 officers are no longer diverted from their normal duties because British Transport Police have been able to recruit additional constables to take their place. That was a commendable exercise to make the underground safer for everyone travelling on it.
The Government have provided substantial sums of money to the Metropolitan police. The House must be grateful for that, but must also realise that the provision of resources has to continue at a high level if the kind of policing that the public want is to be achieved. The crime figures for London show clearly that we need a first class, well trained, properly paid police force in London. The need for the police to continue tackling crime is evident from the figures that we are discussing. However, some elements of the crime figures are encouraging. For example, street robbery has fallen by 9 per cent., with an increase of 10 per cent. in the clear up rate. Street robbery causes great fear among the people who live in London, so it is good to know that the incidence of it has fallen and that the clear up rate has increased significantly.
As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, unhappily there has been an increase in some other criminal activities—for example, there was an increase in residential and non-residential burglary of 4 per cent. in each case. However, arrests for residential burglary increased by just over 2 per cent., although the number of offences cleared up fell marginally. The police are being more successful in arrests connected with burglaries and that, coupled with the sensible precautions being taken by a number of citizens to make it more difficult to get into their homes, is the best way to deal with this unhappy and difficult crime.
One of the factors in the Commissioner's report that I find encouraging is what he has to say about drug abuse, which is one of the most serious crimes with which the Metropolitan police have to deal. The Commissioner comments on the use of resources by the crack intelligence and co-ordinating group and the joint police/HM Customs task force. He rightly says:
"We cannot afford to make the same mistakes"
as in the United States, which did not act soon enough to deal with this problem. I am delighted that the Commissioner and his colleagues have taken this important initiative. When one thinks of the kind of problems faced by big cities in the United States where crack is prevalent, it is good to know that the Met is dealing with it through this initiative. I hope that they will be as successful in the year ahead as they were in the past year.
On the beat, the presence of courteous, firm and friendly police officers continues to give assurance to the public and is the strongest of all deterrents to crime. The Metropolitan police have given a swift response to calls for urgent assistance as a result of that policing on the beat. In his report, the Commissioner tells us that 2,700 emergency calls were received daily, many of which were crammed

615
into that busy Friday and Saturday night period. He also reminds us, rightly, that the people of London should understand that there are 8,600 miles of road in our capital city, with 2·6 million vehicles registered—300 for every mile. When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook finds that one of the crossings is jammed, he will no doubt have that figure in mind.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary pointed out, perhaps one of the most important initiatives being taken by the Metropolitan police is the PLUS programme, which is coupled with the force's statement of common purpose and value. The Commissioner has made it clear to London Members of Parliament and others that the programme is about service with courtesy, firmness and fairness and about what the police and the public, working together, can achieve to enhance the quality of life. That is why the PLUS programme has the strong support of the Police Federation, the other police staff associations and the unions.
Essentially, it is a programme for change, and it is tackling issues that were identified in 1988 as impeding a consistently high level of service. It is also important that today the House should pay tribute to the many acts of bravery by individual officers who have had to face criminals with guns, knives and other weapons and who were involved in recovery and rescue operations such as the Marchioness disaster last August. It is interesting to note that in 1989 shots were fired by the police in only two instances—again demonstrating the great care that is taken before a firearm is discharged.
The bravery of officers is also illustrated by the number of assaults that they have had to endure. Some 774 police officers were injured as a result of being assaulted while on duty in the 12 month period ending December 1989, and were placed on the sick list. In addition, 4,181 officers were assaulted but continued on duty. That means that there were 4,955 assaults last year compared with 4,206 in 1988. That is a worrying increase and during the last year, for the period ended 30 June, the Metropolitan Police Federation alone submitted 498 claims to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and other claims were submitted directly to the board by individual officers.
This is a worrying trend, and the police need the reassurance of knowing that an assault on them will result in a custodial sentence and, where appropriate, compensation. I understand from discussions that I have had with some police officers that in 1988, an assault on one constable resulted in the imposition of a £50 fine and that in 1989, assaults on three constables resulted in a sentence of six months probation rather than a custodial sentence.
While I fully support my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals, contained in his recent White Paper, I believe that assaults on police officers which cause actual bodily harm should always result in custodial sentences. If they do not, how are police officers to do their duty if they feel that the deterrent for this type of assault is not effective? Surely they should be paid compensation. I say that because in 1989 there was a more than 15 per cent. increase in assaults on the police.
All hon. Members talk to the police officers who serve the Palace of Westminster—perhaps as we come into the
616
Palace or leave, or we may chat to them as we wait for a taxi. If we ask them about the problems that they and their colleagues have to face, they will tell us that these days, on a Friday of Saturday night they face assault. Not so many years ago, people who had been drinking too much on a Friday or Saturday night might have got into a fracas with friends, or kicked in a window, but they would not have assaulted a Metropolitan police officer. We have to recognise and take account of the views of police officers and ensure that assaults on them are brought to an end. We can only do so if penalties are tough enough to make anyone who might assault a police officer think twice.
The police do not merely have to put up with assaults on Friday and Saturday night. I am not trying to make a political point, but the assaults that the Metropolitan police had to put up with at Wapping were on a terrifying scale: 162 officers were injured, and 39 needed hospital treatment. I quote that fact without wanting to get involved in discussions about what happened at Wapping. It demonstrates the sort of difficulties that the police have to put up with.
There has also been a demonstration about the community charge. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their concern about some of the strange groups of people who were involved, and whose activities resulted in assaults on the police. By 8 June more than 470 people had been arrested in connection withthose disturbances. That figure includes more than 50 people arrested as a result of what is known as "Operation Carnaby". The majority of those arrested are young men in their early 20s, who gave addresses in the London area, and claimed to be unemployed.
I congratulate the Metropolitan police on the way that they handled that difficult demonstration. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate, I would like to hear what further progress has been made in finding people suspected of assaulting police officers in that demonstration, and what contribution was made by the filming and videoing of the demonstration, and the identification of people who put steel posts through the windows of police cars, and took other aggressive action against people who were doing their duty and upholding the law.
The Government are anxious to achieve value for money—not always the happiest phrase to the ears of members of the Police Federation. However, having 774 police officers on the sick list as a result of assaults while on duty is a costly business. It is even more costly when we consider that more than 2,687 officers were on the sick list, following injury on duty.
The courts must be encouraged to impose deterrent penalties, if that high cost to the police and to the taxpayer is to be reduced.
Traffic has also been mentioned during the debate. The Metropolitan police are responsible for traffic control. I can give no better example of the type of problem faced in London than by citing my constituency and especially the borough of Hillingdon. There are more cars per family in that borough than in any other metropolitan area—up to four cars per family. Many of them are parked in the streets, or on the verges. The reasons are probably twofold: the local police tell me that many garages are not wide enough to take modern cars, especially if the houses were built before world war two; and garages are full of mowers, deep freezers and the other paraphernalia of modern life. My constituents want to know what relief is in sight.

617
The Secretary of State for transport has announced a plan whereby the control of parking places is to be the responsibility of the local authorities, which will deal with overstaying on meters and in parking bays. That has been foreshadowed by the city of Westminster's experimental scheme using its own parking attendants.
In his report, the Commissioner tells the House that such experimental schemes have been a success and are to be extended to all parking zones. While my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport may propose additional powers, I understand that they will need primary legislation, and will not therefore be available until the end of the next Session of Parliament. I understand that it is proposed that overstaying should be the responsibility of local authority, while illegal parking should continue to be dealt with by Metropolitan police traffic wardens and police officers.
The Commissioner points out in his report that the strength of the traffic warden service has declined from 1,444 in 1988 to 1,348 at the end of last year. As the Department of Transport's consultative document, "Traffic in London" has confirmed that wardens are to remain part of the Metropolitan police some of the uncertainty about the future has been removed. My constituents want to know what plans the Home Secretary has for recruiting more Metropolitan police traffic wardens, what additional resources are to be provided to pay for them, and when we shall have a regular force to deal with the problems of illegal parking.
I hope that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport will be able to ensure swift passage of legislation so that outer London especially may be relieved of serious traffic problems.
I pay tribute to police and community consultative groups in London which do a very good job. There is one such group in Hillingdon, and I pay particular tribute to the late Mr. Harry Curtis, who was its chairman for the past few years, and who died recently. He made a distinguished contribution to the group's work. I also pay tribute to the victim support schemes, of which there are two in my constituency—in Uxbridge and West Drayton. They do a good job and I was glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House that the Metropolitan police have referred 1,008 victims to such schemes in the past year. The schemes have the strong support of the Police Federation and of all those people who believe that victims must be cared for. Our thoughts should be concentrated on them as much as on the problem of dealing with the people who perpetrate crime.
The past year has been successful for the Metropolitan police, as it has achieved some significant and encouraging reductions in criminal activity. The morale of the force is good, despite the difficulties experienced in the past few weeks with problems such as the provision of accommodation allowance. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will continue to give them his strong support and to make the necessary resources available to them. I hope that he will remember the terrible assaults that police officers face in the metropolis and that he will do everything in his power to reduce the incidence of such assaults to the smallest possible figure.
11.29 am
Mr. Ron Leighton: These are not the happiest times in which to discuss policing in London, primarily because of the relentless increase in crime in London and throughout the country. We do not blame the police for that; it is not their responsibility. The Government ought to take responsibility for the increase in crime. They came to office on a law and order ticket. They suggested that the Labour party was soft on crime and that the Conservatives had the answer. Earlier today the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was in the Chamber. I remember that she sought to draw attention to herself at the Tory party conference by holding up and brandishing a pair of handcuffs. We used to hear a lot about short, sharp shocks and stiffer penalties as the answer to crime. We do not hear very much about that now.
Since 1979, crimes have increased by over 50 per cent. pehaps that is due to the type of society in which we live. These are complex matters. This is the "me now" society. The Prime Minister says that there is no such thing as society—only individuals and families. People are encouraged to grab what they can for themselves. We see company directors allegedly receiving, even if they do not earn them, salaries of £500,000 or £1 million a year, while many others are left behind. A shut-out underclass is growing in the inner cities. That may be part of the explanation for the increase in crime.
The Home Secretary told us that since 1979 expenditure on the police had increased by 72 per cent. That is a substantial increase but it demonstrates that there is no correlation between expenditure on the police and the level of crime. We cannot say that if we spend more on the police there will be less crime, or, conversely, that if we spend less on the police there will be more crime.
In 1989, the clear-up rate of crimes in London was 17 per cent.—in other words, one in six. That is the same clear-up rate as in 1980. It has been static for a decade, although the number of crimes has increased during that period. The dispiriting truth, therefore, is that we are making no inroads into the crime wave. Very dispiriting also is the rise in racial offences. I know that the Metropolitan police take them seriously, but the police must give the impression that they are on the side of the ethnic minorities and that they are their friends. A great deal of work needs to be done in that area.
I am certain that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) agrees that these are not the happiest days for the police. I see that he nods his head. The police need to gain the confidence and trust of the community. They can be successful only if they gain that confidence and trust. Public opinion polls show that an increasing number of members of the public no longer have complete trust in the police. I think that it amounts to about one third. Conversely, it could be said that two thirds do have trust in the police. However, the number of people who say that they no longer completely trust the police is growing. The reasons are complex. They may be due to recent events: the miscarriages of justice in the case of the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven, the anxiety, to put it no higher, about the Birmingham Six, the disbandment of the serious crimes squad, of between 50 and 70 officers, in the midlands, the Taylor report on the Hillsborough disaster and the manipulation of crime statistics in Kent. Some of

619
those issues are getting into the public psyche. There are many other reasons, I am sure. It is an extremely complex matter.
Mr. Shersby: The hon. Gentleman should be very careful, as all of us should, about quoting public opinion polls. I saw a recent one in an extremely reputable magazine, which suggested that 81 per cent. of the people of London think that the police do a very good job. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that in the case of the Guildford Four no charges have been laid against police officers and that the matter is still under investigation.
Mr. Leighton: I am willing to accept what the hon. Gentleman says. There was never a golden age when everybody respected all policemen. However, from conversations that I have had with police officers, my impression is that they themselves believe that they no longer have the confidence of the public. Many of them have become very introspective; they question their role in our modern, complex society. They are going through what is almost an identity crisis. Many policemen feel beleaguered, unappreciated, misunderstood and a breed apart. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with me about that.
One of the important factors is responsibility. For example, the Government are very concerned about value for money for all public expenditure. If somebody wanted to ask whether we are getting value for money for the police, whom would he ask? How would any of my constituents who wanted to ask that question go about getting an answer? Responsibility is important. The Home Secretary referred to it in his speech. In 1964 one of his predecessors, Henry Brooke, introduced what became the Police Act. He agreed with the royal commission's view that chief constables were not adequately accountable when he said:
"One of the lessons of modern times is that a police system, instituted to defend freedom and maintain law and order, must itself be under effective control".—[Official Report, 26 November 1963; Vol. 685, c.83.]
I support the Labour party's view that there should be an elected police authority for London. That would be a big step forward and in the interests of the police. The Home Secretary is the police authority for London. I do not criticise him as an individual when I say that I regard it as totally unsatisfactory that one man, who is not even a Member of Parliament for a London constituency, should be the police authority for London. He has many other problems on his plate and many other responsibilities. It is not adequate to have one man as the police authority for London.
When we went to see Lord Whitelaw when he was Home Secretary, I asked for this debate and he agreed that we should hold a debate on the police once a year. It is the only vehicle for the Metropolitan police to be accountable to Parliament. It is the one organised opportunity that we have to raise police issues. That is not good enough. It could be argued that hon. Members can ask questions and go to see the Home Secretary. I do not, however, believe that any hon. Member believes in his heart of hearts that that is satisfactory.
All hon. Members try to have good relations with the police in their constituencies, and also with senior officers in the area. That works extremely well, but it is not
620
sufficient. It is an ad hoc arrangement. All power in democratic society should be accountable. The only way in which we can achieve that is through an elected authority. That does not mean that there should be political interference; it would be complete nonsense to suggest that. Everyone appreciates and understands that the police must have operational independence, but there should be an authority to deal with general policing policy. The Home Secretary suggested that chief constables might feel intimidated or under pressure. Under such an arrangement, if a chief constable found himself in difficulty with such an authority, he would have the right of appeal to the Home Secretary, who would have powers to overrule that authority. We should know who is accountable for what, as that would be to the benefit, advantage and protection of the police.
I cannot let the debate continue without saying a word or two about Wapping, which was mentioned in passing by the hon. Member for Uxbridge. I have raised the subject at every meeting that I have had with the Home Secretary or the Commissioner. Some of my hon. Friends who are here today were at Wapping on 3 May 1986 and on 24 January 1987, although I understand that no Conservative Members were present. We were shocked and ashamed by what we saw, in particular by the behaviour of the riot squad. Officers dressed up in special gear, with NATO helmets, short shields and truncheons behaved indiscriminately and with quite sickening brutality. I have made three speeches in the House about what I saw at Wapping and I do not intend to repeat them, but there was unlawful violence. Truncheons were used not in self-defence but to batter, frighten and intimidate people. They were not used to the body or to the legs, but to the heads, and mounted police were used without warning. I saw people penned into Wellclose square; they were not allowed to disperse and they were repeatedly charged. Words fail me to describe my feelings at what I saw.
Fortunately, other people such as photographers, reporters such as Kate Adie, who was smashed in the face by a truncheon, and television crews were there. They brought the incident to the attention of the public, causing much disquiet. I took a deputation, which included a former Cabinet Minister who was a local Member of Parliament, to the Home Office and asked for a public inquiry.
Mr. Corbyn: I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of my hon. Friend's speech. I was also at Wapping on the dates that he mentioned and witnessed exactly what he saw. Indeed, I was with him for most of the evening. He is right to ask for the inquiry into the activities of the police riot squad that night to be continued. Does he agree that it is essential that there should be an inquiry into the command and management structure that operated throughout the night and the following morning, which then produced a barrage of media interpretation of what had happened? Many of the cases that could have been put to an impartial inquiry were undermined because the media had drawn their own conclusions as to who may or may not have caused the riots. Does my hon. Friend further agree that it is important that the police should have acted impartially after the event so that a proper inquiry could take place?
Mr. Leighton: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The object of the public inquiry was not to leave it to the headline writers of the tabloid newspapers to decide, but to examine all the facts and all the evidence from everyone concerned, including the police.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) may have been alluding to the attempted media manipulation in which one particular police officer whose name I am willing to give if I am asked, organised press conferences on a Sunday morning. I tabled parliamentary questions to ask where he was at 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock when the riots were taking place. He was in Leman Street police station. He had seen nothing. He briefed the press in a most misleading way. I can assume only that he did it honestly, but that he did not know what he was talking about because he was not there. That was not good enough.
I wanted a public inquiry, but instead an internal police inquiry was carried out by the Northamptonshire police and Chief Superintendent Wyrk. The Northamptonshire police spent two years scrutinising photographs and videotapes, taking thousands of statements and making thorough investigations. They produced a report, which was highly critical of the senior police officers in charge of that operation. They said that there was no proper control and that the police operation on those nights was entirely out of control. They made charges against a number of police officers. I emphasise that those charges and criticisms were brought by policemen. They included serious charges of assault, perjury and conspiracy.
What happened next? Absolutely nothing happened. No one has had to answer for what happened or to give an account of what happened on those nights. There has been no question of those highly paid senior police officers having to apologise for or explain what they were doing.
It appears that we have a force that is above the law. It can do what it likes without being accountable to anyone. Even when policemen investigate and accuse those people, it does not matter as there will be a cover-up and a whitewash. It is a disgraceful state of affairs. No respectable argument has been put forward to explain that cover-up or that whitewash. Excuses have been made. The Home Secretary is restraining the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department as he knows that there is no respectable explanation. It is outrageous and damaging to the police force.
I agree that the state should have in reserve an iron fist, which it can use in certain circumstances. However, it must be very careful about using such force against trade unionists who are decent, honest, British people who pay our wages and the wages of the police. It was totally inappropriate to use the riot squad against trade unionists who were sacked and who had a perfect right to demonstrate and to march expressing their grievances. People have that right here as well as in Poland.
I do not want to overstate my case, but I must make one more general point.
Mr. Waddington: I wonder whether this is the moment for me to intervene. If the hon. Gentleman leaves Wapping at this juncture, I am sure that he would like the whole story to be told. He must be aware that 24 officers were charged with criminal offences and were dealt with by the courts. The hon. Gentleman knows that what happened was as a result of delay due to legal advice tendered to the Police Complaints Authority and was no fault of the
622
Metropolitan police. It is regrettable that the charges could not be properly tested in court, but it was no fault of the Metropolitan police and certainly not the Home Office. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would also like to tell the general public that, during all the trouble at Wapping, no fewer that 410 police officers were injured and during the demonstration on 24 January, so many missiles were thrown at the police that 3 tonnes of them were lying on the ground afterwards.
Mr. Leighton: I am not accusing the Metropolitan police of the delay of a couple of years. It has been alleged that, because of that delay and the fact that people's memories are so fallible, it would be impossible to achieve justice. We passed a Bill not long ago to prosecute people for war crimes that happened 50 years ago. I am not blaming the Metropolitan police, but the whole judicial system and everyone involved, for the fact that justice was not done.
The Home Secretary mentioned the number of police officers who were injured. A larger number of printing trade unionists were injured, and all that should have been brought out in a proper inquiry.
Mr. Corbyn: Part of the reason for the long delay before cases could be brought to court was the lack of co-operation, at many levels, of the Metropolitan police with the Northamptonshire police, who undertook proper inquiries into what happened on 24 January 1987. That itself should be a matter for inquiry.
Mr. Leighton: It is well known that the Metropolitan police are not always anxious to have their activities scrutinised quickly—we remember operation Countryman. But I am not criticising the Metropolitan police; I am merely saying that justice was not done and the truth was not brought out. I cannot let this debate pass without saying that what happened at Wapping was a scandal and an outrage.
I do not want to overstate my point, but I suggest that the police should be careful about their role in industrial disputes. Some people say that, at Wapping, the police were Murdoch's boot boys. It is bad if such a reputation grows up. The police should be careful not to be a tool of management; they should be neutral and be careful not to jeopardise that status.
The role of the police is to preserve the peace and uphold the law evenhandedly. Recently, there have been cases where the police appear to have been replacing workers in disputes and acting as substitute labour. In last year's ambulance dispute, the ambulance staff worked to rule, but were willing to answer 999 calls. However, they were sent home without pay and the police were substituted for them. That is worrying and has dangerous implications for the independent status of the police, who should never be seen as strike breakers. If police were ordered to act as blacklegs, I wonder what would happen if a police officer refused to do so because it could be objectionable on constitutional grounds. I understand—perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong—that when troops are called in, a Minister must give his or her consent, but when the police are called in, that is not necessary.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: The police are there to keep the public peace, and how they are deployed is a matter for the chief police officer, who uses his judgment and does not refer to a politician.
Mr. Leighton: I am grateful for that explanation because I do not think that everyone realised that. I am genuinely grateful for the confirmation that when troops are brought in, a Minister has to give consent, but when police are brought in, a Minister does not have to consent, and it is left to the discretion of a senior police officer. That has enormous implications. The police must be careful that they do not go beyond their legitimate function and are not seen, in any circumstances, as a strike-breaking force or as taking sides in industrial disputes. If they do, they could forfeit public confidence in their impartiality.
I have probably taken too much time—I wanted to say something about the recruitment of ethnic minorities and women, which seems to be getting worse, not better. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) will make the point about the recruitment of women effectively, but whether anyone will do so in relation to ethnic minorities I do not know—but it is extremely important.
I shall end on a non-controversial, consensus note and talk of the policeman whom we all like and of whom we want to see more—the policeman on foot, the beat bobby. I am not talking of the policeman who rushes round in a fast car with a wailing siren. Local people like policemen to whom they can talk and wih whom they can build up a relationship of mutual trust and respect, and exchange information. Whenever such policemen are mentioned, professional officers' eyes glaze over, but they are the sort of police of whom the public want to see more. I hope that we shall receive some Government response, and get more beat policemen on foot patrols.
11.56 am
Sir John Wheeler: Out of courtesy to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), I shall follow two of the themes of his speech. First, he raised an issue that is always mentioned in such debates—the creation of a special police authority for London. That must be thought about carefully because of the nature of the policing structure in London. However, today's debate about police accountability is not about the Victorian concept of a police authority made up of elected local councillors and justices of the peace but, more significantly, about the modern police service and how it relates to the European Community services, which are nearly all national in structure. In the United Kingdom we need a police service that is funded by the Exchequer and ultimately accountable to the House of Commons, but which delivers its services at a local level and is accountable to the community on a sub-divisional or divisional basis.
The old war horse of a police authority for London should be taken to the knacker's yard and put down because it is irrelevant. When the House established the Metropolitan police in 1829, it deliberately chose as its police authority one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State because it was asserted that it was necessary for hon. Members to have the degree of accountability that we enjoy today.
I shall take a second theme from the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East, the distinguished
624
Chairman of the Select Committee responsible for considering employment issues. Ultimately, in this country, the police service is responsible for the preservation of life and the protection of public order. In that context, the hon. Gentleman should know that if another service of the state such as the prison service or the ambulance service fails to fulfil its obligations to the public, the police have to step in to preserve the life of our community. That principle must always be adhered to.
It is always a pleasure to take part in the annual debate on policing in London. Inevitably most of our discussion will concentrate on the Metropolitan police, but I remind the House that London enjoys the services of other police forces. When we contemplate the establishment of a police authority for London, would those other police forces be included? In my constituency I am glad to know of the excellent work done by the royal parks constabulary. That small police service performs an essential duty in parks such as Regents park, Kensington gardens, St. James's and the Royal Horseguards. The officers encounter residents of the community as well as a large number of visitors and they perform their services with courtesy and efficiency. I am always glad to review the progress of the constabulary's work when I receive its annual report from the Department of the Environment, which is its police authority.
The City of London is policed by the City of London police. We should not forget the special contribution that that force makes to the City, especially in its work concerning fraud. The City police is ably led by its Commissioner, Mr. Owen Kelly, whose leadership is highly regarded.
The House will be amused to be reminded of the other constabulary in police service in London—the Tower of London yeomen warders, who are constables under the authority of the Ministry of Defence.
The other important police force in London, which is especially topical, is the British Transport police. It has made an important contribution to the control of crime. It is also important to thank warmly the St. John ambulance service for its contribution in supporting the police in London. That service is taken for granted when it is on hand at the London marathon. It is also important to note that it is present at other major public order events such as the Notting Hill carnival. It also has a significant role in supporting the police in times of disorder, such as during the Trafalgar square riot. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise also has a significant role in the detection of drug trafficking and I commend that service.
The recent crime figures have again focused attention on the problem of crime control and the 15 per cent. increase in recorded crime in the first quarter of 1990 suggests that we are losing the fight against crime. Of course, that is not true. Anyone who has any serious understanding of the crime issue knows that most crime is opportunist. The fear of crime, which arises because of the way in which it is superficially discussed, is every bit as evil as crime itself.
It is worth remembering that the British Transport police is responsible for the effective policing of an underground system which serves 273 stations on a network of 254 route miles and carries 800 million passengers per year. It has an immense taks to perform. L division of British Transport police provides specialised support services for London Underground across a wide range of activities. Many of them are similar to those

625
carried out by other police forces, but they include the protection of London Underground staff and the investigation of railway accidents and station fires.
To meet the security needs of that vast enterprise, L division currently has an establishment of just over 400 police officers and it is continuing to recruit up to that strength. New York, which has a slightly larger subway system, is patrolled by about 4,000 police officers—but, of course, the quality of life and the nature of crime in New York is vastly different from that encountered in London. The British Transport police enjoys a good working relationship with the Metropolitan police and the City of London police. It liaises closely with them whenever a greater police presence is required, such as at major football matches and other such events.
While the national press often portrays the London Underground as a crime-riddled danger zone, that has never been the case. In 1989 only 12 per cent. of the 15,893 offences reported on the underground involved violence or the threat of violence. Just under half of crime on the underground in 1989 was theft from the person. Last year robberies on the network decreased by more than one third and assaults on passengers were down by nearly one fifth as compared with the previous year's figures. Women and elderly people tend to be afraid of travelling by tube in the evening, although most of them do not find the underground threatening during peak hours. Although fear of violence crime may deter women and elderly people from travelling on the underground, they greatly overestimate the risks of becoming victims of such crime. Crime statistics show that more than four fifths of robbery victims in 1989 were male, as were three quarters of the passengers who were violently assaulted. The perpetrators of such crime are also predominantly male.
Acting on the recommendations of the Department of Transport report and assisted by a £15 million cash injection from the Government, London Underground has set up pilot schemes to combat crime. The measures introduced on six Northern line stations have helped to reduce robberies from a total of 82 in 1986 to just eight last year. I am glad to note from the work of the British Transport police, in conjunction with London Underground, has resulted in a reduction of 39 per cent. in robberies and an 11 per cent. reduction in passenger assaults.
Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend should also make it clear that L division of British Transport police was strengthened in 1989 by an addition of 50 officers to meet the concerns expressed by the public.
Sir John Wheeler: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. I touched upon that when I said that British Transport police is supplemented by other officers when there are special reasons for so doing.
It is important that the people who live and work in London, as well as the millions of visitors to our city, should understand the truth about how safe our underground system is when compared with any other system in any other capital, and especially when compared with the subway system of the great city of New York.
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fear many women experience when travelling on the underground. In common with other hon. Members he will have received briefings from London Underground. During the litany of statistics that
626
he gave I am surprised that he did not mention sexual offences, because, out of a total of 629 reported incidents, 298 were sexual assaults, which represents a 53 per cent. increase on the 1988 statistics. I accept that women need not be so frightened to travel on the tube during the day, but does he recall the recent distressing case when a woman was taken off a tube, taken to a park and raped? It is not that much safer to travel during the day.
Sir John Wheeler: The hon. Gentleman must know that I take a particular interest in these issues. I have made it my business to make a detailed visit to the underground stations in central London. After all, I have more underground stations in my constituency than any other hon. Member has. I am concerned that the public should feel safe when they use the streets underground.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right. The number of sexual assault incidents has been recorded, but they are a minute proportion of incidents on the London underground. The good news is that when the facts are recorded, it is possible for the police, in consultation with the other authorities involved, to work out a strategy to deal with it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that we do no service to our constituents and to the wider public when we exacerbate the fear of crime by saying that there is a problem without also saying that there are genuine efforts by the police and others to resolve those fears so that people can travel with the confidence that, I believe, they are entitled to enjoy.
The Government's commitment to the police service is well known and, I contend, beyond dispute. However, it is worth reminding the House that the Government have stuck to the Edmund-Davies pay formula. Since May 1979, basic police pay has increased by more than 41 per cent. in real terms, which is a remarkable record. There are thousands more police officers than there were a few years ago. Since 1979, there has been an increase of almost 59 per cent. in police expenditure. The Metropolitan police now cost more than £1 billion a year and receive Home Office grant for 52 per cent. of the total net cost. An extra 1 per cent. is included to recognise the range of national and international services that the Met provides on behalf of the 43 police forces of England and Wales, if not all 52 police forces in the United Kingdom as a whole.
In my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, it behoves me to raise some important questions of financial accountability, which we should examine when we have these debates. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to respond to these points later. How are cross-subsidies between London-related policing costs and national-related costs avoided in the Metropolitan police? How can other police authorities object to costs billed to them through the Metropolitan police for national services, such as the National Intelligence Bureau and the National Crime Bureau of Interpol, which are functions performed by the Met? How can the Metropolitan police recover the costs of an operation mounted outside their area? When, for example, explosive devices were discovered recently on the Pembrokeshire coast, who bore the cost of the work done? Was it the Dyfed-Powys police or the Metropolitan police? What happens if there is a disagreement about the apportionment of costs? If national services are removed from the calculations—the 1 per cent. to which I have referred—how does the Metropolitan police force value for money compare with that of other forces? Does it still

627
have more police officers per head of population than any other area, including other conurbations? These are important questions about accountability which I know that my hon. Friend will wish to consider.
The question has been raised about whether the police are effective in the control of crime. The media cry about the 15 per cent. increase in reported crime in the first quarter of 1990 is often accompanied by allegations that the police are not up to it. The enormous increase in the number of thefts of and from cars has contributed to the general increase and a slight lowering of the clear-up rate disguises the improved police productivity in the number of arrests and charges.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is it not true that many of the thefts from cars are carried out by young children in the 12 to 16 age group, and is that not one of the most worrying aspects of metropolitan crime that so many youngsters are involved?
Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as she so often is. It is perfectly true that most of this random, opportunist crime is committed by teenage males, for the teenage period is the peak age for offending. There are no national figures on which the assumption can properly be based, but one force that experienced a 34 per cent. increase in reported crime also logged a 21 per cent. increase in the productivity of its detectives. We are increasingly getting value for money from our police officers.
Crimes against property are 94 per cent. of all recorded crime. Car crime represents the biggest slice of property crimes at about 100,000. A quarter of those crimes occurred when drivers had not locked their car doors. The public's treatment of their possessions, and the design and building of cars by the manufacturers, and not the police, will decide the success or failure of the crime control strategies on auto crime. There is no way in which the random patrolling of uniformed police officers will make a hap'orth of difference to opportunist car crimes. Those who say, "We want more police officers on the beat", should recognise that they are talking about a public relations exercise rather than about the control or prevention of crime. The sooner that we discuss and recognise the truth of that, the more likely we are to make more effective use of police resources.
I want to tell the House about some of the success stories of the Metropolitan police. The police service in this country is the most expensive and the best paid in Europe. The Metropolitan police force is probably the most costly, in terms of numbers, of all the world's police forces. However, middle-ranking officers are increasingly exercising their talents to analyse the crime problems in their district and to put into operation effective solutions.
I want to give the House one example of how such an effective solution has been achieved. In 1 Area (North), which covers the northern part of the Metropolitan police area, the police and the public became concerned about the rising level of street robberies and about the effect that that was having on the quality of life of people living in the London boroughs of Enfield, Haringey and Islington. A strategy was devised that included intelligence gathering, targeting of known offenders, community and multi-agency initiatives and publicity. A team comprising 25
628
officers worked under the close supervision of a detective superintendent and concentrated on known suspects who were identified through intelligence gathering. since the beginning of this year, 313 people have been arrested for robbery, 32 for the second time. Of those, 206 were subsequently charged. The problem was analysed, shared and discussed with the community, and police action was taken effectively. I give that example as an illustration of the increasingly effective work of the Metropolitan police.
I welcome the intention of the Metropolitan police Commissioner not to seek an increase in the authorised establishment for the Metropolitan police this year. He is quite right not to do so. He is right to say that he has expensive, well-trained staff and that those resources should be better directed to the clearing up of serious crime, which is what the public want. Most of the 6 per cent. of serious crime to which I referred is resolved by intelligent police action rather than by an increase in the number of uniformed police officers strolling the streets of our capital city.
That is a welcome development in the work of the police service. I commend it and I look forward to seeing the results of the commissioner's strategy when we come to review his annual report this time next year.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Unless speeches are very much briefer than they have been so far, I am afraid that a number of hon. Members will be disappointed.
12.20 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I do not wholly agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). He said not only that there is incontrovertible and welcome evidence that we are getting increased value for money from the police but that the public perception of the role of the police, which would require them to engage primarily in foot patrolling, is misconceived. It is an extremely controversial proposition that the public are entirely wrong in perceiving that the need for foot patrolling police is not diminished. I regret that the hon. Gentleman has thrown his weight behind the arguments against the widespread public belief in the desirability of retaining traditional policing.
I throw my weight behind the opposing argument, in part because I believe that the fear of crime in our society is at least as important as crime itself. There is often a considerable gap between public perception and reality. Some examples of that were brought out well be the Commissioner in his annual report—notably the anxiety of elderly women, who fear that they may be subject to attack or harassment. The Commissioner makes it plain that women over the age of 50 are proportionately the least likely people in our community to be subject to attack. The Chairman of the Select Committee should recognise that that anxiety about the possibility of attack can be minimised only if traditional policing is sustained. The visible presence of policemen in the community is a necessary method of diminishing that anxiety, which inevitably erodes much-needed confidence in the police.
The debate takes place against the sombre background of growing anxiety about policing matters, not only in the metropolis but throughout the country. That anxiety has been expressed in quite dramatic terms in some notable

629
national organs of opinion. Perhaps such language has been justified by this year's events, which have certainly been dramatic. The revelations of miscarriages of justice involving really disturbing police activity is not something that the public will pass over without concern.
The Home Secretary rightly lingered on the appalling events in Trafalgar Square on 31 March, which are further evidence of lawlessness in our society. At the time, all of us expressed our strong support for the police and our concern about the extent to which they had suffered assaults in those outrages, but those events nevertheless raise questions which must now be considered—and which are, indeed, being considered—about the operational methods that were employed, the appropriateness of the levels of force that were used and so on. The evidence of the growth in crime in the capital city and the disturbing increase in crime related to drug abuse are bound to raise questions about the adequacy of our policing and the methods by which the police are responding to the constant and changing demands.
I regret that our debate started with a disquisition from the Home Secretary which did not address these matters at all but instead involved a rather partisan attack on certain Labour local authorities. Perhaps some of it was justified—certainly I was critical at the time of some of the matters that the Home Secretary mentioned—but it seemed a little out of date. It was all the more odd that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should choose to mount that attack in the context of a disquisition on the suitability of the Home Secretary as the police authority for London. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can sustain his charge only on the basis of information that is plainly out of date—notably the information about Islington—it does not suggest that the present arrangements for police accountability are without blemish or that they could not be improved upon.
Having said that, I think that changes are being made in the whole process of holding the police in the metropolis to account and some of them are being brought about as a result of the intervention of the House. Not only do we have this important annual debate. We have the continuing work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and of the Public Accounts Committee of which I have the honour to be a member and which recently produced an important report touching on the expenditure—or rather the lack of expenditure—on the building fabric of police headquarters in London. The report made substantial criticisms that will need to be answered.
I am not entirely sure that the debate has reflected the great internal discussions that have been taking place witin the police—not only in London—about whether the police are performing the role that society expects them to perform. It is widely recognised that resources have been made available in ever greater amounts but that those resources have largely been absorbed by the additional demands that have been placed on the police.
The police have been responding to the pressures, referred to by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), for greater accountability and greater value for money through the operation of increasingly sophisticated internal control mechanisms and much money has been devoted to the analysis of police procedures and the like. I am concerned about accountability, and I am not unsympathetic to the businesslike approach of the police. However, as the Home Secretary's predecessor said in last year's debate, the police
630
are not business men. They must be businesslike, but they are not running a business. This morning the Home Secretary rather surprisingly described the public as customers of the police. We would do well to remember that the police provide a service, and the Commissioner emphasised that strongly in his report, especially in his most notable innovations in the statement of common purpose and values and in the PLUS programme. There is a "de-emphasis" on the role of the police as a force and a welcome emphasis on them as a service.
The provision of that service is not easy to reconcile with the accounting standards and value for money considerations which are difficult to quantify for traditional policing procedures. It is difficult to quantify the value for money provided by those traditional procedures. None the less, those procedures are justified.
The police are conscious that in large areas for which they have hitherto held responsibility their role is being eroded—for example, by the operation of private security firms in public order areas. The police are less in evidence at football matches and major public events where security forces are now being employed. Similarly, the police presence at magistrates courts is being withdrawn in many cases. Large shopping precincts are also being patrolled by private security companies. There is some doubt about the impact of all that on the public perception of the police.
I have not been able to find much evidence to show whether the additional resources which the Government have made available have secured increases in traditional policing areas. I believe that those resources have been used to cope with additional demands, many of which are necessary and important. The Commissioner points out in his report that some of those demands are exceedingly unwelcome, although necessary, for example, in supplementing the provision of ambulance and fire brigade services during the industrial disputes earlier this year. Such demands considerably distort the role of the police, and they draw resources in London away from the traditional policing functions which the police would wish to perform.
Further duties have been imposed on the police in response to important public perceptions of need, for example, in respect of pornography and child sexual abuse. Separate special units have had to be set up to cope specifically with those newly perceived threats to society. Those demands have withdrawn policemen from traditional policing. Although I recognise the need for those things and have strongly urged that those priorities should be acknowledged by the police and have supported them when they have taken such action, I believe that traditional policing is vital to maintain public confidence and a freedom from fear in society which is a major part of the role of the police.
Questions were raised earlier about whether there has been a serious decline in police morale. Such a claim would be an exaggeration. The police have been adversely hit by the Secretary of State's recent decision about housing allowances. However, we have debated that subject and I do not want to dwell on it.
More serious than the natural fluctuations in morale which the police may suffer, like the rest of us, because they are affected by fluctuations in their economic fortunes is the underlying uncertainty about whether their role is perceived to be one that is being discharged to the satisfaction of society.

631
That has been fuelled by suggestions that the Government may be contemplating the introduction of an officer class in the police. Some Government supporters have advocated that suggestion on the ground that it might introduce into the ranks people of management ability whom they believe would not be likely to be thrown out by the existing structure of the police. I wholly reject such a concept. It would have a deeply damaging effect upon the police force. Of course there is a case for the introduction of individuals from outside the service from time to time—for example, late recruits with other experience—but it would be quite wrong to create an officer class as such.
At the operational level, in the past year the police have faced extraordinary difficulties. The fight against drugs and drugs dealers has not let up. There is considerable difficulty in coping with the enormous quantities of drugs that have been flowing into the country from a number of sources. To raise such an issue is to emphasise differences in the policing of London compared with other areas, because much of the drug traffic operates through the metropolis.
Riots in prisons were front-page news for some time and placed enormous and unacceptable pressures on the police and caused the periodic use of police cells for prisoners—an intolerable situation.
Traffic problems in London have caused increasing public concern. Although I welcome the decision that local authorities shall be primarily responsible for infractions of parking regulations, I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that there is a need for more interventionist policing when vehicles obstruct the free flow of traffic. The number of cars in London is absolutely astounding. According to the Commissioner's annual report, there is one car per 17ft of road. That causes immense problems for the police. Clearly, such problems cannot be wholly solved by them. None the less, the public looks for greater assistance in helping to remove the frustrations of living in this too-crowded city.
The debate is valuable. It is important to continue the practice of holding such a debate. However, I have my doubts about whether this periodic and necessary scrutiny of police activity—a bird's eye view—can be comprehensive. Notwithstanding the difficulties of the special role of the police in the metropolis, we must address new forms of police accountability which go beyond the historical role of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary takes that role seriously. His presence throughout the debate compares extremely favourably with the behaviour of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who, having made his speech, disappeared from the Chamber. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman is a busier man than the Home Secretary. The way in which the Home Secretary has responded to interventions, listened to the debate and reacted to the report is commendable. That is why many of us welcome the opportunity which this important debate provides.
12.39 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: I am glad that in his comprehensive speech the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to London's traffic
632
problems. In last year's debate I drew attention to the proposal for a red route scheme to improve the flow of traffic along London's main streets and roads. It would have involved greater parking restrictions and the much stricter enforcement of those parking restrictions.
Since that debate, I have some good news and some bad news for the House about the red route proposal. The good news is that the Government appear to have adopted the policy and pilot schemes will soon be in place. The bad news is that there does not appear to be any plan to recruit the extra traffic wardens who will be needed to make the concept work. At the end of 1989, the Metropolitan police traffic warden service had 1,348 wardens. That was a decline of nearly 100 on the number of wardens employed at the end of 1988. The Metropolitan police themselves estimate that, to make the red route scheme work, they will need double the number of traffic wardens that they have at the moment. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the House whether there are any plans for recruiting the extra traffic wardens who are necessary.
Help may be at hand, however. Some of my hon. Friends may have discovered—to their personal cost—that Westminster city council is introducing a new parking system with higher meter charges and a hard-working, locally employed enforcement squad. I must admit that I was doubtful about the idea of the London boroughs sharing the parking control problem with the Metropolitan police. However, the Westminster experiment has converted me because there are lots of wardens; the scheme seems to be cost-effective and parking places are better used. I also perceive a slight improvement in the flow of traffic. There is, however, one important snag. The council-employed wardens cannot put tickets on vehicles that are parked on single or double yellow lines. I believe that the council wardens should be given that power—
Mrs. Gorman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, but I think that he is wrong on that point. I have been given a ticket for parking on yellow lines by the new wardens.
Sir Philip Goodhart: I am sad that my hon. Friend has been ticketed but I am sure that she must have deserved it. I think that she will find that she was ticketed by Metropolitan police wardens, not by Westminster city council wardens. I have checked this point with those who are responsible for the scheme.
Mr. Hattersley: I intervene partly to clear up that confusion, but also to ensure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) no longer finds me invisible. He assures me that he will apologise if he gets the opportunity. I believe that the position is clear. The extra wardens, to which the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) has referred, are entitled to warn of prosecutions that take the offender to court; they are not entitled to ticket vehicles in the more cost-effective and quicker way that is available to a Metropolitan police warden.
Sir Philip Goodhart: I agree that wardens' powers should be extended to allow them to give tickets, and I am delighted that I have the right hon. Gentleman's support.
Not only do we need more traffic wardens; we need more police officers in the Serious Fraud Office. In 1989,

633
the number of cases under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office was 806, and the sum involved at least £3,500 million. The Commissioner reports that the number of officers employed in the Serious Fraud Office remained at about 30 in 1989.
The problem of fraud is likely to increase rather than decrease. Company law is becoming more complex; the removal of restrictions on the flow of capital means that fraud is becoming more internationalised, and there is a growing problem with the laundering of money acquired by drug barons. Meanwhile, the spread of instant international communication, with computers, faxes and satellite links, makes the detection of international fraud ever more difficult. I am glad that the Commissioner reports that the development of combined investigative teams of police, lawyers and accountants is progressing well, but clearly we have a long way to go.
There is some talk of setting up a national detective force. May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary whether there are any plans to establish a national fraud squad? I believe that there should be. I note that the Select Committee on Home Affairs, under the able leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), is to undertake a review of the policing of football grounds. That is an admirable idea.
Mr. Waddington: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question that he was addressing to me about a national fraud squad, I can tell him that I hope for the swift establishment of a national criminal intelligence unit. The debate has been about whether that unit should have an operational arm. The matter was discussed recently by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which concluded that the best approach would be to provide more effective investigation and enforcement through a reduction in the number of regional crime squads from nine to five. It takes the view that, if that were done, it would not be necessary to create a new organisation, with all the problems of accountability and the need for primary legislation that that would involve. I tend to agree.
Sir Philip Goodhart: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that important intervention, but I still believe that there is a powerful case for a national fraud squad. I hope that, when the Home Affairs Select Committee has completed its investigation into the policing of football grounds, it may turn its efforts towards an investigation of the whole question of the policing, detection and elimination of fraud in this country.
I have recommended the employment of more traffic wardens, and also suggested that we need a larger Serious Fraud Office. Perhaps I should touch on an area in which the Metropolitan police can get rid of, or at least share, some of their responsibilities. At present, the protection of embassies and palaces—including the Palace of Westminster—involves a large number of men and women. There is bound to be a reduction in the size of the British Army of the Rhine before long, and some units will look for other roles if they are not to be disbanded. I should like to see discussions between the Commissioner and the general officer commanding London district about whether some of the units that now provide ceremonial guards in London and Windsor could provide some actual guards. Some diplomatic and royal residences are guarded
634
by specially trained police marksmen. Those duties could be carried out equally well by specially trained Army marksmen.
I am happy to say that the Commissioner's report lists an astonishingly wide number of schemes for interesting and involving young people in the work of the police. It also records the immense success of neighbourhood watch schemes, which have grown to more than 10,000 and the development of such schemes into other sectors such as pub watch, school watch and hospital watch. I note, sadly, that the oldest community involvement scheme of them all —the special constabulary—is still languishing. There is talk in the report of borough recruiting campaigns and press advertising of schemes, but the strength of the special constabulary still slowly shrinks. At 1,362, it is clear that it is substantially smaller than required. I am sure that the police need an adequate reserve force, and I note that there are 8,000 Army volunteer reservists serving in Greater London. There should be a similar number in the special constabulary, and yet another urgent review is needed in to whether the special constabulary has the correct role and structure.
One paragraph of the report draws attention to the risks that the Metropolitan police undertake while protecting us. It says:
"Injuries to police officers on duty increased sharply in 1989 to 13,348 (11,889 in 1988); a rise of just over 12%. The number of assaults on police officers also showed a marked rise on previous years and totalled 4,955 (4,206 in 1988). Once again, arresting officers have borne the brunt of these assaults with 4,340 incidents (almost 21% more than in 1988)".
Those figures underline the debt that we owe to them all.
12.53 pm
Miss Kate Hoey:I am pleased to be taking part in my first debate on the police. I had not realised the significance of the debate. If this is the accountability of the Metropolitan police, with the Home Secretary here to show that accountability, it shows how necessary it is that the Metropolitan police should have the same system of accountability as forces in the rest of the country.
The statement of common purposes and values is supported by all hon. Members who wish to see its aims achieved. Some of the contents of the report are more progressive and more positive than many of the words spoken in the debate. The way the Home Secretary dealt with the issue in his introduction was particularly disappointing.
To realise a statement of common purpose and common values, two things are crucial—the morale of the police, and public confidence in the police. Those two factors are interrelated and are extremely important.
What is the role of the police today and what is their identity? Are the Government asking too much of the police? Is the real danger the fact that the Metropolitan police are being asked to do things that we have not given them the resources to do? Certainly, the police are being left to pick up the pieces of the effects of Government policy, especially in the inner cities.
I will give examples of what is happening in Lambeth to show how the police are being caught in the middle and forced to undertake duties which many of them did not join the police force—or rather, the police service, as we should refer to it—to carry out.
West Lambeth health authority is grossly underfunded and is having to make some £8 million cuts in its budget. The result of one of the immediate cuts is that the health

635
authority now refuses to admit people to hospital under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 between 8 pm and 8 am, and
"Priority care has broken down in West Lambeth health authority."
Those are not my words, but the words of an officer of West Lambeth health authority. As a result, the police are having to stand in. After 8 at night many of these vulnerable people have to be incarcerated in totally inadequate facilities in our police stations. Police officers did not join the police service to do that.
Another example is the problem of homelessness. In Lambeth the police are being pushed into a situation where they are under pressure from the Government, and from some members of the public, to move the homeless on.
When the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) called for the homeless to be swept off the streets of London, I asked where he suggested that they be swept to. Now we know where, as it was recently announced that they are to be put in church halls and makeshift buildings. Who will be asked to do the sweeping up? Who will enforce the things that the Government are trying to do? The police will have to do the sweeping up, and it is interesting to note that the use of the Vagrancy Act 1824 is increasing. In my constituency, the Kennington police officers who cover the bull ring are well aware of the intolerable position in which they are placed. They face pressure from some members of the public, who are unhappy because a small number of homeless people are perhaps being intimidating, but the police are also aware that the vast majority of homeless people are facing a terrible crisis in their lives.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis recognises that homelessness has many social causes and implications. He also recognises the demands being made of the police. I hope that the Home Secretary shares his concern.
Mr. Waddington: I must pick the hon. Lady up on one small point. She said that the use of the Vagrancy Act was increasing. There are many misconceptions about that. The Vagrancy Act creates a whole series of offences. Is she aware that in 1988 there were only 12 prosecutions for sleeping rough?
Miss Hoey: That is one good reason why the Vagrancy Act should be swept off the statute book.
Let us consider two other areas for which the police are being asked to take responsibility. I shall not go into them in detail because other hon. Members have already mentioned them. The first was the prison officers' dispute, when between 400 and 500 officers had to work in Wandsworth prison every day. If police officers are working there, they cannot be where they ought to be. Most young policemen and policewomen did not join the police to do the work of prison officers. If they had wanted to be prison officers, they would have joined the prison service. A similar case can be made in relation to the ambulance dispute.
There has been a large increase in domestic violence and in the number of children who have to be protected. Police resources have to be devoted to those issues. The extra burdens placed upon them call for additional resources, but the resources have not been provided.
636
The Home Secretary referred disparagingly to Lambeth, but he was corrected. It is important to note that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis says in his report that in Lambeth relations between the police and the local authority are increasingly good. We welcome that, and I hope that the Home Secretary will do his bit to ensure that those better relations are cemented.
I hope, too, that the London borough of Lambeth's application to be part of the safer cities programme will be successful and that it will be allowed to play its part in the safer cities initiative. A multi-disciplinary agency brings together the community, the police and the local authority. I hope that the Home Secretary recognises the need for more resources to be devoted to that important step forward by the local authority, if it is to play its part in the safer cities programme.
Another important step in Lambeth is the summer project, which is also mentioned in the commissioner's report. This arose very much out of people wanting to do things instead of just talking about the community and the police working together. The Lambeth summer project has been a notable success. That has been said not just by the police and the people of Lambeth. It is also referred to in an interesting booklet by Robert Chesshyre, published by the Police Foundation. The booklet deals in depth with the positive things that have come out of the Lambeth summer project, which has brought together all the agencies in the local authority area. I hope that it will continue to be supported.
I have spoken to the Lambeth police about another matter which is causing concern to many hon. Members with London constituencies. There is a feeling among the black community in my area that the police are using their powers to stop and search black people to find out whether they are breaking the immigration rules. It is imperative that no black person walking around my borough should be picked on by the police simply because he is black, and that such tactics are not used to try to find illegal immigrants. The police have said in public that they recognise that there has been bad policing in the Lambeth area. I hope that we shall be able to influence their actions. The police should not have to act as an immigration service.
Positive initiatives have been launched in Lambeth. The borough recognises that if facilities are to be improved in the area, more resources will be needed. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis also recognises that the needs of inner city areas such as Lambeth are so great that policing cannot be divorced from all the other things happening in the borough. I hope that some of the issues raised in the debate will lead to Government recognition of the fact that we cannot allow the police to be used as a kind of mopping-up operation when things go wrong in the borough. Some of the problems can be solved only by more resources being devoted to boroughs such as Lambeth to improve facilities and housing for the people who live there.
1.4 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am contributing to today's debate partly because I have been a Londoner all my life, although I now have a nice house in my constituency of Billericay. I have also served on the Westminster city council police liaison group. Therefore, I have some insight into the situation in London.

637
We talk as though things are going from bad to worse, but I recall from my history books that crime in London was much worse at the turn of the century. In some parts of the east end of London where three policemen used to patrol together, a young policewoman can now walk alone, so I am not sure that things are getting worse. Although people's expectations have increased, and that is perfectly right and acceptable, the general level of policing in London is probably better. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, that does not affect the public perception that things are getting worse.
As a woman who has to walk around London late at night—we often leave this place at some ridiculous hour such as 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning—if someone comes up behind me, I am more nervous and frightened than I was when I was a young girl living in Putney, a more suburban part of London. The other evening as I walked home, a jogger came up behind me. I could hear him padding along and I yelled. I felt a real idiot, but I was frightened at the thought of someone coming up behind me. Women should not have to be afraid in our cities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said, it may well be that the number of elderly women who are battered is smaller than people think, but that does not help any elderly woman who wakes up at night to see a monster with a balaclava hod over his head and a knife in his hand. Although the number of such crimes is decreasing, there is no reason why we should be complacent or suggest that the detection rate does not need improving.
Three interesting aspects of policing in London have not yet been mentioned. The increasing use of private security agencies takes work off the police. The number of bank robberies in London has reduced remarkably in the past 10 years because more banks are using private security firms to police the banks and to carry the money. That is a sensible idea. Contracting out traffic wardens has also been mentioned. I am not sure that I entirely disapprove of the vigilantes who travel on the underground, but I am all in favour of that American idea if it improves people's feeling of safety on the underground.
The participation of citizens in policing their communities is no bad thing. One version is neighbourhood watch. In my constituency there has been an interesting development. A young women who is not a police officer monitors with a computer the movements of all the constables and patrol cars within a large part of my constituency. She is extremely efficient; she knows just where everyone is and can direct officers to crimes. She is not a police officer.
Our highly trained and well-paid police should be used at the sharp end of crime detection. We should have more of them on the streets so that people feel their presence. That contributes to people's sense of security and is a more productive and sensible use of police time. I hope that the Metropolitan police will continue looking for ways of taking the paperwork and bureaucracy away from police officers so that they can go out and do the job for which they have been trained.
Another aspect of police work in the metropolitan area relates to street demonstrations. When I was a Westminster city councillor, the aftermaths of violent street demonstrations cost the ratepayers in the metropolis a lot of money. They were often staged by people from
638
other parts of the country. The police grant the permits for such demonstrations. We on Westminster council tried, at various times, to prevail on the Metropolitan police to redirect the demos to parks, city outskirts or public commons such as Wandsworth common and Hampstead heath, where those involved could conduct a perfectly good demonstration with much less disruption for people who live in the capital.
When I stay in London at the weekends I often go shopping and cannot get back as the traffic has been diverted because of demonstrations. People might not think it matters that I cannot get back from Marks and Spencer on a Saturday afternoon, but it matters to me. I have to go to the other side of the river and walk miles and miles with two heavy shopping bags to get back to my London address. Such problems would be eased if the Metropolitan police could be urged to consider more carefully whether they should grant permits for demonstrations.
I was raised in Putney, and every Saturday during the football season my brothers and dad would go to Fulham football ground to watch the match. Nobody ever worried about whether they would be in a riot or a punch-up on their way to or from the match—the issue never arose. Now parents worry about their kids going to football matches in case they get involved.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment, because if the planning laws were relaxed, many football grounds could be situated outside cities, where, at present, planning consent is not given. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) is involved with Luton football club, which wants to re-site its ground outside Luton centre but cannot obtain planning consent. I know that that issue is not directly related to the responsibilities of the Metropolitan police, but it affects the overtime work that they have to do on Saturday afternoons. Week after week, large numbers of them are diverted to policing demonstrations and football matches when, I am sure, they would prefer to be at home with their families watching a football match or tennis on television.
I have referred to the increasing involvement of children in street crime and crime involving cars in the metropolitan area. I am sure that the Metropolitan police would be happy if they could pin more of those crimes on children. Time and again they told us that children who were taken to court, got off scot free. I am happy that the Government are considering involving parents more when such crimes come to court. The effect of such a shock on both parents and young children could well stop the rot setting in. Children would not become used to getting away with crime, and would be less likely to become seriously involved in it. The increase in crime in central London is due largely to schoolchildren whose parents, more than the police, should be responsible for them.
Whether or not the number of violent crimes against women in the community and cities is rising, women's perception of such crimes is heightened. Ever since I can remember, travelling in crowded tubes has sometimes been an excuse for a monster, a dirty old man, to press up against me and squeeze bits of my anatomy with which he has no business to be in contact. It is horrible. Often in the past women would not report such occurrences because of a feeling of shame, as if they had been involved. Recently, a judge said to a women in a rape case that, although she

639
said no she may have meant yes. Such an attitude, which exists in police forces as well as among the judiciary, does not help women to feel secure in our communities.
I should like the Metropolitan police to pay more attention to instructing young girls on how to deal with such assaults. A girl's response is often one of fear and inaction. Girls almost freeze rather than sock the man in the chops or, better still, kneeing him in the groin. We grown-ups know that that is one good way of putting a man out of action long enough to run a short distance down the road and get away. I do not subscribe to the idea that women should not fight back.
The Metropolitan police should formulate ideas on teaching young girls and women how to cope when attacked, whether in their own homes, on the street, the cinema, on tube stations or on trains. Such education could be given on television, and women's confidence to go out at night would thus be restored. We should not feel that we must take a taxi from A to B every time we want to go outside our front door. The Metropolitan police should use some imagination to do something to improve a woman's sense of security when outside at night.
From time to time we have read in the newspapers of horrific violence against young children. In recent years in the London area Jasmine Beckford, Kimberley Carlile and Sukina Hammond were murdered in the most terrible circumstances in their homes. Appalling violence was meted out to them. Often violence is perpetrated not by the parent, but by a surrogate parent, for example, the live-in boyfriend.
When we were considering the Cleveland case, it was interesting to note the role of the police as opposed to that of the social services. I know that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) feels extremely strongly about this and she has some excellent background material on the way in which children in care are often abused by the very people who should be looking after them.
I was pleased when, recently, the Metropolitan police and others introduced specialist rape squads so that the victims could receive sympathetic treatment. We need such a service for children who are endangered. Often we hear that risk to a child has been reported to social services, which are subsequently involved with the family, yet nothing is done to rescue the child, often because children are regarded as the property of their parents rather than individuals in their own right. Children do not get enough protection from the police. The Metropolitan police and other forces should be involved at a much earlier stage in such cases and should take control of them. When a child is at risk, the pressure of the police would be salutary. These matters should not be left to social services, as they have been in the past.
The Metropolitan police should spend less time on ancillary jobs which could be efficiently sub-contracted out to the private sector. The police should grant fewer permits for demonstrations in the centre of the city. Demonstrations should be confined to outer-London areas where they could be policed more securely. If that happened, much less disruption would be caused to those who live in the metropolitan area, who cannot go about their business at the weekends.
The police should provide more protection for children at risk and should not leave it to the social services. The
640
Metropolitan police should also prosecute more children who commit crime as that would mean that their parents would be made to feel responsible. Much more attention must be paid to women's belief that the police cannot protect them as well as they used to. That undoubtedly means a far greater presence of police on the streets, where I think that most of them should be.
Here in the centre of London we do not have a balanced view of these matters. There are more police to the square inch in London than there are hon. Members on the Benches in the House today. We are over-provided. Not surprisingly, the crime rate in the Canon row catchment area around here is the lowest in London. We perhaps get a false impression in this place because everywhere we turn there is a policeman. In other areas, such as Brixton, Lambeth, Southwark, Peckham, the east end and north London, the position is different. We want more policemen to be doing the job for which the public think they are paying—working as bobbies on the beat.
1.20 pm
Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Last month's release of the latest crime statistics gave little cause for comfort as a background to today's debate. Notifiable offences were 15 per cent. higher than in the equivalent quarter of 1989. Violence to the person was up by 4 per cent. One small ray of light in an otherwise dismal picture was that sexual offences were down by 5 per cent.
I reiterate the remarks that have been made in response to a comment and a series of statistics from the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who was trying to be reassuring. Crime to women—especially crime on the transport network—is not only growing quite dramatically in reality, but is causing many women to be prisoners in their own homes, especially in the evening. There is evidence that sexual crimes against women have increased by 54 per cent., and to be glib about that is a big mistake.
In London, notifiable offences have risen by more than 7 per cent. on an annual basis. Offences against the person rose from 4 per cent. of notifiable offences in 1979 to 7 per cent. in 1989. While offences involving death or serious injury have declined by 3 per cent. since 1988, they are 16 per cent. higher than they were a decade ago. That represents a changing pattern in criminal behaviour and naturally causes great anxiety to those who feel that they are most vulnerable.
I have discussed the statistics relating to my area with the local chief superintendents. They can, of course, reassure me that a woman in her 70s, out at 2 am, statistically would be at virtually no risk because none of them is out at that time. The chief superintendents have told me, quite convincingly, that the most vulnerable person out in the evening is a teenage male. By and large, teenage males are also responsible for dishing out this treatment, although quite innocent teenage boys coming home from a club or a pub do get set on. They are a vulnerable group.
We are responding, in part, to media reaction. The brutal rape of a 70-year-old or the brutal mugging of an elderly lady will receive more media attention than will yet another youth being beaten up on the street in the evening.

641
We must not underestimate the fear of crime. It has a foundation and it causes people to live their lives in an unacceptable way. We must continue to address that problem.
We must also take seriously violence in the home. Violence, injury and murder at the hands of relatives or others well known to the victim are becoming an increasing problem. There is a constant debate about whether the increase is to be accounted for by the fact that the victims of child abuse are coming forward more frequently than in the past or by the fact that women who have been sexually abused or raped by a relative are now prepared to say so whereas they were not in the past. We shall never know the truth, no one will ever be able to find equivalent statistics for past decades and centuries. There may be an element of truth in the assertion, but even so it does not detract from the seriousness of the problem of violence in the home.
Nearly half the women who are murdered are killed by their husband or lover and we cannot ignore that fact. In the past, such crimes were called crimes of passion, and the police kept well clear of the increasing number of violent incidents leading up to such murders. That pattern is now beginning to change. We do not expect our children and womenfolk to endure such treatment. The natural consequence of that is that we expect our police officers to intervene and take preventive measures. It has not always been the tradition for police to become involved in such activities. It used to be notoriously difficult to get the police to intervene because in many cases someone who makes a complaint in the heat of the moment will then decide to back off and not to proceed with the case. We must reflect and encourage the changing values in society. Women should not feel ashamed or feel that the violence against them is their fault. They should feel entitled to, and should properly expect, the protection of the police force.
I propose to deal in detail with some of the ways in which the police deal with serious violent crime, often resulting in death. A study of the families of murder victims published earlier this year has proved to be extremely useful in highlighting some of the shortcomings in the police's handling of relatives following a bereavement. The loss of a relative is always tragic but a violent and unexpected death-murder, manslaughter or accidental death—is far more difficult to come to terms with. The report showed an open-mindedness and sensitivity on the part of the police, and a readiness to become involved in understanding how to deal with the relatives. That is not their first line of work but it is extremely important.
I have received several representations from the relatives of victims of road accidents who have been unable to find out what happened after the inquest on their loved ones. Sometimes the person responsible is charged with nothing more serious than a motoring offence. The relatives of the bereaved person often find it very difficult to find out what happens when the person who has been charged goes to court—to find out what the sentence—if any—was and what is being done to prevent an irresponsible person going out on a joy ride and inadvertently killing someone else.
My work as an hon. Member has involved dealing with a number of relatives following bereavements—not only in cases relating to police work. Because of the way in which the circumstances of the death were handled, those relatives have been unable to accept the tragic loss of their
642
loved one and the circumstances surrounding it. The police are rightly prepared to accept further help and to become more sensitive in dealing with such matters. Some of the work can be handed over to civilians, who may be able to engage in bereavement counselling and help the police in their job. I have written to the Home Secretary about a sad case in my constituency involving the death of a young man in a lift accident. There is some debate between his father and the police concerning the nature of the accident. I am about to write to the Home Secretary again because I have made further inquiries and I think that in this instance, the police, in an attempt to spare the father of the child the full details of how the death came about, have brought repercussions on themselves. Those matters must be dealt with sensitively, not least because the work load that follows an unhappy bereaved person may be enormous and may last for years.
I want to draw attention to some of the grey areas in terms of crime and anti-social behaviour and who takes responsibility for that, particularly in inner-city area That is a great problem in Greenwich, as I am sure it must be elsewhere. It involves disputes between neighbours; severe vandalism to the extent of lighting fires in the basement of tower blocks; harassment and objects being pushed through letter boxes and children knocking on doors and running away, not just once, but repeatedly. The responsibility for such behaviour is a murky area. Does it lie in the way in which the council estate is run —if it happens on a council estate? Does the responsibility lie with the local authority housing department? Or does the responsibility lie with the police? Because of the greyness of that area and the difficulty in finding someone to take responsibility for it, very often untold misery is caused to those who are on the receiving end.
Bored children and bored teenagers—irrespective of those who have a tendency to criminal behaviour—cause great misery on some of our estates and the result of their behaviour overlaps on to police responsibility. As a society we must take the responsibility for our young people more seriously. We must provide more constructive things for them to do to stop them from turning to crime from sheer boredom.
I want to refer to homeless people, to which the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) referred. Earlier this week I had to contact my local police about a lady who had appeared on the streets in my constituency in an area that is not unfamiliar with dossers, tramps and people with nowhere to live. An establishment called Carrington house, which takes people in at night, is in the area. I had received innumerable telephone calls about a lady who had appeared quite well dressed and seemed to have money. She had settled down on a street corner and had proceeded to live there for the next five weeks. People were becoming very disturbed and anxious about her. I contacted the social services to see what could be done and I also contacted the police. A week later nothing had been done so I rang the chief superintendent and said, "Unless you do something quickly, I'm going to ring 'Thames News' about this lady." It was not really his responsibility. The women had committed no crime and I understand that she had been offered shelter, but had refused it. However, she appeared to be just sitting on the street corner dying.
One of the problems with homelessness is that among the homeless there are clearly many mentally ill people. We are forcing our police to take responsibility for those people as there is no other route available. I understand

643
that the woman to whom I have referred cannot be taken into compulsory care for her own well-being because she is not a danger to other people. Although she is not looking after herself, she is no real danger to herself and has lived that way for some time. Such social problems are reflecting heavily on the police burden.
The reputation of the police has perhaps been tarnished as a result of their response to what, in their book, might be more moderate crimes. People accept that if there is a serious rape or a murder the police come round in full force and there is a proper investigation. It is rather like the health service—if we suffer a road accident or a serious illness, the health service leaps into action. The equivalent of the varicose vein syndrome in the health service is the routine robbery. Such robberies are routine for the police, but they are not for the people who are on the receiving end. I have discussed the matter with my local police force. The police must sharpen up their performance in that respect to regain some of their lost esteem. I have found my local police co-operative and wishing to address issues seriously in what has been a difficult time for them.
Without taking up too much time, I shall relate one brief anecdote of how the police are sometimes misjudged. I spent a night working with the police, in the early days of my time as a Member of Parliament, to see exactly what they did. During the early hours of the morning, I was taken by a police officer to a site on which travellers were about to be evicted. When we got there, I discovered that the police officer was well known by the travellers. They came out willingly to speak to him, and they were interested to know what he had come to tell them. It was a cold winter's night, and the police officer was busy telling them to take the young children back indoors. He said that their eviction notice was issued for the following morning and not the following Monday, as he had previously advised them.
He asked the travellers to make sure that they had given their children their breakfast and had warmly dressed them when they were evicted at the crack of dawn. The local press had been speculating that local travellers who were about to be moved on had got the nod from a misguided social worker and moved a few hundred yards down the road so that the order did not apply to them. I was quite amused to find that a kindly policeman of the old school was concerned 'that the children had their breakfast before they were moved. Such policemen are still in our midst. I could relate anecdotes to demonstrate the other point of view, but I shal not detain the House further.
Policing in London is a difficult task. Problems in society are making an already difficult job much more difficult.
1.36 pm
Sir William Shelton: I wish to raise two constituency issues—one good and one bad. The good one received a warm welcome from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey). I refer to the Lambeth summer project, which is absolutely first-class. If such projects are not being run elsewhere in the country, they should be.
The project is open to every youngster aged between 10 and 17. The purpose is to show that the police are human and helpful, and to give youngsters some fun, experience and activities during their summer holiday. I may be
644
wrong, but I believe that it is the brainchild of Streatham chief superintendent Roger Street. Certainly, he was one of the instigators. The person organising the project so extremely well is the community liaison officer, Chris Taylor, who is based at Cavendish road, which is also in my constituency. The project has been operating for some years and has grown in strength each year. What is involved? The police initiate the formation of a committee of themselves and local businessmen for the purpose of raising money. This year, they have raised £36,000—part of which, I agree, has come from the city action team. There has been much additional help. For instance, Leyland-DAF has lent seven mini-buses for a month to cart the youngsters from place to place. The project runs from 30 July to 24 August and every youngster between the ages of 10 and 17 is welcome.
All sorts of activities will be involved—for instance, recreational activities, arts and crafts, motor maintenance, weight lifting and a drama workshop. The Army is providing activities on certain days to show that, among other things, there is a jolly good career in the Army for the youngsters, if they wish to pursue one when they grow up. I understand that the Navy is providing six days of water sports activities at the East India dock and the Welsh Harp in north London, with which I am not familiar, is also involved.
Last year, 414 boys and 264 girls enrolled in the project. These youngsters mainly came from the inner-city council estates in Lambeth. As hon. Members will know, part of Brixton is in my constituency and it is also very much involved. The average daily attendance was more than 200, adding up to 3,000 child days.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Vauxhall present as I am elaborating on the points that she made about the Lambeth summer project. It is first class.
There are five centres in Lambeth—two in Streatham, two in Kennington, and one in Clapham. The Streatham Guardian has given free space. It has not yet been published, but it will be very helpful.
In previous years, Lambeth council refused to co-operate with the project in any way and would not have anything to do with it. That was the missing link in the plan. I am delighted to report, however, that I understand that the council is to be much more positive and helpful this year and may well be involved in the planning stage.
It is difficult to know whether the day-time crime figures have dropped, for example, on the council estates, but the project is being carefully monitored and we should know in a year or two. Nevertheless, the fear felt by many elderly people when they see a lot of youngsters gathered around a lamp post or outside a coffee bar is reduced because the youngsters are not around—they are enjoying themselves on the summer project. That is another way in which the project has helped. In addition, parents—and especially single-parent families—have been delighted to have youngsters taken off their hands during the summer.
I have gone into the project in some detail because, as I have said, it is not just jolly good for Lambeth—it is the kind of thing that will be good everywhere. Since I became member of Parliament for Clapham 20 years ago, I have seen an extraordinary change in the relationship between the police and the community. Things blew up horribly in the Brixton riots, but since then enormous strides have been made by community policing—or whatever one cares

645
to call it—of which the summer project is an excellent example. I am sure that the barriers of mistrust are being broken down in my constituency. That is the good news.
The bad news about my constituency is that my own private Member's Bill, the Sexual Offences Bill, has not gone through the House. Although it had an unopposed Second Reading and was unamended in Committee, it was talked out on Third Reading on 11 May by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). He was in the Chamber earlier and I am sorry that he is not here now. My Bill was objected to five times and talked out on 6 July —again, by the hon. Member for Brent, East. I entirely accept that the hon. Gentleman has the right to use the procedures of the House in that way. My argument is with his judgment, not with his use of the procedures. I accept his right to do what he did, but I remind the House that my Bill had all-party support. It had the support of both Front Benches and also the support of hon. Members in other parties. Indeed, it had well-nigh universal support. If it did not have 100 per cent. support in the House, it certainly had about 99·5 per cent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of the House, made an interesting interjection when the Bill was talked out the other day. In essence, he said, "This cannot be the right way for things to happen. Perhaps the procedures for private Member's Bills could be reconsidered." I very much hope that that might be done.
I shall not rehearse my arguments because they have already been gone into. However, the situation in my constituency is worse today than three months ago. Previously, the police could arrest a kerb crawler who drove around an area several times and solicited just once. It amazed me that they got prosecutions, but they did. However, one of the people who was prosecuted and convicted then appealed and won his case. That does not surprise me because it was not persistent soliciting. So the police are back to square one.
There is a strong feeling in the constituency about the lack of police presence. We have a vice squad of five whereas Wandsworth has a vice squad of 10, yet we have far more kerb crawlers than Wandsworth. I have talked to the deputy assistant commissioner and my chief superintendent, who takes the view that it is not a matter of a shortgage of police officers—they arrest prostitutes two or three times a week, but they always come back. I believe that it is a problem of kerb crawlers. I am therefore delighted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is present on the Treasury Bench to hear this because if amendments are tabled to any appropriate Home Office business with any semblance to my Bill, I hope that he will smile and not frown on them.
1.44 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I have attended every one of these debates since I became a Member of Parliament seven years ago, and in every one I have made exactly the same point that I am going to make now. It is a travesty of democracy that £1·3 billion of public expenditure—a £250,000 rise on the figures for 1988–89 —should be debated on a motion to adjourn the House, with no opportunities for detailed discussion or questioning, and that the police force should not be accountable to the people of London other than through the Home Secretary—who, once again, does not represent
646
a London constituency. That is nonsense. It is time that there was a real understanding of the need to bring democracy into the running of the police force in the capital city. I entirely endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley): the Labour party is committed to introducing democratic accountability—in a general sense—in the police force throughout London.
It is also time that the Home Secretary reprogrammed his word processor. I believe that in his private office there is a word processor programme entitled "Policing of London, annual debate—Home Secretary's speech". He makes the same old attacks on Labour authorities, whether or not they are still Labour authorities and whether or not the attacks are justified. It is the same old drudgery.
Let me draw the Home Secretary's attention to a serious error that he made this morning. Islington borough council not only has a police community consultative group—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I are both members—but it has spent a great deal of time and effort producing crime surveys. It has been working with Middlesex polytechnic to produce the second Islington crime survey, of crimes on council estates. It has current projects concerning the crimes on the Mayville estate and in the Highbury area, as well as one carried out on Hilldrop estate some time ago.
The council takes crime very serioulsy, because, by and large, it is the poorest people living on the council estates who suffer the most. Women are attacked on the street who should be able to walk around the streets freely at night, but suffer from sexual and violent abuse. The black community suffers from racial harassment. The council is attempting to encourage the police to operate in a way that is responsive to the needs of the people of our borough. I wish that the Home Secretary would give some credit where it is due, and congratulate the borough council on responding to the wishes of the people of our borough by trying to encourage the police to act. I am not saying that agreement is always reached with the police—by no means —but a real effort is made by the elected local authority to ensure the safety of the people who live in our borough. I wish that some recognition would be given to that.
The enforcement of traffic restrictions by the London police is highly selective. They did not want many bus lanes, and it took an awful lot of prodding to make them enforce traffic regulations relating to such lanes. Even now, bus lanes are too often blocked—delaying hundreds who are stuck in buses—by one or two selfish people parking their no doubt tax-free BMWs while popping in to buy a copy of The Times or the Financial Times on their way into the City.
There is another example of class bias policing. Stretched limousines are parked all along Charing Cross road every night outside clubs, such as the Sportsman club at the bottom of Tottenham Court road. They are parked on double yellow lines for the entire evening, with a chauffeur sitting inside. The police walk up and down protecting those limousines while the traffic builds up all down Tottenham Court road and Charing Cross road, and people such as myself, returning from the House on the 29 bus, are delayed. I have raised questions about this matter, and now that the Home Secretary is here I hope that he will take it up with the Commissioner of Police of the

647
Metropolis immediately to ensure that stretched limos will no longer deny the people of London free movement on the streets of their capital city.
I support the enforcement of parking controls whenever necessary, but I sometimes have half an inkling that wheel clamping is done where the contractor can most easily put the clamps on, rather than where the traffic offences are most serious. I wish some examination would be made, because I notice from the accounts that there is a considerable income to the Metropolitan police from wheel-clamping contracts. There should be some examination of that relationship.
Page 73 of the report shows that there has been a serious increase in the number of road accidents to cyclists, and in the number of accidents involving overweight or overloaded heavy goods vehicles. I hope that the Home Secretary will look into that. I must move on because my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is giving me a nudge. He is our Whip for London and the agency Whip for today.
Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend wasted 15 seconds on that.
Mr. Corbyn: Thank you.
The graph on page 48 of the police report shows an almost static clear-up rate, at 150,000 crimes, despite the fact that the number of crimes has increased to 800,000. The clear-up rate as a percentage is not high and has hardly risen in the past three years. Violent crime is up from 719,000 to 756,000, and firearms crimes are up from 514 to 531. That is not a high figure but it is serious for all that. In London, there are now 8,877 firearms licences as opposed to 8,650 last year. The Home Affairs Select Committee report entitled "Racial Attacks and Harassment" said:
"We therefore recommend that the Home Office emphasise to Chief Constables the importance of the Committee's recommendation of 1986 that all police forces covering areas with appreciable ethnic minorities make clear that tackling racial incidents is regarded as one of their priority tasks, and advise Chief Constables in such forces to take appropriate action."
I hope that the Metropolitan police will take that on board. The rate of racial crimes in London is unacceptable and there is inadequate reporting of racial attacks. Too many police think that if a young black man is driving an expensive car he should be stopped and questioned, although the same is not true of a young white man. Nigel Benn, Garth Crooks and others have all been stopped in such circumstances.
Far too many women feel unable to go to the police to report sexual attacks, of whatever kind. That is serious because women must have confidence in the police. In the past few years 20 gay men have been murdered in London. There has been a great increase in the number of cases of men accused of buggery. This is part of an attack on the gay and lesbian community in London. I hope that the Home Secretary will make it clear to the police that the murder of gay people and the lack of co-operation between the police and gay community organisations is to be deplored. I recommend that he examines the good working relationship that has been developed between police and organisations representing gay and lesbian people in Hampstead. In comparison with other parts of London, this area has a good record.
648
This is an inadequate way to debate the Metropolitan police. I hope that one day soon we shall have a properly accountable democratic police force in London so that serious matters of crime and public safety can be addressed by elected representatives of the people of London who can have control over the policing of their city.
1.53 pm
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary because, in the time allowed to us tail-end-Charlies, I shall not be able to make many positive comments about the excellent work of the police and the progress that they have made in recent years. Therefore, if my speech is somewhat unbalanced, it is merely because I have to make excerpts from it to bring to his attention matters of concern to the people of Richmond upon Thames borough, and, in particular, my constituency.
In reply to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Corbyn) I can say that in the past few months I have had letters from women who believe that the treatment that they have been accorded following their reporting of rape and other sexual attacks is far more sensitive then it was in past years. I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that. I was merely supporting what he said. I also agree with him about the needless harassment of many young black people, when we should be congratulating them on their achievements. Perhaps as achievement is measured by the acquisition of certain assets, such as motor cars, they should not be made to feel that buying a car with the fruits of their labours means that they will be stopped by the police as an object of possible curiosity.
I condone the strategy statement issued by Sir Peter Imbert earlier this year—the "Strategy Statement 1990" —and in particular the passage which states that he wishes
"To establish a climate both internally and externally which attracts and retains greater numbers from ethnic minority groups at all levels of the Metropolitan police."
It is vital that we have more role models for communities to adopt.
My local community, the Richmond upon Thames division, in common with the rest of the country, has experienced a significant rise in recorded crime during the first five months of this year compared with the corresponding period in 1989. While the national picture shows an approximate rise of 15 per cent., the borough of Richmond upon Thames has seen a 35 per cent. increase, and 73 per cent. of that is attributable to rises in three types of crime: burglaries, both residential and commercial; criminal damage offences; and motor vehicle crimes.
I shall quote some figures that I received recently from Richmond upon Thames division which show that the increase in burglaries for the first five months this year compared to the last is 34·5 per cent., in motor vehicle crime it is 54 per cent., and for criminal damage it is up by 35 per cent. When taken together with other crimes, that gives a 35 per cent. increase in the crime profile.
Those figures are particularly sad because I do not know of any borough in London where co-operation between local people and the police is greater or more welcome. The police-community group is well supported by the police, by lay people and by the council. Although wider issues are involved in the rise in crime, the

649
Metropolitan police have undertaken a number of initiatives specifically in Richmond which are worth mentioning.
First, in liaison with the police and community consultative committee, the Metropolitan police have taken the problem of residential burglaries as one of their primary objectives this year. Twelve officers are attached to a small squad to try to deal with that, and to give it a greater profile.
Secondly, in March a team of 10 officers was formed to address the problem of motor vehicle crime, which has increased by more than 50 per cent. in the past five months. In June, the local force commenced an operation which involved the local and area headquarters-based officers and various other authorities, to try to reassure local residents and to increase the arrest rate of offenders.
Thirdly, the local community in Richmond is very much a part of Metropolitan police strategy achieved through neighbourhood watch schemes and the local media.
I commend the local Metropolitan police for their support of the victim support scheme. Nowadays it is often thanks to the Metropolitan police that victim support schemes get off the ground. The force has been extremely generous with money and support and continuing co-operation. The victim is so often forgotten, but thanks to Home Office funding victim support schemes are now on a more secure footing.
What are the reasons for the increase in crime? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that proper research is undertaken to find out the reasons for increases, especially in the leafier pastures of the suburbs, such as Richmond? Richmond is perceived to be an area of plenty. Perhaps that is why so many crimes are committed by people who travel to Richmond on what might be called a "take it awayday" ticket. Perhaps we should consider some of the other reasons. It may seem trite to say that warmer winters have an effect on crime, but there is no respite for domestic or street crime when there is such climactic change. That needs to be investigated. Perhaps we can discover whether there are seasonal differences in crime.
Another factor is the "poll tax attitude"—the mentality that certain laws are optional and that one can protest and refuse to pay, depending upon one's views, and that is encouraged, or not encouraged, by outside groups. The "Can't pay, won't pay" mentality leads to "Want now, won't wait" mentality. In an age in which people own more property and assets, some people feel that they do not want to pay for things because interest rates are high. Research ought to be carried out into whether the acquisition of property is accompanied by an increase in crime. There is little that the Metropolitan police can do about it. It is up to the owner of property to protect it by making it difficult for people to steal it.
We must also investigate the impact of alcohol on the young. They go to pubs far more than they used to do. Many pubs now issue a voluntary identity card. I believe that as soon as possible there ought to be a nationally readable, voluntarily carried identity card for everyone in the United Kingdom.
2 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I know that there is none so selfish as a Member of Parliament on a Friday, particularly those who make speeches for 15 or 20
650
minutes, leaving the fag-end-Charlies to divide the remaining time between them. I shall therefore try to make a few points in about five minutes.
I echo what has been said. We are grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing to meet the London group of Labour Members of Parliament, which I chair. We had a useful exchange. However, even that, combined with police debates, is an inadequate mechanism for holding the Metropolitan police, through the House, to account. I look forward to the day when my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is Home Secretary and he introduces a Bill to set up a new London council as set out in "London Pride", a document published by the Labour party. The Bill would establish an elected police authority for London. The City of London has had one for many years. I see no reason why that principle should not be extended to the metropolis as a whole.
London faces many policing problems. I refer in particular to the incidence of racial attacks in the London borough of Newham, the east end and Tower Hamlets. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred to the attacks on lesbians and gay men. There is something almost perverted in the policy of entrapment adopted by the Metropolitan police and other police forces. The number of prosecutions of gay men and the number of murders of gay men, through "queer bashing", has increased. When violent crimes are being committed throughout London, it is peculiar that the police should devote so large a part of their resources to the entrapment of gay men in public places. The perception is that London wants—and needs—effective policing.
That brings me to the perennial demand for more police officers on the streets where they can be seen and contacted when most needed instead of speeding by in panda cars. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to the fact that it creates a sense of security. It does. Nowhere is that sense of security more needed than on public transport. The British Transport police establishment has been increased to about 400, but that is not good enough. The statistics that have been rained upon us today show that there has been a 53 per cent. increase over the 1988–89 figures in the number of sexual offences directed against women on public transport. We should all be ashamed.
In particular, more security is needed on the underground. I know that it is not a Home Office responsibility, but something ought to be said to the Department of Transport about the increasing move towards one-person-operated trains and buses. It is ludicrous that women are now being advised to go to the end of the train that is nearest the driver; but he still does know what is going on in the carriage behind him. We want guards on public transport and police travelling the public transport system to give women greater security.
London has unique policing requirements which place a greater financial burden on the residents of London, and that is grossly unfair. London has more police officers per head of population, but the clear-up rate of the Metropolitan police is lower than average. If we are talking about value for money, Londoners have the right to point the finger and ask whether they are getting true value for money from the police on the streets and the public transport system of the capital city for which they pay so much. I hope that when the Home Secretary

651
examines police resources for London he will recognise the uniqueness of the capital city, that more demands are made on the police in London and that greater costs have to be borne by Londoners. We need greater accountability by the police to those Londoners. We are not trying to determine day-to-day policing operations, but we want some democratic say in the way in which police priorities are determined.
Those are reasonable demands from a Labour party that is very reasonable these days, and I hope that the Home Secretary will consider them.
2.5 pm
Mr. Nigel Forman: I offer only a truncated version of my usually brilliant speech. I apologise to the House for that, but I shall give the flavour of what I wanted to say when I arrived here at 9·35 this morning.
First, I must put on record my warmest possible tribute to Sir Peter Imbert and all his officers in the Metropolitan police, particularly Chief Superintendent Peter Lockley and all the officers in the Epsom and Sutton division, which includes my constituency. The police have an important and difficult range of tasks to perform, and on the whole they carry them out with exemplary courtesy and efficiency.
One local aspect of policing that is a great cause of concern to my constituents is vandalism and criminal damage to property. It may not be the most serious form of crime, but I assure the House that it is a great worry to many people, particularly the elderly. It is disturbing that this category of crime increased last year by 5 per cent. over the previous year and that the clear-up rate is still only 12 per cent.
As the House knows, those problems are often caused by gangs of youths congregating threateningly in residential areas and egging each other on to various forms of anti-social behaviour. The police and the entire law-abiding community need to do more collectively to deal with the causes of that behaviour. Parents should be encouraged or required to take more responsibility legally for their children. Teachers should do still more to limit and reduce the levels of truancy from schools as many such offences are committed when the children should be at school. Publicans and owners of off-licences should be more rigorous in their efforts to detect and prevent under-age drinking. Some of the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) were absolutely right. Only a co-operative effort will begin to control and reduce such anti-social behaviour, which is so disturbing, particularly to elderly people.
In general, the problems of law and order in the metropolis have to be tackled by a multi-pronged approach. First, we need to encourage and assist the general public to pay still more attention to crime prevention. I commend the Home Office on its initiatives over the years, but even more could be done, especially by motorists, householders and insurance companies with the benefit of sophisticated modern technology. Action should be taken by teachers to limit truancy, by parents in fulfilment of their family responsibilities, and by magistrates and others to deal more firmly with the
652
problems caused by under-age drinking. Above all, I would mention the continuing importance of more police officers on the beat as the best way of reassuring the public. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) pointed out that it was only a matter of reassurance. Yet in this role, where we seek co-operation between the public and the police, and the police can be only a thin blue line, it is vitally important that the psychological dimension is taken into account.
In the years to come we shall need to secure even more police in line with the increase in crime that we must expect, if we are to maintain public order in our capital city. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Government who, since 1979, have made possible an increase of more than 6,000 officers in the metropolitan area. They did so largely by securing a 72 per cent. increase in real terms in public expenditure on the Metropolitan police, which is admirable. That is progress in the right direction and it is gratifying that the force strength of the Metropolitan police is now only 148 officers short of establishment levels. However, I would still argue that the time has come to consider a further increase in the police establishment, coupled with continuing efforts to staunch the wastage which occurs every year and which, in 1989, was only 200 or so fewer than the number recruited that year.
In view of the prospective decline in the number of 16 to 19–year-olds entering the labour market during the next few years, the balance between recruitment and wastage will have to be kept under careful review, not least because during the past year there was a 7 per cent. increase in medical retirements—no doubt because of the pressures of being a police officer in the metropolitan area—and a striking 33 per cent. increase in transfers to other forces. That is why we are losing so many of our valuable and qualified police officers.
The Commissioner and his senior colleagues must turn their attention to keeping the well-trained, well-qualified and expensive officers that we now have in the metropolitan district. The clinching argument for doing so is that the surest 'deterrent to crime is the likelihood of being caught for an offence and that can be achieved only with more police officers appropriately deployed. I commend my right hon. and learned Friend and other Home Office Ministers for the leadership that they have given and pay tribute to the Metropolitan police.
2.12 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: A few months ago I copped a look—excuse the pun—at my local police station. The police were making improved efforts and morale was quite high by comparison with national trends, but there were some serious defects about which I have written to the Home Secretary. The working conditions were appalling, particularly the inadequate accommodation.
Leyton police station was built for 70 officers but now houses more than 200 and can only be described as sub-standard. Access for the public is not good and access for the disabled is impossible. It has poor office accommodation, poor interrogation facilities and inadequate parking outside. One of the most serious problems involves the cells, which are inhuman. I warn the Home Secretary, because I have his interests at heart, that a serious injury or even a death could easily occur in those cells, and the Home Secretary or the Commissioner could

653
be prosecuted if it was thought that the inadequacy of the cells was to blame. Action should be taken to improve the cells, as well as the accommodation generally. The Government's priorities on the building programme are wrong. All the new police stations are being built in the leafy glades, where they are not needed so much. The Home Secretary should reprioritise the Government's building programme.
Women's fear of crime and the number of assaults on women has been mentioned. The police have made some progress towards preventing domestic violence. I appeal to the Home Secretary to take on board my proposed Rape in Marriage (Offence) Bill. I hope that it will become law because it will strengthen the hand of the police in tackling domestic violence. I agree with the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that police should be more active in giving advice to women about their own self-defence and personal safety. The Home Secretary must work with the local authorities instead of against them, so that street lighting can be improved as well as other safety requirements in public places and on public transport. That would do much to make women feel more secure.
Racial harassment is still a problem. I sought to introduce a Bill to make such harassment a specific criminal offences so that the perpetrator would risk eviction from his home, instead of the victim having to leave his. It would have imposed a legal duty on the police to investigate all such cases. I believe that there remains a strong case for that Bill to be enacted. The police should have a duty to protect the victim—it should be their first duty—but too often they still regard the victim as a nuisance. It is wrong that the pilot projects that the police launched in London to tackle racial harassment have virtually lapsed. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider that matter.
The lack of black and Asian police officers in the Metroplitan police is a serious problem which must be addressed. I know that the Metropolitan police are shortly to hold a conference in Bristol on this but they should also consider the routine policing of black people, which is part of the problem leading to the poor recruitment and retention of the ethnic minorities in the police force.
I have also been asked to express the concerns of GLARE—Greater London Action for Race Equality—about the rising tide of attacks on the Jewish community throughout Europe. It does not want that to happen in London. They recommend that the police should record the ethnic origins of the victims of racial harassment, including a separate category for Jewish victims. I hope that that will be considered.
My hon. Friends the Members 'for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) spoke about the problems faced by gay men and women. The entrapment in 1989 which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West condemned cost about £10 million. We must question whether that was a worthwhile use of resources, especially when assaults on gay men and women have increased and a number of gay murders remain unresolved. The police should monitor such anti-gay assaults and homophobic remarks and behaviour by police officers should be made a disciplinary offence. The police should introduce lesbian and gay awareness teaching in police training and appoint homosexuals as community liaison officers. That would show that the police take the matter seriously.
654
The Prime Minister was elected on a pledge to ensure:
"Law and order as a fact and as a concept"
Yet recorded crime has gone up by more than 30 per cent. since 1979 despite the fact that there are now 7 per cent. fewer youths—the category generally held to be responsible for committing much of the recorded crime. There has been a great increase in violent crime against the person, sexual offences, criminal damage, theft and burglary. The annual cost of that crime is astronomical—about £3,500 million to the police, £700 million for running our prisons, £1,000 million for private security and the £1,000 million that local authorities have to spend on crime-related matters.
The Government have not properly addressed the causes of crime. Deprivation, in its widest sense, is one such cause and it affects youngsters and the affluent alike whose lifestyles are narrow and deprived. Unfortunately many of the Government's measures have made that deprivation worse.
Those other prime cause of crime is the bad example set by the Government and the rich in our society. The Rover sweeteners—I must not call it fraud—are another example of high finance City fraudsters getting away with millions without being brought to book. It seems that that is okay so long as one can get away with it. Unfortunately, that attitude has seeped down and has led to an increase in the use of force. Some people believe that the use of force is legitimate—if they can get away with it. The Government have set a bad example, although not deliberately.
We need more community policing, and a balance between the use of high technology and of man and woman power. The details of all murders in London should be computerised. I hope that the Home Secretary will consider that point and my point about balance.
A swifter police response to serious crime is needed, as is accountability. I support the case put so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) about accountability, which exists in the rest of the country. Why does it not exist in London? We need an elected, Londonwide police authority responsible for overall policy—not operational aspects. To guarantee the security of the chief police officer, he would have the right of appeal to the Home Secretary, who could overrule the police authority. If such action was taken, instead of suffering from the crime wave that we see now we could wave goodbye to a lot of crime.
2.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): This has been a full and varied debate. Hon. Members of all parties have made interesting points and many were extremely important. As is in the nature of things, some points were made more than once—indeed, some need to be repeated. That is why I shall begin my remarks by recapitulating two figures given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in his opening speech.
Since 1979, expenditure on the Metropolitan police has increased by 72 per cent. in real terms and there are 6,000 extra police. In addition, the police specific grant is 52 per cent. of expenditure compared with 51 per cent. in the rest of the country. That is a huge increase in resources and answers the call of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for adequate

655
resources. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman could not match that record if he were ever Home Secretary in a Labour Cabinet.
During the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend, there was an exchange about the consultative groups. I want to put the matter back into accurate perspective. On page 2 of his annual report, the Commissioner refers to the "Police/Public" partnership and speaks of his pleasure, which my right hon. and learned Friend shares, that
"there has been some improvement in relations wih the majority political parties in the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing, Hackney, Haringey and Lambeth, although they still show reluctance to participate formally in consultative groups."
I am glad to say that, following the recent local elections, Ealing council is now Conservative controlled and is sending representatives, as is Haringey. Following the loss of control by Labour, Brent shows signs of following suit. That still leaves Hackney and Lambeth not co-operating. My right hon. and learned Friend also suggested that Islington was not co-operating. I understand that it did not co-operate until 1988 but, I am glad to say, it is co-operating now.
Traditionally, there were problems in Hackney, in Islington and in Lambeth—and I emphasise the word "were"—where the councils supported the stance of local schools in refusing access to police officers. There is no explicit policy now by any council to refuse access, although I understand from the Metropolitan police that there are still problems in Hackney and in Tower Hamlets. The Metropolitan police do not attribute those problems to the councils concerned, but to the East London Teachers Association. Most schools in London now have such liaison with the police, although some still do not. If any Opposition Member wants to intervene to tell me that every school now co-operates, I shall gladly give way.
Mr. Leighton: The Minister has corrected what the Home Secretary said at the beginning of his speech. As the Home Secretary is the police authority for London, why did not he know what the situation was? Why was he so badly informed?
Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend inadvertently cited Islington but on the other points he was not incorrect. As I said, I am merely putting the matter in its proper perspective. I have withdrawn the remark about Islington on my right hon. and learned Friend's behalf —as he did himself in an intervention. What my right hon. and learned Friend said about Islington is incorrect now but it was very much correct until recently. The hon. Gentleman should understand that. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may laugh. As he said, there has been a change of heart, perhaps as a result of electoral pressure on Labour-controlled authorities in London.
Mr. Tony Banks indicated dissent.
Mr. Lloyd: I leave the hon. Gentleman's remarks to be read in Hansard.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook sought my response on a number of matters, one of which was neighbourhood watch. The number of schemes is still increasing, although probably not as much as in the past. That is not surprising because those areas that particularly
656
wanted or needed schemes have already established them. The right hon. Gentleman asked about finance. The Metropolitan police do not provide money for watch schemes but they devote considerable resources to assisting the schemes by providing manpower, publicity and signs and other material. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, Anglia Windows is now sponsoring newsletters, which are useful in helping groups to keep in touch. I understand that, as a result of that sponsorship, more money is available than in the past. There is otherwise no difference in the money available.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook mentioned police complaints procedures. He wanted them to be more independent and to exclude the police altogether. The Police Complaints Authority is very independent in its operation. It uses police officers in its investigations, and it is difficult to envisage where the skill, knowledge and ability to investigate complaints thoroughly would come from if the police resources were not used under the supervision of the authority.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned crime screening. All crimes are examined, as he rightly said. I take his point that police officers ought to tell victims what has happened in their case. That is what they are supposed to do, although I imagine that that may have been overlooked in some cases. I shall draw the matter to the Commissioner's attention although there is perhaps no need to do so as I am sure that he takes a clear view on it and in any case he will be reading the debate.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way as I have only a few minutes to comment on a large number of speeches. If I have a moment or two at the end of my speech, I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
As one might have expected, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) made a well-informed and constructive speech. He paid a justified tribute to the bravery of the police. I have noted carefully what my hon. Friend said about assaults on police officers. The figure of 4,955 is disturbingly high. My hon. Friend also mentioned penalties, which are a matter for the courts and not for me or for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I am glad that my hon. Friend noted the seriousness with which the Commissioner regards the drug threat—particularly the threat of crack.
I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge said about traffic wardens, parking and police powers—subjects that were also touched upon by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), whose remarks I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. We have authorised and provided money for 300 more wardens this year but there are recruitment and retention difficulties. That is why we have given an increase of 9·4 per cent. in salaries and why we are considering regrading.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) referred to racial attacks, and I share his view of those: they are obnoxious and reprehensible and they should be dealt with as severely as any other type of assault. That is why the Commissioner emphasised in his report that the police were campaigning to ensure that such attacks were reported and that they would follow them up. I am glad to say that after a substantial rise in the

657
figures reported, no doubt as a result of that campaign, the figures for the first quarter of this year are no higher than they were last year. The met is also involved in the Newham multi-agency project to combat racial attacks and the hon. Gentleman will know about that.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East also referred to Wapping and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State intervened on that point. Twenty-four officers were subsequently charged with criminal offences. As a result of legal advice tendered by the police, I am sorry that the charges could not be properly tested in court. That is regrettable. However, I emphasise that the major regret is that so many police officers, doing their job responsibly, carefully, sensitively and with restraint were injured in a series of demonstrations and attacks that should not have happened.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate has been rather shorter than usual because of the delayed start. I do not blame the Minister for not replying to everything that I and other hon. Members raised. However, may I ask him through you to be good enough to ensure that he replies in writing to the many points that were raised in the debate to which he did not have time to reply?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that that has been noted, but it is hardly a point of order for the Chair.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (FINANCE BILL)
Ordered,
That , notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—[Mr. Wood.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 19th July,—
(1) in relation to the proceedings on the Motion in the name of Sir Geoffrey Howe relating to the First Report from the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House, Mr. Speaker shall, unless they have been previously disposed of, at Ten o'clock or three hours after they have been entered upon, whichever is the later, put the Question already proposed from the Chair and any other Question necessary to dispose of those proceedings; and
(2) the said proceedings may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Wood.]

Society of Voluntary Associates
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
2.30 pm
Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful for the opportunity in this short debate to draw the attention of the House to the valuable work performed by the Society of Voluntary Associates. I propose, first, to describe the work done by the society, and then to draw a number of lessons of wider application for the way it, which we deal with offenders and young people at risk of offending.
658
The Society of Voluntary Associates—or SOVA—is a national charity which recruits and trains volunteers from local communities to work with offenders, their families and young people in trouble. SOVA's president is Baroness Seear and its vice president is Lord Hunt—who was recently honoured by the Sovereign as a knight of the Garter. These are two admirable members of another place whose tireless work in this field over many years has been admired by so many of us. The volunteers who are recruited and trained by SOVA work alongside the main agencies serving the criminal justice system, including the probation service, social services departments and the national voluntary agencies which work to resettle offenders.
SOVA's volunteers are deployed in a wide variety of ways. For example, they visit people in prison, befriend and support them on release, work with offenders on probation, befriend the partners and families of people in prison, help to find work or accommodation for ex-offenders, teach them literacy or numeracy skills, support offenders with alcohol dependency problems and work in day centres, hostels and drug rehabilitation units. The society is currently working with seven probation areas—Berkshire, north-east London, south-east London, West Sussex, Kent, Cleveland and Humberside—and is running befrienders schemes in five London boroughs. If also has a variety of specialist schemes of other kinds.
The best way to illustrate the work of the society is to describe some of the projects in which it is involved. An example well known to Mr. Speaker is the Croydon befrienders scheme, now in its sixth year of operation, which receives financial support from Croydon council The scheme recruits volunteers to work with young offenders and with other young people who are deemed to be at risk of offending. Each year the scheme provides trained volunteers to befriend more than 50 young people in the Croydon area, and Mr. Speaker himself takes a particular interest in SOVA's work in the Croydon area.
Most of the volunteers are young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, while most of the youngsters are in the 13 to 14–year age range, with a substantial number of 15 and 16–year-olds. Some have already come to police notice as a result of offending, while others are considered by social workers to be at risk of offending due to their home circumstances. In the first five years of the scheme's operation, 89 per cent. of the young people befriended through the scheme were successfully kept out of court. SOVA's most recent annual report observed:
"Whilst we are very pleased with this success rate, it must be remembered that this is only one form of evaluation, and many benefits are derived by the youngsters from their relationship with their befrienders, which cannot be measured by statistics".
As a result of the success of the Croydon befrienders scheme, in the past year SOVA has been invited to set up a further four such schemes—in Wandsworth, Lambeth, my own area of the City of Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham—a clear and encouraging sign that the value of this approach is evident to local councils of widely differing political persuasions.
A number of important lessons can be learnt from the work of SOVA. The first is the vital contribution to the resettlement of offenders and the prevention of crime that can be made by ordinary members of the community of both sexes and all ages, drawn from all walks of life, giving their services freely. We must make sure that we fully use

659
the potential for voluntary involvement of that kind if we are to reduce levels of crime in our society. That includes ensuring that voluntary organisations receive adequate levels of funding. Amounts of grant aid, which are tiny in relation to expenditure on the criminal justice system, can produce astounding value in the amount of effective, high-quality work which results.
Secondly, SOVA's approach highlights the fact that the voluntary approach is not the same as an amateurish approach. On the contrary, a concern about quality runs through the organisation from top to bottom, and with it goes a real sense of professionalism. Recognising that voluntary work with offenders is highly skilled, SOVA provides specialist, highly developed training for its volunteers, as well as training probation officers and social workers in the use and management of volunteers.
Thirdly, SOVA's work underlines the fact that many offenders are also victims—victims of their own circumstances of disadvantage and inadequacy. If they are to lead law-abiding lives, they often have to overcome problems of illiteracy, poverty, unemployment and drug or alcohol addiction. It is there that the help and support of individual volunteers—helping them find their way through the social security and housing benefit systems, encouraging and motivating them to sustain their fight against addiction—is of the greatest value. SOVA's literacy scheme, which recruits and trains volunteer tutors for offenders referred by probation officers and prison education officers, is just one example of the society's work in helping offenders to overcome their personal disadvantages.
Fourthly, much of SOVA's work demonstrates the importance of keeping offenders—especially young offenders—out of penal establishments wherever possible and dealing with them in the community. That is true, for example, of the work of SOVA volunteers in intermediate treatment centres. The centres involve juvenile offenders in programmes of supervised activities which are having considerably greater success than custody in diverting young people from reoffending.
Fifthly, SOVA's work illustrates the value of partnership in combating crime—partnership between statutory agencies, voluntary organisations, the private sector and the community. An excellent example of this partnership is the HOPE project in Hartlepool, which was set up jointly last year by SOVA, Cleveland probation service and the inner city task force. The project aims to integrate offenders, with the support of volunteers, into local facilities for training, education, community care and leisure activities.
The project's management committee is a model of partnership, involving representatives of the probation service, the police, the task force, the educational sector, industry and commerce. During the first year of its operation, the project recruited 35 volunteers to work with up to 70 offenders. Each offender is assessed and then linked with community resources, such as employment training, education, community care and leisure activities. The volunteer is responsible for making the link between the offender and the community resources and then providing continuing support.
Another impressive example of partnership is the Berkshire PACT project, financed by the Home Office, in
660
which SOVA volunteers are working with young adult offenders on release from custody. The project is a partnership between SOVA, the Apex trust and the Berkshire probation service. Its work with young offenders is based on individual "contracts"—PACT stands for positive action contract—which gives the offender significant, focused time with a volunteer and attends to his or her employment, training, leisure and social needs. The Apex trust has provided an employment consultant for the project and is developing links with the local business community. The Berkshire probation service identifies offenders on its caseload who could benefit from the project, accredits and supervises the volunteers and provides premises for the project.
In these and many other ways, the work of the Society of Voluntary Associates—and of the many other voluntary organisations working with offenders—points the way to better ways of dealing with crime and achieving a safer and more decent society.
2.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on securing this debate. I am pleased that he has devoted it to such an inspirational subject, and I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to some of the points that he has made. My hon. Friend is well known for his wise, imaginative and long-standing interest in matters relating to penal policy, and it is therefore no surprise that he should want to emphasise the varied and essential roles that voluntary organisations such as SOVA already play in the criminal justice system and what they might do if the opportunities were opened up further.
SOVA is very highly regarded, and is well established with the Home Office as a national voluntary organisation which, as my hon. Friend has said, aims to promote community involvement in the resettlement of offenders and young people at risk. It does so partly by recruiting and training volunteers to work alongside the probation and social services, and also by providing consultancy and training to other agencies in the criminal justice field. SOVA also generates community involvement through its use of volunteers across the range of work with offenders and ex-offenders, which my hon. Friend has described so well. I commend those volunteers, who are not paid and who, as my hon. Friend has said, wish to contribute in that important but time-consuming way. We owe them a great deal.
SOVA receives core funding from the Home Office as a contribution towards its central administrative costs to enable it to carry out its resettlement work. The organisation makes a charge for the services that it provides to probation and social services.
I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks about the contribution to SOVA of Baroness Seear and Lord Hunt.
My hon. Friend has ably described SOVA's work. I should like to underline the examples that he has given. For instance, the Home Office very much appreciates the innovative work that SOVA is doing—with the aid of Home Office funding and in partnership with the Apex trust and Berkshire probation service—with young adult offenders. This is a novel project recruiting, as it does, volunteers to work with young adult offenders in character building, vocational skills, social skills, community skills

661
and with individual problems, such as addictions, and providing the opportunity for skills training, pre-employment training and leisure training.
I agree that a commendable example of SOVA's ability to achieve a partnership in combating crime and the fear of crime is the establishment of the HOPE project in Hartlepool, in partnership with the Cleveland probation service, the inner-city task force and leading members of the local community. I am glad that the Home Office has been able to make some funding available through its safer cities grant scheme to assist with that work.
My hon. Friend is right to point to the valuable work that SOVA is doing through its befrienders scheme in Croydon with young people at risk of offending. My hon. Friend mentioned the work in Croydon particularly, and I know that Mr. Speaker takes a special interest in it. The use of young volunteers to work with the youngsters, a number of whom are in care—increasingly, following a caution—is an imaginative approach to the aim of diverting them from the court process. The success rate is encouraging, and I am pleased to learn of the prospects for expansion of the scheme.
No less praise worthy is SOVA's literacy scheme—which my hon. Friend also mentioned—with its aim of giving offenders referred by probation officers and prison education officers the confidence to undertake proper adult literacy training.
It is not least because of the proven track record of innovation, flexibility and professionalism of voluntary organisations such as SOVA in their work with offenders that the Government have published the discussion paper, "Partnership in Dealing with Offenders in the Community". As my hon. Friend knows, the paper explores future roles for the independent sector—that is, voluntary organisations, volunteers and profit-making bodies—in the criminal justice system, so that the probation service can concentrate on areas requiring its specialist skills.
In recent years, there has been a blossoming of community involvement in the tackling of crime, with the neighbourhood watch scheme, for instance, now being very much a part of everyday life. It is essential, therefore, that the community should also be involved in the treatment of offenders. As SOVA has emphatically shown, and as my hon. Friend has sagely commented, "voluntary" does not mean amateur. Many voluntary organisations already work in the criminal justice system, and there is room for an even greater involvement of the voluntary sector in cautioning and charging policies; bail arrangements; programmes of supervision and work with prisoners before and after release, especially on welfare matters; social crime prevention, particularly youth provision; and help with victims of crime.
We are seeking to encourage greater voluntary sector involvement through a programme of grants for organisations working with young adult offenders, as £7·3 million is available over four years. Last year we made grants to 11 organisations, the PACT project in Berkshire being one recipient. This year we have received over 100 applications for funding. We cannot, alas, meet them all, but it is heartening that so many voluntay organisations are interested in the work.
662
The discussion paper encourages the development of partnership between the independent sector and the statutory agencies to do the work that I have mentioned. SOVA has shown how that can be done. Three options for funding voluntary and private sector organisations are rehearsed in the discussion document: locally organised provision, centrally organised provision and a mixture of the two.
Under locally organised provision, the probation service would provide or buy in all core statutory services. All funds would be channelled through the probation service, and only pilot or evaluation exercises might be centrally funded. With a centrally organised arrangement, local probation services would provide only statutory services; the remainder would be put out to tender. If there were a more structured mix of central and local provision, local initiatives might be funded locally, but nationally significant projects might be centrally funded.
We have invited views on that, as on the other issues covered in the discussion paper. Indeed, the Home Office has said that it is willing to sponsor a series of conferences to stimulate discussion of the issues, and is inviting proposals from interested organisations to arrange such events. I know that SOVA is currently discussing with officials in my Department running one in the autumn. The Government want a debate, and want to take an active part in it.
I recognise that a crucial factor in securing the wider involvement of the voluntary sector in the criminal justice system will be the Government's ability to provide an appropriate level of funding. We shall have to look at that once we have considered the various views and completed the round of discussions with interested bodies. The discussion paper rightly stresses the importance of monitoring and evaluation to secure value for money and that will underpin our ability to argue for the right level of resources.
The recommendations of the "Scrutiny of Government Funding of the Voluntary Sector", if accepted by the Government, will be important too in clarifying the relationship of Government Departments with the voluntary organisations that they fund in that there will be agreement about the objectives to be achieved. When he announced publication of the scrutiny, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary outlined a number of principles that will condition Government funding for voluntary bodies. Those principles included the extent to which voluntary bodies use or encourage volunteers. That underlines one of the important points that my hon. Friend made in opening the debate.
I hope that we shall be able to bring about more involvement by the independent sector in criminal justice. As SOVA has shown, this is undoubtedly the way to providing a different, additional and innovative perspective on problems and increasing the range of alternatives for dealing with them.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend both for what he said about SOVA—it is valuable and heartening to know and have it on record—and for giving me this opportunity to reply to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Three o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  PE Teachers
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will provide details of the number of places for those seeking to train as physical education teachers following the major planning exercise announced in December 1989; and whether he has any plans to increase the number of places further.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend announced aggregate intake numbers for initial teacher training for the three-year period 1991–92 to 1993–94 in April this year. Aggregate intake numbers have been increased for physical education for the triennium and have been set at 750 for each year. There are no plans further to increase the number of places available.

  School Meals
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the school meals census for autumn 1989 to be published.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information on school meal arrangements is now collected with the annual schools census each January. Information for January 1989 was published in "Statistics of Education Schools 1989", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Research
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision is made to cover the overheads of academic research projects funded by the research councils; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of these provisions in covering real overhead costs.

  Mr. Jackson
  Under the dual support system, the overhead costs of projects funded by the research councils at universities are met from the universities' general funds.

  It is for the Universities Funding Council to advise Government on the adequacy of the public funding it receives and distributes to the universities in the form of block grants in support of research and teaching.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to recruit and train more staff for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Most of the 60 extra staff requested by the chairman of the board and recommended by the Home 346
  Affairs Select Committee in January (Second Report: Session 1989–90—HC92) are in post and have completed their basic training. The rest are expected to be in post by the end of July.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when working conditions and staff accommodation in the offices of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are to be reviewed and modernised.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the office in Glasgow, where most of the board's staff are based, is already decorated and furnished to a good standard. The board's London offices, which are modern and suit the board's needs, are to be redecorated shortly.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from organisations concerning the figures used to assess new allocations of staff to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received no outside representations, but officials have discussed with the Home Office trade union side concerns about the level of output expected now that the board has been given more staff.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allocate a larger percentage of the staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to London.

  Mr. John Patten
  The relocation of posts from London to Glasgow was based on our assessment that the board could work more economically and efficiently if as much of its administrative work was transferred to Glasgow as could practically and conveniently be done there. This remains our approach, which is why the 60 new staff have been recruited predominantly in Glasgow. The board, which is responsible for managing its own operations, keeps check of the balance of staff and work between the two offices.

  Rape
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the trend in the number of reported rape cases in the last 10 years;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of rapes each year which are not reported.

  Mr. John Patten
  The numbers of offences of rape recorded by the police in England and Wales in the years 1979 to 1988 are published in table 2.9 of the "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1988" (Cm 847); the figure for 1989 is published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 10/90.

  Information on reporting and recording of sexual offences is published in table A.2 of "The 1988 British Crime Survey" (Home Office research study 111) and on rape in Table 2 of "Concerns about rape" (Home Office research study 106). Copies of all these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to protect the rights of the victim in rape cases in order to achieve a decrease in the number of unreported rape cases.
  347
  Mr. John Patten
  We have already strengthened and extended the law against public identification of complainants in rape cases; and we have changed the rules of court to stop routine disclosure of the addresses of witnesses on their statements. We are considering with the Law Society what more can be done to prevent misuse of certain witness statements which must be given to the defendant.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the minimum sentence for rape at present; and whether there are any plans to change this.

  Mr. John Patten
  The maximum penalty for rape is life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal has given detailed guidance on sentencing for rape, which indicates that a sentence of five years imprisonment should be the starting point for an adult found guilty of rape, without any aggravating or mitigating features. We have no plans to introduce a minimum penalty.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Industrial Deaths
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if, following the referral of the death of Paul Elvin at Euston station in 1988 to the Crown prosecution service, he will make a statement about his intentions with regard to other cases of industrial death where there is an alleged element of criminal negligence.

  The Attorney-General
  It is the responsibility of the investigating authority to determine whether the alleged element of criminal negligence is so serious that the Crown Prosecution Service should be invited to consider the eveidence. In the case of Paul Elvin no new inquiry was began but, exceptionally, I asked the Director of Public Prosecutions himself to consider the evidence that was prepared for the purposes of a prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act.

TRANSPORT

  Northolt Airport
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to change current usage of Northolt airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  RAF Northolt is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The airfield is also used by business aircraft, and the 1985 airports policy White Paper identified Northolt as having an important role to play in helping to meet demand for business aviation facilities in the London area. In line with that, we are seeking to establish a civil aviation enclave at Northolt, to serve the needs of the business aviation user more effectively.

  Marine Surveyors
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report a summary of the results of the seven prosecutions initiated by his Department's marine surveyors, referred to in his reply to the hon. Member for Harborough on 26 April, Official Report, column 264.
  348
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The results of the seven prosecutions referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for Harborough on 26 April,Official Report, column 264, were as follows:

  (i) failure to supply master with a dangerous goods declaration for explosives, contravention of Classification and Labelling of Explosives Regulations 1983: shipper fined £1,000, owners fined £250, £150 and £100 on three counts;

  (ii) failure to carry a valid load line certificates: owner fined £25;

  (iii) defective lifeboats, and officers certificate lacking suitable dangerous cargo endorsements: master fined £7,500, with £3,000 costs;

  (iv) defects identified by port state control inspection: case dropped;

  (v) failure to comply with MS (Radio) (Fishing Vessel) Rules 1974: case dropped;

  (vi) prosecution of master and owners under the Deck Officer Regulations and Load Line Act 1967: case still under consideration;

  (vii) prosecution of master and owners for carrying more than 12 pasengers without a passenger certificate: case still under consideration.

  United Kingdom Shipping
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of Transport, pursuant to his replies of 18 April,Official Report, columns 914–15, what factors account for the reduction in the British fleet and in employment in the United Kingdom shipping industry being greater than the world average.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The oversupply of ships on a world scale reduced the financial returns available from shipping, and British operators withdrew from the unprofitable sectors more rapidly than some of their foreign counterparts. Some other British operators have seen commercial advantage in flagging out to other registers. Changes in trading patterns have also had a particular effect on the British shipping industry, firstly because the availability of North sea oil reduced the need for imports from further afield, and secondly because a drop in oil prices resulted in a reduction in exploration related shipping activity from 1984–85.

  The joint working party with the General Council of British Shipping announced by my right hon. Friend on 24 May at column 288 is including in its work an assessment of the competitive position of the British shipping industry and factors which may currently deter owners from placing their ships on the British register.

  United Kingdom Shipping
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, columns 914–15, if he will take steps to reduce the cost disadvantages facing United Kingdom shipping operators.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend announced, on 24 May,Official Report, column 288, the setting up of a joint working party with the General Council of British Shipping to take a wide look at the circumstances in which the British shipping industry operates, including the main obstacles to the use of the British flag.

  When the working party has reported we will consider what action, if any, should be taken.

  Runways, Heathrow
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to authorise mixed mode runway use at Heathrow airport; and whether he has commissioned any research or computer modelling on this matter.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have no plans to do so, but this is one of a number of issues that my officials are discussing with the CAA.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Per Capita Income
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the average per capita income of the low-income countries, excluding China and India, has been for each of the last 10 years; and what are the corresponding figures for the industrialised market economy countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The average gnp per capita for the years 1979–88 of (1) the countries classified by OECD as low-income countries (excluding China and India) and (2)the 17 members of the OECD's development assistance committee was:

  Year

  Low income countries (excluding China and India) GNP per capita US dollars

  Development Assistance Committee member countries GNP per capita US dollars

  1979

  264

  9,674

  1980

  391

  10,694

  1981

  371

  10,740

  1982

  348

  10,643

  1983

  315

  10,998

  1984

  237

  11,551

  1985

  313

  12,150

  1986

  323

  14,771

  1987

  263

  17,033

  1988

  344

  18,911

  Sources:

  OECD—DAC Chairman's Report, 1981–89.

  World Bank Atlas 1989.

  The low-income group has included different countries during the 10 years, both because of changes in individual countries' economic performance and because of revaluations in the per capita GNP threshhold for classification as a low-income country.

ENVIRONMENT

  World Heritage Sites
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to the designation as World Heritage sites of(a) the Cairngorms area, and (b) other areas.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is in the first instance for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider whether application should be made for World Heritage listing for the Cairngorms area.
  350
  The Lake District has been nominated for inclusion on the list this year and will be considered by the World Heritage Committee in December. Other possible future nominations are currently being reviewed by a group of experts chaired by English Heritage.

  National Rivers Authority
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the authorised staff establishment of the National Rivers Authority headquarters(a) at its formation, (b) currently and (c) projected.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's view was originally that, at least for an initial period, the National Rivers Authority head office should not exceed 60 staff. Following further consideration we agreed that a study by consultants should be commissioned to review the optimum size of the head office, and that meanwhile an additional 21 staff could be recruited to meet particularly urgent needs. The authority is in the process of filling these additional posts, and the study is under way.

  Commissioners for Local Administration
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he gives any guidance to commissioners for local adminstration about holding meetings at the request of a local authority, pursuant to a report into its activities.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. Commissioners for Local Administration (local ombudsman) are entirely independent of Government in their handling of individual case.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what services are provided on behalf of the Government by local authorties at Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No local authority acts as agent for the Government in providing services at Heathrow airport; such functions as they discharge there are their own responsibility.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will review the procedure for registering housing associations and particularly those that are friendly societies and have links with the development industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The registration of housing associations is the statutory responsibility of the Housing Corporation. Under the statute, the corporation has power to register only those associations, including those which are friendly societies, which do not trade for profit.

  Construction Agreements
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list all construction agreements and contracts entered into by his Department in the years 1985, 1986 and 1987.

  Mr. Chope
  No. In the period referred to, my department placed in excess of 50,000 contracts for building and construction work.

  Textile Finishers
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make a statement on the problems arising in textile finishers' effluent from the presence of pentacholorophenol or its salts in imported grey fabric which is processed in the United Kingdom;

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that his pollution inspectorate applies the same regulations on textile finishers' effluent as in other European Economic Community countries.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply.

  The EC Dangerous Substances Directive 86/280/EEC has, since 1 January 1988, required all surface waters to meet a quality standard in respect of pentachlorophenol (PCP) of 2 microgrammes per litre. The Commission will require uniform compliance with the directive across the Community.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is currently reviewing a number of trade effluent consents granted to companies where PCP may be present in their effluent. In reviewing these discharges, the Department is obliged to consider the representations of both the discharger and the statutory sewage undertaker as well as having regard to the need to ensure that the quality standard is met in the eventual receiving water before reaching his decision.

  However, many existing waters already contain traces of PCP and this constrains further discharges, in some cases ruling out any further discharges from existing or proposed processes. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will therefore ensure that, as required by article 3 of the directive, the best technical means available are applied to the treatment of any discharge. For both existing and new discharges there are a number of practical measures and options available to enable the required discharge condition and therefore the quality standard in the relevant receiving water to be achieved.

  Local Authorities (Accountability)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to introduce any proposals to allow local councils to be more accountable to the local people other than by local elections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer, 9 July 1990]: One of the principal aims of the changes in local government finance introduced in April was to increase local accountability.

PRIME MINISTER

  Child Care
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments made allocations for child care facilities in their 1989–90 public expenditure bids; and what proportion of each Department's bid this constituted.

  The Prime Minister
  Information on the extent to which departments made public expenditure provision in 1989–90 for child care facilities for their staff is not held centrally.
  352
  There are already four nurseries in operation in Departments and agencies with a further three planned to open later this year.

  Parliamentary Committees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list those occasions since 1979 on which a Minister has refused to give evidence to departmental or other parliamentary committees.

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally.

  Advisers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of her advisers paid from public funds who are not career civil servants were appointed following employment in the public relations field immediately before their employment in her office.

  The Prime Minister
  None.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Birmingham Six
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last discussed the question of the Birmingham Six with the Irish Government.

  Mr. Cope
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and is not within the ambit of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but the matter was referred to during a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference on 30 November 1989.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Documents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of and how many documents in 1989 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of and (g) otherwise unaccounted for.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: A total of 11,149 documents, in the form of individual files, was passed to the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) in 1989 by Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office. The censoring of files is not permitted and they must be transferred in their entirety since it is not permitted to retain files in part. Files not passed to PRONI are retained by the Departments and filed judged by PRONI not to merit permanent preservation are destroyed. While our procedures provide that all records are accounted for, the percentage of documents retained or destroyed could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many plastic bullets were fired in Northern Ireland in 1989; in what circumstances and in what location the bullets were fired; and how many persons were injured as a result.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: A total of 937 plastic baton rounds were fired in 1989. I shall write to the hon. Member giving the detail requested and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as to what inquiries have been made into the suicides of two men in late 1989 following their arrest on charges related to their homosexual activities.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 6 July 1990]: The Chief Constable has advised me that in July 1989 two men committed suicide following police investigations into their involvement in offences of gross indecency. Inquiries were made by the police into the circumstances of these deaths and full reports were made to the appropriate coroner who at the inquest into each death concluded that death was by drowning.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Government Forms
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will list those recommendations of the review report on the forms Government send to business which have now been implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  Departments have been encouraged to implement those recommendations of the review which apply to them and a full report on achievements will be included in the next progress report on forms to the Prime Minister in autumn 1991. More generally, since 1982, 171,309 forms have been reviewed of which 36,004 have been scrapped and 57,785 redesigned. This has resulted in savings of approximately £15 million.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Energy Bills (VAT)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected yield from the imposition of value added tax on(a) gas and (b) electricity bills where supplies are made to domestic premises for business purposes.

  Mr. Ryder
  The revenue yield will be negligible. This is because many businesses operating from domestic premises will continue to receive zero-rated supplies under arrangements designed to simplify the administration of taxing fuel and power. VAT-registered businesses which are charged tax will be able to reclaim it under the input tax credit mechanism.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants in his Department of the rank of principal or equivalent and above are graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; and how many are graduates of other universities.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The Treasury has 130 graduates of Oxford or Cambridge and 103 from other universities or polytechnics.

  Inland Revenue (Relocation)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the decision to relocate 1,800 Inland Revenue jobs from London and the south-east in 1992, what information he has regarding the projected number of vacancies in the network in London and the south-east at the time of the main move; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: It was announced on 24 July, at column 542, and 22 November 1989 at columns 1–2, that the work of 1,600 PAYE staff in London and the south-east would be moved gradually to other parts of the United Kingdom over the period November 1989 to mid-1992.

  The programme was undertaken, in part, to tackle the effects of staff turnover rather than the level of vacancies, which in 1989 was low.

THE ARTS

  Theatres, Liverpool
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Minister of the Arts whether he intends to meet the Merseyside Arts Association and the Arts Council to discuss the future funding of professional theatre in Liverpool.

  Mr. Luce
  This is a matter for the Arts Council and Merseyside Arts.

  Regional Arts Associations
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the percentage by which grants from the Arts Council to the regional arts associations have increased since 1979.

  Mr. Luce
  Between 1979–80 and 1990–91 the Arts Council's grant to the regional arts associations increased from £6,362,017 to £33,146,000. This represents a cash increase of 521 per cent. and a real terms increase of 244 per cent.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about his proposals to enlarge the role of the regional arts associations.

  Mr. Luce
  My announcement on 13 March was welcomed by the House, the Arts Council and the regional arts associations. I have also received a number of other messages of support.

  "Percent for Art" Schemes
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) what sums the Arts Council has invested in "Percent for Art" schemes in each of the last three years; and how much is budgeted for each of the next three years;
  355
  (2) what sums the Arts Council has invested in the infrastructure necessary to develop "Percent for Art" schemes.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: The Arts Council does not invest directly in individual "Percent for Art" schemes but encourages developers through education and example. It estimates that it has spent some £32,000 in this way since 1988. The success of its campaigning has created an increased demand for expertise and the council is now considering how best to meet this demand. It is already committed to spending £30,000 over the next three years to support the creation of new posts in four local authorities aimed at introducing the "Percent for Art" policy within the planning system. The council is meeting half the cost of these posts.

  British Library
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the value of the land to be sold on the north side of the new British library site at St. Pancras.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: The final value will depend on how much is surplus and the use to which the land can be put. A 5 acre area of land at the north end of the site was estimated in 1989 to be worth between £4.5 million and £6 million.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the estimated value of the Somers Town goods yard site at St. Pancras.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: It has not been necessary to obtain a valuation for the whole site.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the cost of site preparation of the land on the north side of the new British Library site at St. Pancras and its area in relation to the area to be occupied by the British Library.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 11 July 1990]: The cost of removing the existing railway structures from the 2.7 acre strip at the northern end of the site totals £300,000. The remainder of the site, including the area to be occupied by the British library, comprises 9.8 acres.

EMPLOYMENT

  Cobalt
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the extent to which employers are currently complying with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations in relation to control of cobalt exposure and provision of medical facilities to employees exposed to cobalt in the manufacture and use of tungsten carbide, and on the extent to which conditions have improved since the last Health and Safety Executive internal report on the matter.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Data available within the Health and Safety cover a special project national exercise on cobalt exposure in the hard metal industry for the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1990; it is not possible without disproportionate cost to give data covering just the second year.

  During the overall period, 122 premises were visited where cobalt was used; some more than once. By the end
  356
  of the two-year period, HSE inspectors considered control to be satisfactory and in full compliance with the COSHH Regulations at 106 premises. For seven premises results of atmospheric monitoring are not yet available. At nine premises, exposure was judged to be inadequately controlled; enforcement action is continuing at these premises to ensure compliance with COSHH.

  HSE does not have comprehensive information on the provision of medical facilities at these premises.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the workplaces known to his Department with sprayed asbestos on the structural steelwork.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed claimants in each month since 9 October 1989 have(a) been issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work, (b) had their claims referred to an adjudication officer for not actively seeking work and (c) had their claims (i) allowed and (ii) disallowed; where the claim has been disallowed, how many were (A) successful and (B) unsuccessful in claiming reduced income support; where an adjudication decision is pending, how many have been (1) successful and (2) unsuccessful in claiming reduced income support; how many have been referred to an adjudication officer for refusing employment; how many of those so referred had their benefit disqualified; and if he will provide the figures for Great Britain, each region and area adjudication sections in London.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Gentleman regarding the number of claimants issued with warning letters for not actively seeking work. That part of the question asking for numbers of claimants who were successful/unsuccessful in claiming reduced income support should be directed to the Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of unemployed claimants in Great Britain, each region and the London employment service Areas, who were referred to an adjudication officer on grounds of voluntary unemployment, in the quarters ended December 1988, March 1989 and September 1989, categorised according to each reason for disqualification; and how many in each case have(a) been disqualified and (b) not been disqualified.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Employment Service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service Agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Gentleman.

WALES

  Computers (Schools)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the level of integration of computers on to the school timetable in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available. The level of integration of information technology across the curriculum varies with such factors as the age of pupils, the

  1980

  1989–90

  Hospital

  Obstetric

  GP Maternity

  Obstetric

  GP Maternity

  Clwyd

  Catherine Gladstone

  —

  12·0

  —

  8·0

  Chatsworth House

  —

  17·0

  —

  —

  Chirk

  —

  8·0

  —

  —

  Colwyn Bay Community

  —

  —

  —

  3·0

  Colwyn Bay Maternity

  —

  13·1

  —

  —

  HM Stanley

  47·0

  —

  52·0

  —

  Llangollen

  —

  5·0

  —

  —

  Ruthin

  —

  1·9

  —

  —

  Ysbyty Maelor

  66·0

  —

  62·9

  —

  East Dyfed

  Amman Valley

  20·0

  —

  —

  —

  Bronglais

  16·0

  —

  16·0

  —

  West Wales General

  32·0

  —

  32·0

  —

  Gwent

  County

  36·0

  12·0

  24·0

  6·0

  Nevill Hall

  31·3

  0·7

  44·0

  9·3

  Royal Gwent

  84·0

  11·0

  58·7

  11·0

  Gwynedd

  Bryn Beryl

  —

  5·9

  —

  5·0

  Dolgellau and Barmouth

  —

  10·0

  —

  7·0

  Gors Maternity

  —

  15·5

  —

  —

  St. Davids

  59·7

  —

  61·0

  —

  Towyn

  —

  3·0

  —

  3·0

  Mid Glamorgan

  Aberdare

  26·2

  5·0

  25·0

  5·0

  Bridgend General

  50·0

  —

  —

  —

  Caerphilly Miners

  38·0

  —

  38·8

  —

  East Glamorgan

  50·0

  —

  45·3

  —

  Llwynypia

  32·0

  —

  13·9

  —

  Maesteg

  —

  14·0

  —

  —

  Merthyr General

  12·1

  —

  25·0

  —

  Princess of Wales

  —

  —

  51·0

  —

  St· Tydfils

  13·3

  —

  —

  —

  Pembrokeshire

  Withybush

  30·0

  20·0

  30·9

  8·9

  Powys

  Brecon War Memorial

  —

  6·0

  —

  6·0

  Builth Cottage

  —

  4·0

  —

  3·0

  Knighton

  —

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  Llandrindod Wells

  —

  7·0

  —

  4·0

  Llandiloes

  —

  6·0

  —

  5·0

  Machynlleth and District

  —

  2·0

  —

  2·0

  Montgomery Infirmary

  —

  6·0

  —

  5·7

  Victoria Memorial

  —

  8·0

  —

  8·0

  South Glamorgan

  St. David's

  86·0

  2·0

  64·0

  2·0

  University Hospital of Wales

  71·0

  —

  70·7

  —

  West Glamorgan

  Gorseinon

  11·5

  —

  12·0

  —

  Mt. Pleasant

  38·7

  —

  —

  —

  Morriston

  39·4

  —

  75·6

  —

  Neath General

  62·0

  —

  40·4

  —

  358
  phase of education, and subjects timetabled as well as access to computer equipment, and is not statistically quantifiable.

  Maternity Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Wales if he will list the hospitals in Wals which had consultant obstetric and/or general practitioner maternity beds in 1980, 1985 or the most recent year for which information is available and the numbers of beds of each type in each hospital in each year.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is given in the table:

  Cataract Treatment
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evidence collected and used by his Department underlay the decision to locate the specialist centre for the treatment of cataracts in Wales in Gwynedd health authority.

  Mr. Grist
  The ophthalmology treatment centre, while open to patients from the whole of Wales, is intended primarily to solve a particular waiting times problem in north Wales.

  The decision to locate the treatment centre in Gwynedd was made on the basis of proposals received from health authorities and on the results of a special survey conducted in July 1989, which estimated that over 500 patients had been waiting more than four months for treatment for cataracts in Gwynedd and Clwyd at that date.

  Financial Planning
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the financial years 1985–86 to 1989–90 the inflation figure his Department advised(a) district councils, (b) county councils and (c) health authorities in Wales to use in their advance planning and estimate making for each specific financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 9 July 1990.

  Rivers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he intends to take to improve the classifications achieved by rivers in Wales in accordance with the National Water Council grading system.

  Mr. Grist
  We will be setting statutory water quality objectives for all rivers and estuaries in Wales in the light of the findings of the river quality survey presently being carried out by the National Rivers Authority and its subsequent advice.

  Defence Installations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria he uses for considering appeals from the decisions of local planning authorities where the proposals concern defence installations.

  Mr. Grist
  Each case is considered on its merits, having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations. All factors are carefully weighted before reaching a decision.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is now in a position to announce his decision on the future structure of community health councils in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes. Over 200 responses were received to the consultation paper which outlined our proposals for the reduction in the number of community health councils (CHCs) in Wales and other issues.

  I have now completed my consideration of those responses and whilst recognising that support is evident
  360
  for certain of the proposals I have taken full cognisance of the fact that the majority of those who replied were not in favour of the reduction in the number of CHCs to one per district health authority (DHA). In most cases it was felt that many DHAs in Wales covered too large an area, or had too large a population, to be adequately serviced by a single CHC.

  I have therefore decided to retain 22 CHCs in Wales, comprised as they are at present. Nevertheless, I still feel that there are considerable advantages in CHCs coming together at times when dealing with DHAs on district-wide issues and will be suggesting that councils consider setting up joint committee systems such as that which is employed in Mid Glamorgan. It is also my intention to pursue certain of the other measures which were outlined in the paper and which I consider will be of benefit to the way in which CHCs operate. These measures will include the transfer of responsibility for the employment of all CHC staff from DHAs to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and consideration of improved staff training; greater involvement in consumer attitudes and quality of care issues generally; production of forward plans of action; and the possible involvement of CHCs in the DHA and practitioner committee annual review procedures.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regulations
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regulations his Department has introduced in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of statutory instruments (including regulations, rules and orders) made by my Department in each of the last three years was as follows:

  Number

  1987

  82

  1988

  120

  1989

  138

  Some of these replace older regulations, and others have been necessary to fulfil our obligations to implement EC directives in connection with the single market programme.

  Hi-tech Industries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new initiatives he plans to encourage the growth of markets for British hi-tech industries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department encourages growth in all markets by promoting enterprise and by creating a climate in which industry can flourish. There are no plans at present for any specific new initiatives.

  Research
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the money allocated to the Link research funding programme has had to be returned to the Exchequer due to lack of demand.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No money allocated to the Link research programme has had to be returned to the Exchequer. Once funding is committed to a Link project it will be made available as necessary.
  361
  The actual spend on Link projects lags significantly behind commitment. This is due to the time involved in industry and science based institutes concluding formal agreements to collaborate, together with the fact that industrial grants are paid in arrears. This situation is made worse by industry frequently taking up to 12 months after the work has taken place to submit claims.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criticisms of the Link funding rules have been received by his Department.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Comments on Link, including its funding rules, have been made by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Council, and others. Their observations are currently being studied.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes are planned in the Link research funding rules.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None at present, although as with all such schemes, the rules are reviewed from time to time.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the money allocated to the Link research funding research programme has been(a) spent and (b) committed, to date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A total of 24 programmes have been approved under the Link scheme targeting priority areas of research. £160 million has been committed by government to finance the research in these programmes providing industry comes forward with a matching £160 million for individual projects. To date 65 individual collaborative research projects have been agreed and are under way with a total commitment from government and industry of £37 million. Due to the time taken to establish collaborative projects and the delay in industry submitting claims for work undertaken the spend for the financial year 1989–90 was only around £7 million but this is expected to increase significantly during the course of the current financial year.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors account for the low take-up of the money allocated to the Link research funding project.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Whilst 24 Link programmes have been announced, most of the 65 current research projects under way have only become active within the last 12 months. For example, on 6 April 1989 there were only 12 active research projects, whereas by 29 May 1990 the number has risen to 65. In addition, on 29 May 1990 a further 57 were through all stages of technical approval and were awaiting final financial clearance or the Department was waiting for the industrial partners to satisfactorily conclude crucial collaborative agreements. The time delay between the approval of research programmes targeting a particular area and the conclusion of collaborative agreements between individual science based institutes and industry to proceed on a particular project is reflected in the actual Link spend being significantly behind the commitment. This is exacerbated by the fact that industrial grants are paid in arrears, that 362
  is after costs have been incurred and particularly in the early days of a project, claims may not be submitted for up to 12 months after the work has taken place. As a result the actual spend to date has been low but is expected to increase significantly during the course of this financial year.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what proportion of projects funded under the European framework programme there is a United Kingdom academic partner and no United Kingdom industrial partner; and what are the reasons for this.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A fundamental objective of EC research and development collaboration is to encourage greater interaction between academic and industrial research in order to increase European competitiveness in world markets.

  In general, United Kingdom industry has made considerable progress in participation in international collaboration and in winning funds from the EC research and development budget. With the greater emphasis in the 1990–94 framework programme on basic science, for example in biomedicine, health and the environment, United Kingdom universities and research establishments should be able to increase their already significant involvement in EC collaborative activities.

  The split between United Kingdom industrial and academic involvement varies according to the content of individual research programmes and disproportionate effort would be required to extract this information on the 32 specific programmes under the 1987–91 framework programme.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State For Trade and Industry what information he has on the number of United Kingdom academics transferring their research ideas to the United Kingdom's competitors; and what factors account for this transfer.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department makes no provision for the collection of information on the number of United Kingdom academics transferring their research ideas to the United Kingdom's competitors.

  Dunsdale Securities
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conclusions he has drawn about the quality of the flow of information between regulators and his Department in the light of the failure of Dunsdale Securities.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: Since the Securities and Investments Board and the self-regulating organisations took over responsibility for the regulation of investment businesses on 29 April 1988, there has been no requirement for them to keep the Department informed of their day-to-day dealings with particular firms. In cases where significant problems emerge, the regulators directly concerned of course keep my Department in close touch with developments, as has happened over Dunsdale Securities since 6 June 1990.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Deaf-Blind People
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how his Department is monitoring the extension of mobility allowance, on 9 April, to deaf-blind people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Apart from normal arrangements for monitoring mobility allowance claims, separate records are kept of the number of claims from people who are both deaf and blind, and of the outcome of these claims.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions, guidance and training has been given to examining doctors, members of medical boards and members of medical appeal tribunals on how to apply new regulations introduced on 9 April extending mobility allowance to deaf-blind people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 19 April at columns 1012–13.

  Autistic Children
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many autistic children have been granted mobility allowance.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the level of support for pensioners in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, taking into account other benefits which are applicable to pensioners.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Department's publication, "Tables of Social Benefit Systems in the European Communities (position at 1 January 1989)", a copy of which is in the Library. These tables set out the levels of benefit in the national currencies together with the sterling equivalent converted according to the OECD's purchasing power parity figure as explained in the introduction to the tables.

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements have been made for an adjudication officer from his Department to assess whether an income support claimant should receive reduced income support under the hardship rules following a doubt over actively seeking work or availability on the basis of papers received from the employment service.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  A hardship claim is automatically considered by an adjudication officer of the Department of Social Security when income support is suspended because of doubts as to whether a claimant is available for and actively seeking work. Such a claim is assessed on the individual's circumstances at the time, taking into account any other income and capital he has and any other relevant factors.
  364
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether an income support claimant appealing against a decision to suspend, disallow or disqualify on grounds of actively seeking work, refusal of employment or restricted availability, will have his or her case reviewed by his Department's or the Department of Employment's adjudication officers before submission to a social security appeals tribunal.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Any appeal received against an income support decision will lead to the case being re-examined by the income support adjudication officer before a submission is made to the social security appeals tribunal. However, a formal review will only be instigated if new information is provided which gives sufficient grounds for this course of action.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether income support claimants whose benefit has been suspended for two or more weeks as a result of actively seeking work or availability doubts who are in receipt of housing benefits are required to make a fresh claim for housing benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Where benefit is suspended and the local adjudication officer decides that hardship payments of income support are not appropriate, the claimant would be invited to make a fresh claim for housing benefit in order that entitlement can be determined in the light of the new circumstances.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has received any information on the operation of the rent officer arrangements within the housing benefit scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have today arranged for information on the operation of the rent officer procedures for housing benefit purposes to be made available in the Library. This information, which was produced by the Department of the Environment and covers England and Wales, is based on the period April 1989 (when the procedures were introduced) to December 1989 inclusive.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether youth training is a training scheme approved by him for the purposes of section 20(1)(e) to (g) of the Social Security Act 1975.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 29 June 1990]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has approved youth training, like its predecessor the youth training scheme, for the purposes of section 20(1)(e)-(g) of the Social Security Act 1975.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Assam Frontier Tea Ltd.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of India regarding the murder in Assam on 9 April of the chairman of the British-owned company, Assam Frontier Tea Ltd.
  365
  Mr. Sainsbury
  We were saddened by the murder of Mr. Surendra Paul. British-owned tea companies have made their concerns about security in Assam known to us, and we have put these to the Indian Government. The Indian Government have confirmed publicly that they have asked the Assam authorities to take action.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to the response by the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities to United Nations Security Council resolution 649 on the Cyprus problem; and whether he will urge both sides to resume intercommunal talks.

  Mr. Maude
  We will continue to give active support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem. We believe that the United Nations Security Council resolution 649 clearly maps out the way forward, and we maintain diplomatic contact with all parties in order to assist the United Nations' effort.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Newspapers
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make available a newspaper rack and daily newspapers for use of the staff and hon. Members on the Upper Committee Corridors.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  As the hon. Member knows newspapers are already provided in a number of general areas such as the Members' Tea Room, the Members' Smoking Room and the Library where Members can collectively make use of them. I will arrange for the hon. Member's suggestion to be considered.

SCOTLAND

  Shop Premises
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to increase inspection of shop premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The food Safety Act 1990, which received Royal Assent on 29 June provides the necessary framework to enable inspections to be undertaken by local authority (district and islands councils) enforcement officials. The authorities will be required to have regard to codes of recommended practice issued by the Secretary of State for the execution and enforcement of the Act and of regulations and orders made under it.

  Present measures will be further augmented and formalised next year by the EC Council directive on the official control of foodstuffs. Member states will require to operate a formal programme of inspections at all stages of food production, manufacture, processing, storage, transport, distribution and trade.

  Strathclyde Police Authority
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civilian employees are employed by Strathclyde police authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: There were 1,941 civilians in post as at 1 April 1990 in Strathclyde police authority. This number includes nine and 63 civilians employed by the Scottish crime squad and the Scottish Criminal Record Office respectively.

  Police Salaries
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the salaries of each police officer grade from constable to chief constable, giving details of incremental payments where applicable.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The following tables provide the current salary details of all police officer grades from constable to chief constable inclusive:

  Annual salary with effect from 1 September 1988 £

  Annual salary for new appointments between 1 September 1988 and 31 August 1989 £

  Annual salary with effect from 1 September 1989 £

  Constable

  On appointment

  29,063

  38,352

  9,900

  After 1 year

  29,690

  —

  10,587

  21

  11,406

  310,512

  12,462

  3

  11,676

  —

  12,756

  4

  12,063

  —

  13,179

  5

  12,477

  —

  13,632

  6

  12,876

  —

  14,067

  7

  13,275

  —

  14,502

  8

  13,668

  —

  14,931

  12

  14,466

  —

  15,804

  15

  15,123

  —

  16,521

  1 Entry point for those aged 22 or over, who will move to the next point after three years' service.

  2 Only payable to those appointed prior to 1 September 1988—see next col. for rate payable to those appointed on or after 1 September 1988.

  3 Rate will cease to apply from 1 September 1989 when recipients will move to the appropriate main scale point in accordance with their length of service.

  Annual salary with effect from 1 September 1988

  Annual salary with effect from 1 September 1989

  Sergeant

  On promotion

  —

  14,466

  —

  15,804

  After 1 year

  —

  15,123

  —

  16,521

  2

  —

  15,654

  —

  17,103

  3

  —

  16,173

  —

  17,670

  4

  —

  16,593

  —

  18,129

  Inspector(London salaries in brackets)

  On promotion

  16,593

  (17,487)

  18,129

  (19,104)

  After 1 year

  17,112

  (17,973)

  18,696

  (19,635)

  2

  17,784

  (18,609)

  19,428

  (20,331)

  3

  18,309

  (19,182)

  20,004

  (20,955)

  4

  18,840

  (19,743)

  20,583

  (21,570)

  Chief Inspector(London salaries in brackets)

  On promotion

  18,840

  (19,743)

  20,583

  (21,570)

  After 1 year

  19,368

  (20,229)

  21,159

  (22,101)

  2

  19,896

  (20,748)

  21,735

  (22,668)

  367

  Annual salary with effect from 1 September 1988

  Annual salary with effect from 1 September 1989

  3

  20,424

  (21,303)

  22,314

  (23,274)

  4

  20,958

  (21,855)

  22,896

  (23,877)

  Superintendent(London salaries in brackets)

  On promotion

  25,629

  (26,283)

  27,999

  (28,713)

  After 1 year

  26,283

  (26,799)

  28,713

  (29,277)

  2

  26,934

  (27,309)

  29,424

  (29,835)

  3

  27,831

  (27,831)

  30,405

  (30,405)

  Off-scale point

  27,873

  —

  30,447

  —

  Chief Superintendent

  On promotion

  —

  28,494

  —

  31,131

  After 1 year

  —

  28,902

  —

  31,575

  2

  —

  29,550

  —

  32,283

  3

  —

  30,255

  —

  33,054

  Off-scale point

  —

  30,402

  —

  33,201

  Assistant Chief Constables

  —

  33,591

  —

  36,699

  Deputy Chief Constable

  Population band—up to 400,000

  —

  35,271

  —

  38,535

  400,000– 500,000

  —

  35,271

  —

  38,535

  500,000– 750,000

  —

  35,271

  —

  38,535

  750,000–1,250,000

  —

  35,562

  —

  38,850

  Area

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Ratio of officers to population

  Central

  575

  55

  630

  1:430

  Dumfries and Galloway

  319

  29

  348

  1:425

  Fife

  688

  67

  755

  1:457

  Grampian

  967

  136

  1,103

  1:456

  Lothian and Borders

  2,249

  233

  2,482

  1:341

  Northern

  581

  50

  631

  1:434

  Strathclyde

  6,345

  541

  6,886

  1:336

  Tayside

  936

  76

  1,012

  1:388

  SCOTLAND

  12,660

  1,187

  13,847

  1:368

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of police officers employed within the Hamilton division of Strathclyde police authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The total uniformed strength of Q division of Strathclyde police, within which Hamilton lies, is 413 officers. The number of officers on duty in particular areas at particular times varies according to the policing requirements.

  Police Expenditure

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Lothian and Borders

  Northern

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  All Scotland

  1979–80 (1) £000

  5,600

  3,465

  7,320

  10,684

  24,945

  7,530

  78,182

  11,587

  149,313

  (2) £

  21

  24

  22

  23

  29

  29

  32

  29

  29

  1980–81 (1) £000

  6,889

  3,973

  8,770

  12,582

  31,558

  8,974

  92,981

  13,836

  179,563

  (2) £

  25

  28

  26

  27

  37

  34

  38

  35

  35

  1981–82 (1) £000

  7,993

  4,582

  9,854

  14,908

  37,278

  10,484

  108,326

  16,379

  209,804

  (2) £

  29

  32

  29

  31

  44

  39

  45

  41

  41

  1982–83 (1) £000

  8,879

  5,176

  10,984

  16,573

  40,134

  11,738

  118,232

  18,483

  230,199

  (2) £

  33

  35

  32

  34

  47

  43

  49

  47

  45

  1983–84 (1) £000

  9,350

  5,909

  11,650

  18,316

  43,997

  13,228

  128,474

  19,404

  250,508

  (2) £

  35

  40

  34

  37

  52

  49

  54

  49

  49

  368

  Annual salary with effect from 1 September 1988

  Annual salary with effect from 1 September 1989

  1,250,000–2,000,000

  —

  38,277

  —

  41,814

  Over –2,000,000

  —

  40,722

  —

  44,487

  Chief Constable

  Population band—up to 400,000

  —

  40,044

  —

  43,749

  400,000– 500,000

  —

  41,058

  —

  44,856

  500,000– 750,000

  —

  42,759

  —

  46,713

  750,000–1,250,000

  —

  44,451

  —

  48,564

  1,250,000–2,000,000

  —

  47,844

  —

  52,269

  Over –2,000,000

  —

  50,901

  —

  55,608

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the number of police employed in each Scottish police authority and the ratio of officers per head of population within each authority;

  (2) if he will list the manpower strength in each police authority with a breakdown of male and female officers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: As at 31 March 1990 the figures were as follows:

  Police Expenditure
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the total expenditure for each police authority in Scotland for each year since 1979, giving the ratio of expenditure per head of population.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1990]: The information is given in the table:
  369

  Central

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Grampian

  Lothian and Borders

  Northern

  Strathclyde

  Tayside

  All Scotland

  1984–85 (1) £000

  10,668

  6,108

  13,709

  19,521

  49,243

  13,826

  138,631

  21,178

  272,884

  (2) £

  39

  42

  40

  39

  58

  51

  58

  54

  53

  1985–86 (1) £000

  10,686

  6,810

  13,602

  21,467

  50,208

  14,041

  140,161

  22,025

  279,000

  (2) £

  39

  46

  40

  43

  59

  51

  60

  56

  54

  1986–87 (1) £000

  11,775

  7,320

  15,657

  23,385

  54,106

  15,444

  150,319

  24,520

  302,526

  (2) £

  43

  50

  45

  46

  64

  57

  64

  62

  59

  1987–88 (1) £000

  13,486

  8,344

  16,784

  25,865

  56,230

  16,936

  168,722

  26,273

  332,640

  (2) £

  50

  57

  49

  52

  67

  62

  73

  67

  65

  1988–89 (1) £000

  15,459

  9,377

  18,728

  28,865

  61,996

  18,406

  177,442

  28,169

  358,442

  (2) £

  57

  63

  54

  57

  73

  67

  77

  72

  70

  1989–901 (1) £000

  17,314

  10,101

  20,795

  32,686

  72,564

  21,338

  200,604

  31,070

  406,472

  (2) £

  64

  68

  60

  65

  86

  78

  87

  79

  80

  1(Estimated).

  Row (1) = Net police grant earning expenditure—£000.

  Row (2) = Net police grant earning expenditure per head of population—£.

ENERGY

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what instructions he has given to the Non-Fossil Fuel Purchasing Agency on the authorisation of contracts signed by public electricity suppliers with non-fossil non-nuclear generators at above pool price.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has given no such instructions. The commercial terms offered by the public electricity suppliers to generators seeking to contract within the non-fossil fuel obligation are a matter for the suppliers.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from potential producers of non-fossil non-nuclear electricity regarding the maximum length of power supply contract and price of electricity to be produced from those sources.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations. However, the legislation permits a fair degree of flexibility which can be used to secure bankable contracts and the public electricity suppliers have been able to take account of this in their negotiations with renewables generators.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with the European Commission regarding the length of contract and premium price above pool to be paid for electricity generating from renewable sources(a) before and (b) after 1 April 1998.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the "Note by the Department of Energy on the undertakings given by the Government in relation to the future of the fossil fuel levy", which has now been published as appendix 11 to volume 2 of the report by the Select Committee on Energy on "The cost of nuclear power".

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what consultations he has had with(a) producers of renewable electricity and (b) the Non-Fossil Fuel Purchasing Agency regarding (i) intermittent renewables
  370
  and (ii) continuous renewable electricity sources on the length of contracts and price to be paid by the public electricity suppliers.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The commercial terms offered to projects seeking to contract within the non-fossil fuel obligation are a matter for the public electricity suppliers. The legislation provides them with the flexibilities they need in order to be able to offer bankable contracts, and I understand that they have taken account of those flexibilities where appropriate.

  Energy Managers
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library a copy of the Secretary of State's letter of July 1986 recommending to Departments that they appoint energy managers on the basis of one per £1 million energy spend.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not customary to publish such inter-departmental correspondence. However, all Government Departments have now appointed energy managers.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any plans to review the timetable for the Trident programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It remains our intention to deploy the Trident system in the mid-1990s.

  Disarmament
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department is making to conferences on disarmament.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United Kingdom has a substantial arms control agenda. The Ministry of Defence makes a major contribution to all the current arms control negotiations which have a direct effect on British interests,
  371
  and has permanent representatives in Geneva at the conference on disarmament and in Vienna, at the CFE talks.

  Tornado and Hawk
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his intention that British Aerospace will remain a major contractor for future developments of role and capability of the Tornado and that his Department will continue to pursue export opportunities for the Hawk.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Responsibility for the selection of contractors for the Tornado programme rests with NAMMA, the contracting authority. However, British Aerospace has played a central role in the programme in the past and will, I trust, continue to do so.

  We will continue to support the export prospects of the Hawk and the other products of the military and civil aircraft divisions of British Aerospace.

  NATO Strategy
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department still sees a requirement for a mix of nuclear and conventional forces for NATO's strategy.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. As alliance heads of state and Government made clear in their declaration issued after the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in London last week to keep the peace, the alliance must maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces, based in Europe, and kept up to date where necessary.

  Fetes
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel were involved on official duties at the fete organised by the West of Scotland Conservative and Unionist Association on 9 June; and if he will list them by rank.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Four Royal Navy personnel were involved: three lieutenants and one petty officer aircrewman.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many times in the last five years a naval helicopter has been used at fetes organised by the West of Scotland Conservative and Unionist Association; if he will list the events and times when they were used; and at what level the decision to allow the helicopter to be used was taken;

  (2) how many times in the last five years a military helicopter has been used at fetes organised by political parties in the United Kingdom; and if he will list the events, the dates and the political parties involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records are not maintained but the Department has no recollection of any instances of participation in such events other than that to which the hon. Gentleman has already referred.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines are followed in considering requests from political parties for the services of armed forces personnel and equipment at fetes organised by them to raise charitable funds.
  372
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Queen's regulations prohibit service participation in events whose purpose is to further the interests of political organisations. There is, however, no prohibition of service participation in events the purpose of which is to raise funds for local charities, where this can be done at no additional cost to the defence budget. In the instance to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention, Royal Navy participation was both beneficial to helicopter training and designed to assist in fund raising for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the Erskine hospital. A total of £12,000 was raised for these charities.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much fuel was used at the fete organised by the West of Scotland Conservative and Unionist Association to fly the naval helicopter at the White House, Renfrewshire on 9 June; and how much it costs to run a helicopter of that type, including crew, for one day.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Approximately 10 gallons of fuel were used while the helicopter was at the fete. The full operating cost of a Sea King helicopter, including fuel, crew and wear and tear, is some £4,800 per flying hour. In this instance, however, the helicopter was carrying out a routine training mission that would have been undertaken even if the fete had not been held. No additional costs were therefore incurred.

  Construction Agreements
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list all construction agreements and contracts entered into by his Department in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989, respectively.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. In the period referred to all construction agreements and contracts relating to defence requirements, with the exception of a very small number concerned with nuclear work, were entered into on the Ministry of Defence's behalf by the Department of the Environment.

  Over-the-horizon Radar
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has as to the distance between ROTHR installations in Virginia and in the Aleutians; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The transmit and receive facilities of the ROTHR installation in Virginia (which is not currently operational) are separated by 71 nautical miles; and those of the installation in the Aleutians are separated by 23 nautical miles. This distance is well below the theoretical minimum in open country, and operation of the Aleutians system is effective only because there exists a high mountain range between the transmit and receive sites.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire is a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation project or a US/UK project.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The proposed two-year trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom is a joint US/UK project.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the environmental impact assessments
  373
  being undertaken as part of the planning application for an over-the-horizon radar installation at St. David's airfield will be published in their entirety when completed; and how much time will be available for consultation before the national park planning committee considers the planning applications.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Copies of the environmental impact assessment to be submitted to the Pembrokeshire coast national park authority in support of our formal notice of proposed development will be made generally available. In accordance with the procedures set out in Welsh Office circular 23/88, the authority will have 16 weeks in which to consider the proposals, in consultation with all interested parties.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what experiments he proposes to conduct in order to verify the survivability of the proposed over-the-horizon radar installation at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire against electromagnetic interference, nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We will be studying the design of the system and the detailed specifications of its hardware in order to determine the feasibility of introducing measures that may be needed to improve its survivability.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the terms of reference of the environmental impact assessments being undertaken by W. S. Atkins and the Robens institute on behalf of the Ministry of Defence in connection with proposed over-the-horizon radar at St. David's airfield, Pembrokeshire.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There are no such specific terms of reference, but W. S. Atkins has been commissioned to prepare an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the guidelines set out in Welsh Office circular 23/88.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dairy Herd
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the United Kindom's total dairy herd is comprised of(a) Friesian cattle and (b) Holstein cattle.

  Mr. Maclean
  Friesian and Holstein cattle together constitute 90 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total dairy herd. It is not possible to determine separate figures for each breed. Many dairy herds contain both breeds together with Friesian/Holstein crossbreeds.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what resources he is making available to port health authorities in order to help them meet extra obligations imposed by the Food Safety Bill.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have agreed to provide an extra £30 million through the Revenue Support Grant to meet the costs falling to local authorities in Great Britain as a whole as a result of new food legislation. This sum was calculated following discussions with local authority associations including representatives of port health authorities.

  The money will be distributed among port health authorities, along with other local authorities, in the usual way.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether quota entitlement will be transferred from any Scottish vessel found guilty of falsely declaring catches from area VII to that area's entitlement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Fisheries Departments will seek to apply appropriate penalties and compensation in the event of any successful prosecutions being brought for misreporting.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Royal Assent
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Entertainments (Increased Penalties) Act,

Licensing (Low Alcohol Drinks) Act,

Terra and Quarter Days (Scotland) Act,

Access to Health Records Act,

Rights of Way Act,

Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act,

Gaming (Amendment) Act,

Social Security Act.

Hospices: Government Support
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the health authorities give effect to the government commitment to pound for pound funding for hospices, and when this will be achieved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have the highest regard for the achievements of the hospice movement. We are firmly committed to improving the public funding of voluntary hospices and we are making additional resources available to the health service in 1990/91 for that purpose. The timetable and detailed funding arrangements will vary from country to country.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I appreciate the concern of the Minister and the Government. What sums of money are being earmarked to hospices in the current year? What are the plans for earmarking subsequent payments?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this year's allocations are £8 million for England, £2.5 million for Scotland and £:530,000 for Northern Ireland. They are additiolal to the money that is already being paid to hospices by health authorities. The health authorities and boards in England and Northern Ireland have been asked to work towards a position in which their contribution to the revenue costs of agreed services matches that from voluntary giving. No timetable has been specified but we shall continue to review the position in the light of progress reports from authorities. Since 1st April 1990 hospices in Scotland have been eligible for public funding of 50 per cent. of
546
their running costs. Funding arrangements for Wales are under detailed consideration and an announcement is expected shortly.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, it is good to hear the Minister say that the Government have special regard for hospices. Is she aware that recently I had occasion to visit a hospice run by nuns? They are looking after people who are dying and have no hope in this world. The hospitals had to refuse them care and if it were not for the people who run hospices I do not know what would happen to them. Can the Minister confirm her high regard and recommend that the Government are as generous as possible to such people, who deserve every penny they get?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the whole House will welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish. I cannot state too often that one has the highest regard for hospices. They specialise in caring for people at the difficult time when they are in the last stages of dying. The Government are committed to the hospices and to increasing their resources. However, it must be said that many hospices pride themselves on their autonomy. Although they want Government funding they also wish to have policy and admissions control for their institutions. That is also most important to them.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, while expressing a moderate degree of satisfaction with the Minister's Answer, is she happy to know that I shall return to the subject in greater detail in the autumn?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should expect nothing else from the noble Earl. We shall join in the debate, which will be positive.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I wish to support the comments which the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, made so well. Admirable work is carried out by the volunteers who have built up the hospice movement, including members of your Lordships' House and their wives. I hope that the Minister will consider that support for the hospices should be given high priority in the social service allocation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am pleased to give the guarantee that it will always be regarded as a high priority area. However, we must never lose the voluntary aspect of the hospice movement because that is its strength.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I too wish to be associated with the remarks made about the hospice movement. Is it not deeply disturbing that some hospices in the country have not yet received any NHS funding? Can the Minister say how many are in that category? Can she also say what effect the changes in income support will have on the funding of the hospice movement?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot be specific about particular hospices. However, the funding for hospices from health authorities varies from as much as 80 per cent. to nothing, if the noble Lord is right. I do not know whether particular hospices have applied for money and been refused or whether they wish to have complete financial and operational

547
autonomy. Information is to be gathered about the loss of residential and income support and the whole subject will be kept under review.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will my noble friend accept the gratitude of everyone who is interested in the hospice movement for her encouraging words? In view of some of the comments that have been made, can she make it clear that the hospice movement exists not only for people who are doomed to die but for people who are seriously ill but will recover and leave the hospice? Therefore, there is hope in the hospice.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The hospice movement concentrates on living rather than on dying. Its work began by making life as comfortable as possible for people who were in the final stages of dying. However, more recently the work is being moved out from the institutions into the community with a tremendous range of support services which allow people to remain longer in their homes. When the time comes at which they need total support, then there is room for them in the hospice.

London: Office Development
11.13 a.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, because of the ever increasing difficulties of bringing people to their place of work, they will prohibit further office development in at least the central London area.
Lord Reay: My Lords, London needs to compete effectively with its international financial and commercial rivals, if it is to continue making a substantial contribution to national prosperity. Accordingly, it is not our policy to prevent office development in London.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he not agree that most people believe that the situation will deteriorate and that it is only a matter of time before very drastic and unpleasant measures have to be taken? A prohibition on further office development in the centre would be comparatively harmless and should be put into practice until transport is improved. Should we not encourage the development of further office accommodation in the Docklands?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Viscount. Efficient business requires modern offices. If office development is artificially constrained, the modernisation which normally takes place does not take place. Also, it would increase rents. Both those effects would damage London's position as a pre-eminent financial centre and the Government do not intend to give any encouragement to the prohibition suggested by the noble Viscount.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, while not necessarily denying that, is it not also true that a modern capital city demands a modern transport system? Is it not an
548
undeniable fact that London does not have a modern transport system, as has been shown in the past week by the fact that half of District Line trains have had to be taken out of service for modification and safety purposes? What are the Government doing to try to improve the transport infrastructure of London?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are doing a great deal to improve London's transport system in response to the upsurge in its economic fortunes which we have seen in the past decade. The Government have backed a massive investment programme in London's transport system and, in particular, in its public transport. For example, British Rail is planning to invest £1.2 billion in Network SouthEast over the next three years which is a 30 per cent. increase in real terms over the previous three years. London Transport also plans to invest £2.2 billion over the next three years which, in real terms, is nearly twice the investment over the past three years. Therefore, it is very much the Government's policy to encourage the development of public transport.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to the Underground system, but will the noble Lord also comment on the obstructive nature of unregulated coach travel? I am finding it extremely difficult to approach your Lordships' House from the south because of all the coaches collected there. In areas like Victoria they are an even worse obstruction.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a question which strikes a chord around the House but it does not come under the terms of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister said that London must compete effectively and we all agree with that. The difficulty arises when one tries to compare profit-making with efficiency. It is very difficult to believe that London is an efficient city. It could be much more efficient if transport was improved and there was some re-allocation of business. That is already taking place in the Docklands which is taking away some traffic from central London. Has the Minister considered the possibility, as is the case in certain other capitals, of a transport tax on businesses which have large numbers of employees coming into the centre of London?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is raising the question of road pricing. There are formidable difficulties on that. We do not rule it out indefinitely but we shall see how it develops abroad.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am not talking about road pricing. To help public transport, Paris and certain other cities impose a tax on people who have businesses in the centre of the city.
Lord Reay: My Lords, it is very much our policy to make commuting by public transport more attractive than by road. Therefore, we have ruled out major new road developments within London and we have spent a great deal on making public transport more attractive.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, that is simply living in a fantasy world. Is the Minister aware that the latest report from London Transport shows that more

549
people are using their cars and that bus services are declining because the roads are so congested? When will the Government wake up to the facts of life on transport matters relating to London?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is quoting from figures recently published by London Transport. Those are not government figures and I cannot comment in detail upon them. However, I can say that it is our policy to spend a great deal of money on making public transport into London more attractive and to encourage its use by the public.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, turning to the original Question, in view of the very high demand for office space in London, surely it must be evident that the services cannot be that inefficient, otherwise the demand would not exist?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend makes a very good point.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if the Minister does not accept the figures published by London Transport, from what other sources does the Ministry obtain its information?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I did not say that I did not accept the figures. The figures are recently published and I cannot comment in detail upon them. I re-emphasise that we do not wish to make it easier for commuters to drive into central London, and to that purpose London Transport and British Rail are pending substantial sums of money on investment in public transport.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Minister name any major city in the world comparable in population with London where the railway system, both overground and underground, receives less capital help from the public taxpayer?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said earlier, London Transport plans to invest £2.2 billion over the next three years. That is twice the rate invested over the past three years. The £400 million investment in London Underground which is to take place in 1990–1991 will be two and a half times higher than the figure for 1984–85, which was the last year attributable to the GLC.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in all his replies the Minister has said what is planned to be done. Can he say what has been done? What have the Government done over the past 11 years towards easing transport problems, which have grown enormously during that period for Londoners and other people using the transport systems in London?
Lord Reay: My Lords, during the 1980s there has been an upsurge in the economic life of the capital and in the numbers of people wishing to live and work in London. It is in response to that development that the investment of which I spoke is taking place.

Share Ownership by Individuals
11.21 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many individual shareholders there were in the United Kingdom (a) in 1979 and (b) on the most recent convenient date.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, it is estimated that there were under 3 million individual shareholders in 1979, whereas there were nearly 11 million individuals owning shares at the time of the latest survey in February 1990.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those extremely interesting and encouraging figures. Is he aware that they constitute a vivid illustration of the change for the better in the economic and social structure of our society which has taken effect during the past 10 years?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those remarks. Share ownership is at its highest ever level; there are nearly 11 million individual shareholders. There has been an unprecedented growth in the number of shareholders from 7 per cent. to 24 per cent. in six years.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in order to get the whole question of shareholding into perspective, will the noble Earl confirm that of the total number of shares issued, only 20 per cent. are held by individuals? Most of the shares are owned by unit trusts, finance houses, banks and other corporations. Will the Minister also confirm that within that 20 per cent., 80 per cent. of the shares are held by the top richest 2 per cent. of the population in the country, which represents 840,000? That leaves very little for the small individual shareholders. The dividends they receive are possibly barely enough to pay their increased poll tax.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord's second point first. Over two-thirds of shareholders are outside social classes A and B. In no age group is share ownership less than 10 per cent., and in no region of Great Britain is it below 16 per cent., compared with the 7 per cent. national average in 1979. There are now more shareholders than there are trade union members.
In answer to the noble Lord's first point regarding institutions, the surge of individual share ownership has slowed the trend of institutions controlling more corporate equity. Institutions should not be considered as villains; they represent collective investments by individuals for pensions and so forth.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if we want a community in which wealth is better shared, it is better that we should follow the Conservative principle, as we have done, of levelling upwards rather than the socialist principle of trying to level downwards?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, again I am grateful to my noble friend for those remarks. Perhaps I could give him an example of the

551
privatisation which has begun in Hungary. In June the first company, a travel agency called Ibusz, floated successfully on the Budapest and Vienna stock exchanges. British lawyers and brokers were advising the state privatisation agency. That is a splendid example of the United Kingdom exporting our successful policies.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, may I dissent from the views of the noble Lord, Lord Renton? It would be interesting to know how many new shareholders are the result of privatisation schemes where the Treasury has benefited by selling capital assets to which over the years it has made no contribution; for example, gas, water and electricity to come. All the capital has been ploughed back from moneys received, in some cases initially from local authorities, but for the most part from the consumers of those industries who receive no part of the benefit from the sale of the assets.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, 29 major businesses have been privatised since 1979. Public flotations have given individuals a chance to own shares. Over ½ million employees have become shareholders on privatisation; most have kept their shares.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as Ministers are often char—no doubt rightly—of allowing a question to be widened in supplementaries, may we take it from the Minister's last supplementary answer but one, which gave the interesting news about shareholding in Hungary, that the Government will now be more tolerant of supplementary questions going wide of the main Question?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: No, my Lords. I was merely trying to give an interesting example to the House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, since the question has already been widened by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who referred to there being a growing together of the community in terms of wealth, will the Minister confirm that none of the shares to which he referred is held by the 15 million people in this country living at or below the poverty level?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I answered the noble Lord's point in an earlier supplementary when I gave the social classes. Let it not be forgotten that there are 11 million shareholders altogether.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the ineffective if vigorous attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to rubbish the extremely encouraging answer given by the Minister significant as to the hostility of the Labour Party to the ever-increasing number of private shareholdings? Will the Minister ensure that the public become fully aware of this?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, again I can only thank my noble friend.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that one of the sad things that happened while shares were increasing in numbers from 1980 was that unemployment rose to an all-time high in this
552
country? That was the beginning of the most evil thing this nation suffered; namely, the great divide between those who have and those who do not have much.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, frankly the noble Lord is not correct in everything that he says. I rose to this Dispatch Box today and gave good news to the House.

CFC Substitutes
11.28 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage research into substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons and the production of suitable replacement substances.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. While the phasing out of CFCs is highly desirable, are they not still essential for refrigeration? For example, they are required for bulk perishable cargoes at sea in order to prevent other forms of pollution and food poisoning.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the vast majority of refrigerated cargo ships already use the new refrigerant HCFC22 which is only one-twentieth as damaging as the earlier CFC refrigerant. I hope that my noble friend will think that that is a useful development. It is important that ship owners and others using refrigerating equipment take special care to ensure that the refrigerant is contained within the equipment and does not leak into the atmosphere.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Thoracic Society will be told today by a professor from the University of Columbia who specialises in air pollution that, internationally, asthma attacks and chest infections have almost doubled in the past decade because of the use of fossilised fuels by power stations and emissions from car exhausts? Will the Government bear that in mind in any future energy policy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the Question is about refrigerants. However, the noble Lord raises an important point which is, of course, taken into account.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, with regard to refrigeration equipment, are the Government planning to do anything to assist third world countries in the disposal of equipment containing chlorofluorocarbons? The greatest emissions arise when air conditioning plants and refrigerators are destroyed. Third world countries using this equipment need assistance in disposing of it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, this was one of the conclusions of the recent London ozone conference of which the noble Lord may be aware. The United Kingdom is certainly pledged to contribute up to 15 million dollars to the initial three-year fund. I understand that some of that money will be used in

553
respect of a study into the matter which is being conducted in India and to which the noble Lord referred.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the Government tell the House whether the present powers, of local government are adequate to require those who replace old refrigerators with new ones to deliver the old refrigerators to properly equipped decommissioning centres from which the CFCs can be returned to the manufacturers for recycling?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that some thought is being given to that matter. Perhaps I may make further inquiries and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, while everything must be done to encourage the manufacture of substances which are satisfactory, there are difficulties in relation to HCFCs and HFCs which, in fact, cause some damage to the ozone layer and contribute to global warming respectively? Therefore, is there not a case for attempting to set international limits on those substitutes?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that that is right, but I also think that we must be sure that there are proper substitutes coming along if we are to ban specific substances from important uses. However, I am pleased to report that ICI, for example, is well advanced with the development of a product called HFC143A which does not suffer from the objections of the other products. A plant to produce this new substance is likely to come on stream early next year.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, in their research for suitable substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons will Her Majesty's Government take care that any approved substitutes are not flammable; in other words, will they ensure that they cannot ignite?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it depends on the application of the substance concerned as to what characteristics it should have. The applications for these substances go wider than refrigeration plants but the point made by my noble friend is nonetheless a good one. It is also important to point out that the great majority of research into this matter, while in some cases supported by Her Majesty's Government, is generally carried out from a commercial point of view. The fact is that the market is now increasingly demanding that products are environmentally friendly—as jargon has it—and customers are clearly prepared to pay a premium for such products.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the answer he has just given raises another danger? Is he aware that ICI and Dupont in particular have been working on these alternative gases but, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis pointed out, they are no totally safe for the ozone layer and add to global warming? In encouraging this research, will the Minister ensure that the Government do not allow themselves to be persuaded by the strong commercial lobbies which have already produced misleading advertisements about such products being environmentally friendly? Will the Government also ensure that the investment which companies have made in
554
these alternative gases is not allowed to obscure the fact that no gas yet produced as a substitute for CFCs is either safe for the ozone or for global warming?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to agree that no perfect substitute has yet been found. However, I would regard a product that represented only 5 per cent. of the difficulties of the earlier products to be a substantial improvement. I understand that ICI, for example, has invested about £100 million in developing the new product, and that is very much to be applauded.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, while accepting that the private sector may be best placed to carry out this research, is it not unwise to leave the whole matter to the functioning of the market? Should not the Government be taking an active line? If they are to take a more active line, can the noble Lord say how much money is being spent now by the Government in encouraging research? How much money would he expect to be reasonable?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am very much in favour of letting the experts in industry conduct their research free of interference from government. However, the Government do have programmes, as the noble Lord will be aware, for supporting collaborative research into these and related matters. I do not have a figure in front of me but if I can find one I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while destruction and disposal of CFCs must be carried out under strictly controlled conditions, will my noble friend confirm that CFCs, used correctly in refrigeration, are not harmful while in use, provided that there are no leaks?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is, of course, correct. Provided that the chemicals do not escape and eventually reach the ozone layer there is no obvious danger. The difficulty is that at various stages of the life of the equipment it has to be overhauled and repaired and there is always a slight risk that on those occasions leaks will take place. Therefore, I hope my noble friend agrees that in the fullness of time it is right for these substitutes to be replaced with less damaging products. As I said earlier, I understand that most refrigerated ships use some of the newer products so, in any event, there is less risk.

European Schools and Language Learning: ECC Report
11.38 a.m.
Baroness Lockwood: rose To move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on European Schools and Language Learning in United Kingdom schools [13th Report, HL Paper 48].
The noble Baroness said: I first thank members of Sub-committee C for their help and diligence during the course of the inquiry. I also thank noble Lords who intend to speak in the debate this morning; in

555
particular, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke. Her experience in the field of education will add greatly to the debate.
The report is based on a communication from the European Commission on European schools in the context of inter-cultural and European education. The Commission's document proposed a three-year project during which some of the existing European schools could be invited by the education authorities of interested member states to participate in an experimental scheme to test the feasibility of enabling existing schools to add a European component to the content of teaching courses and related examinations. The document also suggested that some existing secondary schools might offer the European baccalaureate.
The inquiry covered two themes: European schools and the lessons they might offer to other schools, and language teaching and learning in the United Kingdom. The term "European schools" is a technical one, designating the nine schools set up to provide education for the children of employees of the European Community. They are jointly financed by member states and the European Community and cater for pupils from the age of three to 18. All the schools follow a common curriculum and are organised into language sections for teaching purposes. From their first year of formal education at the age of six all children spend part of each day learning a second language.
In the secondary section, pupils receive most lessons in their mother tongue and the remainder in another working language, that is English, French and German. The only formal qualification offered is the European baccalaureate which is based on examinations taken at the end of the seventh year of secondary education. It is offered exclusively by the European schools. The standards of the schools, particularly in modern language teaching, are high, though provision for less able pupils is limited.
As well as receiving evidence on the schools the sub-committee had the pleasure of visiting the one European school in the United Kingdom based at Culham, Oxfordshire, which they found most impressive. Certainly, there is much to learn from its methods of language teaching. Nevertheless, the sub-committee found no case for increasing the number of such schools in the United Kingdom. The schools are extremely expensive to run. Although they are non-residential, the committee was informed by the Department of Education and Science that the cost of the Culham school in 1987–88 was four times more than the cost of a state school with a similar number of children. Witnesses pointed out that there are more pressing priorities on the education budget.
The sub-committee also considered the Commission's suggestion that some existing secondary schools might offer the European baccalaureate. It concluded that this too is not practical at the present time. It noted some problems about the administration of the examination. Moreover, such an extension of the European baccalaureate would entail both
556
teaching and examining some subjects of the curriculum in a language other than English. Valuable though that would be, adequate resources are not currently available in the United Kingdom. Instead, the report suggests that, since the international baccalaureate is a widely-recognised qualification, it may be a more appropriate model for expansion than the European baccalaureate.
The majority of the evidence received by the committee related to language teaching in the United Kingdom. That evidence led the committee to conclude that the two main problems affecting modern foreign language learning in the United Kingdom are the current crisis in teacher supply and the widespread lack of motivation and interest in foreign languages.
Current provision for language learning in many United Kingdom schools compares unfavourably with that in other member states. Pupils in United Kingdom schools tend to study fewer modern languages, start doing so later, and give up earlier, than their Community counterparts. Despite that—the committee would like to emphasise this point—modern foreign language teaching has improved greatly during the past decade. The committee recommends wide publicity for the changes that have taken place.
At present most pupils at maintained schools in the United Kingdom start learning a modern foreign language at the age of 11. About half give up at the age of 14. The implementation of the national curriculum in 1992 will increase dramatically the number of fourth and fifth year secondary pupils who continue to study a modern foreign language to the age of 16, doubling the numbers of pupils learning languages after the age of 14. Modern foreign language teachers in United Kingdom schools thus currently face two extra burdens—the radical and rapid changes in teaching methods and an imminent doubling of the numbers of pupils. The committee believes that it is imperative that adequate in-service training facilities should be provided. Teacher exchanges with other member states should be further developed. The committee welcomes the recent Community decisions on the Lingua programme and considers that that can be extended. Educational visits and exchanges can promote language fluency and foster cultural understanding.
Widespread concern was expressed in evidence about the Government's new policy on charging for such visits. The committee believes that this policy should be changed without further delay if, on the basis of current surveys, it is found that it has discouraged visits. The committee recommends that the skills of pupils who speak a Community language other than English at home should be encouraged wherever possible. It agrees with the vast majority of witnesses who urge that foreign language teaching should be offered in primary schools. Planning for that should start now. Teacher training colleges should include foreign languages as an essential component of B.Ed. courses.

557
The United Kingdom is currently facing a severe crisis in the supply of teachers of modern foreign languages. Many more language teachers are needed to meet the provisions of the national curriculum. According to the Department of Education and Science, the shortfall in the number of teachers required is over 1,700 or 11 per cent. Other witnesses gave an even higher figure. Therefore, urgent action is needed to redress complaints from teachers about status, conditions and pay.
The committee also proposes a nationwide keeping-in-touch-with-teaching scheme to encourage already qualified teachers to return to work. Training facilities, child care arrangements and flexible working patterns should be provided for existing teachers in order to retain them in the service and to encourage others, mainly women, who left for family reasons.
The employment of qualified teachers from other member states and of more language assistants, besides the use of peripatetic teachers, particularly in those languages which are infrequently taught, can all help to ease the crisis. The committee strongly believes that all state maintained secondary schools should provide for the teaching of at least one European Community language. The vast majority of pupils should continue to learn a first modern foreign language for at least five years. Pupils should be encouraged to learn a second foreign language. Diversification in modern foreign language teaching should not be restricted to the most able pupils. We feel that the less able pupils would also cope.
The committee recognises that many of its recommendations entail additional expenditure, but consider that the recruitment and retention of well-trained and motivated teachers is crucial. However, its final conclusion forms one of the principal recommendations in the report and would cost nothing to implement. It is that the attitude of British society towards foreign language learning must change. Teachers and pupils, parents and politicians, employees and employers, must all be made aware of the vital importance of modern foreign language learning as a means of communication and cross-cultural understanding and as an aid to business and overseas trade.
The report reveals a deep-seated cultural problem. For too long we have relied on our island status and for too, long we have expected others to learn our language. That can be no longer tolerated. As a full member of the European Community, we must change our approach accordingly. Languages and communications are the key. The Government recognise the depth of the problem. On behalf of the sub-committee I welcome the very detailed and careful response to the report which has been circulated to all those taking part in the debate. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for responding in that way. The committee has not yet had an opportunity to consider the response but I am sure that it will welcome the already extensive action which the Government are taking.
At this point, I shall make just two comments. First, although the several witnesses from the teaching
558
profession appearing before the sub-committee were most enthusiastic in their approach to language teaching and the development of a European culture, the committee was left in no doubt that improving the overall morale of the profession is critical if the problem of teacher shortages is to be resolved. Despite the recent change in teachers' pay and salaries, which is recorded in the response, I wonder whether the Government quite perceive the intensity and the urgency of the problem. I hope they do.
Secondly, I was dismayed to read in the response that the Secretary of State does not think that it would be,
"reasonable to plan for the introduction of a modern foreign language into the primary school curriculum until at least the end of the first decade of the next century".
A whole generation of children will have passed through the education system by then. We must act with much greater speed and urgency.
The committee recognises, as its report indicates, all the difficulties involved in extending the teaching of modern foreign languages. Its recommendations are intended to help alleviate the problem. We were told in evidence—we recognised the realism of the statement—that it would take 10 years to plan and mount a programme for language teaching in the primary school. That is why we recommended that planning should start now, and that one feature of the planning should be the inclusion of a foreign language as an essential component of the B.Ed course for primary teachers. At least we should be—
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will give way for a moment. I was a member of the committee and I shall be speaking later. She is at the moment speaking about the response of the Secretary of State for Education and Science relating to England and Wales. Foreign languages have already been introduced as an experiment in primary schools in Scotland, a subject about which I shall be speaking.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I must inform the House that he was very diligent in pointing out to the committee from time to time that the system in Scotland is quite different from that in England and Wales.
Scotland is mounting a number of pilot projects which are very welcome. I am talking about planning for the introduction of language teaching in primary schools across the whole of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord will agree that the committee felt it essential that we should start to plan now and that foreign language teaching should be a component in the B.Ed for primary teachers. We should start to tackle the problem before the beginning of the next century.
We cannot let a whole generation go by before doing anything. In any case, if the publicity and awareness programme, which the committee hopes the Government will mount, is successful, it could be that parents themselves will refuse to accept such a delay. I have found it encouraging to receive letters resulting from the publicity given to the publication of the

559
report. Two letters came from parents so anxious that their young children should learn a foreign language that they were seeking to set up an informal language teaching group for primary age children in their own community.
Pressure from, and the involvement of, parents succeeded in extending the teaching of Welsh to children in Wales. It would be good to see similar pressure and involvement from both parents and industry for the teaching of European languages in the whole of the United Kingdom on a much wider scale. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on European Schools and Language Learning in United Kingdom Schools [13th Report, HL Paper 48].—(Baroness Lockwood.)
11.56 a.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, as I rise to address the House for the first time I should like to express my thanks for the kindness, the courtesy and the patience shown to me over the past few weeks. I ask for that tolerance to be extended for a few minutes more. I know, having been a headmistress for 25 years, that I should not feel daunted, but I have to say that taking an assembly for 650 adolescent girls is not half as worrying as speaking to a score or so of noble Lords in this august and historic Chamber. Secondly, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, on the report produced by the Select Committee which she chairs. I thank her also for the kind words she said earlier about me.
I think I agree with practically everything that the noble Baroness said. I was particularly glad that she made the point that there are indeed very many first-class teachers of modern languages in our schools. As we look at and appraise language learning and teaching in the country, I hope that we will not forget that.
The report of the Select Committee is so good, so well researched and so comprehensive that there is hardly anything left to say. Well, of course there is. It would appear from last week's Economist and indeed from today's newspapers that we cannot take for granted agreement on the importance of learning a language other than one's own or even of encouraging European awareness, or, to use the educational jargon, empathy. Moreover, newspaper advertisements for top career appointments in international companies do not, curiously, always list fluency in a foreign language as an essential qualification together with the technical expertise and interpersonal skills which are always demanded. The Select Committee is right to emphasise that British attitudes to language learning and teaching must change.
The study of a modern foreign language is an exciting and stimulating activity at any age. I am glad to see the number of language classes available to Members of this House. It is especially stimulating for the young:
560
"There is no such thing as a national inability to learn languages".
Those are the words contained in the interim report of the Modern Foreign Languages Working Group, of which I am a member. Its statements, injunctions and hopes are real, but they are by no means new. In the early 60s, successive reports spoke of the urgent need for practical proficiency in languages. As the working group has met several times at the University of Essex, it is perhaps fitting for me to quote the words of a former vice-chancellor, who is himself a Hispanist. He said:
"We should like to encourage students from every part of the university to learn a language—and we should like to provide the facilities for really practical instruction to allow a student to understand a language and speak it fluently".
So much, then, for the 1960s. However, the urgent question in 1990 is how are we to ensure that our students both at school and beyond learn the languages? How can we interest and motivate them? We can do so through the courses, the resources and the teachers. The courses are changing dramatically. The GCSE—the General Certificate of Secondary Education—encourages a stronger motivation in the students. The emphasis is on being able to understand spoken language of various kinds and being able to respond appropriately. Then there is the ability to express oneself effectively in speech and in conversation; the ability to read and understand; and the ability to record and convey meaning in the written language. Those are the specific attainment targets up to the age of 16 years.
Even in the two A-level years there are interesting developments in courses; for example, the Oxford Board has just decided to eliminate all testing in English for its A-level examination in modern foreign languages. Moreover, for children with special needs, language teachers are beginning to work out how to teach across the full ability range and how to teach pupils of widely varying motivation and home backgrounds. Some diversification in the actual languages taught is beginning to take place.
I am proud of the fact that at St. Paul's Girls School we began 10 years ago to offer 11 year-old pupils a choice of what should be their first foreign language. Even today, I am still proud that we offered them the choice of German as their first foreign language, together with the French language. The pupils whose first foreign language is German, easily add French as their second foreign language within two years. Whatever the first foreign language may be, if it is well taught it will serve as the apprentice language, as Professor Eric Hawkins would say, for all future language learning. I hope that the Government will bear that fact in mind and that they will allow provision for a second foreign modern language in the national curriculum, so that Spanish, Russian and Italian are available as well as German and French. Of course, I should like to see Japanese and Chinese eventually included in that list, too.
But, however innovative the course is and however diverse the languages taught, teachers need proper resources. That includes not only books and magazines, but also tapes, videos and electronic mail

561
with, of course, the machines to operate them. These are not extravagances; they are necessary enablers. The support of foreign language assistants and of native speakers is also necessary, as is the biggest boost to teachers' morale; namely, secretarial help in the staff room.
However, what our schools need—and I stress the word "need"—is teachers. We are chronically short of trained modern language teachers in the United Kingdom, as the noble Baroness has already said. The latest figures for graduate employment for 1988 show only 8.3 per cent. of modern language graduates entering teacher training. One of my colleagues on the Modern Foreign Languages Working Group, who is a university lecturer in education, Russian and French, has this year for the first time in his 17 years' experience lost two of his most gifted linguists. They have decided not to go into the teaching profession although they have passed their postgraduate certificate of education course very successfully.
As we have heard, teacher morale is low. Therefore, what can be done? The teachers we already have in our schools need help and we need to recruit more of them. It is important to define what the school authorities and the parents, let alone the pupils, expect from teachers. At present the multifarious demands on teachers' time and attention are overwhelming as they grapple with the new requirements of the GCSE and the national curriculum. Language teachers have their own particular worry about their fluency and linguistic and cultural competence. I hope for them that exchange visits to the appropriate country, linked with other schools, can be arranged and that there will always be advisers ready to help.
Thirty-five years ago, when I was a young married woman with three small children, I was teaching on a part-time basis at the Godolphin and Latymer School in Hammersmith. The then headmistress, Dame Joyce Bishop, who is still alive today at the age of 90, asked me to help her in a national campaign to recruit married women to return to, or indeed to enter, the teaching profession. It has taken me rather a long time to respond to her initiative, but I now urge the Government, the Department of Education and Science and the individual schools to bring into teaching, women, especially those with family responsibilities, who can teach languages, even if it is on a part-time basis. However, they will need help, reassurance and practice. Moreover, they will certainly need to overcome their fear of those two terrible unknowns —the GCSE and the national curriculum.
Finally, I reiterate my congratulations to the noble Baroness and the members of the Select Committee. I hope that their report, coupled with the practical help and advice of the Modern Foreign Languages Working Group, will make 1990 the year when the British finally take advantage of learning languages and understanding other people's cultures. For this we must nurture our teacher-linguists. Perhaps the 1990s should become the decade of the teacher. But then I would say that, wouldn't I?
12.9 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am delighted to be the first speaker to have the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness on her maiden speech. If I may say so, she may have felt more trepidation in addressing this House than she ever did when addressing a St. Paul's assembly, but I would feel more trepidation if I had only to address the sixth form of St. Paul's Girls School. I am especially delighted on this occasion because the girls' school was obviously derived originally from the boys' school. The boys' school of course is almost the twin of my school in Manchester, about which I intend to say a word or two.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness had to say about modern language teaching. I should like to know much more about it. I should like to know what vocabulary is being taught because at the age of 15 at that illustrious school, although I knew all the names of the plants, flowers and animals (male and female), I had almost no vocabulary of practical everyday matters.
All I can offer today are a few random reflections on that important subject. I have never been within the language teaching world, but I have been on the edge of it for most of my life. We have language teachers in the family. My daughter, who is bi-lingual in French, was that rare being, a primary teacher of French. She was at the French Lycée between the ages of six and 19. She was marvellously happy. When I consider European schools, I think of the results on her and her English friends from not attending a wholly English school. More than 50 nationalities were represented at the Lycée. The pupils became not merely Europeans but citizens of the world. As she was an only child, and we always had a fellow pupil living with us, she was able to make close friendships with people of other countries. One year it was one of those numerous Vietnamese girls who can call themselves princesses.
There are important gains from such an education, but there are equally important losses. My daughter had never heard of King Alfred burning the cakes, Grace Darling's heroism, or even the verses of "The Wreck of the Hesperus". I am making a serious point. As a result in later life she was cut of from part of the frame of reference of her English contemporaries. She was cut off from the sub-literature which everyone reads, and she was cut off from what Dr. Brewer describes as, "phrase and fable". As it was a lay school, she was cut off from knowledge of stories such as the "Coat of Many Colours" or "Daniel in the Lions' Den". That was not part of the culture in which she was participating. Although she picked up a lot from television, there were nevertheless terrible omissions for an English girl.
The compensation, of course, was to know by heart some of the exquisite short poems of Verlaine—with due attention to the mute "e"—and a few stories about Charlemagne. I am still not sure about what type of school I should like a grandchild of mine to attend but, because of the way in which the Community is going and recognising all the shortcomings, I would probably choose the Lycée or a European school.

563
I welcome and commend the report with its regrets and its hopes. The lack of desire to speak a foreign language is not an English failing, it is a strange English characteristic. It may be the result of us having been for a time a master race with a native language spoken by so many foreigners. What is remarkable is that as the BBC takes its microphone deep into the heartland of the Eastern Soviet empire it can find natives who speak good English and are capable of intellectual formulation in the language. Those are people who can never have visited an English-speaking country or met an English person. The motivation, I suspect, may have been a protest against the language of communism. It is, in any case, an example of what modern language learning can attain with the help of modern linguistic insights, radio, records and tape recorders.
Six years ago I went to China and met the second-year students at Xian University. It was a great treat for them to meet British parliamentarians because they had never met an English-speaking person previously. Each of them had a tête-à-tête with a member of the delegation. Mine spoke slowly without errors and no trace at all of the old Chinese intonations and effusions such as one hears from Chinese waiters in London and sometimes from Chinese diplomats.
Over 100 years ago, the prevailing establishment in Manchester said that it was ridiculous that the grammar school, which six of the present life Peers attended, should be teaching nothing but classics in that commercial world trading city. The reform that it secured was that the school should teach the sciences as intensively as it taught the classics and that it should teach modern languages. The school was greatly increased in size. It was divided into classics, sciences and modern languages. The latter merely exchanged French and German for Latin and Greek, but they were taught with the same rigour and intention as were the classical subjects. The intention was to examine the nature of language, to learn precision in its use and to use the opportunities it gave to explore its literature and philosophies.
Those who took an honours French degree at Manchester University—they included several of my contemporaries—continued doing that. They then spent a year in Paris attending lectures at the Sorbonne, where they learned how to chat up the girls of 25 nationalities in French; how to distinguish red wine from white wine and how to smoke a Gauloise cigarette without being sick. It was an education for a scholar and a gentleman. After four years, they knew a great deal about the literature and philosophy of France, and they spoke the language well; they knew nothing of anything else with any precision—their knowledge was general—not forgetting the supplementary subject of German in which they were not all that adept.
That admirable system must be preserved in the world of today but only for the minority of people who will need to speak a foreign language well. If I am talking all the time about French, it is because it is still
564
the main European language. German may become so, but not yet. All those who need to speak a foreign language well are not necessarily those who will have a love of Rousseau, Baudelaire or Proust. There are now combined courses in which a more practical skill is taught instead of literature.
A friend of mine who is one of the most eminent French literature scholars told me this week that he had examined the French of those students at Bradford University who were studying it alongside business studies. He found the French excellent. He had nothing but commendation for such a course, and yet he was one who was brought up in the most rigorous of the old traditions.
Thirty years ago I was deputy director of the Nuffield Foundation. As I was leaving, I had a hand in the introduction of what was called Nuffield French. The idea was that we should take the children who had passed their 11-plus in February until the holidays began in July and give them a rigorous French course through a French system that was adapted to records and taken from the system used at SHAPE. Shortly afterwards the 11-plus was virtually abolished and I do not think that the Nuffield French was successful. Teachers did not like it. At that time there was a strong influence in the primary schools against learning anything at all by heart. It still exists. At a school close to me, the teachers refuse to allow the children to learn poems. As for learning tables, that is regarded as impossible.
With Nuffield French, the idea was that the teachers could listen and keep a lesson or two ahead of the children. That was possible, but the idea of questions and answers—which was what the course was about—did not strike them as being very good. They were also upset because there was no written work for them to mark. So the idea faded away and now broken and dusty apparatus lies in cupboards at a number of primary schools.
There are primary schools where French is taught; my daughter has worked in them. However there is a temptation for headmasters sometimes to regard French as a frivolity. The moment a teacher is ill, the specialist in French is taken away to teach the other class. It is a subject that is easily sacrificed.
I believe that French should be taught in primary schools, beginning earlier than the age of 10. However, a great deal of preparation has to be made, many teachers have to be trained and although that will not take as long as the Minister suggested, we should press for it to begin now.
12.21 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be the first speaker on this side of the House to welcome the accession to our ranks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke. It gives me enormous pride to think that only a few years ago I was one of her governors. I feel now that she is launched on her own. We have listened to a contribution on the practical aspects of the problem that we are discussing which has been invaluable.

565
I am afraid, however, that, having offered the noble Baroness congratulations, I shall set her a bad example. I shall follow this week's fashion of saying the unsayable. Although I welcome the report and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, both on it and on her speech today, I am not enamoured of it. I propose—I hope somewhat gently—to explain my criticisms.
The first arises from the fact which was inevitable, given the initial impetus for the inquiry, that European schools, their functioning and role took up such an inordinate part of the total hearing of witnesses and of the report. Given what one might have guessed originally, the conclusions were bound to be negative. One did not have to know a great deal about the schools and their intake to realise that it was improbable that much in them was directly relevant to what the committee rightly recognise as the real problem: our failure in this country by and large to make a competent showing—competent by international comparison—at teaching foreign languages.
However, out of this initial need to deal with the Europe an schools arose what I regard as a partly unfortunate choice of witnesses or limitation of the witnesses heard. Because of the European schools, no doubt, a great deal of the committee's time was devoted to hearing the representations of the various trade unions and professional bodies in the education world. It did not seem to me that they said anything original, unexpected or new.
On the other hand, it is extraordinary that if the committee were seriously concerned about the national failure it should not have done more to look at alternative forms of meeting our needs which exist outside the formal education system. For instance, it is well known that a number of multinational companies which need to circulate their senior staff to European countries take measures to see that they start with an initial knowledge, at any rate for business and living purposes, of the languages of the countries to which the staff are to be posted. To the best of my knowledge, this is normally done by sending the aspirants to these posts to private institutions in foreign capitals for total immersion in the language concerned for a number of weeks or for two to three months. My observation would be that it appears to be a more practical method than the characteristic, alas, of all our schooling in languages: the limitation to periods, so that for two or three periods of study a week the pupil is confronted with another language and has all the rest of the week in which to forget it.
We the abandonment some decades ago by the Foreign Office of the demand for languages as a condition of entry into the Diplomatic Service. Since civil servants spend more of their time abroad than at home—so, alas, do Ministers—the Foreign Office and other parts of government no doubt today make efforts see that they acquire the languages after they have been admitted to the service. I was surprised that no attempt was made to question either the Civil Service Department or the Foreign and
566
Commonwealth Office as to what measures they took and what they had found to be satisfactory forms of language teaching at that level.
It seems to me that there was perhaps a little too much concentration on taking the schooling system, the national curriculum and all that for granted and asking whether we could do better for languages within it. Furthermore, little attention seemed to be paid to the way in which languages are learnt. A fairly common observation now because people take quite young children abroad is that the simplest way of acquiring the rudiments of a foreign language is the way in which one acquires the rudiments of one's own language. A three, four or five year-old plunged into a situation where only another language is spoken will acquire a vocabulary and ability to express himself or herself in a way that a pupil in a secondary school may fight for quite a long time to achieve.
Not only do I support strongly the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, about the extraordinary idea of postponing consideration of language teaching in primary schools for a couple of decades, but we have probably got it altogether wrong. It would be much better to teach languages in primary schools than in secondary schools. We should get more and better results that way, because secondary schools could then make use of the original primary knowledge to extend knowledge in the other areas which the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, mentioned, such as European literature, culture and other such matters.
I have another criticism to make which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, will not take amiss. I appreciate the work that went into the report but I feel that it lacks historical perspective. As I am afraid do so many of our discussions, the report seems to consider only what has been happening in the past 10, 20 or at the most 30 years. That is considered to be sufficient as a frame of reference. I should like to remind the House that what is rightly seen as a national indifference to, or in some quarters contempt for foreign languages is a relatively recent development.
I speak from a fading memory, but in about the year 1860 a young politician on the make, having some leisure from his parliamentary duties, wrote a rather impressive review in a weekly journal on a book in German about the French Revolution. I find it difficult to imagine that any politician today who had similar leisure on his hands would wish to or indeed be able to follow that example. The point I wish to make is that the individual I am talking about then became, as the Marquess of Salisbury, one of the longest-serving and most successful Prime Ministers of this country in the past century. In view of what I have said, it is curious that the term "splendid isolation" is often connected with that person. In the 19th century the term "splendid isolation" certainly did not mean cultural isolation from the rest of Europe. In the 19th century anyone who claimed to have an education—a much smaller proportion of the population as a whole had an education, but that may have set the tone—was expected to have some familiarity with

567
other languages. If one looks at 19th century novels, one finds that to be the case not merely with French and German but also quite often with Italian.
I do not think it was during the period when Britannia ruled the waves that we became contemptuous of foreign culture. I think it is in this century that we have reached this curious position where, perhaps because we have lost the control of the waves, we tend to look increasingly inwardly upon ourselves. Unless that historical downward progression is observed, we cannot come to proper conclusions on how we should remedy it. The situation has become worse over the past 50 years or so. I am more familiar with universities than with schools. I know that universities have successively diminished their requirements in languages for would-be students. I have observed that happening on the ground in Oxford, but it has been the case also elsewhere.
However, I shall give an even more telling example of the position today. As most people know, Oxford has a university and a large polytechnic. It is often regarded as a centre of learning. Some 30 years ago the city contained two bookshops where modern books in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian and many other modern languages were freely on display. If one wanted to know what people were purchasing in Paris or Rome, one could go into one or other of those bookshops and look at the books on display.
However, those facilities for looking at foreign books and purchasing them have disappeared. If one wants to buy a foreign book now, one has to find out about it and order it. That is to say the demand for contemporary foreign literature—I am not talking about literature in the narrow sense, but also of the historical and social sciences —even in an alleged centre of learning, has obviously declined. Whatever one may think about market economics, bookshops exist to sell books and do not stock books which are unlikely to be sold.
Reference has been made to the indifference of sections of industry and commerce to foreign languages. That point was referred to particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke. Again I have had experience of this matter at first hand. When we were founding what became the University of Buckingham, I went to the CBI and said that one of our principal purposes was to reintroduce or to introduce the study of modern languages as part of the curriculum of all students, irrespective of their specialisations. I asked the CBI whether that would improve their job prospects. The CBI replied that that would not be viewed as an important feature as regards remuneration, promotion prospects and other such matters. That occurred over 15 years ago. However, like the noble Baroness, I too read last week's edition of The Economist, and it appears to me that that attitude has not vanished.
I join with the members of the committee in agreeing that motivation is rightly considered to be one of the keys to this matter. It is a question of motivation and resources. I feel that resources would be provided if the motivation was there, whether
568
through parental pressure or in other ways. However, that motivation will come about only if there is a change in the prospects for young people who have linguistic accomplishments. They must see early on that such accomplishments are important. Motivation will come only if those who claim the intellectual leadership of our society assume in all they say and do, like their 19th century forebears, that there is something to be said for Europe.
12.37 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lockwood on her comprehensive speech and her chairing of our committee. I shall leave her to deal with the typically individual and vigorous speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The first part of the report which deals with the European schools is of lesser importance to us than the second part which deals with language learning in UK schools. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, agrees.
The European schools are undoubtedly excellent. Those of us who went to Culham were very impressed, not only by the ability of the children to talk fluently in several languages but also by the general standard and spirit. The music we heard in the primary school was superb. I felt envious and wished that I had had those opportunities. However, these schools are not for everyone. The academic standard is high. I am not sure whether we made that point clear. There seems to be neither the need nor the demand for another such school in the UK. Perhaps we can learn something from the methods of that establishment and the way it promotes cultural understanding among pupils.
There is, however, a need in this area for children who go abroad with their parents when their parents take a job in the Community. Most parents do not wish to be separated from their children. Paragraph 18 mentions that mobility has increased steadily and is likely to become greater among professional people and also spread to other classes after 1992. Satisfactory educational facilities are only available for a small minority of migrant children.
Here I should like to mention the British schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has asked me to say how sorry she is not to be able to take part in the debate today. A long-standing engagement outside London prevented her doing so. However, she has read the report with great interest and supports its recommendations, particularly the importance of language teaching in schools and its dependence on the supply of suitably qualified teachers. She has made the point that parents of children not suited to the very academic regime in European schools will find adjusting to a late entry at the age of 12 or 13 a difficult transition to make; for example, there should be some alternative to learning maths in French. The British schools to be found in Belgium, France, West Germany, Greece, the Netherlands and Italy within the Community, and in Sweden and Switzerland outside the Community, could provide an alternative.
The schools are independent. They are inspected by HMI. Fees have to be paid. Unlike other European countries Britain gives no help to parents or the

569
schools whereas France spends £120 million annually and Germany some £80 million on schools for the children of their nationals working abroad. The problem affects not only those people working in EC institutions who are entitled to send their children to European schools but, equally importantly, to those businessmen and women working for medium-sized and small firms or who are self-employed and whose firms cannot afford the fees. Large firms usually can and do. That puts British businessmen and women at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their European competitors just at s time when we face increased competition in 1992.
On 29th June 1988, at 8.12 a.m., the noble Baroness, Lady Young, moved an amendment to the Education Reform Bill which would have required the provision of financial help. That amendment was carried. It had support from all the parties, but the Government turned it down in another place. When that was reported the noble Baroness said that she would return to the matter and that she did not intend to allow the Government off the hook. I supported her amendment in 1988 and I support her now. On that occasion, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said that the Government would be giving the complex questions involved the attention they deserved, since when we have heard nothing. I hope, having warned the Minister, that we shall hear something today.
I should like now to turn to language teaching and the attitude of the British to learning foreign languages. We are, as a nation, very bad at speaking foreign languages and insular in our approach. Attitudes must be changed so that motivation is greater We all seem to agree on that. The real problem is the shortage of teachers and the length of time it will take to acquire and train the necessary numbers to fulfil the obligations of the national curriculum. Three thousand seems to be the figure accepted by everyone, except the DES which still appear to stick to 1,750. If, as all the evidence made clear, it would be much more satisfactory to start teaching languages in primary schools, a 10-year plan for England and Wales would need to be put into action low. We see no sign of that happening. I was glad Mat in their response to the report the Government agreed that foreign language teaching should be offered in the primary schools, but horrified that they do not think that it would be reasonable to bring it in until the year 2010.
Other Community countries provide much better language teaching in their schools than we do. They start learning a foreign language earlier, more pupils study more than one language and more study up to the age of 18. Here most children are offered French and many opt out at 14. More boys drop out than girls. I should have thought that Spanish and German are as important as French. The Association for Language Learning was concerned about the position of a second foreign language in the national curriculum, whereby it would be studied by a small minority of pupils and would not be started before the
570
fourth form. Mr. Saville, in his final words to the Committee at the end of the DES evidence, said (in paragraph 73):
"One point … I would like to add is to mention the importance that the Government specifically attaches to trying to diversify the range of modern languages that are taught".
I would add, what about Latin?
One very encouraging thing that we heard from the Association for Language Learning was that the nature of language teaching has changed greatly over the past decade. The association referred to it as a revolution. I hope that that revolution will spread to all schools, which I am sure it has not yet. The emphasis now is on communication, and writing does not play such a strong role as before. The improvement in results at GCSE bears witness to the success of the modern methods.
I go back to the lack of teachers and to the schools. At A-level, far more students take French than any other language because that is what can be taught. I believe that we have to go in for more crash courses. During the war people were put into the equivalent of intensive care to learn Russian in six months. The immersion learning which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, recommends for people in industry is in line with that suggestion. My grandson, who is at Newcastle Polytechnic, is studying French, Russian and politics/economics and had to start Russian from scratch last year. It is a very good course and next year he will spend four or five months in Russia. So there are ways other than the traditional ways to train people.
The polytechnics are doing a very good job in providing modern courses. The trouble is that, having trained those people, they may go into business or industry or something other than teaching. Teaching must be made more attractive, teachers' morale boosted and their pay improved. I am glad that at last bursaries are being given to encourage people to train as language teachers.
What we have is the unattractively named PIT—the pool of inactive teachers. I understand that there are some 3,000 of them. If all came back to teaching that would solve part of the problem. They need support and encouragement. In West Sussex a scheme—"Keeping In Touch With Teaching"—is in operation. It can be read about in paragraph 102 of the report and we recommend other LEAs to set up similar schemes.
There are people willing to come from abroad, where there is a surplus. We should encourage them. I wish to make two points on that aspect. We heard that there is administrative delay in the recognition of their qualifications (up to six months) despite the general directive on the mutual recognition of qualifications in the Community. The National Association of Head Teachers has received complaints about those delays and pointed out that foreign graduates are paid at a lower rate until they receive official recognition. Paragraph 78 refers. Do I

571
understand correctly from the Government's response that there are now no delays? Can the Minister please tell us what the position is?
The second point is that when teachers come from abroad they should have some initial training in the ways of British schools before they are launched into action. The Language Teaching Unit at York University can and does provide the necessary courses. I should like to hear whether sending foreigners there for induction is DES policy. I hope that the Minister can confirm that that always happens.
Perhaps here it is appropriate to say how unfortunate—shocking might be a better word—it is that so many people are teaching foreign languages who have minimum qualifications—O-level for instance. HMI found that 30 per cent. had no qualification in the language they were teaching. That is manifestly unfair to the pupils. The recent HMI report, A Survey of the Teaching and Learning of Foreign Languages in a Sample of Inner City and Urban Schools, makes that abundantly clear. It is a very interesting report and it is encouraging to know that there is some good practice. However, nearly half the lessons were less than satisfactory and showed some or many shortcomings in important areas. The unsatisfactory lessons were those in which the teachers used English as a means of communication.
What can be done to improve matters? There is the Lingua programme, which will support periods of integrated study in another member state. Are the Government now totally committed to the Lingua programme? Paragraph 120 of the Government's response would appear to accept the Committee's recommendations on Lingua. I should like reassurance on that point.
I should also like to emphasise the importance of the availability of distance learning, with the help of videos and cassettes, as a means of retraining and updating. We could make more use of the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges. Then there are the assistants, who have a very useful influence on the speaking and conversational fluency of pupils. During the period 1972 to 1976 an average of 4,394 were employed each year. Now the number is only 2,867. Both the NAHT and the SHA called for central funding of those assistants and suggested an expansion of the Lingua programme for Community funding for them.
Taking children abroad to give them a taste of foreign travel and to increase their awareness of a different country has been made much more difficult because of the Government's policy on charging, as my noble friend said. I am very glad to read the Government's response to paragraph 121 of our report:
"The Government should not delay in changing their policy as regards charging for such visits if their new regulations are found to have discouraged visits".
My final words concern attitudes, about which we have heard a good deal. Paragraph 113 of the report states:
572
"The attitude of British society towards language learning is crucial … The Committee call on the Government to launch a campaign bringing together all the strands of current European awareness advertising in the context of the completion of the internal market and uttering the death knell of the monoglot tradition of English society".
I hope that our report will do something to help shove opinion in the right direction.
12.50 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I most warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Brigstocke on her brilliant maiden speech. She was head of a school whose outstanding academic reputation she helped to build, the success of which is reflected in the contented comments of parents. For eight years she has been a most distinguished governor of a school where I was educated. I quickly add that my education there took place many years earlier. We all look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Brigstocke often in the future.
I was a member of the sub-committee which carried out the inquiry and reported. The European schools, intended for the children of parents who are EC nationals, where they are concentrated in places such as Brussels or Culham, raised little controversy. That matter was dealt with most effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who conscientiously and capably chaired the committee, in her helpful opening speech.
I should like to concentrate on the question of teaching modern foreign languages and its importance for this country. The Government's first response of 9th July (only four days ago) to the Select Committee's report agrees with that importance and confirms two principal reasons for the present unsatisfactory situation: first, widespread lack of motivation and interest among the British public; and, secondly, shortage of teachers.
There is a definite disincentive which must be recognised immediately. Our native tongue, English, is the language of a very large part of the world. It may be spoken in strange and peculiar ways in some areas but communication is not difficult. That can lead to the unfortunate idea that one need not learn a foreign language. It is a misconception that we must try to dispel, together with the attitude: "If they don't speak English, they ought to".
The Government's response confirms that pupils in British schools receive less teaching of foreign languages than do their counterparts in the EC. In order that the British people can have a better understanding of their neighbours in Europe and appreciate and relish their visits and travel in other countries, in a world that is becoming smaller every day knowledge of the principal languages should be increased. That is agreed by the Select Committee, the Government, and virtually everyone who has examined the subject.
How then can we best make progress? I should like to refer to two recommendations of the committee: first, that foreign language teaching should be offered at primary school level; and, secondly, that pupils should be encouraged to learn a second foreign

573
language at secondary school. With regard to the primary school, a start is being made in Scotland. But, in their response, the Government indicate that it is unlikely that anything can be done in England before the year 2010. That is 20 years ahead. I was most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for giving way to me towards the end of her speech on this issue. I wanted to point out at that stage that such was not the position in Scotland.
I remind noble Lords that education in Scottish schools is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office—the Scottish Education Department. That has been so for many years. There is a separate system north of the Border with separate teachers' unions and organisations. What is called the "national curriculum" does not apply in Scotland.
Noble Lords will have heard me make the point before and I hope will not mind hearing me say again that in my opinion the word "national" should not have been used. It has misled many of the public as well as the media, in Scotland too, into thinking that the Education Reform Act applies to Scotland. It does not. In my opinion the curriculum which it promotes should have been named the "curriculum for England and Wales". I am sure that the House will understand my reason for expressing that opinion when it is recalled that I was the Secretary of State for Scotland under whom the work started on the Scottish curriculum nearly 20 years ago. Schools in Scotland come under the supervision of the Scottish Office and not the Department of Education and Science.
I welcome the experiment that is now taking place in Scotland in teaching foreign languages in primary schools. A number of Scottish education authorities have entered upon schemes in their areas. This has been possible because the shortage of teachers is not so acute north of the Border. In the Government's response it is stated that there may not be enough teacher; in England and Wales to make a realistic start for some 20 years. I hope that the Scottish example will be successful. I wish it well and hope that it may help to bring forward for England and Wales that date of 2010.
A new school of thought, which may seem revolutionary, is that modern languages should be taught at as early an age as possible. I believe that the idea has much merit and should be given an opportunity to prove itself. My noble friend Lord Beloff mentioned it. At primary stage or earlier a child absorb, another language as part of his or her first means of vocal communication. Young children usually retain that language in later life, speaking with ease and fluency. The language remains familiar to them as a spoken language. Other school subjects can suitably be taught at a later stage.
The primary school experiments in Scotland have a special significance. They, may show the way to new and more successful teaching of foreign languages with children starting to learn them at an early age. Until recently that was not an option even being considered. It is still thought to be a radical departure.
574
The other recommendation of the Select Committee—that pupils should be encouraged to embark on a second language—is presumed to refer to the secondary stage of education. There was not much in the Government's immediate response to that point. I ask my noble friend Lady Blatch whether she can give more information today. French has become the most widely learnt first language in the United Kingdom. Other languages should be more easily available provided this does not make for more difficulty in the supply of teachers and in continuity for the pupils. We recognise that those factors have to be borne in mind. When two languages are learnt at the secondary stage I suggest that German be considered as the second language after French. German is becoming more widely used now in industry and commerce.
From the sub-committee's work I concluded that foreign teachers from EC countries can help considerably to reduce the shortage in the United Kingdom. I am glad to note that there has been a recent improvement in accepting them and their qualifications. At a time when the EC as a whole is trying to make professional qualifications of all kinds increasingly interchangeable, one hopes that the time taken in considering those qualifications will be reduced as much as possible.
The relationship between teacher and pupil as individuals should not be lost sight of. It can provide incentive and inspiration, and not just in the case of the able or the brilliant pupil.
I should also like to say a word about exchanges. A great deal depends on the initiatives and the co-operation of parents, but many children are not able for one reason or another to benefit in that way. We should encourage well prepared exchanges arranged through schools. Even two or three weeks in a foreign country will open the eyes of a willing pupil to the reason for learning the language and will usually generate enthusiasm for attaining an ability which can be seen to be useful in later life, not as a boring schoolroom exercise. The universities already have good exchange arrangements and many students are given about a year to study in the country of the language on which they are concentrating.
I turn now to careers. Where a career after education requires the use of foreign languages—this applies increasingly in business and is not confined to working abroad in the public service or with international organisations—the principal talent being sought is an ability to learn a language. That is usually the result of foreign languages being well taught in school days. As noble Lords know, I spent 12 years as a diplomatist after the war. It was my experience based on what we in the Foreign Office were looking for in new recruits, the ability to learn a language was a vital talent.
I hope that the Government will continue to consider carefully the recommendations of the Select Committee and in particular will do more to try out teaching at earlier ages, observing the experiments

575
now taking place in Scotland. A chance is being offered of taking a great step forward if those experiments prove to be successful.
1.2 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lady Lockwood for initiating the debate and for the report of the Select Committee which she chaired. It has been an interesting debate and I should like to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords on the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, to which we all listened with the greatest interest. Only last night I was talking to an old friend of mine, a French lady who used to be head of the foreign language section at the St. Paul's School for Girls. I told her about today's debate and she told me what great encouragement the noble Baroness had always given when she was head of that distinguished school which is one of the best schools for girls in the country.
As has been said, the report shows a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is clear that modern language teaching in this country compares most unfavourably with that in other EC countries. One must ask why that should be so. The report is very frank—my noble friend Lady Lockwood was probably too polite to quote from the it, but I intend to do so because its trenchant words are well deserved —when it states:
"The committee can see no reason why English children should be considered uniquely incompetent at foreign language learning".
A good deal of the trouble results from our social attitude to foreign languages, as has been said today. As the committee says:
"all sectors of society must be convinced of the relevance of foreign language learning as a communication tool".
The result of that attitude is that we are lagging behind the rest of Europe in the take-up of languages among pupils in secondary schools. The National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers told the committee that it is becoming increasingly difficult in our schools to sustain the study even of French and German. The numbers in the 16 to 19 age group attempting A level French fell from over 20,000 10 years ago to only 18,000 in 1986–87.
For some years I have been a member of the British section of the Franco-British Council. We are concerned at the decline in our schools of French teaching, as that can only have an adverse effect on our mutual understanding with France which is our nearest neighbour. An attempt is being made by the Government to improve matters through the national curriculum, although there will clearly be problems arising from the shortage of trained teachers and the difficulty of fitting a modern language adequately into the timetable.
Our pupils also suffer a further disadvantage. In this country a foreign language is not started at the primary level in the public sector. In the EC and in our own private sector, children start at a much younger age. At the European School at Culham, to which
576
reference has been made, they start a second language, which could be English, French or German, at the age of six. At many British preparatory schools in the private sector, French teaching starts at the age of seven or eight.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said about the proficiency in modern languages in the last century. That is absolutely true. One of the causes of that was the governesses. The leading families often had governesses who taught the children French, German or Italian. Nationals of countries therefore spoke other languages very fluently—a fluency which remained with them for the rest of their lives. You still meet elderly French people, for example, who had the benefit of that privileged education and who can still speak English perfectly. Some English people still speak very good French or even German.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, about bookshops. I can take him to a university bookshop in London which maintains an excellent stock. It claims to have a much better stock than any of the bookshops in Oxford. What he said was probably justified, but it is not so everywhere.
The shortage of modern foreign language teachers has reached crisis level, and the report says that that is likely to worsen. I understand that 3,000 additional teachers are needed to start the national curriculum's requirements and that the figure would be considerably more if foreign language teaching were to be extended in the primary sector, as it should be, and even beyond the age of 16.
What is to be done? One action that the Government could take is to encourage qualified teachers to return to teaching. The other is to increase the employment of qualified language teachers from other member states, including foreign language assistants. The numbers of foreign language teachers from abroad have declined in recent years. I understand that many are discouraged by the long bureaucratic delays of the DES in processing their qualifications before they are recognised. Until those qualifications are recognised, they are paid at a lower rate. I must ask the noble Baroness who is to reply whether the Government will adopt a policy of central funding of foreign language assistants. That policy is adopted by all other countries with which the United Kingdom has exchange arrangements and there seems no reason why it cannot be adopted here. As usual, we are lagging behind everyone else.
It is a great advantage to be taught a foreign language by a national of that country and by the direct method when the lesson is conducted in the language itself. I had the good fortune to attend a school which used the direct method 60 years ago. It was one of the pioneers and I am surprised that the method has not become universal.
In its recent report of its survey into 25 urban schools in England, HMS Inspectorate's report stated that teachers used English most of the time because their pupils could not understand more than farewells and greetings. It also stated that pupils seemed

577
ignorant of basic vocabulary and made wild guesses in English about the meaning of French words. The inspectors concluded that schools were ill prepared to meet fie demands of the 1992 Single European Act and the national curriculum.
Visits and exchanges are important in fostering European awareness and cultural understanding and in promoting language learning. I understand from the report that many school visits have been put in jeopardy by the new government charging regulations. The regulations, which fall under the 1988 Act, are so complex and subject a planned visit to so many conditions and hazards that many schools have decided to give up trying to arrange any further visits. The new regulations discriminate against Scotland in particular. The additional cost of the journey from the north Of Scotland to the south of England puts the cost of a trip abroad beyond the reach of many Scottish pupils. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, it is wrong that they should be treated in that way when they are in the vanguard of the teaching of foreign languages. I hope that the Government will take that matter on board.
A working knowledge of a foreign language is a useful and essential aid to business discussions and social relations. But surely it is much more than that; it is important as a means of cross-cultural understanding. Translations of a country's literature have a part to play, as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, mentioned. However, a good deal of the original meaning is often lost, particularly in the case of poetry. The noble Lord mentioned Baudelaire who is completely transformed and lessened in English translations. There are some who rightly say that Racine is untranslatable. Recently a Racine play was performed in English in London. A French friend of mine said, "It may be a good performance but it isn't Racine". How right the committee is to call on the Government to launch a campaign to put an end to this sorry state of affairs.
1.13 p.m.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Brigstocke on her maiden speech. I expected an informed speech and I was not disappointed. My own relationship with St. Paul's School—I hasten to add that it was the boys' section—was playing cricket against it many years ago. I cannot remember who won the match.
I was not a member of the sub-committee but I have read its report. I wish to express appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for her chairmanship and to its members for their work. It has given your Lordships the opportunity to discuss this important subject. The ability—or rather the inability—of British people to speak foreign languages has always been of deep concern to me. All my working life I was concerned with trading overseas. The ability to speak foreign languages was high on the list of priorities that I looked for among my staff. I was marketing director of a company which sold 75 per cent. of its products overseas. In order to preserve its
578
viability it had to maintain that percentage of exports. I found the ability to speak foreign languages to be essential.
I do not know whether the teaching of foreign languages has improved in our schools. However, not long ago one could pass an A-level examination in a foreign language yet be incapable of carrying on the most basic conversation. I hope that the situation no longer exists. I have read the evidence given to the committee and it appears that efforts are being made to improve the situation. I remember learning Latin, French and German many years ago. The teaching was virtually identical for all three languages; they were all taught as a dead language. The degree of interest instilled into one was equally deadly.
The first priority in teaching children a foreign language should be to arouse their interest and to convince them of the usefulness of being able to speak a foreign language. Emphasis should be put on being able to speak the language reasonably fluently. A knowledge of grammar is a necessity but I give reading, writing and literature a low priority. They can come later once the necessary interest and expertise has been achieved and when the young person is eager to learn more. In days gone by we were taught grammar and so forth but at the end of the day we could not speak a word of the language.
Sadly, conceit is still rampant in this country. It is said, "We don't need to learn a foreign language because we are above all that. Let the silly foreigners learn English". Many people do but many others do not. That concept permeates down from the highest levels and influences people in all walks of life. Like me, I am sure that many noble Lords heard a Member of this House who held one of the highest posts in Europe joke about his inability to speak French. He appeared to be rather proud of the fact. Some of the resistance may come from a fear of making fools of ourselves but that must be overcome.
It may be a slight exaggeration but. I believe that speaking a foreign language—or better still, speaking foreign languages—is today almost as important as being able to drive a car; in particular being able to drive it on the right-hand side of the road. With our increasing involvement in European affairs—more than 40 per cent. of our trade is now within the European Community—if we wish to be on equal terms with our European partners, we must, as businessmen at every level, be able to speak at least one of their languages and preferably two or three. It is true that one will meet many Europeans who speak English. But I can assure your Lordships that psychologically one is at a great advantage if one can speak and understand the language of the person with whom one is negotiating. Inevitably, one will meet people who do not speak English, in particular at the lower levels. It is often crucial to be able to speak to those people in order to grasp the essentials of the situation.
Of equal importance are the social, political and diplomatic circles. I do not believe that it is possible to understand a country and its people unless you can speak their language. It is like being outside a house

579
and looking in through a window. You can see what is happening but you cannot speak to those inside and find out what they are thinking and feeling. The various initiatives that are now being taken—in particular the new curriculum—give grounds for hope that in years to come British people may be able to converse with their friends in Europe in their own languages. But I still have a feeling that we may only be scratching the surface of the problem. We may be paying lip service to what we think we should do but it may be something which many people do not see as very important.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on one or two points brought out in the evidence of the committee. I promise the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that I shall not be as critical as my noble friend because I do not have his knowledge.
One requirement which seemed to be mentioned on a number of occasions was the importance of students taking a second foreign language. That is certainly very laudable but is it not rather like urging people to run before they can walk? With the shortage of qualified teachers and the inability of the vast majority of young people in this country to speak even one foreign language, I should have thought that the emphasis should be put on mastering one language fluently before embarking on a second. It is a fact that people who can speak one language will find the next one much easier and are much more inclined to take it on.
Another point which is brought out forcefully in the evidence and which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, with which I thoroughly agree, is the shortage of qualified teachers. By that, I mean teachers who are fluent in the language which they are teaching. Ideally not a word of English should be spoken in a foreign language class. That may sound rather excessive but that is the way to teach a foreign language.
Mention is also made of assistants which I understand are primarily foreign students who come to England to perfect their English and spend part of their time in schools teaching English children their language. My daughter spent her third year at university as an assistante at a French school teaching English to French children. That is a very useful way of supplementing the supply of teachers and ensures that children are taught the correct pronunciation, which regrettably some British teachers are not very good at.
As many noble Lords have said, the most effective way to learn a foreign language is to spend a period of time in the country in question. I understand that at university level in this country that is normal practice. However, at school level that is obviously impractical. Encouragement should be given—and I understand to a certain extent is being given—to visits abroad by school parties and exchange arrangements between families. I was horrified to hear that it was proposed to take away the financial support from that. If anything, it should be increased.
580
Finally, I read in the report of evidence that there have been delays in checking foreign teachers' qualifications—the usual bureaucracy. With the evidence that British teachers are teaching a foreign language with only O-level or A-Level qualifications, I should have thought that any foreign teacher who can speak his own language would be very welcome.
Finally—and this has been touched on by many noble Lords —one of the most positive actions which the Government could take would be to promote the speaking of foreign languages. We still have this resistance born of the idea that everybody speaks English and we need not bother to learn a foreign language. There should be a positive promotional operation to sell foreign language speaking to the British public.
1.25 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to add my appreciation to that of other noble Lords to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for the committee's excellent report. It is good that we are discussing it, that the Government have read it and have responded to it. Also from these Benches I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, on her splendid maiden speech. She has had vast experience and speaks with authority.
Having made those two cheering remarks, I must say that my feelings are rather comparable to those of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in declaring our situation to be somewhat desperate. There is the problem of the teacher shortage which is referred to in the report. I shall not try to guess the magnitude of that shortage but it is large. The outlook is bleak. A letter to the Daily Telegraph last March from Dr. Ann Stevens, who is Dean of the School of European Studies at the University of Sussex, stated:
"Last week I saw nearly 130 of our students who will be graduating in the summer. All of them have studied a modern language and have spent a year in the country of their language as part of their degree course, some of them gaining teaching experience during that time as language assistants in schools abroad. About one third of them will have degrees in one or two modern languages. The others have studied a language alongside another discipline. Only one is planning to take a post-graduate teaching qualification and 'I do not suppose', she said to me, 'that I shall teach it in this country, not with conditions for teachers as they are'. Two others told me that they would really like to teach but could not contemplate doing so until pay and conditions for our teachers improve".
That is only one example. It is anecdotal but it seems to typify the situation which we must face. Generally our teachers have suffered terrible blows during the past few years and until their status, pay and teaching conditions are improved, we shall not get the teachers we need.
The committee made several useful suggestions as to how we can use part-time teachers and recall to teaching those who have retired from it. However, the problem is deeper and wider than that. With regard to the lack of motivation and interest generally, which has been spoken of by many noble Lords, it is clear that public attitudes must change. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said that there is no

581
such thing as a national inability to speak languages any more than there is such a thing as a growler among children who are put into a singing class. It is a conditioned attitude. I do not know whether it is the John Bull attitude arising from our insularity. Perhaps we consider that it is rather infra dig to attempt to speak any damned foreigner's lingo. I think that there is something of that in it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, curiously that has not always been the case. For example, there was a time when educated people in this country were perfectly prepared to accept Latin as a European lingua franca. The other day, I was amused to see that a history book which was written in the last century contained numerous Latin quotations which were not translated for the reader. Nowadays, they would be. The reader would not be expected to be conversant with the language.
I believe that that is rather comparable to the fact that between the time of Purcell and Elgar this country produced no music. I wonder whether both are connected with the Empire: the fact that we took a superior view about other human beings who spoke other languages during the time of the Empire; and also, that we did not have time for writing music. I do not know why that was the case but it is possibly connected.
This position—and I must say this although I usually spend my time fighting for teachers—is perpetuated to an extent by some poor teaching as witnessed by the HMI report published recently. That was a report of a survey of the teaching of foreign languages in 25 schools fed by inner cities areas. It is rather depressing reading. It said that in nearly half of those 25 schools the teaching of languages was less than satisfactory. It speaks of low expectations on the part of teachers; failure to establish a proper working atmosphere; and too little of the foreign language being heard.
In defence of teachers I should say that the teaching of foreign languages is a difficult art. It is not merely a matter of knowing your subject and keeping the children quiet. There is more to it than the teaching of maths, science, history or geography. In essence it is communication; it is social intercourse. It is a convivial activity more akin to teaching dance or drama than a dry as dust classroom subject. It is therefore crucially dependent on the personality of the teacher.
Teachers who can conduct a successful language class are not born every day. The target language—to use the jargon of the inspectorate—must be taught all the time; the naming of articles, reciting poems, songs, counting, and conjugating must all be done aloud. Therefore the teacher must be completely fluent in the language.
I have sat in on some pretty dull language teaching in schools where the children were filling in gaps in work books. I felt that they were bored and learning very little. I remember one class where the teacher was much more lively and the children were all enjoying
582
the lesson, but, unfortunately, what she was teaching was wrong. It was as much as I could do to keep quiet and not say, "Look, that is not quite right".
Regarding the widespread lack of motivation and interest, is it perhaps the case that there is a certain distaste among children for French in particular? I shall say more in that regard presently. What about the question of diversification, of teaching more languages in schools? French is spoken by 70 million people; German by 100 million people; Russian by 150 million, and Spanish by 250 million people.
The Oxford University department of educational studies is conducting a project in certain schools concerning the diversification of first foreign languages. It goes by the unlovely acronym of OXPROD. It is a study of six schools which teach German and Spanish as well as French from the age of 11. The children were subjected to a questionnaire. In the first year a great majority preferred German and Spanish to French. In the second year the low ability children went off German—it becomes rather difficult when one reaches those dreadful inflections, word orders and portmanteau words—but they still preferred Spanish to French. Some of the high ability children continued to prefer German and Spanish: in all cases, French came third. To me French is the most cultivated language, and to be without it entirely would be appallingly philistine. I put that project forward as an idea. Incidentally, in Barnsley—a mining town—Russian is very popular. That probably dates from the miners' strike a few years ago.
We must aim as soon as possible to teach languages at the primary age. It has been most depressing to hear accounts of the Government's pessimism regarding when that can take place. Teaching young children languages has been known about in the Steiner schools for years. Children are taught languages from the age of seven, which is the age at which they start in those schools. We could start teaching them at the age of five. That is the time when a child's imitative facility is at its highest. Children will imitate anything that is said to them. They cannot help it. That is the time to start teaching languages.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said regarding teaching young children languages in Scotland. I should like to advise him that certain pilot projects are taking place in England also. There is a primary school in Basingstoke in which the 400 pupils are all learning French, German and Spanish. It is one of six feeder schools to Basingstoke comprehensive and part of a language awareness project founded by an accountancy firm. That illustrates that our commercial firms are interested in the matter, sometimes perhaps more so than the Government. And they have more awareness of it. The children love it. They go home and teach their parents how to count from one to 10 in four different languages. That cannot be said to be a useless exercise.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the children are learning all four languages at the same time? If so, God help them!
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, one school is experimenting by teaching one language one term, another the next and a third language in the third term. What happens after that I do not know. It is very much a pilot project. I presume they will test the reaction of the children.
I was speaking of imitation. The imitation by these children is apparently so exact that, having been taught by an assistant who comes from south-west France, they now speak with a south-west French accent, which one can never learn when one grows older.
I was depressed to hear the statistics given by the noble Baroness, Lady David, regarding the declining numbers of these assistants. Teachers must be accorded status, conditions and the pay they deserve generally. The learning of languages must—pray heavens earlier than the year 2010—be brought down to the primary age. It is important for children to come into contact with people who talk the language naturally that the children are attempting to learn.
I shall not bore the House with a lot of family anecdotes. But when I took my daughter to France for the first time she said, "It is most extraordinary. They look like ordinary people but they are talking French". One can have worthwhile experience even from a short visit. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, spoke of a visit of a few weeks. Even on a 24-hour visit one can have a valid experience. My son was taken for one day to Dieppe. The minibus was parked in a very unsuitable place in the main street. The driver was not actually charged by the police but a long letter from a French bus driver was attached to the vehicle which in terms of the most excellent French irony began, "I congratulate you on your parking". The letter was then translated by the class and so they learned from real life what learning a foreign language is all about.
The importation of foreign teachers and exchange visits are very important. Could we not use all adults with language skills of any age in our schools to speak French to the children? I feel very strongly about this matter. I am sorry if I have taken a long time and if at times my speech has been somewhat confused. The vital point is to increase the numbers of teachers generally; to increase the contact of children with people who genuinely speak the language concerned; and gradually to live down this extraordinary John Bull attitude that we do not have to speak other people's languages.
1.39 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this is an important report which raises a host of fascinating subjects. I will confine my remarks to only a few of the topics under consideration. I start on the question of method and, in connection with that and in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, on her maiden speech, I reiterate what she said. There are many first-class language teachers in our schools but that, of course, is why we want such teachers for all our pupils. We must not be content with second best or unqualified teachers, especially in the maintained schools in our country. The noble Baroness said that
584
she felt somewhat daunted. In saying how much I enjoyed her speech perhaps I may add, that given the quality of her speech I look forward eagerly to her speeches when she is undaunted.
In regard to method, most of us were taught in the old-fashioned way with the concentration on reading. The long-term productivity of that approach is negligible. A large number of people with the old general School Certificate, which I had, O-level or GCSE, in French, German or Spanish, just a few years later possessed no capacity in the language. That is nothing short of a scandal. My noble friend Lord Rodney and others emphasised that point. They are certainly right.
Your Lordships' committee reports, in paragraph 47, on the current shift of emphasis in modern language teaching away from writing and memory work towards speaking. The report also states that the nature of language teaching has changed greatly over the past decade. The emphasis today in language teaching is on communication. I welcome that, but how far has it gone? Is the overwhelming majority of language lessons conducted in the language concerned? Are the children made to speak it? I doubt that very much, though I should like to know. How many fluent French, German or Spanish speakers are we producing? I fear that we have a long way to go.
I now say a few words on teacher shortages. It is apparent that we have too few teachers of modern languages. Many of those entrusted with the task of language tuition are, again to quote the report, inadequately qualified. The committee states that the shortage,
"has already reached crisis level and is likely to worsen".
There are longish lead times for adjusting teacher supply and that is why, as many noble Lords emphasised, action is urgently needed. I am bound to say that, while money is not everything, the market mechanism must surely be expected to work and there is now an overwhelming case for an increase in teachers' pay. I also believe that increasing the number and size of grants and bursaries for training and retraining —I emphasise retraining—beyond what we are already doing will turn out to be a worthwhile investment.
On the subject of language teaching in primary schools, again I can only echo the remarks of other noble Lords. I emphasise the perfectly obvious point of starting language teaching as early as possible. That seems to be so overwhelmingly the right thing to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and others have said, that one is amazed that it is taken for granted. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, I will not bore the House with a total family history but I recall that at least two of my children learnt French in primary school but the moment they reached secondary school were told to forget all about it because the other children did not do it and therefore it was assumed they would start again from scratch. Nothing more absurd than that occurred in my children's education. That really must stop.

585
I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in his criticism of the committee but I was interested in his remark s on the need for an historical perspective. I though that was important, especially his remarks on an historical perspective as applied to politicians. While listening to the noble Lord I asked myself the question, which I am unable to answer: is it more acceptable for Ministers to insult foreigners in their language or in our own language?
I now advert to the topic of school visits abroad. In the Education Reform Act 1988 the Government were right to seek to specify what is meant by schooling being free. I supported the Government then and I do not criticise them now. However, clearly matters have not turned out as expected. The rules on charging, according to all the evidence I have been able to garner, have led to a reduction of visits of all kind. As opposed to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, I think the rules on visiting are clear. There can be no obligatory charge for a visit which is part of the curriculum. However, a voluntary contribution might be insufficient to cover the whole cost of the visiting party and there may be no other funds available, especially in times of financial stringency.
The problem might be solved by making additional funds available to individual schools, but, given the local management of schools, there is no guarantee that the funds would be used for the purpose that we have in mind. Perhaps the solution would be to designate the funds for that purpose, but I am not sure. Certainly we must think about a new way into this problem. What I do believe—here again I echo what others have said—is that this is a matter of urgency. I understand that the Government are waiting for more factual information. It is always right to make policy on the basis of a solid empirical foundation but it is a pity that we have to wait at least another year for that information and then it may take the Government even more time to make up their mind to amend the relevant Act. I do not believe that our children's education should be made to suffer for that length of time.
It is sometimes said—I have even heard one Minister in this House say it—that there is no need for most o f our children to obtain a working knowledge of one or more foreign languages. Here, I am again following my noble friend Lord Rodney. It is said that English is becoming a world language which most foreigners will master; therefore, why should we bother to learn another language? Would cultural imperialism, based on English, not be to our advantage? The example always cited to me is that the best pop music is in our language. I refrain from considering its literacy! However, I have to ask whether that is good enough. Apart from the philistinism of such a position, in my judgment it is erroneous on practical grounds. Without doubting the importance of English, it is difficult to see it emerging as the universal language of Europe. I say nothing on the question of whether the cultural imperialism to which I have referred would turn out to be UK-based or, as is much more likely, US-based.
586
However, even if many, and in due course most, French, German and Italian people speak English, as my noble friend Lord Rodney again pointed out there will be a substantial number who do not possess that ability. Therefore, mobile UK managers and workers will surely need to be fluent in the language of the country in which they propose to work. A simple example, but one which is quite compelling in my view and which makes the case, is whether you can read a menu. That also emphasises the point that although translations are of interest they are always imperfect. They are never exactly right.
Sometimes that is advantageous. Those of us who became Proustians through the Scott Moncrieff translation of the A la Recherche du Temps Perdu are indebted, of course, to that great man and, later, to Terence Kilmartin for those translations. When we tried manfully to work our way through the original we realised that we were actually discussing two quite separate works of literature.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, some highbrow French people read Proust in English because they think it is more interesting.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I was tempted to make that remark but I did not have the courage. The noble Lord is clearly more courageous than I am.
More generally, radio, television, newspapers and periodicals in the country to which one goes are in the language of that country. One also has to remember that most books are not translated. Those are all relevant matters as to why a facility in foreign languages is so important. Even if one is abroad as a migrant worker and someone is kind enough to speak English when necessary, most of what is going on around one is completely incomprehensible. On a practical matter, who would remember to utter cries of warning always in English as well as the local language? Are all notices to be translated into English throughout Europe?
The list is endless and the conclusion is obvious: whether we are discussing mobile pharmacists, teachers or lorry drivers, foreign language skills are vital. What holds for such people applies even more to their children, assuming, as we must, that post-1992 whole families will move. That is why the remarks of my noble friend, Lady David, who in turn referred to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would have said about schooling for our children in Europe, are so important.
I emphasise that, from my point of view as an economist, though most of the initial impact of 1992 will be to do with the free movement of goods and capital, eventually there must be a significant movement of labour too. Ultimately the aim must be to have at least as much labour mobility in Europe as there is in the United States. It would be a pity if the language barrier were the last restraint on economic freedom, especially if that barrier applied chiefly to British people.
For that reason, while I understand the need of the Department of Education and Science to be practical

587
in its evidence to the committee, I did regard its evidence as most unsatisfactory. Its approach was negative and lacked vision. The same impression is conveyed by the Secretary of State's response to your Lordships' Committee which we have seen. Perhaps it is more a matter for politicians than civil servants. I look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Baroness. I hope that she will be able to offer us something much more positive at this stage of the debate.
The subject we are discussing is partly a matter of teacher shortage. It is also partly a matter of using the best techniques, in particular in making the pupils use the language. It is also partly a matter of our schools having the other resources that are necessary such as equipment and books. I repeat that, above all, it is a question of leadership and vision.
I speak as an addict of the reports prepared by your Lordships' Committees. They are invariably informative, intellectually stimulating and good guides to policy. This report is no exception. Quite the contrary, it is an outstanding contribution to an important topic. Her Majesty's Government should welcome the guidance that has been given them by this report and they should act on it. The chairman and the committee are to be congratulated.
1.53 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, as I am sure the House is, for the opportunity to debate the Select Committee's report. We congratulate her and her committee on this excellent report. We thank her in particular for the way in which she opened the debate. The depth, knowledge and insight which have characterised the report, not to mention the force of the views which have been expressed and which will be brought to the Government's attention, have been impressive.
At this point I wish to join with all noble Lords in offering congratulations to my noble friend Lady Brigstocke on her exceptional maiden speech. As we all know, she has made an outstanding contribution in the field of education. As we listened to her speech today we gained insight into her professionalism and wide experience of working with young people. That was greatly complemented by great sensitivity and a charming wit. She has also made a valuable contribution, as has already been mentioned in the course of the debate, to the national curriculum working group on modern foreign languages. We thank her for her commitment to that important work.
I shall be referring to more detailed comments later. I wish to take up one point mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ritchie, and that is paying tribute to the linguists already in the system. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, and my noble friend Lady Brigstocke, we all know that there is much more to do. I refer noble Lords to Chapter 7 of the interim report. In that chapter there will be found very fine examples of some of the work that is going on in
588
our schools. We shall all look forward with enthusiasm to the involvement of my noble friend in the work of this House.
The Government particularly welcome the opportunity to debate the subject of language learning in United Kingdom schools. We share the Select Committee's concern that the importance of modern foreign languages should be given as high a profile as possible. The Select Committee's report will have contributed to raising that profile. For their part, the Government are doing all they can to stress the importance of languages. Indeed, I believe that we can rightly claim to have done more than any other Government to have raised the profile of modern languages. They now have a central place in the national curriculum.
There is evidence that the message is getting home. Over the past few years there has been a steady increase in the proportion of pupils studying a modern foreign language in their last two years of compulsory secondary education. When the national curriculum is fully implemented, this figure will of course rise to 100 per cent. We also have some welcome indication that in very recent years there has been an increase in the number of entrants to A-level courses.
The Select Committee drew a comparison between language learning in this country and in schools in the other member states of the European Community. That comparison was unfavourable to the United Kingdom. We have to admit that language learning is more advanced in our fellow member states but we are making every effort to catch up. It cannot be done overnight. The first major step is the introduction of the national curriculum whereby a modern foreign language will be compulsory throughout secondary education for every pupil in a maintained school in England and Wales. I would not wish to underestimate the significance of such a step. We have to allow time for the change to be fully implemented and to have effect.
The introduction of GCSE has, we believe, had a beneficial effect on the motivation of pupils. That was a point made by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke.
The exam places greater emphasis on the importance of communication skills and in particular oral skills. This change in emphasis has also been reflected in the earlier years of secondary education where motivation has also been much improved. I take note of the point made by my noble friend Lord Rodney that it may be impossible for some people to study French to A-level. I have a friend who studied French to degree level but who cannot communicate in the language. That must change and there is every indication that the situation is changing.
We recognise of course the problems caused by the present shortage of teachers of modern foreign languages. There are no instant solutions but we are taking a number of steps to improve the position and we shall continue to monitor it closely. We have listed the steps in our response to the Select Committee's report and we very much hope that they will bear fruit. They include measures in the area of teacher

589
recruitment, including the recruitment of EC teachers; opening new routes to qualified teacher status; bringing inactive qualified teachers back into the profession; provision for in-service training, including support from the EC Lingua programme; and enhancing the pay, conditions and status of the teaching profession.
The recent successful advertising campaign, which some of your Lordships may have noticed, included a TV advertisement conducted entirely in French. It has already been successful in attracting nearly 20,000 responses. However, as I say, we will keep the position continually under review.
Another important step forward will be the introduction of a modern foreign language as a core competence for students in England aged 16 to 19. That has not been emphasised in the debate. Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that the Government have accepted in principle a recommendation to that effect from the National Curriculum Council. I have read some newspaper reports which suggest that this may not be an entirely welcome change. It is sometimes surprising to witness the degree of insularity not only of our young people and of those who advise them but, I fear, of employers too. That must change. One can quite understand that students wish to specialise and to concentrate at that age or what interests them, but it is tempting sometimes to pull the blinkers from their eyes and to show them that there is a wider world awaiting them if only they are prepared to make the effort to speak perhaps just one of its languages.
A step which the Select Committee would like to see us take, and take quickly, is the introduction of language learning in primary schools. I take all the points which have been made on this issue. It is almost unarguable that it is a good thing for children to learn languages at the earliest possible stage. But we have to start from where we are. I believe that there is a misunderstanding about the planning for introduction by the end of the first decade of the next century. What I believe was meant by the department—if I am wrong I shall correct in writing what I have saidis that because it will be something like 1997–1998 before 100 per cent. of our children leave school competent in speaking another language and because it will be another three or four years before they come out of training colleges, which takes us up to about 2003 to 2004, it will be quite a long time into that first decade before a whole cohort of young people is competent in speaking the language. That is the only argument I can offer all noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lord Beloff, against having a language as a compulsory subject in primary schools.
What we need are teachers competent in the subject in order to teach the language. If we can have 100 per cent. of children leaving school by the end of the century competent in a language, then by the end of the first decade we shall be able to introduce—not plan to introduce—the teaching of a language in our primary schools. There was a misunderstanding in
590
that perhaps noble Lords felt that we would start planning at the end of the first decade rather than plan to introduce it then.
I make it plain that while the national curriculum does not require a modern foreign language to be taught before the age of 11, it certainly does not forbid it.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am most interested by the Minister's explanation of why we have to wait well into the next century before primary school teaching of languages can begin. As I understand her argument, only by then will we have recruited 23 year-olds who are competent to teach it. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, quite rightly in my view, criticised the committee of which I was a member for not looking at the way other people are teaching languages. Is it impossible for the Government to introduce crash courses for teacher training in foreign languages so that this dreadful time lag of 20 years, by which time all of us here will be dead, can be reduced and teaching can start at primary level?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. We are talking here about government legislating for the compulsory teaching of a language in primary schools. Given all the changes that are taking place in our schools now, I believe that that is too early. I can give the noble Lord the partial assurance that by not legislating we have not in any way precluded experimentation, crash courses or the introduction of teaching a language in primary schools. That is not against the Government's policy.
Where a primary school wishes to teach a language to its pupils—method is a matter for the school itself—it is free to do so. However, I have to say that the Government could not at present contemplate making a modern foreign language a compulsory part of the curriculum for primary school-age children. We have no difficulty at all with the proposition that children of a comparatively young age would benefit from an opportunity to learn foreign languages, but we must be aware of the circumstances as they are at present, allow time for them to change, and in particular allow time for changes at the higher levels to feed through the system.
I was happy to see that the Select Committee shares the Government's view that all maintained schools should provide for the teaching of at least one European Community language and that pupils should be encouraged to continue to learn a modern language for at least five years. Reference has already been made to the working group which the Government established to advise them on modern foreign languages in the national curriculum. That working group published its initial advice in March this year and it is due at the end of this month to submit its final report to my right honourable friends, the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Wales. I note that the Select Committee made helpful comments on some matters in the initial advice and I have no doubt that the working group will have taken note of its comments. The initial advice of the

591
working group had in general a favourable reception. I am quite sure that its final report will be just as stimulating.
A number of specific points have been raised. If I do not cover them all, given that it is Friday and late in the day, I hope that I shall be forgiven and will be allowed to deal with them in writing. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to the speedy processing of teachers from the Community. Since the new arrangements came into force at the beginning of September, nearly 900 teachers from other Community countries have been granted qualified teacher status, mostly, I am told, within five to 10 days of applying. There has been some speeding up of the process and we shall continue to review its operation.
The noble Baroness also referred to the Lingua programme. There was never any doubt of our commitment to Lingua in principle. The difficulty was over the question of Community competence in the field of education. Our commitment to secure the full implementation of and maximum benefit from the Lingua programme has been shown by the fact that we have been the first Community country to open its Lingua bureau for the administration of our participation in the programme. The bureau is being run jointly by the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges and the Centre for Information on Language Teaching. The Lingua programme has been established by the European Community for five years. It is already wide-ranging but its scope could not be extended, for example, to include the funding of language assistants without the agreement of all of the Twelve. But the programme will of course be kept under review in the light of experience.
Almost all noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to foreign language assistants in our schools. I entirely agree about the importance of language assistants. One of the main functions of the central bureau is to organise with the governments of the other countries concerned arrangements for the recruitment of assistants. But it must be for local education authorities and the individual schools to consider the employment of such assistants within the resources which are available for this provision. We have no plans for assistants to be centrally funded.
Reference was also made to induction courses. Induction courses for Community teachers, referred to in the response to the report, are intended to help teachers from France and the Federal Republic of Germany to prepare for teaching in this country, especially teachers who may not be trained in the teaching of their own language, to those who are native speakers, which calls for different skills. But these courses are not compulsory. They are intended to be a help and not a barrier to entering teaching in this country.
A vexed issue which goes well beyond the confines of this Chamber concerns visits and exchanges in schools. Calls have been made for a revision of our policy. Noble Lords will be aware that in the response to the Select Committee's report the Government have
592
said that there should be no delay in changing the policy as regards charging for such visits if the new regulations are found to have discouraged visits. The Government have been concerned to gather evidence about the practical effects of the charging provision in the Education Reform Act. I know that those responses are coming in to the department. Local education authorities in England and Wales have already begun to inform the central bureau of the impact which the legislation is having locally. The NFER has been commissioned to survey schools this term and a number of other bodies have also offered to add to that evidence. Much is being done, and I shall certainly take back to the department the sense of urgency that has been established during the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, and I believe my noble friend Lady Young, who is unable to attend today and apologises for her absence, are concerned about British independent schools. I take the point about European schools not being appropriate for all ability children. The Department of Education and Science has for some time been aware of the excellent work undertaken by those schools in Europe under the aegis of COBISEC in providing a British type of education for the children of parents working in Europe. Indeed, that was formally recognised by the Government when they introduced an amendment—albeit one which was not to the liking not only of the noble Baroness but also of myself, as I believe I went through the Division Lobby with her—to the Education Reform Act which provides for certain inspection and information services to be made available to COBISEC schools.
I am also aware of my noble friend's continued interest in the work of the COBISEC schools and her conviction, and that of my noble friend Lady Young, that further help should be given in the form of government funding. Proposals have been put to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I understand that they are receiving consideration.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lord Montgomery, who has spoken to me about the subject, and others are concerned about the importance of the Spanish language. We certainly accept that Spanish and, indeed, German are important languages. One only has to bear in mind the number of people who speak Spanish in both North and South America. I believe that, other than Chinese, Spanish is the widest spoken language after English. I understand that 10 per cent. of the people in the United States speak Spanish as their first language. The position of German as something of a lingua franca in Eastern Europe and the number of people who speak Spanish in both North and South America gives prominence to those languages being given equal consideration in our schools.
I also acknowledge the force of an argument put forward to me recently by my noble friend Lord Montgomery about the quick progress which pupils can make in Spanish. However, I should point out that others carry the torch for other languages and I

593
am simply not brave enough to take on the argument for the importance of one language over another. All I can say is that this is a very heated issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, my noble friend Lord Beloff, and others mentioned Latin. Again, I must point out that it is not a modern foreign language; it is not part of the national curriculum and the Government did not consider it appropriate to requires all pupils to study Latin. There are some who would disagree with that decision. However, the Government hope that schools that wish to offer Latin to some of their pupils will continue to do so if it is thought appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, my noble friend Lady Brigstocke and others mentioned teacher morale. I am very much aware of all the hard work that teachers are putting in to introduce our education reforms. We recognise that the demands we make must be realistic, reasonable and supportive of effective teaching. We have taken positive steps to minimise the burdens wherever possible and to allow teachers more time to adjust to the pace of change.
I know that the Secretary of State has been listening to some of the pleas from teachers. Recent examples of the way in which he responded in a practical way are the announcement of standard assessment tasks for seven year-old children and our proposals for simplifying the annual curriculum returns.
I should like to point out at this stage that I believe that there is generally too much talking down of the profession. I hope that this kind of debate will have the opposite effect on morale. The changes we are bringing about to the education system certainly pose a challenge for our teachers. However, in many ways the rewards are greater than they have ever been. I am sure that teachers will find that their job satisfaction as the national curriculum and education reforms settle down will increase and that the educational benefits will start to make themselves felt and will thus make the work more rewarding.
I trust that my noble friend Lord Beloff will forgive me for having just a fleeting moment of apprehension when he said that he was going to speak about the unspeakable. Many of the points he raised—for example, the teaching of languages at an early age, using a variety of approaches, encouraging European and wider world awareness, the importance of motivation, the role for universities, languages as a condition of entry for jobs both in the public and private sector and the importance of the historical perspectivegave much food for thought and provide very positive encouragement for the purpose of this debate.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred to the Scottish experiment. I can assure him that we shall be watching it very closely. I emphasise again that it is still possible for individual schools in England and Wales if they so wish to try out the teaching of languages in their schools. Of course resources will be one issue and the availability of expertise another.
However, there is a point which will arise out of the Scottish experiment. It is one which also comes to
594
mind when we talk about the teaching of languages in primary schools in England and Wales. Indeed, I think that this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I can testify to its existence because it happened to one of my children. Nothing is more designed to switch off the mind of a young person than the situation where he or she has had to start to learn one language not once, not twice but, as in the case of one of my children, three times; they become unmotivated as regards to learning languages. Continuity between primary and secondary education will have to be looked at.
The final point to which I wish to refer relates to a second foreign language. A second foreign language is not part of the national curriculum. However, schools are free to offer a second language outside the national curriculum if they so wish. In particular, the Government hope that those pupils able and willing to benefit from studying a second language will be able to do so, especially in the final two years of secondary education.
It has been an important debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part. From time to time someone comes up with a notion that we should not waste time learning to speak a foreign language as the rest of the world speaks English. That is a point that has been made many times. Perhaps I may emphatically assure your Lordships that that is not the Government's view. We believe in the importance of learning languages. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and her Committee that we shall continue to stress that point at every opportunity.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords for the many issues that they have raised, some arising from the report and some from their wide experience. There has been a great deal of unanimity on both sides of the House about the importance and urgency of the subject. I am glad that that agreement has been accepted by the Government. I am grateful to the Minister for what she said in her response to the debate. I ask that she looks carefully again at what has been said today, especially in relation to the early introduction of teaching a modern foreign language in primary schools.
There is no time to pick up the many points that have been made, but I should like to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, whose robust contributions I enjoyed enormously. As I listened to him, I began to wish he had been a member of the sub-committee, because had he been we might have come up with a much more radical report. Whether it would have made a greater contribution towards solving the immediate problem is a matter for speculation. I thought that he might have been setting the agenda for a Royal Commission rather than a sub-committee of your Lordships' House.
The report is a response to the European Commission's communication concerned with improving the popular use of foreign languages right across the Community and of creating greater awareness of European culture as a whole, as opposed to any one culture of any individual member of the

595
Community. It is clear that the United Kingdom has an enormous contribution to make in response to that communication. Our debate has been, I hope, part of a continuing debate which will increase the awareness of the problem and which I hope will prompt the Government into even greater and speedier action than that to which they are already committed.
Finally, I should like to place on record the sub-committee's gratitude to its clerk Dr. Philippa Tudor for the great amount of work that she put into the inquiry and the report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1990
2.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale): rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 under which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. This is the 16th year that your Lordships have been asked to renew that form of government, imperfect as it is. It has gone on for too long and the Government continue to work towards the goal of replacing it with better and more accountable local arrangements. Although most people in Northern Ireland are content with direct rule as a second best, it is plain that the cause of democracy would be better served by returning to political representatives there a degree of responsibility over their own affairs. Noble Lords will not be unaware of our efforts on that front over the past six months, about which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State spoke in another place last week. I should like to return to that issue later.
First, however, I owe the House an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the past year. Our overriding aim, as my predecessor remarked on this occasion last year, is to provide good government to the best of our ability. Good government is both firm, in pursuing policies which the Government believe are in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland; and fair, in ensuring that they take full account of the special needs of all sides of the community there. The Government are pursuing a range of policies designed to bring peace, stability, and prosperity. It will come as no surprise to the House if I, first, take the opportunity to give a brief report on the security situation in Northern Ireland and on what the Government and security forces are doing to bring terrorism there to an end.
Terrorism and the threat which it presents to our democracy, is utterly abominable, from whichever quarter it comes. Principally, that threat comes from the Provisional IRA, whose ultimate aim is to secure a British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. How,
596
after 20 years of unnecessary, futile and fruitless violence and murder they can possibly believe they have moved even half a step towards this goal is beyond my comprehension. They will never succeed in their campaign of slaughter.
I visited Ballymena in the wake of the massive van bomb which exploded there in the early hours of 25th March. I was struck not just by the resilience of the people—many of them of the minority community—whose houses had been devastated by the Provisional IRA; but also by their determination that, come what may, the terrorists must not be allowed to win.
I am sure that the same can be said of the inhabitants of Castlederg where a similar van bomb, the same day, damaged 150 houses as well as the local Catholic Church. If the terrorists thought that, by such acts of mass destruction, they could win, let them think again. Let us not dignify such people with the name of terrorists. People across the length and breadth of Northern Ireland agree with me that there is only one word for them: trash.
It is time, that the unshakeable resolve on the part of the Government and of the people of each and every part of the United Kingdom penetrated the closed minds of these people. Until it does, we will continue to spare no effort to prevent these trash from killing and maiming people whether in Northern Ireland, Great Britain or on the Continent. The most conspicuous and important role in the fight against them falls to the security forces to whose courage, determination and professionalism, in the face of continual risk to their lives, I would like to pay tribute. Through their dedication and alertness, each and every day of the year, they strive to prevent atrocities of the kind we have seen all too clearly and too often in the past 20 years. I appeal now to all the people of Northern Ireland, wherever they may live, whatever their political views, to give their full support to these brave men and women.
For our part, the Government will do all in our power to assist the security forces in their fight against terrorism, whether in legal, moral or physical terms. We are at the moment closely studying the review of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross on anti-terrorist legislation in Northern Ireland as a precursor to bringing forward proposals for legislation which will replace the existing Emergency Provisions Acts. I know that, when he does bring forward his proposal my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will not hesitate to ask Parliament to approve any powers which he feels are warranted and justified.
The Government's desire to build on the progress which has been achieved with the Irish Government on security co-operation is no less strong. We have achieved much since 1985. But more needs to be done if we are to prevent similar atrocities to that which was carried out at the Derryard permanent vehicle checkpoint last December. Such murderous attacks only serve to strengthen the resolve of both Governments to take whatever action possible to try to ensure that they are never repeated. We both are

597
committed to ensuring that where action can be taken to improve security in the border areas, it will be taken.
Two things on which people in Northern Ireland are generally agreed are the importance of strengthening the economy and of improving social conditions. Even those who set themselves up as apologists for terrorism lecture us on the importance of more jobs and in proving the day-to-day environment of the people of Northern Ireland; at the same time the terrorists they support do their level best to drive out the first and ruin the second.
My ministerial colleagues have put great effort into the economic and social field in the past year. When we discussed raising money for the operations of the Northern Ireland departments of government in the appropriation debate a fortnight ago, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, accused me—I am paraphrasing slightly—of being rather bullish. The fact remains that there is, happily, a growing proliferation of evidence that the Northern Ireland economy is capable of rising to the challenge. In the year to March 1990, 5,131 new jobs were promoted with the involvement of the industrial development board. The local enterprise development unit was involved in the promotion of even more—5,944 during the same period. Largely, these came from domestic industry. The chemical, paper and printing, clothing and electrical engineering sectors were particularly buoyant. I had the pleasure recently of opening new premises for Software Ireland, Northern Ireland's largest software company. The success of the company, which has substantially increased its workforce over the past few years, and now has 60 per cent. of its sales overseas, is proof that Northern Ireland is a competitive location from which to serve the demanding and varied needs of the international markets of the information technology age.
There is particular hope in the increasing recognition among foreign investors that Northern Ireland is an ideal place to set up business. Almost 40 per cent. of the new jobs and investment attracted by the industrial development board in the last financial year came from outside Northern Ireland. They came from Great Britain, certainly, but also from Europe, from North America and from the Far East. They came in recognition of Northern Ireland's economic advantages, for example, the abundance of well-educated workers, the excellent industrial relations record, the ready supply of low-cost accommodation and much more.
The consequence of these developments is a level of unemployment which is down by 27,500 from its peak in October 1986. That is a real achievement. It is not, of course, satisfactory that seasonally-adjusted unemployment remains at 14 per cent. and all our efforts must be bent to reducing that figure much further. Unemployment has, as is well known, played its malign part in creating areas of multiple deprivation in Northern Ireland, notably in Belfast and Londonderry.
During the year, we have committed additional resources to the Making Belfast Work initiative, so as
598
to encourage employment, promote training, develop community workshops, and in the broadest sense improve the quality of life of the people of the deprived areas of north and west Belfast. At Springvale we have announced a major initiative for the redevelopment of the site to be vacated by Mackies Engineering. In Belfast city centre the Castle Court complex opened in April, offering greatly extended shopping facilities and office accommodation. The Laganside corporation, meanwhile, has identified riverside development land in Belfast with the potential for £700 million of private sector investment.
In Londonderry we have committed £10 million over a three-year period to an inner-city initiative. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was delighted to announce in recent days a grant of £9·5 million from the European Regional Development Fund towards the cost of developing a new port facility for the city, downstream of the present facilities, at Lisahally. It is right that we acknowledge the contribution the European Community has made to Northern Ireland this year and in previous years. The Londonderry area stands to benefit greatly, too, from a new display of confidence on the part of United States companies. The O'Connell Corporation of Massachusetts will undertake a large commercial and shopping development in the city centre, while on the outskirts of the city the textile company Fruit of the Loom will set up a cotton spinning operation.
Great credit attaches to all those who have been involved in attracting these projects. The Government are determined to continue to play their part in bringing about increased economic growth, but it goes without saying, or ought to, that they cannot ultimately force people to be more competitive or more entrepreneurial. The drive must come from the business community. I accept that that is a stark message, but it is what the Dutch would call nodig which roughly translates as "necessary".
I accept that very much still remains to be done in respect of relations between the different parts of the community in Northern Ireland, and in the face of those whose only contribution is to spread division, diversion and hatred it is uphill work. My colleagues have been making energetic efforts on community relations. Spending stands at very much higher levels than before in these fields.
There is new machinery within government for the handling of community relations implications of policy. There is a new community relations council. There is a cultural traditions programme aimed at encouraging greater understanding about the richness and variety of traditions in Northern Ireland (which ought be a strength and not a weakness), and we are working very closely with district councils to develop community relations programmes which have support from all constitutional parties. In schools the curriculum will in future include the themes of education for mutual understanding and cultural heritage. In short, much is going on that is positive and promising throughout the economic and social area. We shall do all we can to see it continue.

599
We continue, too, to place great emphasis on equality of opportunity. The Second Report by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR), on Religious and Political Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity in Northern Ireland, was published on 26th June. The report is the final part of the SACHR's review of this subject, which has enjoyed the Government's full moral and financial support. The report reviews the adequacy and effectiveness of existing laws and institutions in securing freedom from discrimination and furthering equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. It recommends legislative changes designed to improve the position here.
We welcome the report, which is a careful, thorough and valuable study of a matter of major importance. The Government are grateful to the commission for the considerable effort which has gone into its preparation. The importance of the subject and the detailed nature of the commission's recommendations are such that the report deserves, and is being given, careful consideration. That consideration will take account of any comments made on the report's recommendations, and it is open to anyone to submit comments. I have no doubt that the Government's deliberations will benefit from that process. In the meantime, I merely wish to underline to your Lordships, though I am sure this House needs no reminding, that the Government are fully committed to the eradication of discrimination and to equality of opportunity for everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of their religious background. We have already shown, through the introduction of stronger legislation, which came into force on 1st January this year, our determination to ensure fair employment.
I believe that the Government can take justified credit for the work they are doing in all these fields to tackle Northern Ireland's needs. However, despite our achievements, we are conscious that a vital piece of the jigsaw is missing. Insufficient scope exists for elected constitutional representatives of both communities to play a full role in the affairs of Northern Ireland. As my predecessor said on this occasion last year, their fuller involvement would make a major contribution to the process of peace and reconciliation. The prerequisite for any such involvement must be dialogue—a willingness to sit down and work out how the political stalemate in Northern Ireland might be resolved. As a result of dialogue, differing views can be accommodated and appropriate structures devised. Only dialogue will produce the consensus necessary to destroy once and for all the scourge of terrorism.
For the first time in many years, we see a new air of realism in political thinking in Northern Ireland, an acceptance that dialogue is the best way forward, and that envisaging dialogue does not imply abandoning essential principles or sacrificing important interests. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has sought, in his discussions with the constitutional Northern Ireland political parties and with the Irish Government in the period since January, to give
600
substance to this new thinking, and to move towards formal political dialogue. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to pay tribute to the progress he has made, and on which he reported last week in another place. However, I mean no disrespect when I say that all would agree that he has merely been the honest broker in a process which has its roots in the political vision and resolution of those with whom he has been having discussions. Without their constructive attitude and their willingness to be flexible, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to make progress towards a goal that we all share: new structures of government in Northern Ireland to which all its people can give their support and commitment.
Until that point approaches, the Anglo-Irish Agreement provides a useful adjunct to the system of direct rule. It does not infringe United Kingdom sovereignty. As my right honourable friend said last week, the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is clear. Article I states that:
"any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland",
and also notes that:
"the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland is for no change in the status of Northern Ireland".
But it recognises that the two governments aproach the situation in Northern Ireland from different perspectives. It does not seek to reconcile those, but rather attempts to put them on one side by accepting the principle of consent and self determination as the central issue relating to the status of Northern Ireland. The agreement does not itself provide a solution to all the problems of Northern Ireland, but it does provide the two governments with a valuable framework through which issues can be constructively addressed without prejudice to the different viewpoints and aspirations of both sides of the community. But there is no reason why the present agreement should be the last word. While neither government are seeking a new agreement, if one which commanded widespread support within both sides of the community in Northern Ireland were to emerge from a process of political dialogue, both governments would, I am sure, consider that an advance.
We have no prejudged ideas as to what form the outcome of any talks should take. That is a matter on which local politicians themselves are best qualified to decide. But our broad criteria for endorsing any particular system are that it should command widespread support and should be workable, stable and durable.
My right honourable friend is meeting today with the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Collins, to take this matter forward, and no doubt he will make another statement on progress in due course. I trust that your Lordships will understand if I refrain from going into further details here; at times it is best to say too little rather than too much.
If this process results in formal dialogue, it will be a major achievement which will reflect credit on all concerned. It is only right to express the prospects in

601
cautious terms—in the last resort no one can be dragged to the conference table; they themselves must decide whether the conditions for carrying matters forward exist. But, if all sides are determined to seek a way forward, the chances are that the Government would not have to approach your Lordships for a seventeenth time next year to approve the renewal of provisions to continue direct rule in Northern Ireland.
My Lords, I commend the order to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive review of government policies in Northern Ireland during the past 12 months. I welcome his encouraging words.
A week yesterday, with other Members of your Lordships' House, I sat in the Gallery in another place and listened to the very important speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he introduced this order. Although his speech was a striking advance on the speeches that are usually made on the renewal of direct rule, I confess that it was a disappointment that he was then unable to announce that at last he had been able to establish a firm framework for formal negotiations to begin with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.
It appeared at first sight that the substance of the preconditions for talks, for which the unionist parties had been pressing, had been met. Thus there would be a break in the meetings of the Anglo-Irish Conference; the civil servants at Maryfield could not be engaged in servicing a conference which was not in session; and it was acknowledged by the two governments that an alternative to the Anglo-Irish Conference was possible. Those were the preconditions laid down by the unionist parties and it seemed to me that they have been met.
Moreover, it appears that there is agreement between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland that the three sets of relationships—the relationship between the political parties in the North, between London and Dublin and between any new Northern Ireland structure and Dublin—would have to be addressed if and when talks got under way.
It is therefore difficult to see what possible issues of real substance now remain to be resolved. If there is no outstanding issue of substance, I wonder whether it is right flat a procedural point should be allowed to delay the commencement of talks. We accept that, once talks are under way, there are many profound and complicated issues to be addressed and resolved. That point is obvious.
While encouragement can be drawn from a number of passages in some of the speeches made in another place last week, other speeches made in the debate reflected with some eloquence the strength of historical positions. We must therefore not underestimate for one minute the difficulties of seeking to reconcile main elements which do not appear to be reconcilable, at least in an obvious sense. On the other
602
hand, I do not want to underestimate what has been achieved to date by the Secretary of State since he took up the seals of office a year ago. From these Benches I want to take the opportunity of paying tribute to his skilful and patient zig-zagging in a complicated area during the past six months.
It is also fair and meet that I should today, rather belatedly, pay tribute to the brave efforts of the late Lord O'Neill of the Maine—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Prys-Davies:—to move towards peace and reconciliation in the 1960s, almost a quarter of a century ago. I am sorry that I did not pay that tribute three weeks ago when we last discussed Northern Ireland business in the House.
The late Lord O'Neill saw clearly and at an early stage that there were at least two sets of relationships to be addressed; that between the two communities in Northern Ireland and that between Belfast and Dublin. Surely in retrospect we can all see that he was proceeding at too fast a pace and that the ground had not been adequately prepared for his great initiative. Nevertheless, he was a man of vision.
I have touched upon dramatic political initiatives of great historical significance. Nevertheless, we do well to remind ourselves that there are small improvements which can be made and which can be seen as small instalments on the long journey towards reconciliation. I am glad that the Minister has referred to the second report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. That report, which we received a couple of weeks ago, puts up a large number of signposts which cannot be ignored. The Minister has acknowledged that it is an important review of the laws and institutions dealing with religious and political discrimination and equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland.
After reading the report, I am certainly persuaded that many issues in that area require attention. There are far more issues that require attention than I had appreciated. The report contains 84 specific recommendations. We are aware that the Secretary of State has invited the general public and those with a special interest in the subject to comment on the recommendations. Can the Minister tell the House this afternoon when the Government envisage being in a position to announce their response? Is it likely to be forthcoming within the next 12 months?
I wish to refer also to the important review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 recently completed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I collected my copy of the report last night. The Minister has referred to the report and clearly it raises important issues. We are indebted to the noble Viscount for the care that he took in examining the detailed operation of the legislation and in taking the evidence. Having collected my copy only last night, it would be inappropriate now to pick out any of his recommendations, let alone his novel recommendations. I am

603
sure that at a later stage we shall hear a great deal more about the advice which the noble Viscount has tendered to the Secretary of State.
I join the Minister in paying tribute to the work, courage and achievements of the men and women of the security forces in Northern Ireland. I saw some of the men at work when I visited Northern Ireland at Easter. Clearly they are making a signal contribution towards the maintenance of law and order in the Province.
The Minister referred to some of the economic and social problems of the Province and to the initiatives taken by the Government during the past 12 months. We discussed the subject three weeks ago today and I see little point in repeating the comments that I then made. However, I see no reason for withdrawing or modifying any of the comments which I levelled at the policies of the Government. My criticism was not levelled so much at their present social and economic policies—indeed, I welcomed their conversion to the present policies—but my regret was aimed at their failure to embark on such policies 10 years ago.
This morning we heard on the radio that the Secretary of State and the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs are meeting in London today to consider the position and how best to move forward. Indeed, the Minister has confirmed that. I wish to end my comments by expressing the hope that the meeting will be successful and that the Secretary of State will soon be in a position to announce that the gap between the two Governments has been closed. I am also hopeful that he will announce the date for the commencement of serious talks between the two parties. I am sure that I express the wishes of Members of the House when I say that we shall all be glad to hear such words.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, upon the re-enactment of the order each year one is ever hopeful that it will be the last and that after 12 months have elapsed it will be unnecessary to continue with direct rule in Northern Ireland. Never was that feeling more strong than last Thursday when, as my noble friend said, some Members of your Lordships' House sat in the public gallery in another place. We waited to hear what had been hyped up to be a dramatic announcement by the Secretary of State; that after 20 years of murder and mayhem in Northern Ireland at last we were beginning to take the first tentative steps in inching our way towards an agreement.
Rumours had been circulating before the Secretary of State rose to his feet. The journalists had been talking. We were bitterly disappointed that no announcement could be made. One asked what the reason was for the Secretary of State being unable to make the announcement for which we had been waiting so long. It would appear that the Irish Government, a party to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, had lodged last minute objections and had told the Secretary of State that they would not be in agreement with certain parts of the speech which he intended to make.
604
That was a great disappointment to me. And it caused great disappointment in Northern Ireland. Over the past six months the possibility of talks has been treated with a tremendous hype. Everyone has been told to express optimism, to run away from pessimism and not to say anything which could possibly throw the proposed talks into jeopardy. I know of some journalists, realists in the affairs of Northern Ireland, who sent in copy in which they honestly believed only to be told by their editors, "Do not say that. It is too pessimistic. You must express optimism in relation to these talks". That line can only be pursued so far because there is a reality in Northern Ireland—the reality of the tremendous and terrible divisions which have existed over centuries and which we saw illustrated yesterday on the 300th anniversary of the Battle of the Boyne. Newspapers, journalists and well-intentioned politicians cannot wish away those divisions. There are tremendous obstacles before any solution can be even thought of in relation to Northern Ireland.
What has happened over the past six months? I immediately associate myself with the honour that has been given to the present Secretary of State in trying to find some way to have talks about talks. It is not a question of talks to settle the future of Ireland: the issue is talks about talks. My noble friend said that he was able to detect progressive remarks in the course of the debate in another place last Thursday. Some of the remarks made then contrast significantly with what was said by the very same speakers on Orange platforms throughout Northern Ireland yesterday. What they said in the House of Commons and what they said at those Orange venues throughout Northern Ireland are in great contrast.
The Secretary of State has been trying to get talks off the ground. The reality is that all the parties want to engage in them on their terms. We have been told that the Secretary of State is trying to do away with the preconditions. That is not a reality. Every party to the talks has preconditions. The unionist parties in Northern Ireland say that they would be prepared to enter into talks on an internal basis in Northern Ireland. They say that before they can talk to the Irish Government, the Irish Government would have to consider deleting Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution which claims jurisdiction over the area of Northern Ireland.
I listened to a Fianna Fail spokesman on radio recently. He said, "In no circumstances would we ever consider the deletion of Articles 2 and 3. Those articles of the Irish constitution which claim responsibility for Northern Ireland are very dear to the heart and soul of Fianna Fail". That may be so; if they are very dear to the heart and soul of Fianna Fail, they are absolutely repugnant to the majority of the population of Northern Ireland.
How can that position be reconciled? The Anglo-Irish Agreement gives what is a virtual veto to the Irish Government in relation to any talks that may take place. The unionist parties in Northern Ireland say that they would be prepared to talk to the constitutional nationalist parties and after they have

605
found some mode of agreement they would involve the Government of the Republic. The Government of the Republic say that they have Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement which gives them the right to be included in talks on the ground floor. They say, "We must be in on these talks from the moment of their inception in Northern Ireland".
The unionists say, "We will not speak to you because of Articles 2 and 3; because of your failure to deliver on extradition; because of a whole series of decisions which have been given by the Irish courts wherein it was stated by the Supreme Court that it was a constitutional imperative of the Irish constitution to claim the land which is at present Northern Ireland". In other words the unionist parties are saying, "How can we engage in meaningful discussions with a government that claims a right to the territory in which we live". That is a tremendous obstacle.
One must remember the attitude of the Fianna Fail opposition, as it was then, on the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The then Leader of the Opposition, Charles Haughey—now the Taoiseach of the Republic—on the publication of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, said that he rejected it out of hand. He would have nothing to do with it because he regarded Northern Ireland as a failed entity. He is now the Taoiseach of the Republic and allegedly working with the British Government in harmony with the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Charles Haughey said that the Irish Government must be included at the beginning of any talks that take place in Northern Ireland. The unionists say, "Let conduct three or four weeks of talks with the constitutional parties and then we shall invite you in". They say that that would be acceptable to them. But the facts of life are that the whole matter is about symbolism. The Irish Government are saying, "We have the Anglo-Irish Agreement. You cannot exclude us from any part of these talks". In fact the Irish Government would know very well what was happening at the beginning of those talks. The SDLP operates in close alliance with the Republic. Does anyone really doubt that John Hume, Seamus Mallon or soine other spokesman for the SDLP would not get into a car or on to a train and keep the Dublin Government well informed of the discussions taking place between the constitutional parties in the North?
The objections of the Dublin Government are therefore not valid. They would be made aware of all the talks. It is purely symbolic. They are saying to the electorate, "We have the Anglo-Irish Agreement and are sticking by that letter". That is an obstacle that cannot be overcome by leader writers in either national or local newspapers in Ireland expressing great optimism.
The Secretary of State is totally honest and has shown himself a man of great integrity in his attempts to get the talks off the ground. I cannot say the same for the other elements concerned. I wonder whether the SDLP—the party I formerly led, now called the constitutional nationalist party—is really concerned with bringing about devolved government in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it is concerned only with
606
projecting an image of how moderate it is and how immoderate its opponents are; of how reasonable it is and how intransigent its opponents are.
As I see it, there is nothing in it for the constitutional nationalist party in Northern Ireland, the SDLP, to bring about devolved government. It is one thing to stand on public platforms and say, "We will talk to anyone at any time about anything"—the Martini-man approach. It is another thing then to say that you will not talk unless the Government of Ireland are involved and unless pre-conditions are met. That will effectively make certain there will be no talks.
I wonder whether the unionists are really concerned with bringing about devolved government. Some of their spokesmen speak with an integrationist voice. They say that they would like to see a committee of the House of Commons, on the lines of a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, where Northern Ireland issues can be discussed. If that were agreed by the Government, it would meet with ferocious opposition from the Government of the Irish Republic. They would say, "If you set up a committee at Westminster that is a step down the integrationist road. It is taking away some of the authority which we have under the Anglo-Irish agreement".
There are, therefore, no great grounds for optimism in any of those aspects.
I associate myself with the remarks made by my noble friend about Terence O'Neill. I attended Terence O'Neill's funeral. I met his family and I know how much they were involved in a visionary way in the steps that Terence O'Neill attempted to take in Northern Ireland in the mid-1960s. I know how bitterly disappointed he was at the slow progress made in Northern Ireland. That disappointment stayed with him until the day he died.
Two or three things have been happening here in relation to events in Northern Ireland. I refer to the war against terrorism. I realise that there is a sub judice element but I believe that the decision taken by the Sir John May inquiry in relation to the Annie Maguire case and the decision on the release of the Guildford Four will do an awful lot to ease tensions in Northern Ireland among the nationalist community. The community will see that after a lapse of far too many years justice can be seen to be done. I am happy to have been associated with the Maguire case and to read the report of the Sir John May inquiry. I know that much will be said when the report is debated in this House. The devastating criticism of the Master of the Rolls made in the report will be reinforced by many noble Lords in this House when we have the opportunity.
We could prolong this debate. We could debate the economic advances, the economic problems, issues of unemployment, housing, and the many other economic factors that exist in Northern Ireland because this is the one debate that encompasses every facet of life in Northern Ireland. I believe it is right to restrict our comments to the possibility that a political

607
solution may be found in which economics, unemployment and housing can all be debated in another forum at Stormont in Northern Ireland.
The decision on whether that forum will ever be resurrected rests with the Northern Ireland political parties. I say, with a great deal of despair, that I am not convinced that the Northern Ireland political parties are prepared to give up some of the principles which they regard as important in order to make the transition from direct rule to a devolved government in Stormont as soon as possible. This Government can do no more than try to force those parties to the conference table. At the moment there are only talks about talks; they have not touched upon the real problems that will arise.
I understand that this afternoon the Secretary of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Irish Republic are meeting in London. I believe that they are trying to resolve a great difficulty that has been created not by the British Government or any of the constitutional parties in the North. The blame must be put exactly where it lies. The problem has been created by the Government of the Irish Republic which says that talks cannot be allowed to proceed without their involvement at the initial stages. If they persist in that attitude then the talks will never get off the ground.
Having expressed my views, with my knowledge of Northern Ireland, in such pessimistic terms, I conclude by associating myself with the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in wishing the discussions well. It is my fervent hope that some agreement can be reached this afternoon; if not then, next week; but certainly before the summer Recess, and that this will allow the political parties to engage in discussions. I believe that the Secretary of State will have fulfilled his function. The responsibility for progress in Northern Ireland will then rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland.
3 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, this is an important debate. I am sure that the House will forgive me if I speak with considerable brevity, given that for a Friday the hour is late and I do not wish to hold up some of the other debates. I must declare a personal interest in the last of those debates. I agree largely with everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. We shall certainly welcome the day when the people of Northern Ireland are able to take a greater degree of responsibility for their own affairs. I welcome, as others have, the initiative taken by the Secretary of State. He has handled the talks with a combination of considerable skill and great good sense. We all wish him well in the continuing talks that are taking place with the Government of the Irish Republic.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the position of the security forces. In a debate of this kind it is right to recognise the immense debt that we owe to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They are targets for terrorists when
608
they are on duty; they are terrorist targets when they are off duty; and they are terrorist targets after they have retired from public service. We have now reached a situation where, on some occasions, their families have also become targets. On an occasion of this kind it is right to pay tribute to them. You have to be a brave man or woman to be a member of the RUC. I very much hope that, following this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will indicate that firm view of Members in all parts of the House about the work of the RUC to the Chief Constable. We support the order. I very much hope that we shall receive some message of hope arising from the talks in which the Secretary of State is now involved.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the three noble Lords for their comments on this debate. Over the past 16 years contributions to this kind of debate by your Lordships have always been most helpful and encouraging and none less so than today. I am particularly glad for the support offered by noble Lords for the political process on which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is engaged. Until dialogue among political parties in Northern Ireland results in institutions of government there which can command support on all sides of the community, orders such as that now before your Lordships are the only realistic way of continuing the Government of Northern Ireland.
Tributes have been made today to the late Lord O'Neill of the Maine, and quite rightly so. I believe that he would have been the first to admit the words of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that he went a little too far and a little too fast and that is why, politically, he came to grief.
I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on my right honourable friend's finesse in this matter. He is a patient man. He listens to and communicates with all sides and he will carry on doing so. Every now and again there is a hiccup. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, described it earlier as a disappointment. However, with a complicated triangular series of talks it is inevitable that the road to those talks will not go particularly smoothly at each and every moment.
One strand of this tripartite arrangement would involve the Government and the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and would cover new structures of government in Northern Ireland and the relationship between those two structures and Westminster. The Irish Government would not be directly represented in the talks but would be free to put forward views and proposals. The other two strands would cover relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
Those three strands could not be resolved in isolation. No agreement on any one aspect could be reached until all parties were finally satisfied with the outcome as a whole. Clearly, such an outcome would also have profound implications for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and both ourselves and the Irish Government have recognised that.

609
I take issue just slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, which by the look on his face does not greatly surprise him. He attributed various motives to various people on the political scene in Northern Ireland. I remind him of the headline in the Irish Times yesterday—yesterday, of course, being July 12th, the day of the annual marches of the Orangemen. That headline stated:
"Irishmen rally to Brooke".
Under the headline there is a report that all the major speakers at the 18 rallies in the North expressed confidence in the progress of my right honourable friend's initiative. I see that as very significant indeed. I hope and trust that that confidence will be maintained.
The other major point to come out of this afternoon's debate concerned the second report of SACHR. In my opening speech I welcomed the report which is a careful, thorough and valuable study of a matter of major importance. I also said that the Government were grateful to the commission for the considerable effort which has been devoted to the report's preparation. The importance of the subject and e detailed nature of the commission's recommendations are such that the report deserves very careful consideration. No conclusions can be reached until that consideration is complete. The consideration will need to take account of any comments made on its recommendations and it will be open for anyone—literally anyone—to submit such comments.
When therefore will we respond to that report? As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, it makes 84 recommendations. I can tell him that a number of the issues raised were already under consideration by the time till; report was printed. Some obviously have implications for legislation in Britain and others have constitutional implications which require careful study before firm conclusions can be reached. My right honourable friend will meet the commission later in the year, but it is too early to say now when it will be possible to respond to all the commission's recommendations. I certainly doubt that it will be by that time.
Last but by no means least, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I most certainly accede to his wish in conveying to the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary the grateful thanks and the best wishes of the whole House to all members of the RUC in this terribly difficult role to which, alas, they are assigned. They carry it out with bravery and dignity and, generally speaking, the respect of all Northern Ireland. It is now appropriate for me to ask the House to approve the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Slaughter of Animals (Humane Conditions) Regulations 1990 Slaughter of Animals (Humane Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 Slaughter of Poultry (Humane Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
3.15 pm
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations [S.I. 1990 No. 1242], laid before the House on 14th June, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations [S.I. 1990 No. 1240], laid before the House on 14th June; and an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations [S.I. 1990 No. 1243], laid before the House on 14th June, be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the three Prayers standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I shall have to curtail my remarks very considerably for the convenience of all concerned, disappointed though I am that we are considering these three statutory instruments, which are complex, distressing and important, after having waited so long for their introduction. However, the best news on animals this week is not that there is any great progress to report but that the Church of England Synod decided last weekend to readdress itself to the question of the relations between human mankind and the animal kingdom. I think that that is overdue in all Churches. I believe that public opinion will be very insistent as time goes on that we should be clearer about our relations with the animal kingdom.
However, I shall not trespass this afternoon on the time of the House to deal with any questions of principle, or moral, political or constitutional questions, relating to animal welfare. Nevertheless, we are bound to refer to what is called "religious slaughter" because the statutory instruments deal with improvements in animal welfare in respect of the practices of Jews and Moslems in their slaughter of animals.
I cannot say that I am particularly inspired by the fact that we have had a week which started with religious broadcasting and ended with religious slaughter. Sometimes I think that we are becoming too preoccupied with religion in this House.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord realises that there is another point of view in that respect.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Oh dear! I have only just started. Please may I continue? In fact, I am so dispirited that I feel I could even pack up and get out.

611
I should like to say a few words about the course of these statutory instruments and how they come to be presented to the House this afternoon. These instruments have been 10 years on the way. They began in 1979 when some of us went to see the now noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, when he was chairman of the Conservative Party. We persuaded him to put animal welfare in the Conservative Party manifesto for the 1979 election.
One of the changes which we secured at that time was the upgrading of an advisory committee on animal welfare to the Ministry of Agriculture which then existed. It was upgraded to what it now is; namely, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, with a status that it never had before, but still without the authority of a fully-fledged advisory body for such an important matter. That was before 1986 when we established a new kind of statutory committee in connection with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That committee is not a hireling of the Minister. It has a status of its own. The FAWC should be uprated to the same status as the Animal Procedures Committee under the 1986 Act or it will be difficult to continue to persuade members of the professions and other interests to serve on a body which is so shabbily treated. I said earlier this week that advisory committees are shabbily treated because they are all expedients. Many of them are just charades. The reality of their advice is never impressed upon Ministers under our existing system.
The statutory instruments before us contain nothing like the full recommendations of the FAWC. There is no suitable forum where this matter can be gone over in detail with the attention that is needed. It is disappointing for some members of the FAWC to spend so much time and to go through such disagreeable experiences in the interests of what they consider to be their public duty towards animals.
A woman member of the FAWC, Mrs. Ruth Harrison, was a member of a group that dealt with two subjects included in the statutory instruments—red meat slaughter and religious slaughter. Any woman who trails around slaughter-houses, as she had to, to see what goes on so as to provide a report on both subjects, for the first time, as completely impartial and independent as it was in connection with these matters, shows a devotion that should be rewarded far more adequately than eventually has been the case.
As I said, I shall not say anything about principles except that one day sooner or later—I believe sooner rather than later—we shall have to decide, as a matter of constitutional principle, whether our laws relating to cruelty to animals shall apply universally throughout the land to all people who deal with animals, no matter what their religion, creed, nationality or activities. The standards applied by law to safeguard animals from unnecessary cruelty should not be open to variation to suit religious practices or beliefs but should leave the animals free under the law to enjoy its full protection. I leave the subject there.
612
I come to the FAWC report. I am afraid that I must start with the recommendations that we are asked to accept in connection with slaughter by religious methods. The change for which the regulations provide—the phasing out of what is generally called the revolving casting pen under the Jewish method of slaughter and its replacement by an upright pen—is a marked improvement. There has been much public concern about the way in which, under the Jewish procedure, the animal is revolved and turned upside down and its throat is cut while it is on its back, no doubt struggling and in great distress. Now, after 1992, we are to have a pen which allows the animal to stand upright. It will be slaughtered from that position.
I am glad that this change is fully approved by a study that has been undertaken and published quite recently by the Veterinary Record. On 26th May this year, that journal deals with stress reactions of cattle undergoing ritual slaughter using two methods of restraint. Having read it carefully, I feel that it justifies the change and will be a marked improvement for the animals. It does not interfere with the main conditions for Jewish slaughter. Within the principles of the scheme, the animals will be somewhat better treated than they were.
Another point in connection with the Jewish methods of slaughter which seems to be open to some doubt or difficulty is what kind of process the slaughter is to be. The Farm Animal Welfare Council stated in paragraph 71 of its report:
"We observe that the 'single transverse cut' (often described as one clean cut) demanded by the Jews … means in practice a backwards and forwards stroke. On one occasion we observed a Jewish slaughterman make as many as seven backwards and forwards strokes with the knife, using a sawing action which was clearly in contravention of the Shochet's training. Indeed with both Jewish and Muslim slaughter the requirement for a single incision is open to different interpretation. Our observations suggest that the current procedure is in practice a single uninterrupted backwards and forwards motion".
The regulations refer to forwards and backwards movements as if they were to proceed for a little while, in which case they would be more in the nature of a sawing than a cutting motion. That point needs to be cleared up. Will the new regulations modify in any way the requirement that there should be this swift and precise cut in the final act of slaughter of the animal?
The regulations contain numerous references to time limits. Presumably some kind of enforcement will be undertaken as regards those time limits. That brings me to the matter of enforcement officers. I believe that in some cases an animal should not be removed and hoisted up for 20 seconds after it has had its throat cut. In other cases 30 seconds must elapse before an animal is hoisted up. Similar conditions apply in the slaughter of poultry and turkeys. The regulations state:
"9. No person shall suspend, or cause or permit to be suspended, any turkey kept in captivity or any other bird so kept for more than 6 minutes in the case of a turkey, or for more than 3 minutes in the case of any other bird".

613
Who will enforce those time limits? Who will be present to ensure that they are adhered to? Everything depends on the time limits.
I have received a report from a wise and experienced enforcement officer in which he states:
"The new Regulation 25(2) seeks to protect animals which have had their throats cut from being shackled and hoisted for 20/30 seconds. This is well-intentioned but quite unenforceable. As slaughtermen are generally paid on headage or bonus it is to their financial advantage to rush animals through the slaughterpen. Anyone who has worked in an abattoir will know that while an inspector stands in the slaughterpen the throughput slows down, and that when he is elsewhere it resumes its usual frenetic pace. Slaughtermen simply will not leave a sheep to bleed undisturbed for 20 seconds unless they are forced to do so by an inspector at their elbow or by some mechanical device. It is not proper to pretend that one has solved a problem by producing regulations which everyone knows are valueless".
That is a serious indictment of the time-keeping system. Unless there is constant supervision, it appears that slackness and slovenliness may creep in. Whether it is a matter of birds or animals, time-keeping is essential. In some cases it appears that 90 seconds must be allowed to elapse before a bird is taken to the scalding tank. In such circumstances enforcement is the clue to the success of these new regulations.
The Minister should be able to assure us that there will be enforcement. If that is not carried out, the same old habits may creep into practice. I finish by saying that probably the greatest amount of cruelty occurs in the slaughter of poultry and turkeys. We have certainly not found the answer to that yet. Turkeys are heavy birds and therefore have special problems. When they are kept in close confinement, their cannibalism is a great problem.
All in all, the draft regulations are improvements, but I am not sure whether they have been worth waiting 10 years for. They cannot represent the end of what we seek to attain in terms of better treatment of our animals. While we have been waiting for these draft regulations to be finally approved, 80 million lambs have been slaughtered in British slaughter houses under the former methods. While we have been waiting for turkeys to be given a squarer deal at the end of their lives millions of Christmas turkeys have gone on the dinner tables of the British people. I hope that the regulations, modest as they are, will be applied strictly and give greater comfort to those of us who are concerned about the production of meat and foodstuffs for our people. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations [S.I. 1990 No. 1242], laid before the House on 14th June; an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations [S.I. 1990 No. 1240], laid before the House on 14th June; and an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations [S.I. 1990 No. 1243], laid before the House on 14th June, be annulled.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.]
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, as the religious head of the community that has been singled out for the special attention of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in the Prayer that he has put before us, I
614
shall presumably be expected by your Lordships to say a few words to explain that we shall under no circumstances ever accept the charge that our method of slaughter is in any way inferior in terms of animal welfare to any other yet devised or in practice anywhere.
I am gratified to hear that the noble Lord is satisfied with some of the improvements effected by the new regulations. I am also able to assure him that any cut made in a sawing fashion, as he described it, is invalid in Jewish law. Therefore, we would disqualify a religious slaughterer who resorted to that method. The noble Lord need not suspect that it is our intention to inflict any such discomfort on the animal being slaughtered.
Since the declared object of his Prayer, as the noble Lord has stated in a newspaper interview, is the eventual abolition of the Jewish religious method of slaughter, or for that matter the Moslem method of slaughter, and not merely the contents of the regulations placed before Parliament by the Minister, perhaps I may be permitted a few words of explanation. Perhaps I may also say a few words in rebuttal of the implied charge that we are guilty, through our long tradition, of applying a method in the preparation of animal food that inflicts unnecessary suffering upon brute creation. My remarks will therefore deal not so much with the new regulations, which we have broadly accepted—we certainly accept them as they stand now—as with the principle of allowing Jews and Moslems their religious freedom to prepare meat foods according to our millenial tradition.
The matter was last raised in this House in a debate on the Slaughter of Animals Bill, a Private Member's Bill presented by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in December 1962. That Bill was later withdrawn. In the debate the late Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, one of the most eminent physicians ever to grace this House, eloquently and with rare erudition refuted the charge that the Jewish method was cruel. After quoting and examining leading scientific opinion, in addition to his own expert judgment, he stated that:
"the available scientific evidence supports [the] conclusion, which is the most recent of those who have gone into the matter with great care, that the method is humane and will almost immediately render the animal unconscious". —[Official Report, 3/12/62; col. 46.]
As have numerous other leading veterinary and medical authorities since then, Lord Cohen asserted quite categorically:
"Shechita"—
which is the technical name for the Jewish method of slaughter—
"is as humane a method as any".
I need not weary your Lordships with all the technical evidence for that view. Two further quotations from Lord Cohen's speech at the time will suffice.
"What are the scientific data? When you cut the throat of an animal … the blood pressure falls off very rapidly. Within four seconds the blood pressure drops in the femoral artery to half what it was before the cut, and that rate of fall means unconsciousness must have occurred earlier".—[Official Report, 3/12/62; col. 43.]

615
He declared further, on the cut itself:
"The cut, as made by the shochet"—
that is the highly trained religious slaughterer—is somewhat similar to the experience of having been
"cut by a razor blade and know of it only when the blood flows; [this] is almost certainly painless".
Then he added:
"I would say that it is certainly painless".—[Official Report, 3/12/62; col. 44.]
Jews need hardly be lectured on the prevention of cruelty to animals. They introduced the whole concept long before any other civilisation or any other faith cared about animal welfare. To inflict any suffering on animals is a religious offence in the Mosaic legislation enshrined in such laws as the obligation to assist an overloaded animal or not to remove chicks or eggs from a nest in the presence of the mother bird, and —better known still—to include domestic animals ("your ox and your ass") among the beneficiaries of the duty to rest from work on the Sabbath, as expressly declared in the Ten Commandments. No wonder that the pioneer of the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was a Jew, by the name of Lewis Gompertz, in 1824 in London.
However, there is something strangely inconsistent in the agitation against the Jewish method of slaughter and the allegation of cruelty. We have never deemed animal welfare more important than human welfare. The Hebrew prophet Hosea denounced the perversity of placing the loving care of animals above the care for humans in the immortal words, "They who slaughter men kiss the calves".
Let us look at a brief history of this sordid inconsistency. At the dawn of man's history there were the first two brothers: Cain and Abel. Abel was a herdsman and brought of the firstlings of his flock as an offering to the Lord. Cain was a vegetarian. He would not touch an animal. He offered of his fruits instead. Yet that same Cain who cared so much for animals did not shrink from killing his own brother in cold blood in history's first recorded murder. Later, at the end of the Book of Genesis, there are the ancient Egyptians who worshipped animals and forced Jacob and his sons to live in the land of Goshen away from the rest of the population because, as is stated:
"all shepherds of flocks are an abomination of Egypt".
Yet, those same Egyptians had no compunction in brutally drowning Hebrew babies at birth and building huge pyramids with slave labour tortured without pity.
In modern times, one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Nazis in Germany after assuming power in early 1933 was to prohibit the Jewish method of slaughter, for they cared deeply about animals. However, that did not prevent them from gassing and incinerating human beings by the million in history's supreme orgy of inhumanity.
Lately, that perversity has begun to blemish society in our own country when supporters of animal liberation, as they call themselves, out of concern for animal welfare, laid bombs to kill human researchers
616
seeking to bring healing to suffering humans by carefully controlled experiments on anaesthetised animals.
I seem to recall that, in our recent debates on embryo experimentation and abortion the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, expressed little concern for embryonic or fetal human life in relation to the expression of concern by many others. I detected a similar indifference to human victims of mass murder and mass torture when the noble Lord referred to the perpetrators of those unspeakable crimes as:
"a few miserable old men over the age of 70 who are probably hard of hearing, have failing sight and are ill".
Shall we have a new ethic in which the care of mice and guinea pigs counts for more than the life and health of humans and in which the pity for arch-criminals is greater than the pity for their victims? We as Jews care profoundly to prevent causing pain to animals, but not to the point of absurdity in which human welfare is ignored or violated. A society which still tolerates the cruelty of battery farming or blood sports, with the agony of the chase and the often slow, writhing death of misfired shots should have more important concerns than the few seconds' interval between a painless cut and the cessation of all consciousness from the brain in the Jewish religious method of slaughter.
We did not seek the regulations, but we understand their intent. As of two days ago, all leading Rabbis supervising Jewish religious slaughter operations in this country unanimously agreed to accept the new regulations as compatible with our religious requirements. On behalf of the entire Jewish community, I must express appreciation to three successive Ministers of Agriculture and their officials for the understanding that they have shown for our religious requirements throughout the prolonged period of negotiations leading to the issuance of the new regulations. The regulations will combine every reasonable care for animal welfare with the freedom to practise our ancestral faith as a heritage which has preserved our people and has helped to bring inspiration to other peoples the world over.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for his Prayers against the orders because it gives us an opportunity to discuss them—an opportunity which I shall take briefly in view of the lateness of the hour and of the succeeding business.
We on this side of the House acknowledge that the Farm Animal Welfare Council's reputation has been rising almost every year since it was established in 1979. In view of that, we are concerned that the council's recommendations about slaughtering have not been accepted in their entirety by the Government.
My first question is: what reasons are there for not accepting 33 out of the 51 recommendations which the Farm Animal Welfare Council made for red meat? Was their rejection due to the fact that in general our slaughterhouses are not capable of implementing all 51 recommendations? If not, what if any are the deficiencies in the facilities which now exist in slaughterhouses?

617
We are aware that there was an excess capacity in slaughterhouse facilities in England and Wales even before the present decline in beef sales. Do we now have a position in which Her Majesty's Government are obliged to hold back on certain slaughtering measures because in certain cases the present facilities are not equal to modern requirements?
Can the Minister say what consultations on the council's proposals took place with employers and trade unions represented on the joint industrial council for slaughtering workers? We regard that to be most important in view of the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on welfare training in general and the headage basis of remuneration which is at the heart of the JIC's proposals for this category of workers.
How will proposals in SIs 1240 and 1242 meet with the Ministry's current remit to the Tyrrell Committee on slaughtering practice under the BSE investigation procedures? As regards religious slaughtering methods, were there good reasons for not accepting labelling requirements? The consumers' right to know in the description of food is now regarded as paramount. The most recent example concerns tuna fish in our supermarkets. Labelling now shows the fishing method by which the fish were caught; that is to say not by nets which are capable of catching dolphins and similar species. It may be that Her Majesty's Government's answer on labelling is that they must await the Community directive; one contrasts that position with that of food irradiation. In that case the Ministry were not prepared to wait for Brussels and offered a steady resistance on that important aspect throughout the passage of the Food Safety Bill. I accept that stunning before slaughter on religious grounds is not acceptable to persons of the Jewish faith. In our opinion that makes it essential that the Shechita technique achieves what its advocates claim. Is there independent monitoring of that by veterinary surgeons?
We believe that a guidance circular should accompany the regulations. Their complexity requires nothing less. As we are now amending legislation dating from the 1950s, we believe that the Government should find time for new legislation to update and consolidate. Do the Government accept that there is now a need for new legislation on this important question? We accept all three orders but in our opinion too much concerning slaughtering and slaughterhousing remains unresolved.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the regulations before us today are the fruits of many years' work by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the many organisations which have contributed to the development of policy on animal welfare. The welfare of animals is a subject which raises an emotional response in all of us. I am sure that there is no Member of your Lordships' House who is not in favour of improving the welfare of farm animals. The regulations before us will greatly improve the welfare of farm animals at slaughter. I am equally sure that, although there may be points in the regulations which
618
remain controversial, there is no noble Lord here today who would like to see them annulled in their entirety and thus lose the benefits of the work done for a further period.
The regulations replace the Slaughter of Animals (Prevention of Cruelty) Regulations 1958 and the equivalent Scottish regulations, and amend the Slaughter of Poultry (Humane Conditions) Regulations 1984. They implement 28 recommendations from the independent Farm Animal Welfare Council made in two separate reports—the report on the Welfare of Livestock (Red Meat Animals) at the time of Slaughter and the Welfare of Livestock when Slaughtered by Religious Methods.
The regulations form an integral part of the Government's initiative to improve the welfare of farm animals both here and in Europe of which your Lordships will be aware. At home, we intend to press on with the implementation of those FAWC recommendations, already accepted by the Government which can be implemented in secondary legislation or codes of practice. We have issued for consultation draft regulations on the licensing of poultry slaughtermen and a draft code of practice on the humane treatment of poultry awaiting and during slaughter. And when parliamentary time permits we intend to introduce the primary legislation needed to enable implementation of the other accepted FAWC recommendations.
Some say that these regulations are too little too late—a familiar complaint to any government anywhere. Others say that the regulations go too far, particularly in regulating religious slaughter. Yet everyone who complains will say that he or she is in favour of improvements in animal welfare. It is because of these differing but all sincere strongly-held views that the regulations have been so long in gestation.
Let me put the regulations in perspective. The Slaughter of Animals (Humane Conditions) Regulations safeguard the welfare of livestock from the time they enter a lairage, slaughterhouse or knacker's yard until they are slaughtered. They lay down conditions on how the animals are to be treated while awaiting slaughter, conditions concerning the stunning of animals and the slaughter itself. Important changes include the phasing in of head restraints for cattle to improve the accuracy of stunning, the prohibition of hitting, prodding or handling of animals in a manner likely to cause unnecessary pain or distress (which would include abuse by plastic piping or sticks), the phasing in of devices to prevent stunning equipment delivering insufficient current and the prohibition of stunning most animals in the poll position. They require the phasing out of the casting pen for the slaughter of cattle by the Jewish or Moslem methods and the introduction of upright pens to be individually approved by Ministers. They specify requirements for the cut used to slaughter animals. A full list of the main changes is in the explantory note to the regulations.

619
The Slaughter of Poultry (Humane Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations introduce a general requirement, previously missing, prohibiting handling of birds awaiting slaughter in a manner which causes pain or distress. They extend certain safeguards, previously covering only domestic fowl and turkeys, to other types of poultry. They lay down conditions for housing birds offered for sale before being slaughtered in the premises and specify requirements for the cut used to slaughter birds by religious methods.
Most of the regulations are welcomed on all sides. However, it is distressing that those concerning specifically Jewish and Moslem methods of slaughter have given rise to such disagreement. The Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that we repeal the legislation which allows the slaughter without stunning of livestock by Jews and Moslems. After much consultation and heart searching, the Government decided not to accept FAWC's recommendation. The issue involves a fundamental matter of religious belief to many and we have accepted the importance they attach to the issue. The Government believe that people must be allowed the freedom to practise this aspect of their religion. We are not alone in this and in particular most European countries permit religious slaughter without previous stunning. The European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter also recognises the rights of religious communities not to stun livestock.
Although we are not requiring animals to be stunned before religious slaughter, we have introduced provisions for improving procedures for such slaughter. The provision which at the end of two years prohibits the casting of cattle and makes the use of upright pens for the slaughter of cattle mandatory is a very important welfare advance.
I mentioned earlier the extensive consultations which have gone into the making of these regulations. I should like to thank all concerned for their contributions. In particular I should like to thank those members of the Jewish community, including the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who made a powerful and moving speech. I should also like to thank the Moslem communities who have participated so constructively and who have accepted changes in the legislation relating to their slaughter practices.
Perhaps I could move on to various points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, raised the matter of religious slaughter causing the animal pain. There is no conclusive proof on that issue. There are different views regarding the likelihood of pain being caused. Veterinary advisers are not convinced that slaughter is painful if properly carried out. The FAWC also accept that there is uncertainty in this regard. However, there is common ground that there is a risk of pain if the cut is badly made. The new measures now in force are designed to prevent that occurring.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to the single reciprocal cut. The religious authorities have made it clear that while the single reciprocal cut is
620
what the slaughterman should always try to achieve, it is not possible in every case—for example, because of the tough skins of large animals—and a legislative requirement to that effect would not only impede the methods of slaughter but could also be detrimental to the welfare of the animals. We are confident that the additional measures introduced will provide adequate safeguards against any malpractices.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned the piece rate payment system which he suggested encouraged bad welfare. It is the responsibility of all involved to ensure that the requirements of welfare legislation are observed irrespective of the method of payment in abattoirs.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, also mentioned hoisting time limits. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing legislation. When parliamentary time permits primary legislation will be introduced to require them to designate officials who will be responsible. We are confident that enforcement authorities will take their responsibilities seriously, and MAFF veterinary staff will visit slaughterhouses.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, referred to the implementation of the FAWC red meat and religious slaughter reports. The noble Lord makes the point that the Government have implemented few of the 51 recommendations suitable for implementation by legislation made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council in its report on red meat animals. In response to that report the Government gave an undertaking to implement 31 of the recommendations by legislation; of those, 18 have now been implemented and primary legislation is required before the remainder can be implemented. Guidance already issued to local authorities on the new regulations implements a further 12 recommendations, and work on research recommended by the council has been under way for a number of years. We intend to implement most of the remaining recommendations in the code of practice, with which we are pressing ahead, and will issue pending primary powers to give the code statutory backing.
Regarding the council's religious slaughter report, all the recommendations accepted by the Government, except for three, are implemented by the new regulations. Two of the remaining ones are dependent on primary legislation, and one will be implemented in the proposed new regulations on the licensing of poultry slaughtermen which the Government plan to lay before Parliament shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, raised the point that the Government should accept the FAWC recommendation that meat from animals slaughtered by religious methods should be clearly labelled. The recommendation of the FAWC to require the labelling of meat from animals slaughtered by religious methods raises difficult issues for administration and enforcement. The Food Advisory Committee is currently undertaking a general review of food labelling and is considering the question of additional labelling to indicate farming practices and method of slaughter. Religious slaughter is one of the matters that the committee will address. The European

621
Commission is also working on proposals for the protection of animals for slaughter which include a requirement to label meat from animals slaughtered by religious methods. The Commission's formal proposal has yet to be put to the Council of Ministers.
There regulations, which came into force on 5th July, will provide substantial additional safeguards for livestock at the time of slaughter. This subject is a matter of increasing public awareness and concern. The Government believe that the measures introduced go a long way towards meeting public expectations in this area. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will not press this matter to a vote.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the Chief Rabbi in particular for attending our debate this afternoon and so comprehensively and forthrightly stating the case of the Jewish community and its methods of slaughter. Much of what he said went far beyond the terms of reference that I set for myself on what I regard as the constitutional question of the edict of the law covering all citizens, and so on; but that is not a matter I wish to pursue this afternoon.
I am sorry if the Chief Rabbi obtained any impression that I was, so to speak, concentrating on the Jews in this respect. As a matter of fact, a far bigger worry is the Moslem method of slaughter because it is now so much more widespread. However, that is not covered in the regulations in the same way as the detail of the Jewish method, and that is why I had to concentrate on that. All the statutory instruments in regard to religious slaughter are pretty well concentrated on the changes being made in the Jewish methods.
Other opportunities will no doubt occur for pursuing these matters but animals have such a low profile in the affairs of Parliament—unless you happen to be a dog!—that probably we shall not be coming back to this subject for some time to come. However, I am grateful to all concerned and I beg leave to withdraw my Prayer on these Motions.
Motion for annulment, by leave, withdrawn.

Birmingham Prison
4.7 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take following the report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on HM Prison, Birmingham.
The noble Lord said: In asking this Question, I express my gratitude to the noble Earl for attending the House to reply to the debate. He has had a pretty tough week; he will have a pretty tough week next week and indeed the week after. I acknowledge that all the more so because I can remember from my own experience what one feels like at this time in the parliamentary Session.
I have indicated on previous occasions, most recently during a debate on a report on Wandsworth prison our sense of gratitude to the chief inspector for the excellent work done by the inspectorate in its
622
regular reports on conditions in prisons. Judge Tumim's report on Birmingham prison is an admirable document. It is clear, lucid and frank. It congratulates those concerned on the great deal of excellent work that is being carried out at the prison. I take one example. It is most encouraging to read of the prison's good record on race relations. After the criticisms in Judge Tumim's report on Wandsworth, it is right to acknowledge our satisfaction when we read in paragraph 3.47 of the report:
"We concluded that race relations were good with frank and open discussion of all outstanding issues".
There is a great deal of praise elsewhere in the report for the work of the governor and his staff. Nothing would be worse than for us only to discuss the areas of criticism in these reports and to ignore the dedicated work that is performed by so many members of the prison service, working as they do in prisons such as Birmingham, with its squalid conditions.
Squalor. That single word summarises what Judge Tumim had to say about Winson Green. Over half the inmate population was living three to a cell, and 177 of those were remand prisoners—people not convicted of a criminal offence yet living in intolerable conditions. The majority of prisoners spent more than 20 hours in their cells and some had no exercise at all. Yet despite these conditions the majority had only one shower a week even when more could have been permitted. The prison was brought into commission fairly soon after the accession to the throne of Queen Victoria. It has been infested, as we read in the report, with cockroaches, rats, feral cats and pigeons. In addition, there is the obscene practice of slopping out.
The noble Earl told us on 29th June of the programme of improvements which is in hand and which is now being carried out at the prison. No doubt we shall hear more about that this afternoon. I wish to ask him a number of additional questions about the chief inspector's report and I have given him notice of these questions. First, what is to be done about the bath house adjacent to A wing? As the noble Earl will recall, there is infestation here by rats and cockroaches. We understand that it is to be refurbished and that work will begin next month. It is due to be finished in March of next year. I ask the noble Earl this question. Given the deplorable conditions described in the report concerning the bath house, can we really tolerate the continuance of that situation until March of next year? If that is accepted, what temporary measures are proposed to deal with the criticisms contained in the report?
Secondly, what is to be done about association? The chief inspector found that in B wing of Birmingham Prison convicted inmates could have two hours of association on four evenings in the week. Yet their number was limited to 20 at any one time and, therefore, a rota system was in operation. With up to 100 inmates on each landing, the opportunity for association comes round once in every four to five weeks. What is going to be done about that? What about the other wings in the prison? In particular I refer to paragraph 3.31 of the report. Sometimes there

623
is no association at all. In these wings there is only the opportunity to see a video film in the chapel at weekends. The chief inspector recommends that association should be provided for remand inmates and the convicted unemployed and that evening and weekend association should be available on all wings. I shall be grateful if the noble Earl can tell us whether these recommendations are accepted and, if so, when they are to be implemented.
Thirdly, there is the question of adjudications. Regional offices will come to an end later this year and they no longer check adjudications. No separate check has been substituted at the prison. The name of the substituting adjudicator was missing in several sets of papers and on two occasions improper punishment awards had been recorded. In other instances, witnesses had not been dealt with properly. Defendants were not asked as a matter of course and as they should have been whether they wanted to put questions to the charging officer or to other witnesses. As the noble Earl will recognise, these are important questions. I shall be grateful to know what action is going to be taken to deal with these criticisms.
Fourthly, there is the question of parole. As the noble Earl will recall, the Parole Board itself has indicated its concern on this matter. In paragraph 3.53 of the chief inspector's report he says that a small cross-section of parole cases were examined. Two Section 60 men—offenders who are serving periods of imprisonment of two years or more —were recommended for release on 23rd March last year, with their parole eligibility dates being in late May. Yet no reply had been received from the noble Earl's department by the first week of September, more than three months after the men's parole eligibility dates. It is extraordinary after all the complaints about delays in the parole system and at a time when we are complaining on all sides of the House about the number of people in custody that delays of this kind are still being experienced. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give us some explanation of why this happened and what has been done to deal with the situation.
A number of other important issues are dealt with in the report. There are the criticisms of the hospital, the need for far higher priority to be given to the provision of a new kitchen and the discontinuance of the research functions of the psychology unit—at a time when we are worried about the substantial number of people with mental problems who are being held in prison. There is also the question of the sad inadequacies of the education department. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us what action the department is proposing to take to deal with these criticisms.
I propose to conclude, as I began, by dealing with the squalid conditions in which both inmates and staff are having to live at Birmingham Prison. It may be said that there is nothing new in these criticisms and that we have had them in report after report from the chief inspector. That, unhappily, is entirely true. In his report last year on Standford Hill Prison he said:
624
"The kitchen and dining hall are infested with vermin, cockroaches and birds … If the kitchen and dining hall were serving an institution other than a prison, we would expect immediate closure for rebuilding or refurbishing".
The chief inspector added:
"In our opinion only the protection of the Crown immunity prevents this kitchen from being closed".
Similar severe criticisms have been set out in his reports on other prisons—on Maidstone, on Pucklechurch, on Albany, on Hollesley Bay, on Dartmoor, on Medomsley, on Stocken and on Blundeston. Each had conditions which would not have been tolerated if they had existed in the private sector. Parts of each of those establishments would have been closed and there would probably—almost inevitably—have been prosecutions.
When I suggested to the noble Earl on 29th June that as long as Crown immunity continued so would degrading conditions in some of our prisons, he told me that I had come to,
"an astonishingly incorrect view".
Later he said:
"The noble Lord knows perfectly well that Crown immunity does not mean that the Crown does not try to keep up correct standards".—[Official Report, 29/6/90; col. 1818.]
All I would say to that is that if the Government are doing their best to keep up correct standards they do not appear to be spectacularly successful. Until 1984, when 19 patients died in a food poisoning outbreak at Stanley Royd Hospital in Wakefield, the DHSS strongly resisted the removal of Crown immunity from hospitals. As a result of that tragedy, immunity was lifted in 1986. I do not doubt for a moment that hospital administrators did all they could to maintain decent standards before 1986, just as members of the prison service are attempting to do at present so far as concerns the prison department establishments.
However, the blunt reality is that if the Government were to announce that as from a particular date—be it 1992, 1993 or even 1994—Crown immunity in prisons would be abandoned, I believe that it would lead to a dramatic improvement in the standards of our prisons. I say that for one very obvious reason. Ministers of this and, indeed, any other government would take considerable care to ensure that they did not find themselves being prosecuted. That is the relevance as regards the Crown immunity issue.
I am of course aware that a great deal is being done in regard to improvements. I am aware of the scale of the improvement programmes and the noble Earl does not have to convince us of that fact. I am also aware of the substantial size of the prison building programme. All those improvements are to be welcomed, as is Section 54 of the Food Safety Act 1990 as a result of which after April 1992 environmental health officers will be given some authority in connection with prison kitchens. However, Crown immunity will still remain after 1992. I believe that it should go. It must go in regard to prison kitchens. Additionally, there must be legal sanctions for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in prisons.

625
I believe that the withdrawal of Crown immunity would lead to a substantial switch of resources from new building to a greatly enhanced refurbishment programme for existing prisons. It is clear that this should now be our first priority. We just cannot tolerate men and women being kept in conditions of the kind that I have described year after year, and these matters being drawn to our attention by successive reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons.
In conclusion perhaps I may remind the noble Earl of what the chief inspector said in his annual report of 1988 about one aspect of Crown immunity. He said:
"The Government continues to maintain its view that Crown immunity should remain in force in respect of prison kitchens… The thoroughness and high standards of the inspections of prison kitchens that do take place is not in doubt. But they are useless without sanctions to enforce action on the recommended improvements. The unpalatable truth is that in many establishments food is prepared in disgraceful conditions better suited to another century, and inmates and staff are liable, not only to the ordinary hazards of kitchen working—hot fat, sharp knives and other heavy equipment—but also to the risks of slippery floors, pervading dirt, pest infestation, poorly maintained machinery and, often, totally inadequate washing facilities".
That deals with only one aspect of Crown immunity. I have mentioned the others. The inspector's report on Birmingham Prison does indeed touch upon some of those other matters which are covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I hope that as a result of this debate and the chief inspector's report on Birmingham Prison, and his annual reports, that we shall receive some message of hope from the noble Earl today.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I, and the rest of your Lordships are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for providing us with an opportunity to touch upon a number of major issues concerning the prison service which go beyond Birmingham. Having followed the noble Lord, at a distance, to the Home Office, I am well aware of the difficulties that the prison service faces and the way that those difficulties have been heightened by the recent outbreak of violence at Strangeways. I should perhaps add that the prison at Birmingham was one of those I visited during my three years of responsibility, and that I visited it at a time when there was considerable overcrowding and in weather at least as hot as that today, which had lasted, if I remember correctly, for some weeks.
It was the overcrowding that concerned me then. It is the overcrowding that concerns me now. Your Lordships are sufficiently familiar, I am sure, with its consequences in terms of regime, morale and conditions generally. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, illustrated that point well. I intend therefore to make only one comment on its internal aspects before turning to a possible external cure.
When I made my visit about six years ago, I wanted to see how the younger inmates in particular—many of them on remand—were coping with hot and congested conditions. I therefore asked many of them whether, if modern, uncrowded prison accommodation with a reasonable regime and time out of the cell
626
became available to them at a distance—say 20 to 40 miles—they would wish to move there. To my considerable surprise, and with one exception only, they all said, "No". They wanted to stay in town where they could have their visits. I hope that the Minister and the department will bear in mind that reaction and perhaps test it when considering the location of future local prison accommodation.
That reaction does not diminish my concern, or the concern that we all properly feel, on reading the report. I am in no doubt about the commitment of the Government and the department to cracking the overcrowding problem. Policies developed since 1979 have resulted in truly massive programmes of building and refurbishment and even in some reduction in rates of custodial sentencing, notably among young offenders, which we must all welcome. I remain concerned at the phenomenon of what I call unnecessary imprisonment.
I had not served long in the Home Office when I recognised, first, that the imprisonment of some people is a necessity; and, secondly, that where it is not a necessity it should at all costs be avoided. Imprisonment promotes reoffending; it is, almost without exception, the most expensive response to crime known to the human race; and its consequences focus on places such as Birmingham.
It was for that reason that I determined that when I was free to do so I should try to do something to divert people from offending and to provide alternative, more constructive treatment for those who did offend and who were then convicted of custodial offences. That leads me to declare my second interest in today's debate as chairman of the Intermediate Treatment Fund and a member of the council of the Rainer Foundation.
It seems appropriate to spend just a moment of our consideration of conditions in the Birmingham prison on questions of what can be done outside Birmingham to diminish the demand for places in it, and thus to improve the regime and other conditions. The same of course applies to all local and Category B prisons. The work of the two bodies to which I have referred has that object as a principle and, in the case of the Intermediate Treatment Fund, as an overriding priority.
My chief concern remains for the young, merely because in the majority of cases the first step into criminality leads almost inevitably to a second, a third and a long journey. That is not altogether surprising: children and young adults spend a great deal of their time trying to discover who they are; by what sort of signs they should be recognised by others; what trademarks they need to secure to earn the recognition and respect of their peers. As parents we have seen that in our children and have given them our closest attention as they try to establish their own identities at school.
The unformed adolescent has no simple statement to make about who he is. He is just someone else's classmate and someone else's child. If he is noticed, it is probably without interest, and certainly without

627
respect, except from a favoured few; but let him be convicted of a crime and he is halfway to an identity. Let him do time and he knows damned well who he is. He can read it in the eyes of most of the people he talks to. He is a hard man, someone to be reckoned with, not to be taken lightly. He has achieved a status and a role and in 60 per cent. of cases at least he will act it out and maintain it until he reaches early middle age, the age of "criminal burn out", as I have heard it called.
That self-stereotyping lays waste to the soul, ruins careers, destroys relationships and must be avoided wherever possible. There are ways in which it can be avoided and I wish to welcome the efforts which Her Majesty's Government are putting into them. They are having an effect. Figures published in the Home Office statistical bulletin this week show a drop of no less than 32 per cent. in imprisoned young offenders under 17 between 1988 and 1989 nationally. That is part of a steady and creditable fall since 1981 when 7,700 young offenders were sent to custodial institutions compared with 2,200 last year.
The issue remains a major one and exceedingly relevant to Birmingham. I wish to commend the work of the chief inspector on this. In paragraph 3.30 of his report, he records a throughput of no less than 849 young offenders, more widely defined than in the bulletin, at that prison between January and September 1989. That gives an annual rate of over 1,100 young offenders in that prison alone.
I repeat that there are a number of means of avoiding unnecessary imprisonment. My purpose in speaking is simply to ask my noble friend and his right honourable and honourable friends to pursue a particular group vigorously. By so doing they can save the taxpayer large amounts of money and preserve countless families from sorrow and distress.
The reasons for the progress already made with young offenders are well documented. They include the expansion of cautioning, the development of a wide range of crime prevention projects based in the local community and the provision of intensive, focused alternative to custody programmes for the more serious young offenders. My own organisation has made its not insignificant contribution to this success. Over the past 12 years the Intermediate Treatment Fund has made over 1,250 awards to voluntary organisations working with young people at risk of involvement in crime in their community. It has channelled £3½ million of government money to this area in relatively small amounts. In addition, the fund has attracted a broadly similar sum from other charitable trusts for these or similar projects. The Minister of State, Mr. John Patten, recently visited one such project in Durham where he expressed his approval. The project has involved the probation service, the police, the county council and national and local voluntary bodies in providing programmes that have contributed to a striking 85 per cent. fall in prison sentences and care orders for young offenders since 1986. That is a notable achievement. Promotion of co-operative efforts of this kind between statutory
628
and voluntary bodies is a highly effective way of increasing the impact of our attack on levels of offending.
The 1,250 projects supported by the fund included almost half of all the projects started under the Department of Health and Social Security, as it then was, IT initiative in 1983. These and similar projects have achieved the first and essential preliminary to reducing the prison population. They have successfully gained the confidence of magistrates that they can provide effective controlling programmes for the more serious young offender. They recognise that such programmes confront the young person—much more effectively than can prison—with the consequences of his or her criminality and that they can successfully address the wider issues which have led to crime. We cannot reduce the prison population unless we convince the sentencers that there exists something more constructive to which the offender can be sentenced. That is the object of the exercise.
To give just three examples set up by the Rainer Foundation, the Well Hall Project in Greenwich should be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. That project successfully reduced custodial sentencing of young offenders by two-thirds from 36 a year to 12 a year between 1983 and 1986 by providing social skills training programmes that focused on the offence committed. The Rainer project in Southend achieved similar results and the Woodlands project in Basingstoke helped to set up the notion of a "custody free zone" for young offenders.
The response of the Rainer Foundation to the Home Office White Paper Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, pays particular attention to the disproportionate sentencing of black young people to custody, and the need for support to be given to black voluntary organisations to develop services in the community for black offenders. We welcome the Home Office funding of voluntary organisations working with young adult offenders. The foundation has established two projects in Wolverhampton and Dudley to cater specifically for black offenders.
There is evidence to show that in each of the projects I have mentioned the young people sentenced to programmes had similar offence patterns and similar histories to those sentenced to custody, yet they produced either similar or lower re-offending rates and the re-offending itself was less serious and less frequent than before involvement in the project. The cost both to society and to the Exchequer was significantly less. Therefore whether it is the Exchequer or the community that my right honourable friend wishes to assist, the message is equally clear.
This kind of treatment of offenders which addresses the whole range of young adult and adult offending is surely a more humanitarian, a more cost-effective and a more effective means of coping with crime than sending prisoners of any age to endure the conditions described in the report that is now before us. Admittedly one cannot solve problems by throwing money at them, but the charm of what I am talking about is that it involves throwing less money at the

629
problem. In any case there is more to this matter than just giving grants to the voluntary sector. The Intermediate Treatment Fund for instance is not simply a grant-giving body as over half of its time is spent stimulating, developing and advising the voluntary sector and, more importantly perhaps in some respects, in bringing statutory services and voluntary groups together.
Last year the fund paid particular attention to the North West of England. It organised a consultation between the voluntary and statutory services which has led to the development of a wide range of initiatives intended to provide magistrates with credible new sentencing options in that community. The fund is about to undertake a similar exercise in Cleveland. The Rainer Foundation has also taken an active role in supporting the Government's efforts to involve the voluntary sector in work with this age group. That is recognised in paragraph 2.17 of the Home Office discussion paper on partnership. This paper recognised the contributions made by the voluntary sector to reductions in crime. It states:
"Voluntary organisations are already heavily involved in the delivery of programmes for juveniles by their existing involvement in intermediate treatment schemes, the purpose of which is to reduce the use of custody for young people. Such involvement is funded by the Department of Health or local authority social services. The Government would want to maintain that involvement".
At a time when the future of some government sources of funding is in doubt, that is an important commitment and one which I and my colleagues welcome and will wish to discuss with the colleagues of my noble friend in due course.
That discussion paper has come to be referred to as the peppermint paper because of the narrow range of colours now available for discussion papers. It is of critical interest to many of us in the voluntary field. I warmly welcome the Government's determination to make consideration of it a formal and effective process in what. I think is a new and imaginative way. The voluntary sector has responded with a steering group drawn from the Central Council of Probation Committees, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, NACRO and the Rainer Foundation. The group is planning four regional conferences and these are to be funded by the Government. They will address the issues raised in the paper. I have just been asked to chair the first conference to be held in London on 10th October. I look forward with great interest and pleasure to doing so. Those who are interested in this matter and who read the columns of Hansard may wish to note the dates of the other conferences. They will be held in Leeds on 9th November, in Birmingham on 6th December and in London on 16th January.
I do not wish to anticipate the conclusions of those conferences, but they will certainly be looking at the involvement of the voluntary sector, in partnership with the probation and social services, in dealing with offenders in the community instead of in prison—and instead of in Birmingham Prison. That is an alternative to custody and is to be desired for all the reasons I have given. I hope that my noble friend and
630
his honourable and right honourable friends will read the conclusions with care. As they do so, will they please keep constantly at the back of their minds the grim picture of Birmingham Prison drawn by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons in the report? For many thousands of young people that will be the alternative.
4.40 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Harris, not for the first time, and to endorse his general line of argument. He has given much more thought than I have to the abolition of Crown immunity, but I am sure that he is absolutely right. I shall take more trouble over that subject in future. I am also very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and to welcome him back to our discussions of penal matters in which he played so distinguished a part when he was a Minister.
I shall not speak for long because the main points have already been made very clearly by the two previous speakers and it is late in the day. However, I should like to make one point that has not been mentioned and which may not be known to everybody. I understand that Judge Tumim, whom we must all wish to praise, is to be closely associated with the recommendations of the Woolf Report. I understand that he is to be jointly responsible for them. I cannot imagine any more helpful development.
I had the pleasure of interviewing him not long ago in connection with a book that I am writing. He has a very incisive appreciation of the situation and very clear views. He tells me that he would like to see remand prisoners dealt with in secure hostels. For the rest, except in extreme cases of terrorism for example, he would like training to be paramount. Training is his signature tune. We all know how far we are from that position. We must all be glad that he will be closely involved.
I shall not go over the ground that has been covered so well, though briefly, by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. However, I believe that there is one point that he did not mention which is raised in the preface to the Tumim Report, namely:
"The overall result is vastly depressing at this date in an important institution set in a great city".
That is what we are discussing this afternoon—a report which is vastly depressing. He goes on to say:
"This state of affairs should be acceptable to no-one".
I do not believe that there is any other feature of British life today which presents such a disgraceful picture. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested that if those who were responsible could be prosecuted they would be prosecuted. That may be true. It is a shocking picture, and it is worth asking ourselves why that should be. Why, in 1990, with all our good intentions, these earnest debates and a high-minded Minister—I would not say that all of the Government are high-minded, but this Minister is and other Ministers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, have been—is there this terrible state of affairs?

631
It is possible to say that it is all due to the increase in crime. Certainly over the last half century there has been a remorseless increase in crime. When I first visited prisons in Oxford 50 or more years ago there were 10,000 people in prison. Now we have touched 50,000, although it is a little less now, and according to a Home Office estimate—a forecast which has not yet been repudiated—there may well be more than 60,000 people in prison before the end of the 'nineties. That is the situation that we face. It is true that it could not happen if there was not a great deal of crime, but compared with other countries where crime is neither better nor worse, on the whole we send more people to prison. We have more people in prison because the judges send them to prison.
If I may say so, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in his very constructive approach to the voluntary side—I have been associated with youth work in various forms all my life—still did not tackle the matter of the judges. I do not know whether it is fair to say that he shrank from tackling them. The Minister may shrink from criticising the judges today. I opened a debate on sentencing a short time ago and one observation that the representative of the Minister did not offer was any criticism of the judges. Everyone criticises them behind their backs and some of us do it to their faces, but understandably the Government do not wish to say anything to affront them.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Earl will give way, I wish only to say that I am just beginning, so give me a chance. The noble Earl said that I should perhaps be tackling the judges as well as the magistrates, but I am only just beginning my task and cannot vouch for what may happen later.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I shall not repeat the speech that I made not long ago when opening the debate on sentencing. I shall just say once again that we have too many people in prison because the judges send them there. That is a problem for the Government. They have to handle the situation tactfully; but I hope they will do so firmly. Until something is done to induce the judges to send fewer people to prison these problems will continue.
I do not want to spend the last minute or so simply repeating what I have said before. I should like to offer the House another thought, of which I have given notice to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who handles these matters with so much desire to be helpful. The other day I was shown figures for overcrowding in British prisons. According to the figures, which appear to come from official sources, in February the system overall was only 5.3 per cent. overcrowded. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, there has been a welcome reduction in the number of young people sent to prison. So some of those prisons can be far from overcrowded; indeed, very much the opposite. We are told that there is only 5.3 per cent. overcrowding generally. But in February overcrowding in Leeds Prison was 95 per cent., in Bedford Prison 88 per cent., in Birmingham Prison 75 per cent. and in Leicester Prison 72 per cent: At the end of March, Strangeways Prison was 65 per cent. overcrowded.
632
I have given notice of my question to the noble Earl. Leaving aside the judges, let us assume that a large number of people are sent to prison. Why is there such terrible maldistribution of the prison population? I must repeat the question: what steps does the Minister propose to take to improve the distribution of the prison population?
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, once again we are debating a report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. This time it is Birmingham Prison. We are very fortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has brought this subject before the House. Clearly, the report is of very great significance.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, put to the Minister some very specific questions and attached to those questions some very specific points that he drew from the report. I look forward to hearing the answers to those questions and to the question put by the noble Lord about Crown immunity. It is true that it would be quite intolerable to see conditions of this kind in any other public institution, be it a hospital, school or whatever. Yet these conditions in prisons are brought before us time and again and there seems to be no way of changing them.
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, spoke about the whole area of work done by intermediate treatment. I myself have been involved in such work. There is absolutely no doubt but that it is both a humane and practical way of dealing with young people, all of whom, as he rightly said, go through a particular stage in their youth when they are against all kinds of authority. We have certainly seen that in our own children. If we can get them through that stage, we can keep them out of the tunnel of crime and prisons.
I should simply like to make a few specific points about the report and then put a couple of general points to the Minister by way of proposing action that he might take to improve the intolerable situation in so many of Britain's prisons. The first point that I should like to stress is that made by Judge Stephen Tumim in his conclusions when he says that,
"Birmingham's sights have been set too low".
That is a polite way of saying that Birmingham Prison is not fulfilling its duty, which is clearly inscribed in every prison as one enters it; namely:
"to look after prisoners with humanity and to help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release".
The fact that sights are too low means that that is a failure.
The next point that Judge Tumim makes, which is of great significance to every prisoner who suffers in this respect, is that:
"Cells had no integral sanitation and prisoners dined in their cells. Most men were therefore spending more than 20 hours per day in multiple occupation".
The implications of those facts are too horrifying to contemplate. It is all very well for us in this House to

633
speak about the grand principles of penal reform, but what matters to inmates of prisons is what happens to them every minute of the day. One reads that:
"Daily exercise was irregular and one shower a week was the norm".
A prisoner is not therefore able to carry the burden of a long imprisonment, given those intolerable circumstances. The lack of regular exercise shows that we do not comply with European conventions. It goes against the standards that are laid down.
The other point that Judge Tumim makes in his conclusions is that:
"Good order was maintained without oppressions but was low on justice and humanity".
If prison officers were with the prisoners for only four hours a day, there would only be scope for a functional relationship between them. There would not be any scope for justice and humanity. There simply would not be time. Given such a short period of contact, it is clear that the prison officers would find it impossible to do more with the prisoners.
At the end of his recommendations, Judge Tumim says:
"Our recommendations stress the immediate importance of some factors, eg. the provision of a new kitchen and better hospital practice and the urgent need for a full regime. Birmingham prison has been constrained and become content with its low level of functioning. That state of affairs should be acceptable to no one".
He ends by saying:
"We repeat the points referred to in the Preface".
The words in the preface are ominous. They were quoted by my noble friend Lord Longford. The chief inspector said:
"The overall result is vastly depressing at this date in an important institution set in a great city … At Birmingham, we found most of the factors we have so often deplored in our reports, particularly in relation to locals and remand centres".
Apart from the inhumanity and the wrongfulness of the situation, there is also the threatening aspect. That is exactly what the inspector said about Strangeways. It is exactly what he prophesied would happen in Strangeways, and we now know exactly what happened there. I can see no reason why the same fearful results should not come out of a prison such as Birmingham which has been described in that way.
The general points that I wish to make are, first, that the NACRO report includes a code of standards based upon UN and European rules. They call for the active employment of prisoners and ample opportunities for education, recreation and time out of the cell. They call also for single-cell accommodation and clean and decent sanitary facilities.
The report before us stresses once again the critical need for the Government to draw up a code of minimum standards for conditions and regimes. They must also announce a phased timetable for bringing all prisons in line with the code. I should be grateful if the Minister would give his view on the recommendations that NACRO has made. They are reasonable
634
and understandable proposals and I should like to know why the Minister does not wish to follow its advice.
I also draw his attention to a Prison Reform Trust report published on 25th January. It puts forward a charter for prisoners on remand. It stresses the fact that the care and custody of remand prisoners is different from that of sentenced prisoners. Noble Lords will know that remand prisoners constitute about one quarter of the total prison population. The numbers have doubled during the past decade. We know that four out of every 10 remand prisoners are not subsequently received as convicted prisoners. The Prison Reform Trust report is important and I should be grateful if the Minister would give his views.
I wish to comment on a prison system which I admire enormously, as do many people; it is that as used in the Netherlands. I have visited some Dutch prisons and read an interesting report made last year by the two winners of the Butler Trust Travel Scholarship. They were a governor and a principal officer who visited various European prisons and reported on them. Anyone who has gone from a British prison to a Dutch prison feels that he is stepping on to a different planet. The Dutch prison service has achieved humane containment. If the Dutch can do so, why cannot we? Their prison ratio and crime figures are about the same as ours.
The Dutch authorities have succeeded for a variety of reasons. First, they have the principle of one prisoner per cell. They contain prisoners within small groups. Mentally unstable offenders are treated in special clinics and, therefore, prison officers have a great deal more time to work with normal prisoners. Most important, their philosophy is that it is not sufficient that imprisonment does no harm: it must do good. To that end, and besides maintaining decent living conditions, the Dutch system stresses the contact that prisoners must keep with their families and the outside world. There are more generous visiting facilities, sometimes unsupervised. The authorities stress the importance of telephone calls and provide television, radio, newspapers and journals. Those are ways of trying to keep a contact between the prisoners and the outside world. Clearly, that is of help not only during the sentence, because it keeps down tension, but also because it assists the prisoners to resume a normal life when they are released. Much is also done to retain a prisoner's individuality and sense of dignity. For example, the prisoner wears his own clothes and he knows what are his rights. The report before us shows an ignorance among the prisoners as to what are their rights and what the prison is about. Of course, prisoners in the Netherlands have the privacy of a private cell.
The winners of the Butler Trust award came to very much the same conclusions when they said in the report that the Netherlands prison system has a very well deserved reputation for a positive approach to imprisonment and that imprisonment can be a point of growth. The system is well resourced and staff morale seems entirely different. That is very clear

635
when one enters a Dutch prison. The report concludes by saying that we in Britain might usefully learn from the example of the Netherlands.
The first advice is that we should not lock up people in toilets and that integral but not intrusive sanitation should always be available. I do not know how many times that point has been made in this House. The report also believes in the greatly expanded home leave scheme. That is funded by the inmates' earnings which are very much higher there. Everything should be done to minimise the harm which imprisonment can do to families. The report also states that training rather than production should be encouraged. Higher rates should be paid for training.
Any of us who have visited prisons in those countries which are trying to move forward and which have a better prison service are enormously depressed when we read a report such as this in spite of all the good work, which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was quite right to point out, that is done by the prison staff. Nevertheless, the final condemnation is numbing. I know that the Minister will do his very best to answer the questions which have been put to him.
5.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for tabling this Question today because it is an important matter. I am grateful to him for what he said about being here at the end of a hard week with yet another one to follow. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord with great courtesy, the noble Lord's intervention has made the week that much harder but that is what we are all here for.
Before turning to the detail of the report, perhaps I may refer to one or two of the matters mentioned by the noble Baroness in her very interesting speech, particularly when she commented on the Dutch system. She referred to the report of the Prison Reform Trust. That is a very well presented and detailed report which officials will wish to study. However, I believe that more is being achieved than the trust's research at six establishments might suggest. All sorts of different rules are recommended as is a charter for remand prisoners. That will be studied with great care.
The noble Baroness referred also to the Dutch system. I was interested in that. She asked whether a code of minimum standards would lead to an improvement in prison conditions. The mere existence of a new code would not necessarily improve matters. There is no fundamental disagreement as to what those pressing for the code of minimum standards and ourselves wish to achieve. Our clear priorities are to reduce overcrowding, to increase the proportion of cells with integral sanitation and to extend the regime of opportunities by increasing the number of hours in which prisoners are occupied in work, education or recreation. There is nothing between us as to that. It is merely how it should be achieved which is important. However, I shall see that the anxieties of
636
the noble Baroness are considered and taken into account, along with the features of the Dutch system which she mentioned.
Perhaps I can turn to the detail of the report. The report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, his honour Judge Tumim, on his inspection of Birmingham Prison in September 1989, has been noted with considerable care. The Chief Inspector begins the preface to his report with a brief reference to the remarkable and useful work being done at Birmingham Prison by members of the prison service at all levels and others who help and support them.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his generous comments to the staff and people who work there. They are not always acknowledged, and when one reads a report such as this it is too easy to find it wholly condemnatory. Contrary to the impression given by some noble Lords to the general flavour of the debate, the report is not wholly critical. The Chief Inspector commended the achievements of Birmingham in bringing about improved activity hours for inmates, achieving production targets, and preparing the way for more education.
There is also favourable comment on the efficiency of the prison's court work and the observation, classification and allocation of new prisoners; on the very good reception facilities; on race relations; on the good clinical service provided by the medical officers, and on the low proportion of inmates who are placed on disciplinary report. All that is good.
I was interested in what was an intellectually penetrating speech by my noble friend Lord Elton, and in his analysis of why young people strive to become a personality. He said that they do it successfully when they have been "inside". I find that a rather alarming prospect though I have no doubt that he is correct.
Her Majesty's Government agree that it is better to do service within the community where that is possible, especially for the lower levels of crime. That is one of the shifts which we are trying to encourage. As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, prisons must accept what the courts send to them. That is what they are there for. I am also interested in the conferences on offenders in the community referred to by my noble friend. This is a shift which we must bring about.
Birmingham has operated as a local prison since it opened in the mid-19th century. It accommodates adult unsentenced males and produces them at court as required. It also holds sentenced male adults and young offenders in order to assess their security category and their appropriate subsequent allocation to other prisons. An extensive programme of building work to provide the prison with facilities in keeping with modern standards and to relieve overcrowding has been under way for the past 10 years, though one might not have thought that from some of the comments made. That work will continue well into the 1990s. We fully recognise that more needs to be done to improve conditions in existing prisons. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already

637
made arrangements for funds to be switched from the new prison building programme to allow more improvements to be made.
Because Birmingham is a large and busy local prison there are severe constraints on undertaking major building work. That inevitably affects the pace at which work can proceed. The Chief Inspector acknowledged in his report that the long timescale for effecting improvements is unavoidable. The total cost of the redevelopment programme is around £16 million. Major items which have already been completed include a new entry complex with new facilities for prison visits and for the reception and discharge of inmates. Work at present being undertaken includes a new accommodation block for 172 inmates, which is due for completion in July 1991.
The Chief Inspector made a number of recommendations regarding the physical conditions at the establishment, and action is in hand on them. The refurbishment of the main bath house will start next month with completion due in March 1991. To answer a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I can assure him that during the refurbishment work additional showering facilities will be available in a temporary building.
Work is also planned to start in the autumn of this year on resiting and re-equipping the laundry. The construction of a new kitchen is due to begin in early 1992, once the related building work has been completed. In that connection we are spending £11 million a year on improving kitchens at 28 prisons and a further £28 million over the next two years in another 22 prisons. A great deal is therefore being done on prison kitchens. Work is also in hand on repairing structural defects and the early installation of integral sanitation and better pest control.
Understandably, the chief inspector was critical of the overcrowding in the prison. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke of the overcrowding at certain local prisons and called for urgent action. The trouble is that the prison service does not have an unfettered hand in transferring prisoners. It is true that there are vacancies in other parts of the system, but it is not always feasible to put any prisoner in any vacancy. Different types of prisoner need different types of prisons.
On top of that, the numbers of unsentenced prisoners who need to be near the courts and the importance of prisoners being able to maintain links with their families are among the factors which constrain the freedom to manoeuvre. However, there has been a review of the use of the whole prison estate, which was reappraised in the light of the pressures which were caused by the April disturbances. This will enable us to announce decisions very shortly on the use of accommodation.
It is a Prisons Board priority for 1990–91 to maintain full occupancy of adult closed training prisons and to ensure that, wherever possible, no inmates who are suitable for open conditions are retained in closed establishments.
638
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to overcrowding. Of course, overcrowding has been exacerbated by the disturbance at Strangeways and the consequent pressure on the remainder of the prison service. There are, though, a number of ways in which it is intended that overcrowding will be reduced over the next 18 months or so which were not referred to in detail in the report.
The first is the opening of the new wing at Birmingham, to which I referred earlier and which will have integral sanitation. Secondly, a new establishment for young offenders will open at the beginning of 1991 at Brinsford, which is not far from Birmingham. This will help to ease the pressure at Birmingham. The third is that the opening of the new local prison at Blakenhurst early in 1992, and other accommodation which is being built in the Midlands, will also ease the overcrowding at Birmingham. The fourth is that the general effect of the Government's overall strategy of reducing the number of convicted people who are committed to custody—a desire expressed by my noble friend Lord Elton—will of itself increase the number of prison places which are available to those who have to have custodial sentences. This policy is already having an effect. The total prison population is at present about 3,300 down from what it was last year.
The Governor and senior management continue to give high priority to the development of the regime for inmates. The inspectors commented favourably in the report on the achievements of the local regime committee. Significant improvements have been made there since the introduction of Fresh Start working. Despite being one of the most overcrowded prisons, in 1989–90 Birmingham provided its inmates with an average of over 14 hours of structured activity for each inmate per week—for example, on work and education. This is slightly above the average for a local prison.
The daily contract hours, to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred, were for structured activities only in 1988–89. They do not represent the full picture of time which is spent out of cell; including exercise, visits, association or time spent in the canteen on meals. The average time out of cell at Birmingham is in all, about 31 or 32 hours per week.
Local management is considering further improvements all the time and is working, in particular, on the expansion of activities during the day, the evening and at weekends, as the inspectors have recommended. The governor is, for example, developing plans and assessing the resources in terms of building costs and staffing needs for providing additional areas for association on four landings in A, B and C wings and also considering provision for G wing.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to education. We have not yet achieved the recommendation of education on four nights a week, but Birmingham is now resourced for the provision of 48 weeks a year of full-time day classes and action is being taken to recruit new teachers to bring it up to that standard. That is an improvement on the 42 weeks a year available at the time of the inspection.

639
Evening association takes place once every 10 days for B Wing prisoners, who are unemployed adult prisoners. Young offenders have association every evening. All prisoners are allowed out of their cells once a week to see video films. The chief inspector commented that inmates were given little information about the prison. Action has been taken on this and a revised edition of the local information booklet will be available shortly.
New procedures for dealing with inmates' requests and complaints are to be introduced through the prison service in the autumn of this year and new guidance for both staff and inmates is being produced. Action is also being taken on all the recommendations on medical matters. The inspectors raised the question of the closing of the psychology unit at Birmingham Prison and the future of the research work that was being undertaken by the psychology unit there.
The position is that the psychology unit was closed because of a requirement to increase the psychological assessment and treatment of young men at other establishments in the Midlands; namely, young men serving life sentences and particularly those under the age of 21. That was seen as a priority task for the limited psychological resources which were available. Psychologists' posts were, therefore, redeployed in order to open a psychology unit at Swinfen Hall and to increase work with lifers at Featherstone and Sudbury.
Arrangements have been made with Reaside Clinic—the regional secure unit which is located at Rubery Hill Hospital, Birmingham—to assist when required with individual prisoners in Birmingham. In the past, the main research contribution of the psychology unit at Birmingham had been the treatment of sex offenders. The psychologist who played the major part in this research has left the prison service, but the results of his work are being used in other prison establishments.
The inspectors concluded that the general condition of the kitchen was reasonable. The food which they sampled was, they said, very good, and they considered that the menu was satisfactorily varied. There are, however, shortcomings in the kitchen arrangements, many of them caused by the inadequacies and poor fabric of the building. Much has been and will continue to be done to raise standards there before the new kitchen is brought into use in 1993. Close attention is being given to maintenance and the cleanliness of the catering arrangements. We have already improved the toilet and other facilities for inmates who are working in the kitchen.
Although the Crown is exempt from the requirements of the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970, it has always been government policy that hygiene standards which are set in legislation should be met in prison establishments. I know that this was one of the matters that concerned both the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and the noble Earl, Lord Long ford. Both were also concerned about Crown immunity. The noble Lord,
640
Lord Harris, said that if Crown immunity were removed standards would rise. Crown immunity will be formally abandoned under the provisions of the Food Safety Act, but the precise date is yet to be fixed with the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. It will probably be in April 1992.
It has always been government policy that the hygiene standards set in legislation should be met in all establishments. Hygiene inspections of prison catering facilities are regularly carried out by the regional catering managers of the prison service and members of the Home Office health and safety section. On top of that, random, unannounced validation inspections are undertaken by environmental health officers from the Department of Health. All that is done in order to ensure that each establishment's catering facilities are formally inspected at least once a year.
Over the past two years the prison service has been pursuing a number of initiatives in order to raise the general standard. In July 1989, and more recently in May of this year, advice and guidance were issued to all prison establishments in order to bring together the legal requirements and the best hygiene practice. These cover all aspects of prison activity and particularly that relating to the food processing chain.
Good hygiene practice can do much to compensate for poor building fabric particularly in those prisons which are of Victorian origin. However, the bad fabric does not make good hygiene easy. Another relevant development relates to the provisions of the Food Safety Act and their effect on Crown immunity in the prisons. The provisions of the Act will allow local authority environmental health officers the right of entry to prison establishments in order to carry out inspections of the catering facilities and to make recommendations by way of Crown notices.
Work was put in hand on many other matters which the report brought to the attention of the director general, the regional director and the governor. The present governor of Birmingham, who took up the appointment only two months before the inspection was carried out, has already provided two reports on progress locally in implementing the chief inspector's recommendations. Indeed, he had introduced before the inspection was received a system of checks on adjudication procedures. I cannot reply on the specific cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred, but in general delays in the parole process, whether at the prison or at headquarters, have been largely eliminated. The system is now managed so that the review process almost inevitably begins on time and is effectively supervised. Even when it began late in two out of 60 cases dealt with in the last three months, the prisoners were released on the date they became eligible for release.
As your Lordships will be aware, the prison department has a thorough procedure for following up on inspection reports. This report will be followed up by the deputy director general of the prison service, and he will visit Birmingham in order to do that. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons will be informed of the progress on his recommendations.

641
As I think noble Lords will appreciate, much work and effort —and considerable financial resources—have been put into improving the conditions and the quality of life for inmates and into improving staff morale at Birmingham as well as elsewhere. A great deal has been done, more is already under way and yet more is planned for the future. This all adds up to a great deal more than is apparent from a reading of the text or the chief inspector's report.
The regional director for the Midland region has kept a close eye on the prison and has noted with encouragement the gradual and sustained improvement in the overall regime there during the time both of the present governor and the previous governor. There has been much hard work by staff of all grades and all disciplines at Birmingham. That is not always easy in old buildings, in a sensitive area of life and in a high profile occupation. But they have done it, and they have done it well. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for having recognised that.
They have worked hard to maintain and to improve the prisoner opportunities at Birmingham within what can only be described as a calm and relatively happy
642
atmosphere in the prison. The staff/prisoner relationships are particularly good and are part of the main strength of the establishment. We all recognise that there is much still to be tackled and completed and are concerned to see this achieved. I feel confident that the staff and management at Birmingham will see it through successfully.
I apologise for the length of my speech—particularly on a Friday afternoon. I realise that it is a most anti-social time to make a fairly extended speech. But the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put down this Question. It was fairly critical and the report was fairly critical. I felt that I owed it to the House and to those involved at Birmingham Prison to give a full account of what is happening there and of the Government's reaction to the report.

Avon Light Rail Transit (Bristol City Centre) Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past five o'clock.

  GPO: CHRISTMAS STAMP
  GPO: CHRISTMAS STAMP
  FRESH START: PRISON OFFICERS' HOURS
  FRESH START: PRISON OFFICERS' HOURS
  UK CITIZENS ABROAD: VOTING ARRANGEMENTS
  UK CITIZENS ABROAD: VOTING ARRANGEMENTS
  "CRACK" SEIZURES
  "CRACK" SEIZURES
  MR. DURSUN SEN
  MR. DURSUN SEN