asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, government support for job creation and economic regeneration in the coalfields will continue to be available through regional selective assistance and the single regeneration budget, in addition to support available from European structural funds.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that everyone who has worked with BCE has high praise for the work that it has done? The main reason for the success has been that it is a very effective co-ordinator. The decision to split the functions which BCE has been carrying out so well will be a disaster. Is the Minister aware that there are still thousands of unemployed miners, through closure of pits, who are in their 30s and 40s? Unless there is an effective, well resourced, co-ordinating body there will be great difficulty finding employment for those miners. Will the Government look again at the issue?

My Lords, I recognise that BCE has made a valuable contribution in recent years to the regeneration of the coalfields. However, it has always been made clear, as it was during the passage of the Coal Industry Bill before it became an Act, that BCE would be retained through the transitional and immediate post-privatisation period. That commitment has now been honoured. There is a proposal—offers have been made—to divide BCE into three parts, two of which would be management buy-outs. While such change necessarily follows, given the changes that there have been to British Coal, nevertheless I would be confident that it will continue to offer considerable assistance in the coalfields. I understand that one of the constituent parts has made public its commitment to continue to look for employment opportunities and work space in the coalfields.

In addition, I shall go to County Durham tomorrow afternoon, for example, at which time, through the schemes indicated in my original Answer, I hope that we shall be able to provide something like £1 million through regional selective assistance which is directly related to job creation.

My Lords, following the sale, the House was promised that miners' welfare, recreational grounds and allotments were to be retained and protected? First, will the Minister say whether that has been done? Secondly, is he aware that about 80 British Coal sites are essential to the economic regeneration of the coalfield communities? Why cannot the Government finalise a deal transferring those sites to English Partnerships?

My Lords, I have been invited to have regard to the three constituent parts of British Coal Enterprise. I believe that both parts of the noble Lord's question go beyond that. However, I shall look into the detail that he invited me to supply and write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware how welcome was the last part of his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand? He will be aware that radical change of the kind that has swept the British coalfield leaves behind some pretty painful problems which need urgent attention.

My Lords, I certainly recognise that. As I indicated in my original Answer, BCE has played a valuable role. It is readily acknowledged that BCE has provided, in one form or another, employment opportunities possibly to as many as 100,000 people. That is clearly desirable.

Undoubtedly there have been problems in places such as the North East. But it has to be recognised that remarkable changes have been undertaken. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments on the last part of my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. In places like County Durham, it is extremely encouraging that there has been such an impressive revitalisation and change in the local economy.

My Lords, I acknowledge the useful initial reply from the Minister. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that those of us born and bred in coal mining areas would welcome consideration by the department of a conference with the coal owners' representatives and the National Union of Mineworkers. Following his statement today, it would indicate that this House is endeavouring bravely to reduce the possible, although not improbable, difficulties which British coal miners could face.

My Lords, it is questionable whether it would be appropriate for me to indicate that there should be such a conference. The underlying theme of the noble Lord's question is that there should be a continuing effort to ensure that employment and opportunities are provided in the former coalfields. It is a policy to which we are committed. In recent years, through the efforts of local authorities, BCE and government, enormous strides have been made. It would be a mistake to underestimate what has been achieved. It is not a matter of those areas suffering a lingering economic death. There has been a remarkable recovery. In their own interest that ought to be acknowledged.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the strictly mining communities in the hinterland of the country the devastation that has been caused is not partial but total? The social consequences are absolutely appalling. Bearing in mind that there has been some progress, will the Government give the matter the same urgent treatment and priority that they appear to be according once again to the farmers?

My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord down that particular path. I recognise that there have been difficulties but emphasise what remarkable changes there have been. For example, I recently visited what were the workshops for British Coal in the north east. They have done a quite remarkable job in redirecting themselves. While I was there I was delighted, for example, to see that a contract has recently been secured worth millions of pounds to refurbish pumps for use on North Sea oil platforms. The opportunities to redeploy the skills and expertise of those who formerly worked in the coal mining industry should be appreciated. There are real prospects for them to be yet more successful in the future.

My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that in South Lanarkshire, which I used to represent in the other place, there has been a great improvement in the situation since the coalfields were worked out and industrial estates were established to replace them?

My Lords, I cannot recall the detail of those particular closures, but certainly within the Lanarkshire partnership, as it is now described, there have been some very significant and encouraging changes. The base for the local economy has been broadened remarkably. I have no doubt that that is the way forward in the future.

My Lords, given the success of BCE, does the Minister agree with the phrase, "If it's working, don't fix it"? Is there not a danger that the dismantling of BCE will detract from the successes of the past? Will the Minister say a little more about the single regeneration budget in this context? He mentioned it as being helpful to the coalfield communities. Is there not a danger that they may get very little out of this as it is a bit of a lottery?

My Lords, to describe the deployment of challenge funding under the single regeneration budget as a lottery is something of a misnomer. There may have been that suspicion at the outset, but I thought that there was now a clear appreciation that it is working very valuably in identifying the best projects to provide the best results.

Turning to his more general question about BCE, things have changed. Compared to the number of people British Coal once employed, it now has a remarkably small number of employees. So, at least in one particular, there was bound to be a change once the privatisation had been completed. It would seem, then, that in the discharge of statutory duties the sale of the three component parts should now take place.

My Lords, I am delighted that the Minister is to visit County Durham and that £1 million will be available. Will he say exactly where that sum is coming from? Will he also deal with the main point I made in my supplementary question about the need for co-ordination between all the bodies concerned? It looks to me as though he is not dealing with that at all.

My Lords, the £1 million will come from regional selective assistance and will go to some 24 companies. There is no reason to believe that what co-ordination there has been in the past will break up. Local authorities, particularly in the part of the world from which the noble Lord comes, work very well in partnership. There is no reason why that should not continue.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, Section 3(4) of the Charities Act 1993 requires the Charity Commissioners to remove from the Register of Charities any institution which no longer appears to them to be a charity. The right of appeal against their decision is to the High Court under Section 4(3) of the Act.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in exercising their duties under the Act, it is very important for charities which have taken legal advice about their activities and which find that they are to be deregistered to have a proper opportunity to discuss with the Charity Commission their requirements in order that they may bring their affairs within the ruling of the commission and so remain charities?

My Lords, there are two parts to my noble friend's question. In regard to any decision that the Charity Commissioners might take to remove a charity from the register, the matter is raised with the charity concerned, which has the opportunity to make formal submissions, including submissions made with legal assistance, before a final decision is taken. There may then follow an appeal to the High Court. In addition, the Charity Commission is very willing to discuss with charities that may fall foul of its test ways in which they can reconstruct their arrangements so that they retain charitable status. That is what happens in actual cases.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that some of the activities of the charities under discussion have been deemed commercial, not charitable? Will he also confirm that most charities have accepted that, with the intention of restructuring in order to make sure that they are purely charitable, and have been given time to do that?

My Lords, thus far the questions have been couched in abstract terms. But the noble Lord referred to a number of school fees charities which have been under consideration by the Charity Commissioner, who is determined to remove from the register some particular school fee schemes, but not all. I understand that it is the case that of those schemes all but one are in discussion with the Charity Commissioners to endeavour to rearrange their affairs as I described earlier in order to bring them back within the definition of charities.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Post Office appoints the members. The Post Office also decides the stamp subject and the committee then assists in choosing the best designs. The names of the external members of the committee, the interest that they represent and their joining date are: Dr. Jean Alexander, philately, 1980; Ms. Floella Benjamin, media and youth, 1993; Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, MP, 1993; Ms. Mary Lewis, designer, 1993; Professor Alan Livingston, designer, 1993; Mr. John McConnell, designer, 1984; Mr. Richard Negus, designer, 1977; Mrs. Elisabeth Santry, DTI, 1994; and Mr. Jean Varga, philately, 1989. In addition, there are six Post Office representatives on the committee.

Is it the fact that the Stamp Advisory Committee has decided not to issue a stamp commemorating the centenary of the internationally renowned artist, designer, poet and socialist, William Morris, but to issue one on Muffin the Mule instead? Does the Minister agree with me in deploring that philistine decision, which is all the more remarkable when we are approaching the millennium celebrations, in which we are to pay tribute to our great achievements in the field of arts and crafts? Would the Minister please intervene to call the Post Office to account and get it to reverse that absurd preference?

My Lords, I do not disagree with the noble Baroness's description of William Morris in any detail. If she had listened to my original Answer, she would know that the Post Office decides the subjects of stamps and not the advisory committee, whose remit is restricted to choosing the best design. It is true that it rejected the idea of a William Morris stamp. I understand that it receives something like 300 suggestions a year and issues only nine special sets.

I do not believe that it was a direct decision to reject William Morris and have Muffin the Mule. In fact, I understand that it decided that five decades of children's television should be celebrated. It has chosen not just Muffin the Mule but Sooty, as well; also Stingray, the Clangers and, doubtless, the noble Baroness's favourite, Danger Mouse, to represent the 1980s. The reasoning behind the choice is that, in part, it is keen to encourage children to begin stamp collecting, which is a dying hobby. It is hoped by that action to promote it. But it is entirely a commercial decision for the Post Office and not for me.

My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that when the late Lord Hill of Luton was Postmaster General it was decided to include pictorial stamps in the British issue? The objects were twofold: first, to continue the patronage that the Post Office has always given to the arts in the past; and, secondly, to produce for this country the most beautiful stamps that exist in the world.

Does my noble and learned friend realise that over recent years there has been a flood of stamps produced by the Post Office which are increasingly vulgar and ugly? Will he try to encourage the Post Office, so far as it is within his power, to return to the objects which originally motivated those who started the pictorial stamps and developed them 20 years ago?

My Lords that is a criticism which should be properly directed to the advisory committee. To that committee is entrusted the task of determining the best designs. Obviously, my noble friend has strong views about some of the pictorial stamps that have been issued. I feel that some very good ones have been issued recently. I suggest that the stamps on Robert Burns issued this year were particularly fine.

My Lords, I do not wish to quarrel at all with the Minister about Muffin the Mule and the ideas behind that decision. I know that the committee is only an advisory committee and the final authority is the Post Office itself. We have no jurisdiction at all over the Post Office. But will the Minister be prepared to use his good offices to ask the Post Office to look again at the situation—no more than that—in view of the concern raised by my noble friend Lady Castle of Blackburn?

My Lords, the stance that has been adopted by successive Ministers is, I believe, the right one. It is a matter for the Post Office to determine the subjects. It has a set of criteria which it uses in making its choice.

So far as concerns its conventions, I believe it is publicly known that it has decided never to have on a stamp a living person other than royalty and it will not select a topic which might cause offence, particularly if it is political. It does follow 50th anniversaries or multiples thereof. I should think it appropriate to suggest to the Post Office that it should rethink the matter if it offends against its openly declared conventions.

My Lords, it is almost piquant that the Post Office should choose not to have William Morris. He set a standard in the aesthetic domain for which this country was and is renowned. I think we agreed the last time we discussed this matter that one of the criteria—perhaps the main one—was simply making money. Is the Post Office under growing pressure from the Treasury simply to choose money-making as its main criterion in this area rather than aesthetics and rather than producing stamps of which we can all feel rather proud?

No, my Lords. I congratulate the noble Lord on the way in which he managed to return to the EFLs that are imposed on the Post Office. No, it is not under any new or renewed pressure. The criteria that it uses to choose the stamps are important anniversaries, events of national or international importance, British contributions to world affairs, varied aspects of the British way of life and the development of minuscule art. They must also fit in with the Post Office's commercial targets. All that seems to me to be appropriate.

I recognise the contribution of William Morris and indeed so has the Post Office. In the 1980s it issued a stamp which commemorated some of his designs.

Is the Minister aware that the Victoria and Albert Museum has thought the centenary of William Morris sufficiently important to organise a special exhibition to commemorate it? Will he, therefore, as the Post Office is supposed to be nationalised, exert his influence on it to reverse the decision?

My Lords, I have no doubt that the views expressed in this House will be noted by the Post Office. As I indicated, the basis on which I feel it would be appropriate to intervene is limited. I join the noble Baroness in approving of the action that the Victoria and Albert Museum has taken.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is just because of the policy that he repeated of non-interference by government departments and Ministers in the working of the Post Office that the Post Office has been such an enormous success over recent years?

Yes, my Lords, I have no doubt that that has been an important feature. As I indicated, interference should be restricted to that very small area where political offence might be caused if a particular stamp were to be issued. Undoubtedly, the Post Office has been extremely successful in recent years.

My Lords, giving preference to Muffin the Mule over William Morris is close to making this country look ridiculous. Is the Minister aware that millions of British stamps go all over the world? We, as a country, are partly judged by the quality of our stamps and I for one do not want this country to look silly.

My Lords, I can only repeat that the idea that the choice lay between Muffin the Mule and William Morris is wrong. There were around 500 designs from which to select a choice. It was a commercial decision that children's television should be commemorated after 50 years. We shall have to wait to see whether or not that issue of stamps will be successful.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear in another place on 21st May, Ministers will continue to attend meetings of the Council of Ministers. We will raise the question of the ban on British beef at all councils and, if necessary, ask for special councils.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, with which I entirely concur, particularly in view of the Government's announcement that they intend to pursue a policy of non-co-operation.

Are the Government aware that non-co-operation is an art form in the European Community? It is practised by a number of states without any apparent objection from those who object to Britain adopting the same means. For example, is the Minister aware that Italy threatened non-co-operation when it said that it would not agree with the 1994 budget of the Community unless its milk quota was enlarged? Is she aware that Spain threatened non-co-operation in the measures to enlarge the Community unless it obtained the right to fish in the Irish Box? Is the noble Baroness further aware that the French Government threatened non-co-operation, particularly in the redistribution of voting rights within the Community, unless the Community agreed to the establishment of a brand new parliamentary building in Strasbourg?

All those efforts seem to have been successful. Is the noble Baroness aware that it is remarkable that there has been no demur against non-co-operation from other member states or from any of those that attack their own country for adopting the same method? Will she proceed with this programme until the matter has been satisfactorily resolved?

My Lords, I am aware of all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. The critical issue is this. The blocking of the lifting of the ban on beef derivatives is a wilful disregard not only of British interests, but also of European interests. Some of the member states concerned are among the foremost who urged a higher level of co-operation and solidarity in the European Union and yet those qualities have been conspicuously lacking in practice.

We are now facing a difficult situation. We wish to resolve the matter, but if others will not take their decisions based on scientific fact then other action must be taken. That is why yesterday and indeed on Tuesday in this House and in another place we made it absolutely clear that we are not prepared to allow progress in the IGC or on other measures requiring unanimity in Community business until decisions are taken based on scientific fact.

My Lords, now that the Government are indulging in the folly of going to war with Europe over British beef in order to placate the European sceptics in the Conservative Party, will the Minister tell the House whether we are also going to war with the United States of America, Australia and Canada, at least one of which banned British beef before the European Union?

My Lords, I am sad that the noble Baroness should ask such a question. First, we are not going to war with anybody. Secondly, the United States have not banned us exporting our beef to others; they have said that they will not import it themselves. There is a difference because it would be quite wrong for one country to impose its will on other countries which are quite capable of taking decisions for themselves.

This is a serious matter and however much levity is made about it, we wish to resolve the problem. We wish to obtain a decision based on scientific fact. It is absolutely clear from the meeting of the standing veterinary committee on 20th May, when the Commission helpfully brought forward the proposal to lift the ban on the export of gelatin, tallow and semen in line with scientific evidence, that that was the way to go. The noble Baroness is attempting to make a political point and came close to saying that she agreed with the ban. I do not believe that she does.

My point is that the ban is unjustified. A number of senior politicians made it clear that their view is that British beef is safe and therefore it is high time that the Community came to a decision based on scientific fact. That is entirely clear, and the majority of other member states supported the Community on that point.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that to suggest that it is an appeasement for the so-called "Euro-sceptics" is quite wrong? The Government's stance is in order to protect the beef industry in this country and the derivatives issue is just the first step. Has my noble friend any knowledge that candles made from tallow form a health risk?

My Lords, I certainly do not have any information on the last point raised by my noble friend. In relation to his substantive point, I confirm that our action is to protect our beef industry and all those other industries that are developing their work on the basis of beef derivatives. To take a decision in the way that some countries within the European Union are seeking to do is nothing short of wanting a battle with us over exports.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for the acquisition of British citizenship by certain women who are Hong Kong residents. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Willoughby de Broke.)

On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Taylor of Gosforth set down for this day shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Strathclyde.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd April be approved [20th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].

My Lords, the order has been satisfactorily scrutinised and we on this side certainly in no way oppose it. The steps proposed are acceptable but are really part of what we see as a belated process enabling betting shops to upgrade their facilities to modern standards. That is very good. But they should not be seen or represented as in any way a serious step in resisting the damage done by the National Lottery to other aspects of the gambling industry. The number of shops is down by one-third, with serious implications for jobs and with the contribution to racing seriously threatened. It is unfortunate that so far the Government have not been willing to do anything about that. The order does not contribute either.

The biggest step of redress would be to enable the shops to sell National Lottery tickets or to have betting on lottery numbers. We accept that that means an amendment to the 1993 Act. I wonder whether the Government have a serious argument against that. I wonder whether the House is aware—it is quite bizarre—that the Irish can bet on our National Lottery numbers and the British can bet on the Irish national lottery numbers but the British are not allowed to bet on the British lottery numbers. I am not convinced that enabling that would in any way threaten the success of the lottery. I cannot see that small bets of, say, 100–1 on three or four numbers would compete with the 14 million to one chance of the lottery. Therefore, I should like it put on record that we hope the Government will think more about this issue. We welcome the order but only on the basis that it is a first small step.

I recommend Members of the House to read the order if they want to know the extent to which the state still gets involved in minute distinctions between whether there are prizes of £3 or £4 or £4 or £10. We welcome the fact that betting shops can now sell some publications. However, I wonder why they are not allowed to sell ordinary newspapers which have very good racing coverage. One wonders why betting shops are not allowed to sell novels or mathematics textbooks, which would enable punters to calculate their losses more accurately. On the age question, I am still puzzled as to why 16 year-olds can gamble on the lottery in the lax environment of the newsagent but cannot in betting offices, which are strictly regulated. Our preference is that the age should be 18 for both.

We look to further changes in deregulation in order to redress the balance that is currently distorting the gambling industry to the detriment of parts of it and particularly the racing part.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support, albeit somewhat guarded, for this deregulation order. He raised a number of points, some of which I think were outside the scope of the order. I realise that he wanted to make those concerns known in the House.

He asked about the age of participants in gambling. The proposal restricts access to 18 year-olds only. We take the view that that is the appropriate age for participating in gambling and betting on this scale, but for softer forms of gambling—lotteries and the football pools—a lower age limit of 16 applies. I note his suggestion about books, newspapers and even computers. I shall pass on his concerns to my right honourable friend.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd April be approved [20th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].

My Lords, the proposals before us today weaken significantly the audit requirements for friendly societies. I found the Treasury's rationale for that rather slight. The noble Lord said that they often have the support of local accountants who offer their services for free. Yes, indeed, but what about those members of a friendly society who do not have a local accountant providing those services? What confidence can they have that the society is being appropriately audited and that financial management is proceeding in an appropriate and prudent manner? This weakening suggests a failure within the deregulation procedures to take adequate account of the concerns of the public, particularly those people for whom regulations of this kind were first designed to protect their investments.

I must refer to the inadequacy of the documents prepared by the Treasury since at no point has it told us what are the fiscal implications of these measures. There may be none, but the documents should say so. Friendly societies have various fiscal rights and privileges and a change, for example, in the number of members who are required will allow friendly societies to be of different sizes and smaller groups of people to form friendly societies who previously could not have done so. Surely, that has some fiscal implication: what is it?

My Lords, all these proposals were consulted on and the societies and the other interested parties who responded all did so in a favourable direction. That is the basis on which deregulation orders proceed.

My Lords, the noble Lord may have noticed that the Treasury memorandum points out that the National Consumer Council objected to the changes in auditing procedures.

My Lords, yes indeed; but the bulk of the people who responded approved of the suggestions which were put forward. The National Consumer Council has every right to object, but that objection cannot be taken as a veto of the approval of other people who responded to the consultation.

The relaxing of the order requirement is in fact for non-deposit taking societies and it brings them into line with companies. Some societies will be subject to these less onerous order requirements and they may even be exempt from the audit altogether. Full professional annual audits will still be required for deposit takers, societies registered with the Housing Corporation, or its Scottish or Welsh equivalent; societies with subsidiaries or which are themselves subsidiaries and societies whose assets and turnover exceed the new limit. So I do not believe that this order removes a protection.

As regards the decision about the audit requirement, the members must vote annually to decide whether they wish to accept anything less than a full audit. Legislation still requires the societies to keep proper books of account and requires officers to account for the money. The chief registrar also lays down what must be in annual returns and accounts for those are monitored by him. Officers must also sign statements each year that the accounts present a true picture of the society's affairs. The same thresholds are already in place for companies. This proposal achieves parity, allowing more effective competition for those societies in the same market as the companies. The main point is that the members have to vote annually to decide whether or not they wish to take advantage of this particular piece of deregulation.

It is difficult to quantify costs because many of the deregulation aspects are quite small and just reduce the amount of bureaucracy. As regards the less onerous audit requirements, it is estimated that this particular proposal will reduce societies' costs by £3 million a year. So I believe that these are important but small reductions in the bureaucracy. As I say, I do not believe, and neither did the deregulation committee here or that of the other place, that in any way these proposals lessened the protection provided by law for these societies. With those observations I hope that the House will accept the order.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer my question about the fiscal implications, if any, for these measures?

My Lords, I presume that the noble Lord means costs to the Treasury. I cannot answer that just now, but I shall certainly write to him.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Academic Research Careers for Graduate Scientists (Fourth Report, 1994–95, HL Paper 60).

My Lords, once more the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for the clear way in which he has introduced the report. He got only one matter totally wrong. There was nothing idiosyncratic about the way in which he chaired the sub-committee. The noble Lord has chaired sub-committees on a number of occasions in the past, always to enormous effect and to the great assistance of this House. This report clearly identifies a minor scandal which perhaps requires the probing of a Select Committee to focus attention upon it and to get the long-term implications understood by the wider public.

It is true that in 1993 the White Paper, Realising Our Potential, drew attention to this problem. It recorded the failure of universities, colleges and funding councils adequately to provide career management and training. There was then hope that something would happen in quick time. Nothing happened until the day of the publication of the report when the draft concordat saw the light of day. That took place nearly three years later and was a disappointing time. There is no doubt that the very fact that this inquiry took place helped to speed up the production of that concordat.

In 1993 a sub-committee of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, carried out an inquiry into the White Paper entitled Priorities for the Science Base. During that inquiry young career scientists forcefully drew our attention to the lack of stability in their careers and often the inability to finish projects because after two years or so they had to look to the future. It was a very unsettling time. Worst of all, sometimes the best obtained a new research project before they had completed their existing work and had to move on in order to assure their livelihood, wasting what might otherwise be two productive years. The evidence taken by that sub-committee clearly indicated that this was a poor way to manage science. There is a degree of exploitation.

The concordat is to be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has made clear that we must wait to see whether it is as successful as we all hope. One success criterion would be whether there were in place longer-term research fellowships and improved rewards for research workers. The report draws attention to a number of good schemes: the Royal Society's fellowships; the excellent scheme of the University of Warwick; and the Wellcome Trust. The Wellcome Trust has drawn attention time and again to the shortcomings that it sees in the way in which science in this country is managed, particularly in relation to young scientists. I quote the words of Dr. Bridget Ogilvie, director of the Wellcome Trust. She wrote powerfully in the winter 1995 edition of Science and Public Affairs:

"Government has not secured the trust of these key people [young scientists], an essential ingredient in managing any workforce successfully, and it is increasing the demands made on them without reward. This is the reason why universities often cannot recruit people of the right calibre for their leadership positions".

I treat that with particular care because of the excellent example that the Wellcome Trust has set research councils, funding councils and others in addressing these problems. But the root of the problem is the pressure on universities and funding councils to increase productivity. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has reminded us of the extent to which the production of graduates has increased without an increase in resources. Research has also kept pace but at the expense of the low-cost contract worker who has been brought in to ensure that, while the greatly increased teaching load is absorbed, the research can continue.

There was always a role for the contract research worker. That is not to say that the principle is basically flawed. In sufficiently small numbers they provide a degree of flexibility and cross-fertilisation between departments. But when the majority of research is being undertaken by those short-term contract workers, it can only be described as an abuse of the system.

As well as the concordat, which we must welcome so far as it goes, there is now to be Sir Ron Dearing's committee of inquiry. It might provide an opportunity to address some of the fundamental issues which lie behind this increasingly serious problem. The lack of relevant experience of graduates coming into industry is something of which the committee was made aware. That often arises from a lack of resources in the universities to keep up to date with new technologies. If the product of a university is in part, as it clearly is, to produce suitable graduates for employment in industry as well of course as producing suitable graduates to continue in the university system, it is a simple failure if we cannot keep up to date with the new technologies and the cutting edge of science.

Again and again—this is a point made by Dr. Ogilvie of the Wellcome Trust—the universities are increasingly falling behind. Even the universities identified as at the leading edge of science often lack the basic equipment that industry would expect. Industry in turn finds it odd that it has then to do some basic training of what is otherwise excellent scientific material.

The last PES round, at the end of last year, was highly damaging in that respect. There was a disproportionate cut in university capital expenditure. That in turn will exacerbate the problem to which I have referred: young research workers unable to undertake the sort of training and research which will be increasingly required by academia and industry.

This highly timely committee report calls attention to a specific problem, but behind it there is much more than this specific problem. It calls attention to a failure to understand just what funding procedures—not just resources—and long-term commitment are required if we are to produce for academia and industry from the science faculties of universities the type of products for which we are looking.

We need to be able to produce young people to continue scientific research in universities. They need a career structure, long-term fellowships, and to be held in much higher esteem by society than they are at the moment. Secondly, we need to produce scientists and engineers for industry. At the moment we are likely to fail in both.

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his committee for this valuable report. The tables in Appendix 4 themselves make it important reading for all who are concerned with university research. I am sure that the committee's conclusions will be generally welcomed.

The extent of the problem brought out by the statistics, which refer incidentally to the pre-1992 universities, may come as a surprise to many readers of the report. As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, has told us, there are more than 20,000 scientists on short-term contracts in the universities. That is as many as there are established staff in the experimental disciplines.

When I was a research student in the late 1940s—happy days!—the problem was far less severe. Most university appointments were, in the first place, assistant lectureships or demonstratorships and were for periods of three to five years. Full tenured appointments were then made to a chosen few. The advantage of that scheme over the temporary research fellowships—good as they are—was that the assistant lecturer, although not yet in an established post, was a recognised member of staff, with modest teaching and perhaps some small departmental duties as well as research. He felt that he belonged.

It was during the rapid university expansion of the 1960s, when there were more tenured positions than qualified candidates, that most of the temporary posts became permanent ones, and the valuable opportunity of a trial staff appointment was lost—for ever, it seems.

The longer term research fellowships referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, are now provided by the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust and universities such as Warwick and University College London. Although they may not have all the advantages of those temporary posts of the past, they have high prestige, and have been a lifeline to many of our best scientists.

The Royal Society research fellowships—the ones with which I am most familiar—are held by post-doctoral fellows shortly after they have completed their period of study for a postgraduate degree. The fellowships are available for up to 10 years. The Royal Society undertakes not just the selection but the continuing career advice and assessment which are so essential if these people are not to be left stranded when their fellowship ends. The scheme has been very successful in seeing that that does not happen. Of the research fellows who have left since 1983, 73 per cent. have obtained posts in UK universities; 17 per cent. in industry or abroad; and the remaining 10 per cent. other positions. Few failed to obtain employment.

The peer review process which is used to select those scholars is a responsibility performed freely by fellows of the society. I have just completed a comparative assessment of three applicants in my area of study. I found it exacting. The demand far exceeds the supply, and the standard of applicants is something of which this country can be proud.

There are at present about 250 Royal Society fellowships. Even if one includes the university schemes and some expansion, the total number is unlikely to become more than 1,000 compared with the 20,000 on short-term contracts about whom we are so worried. There are those who see a simple solution to that imbalance. It is to reduce drastically the number of untenured posts. But the Select Committee emphasised the importance of those temporary employees to the research enterprise. Along with the graduate students with whom they share the work, they carry out significantly more of the actual practical research than the established staff who have other duties to perform.

There is another more positive reason why it is necessary to employ more research workers than will finally be given permanent posts in university research. Good research scientists are not always immediately recognised, even by themselves. Their talents tend to become apparent only after a few years' experience in real research. Every effort must be made to recognise that talent, or the lack of it, as early as possible, so that the aspirant has an early opportunity to discover where his or her talents lie.

Young people of great promise, whether they are musicians or mathematicians, need to be given several years of reasonable security while they test themselves and while they are tested by others, so that they may use best their gifts on behalf of all of us.

Those who do not proceed to a lifetime career in scientific research are no more wasted than a classics scholar who takes a position outside classics; for example, in the Civil Service. Their excellent scientific education is more needed today than ever: in industry, and teaching, for example, and—dare I say it?—in government.

My Lords, the number of research scientists has increased greatly over the past decade, as noble Lords have pointed out, while the number of established staff has remained fairly constant. That has created a problem over career prospects and insecurity of future employment. The committee was set up to consider and make recommendations for possible solutions to the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, its most able chairman, kindly invited me to attend its meetings in view of my former experience as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission and patron of the WISE Campaign; that is Women Into Science and Engineering.

I have great pleasure in endorsing all the recommendations of the committee. Because a great many academic staff were taken on in the 1960s—they will soon be reaching retirement—in the foreseeable future there will be some easing of the problem. However, the imbalance of numbers of researchers as compared with jobs available make the recommendations of the committee of great importance. As it recommends, it is very important in the first place to educate the science graduates broadly so that they have a choice of career paths in the future. In any case, some will find that research is not for them throughout their working lives. Some, through interactive work with industry, I hope, may move from academe into industrial research and see a very rewarding and challenging career in an area which is important if our country is to prosper in a highly competitive world. We need able scientists and engineers applying their intellectual capabilities to the full in both industry and academic research and all being sufficiently broadly educated to appreciate and enhance each other's contributions.

Like the committee, I appreciate the value of sandwich students with their skills borne through practical experience. It is also important, as the committee recommends, that good careers advice should be given to young researchers so that they can, if necessary, broaden their sights as regards their future careers.

As the report states—and noble Lords have paid tribute to it—University College London has a very good scheme, including continual staff appraisal so that contract researchers have a realistic view of their future prospects and can plan accordingly. Where researchers are on short-term contracts it is of great assistance if universities can "bridge fund" them across small gaps so that they are not constantly uncertain of their future employment, with resulting low morale which clearly militates against good research.

I now wish to concentrate on the particular problems of women researchers. As the report states, there are many more women working in scientific and engineering fields. Some find that contract research fits in with their other responsibilities in bringing up families. However, short-term contracts may put them at a disadvantage in terms of maternity leave, pension prospects and keeping up to date with their special expertise in rapidly changing technological fields of work. The Daphne Jackson Memorial Fellowships Trust scheme is a shining light and has helped many women to combine successful scientific and academic careers with responsible family lives.

We cannot afford as a nation to educate and train these highly intelligent women in fields of work where such skills are very scarce and then neglect them when, quite naturally, they too wish to bring up our next generation of children responsibly and keep their expensively acquired skills and expertise up to date.

The Engineering Council, when I was a member, published its career break working party report and produced a video for boards of companies to give helpful practical advice on how to retain these valuable women. That was done with the wholehearted support, in commercial terms, of our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and has been followed up, I am glad to say, by many industrial companies. Its recommendations on flexible working arrangements are very relevant to the situation of these researchers. Dr. Anne Wright, Vice-Chancellor of Sunderland University, set up a working group at the request of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and made similar recommendations for universities. It is vital that those should be put into action right across the university and industrial research field. That action will prove to be good commercial practice in the future in retaining the expensively trained women scientists and engineers. I am glad to say that many commercial and industrial firms are already carrying out that practice.

The Government, in response to the committee's report, welcomed its attention to women's careers. The Government, in following up the 1993 White Paper Realising our Potential: a Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology, in 1994 published The Rising Tide, which acknowledged that:

"Women are the country's biggest single most under-valued and therefore under-used human resource in the fields of science engineering and technology".

As a result, they set up a development unit in the Office of Science and Technology which is doing excellent work in this field. As the Government's response states, they will continue to encourage other funding bodies to follow the example of the Royal Society in its Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowships, some research councils and the Wellcome Trust in developing user friendly policies for women researchers.

Following the committee's report, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals published a most valuable and welcome concordat with the Royal Society and others to come into effect in September 1996 to improve the career management for contract researchers. I shall not go into details but it undoubtedly addresses many of the recommendations of the committee in a positive and constructive manner. It places emphasis on equal opportunities and monitoring the position of women contract researchers in the future. It makes particular reference to the essential nature of maternity leave provision.

It is particularly important also not to impose age limits on research contractors which can discriminate against women who have taken career breaks. The committee's report quotes Dr. Nancy Lane as saying:

"One should take not chronological age but academic age into consideration. This would be particularly helpful for women because if they took maternity leave for several years then that loss of time would be disregarded".

The Royal Society endorsed that by stating:

"It should become normal practice, when defining criteria for appointments or funding, to think of career stage as well as age".

I hope that in the future the concordat will also develop policies on career stage, as the Royal Society recommends, and will, where necessary, make flexible working arrangements available to contract researchers. Both moves would reduce the risk of indirect discrimination, to which the concordat particularly makes reference.

I am glad that the Government, in publishing their two reports and in response to the committee's report, place great emphasis on the need to encourage developments in science, engineering and technology for the sake of both the future wealth and quality of life of this nation. Without the harnessing of able minds to the study and application of these subjects to the problems of our age the UK would face a miserable future. In encouraging young people into those fields of work, we need all the talents of the nation, not just half. And then we need to retain those girls and women and not lose them when they have children. We must do that by developing user-friendly policies among employers.

As the Government's The Rising Tide said, there is a sound economic case for retaining more women in science, engineering and technologies. I take that from a report published only yesterday by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council which, in response to The Rising Tide report, is now giving positive encouragement to women returning after a career break by introducing five-year part-time Ph.D. studentships specifically to cater for those who wish to resume research. That is excellent news.

The WISE campaign has been encouraging such initiatives for 12 years with some success. We benefit greatly from the support given by the Government in many ways and especially from the development unit in the Office of Science and Technology. That is not a short-term process and it needs to go on well into the 21st century if it is to succeed. Therefore, I conclude by saying: long may that government support last.

My Lords, first, I commend the committee and especially the chairman, my noble friend Lord Dainton, for this very interesting and detailed report on what I believe is a most important matter.

I believe that we should all admit that the report was something of a surprise. I must claim ignorance of the magnitude of this particular problem. Although I have been very much involved in this particular area, I was quite unaware of the impressive data which was being produced. Also, I compliment the committee and the expert adviser, Dr. Whittingham, on the presentation of that particular data in a very user-friendly mode. That has allowed us to begin to appreciate what has been accepted as a common feature within the universities for a number of years, but has never really been brought to the forefront quite so markedly as this report tends to do.

As my noble friend Lord Dainton said, Dr. Whittingham is a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry, an organisation which has been extremely sensitive to that particular problem over a number of years. I am quite convinced that its careful scrutiny in the chemistry area has been responsible, in many instances, for the active participation within the chemistry community to try to solve the problem.

The increase in the number of graduates employed in the universities reflects the increase in the degree of sophistication of research which has been carried out in the universities during the past two decades. In particular, it reflects the increasing number of people who have gone into research. Over 20 years ago when I took the chair of inorganic chemistry at Cambridge, the Research School of Chemistry, which was probably one of the largest in the country, had something in the order of 100 people. They were mainly graduate students, with a sprinkling of post-graduate people, very often from overseas. Today, the department has 400-plus people and that includes a much greater component of post-graduate people being employed. Although it is one of the largest schools, it is comparable with other schools in the country as a whole.

As has been pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that increase in size also reflects the degree of sophistication in instrumentation within the university sector. I remember graphically the days when my noble friend Lord Porter and I sat on the chemistry committee of what was then the Science and Research Council, looking at chemistry applications. In those days, applications in the order of £30,000 were looked upon as a major consideration. Today, those applications are touching just short of £1 million. While I recognise the inflationary difference between the 1960s and the present day, that increase reflects the much greater complexity of the instrumentation which is involved in that particular work.

Of necessity, it means that the operations are being run for seven days per week and for 24 hours per day. Therefore, the manning of them has become a major undertaking. If that is coupled with research schools, that involves a tremendous amount of organisation and backing which is very often put in the hands of the temporary graduate staff.

Therefore, we can recognise that the magnitude of the problem is rising. I maintain that it will continue to rise if we are to maintain our position in what is, after all, the international rather than the national league of research. In the decade from 1986 to 1996 the number of academic staff in Cambridge has increased by 25 per cent.—and I emphasise that is across the board, and not just in science—whereas the non-tenured graduate staff has increased by 100 per cent. in the same period of time. That reflects the problem in very stark terms.

I emphasise also that those people feel insecure. They do not feel that they have necessarily been accepted within the system. As is emphasised in this particular report, it is very important indeed that we should recognise that they feel very vulnerable in those circumstances.

I should like to look at the problem in a slightly different way and consider the situation for people in those positions under the age of 30 and over the age of 30, because the research councils, which are responsible for approximately 60 per cent. plus of those employees—take a different view of the age structure of its post-graduate appointments. The SRC, became the SERC—the Science and Engineering Research Council—and has now become the EPSRC. These acronyms are flowing but are also variable in time. In the early days of the 1960s and 1970s, appointments made by the SRC were made for a maximum of five years. They were also restricted to an age group of 30 and below. That was a recognition of the problem of what would happen in the future.

In contrast to that, the MRC was able to employ people on much longer contractual terms without that age restriction applying. It is an interesting feature that if one looks at the data available to us to date, some of the worst examples (if I may use that particular term) occurred in the medical and biological areas. But I am afraid that with the introduction of inter-disciplinary research centres, once again the genesis of which is very much the SERC, there was a break with that early tradition. We are now employing people for longer periods of time—up to 10 years—over a much wider age group. Therefore, the physical sciences are now becoming much more comparable with the biological and medical sciences as a whole.

The under-30 period provided a very important role within the university system. As has been aptly stated by my noble friend Lord Porter, appointments in the early days were temporary, going on to a permanent appointment via the assistant lectureship grade. Since the disappearance of that particular group of people, we now have to employ a new stratagem in order to get the experience into the system. Therefore, certainly in chemistry, post-doctorate appointments to tenured situations normally require a period of four or five years of post-doctorate experience. The under-30s are often used in that particular way.

That brings benefits because, of course, not only do those people gain direct experience in the subjects which they may have been studying but very often that is a time at which people will change from one area to another area. They then may become pre-determined in something which they would not have done had they gone directly into the system from being a graduate student.

Reference has been made on a number of occasions to the recent publication by the CVCP of the concordat. I am sure that we would agree with the outcome of that deliberation. However, perhaps we should put that in the context of what is happening within the university system. Many of our systems have just been frozen in the sense of either the cutting of actual moneys to universities or very substantial restrictions being placed upon them. In many universities there will be no expansion of posts. Indeed, when vacancies arise they will be frozen. That will not help in any way whatever with the recruitment problem that faces us under those circumstances.

Moreover, the flexibility that occurred when I was very actively involved in staff appointments—namely, from the block grant—has now been reduced. It has been transferred through to the research councils, as a whole, which of course in many ways creates an admirable mechanism for providing grants within universities. But the real problem here is continuity. It is indeed a great problem with this particular group of people. They are dependent upon a grant being continued. But if that grant goes to a research council a difficult situation arises, with research councils very often having success rates of no more than 25 per cent. That is a measure of the problem that we shall face in the future. Therefore, although I accept the outcome of the concordat, I worry about the potential of implementing it unless we receive some direct support from the Government or from some other source in that area.

Finally, I turn to the point made in the report about the interaction between industry and academia. I believe that we are all in agreement that universities have been accused for a long time of not interacting well with industry. I think that there is more than an element of truth in that particular statement. However, I have much sympathy with the points made by my noble friend Lord Porter in the research council debate of last week. I believe that we have, perhaps, gone a little overboard on the issue. Industry is becoming so dominant and short termism, so operative in research grant applications, that the basics in research are now suffering, I believe, quite significantly. That is the seedcorn of the future. We can choose to eat it; hut, if we do so, we do so at our peril, as was so aptly put to us by my noble friend Lord Porter.

My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, for his report and also for his very clear introduction to it this morning. The issues identified both by the report and by the noble Lord are, as has been said, important to the future health and welfare of scientific research in this country, in universities, in research institutes and in industry in general.

The figure mentioned in the report, which gives the growth in contractual or non-established research workers as 216 per cent., compared with an increase of only 2.3 per cent. of established staff in universities, should ring alarm bells very loudly. However, one word of caution is that I suspect that there has been a similar trend, though not by any means to the same extent, in a number of other countries in the western world. There is no doubt that that has led to schisms between the established research community and the contractual research community, as has been mentioned.

There are some in research who would debate just who constitutes the underclass in research. Is it the established research worker who has an established post in a university who is burdened by increased teaching loads, administration and without adequate time to undertake research? Alternatively, is it the individual who is non-tenured, for example, and who can work full-time—that is, use 100 per cent. of his time—on research? There are some who would wish not to be in the established position for that very reason. They see university life at present as one where they cannot display and undertake the research that they want to do.

Nevertheless, having said that, there are disadvantages in being in the non-established role; and, indeed, these are mentioned in the report. However, I should like to add two further points which are not mentioned in the report. The first is one that I believe to be particularly important. If one is the holder of a non-tenured or non-established position, very often one is not allowed to make application for or hold a research grant from a research council. That must be done through an established worker in a department.

Secondly—and this point has already been mentioned—a non-established worker coming to the end of his period of contract may in fact spend a goodly proportion of his final year attempting to find other work. Therefore, that might detract—and, indeed, sometimes does—from the research work which he was employed to undertake.

The report contains a significant comment; namely:

"The universities did not deliberately set out to create a scientific underclass".

However, it points out that that is a reaction to the financial environment, with universities being required to take more students but finding themselves unable to increase substantially their establishment of staff members to teach and handle that increased student load. How true that is! Those of us who have been in academic life recently know how difficult that is to cope with.

Of course, it must be recognised that such non-established post holders who are an essential part of university departments—namely, graduate students, post-doctoral positions, post-doctoral holders, together with various grades of scholarships—are also, collectively, the powerhouse that drives research in so many departments. Without them, the department would be so much the poorer. In fact, it would he a very poor department which could not attract graduate students and post-doctoral students into its midst to carry out research. As some of us know, the very good departments are inundated with applicants when positions become available. Therefore, individuals will take a place—sometimes any place—in order to be part of that department.

In addition, one would not expect this corps of postgraduate research workers all to acquire established posts eventually. There has always been an attrition of numbers between post-doctorals and junior established posts. The bottle-neck in the United Kingdom is the scarcity of established posts that become vacant. However, there are some areas—such as clinical medicine and clinical veterinary medicine, which is my own subject—where recently it has been difficult to recruit professional staff with appropriate research training and background to existing established posts. In veterinary medicine the number of veterinary postgraduate research individuals is much lower than we anticipate it should be. It is not a situation which is acceptable. It is due in part to the poor salary structure in universities compared with practice outside, together with the observed lack of time available for research and the poor career pathway that is put before them. To my mind it is the absence in many instances of a clear, recognised pathway to higher academic posts that is missing in this country, with some expectation, based on academic and research performance and on competition, that a tenured position can be achieved in due course.

We have heard of the two bodies that have attempted to deal with this: the Wellcome Trust and the University of Warwick. They have taken steps to offer senior scholarships on a long-term basis, with the expectation that a fully tenured post will be available at the end of them, based, of course, on performance. It is reported that these have been eminently successful, attracting a large number of people of high quality.

Having been concerned with graduate programmes both in the United States and in this country over several years, it is natural for me to compare the two systems, particularly as many of our young people go to the United States for a longer or a shorter time. Some return but others do not. I think we would all agree that the experience that they gain there is extremely valuable and is most useful to them when they return to this country.

I would be the first to admit that the system in the United States is not without its difficulties or its faults. The differences lie not in the quality of the people in research or in the quality of the research undertaken there, but in the general structure of postgraduate programmes and the opportunities that lie beyond them. The structure usually begins with undergraduate research, leading to Ph.D. research, leading to post-doctoral, and subsequently into the assistant professor ranks—sometimes still supported by what is known as "soft" money—for a period of five to six years when a decision is then taken as to whether the individual joins the established staff. It is highly competitive but nevertheless it is known and appreciated that that is a pathway forward. It would seem that in this country there is no such recognised pathway. I believe we could usefully adopt some parts of the US system, particularly the provision of the slightly senior positions beyond the post-doctoral grades where expectations of performance are great; nevertheless I believe that we have the graduates who can meet those expectations.

As regards women in science, with our existing career pathways it should be possible for women to play an equal role in research, but that does not seem to be the situation. In my profession, for example, of the 350 positions in teaching establishments there is only one full professor who is a woman. She is not a veterinarian either. There are four to five readers and a few senior lecturers sprinkled around. There is no doubt that there has been discrimination against women. It may be inadvertent but it still exists despite the provision of facilities which encourage women to go on to higher positions. There is need for a much greater change in attitude.

I wish to comment briefly on the concordat that has been mentioned. I believe that it will be extremely helpful. I am, however, slightly worried that the smaller funding agencies which do not play a major part in providing research funding but nevertheless help with minor funding especially to young people, might be unable to comply with some of the suggested conditions of the concordat. I would hope that when the concordat is worked out with the charities and the other people who support research, note will he taken of that.

My Lords, I apologise at the beginning of my speech by saying that this is the middle of a working day for me and I may have to leave before the end of the debate as I may be called away. I hope that that is not the case. In this excellent debate many of your Lordships have already mentioned the crucial points, and therefore I hope I shall be permitted to examine the issue from a slightly different tack.

A couple of months ago K. H. S. Campbell and his colleagues from the Roslyn Institute in Midlothian, Scotland published in Nature an article on the generation of sheep clones, having established a stem cell line; that is, a cell line from embryos which they had genetically engineered. This paper received the most extraordinarily unsatisfactory press. The paper was considered to be almost a temporary scandal. The fact of the matter is that it was an example of British research of the highest quality. That research, and its implications, were completely lost to the public in general. I do not know K.H.S. Campbell and I do not know the Roslyn Institute, but I greatly respect what he did.

By using that sort of model it is almost certain that we should be able, in time, to grow stem cells which may enable us to consider how embryos—which so often fail in their growth—grow under optimal environmental conditions. By using that kind of model in sheep, we may overcome one of the major difficulties facing human medicine; namely, the high incidence of foetal abnormality and why it is generated. Further, this was a perfect model for studying the major scientific problem of how cells differentiate and what controls that differentiation. It is important for studying how tissues are made, but it is of great importance to subjects such as cancer medicine.

It occurs to me that one of the most exciting things about the stem cell technology is the possibility that, in time, human medicine may benefit hugely from that invention. Sadly, the night before last Jaymee Bowen died of leukaemia. If we were able to manipulate stem cells, there might come a time when we could generate stem cells which differentiated into a particular tissue. Thus we might generate blood cells, and these could possibly be used for the treatment of leukaemia victims, having genetically engineered those cells so that they were tolerated by the body. I do not think that is a far-fetched idea. It is something which I think in the long-term distance may be possible.

But how did the press react? The press commented a little on the genetic engineering of farm animals. I do not think that the experiment would achieve that, but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, can correct me if I am wrong. I doubt whether the experiment would be of great importance to agriculture as there are other ways in which we can successfully generate livestock. However, the experiment demonstrated an important basic problem that we face in our society.

We live in a scientifically illiterate society which does not understand its strengths. If I may be flippant for a moment, I wish to refer to my daughter, who will not read this as hardly anyone reads Hansard and therefore anything that we say in here is confidential. My daughter is a bright arts student at a good university. She left her excellent state school with pretty well no knowledge of chemistry, no experience in physics at all and with little understanding of biology. It is sad that she is puzzled at the idea of wiring a three-pin plug. That is the society that we are generating in our schools and, to some extent, in our universities. That point has great relevance to the debate.

I congratulate the Select Committee on this excellent report. It gets to the nub of the problem. I am grateful for the clear way in which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, set out the problem in his introductory speech. Many points have already been covered by noble Lords with far greater expertise. However, I jotted down a few points that I wish to raise.

One of the problems is that to succeed in obtaining a research council grant one needs ideally to have a first-class honours degree, or at least a good upper second. The research postgraduate is living on his wits. As we have heard, his employment is short term. One factor that noble Lords have not mentioned is the extraordinary loneliness of a research worker. The truth is that undertaking basic research in most laboratories—as has been described by others than myself—is 90 per cent. depression and 10 per cent. excitement. The depression can be extraordinary.

A long time ago I undertook some experiments on rabbits as a junior researcher. I was lucky because I had reasonable security; I was fortunate in obtaining one of the longer term support grants from the Wellcome Trust. I began a rabbit experiment at about 10 in the morning. Because of the nature of the work that I needed to do, the experiment was to continue until four o'clock the following morning. During that time I took a break perhaps for coffee. The animal house where I worked was bitterly cold. It was not heated and the air-conditioning was not too satisfactory either because of the problems that the university had in maintaining it. I went home to bed and returned the following morning to find that my data was completely ruined because the rabbit had not recovered from the anaesthetic that I had given imperfectly. That was a frequent occurrence. Only with persistence did that experiment produce results that were publishable in a good journal.

We have the problem of the low regard for postgraduate scientists, in particular those on contracts. Points discussed extensively in the document, and I can only support them, are the absence of a proper career structure and facilities for women, which I agree are particularly poor.

I wish to mention one point which has not arisen in the debate. Because of the pressure on university departments, many graduate scientists are pulled in to undertake a number of the teaching activities in those departments. However, those activities are rather poorly recognised in the graduates' assessment and appraisal each year. It does not contribute fundamentally towards the necessary overall research appraisal system, and the achievement of the best possible FC ratings.

As we have heard repeatedly in this House over the past few months, applications for research grants are an extremely chancy business. As the noble Lord, Lord Porter, pointed out, one of the problems is that the Royal Society can fund only very few of those excellent scholarships. As we have heard at other times, 70 per cent. of alpha-rated grant applications, for example, to the Medical Research Council, are turned down. An alpha rating effectively means that this research is regarded as being of international standard.

Although the Select Committee's report points out the need for better appraisal, with which I agree, in many university departments there is increasingly vigorous appraisal. That vigorous appraisal is almost unprecedented for those young scientists compared with any other career structure. Frequently in my medical school one sees scientists with a possible 10-year job with lectureship status who do not pass the appraisal scheme although they have relatively high-quality references and their publishing record is good. It is a major problem. The appraisal in some schools is probably unparalleled in industry or other occupations.

I turn to the problems in medical research. They have not been dwelt on by your Lordships. One of the problems affecting scientists in medical schools is that those young graduates are undervalued. That is demonstrably obvious because they are paid less than the people with whom they work, often clinicians undertaking similar research side by side on the same bench. Those clinicians will not only be paid more but will have better job security. The young graduates often have quite poor accommodation in medical schools. However, the real problem is their long-term security. Because of the changing career structure in medicine, almost any hospital worker in medicine is guaranteed consultant status at the end of a five to possibly seven-year training stage. But the scientist has absolutely no guarantee of lectureship status. And when he attains that lectureship status he will be paid some £20,000 less in basic salary than the consultant. That is a major problem.

The noble Earl, Lord Selborne—he is not in his place—believed that the report represented a minor scandal. The situation is even more serious. It is a major issue. If we accept—and I believe that it is correct—that in this country our manufacturing industry provides only 25 per cent. of our gross national product, we have to look to the long term and understand how important our science and technology will be in the future. Those sentiments have already been expressed. However, at present we are facing a situation which, sadly, is becoming fairly chaotic. We need to consider exactly how we shall achieve a higher profile for science.

I am unconvinced that at present the Department of Trade and Industry is necessarily the right department for such consideration. We have to consider a long-term, strategic approach for this aspect of our education and science. Any future government, of whatever colour, must commit themselves to far longer and more careful planning in this area. Ultimately our investment in science will be the single most important thing we can do for our own welfare and the welfare of future generations.

My Lords, noble Lords may be surprised that a non-scientist is taking part in the debate. I hasten to say that I do so only because I was requested to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I take anything that he asks me to do as a command and regard it as part of his idiosyncratic chairmanship.

Looking at the report, and listening to this most interesting debate, the conclusion to which I come is that the Select Committee was attempting to tackle three or four quite different problems which come together but are not evaluated in order of importance. One factor is a justifiable and praiseworthy degree of paternalism. That is to say, here is a group of young researchers for whom the system does not provide sufficiently either in those researchers' present capacity or in relation to their future career prospects. That is a serious and important issue, and suggestions are made for its improvement.

The second is how far the system that has developed in this way is inimical to the long-term interests of scientific research in this country. That is to say, do we treat persons entering on a career of scientific research in such a way as to make the best of their talents in the present and the future, and by doing so demonstrate to other young people that scientific subjects are worthy of study and offer a possible avenue to a future career? It is well-known that there is some anxiety about the fall-off in the proportion of very able young people at school who choose to specialise in the hard sciences.

The third relates to industry. Are we preparing young people in science who will eventually make their career not in a university or a teaching hospital but in an industrial enterprise? Here again there are suggestions as to the broadening of their curriculum and other ways in which they may be made more competitive in the search for jobs in industry. I regret that there has been no contribution to the debate from a captain of industry. If we are worrying about placing people in industry, we ought to be seeking opinions from their potential employers. That seems to be a gap.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly because we are dealing with a matter of resources, are we spending resources, which we know are limited and will go on being limited, in the best possible way to meet all the different demands on the system?

Noble Lords will be aware that I am perhaps in a minority of one in this House in regarding the expansion that has gone on in British universities in the past decade as highly deplorable—not in itself, but in terms of neglect of the financial implications of what was being done in respect of both teaching and research. If one is not prepared to pay for that number of students to have a first-class experience, then one should not have that number of students, or indeed that number of universities.

I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that science and the capacity this country has shown for innovation in science should be one of our major preoccupations. From that point of view, is the problem of the contract short-term researcher the most important? My private scientific adviser has held one of the fellowships to which the noble Lord, Lord Porter, drew our attention. He tells me that in his opinion the real problem for the young scientist in getting into an established position is the difficulty then of getting the necessary support for his research. The amount of time that is spent on processing applications to various departments and foundations takes away from time that should be allotted to research. In the humanities and social sciences the experience is identical. Not only does the MRC have to turn down alpha recommendations because it has no money; the same happens with the British Academy, which from this point of view is an additional research council.

The consolation we are offered is that all these major issues will be brought together in the Dearing Inquiry. I ventured to suggest that Sir Ron Dearing was a plumber being called in to do the work of a heart surgeon. Having seen the list of those appointed to the committee, I can only say that I prefer the plumber to the plumber's mate. I am not at all sure that a committee constituted in this way will really tackle these fundamental and interconnected elements of the situation. It is a subject to which I am sure the House will return. How do we secure the base for scientific research? How do we have a career structure which encourages young people to regard research as the avenue to a lifelong career? And how do we maintain in a situation of diminishing resources for universities the combination of teaching and research which was at one time—and ought to be again—their primary glory?

My Lords, for me it was an educating privilege to be a member of the Select Committee under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. He and other members of the committee brought to our deliberations a wealth of experience and knowledge of the world of research and academia that I do not possess. Nevertheless, given the many valuable and informative witnesses whom we questioned, the depth of the written evidence and the expertise around our table, it was not long before I began to feel what the main themes of our report might encompass. The noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and others have already covered many of those fully and clearly; so I would just like to make four points which particularly struck me as a result of our inquiry and deliberations.

First, I was disconcerted to discover that there appeared to be no universally accepted concept, let alone a structured regime, for reporting on and guiding the contract researchers in their university departments—although I listened with interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about appraisal and was encouraged by it. In my experience the value of annual reporting should not be under-rated. It provides not only helpful guidance for the subject of the report but also a useful and sometimes character forming discipline for the compiler of the report. It must be something of a surprise for the contract researcher after years of study and presumably regular assessment and reports on progress through to his or her degree, to find that although still working in the same university campus environment he or she may no longer receive any of the formal guidance or help which their career and their development would call for. Combined with an apparent lesser standing within the university or department (as compared to their tenured contemporaries) it is worth stressing that such a situation, where it exists, should be tackled and a structured reporting regime put in hand.

Secondly, our report makes a number of further proposals designed to help the contract researcher redress any feeling of being a second-class academic; for example, greater efforts to introduce longer contracts and some form of bridging arrangements where required between contracts, and flexibility to allow for maternity and child-rearing which would be more in keeping with the trends and fashion of our contemporary society. The proposals should help to maximise the large investment in education that has already been made, from which it is right to look for a wealth creating and value-added return to both individual and country. Giving the contract researcher greater status and say in his or her academic institution seems only right. But I particularly hope that the well established members of the tenured faculty will welcome and appreciate the proposed changes, some of which seem already to be in hand following the concordat to which many noble Lords referred.

The tenured staff have traditionally, and rightly, enjoyed the various privileges and status of their university or college appointment. I hope that they will be quick to accept and acknowledge that the extension to their contract colleagues of many of those advantages is important and must not be seen and derided as some downgrading of their own position as tenured faculty. Much as I support the suggestions in the report, I recognise that there may be those who will feel that some of their own unique advantages have been diminished or watered down. Good leadership from college and departmental heads will be called for to ensure that such perceptions do not take hold. We must also realise that careers in academia can be no less exposed to the rigours of economic pressures and the employment climate, where a job for life is no longer perceived as a universally achievable objective. Academia cannot hope to escape that real life situation.

My third point relates to the theme of getting better value for the working time of a contract researcher. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, drew noble Lords' attention to that point. Several witnesses pointed out that the pressing need to have his (or her) next job settled may lead the researcher to spend more time on seeking the next contract than on finishing off to best advantage the one on which he or she is currently engaged. A further and perhaps more alarming thought was that, because the next contract may be judged in large part on the reported and published success of past endeavour—or perhaps, more cynically, successful publication: the Brownie points to which the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred—there is a temptation to tackle the less demanding and less innovative aspects of a task. Writing and publishing a report or series of reports is too widely perceived as giving a better chance of landing a new contract than is a line of research which is still too speculative or way out to reach a reportable conclusion.

My fourth point, on which I believe there is still more to be done, concerns exploiting, to the benefit not only of the research team and its members but also of UK Ltd., the marketable benefits of the research. The path from discovery through copyright to development and marketing of a viable product or service still needs greater and continuing emphasis. I was impressed by the amount of effort and thought that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for example, has put into those aspects for a number of years, and very successfully too. Our own country's track record is generally acknowledged to be inadequate in that field, though no doubt there will be some who will say that we have been learning from past mistakes. But every time that we see a liquid crystal display, we should remind ourselves that it was a homegrown defence research breakthrough which we failed to exploit in its widespread daily uses in today's society. I hope that the enlightened thrust to bring together academia and industry to their mutual advantage will be rigorously pursued.

I greatly enjoyed the opportunities which this particular study gave for understanding and, I hope, helping to improve the careers and value of contract research staff in academia. The task is not one in which an obvious end result can be identified and reached. The processes that the committee identified and recommended will need to be kept constantly in mind as each new generation of post-doctorates comes into the market, with hard earned and expensively backed studies developed and ripened to exploit the wealth and richness of our nation.

My Lords, I too was not a member of the Select Committee, nor am I a scientist. But I felt that I should participate in today's debate for two reasons. In part, I participate because of my general interest in the subject. During my year as a Minister in the Department for Education, I was involved with the introduction of the reforms in what became the Education Act 1988. We had very wide-ranging debates in your Lordships' House over issues of university funding, academic freedom and the like, and many dire predictions were made. Therefore, I have followed with interest some of the issues consequent upon those reforms.

Also, I felt it right that I should speak because I am a non-executive director on the board of SmithKline Beecham, a British-American pharmaceutical company, which in 1995 spent £653 million worldwide on research, with expenditure in the United Kingdom of over £230 million. It is therefore an important employer of graduate scientists. I do not pretend in my capacity to fill the captain of industry gap that my noble friend Lord Beloff identified, but I can assure your Lordships that a strong academic science base is important to SmithKline Beecham and companies like it, both to meet the need for well qualified recruits trained in modern technologies and to allow effective collaboration with university departments.

I believe that it is important in the context of this debate for industry to be aware of what is being said by an eminent group, such as the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. I continue to believe that industry itself has a role in initiating and ensuring dialogue with academia and indeed in active participation. I do not believe that industry can just sit back and wait for somebody else to create the mechanisms. Industry should take initiatives at all levels of the education system in order to stimulate and encourage more interest and higher participation in the science sector.

I do not wish to suggest that some companies do not already do a great deal, but clearly, more could be done. Therefore, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his committee on producing a report which not only analyses the current position on academic research and identifies failures and unsatisfactory development but also puts forward constructive suggestions for improving the lot of researchers.

Clearly, there is concern in industry that many university courses are not receptive to its needs. For example, many graduates in chemistry and bioscience disciplines from British universities often do not have experience with the modern instrumentation and data-holding methods used by industry. That lack of familiarity with leading edge equipment necessitates a period of remedial education by industry once employment starts. There is also a poor level of business awareness among bioscience graduates, as well as other graduates, which is often the result of a too narrowly academic based curriculum.

I believe that Sir Ron Dearing's committee of inquiry into higher education is a welcome step. But it is important that the needs of science are fully considered by that inquiry. I feel sure that the report and, I hope, this debate may play a part in ensuring that is done.

The report also dealt with the need to encourage universities to develop mechanisms for secondments between industry and academia. There is reference to encouraging them to pay particular regard to small and medium-sized enterprises. That is extremely important. But in suggesting that, it should not in any way lessen the need to remind the larger companies that they have a responsibility in this area. They often have a proven track record in R&D and are major employers, and to some extent they also play a role in encouraging the development of small and medium-sized enterprises.

In a way, that is the same point as I made to the then Secretary of State for Health, Virginia Bottomley, when she was launching the Prescribe UK campaign, which was aimed at encouraging new pharmaceutical companies to come and set up businesses in the United Kingdom, making much of the fact that we can offer them a good academic science base here. That campaign was launched almost two years ago. It seemed to me at the time, and still seems to me now, that there is no point in encouraging new companies to come and set up here if we do not cater for the existing established companies which are already providing employment in this country.

I was a little concerned at the outset when the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, referred to women as a "depressed group" within a "disadvantaged group"—I believe that those were more or less his words. I welcome therefore the contribution of my noble friend Lady Platt, as it provided suggestions for a way forward as well as covering the ground on what is being done to improve the lot of women in this field. I cannot usefully add anything to what she said. However, it prompted me to feel that I could quote two examples of women in science who shine through as role models and whose successors should inspire and encourage others. I met both only recently in the context of meetings of the All-Party Chemical Industries Group.

The first is Helen Sharman. Your Lordships will remember that she was our first woman astronaut. She spent time in space with a Russian team and conducted research and experiments on that journey. Among other things, she is now addressing groups of schoolchildren and young people and showing them what an exciting career a scientific career can be. She deserves mention and congratulations on what she is doing.

The second role model is perhaps a less well-known name, for the present. She is Kate Mills who only last week received the Chemical Industry Young Person of the Year award. Kate is a research assistant with Pfizer and won the national title against stiff competition from the other four regional finalists, who happened to be young men. The candidates were chosen on the basis of first-class ability at work, leadership and communication skills and an interest in community activities—quite a wide base. She will become a young ambassador for the chemical industry and take part in its programme for industry-related events throughout the year. I believe that she will provide an inspiration for others. The award and the thinking behind it is a good example of showing what a useful contribution industry can make to encourage young people in particular.

I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, who said that the report we are considering is important because it demonstrates the extent and size of the issues concerned as well as their substance. It has an important role because of that. I support the recommendations and hope that the report and this debate will find a wider audience than the noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested. I enjoyed listening to the contributions and learnt a great deal.

I should like to end by repeating what I said at the outset: that everything should not be left to government. Industry has a role and a responsibility to take initiatives and to be active in developing and improving links with academia. For my part, I shall do all in my power to ensure that that happens.

My Lords, as a former head of an Oxford college which was a Dorothy Hodgkins college, I am a most concerned observer. I set up close links between my college and industry which brought us IBM and ICL Visiting Fellows and a GEC lecturership. The annual Open Evening for Industry held at Somerville enabled chiefs of industry to meet the whole second year—a learning experience for both sides. Naturally, therefore, I am a strong believer in close partnership between industry and the academic world and in the potential of women both in science and in industry.

The deeply interesting report we are discussing today has much that is just to say about the particular problems of women in research. But, before I turn to that, I should like to say something in this context about value for money and the importance of making choices in the spending of public money. According to a CVCP report of June 1995, The Economic Impact of International Students on UK Higher Education—language more pleasing to Ministers than to me, but nevertheless appropriate—

"UK higher education enjoys a very high reputation in overseas markets, based on the quality of teaching and research. It is vitally important that adequate investment goes into maintaining quality, to preserve the stuff of goodwill which the product enjoys".

The report continues,

"The financial health of many higher education institutions is very sensitive to the presence or absence of international students. Their intellectual well-being is equally sensitive. Many jobs in the UK are dependent on the presence of international students in the UK: the sector is a much under-rated contributor to UK export performance. The presence of this large constituency"—

I interject to say that overseas postgraduates constitute one-third of the postgraduate population—

"and the economic and non-economic benefits it confers, should not be taken for granted. In an increasingly competitive market the quality of the environment within which the service is provided as well as the quality of the service itself will determine whether international students become more or less important".

We know that according to the CVCP the presence of those students generates £1 billion annually to the UK economy. In the interests of that famous mantra "value for money" we have to care for the scientific goose that lays the golden eggs. Perhaps I can add that the converse is also true. We should try to ensure, in considering UK participation in the European Framework Programme 5—in itself a good thing and now under consideration—that the quality of projects funded by the programme should not he lower than those funded in the UK. There should be proper monitoring and evaluation. At present post hoc evaluation is apparently non-existent.

There should be proper accountability along the lines of our own research council's system of evaluation. I find it shocking that the programme of work in British universities, having proved very expensive, has required further subsidies from the UK science budget and from HEFC grants. No small part of the cost arises, it seems, from the usual expensive and unwieldy bureaucracy which is, alas, a hallmark of many Commission-led endeavours.

Last, but by no means least, it is deeply disturbing that the joint research centre is apparently,

"a vast and unaccountable black hole down which huge amounts of European Union money pour for no discernible benefit".

I feel that this issue, and the need to maintain our own scientific research reputation if we are to keep our international reputation, are very relevant to the future—or non-future—of our scientific research base and the careers of those who work there.

It is vital to define what we mean by value for money. Does it make sense in terms of preserving our human resources, our most valuable assets, for the Medical Research Council, as was said earlier, to find itself compelled to reject 70 per cent. of alpha-rated proposals for long-term strategic research? Does it make sense, given that our reputation for high quality research is a vital factor in attracting international postgraduate students, to cut capital university funding by 31 per cent? Forty per cent. of all US overseas investment and 42 per cent. of similar investment from Japan comes to the UK because of the strength of the UK science base. How long will that last when the career prospects in academic life of the vast majority of our own science graduates are so clearly under threat, as the report we are discussing demonstrates?

The issue addressed by the report which must concern all of us is the appallingly precarious situation of contract researchers in the sciences, not least the women among them. Unless the Government—this is a national public need which cannot be left to industry, though industry is an important partner—can ensure stable core funding to a much greater extent, to enable both more permanent academic posts and longer and better funded contract posts, young scientists will have little choice but to migrate to the Civil Service, industry and anywhere else where they can, with more settled prospects, plan their lives as they cannot at present do. The major defect is that contract researchers in the sciences are relatively disadvantaged in terms of career progression, salary, continuity of work, access to facilities available to established staff, and participation in the affairs of the university that employs them.

The universities themselves can and should do more to improve their status and the facilities they need. I am glad to say that Oxford, both at college and university level, has done something about crèches but that is only one issue compared to the financial uncertainty, the living from hand to mouth, that is the lot of young and not-so-young post dots. I have drawn on the experience of an outstanding Somerville science graduate who went on to do a Ph.D at Cambridge but who is now a high flyer in the Civil Service where her training serves her well. She told me that many of her contemporaries left the world of science for other jobs because there were no prospects except while they were young and cheap, no hope of permanent jobs with tenure, little certainty of more than two years' security at a time. She knew 30 and 40 year-olds in the same situation, with no pension prospects and never able to plan ahead—for instance, never able to take on a mortgage—because the next contract, if it came, might be in another place. I should add that she herself moved to the Civil Service as a positive choice because she actually wanted a career change.

The uncertainty made the forming of relationships very difficult, especially if the partners found themselves, within a year, with job prospects in quite different places. She also regretted the atmosphere engendered by the need to compete for money in terms of assessment based on the number of articles published and cited by others. People were not only tempted to produce quantity rather than quality but to write about safe issues which would be cited and familiar to all rather than to write about unfamiliar "blue-sky" areas of research. She added rather sadly that Japan actually invests in pure research and has therefore been able sometimes to proceed by quantum leaps; for instance, in the field of superconductivity. She felt, as do many of her contemporaries, that it was nevertheless astonishingly wasteful to put so much money into funding postgraduate scientific research in terms of the initial research awards, such as the excellent SERC grant, and then fail to follow it up with adequate support when they moved into the world of work. She quoted one contemporary who, since they both went down in 1988, has done a Ph.D, held two post-doctoral appointments in Oxford and is now moving to one in America but still has no long-term career prospects.

Only those who, first, have no personal commitments and/or, secondly, have a total commitment to research will wish to spend their working lives under such a regime. It is of course particularly hard for women who wish to combine a career with children. She saw many of the problems, however, as common to both sexes and she distinguished, as I do, between acting to reduce the problems of women and discriminating positively for them, something she would firmly reject.

Another distinguished Somerville scientist, now retired and an FRS, who waited until her fifties until she achieved permanent tenure, believes that as more women achieve posts of influence both on selection boards and in the academic hierarchy, as is already happening in the Law, the problems specifically relating to women will become less. But there are things which can and should be done to reduce this glaring inequality. Of course there is never enough money for everything. But can we afford as a country to waste our human resources, and in particular waste one-half of those human resources, by failing to provide the conditions in which they can flourish and be productive?

My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that I was not able to attend the opening speeches of the debate and especially for missing the introductory speech of my noble friend Lord Dainton. As a member of the sub-committee, perhaps I may say how very much I enjoyed the experience of serving under my noble friend's expert chairmanship. I should add that it was a particularly poignant experience for me in that he was the first chairman of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and I was the last. Not having heard most of the debate, I run the risk of repeating comments that have already been made, so I shall confine myself to two brief points.

First, I welcome the production of the concordat and, having played some small part in the early history of this effort, I do not underestimate the difficulties that had to be overcome. I hope that the universities and senior scientists will respond appropriately to what it says. Secondly, I cannot help but regret that it has been necessary to guide universities through this concordat, together with leading research scientists, in behaving towards the rising generation of scientists with the guidance, leadership and encouragement that they need and deserve. I know that there are honourable exceptions, just as I personally am only too well aware of dwelling in a rather fragile glasshouse. But I refer here to paragraph 4.9 of the report which says:

"Other witnesses stated that another area where contract research staff were abused was in their working relationship with their team leaders. ICI felt that they often 'seemed to be used as hired hands by the principal researchers who direct their work, with little thought being given to their personal and professional development—"'.

Let me illustrate an older and better tradition with a personal anecdote. Some 35 years ago I had the privilege of being a research worker at the Royal Institution in London which was then under the direction of the famous physicist, W.L. Bragg. At that time, in collaboration with an Indian friend and colleague, Dr. Chandrasekhar, I played a part in developing a method for using polarised X-rays to make crystallographic measurements and in constructing a device to produce those polarised X-rays. When it came to writing an account of this research, my colleague and I were very keen indeed that Bragg, who had shown great interest in the work, should be a joint author of the paper. "Certainly not", he said. "If I were an author everyone would think that the ideas were mine". I should perhaps add that Bragg gave me and my colleague career advice of the highest quality and took the responsibility on himself of ensuring my support as a contract research worker until, with his active help, I obtained a tenured position in Oxford at the age of 42. In the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, underestimates the influence of your Lordships' debate and the circulation of Hansard, I commend that model to present academic research leaders.

My Lords, it was a privilege to serve on this committee. However, I felt a bit of a fraud because my background is not in science, but archaeology. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, will forgive me if I do not look at the details of the report. I believe that it will be most useful and an informative tool for people looking at the worrying situation among research graduates. However, one aspect of the report should have been stressed more fully; that is the problem of funding. The whole situation that has led to this regrettable problem faced by research graduates is that it is almost impossible for universities to engage themselves in the good practices of employers because they do not find themselves with the financial stability to meet those commitments.

If noble Lords will forgive me for being blunt, I believe that contract research is the cheapest form of any employment. It is not a problem which affects just the university element of our society. I know from my experience in the City that it is a growing area because employers find it far cheaper. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, has already pointed out, few employers want to burden themselves with the problem of pensions and matters of that kind when they can get away with the situation that exists at present.

The universities are at present finding themselves in great financial difficulties. I speak as a member of the Court of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. The present situation exacerbates one which was first faced by research graduates; namely, that universities have changed the way in which they look at research. They have changed it from something which was a fundamental core of a university's activity for the sake of science, to a form of income. Many universities see research as being the basic financial lifeline that they need in today's society. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and assure him that he is not in a constituency of one in saying—and I agree with him—that the expansion of the university system, without a corresponding expansion in university funding, will exacerbate the problem in coming years. A number of universities are already finding themselves in difficulty. I believe that the report by Sir Ron Dearing will come too late. A few of the universities will be seriously pressed financially before any action has been taken.

As regards universities looking at research as a form of income, the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said in his speech that he was leaving out the new universities. I believe that that is a mistake because the new universities are coming into direct competition with the older universities for research funds. It is becoming an extremely competitive field. This competition has led to many of the universities looking to undercut other universities. They are now seeing each other as being in opposition, which is something that probably never happened in the past, apart from in the academic field.

The effect on contract researchers is that the money available for research is severely limited and therefore teams that are bidding for work have to be extremely focused in what they will be bidding for and also make sure that they are limited to a time scale. That again exacerbates the problem of contract researchers because they are caught by the fact that a research project which is funded may last for only two to three years. It is becoming increasingly rare, as the report points out, for research to continue for many years and being renewed on a five-year or 10-year basis.

One area of the report which is particularly interesting is the chapter which deals with advantages and disadvantages. The only advantage put forward seriously was that contract researchers could move from one institution to another and in their chosen field. That is only an advantage at the very beginning of a career, when a person enters the profession. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, has pointed out, when that situation continues it turns to a disadvantage. Therefore, in one respect that problem was sneaked into the advantages category because it could be seen as an advantage to be listed.

The disadvantages make a far chunkier chapter and are based on the financial resources that the employers can put forward towards hiring staff. That is not to say that the universities should, as employers, not have responsibilities that other institutions take upon themselves. In some of the evidence that we were given there was a definite indication that the universities were passing on responsibility without looking to the long term. A term has been brought up and it is particularly ugly; namely, "short-termism". It seems to be endemic in the way in which universities are looking at the finance structure of research graduates. A number of cases were brought forward. There was the University of Warwick scheme and also the Wellcome Trust fellowship schemes, which were extremely forward-looking. There was a great deal of good in them. However, many universities do not see it as their responsibility to take them on board in the long term.

The report lists a number of the problems encountered by research graduates. They were brought closely to the attention of the committee when we took evidence in Edinburgh—in what was held as a private conversation—from a group of young researchers who listed a number of the problems that they faced individually. Some of the more important of those problems included the pressure that many researchers feel themselves to be under as they have to work constantly towards targets and, just as they are trying to reach the conclusions of their work towards the end of what is often a three-year contract, they then have to spend a lot of time looking for other work. Many of the team leaders also reported that they felt under pressure at that point when looking for other places for members of their team if the research project was not to be continued.

There was a constant complaint about lack of resources. Everybody in university circles raises that point these days. We also heard about morale, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, drew attention. We were told of colleagues who had dropped out of the profession because they could not handle the uncertainty permeating the whole profession. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out, that was exacerbated by the treatment that they received. One of the prime recommendations of the report is that contract researchers should be given almost the same status as those who are permanently funded. It seems ridiculous that there should be such a distinction, especially given the number of contract researchers—their numbers have almost doubled in the past 10 years—who get one three-year contract after another with an institution. They can often work for that institution for a longer period than some of its permanent staff yet have few of the advantages of, and less status than, the permanent staff.

The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, pointed out that that is leading to attrition. One of our major concerns was not that attrition is taking out those people who are not suited to contract research, but that it is taking out some of the brighter elements—not only leading to them resigning from that particular subject, but to them leaving the science base altogether. I believe that the Government have a role in solving the problem. The universities are in a difficult situation. They are operating under financial constraints. It is for the Government to look at the problem more closely.

My Lords, this is my first report as a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology and I, too, would like to put on the record how impressed I have been by the hard work and dedication shown by the committee and its staff. The chairman and clerk drove the work forward with great commitment and I found the experience most rewarding. The delay in debating the report in your Lordships' House has been because of the ill health of the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Dainton. I am delighted to see the noble Lord back fit and well. Perhaps I may add that I did not find his chairmanship idiosyncratic at all.

Many noble Lords will share the pleasure, expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, in learning that an early initiative reflecting the recommendations of the report was taken in Scotland by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and that that was soon followed by a concordat in England and Wales. That provides us with a model of good practice which I hope will be built on. As other noble lords have told us, it does not cover all the contract researchers.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said, the need for this inquiry emerged from the concern that there had been very little growth in, and change of, personnel during the 1980s and early 1990s in established science and technology academic staff although there had been a large increase in the number of non-tenured staff on short-term contracts, almost exclusively working on research. The noble Lord explained how all that came about. Our concern was that that discouraged young people from taking up a career in science and that it particularly disadvantaged women scientists.

We also looked into the proposal that there should be a research Masters degree as an intermediary stage between a first science degree and entry into research or moving on to a Ph.D. The report tried to establish the facts. It also looked at the advantages and disadvantages of the various terms of employment between long and short-term staff.

I believe that few members of the committee doubt that short-term contract work for scientists is here to stay. It is clear from the debate that other noble Lords agree with that observation. This applies not only to universities but to industry, and increasingly to all areas of employment. The phenomenon is being increasingly debated. Indeed, the RSA started a national debate entitled "Towards a New Definition of Work" to try to understand better the implications of this kind of change for society, industry and education. What we have learned about short-term contract work in this study can be applied also to work in a much wider area.

I agree with other noble Lords that the important problem thrown up by the report concerns the supply of scientists, the ageing of permanent staff at universities and colleges, the loss of young scientists because of the short-term contract system and the difficulties put in the way of women scientists by the system, so clearly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. The loss of scientists was graphically illustrated in a discussion document published by the Science Alliance in March of this year:

"Overall, one-third of all science contract staff leave every year, over half of whom leave science employment entirely, even though over three-quarters of such leavers have by then gained science Ph.Ds".

What a waste! However, it is encouraging that each year almost 100,000 young people leave school as aspiring scientists. Ten years later these people end up as 4,500 post-graduates and 10,000 support science graduates in science careers. Of course, not everyone wants to go into a career in science, but a loss of 85 per cent. must be worrying. It is worth noting that two-thirds of contract staff are under 34 and that one-third of these are women. We are losing our next generation of scientists and adding to the gender imbalance. A major reason for this loss must be the way in which the short-term contract system is managed. Many noble Lords have spoken about the problems put in the way of career researchers by the system. But as the system is here to stay we must find a more effective way to manage it and to conserve the scientists.

I know that it is dangerous to believe something on which most economists agree, and it is perhaps even more dangerous to believe it when a number of politicians also agree. However, there is a consensus that our future economic prosperity depends to a great extent on our scientists and technologists to make the economy innovative and competitive. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and other noble Lords have confirmed this. The investment in training and educating our scientists is to an extent wasted if a large number of people leave science, even though they contribute to the science literacy called for by my noble friend Lord Winston. The most successful investments are those which are nurtured and looked after. If we do not look after our scientists I go further than the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, and say that we shall be guilty of losing both the seedcorn and the crop.

The report recommends several ways to improve the management of the short-term contract system, thereby encouraging more young people to stay in science. It recommends that short-term contract staff should have the same status and rights as long-term colleagues and that they should be involved in the universities and not made to feel outsiders or an underclass. In essence, they should become stakeholders. Funds should be earmarked to bridge the gaps between contracts and longer-term fellowships for the most able scientists. Barriers to women should be removed and maternity provisions, child-care facilities and retraining needs should be provided at universities as in other areas of employment.

I believe that one of the most important proposals in the report is that university careers services should serve contract staff as well as undergraduates. These highly trained scientists should not be lost because of poor career structure. The Government have themselves acknowledged this need. In Realising our Potential they say at paragraph 7.28:

"While individuals must remain free to exercise choice in such matters, they ought to do so with the benefit of professional career advice counselling".

Many noble Lords have spoken of the importance of professional advice to help young people find out about themselves and avoid taking a succession of short-term contracts in the hope that they will lead to a long-term career in a university or company when in reality they will lead to unemployment. That is because their job lasts only as long as the research funding, which makes it difficult for them to have established appointments.

I join the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, in the hope that our report helped the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to recognise this quickly, when early this year it launched an initiative with four aims: first, to establish a network of advisers in Scottish higher education institutions; secondly, a series of courses dealing with career development for the research staff on temporary contracts; thirdly, to share information about research vacancies in Scotland; and fourthly, funding has been provided to help institutions adopt good practice.

Work in Scotland is proceeding under the co-ordination of Professor Juliet Cheetham, who has visited all 21 Scottish higher education establishments. The objectives of the Scottish initiative are reflected in England and Wales in a concordat which was developed by the research councils, the Royal Society, the British Academy, the CVCP, and the Standing Conference of Principals. The research councils have undertaken that their grant regulations will reflect the concordat's provisions. I hope that the Minister will tell us that that has the support of the Government. Both the Scottish initiative and the concordat accord with the recommendations of the Select Committee.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, told us, we need to face up to the fact that even the best-intentioned organisation is not going to take as much trouble over its short-term staff as it does over its permanent staff in matters of training, career development and pensions. Short-term contracts do lead to feelings of insecurity. We need to acknowledge the legitimacy of those feelings and, as a society, put in place those measures which will help people to cope.

In case your Lordships had not noticed, this is the European Year of Lifelong Learning. That is designed to encourage people to take individual responsibility for their own development and progress, and much of your Lordships' Select Committee report is in sympathy with this. Lifelong learning and accompanying guidance is high on Labour's agenda for Britain's competitiveness and its citizens' personal development and wellbeing. We welcome this report as an important contribution towards this goal. I hope that the Minister will do the same.

My Lords, the Government have already formally welcomed the report which has been the subject of our debate. But I should like to repeat our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and his colleagues on the committee for producing such a valuable document. Today, we have heard additional testimony from the noble Lord and from many others with great experience in the field, through to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

The report and the debate have concentrated on the issues associated with the employment of contract research staff in universities. As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, accepted, the Government openly acknowledged those in the 1993 White Paper Realising Our Potential, and I shall not restate them now. I must, however, emphasise one or two related background points which, though familiar enough to the committee and your Lordships, may not be always so widely appreciated outside.

First, funding research by fixed-term project grants brings with it many benefits. It is flexible, and it opens up new opportunities not just for research, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lewis, said, for research staff, especially those who are newly qualified. It is important that that is recognised. The noble Lord, Lord Porter, and my noble friend Lord Soulsby recognised that there was value in that.

Secondly, there has been a considerable growth in the funding of university research from a wide range of sources, and in accompanying numbers of fixed-term contract staff employed by the universities. That is not a new phenomenon. It has been taking place steadily at least since the mid-1970s. It is an area where there has been an overall increase in research activity and in research employment.

However, our concern relates to the tensions that have been caused by that growth and, in particular, their resolution. The Government set out their thinking in the 1993 White Paper and we now have the committee's recommendations. In the light of the observations made by your Lordships today, I wish to review what has been done by university employers, the research funders and the Government.

The committee recognised, as do the Government, that the university employers have the frontline responsibility for the management of their staff. Indeed, most of the recommendations are directed to the universities. There is a growing awareness among the universities themselves that if they are to excel in research and attract first-rate researchers they need to excel demonstrably in the management of their research staff. What is at issue fundamentally is the way in which they manage not only their staff but their resources and cashflows to ensure appropriate personnel and career management.

It ought to be acknowledged that from their existing resources some universities have already set good examples. Some have already opened up their career service to contract research staff; for example, Stirling University. The University of Warwick has been singled out during the debate for funding fellowships, but that accolade applies also to Leeds University. Some have already made available a central pool to provide bridging funds between research grants where the circumstances warrant that. My noble friend Lord Beloff saw advantage in that.

The challenge is to find a way of broadening and strengthening such spontaneous initiatives. A way was found in the concordat recently agreed between the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the research councils and the Royal Society. The concordat, which was engineered by the Office of Science and Technology, is a major step forward in securing better career management of university contract research staff. It is the first time that university representatives and research funders have worked together in this way.

The concordat specifies explicitly that the terms and conditions of employment of contract staff should be in line with those of established staff and that there should be regular review and career guidance. Those provisions correspond closely with the first two recommendations in the committee's report, and they are particularly important.

Equally important, however, is the shared understanding between university employers and research funders, which the concordat confirms. It is an understanding of what is required to ensure that those with the greatest potential can be identified and nurtured; that all can receive appropriate advice on the opportunities inside and outside academic research; and that a degree of continuity is available where the research in question justifies it as well as the potential of the individual concerned. All those are designed to overcome what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, described as the loneliness of the contract researcher.

What is now important is to make that concordat work. It is a framework. It will require the active partnership of all those with an interest, not just the university representatives and the research funders but the principal investigators in the laboratories and especially the contract research staff themselves. A working group led by the Office of Science and Technology is overseeing initial implementation. The research councils are amending their grant regulations so that from 1st September recipients of new grants will be expected to operate under the terms of the concordat. The CVCP will be circulating the document to universities, explaining in particular the arrangements for monitoring and reviewing progress.

The charities, which are of course important funders of university research, are not formal signatories. But my understanding is that the CVCP has had fruitful discussions with them, and that they effectively subscribe to nearly all the concordat's provisions. Where, for complex reasons, they cannot do so—and this relates principally to the provisions on maternity—they are likely to come to alternative arrangements. That is good news. So too is the welcome which the AUT (Association of University Teachers) has given to the agreement.

The CVCP is now considering with the research funders and others what further publicity to give the concordat. One option we have in mind is a conference which could also be used to disseminate existing good practice—to which I have referred in the universities.

The detailed implementation of the concordat will be largely for the university employers. It was never the intention of the research funders to encroach on matters which must properly be for autonomous universities. However, the concordat says explicitly that contract researchers should enjoy rewards and other terms and conditions of employment which are in line with those for established staff. The noble Lord, Lord Craig, emphasised the value of that. Access to facilities is cited as an example, and this was one of the committee's broader concerns. I am sure that the concordat will be an encouragement to universities to review their existing practices in this area, where this is necessary.

University employers do face difficulties offering wide-ranging career advice, both to research staff and to students. Other bodies in the public and private sector can help. Some are already doing so. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, and others referred to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, which has launched a £200,000 initiative to strengthen career guidance for contract research staff. I am sure that is broadly welcome. The DfEE's higher education projects fund, though targeted at students, is offering up to £1 million over two years for projects to strengthen career management skills in universities and to disseminate good practice.

Some companies engaged in collaborative research with universities also play a part in broadening career experience and offering practical advice to contract researchers and research students. I look forward to further examples of such co-operation. For their part, the research funding bodies should support research in a way which makes the universities' task more manageable.

Under the concordat, the research councils have undertaken to be responsive to requests for higher salaries for more experienced staff so long as the science justifies this, and to meet the costs of replacing staff in cases of maternity and long-term sick leave. That is particularly welcome as the lack of funding in this area has long been seen as a disincentive to employ female staff, as a number of noble Lords have commented. I shall return later to that point.

The research funders share a particular interest with the universities in identifying and supporting potential research leaders. The 1993 White Paper suggested that they place a greater emphasis on individual fellowships, and this has been happening. Since 1994, just six months after that 1993 White Paper, the Royal Society has received additional funding to increase the number of fellows in its prestigious university research fellowship scheme. They will soon total some 270 compared with 200 three years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Porter, described that very well.

The research councils have also strengthened their provision, either by increasing fellowship numbers or by ensuring that their schemes now offer an opportunity of secure career progression for the highly talented. As a result, the science budget alone now supports well over 1,000 fellowships. That is significant. But the research funders need to keep this provision under active review alongside other longer-term research support and alternatives to project grant funding. The concordat rightly makes this requirement absolutely explicit.

Of course, there is a range of funders of research in universities. They are not all the same, and universities already cope with the differences between them. Government departments and industry generally purchase research from universities by contract or commission, whereas the research councils support it by grants. That is an important distinction. With commissioned research, the supplier—the university—should ensure that it recovers sufficient funds from the customer to meet its staff management costs. The concordat may encourage universities to do that, even though not formally applying it to commissioned work.

As my noble friend Lady Park wished, I believe that the concordat may also help to clarify thinking among purchasers of research for whom value for money is critical. In some cases a purchaser may only want to purchase a one-off "product". In other cases, it may be in the purchaser's interest to explore the scope for what might be called longer-term or strategic alliances. Rolls-Royce's 12 well-regarded, university technology centres are a good example.

For its part, the Department of Health is currently considering responses to consultation on its First Statement on a Research Capacity Strategy. That was produced in response to a Select Committee report on medical research and addresses head on the question of career structure and development for research personnel, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Winston, wanted, especially in clinical medicine. After consultation and discussion in the national forum of research funders, the Department of Health will be developing an action plan with members of that forum. Planned action by the Department of Health will also take account of the CVCP's inquiry into clinical academic careers with Sir Rex Richards in the chair.

I am conscious that there is another important debate to follow this one. Therefore, I must apologise if I have not answered all the detailed points that were raised. However, as such specific attention focused on the position of women—as, indeed, was the case with the committee—I should like to say a few words in that respect.

The Government has given additional funding to the Royal Society to launch 16 well-named—as I hope my noble friend will believe—Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowships. These are targeted at the immediate postdoctoral stage, when women especially tend to drop out of research. I am pleased to report that 15 of the fellows appointed in the autumn were women. The universities, the research councils, the Wellcome Trust and other bodies are now making progress in removing age and other barriers which prevent women continuing in research, or returning to it while retaining family responsibilities.

The research councils are supporting "returner" fellowships under the auspices of the Daphne Jackson Trust, to which reference was also made. I, too, acknowledge the EPSRC's decision to pilot part-time Ph.Ds to benefit women. I am pleased that the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council has launched a project to identify and encourage best employment practice. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that the results should be relevant not only to Scottish universities but also to those on this side of the Border. The Office of Science and Technology's Development Unit on women in science, engineering and technology will be reviewing just what progress is made by the research and funding councils.

I should like to conclude by saying that we do indeed welcome the committee's report. University employers, research funders and the Government are working along the lines of the committee's recommendations. However, I acknowledge that there is still much to be done. I very much trust that the concordat is the proper basis on which to take forward those recommendations. I hope that I have given some indication of the manner in which we believe it can be achieved. The report and the further advice given in the debate will be of considerable help both to the Government and others in judging how successfully the outstanding challenges are to be tackled.

My Lords, I, too, am conscious of the fact that there is an important debate to follow. I shall not take up the time of the House by traversing all the contributions which have been made by noble Lords and noble Baronesses. I am grateful that so many people have taken part in the debate who are not members of the committee. That clearly shows there is a deep concern with the affairs of the universities and with the affairs of science in universities and with this particular phenomenon of the rapid uncontrolled growth of contract research in universities.

I very much appreciated what the Government said about the concordat, but if I have one criticism—and it is an important one—of the Government's response it is a simple one; namely, that the concentration of the Government has been entirely upon mechanisms and the concordat. Of course we all wish that well; we are very much behind it—by "we" I mean the committee—and we have made that absolutely clear. But we also discussed today the causes of this particular phenomenon. I must remind the House that the causes of the phenomenon lie in the serious underfunding of the universities which causes them to seek money from whatever sources they can get it. One of the ways in which they can get it in significant quantities is through research activities. That has a distorting effect on the way in which research should develop. That is not the only matter which is of concern to us.

Whilst this research has been going on, the Government have carefully withdrawn from the universities—and are in the process of increasing that procedure—funds which are required for equipment and furniture, so that the infrastructure on which this research is predicated is decaying. I do not see any way in which that can be remedied by the happenstance of getting contracts from industry or Europe or wherever, for it is well known that those infrastructure costs are not readily entered into as charges on any contract of which we know. I hope that the Government in their reconsideration of these matters—while I applaud all that they do to support the concordat—will give serious consideration to those features of our university life which are rendering the universities less capable of undertaking research in the future.

Unless we attend to that, I am afraid there will continue to be a steady decline to a point at which we shall no longer be able to support the quality of research we have been able to support in the past. Already there are signs of that in the way in which Britain has slipped in citation indices in science. It has slipped as regards the way in which our work is recorded and referred to.

I hope that the Government can find it in their heart to provide the small amount of money that is necessary in much the same way as they have felt able to help the Royal Society to establish the Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowships. It is small beer but it is of tremendous importance for the health of science, engineering, and technology, both at the basic level and at all the applied levels of industry, to which so much eloquent reference has been made in this debate. I commend the report to your Lordships.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Northesk.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

rose to call attention to the Government's White Paper Protecting the Public (Cm 3190); and to move for Papers.

My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, for initiating this important and timely debate and to have done so in such an eloquent and forceful way. Further, I feel confident that I speak for the whole House when I say how much we regret his premature resignation from the Office of Lord Chief Justice of England on grounds of ill-health and how much we greatly admire the way in which he discharged his responsibilities in one of the most demanding of all public offices.

As I reflected on the proposals before us today, I wondered about how far the Government collectively realised the full significance of the changes that were announced so unexpectedly by a single Minister on a party conference platform last autumn. It was policy-making by proclamation. The White Paper before us provides justification for a policy that had already been decided. There is only one departure of any substance in the White Paper and that is the one to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, referred; that is, the qualification that the court should be required to impose a specified minimum sentence unless there are genuinely exceptional circumstances—referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, as an "escape clause". I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to say something to the House about what he and the Government envisage will be the impact of that clause.

While we can all share the White Paper's stated objective of protecting the public and while we can all recognise the strength of public sentiment, I am bound to say that the essentially punitive strategy it sets out is, in my view, misconceived and likely to prove counter-productive if it is enacted.

I have two reasons for saying that. The first is scepticism about the effectiveness of deterrent sentences. In over six years on the Parole Board I saw case after case, including many of the most serious offences of violence, which had been committed on impulse or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. There had been no prior thought whatever of the consequences if the crime were to be detected—and only a minority of crimes are detected—and the culprit brought to trial. Even when crimes are planned in advance by identifiable professional criminals, often known to the police, it is the risk of detection and of conviction that counts for more in any calculation of the risks and benefits than the likely penalty.

The large majority of people who have studied criminality and the best ways of countering it, came to the conclusion that it is enforcement and detection that are more effective than deterrence. The statement made recently by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, which a number of your Lordships will have seen, relating to improved detection rates in London is absolutely central to the effective countering of criminal offending.

My second ground for objection—one to which I have been asked to refer because I have made a detailed study of criminal justice policy in the United States—is the experience in America. Several of the proposals have direct United States origins: automatic life sentences for repeated crimes of violence or serious sex offences; mandatory minimum sentences for repeated offences of drug trafficking; and "honesty in sentencing" plagiarised from the US ideology of "truth in sentencing". With all respect to our American friends, many of whom will agree with what I am about to say, the United States is hardly the best place to look for instruction in well considered and effective criminal justice legislation.

America today is a society marred by mass incarceration on a scale which was undreamt of only a decade ago. There are now substantially more than 1.5 million people confined in federal, state and local institutions. It is far and away the highest number of prisoners per head of population anywhere in the developed world. The courts are overburdened; the costs are way in excess of the original calculations, where calculations were made; and violence is rampant. To follow down the same road would be profoundly mistaken.

One lesson stands out. It is that, because of their inflexibility, mandatory minimum sentences must distort the process of justice. How can it be right for the same sentence to be passed when aggravating or mitigating circumstances in which offences are committed vary so greatly? Inevitably cases will occur—and frequently do occur in the United States—where everyone involved believes that the mandatory penalty required by law is unjustly severe. The result is that juries may refuse to convict even though the accused would appear to be plainly guilty on the evidence before the court; and, as shown in every published evaluation, judges and prosecutors devise ways to circumvent the application of mandatory sentencing.

So the practical consequences of mandatory minimum sentences are shown not only in the vast and costly expansion of prison building and staff, which in America is already leading to reductions in other publicly funded services, as it would do here, but in the workload of the courts. Due to the reluctance of defendants to plead guilty where there are mandatory sentences, more than two and a half times more cases carrying mandatory penalties are now coming to trial than cases where the court has discretion. The result is that a chasm has been created, a chasm that worries many thoughtful Americans, between legislators who have enacted mandatory sentencing laws and who support them for political and symbolic reasons and the judges, prosecutors and other officials who have to administer them in practice.

It is no coincidence that virtually all of those in this country with first-hand experience of the administration of justice, and not simply the judges, are strongly critical of the sentencing proposals set out in the White Paper. If we want to avoid the adverse consequences of similar policies—remarkably similar policies—introduced for similar reasons in the United States, I suggest to the Government that the voices of those who do have first-hand experience are listened to.

My Lords, the past history of custodial sentences in our country is a story, to a degree, of collusion between the courts, the lawyers and the press and the consequence of that collusion has been a lack of openness about the effects of particular sentences. That is something to which the Lord Chief Justice referred a moment or two ago as being a proper subject of inquiry and I agree. But that is not what this White Paper is about. It ought to be about improving public confidence in the administration of criminal justice in this country. It does not do that work.

I suggest that the Government's prime duty is to ensure the safety of their citizens. If that is the correct test, and I believe it to be so, this Government have failed. Only one crime in 50 is punished by our courts. In the past 17 years there have been 10 criminal justice Bills. Most of the claimed fundamental reforms have been discarded. Perhaps I may mention two at random. Unit fines were the grand remedy thrown away after the passage of a moment. As the Lord Chief Justice pointed out, there were directions to judges significantly to ignore previous convictions. Lawyers, full-time judges, part-time judges, of whom there are a number present in your Lordships' House, insisted to the Home Office at judicial seminar after seminar that that would not do. We were told that we were all wrong. We were right.

We insisted—and we still do—that a due, proper sentence needs to reflect, though it must not be entirely determined by, an offender's individual circumstances. A serial criminal is different in nature and quality when he falls to be sentenced, from a first-time offender. There is a point of principle to which the Lord Chief Justice referred. In one rather crude and unthinking sense, this is not a constitutional argument. It can be said, and it has been, that what Parliament determines the courts must fulfil. But there is an infinitely more subtle point that sentencing in a civil society should be flexible; that crimes with the same label, even domestic burglary, vary infinitely. In other words, it is the justice of the case that should be the engine that drives the sentencer and determines the sentence.

The Chairman of the Select Committee in another place said in 1991,

"I do not like minimum sentences. They reduce the discretion of the courts and all who practice in, or know anything about the courts, realise that human life spans an enormous width and there are many degrees of blameworthiness".

Perhaps I may give two examples. I prosecuted a determined professional burglar whose life's income came from preying on others. He terrorised people in their own homes; tied them up with electric flex so that they almost died. He did it on a number of occasions. He was convicted on several occasions and was subject, rightly, to a harsh sentence indeed. Put the burglar at the opposite end of the scale—the rather dim youth who puts his hand through the open back window of domestic premises and takes a loaf or a bottle of milk and does it three times. Is he now to be the automatic recipient of a minimum, mandatory sentence? That is not just; it is a perversion of justice and one which, I am sorry to say, is brought about on the basis of low motive.

The principle for which I contend and which I believe to be self-evident, is that the true interests of victims and therefore the wider interests of our society, are served by the individualisation of sentences. I had not myself thought that we lived in a totalitarian society or wanted to. As the Lord Chief Justice has said, there is a case for looking at the Butler recommendations, with possibly automatic but reviewable sentences for repeat rapists. But that review should be judicial or quasi-judicial, not—a million times not—executive. It should be subject to as much publicity as possible. The public have a right to know.

I turn to the reduction of remission. What is the consequence to be? We know, because the White Paper tells us: judges will take into account the abolition of parole and changes in early release arrangements—in other words, the sentence of which we read in our daily paper will be reduced. As the Lord Chief Justice said, this is a White Paper which prescribes shorter sentences as passed. To quote from page 43,

"the Government does not expect these proposals to result in a general increase in the period of time offenders serve in prison".

That is not quite what I detected when I watched the television coverage of the last Conservative Party Conference at which Mr. Howard appeared.

Of course, we welcome supervision after release. That is extremely important. Many of us on this side of the House have pressed for that for a long time. Will there be increased resources for the probation service, which is grossly overstretched at present? How is one to manage earned remission by virtue of positive good conduct in prison if one does away with the educational component in prison, which is what will happen if the cuts continue? Educational provision in Her Majesty's prisons will decline because the funding is being limited.

Perhaps I may say a word about pleas of guilty. How are they to be reconciled with automatic minimum mandatory sentences? There is a virtue in pleas of guilty. It has nothing to do with the ignoble point that the time of the court is saved or that public expense is lessened. It is much more important than that. A plea of guilty is the public acceptance of moral responsibility for the harm done to the victim. In a very deep sense, it is the beginning of moral recompense for the victim who has been wounded. What inducement will there be for anyone properly to be advised to plead guilty if we have minimum mandatory sentences, imposed by diktat from the Home Office and not considered on a reflective, informed basis by someone who has heard the evidence—as though knowing anything about the evidence might have anything useful to do with a just sentence?

Automatic life sentences are proposed for offences which include unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13 years, so a boy hardly older than that who commits the offence twice will have an automatic mandatory life sentence. That is in the White Paper. It is not an exaggeration. A pub punching or glassing which leads to wounding with intent, which may follow 10 years after the event of unlawful sexual intercourse, will involve a mandatory life sentence.

Bearing in mind the time constraints, I have highlighted only one or two matters at random. I believe it to be a pity—and worse, an infinite shame—that matters of this sort are dealt with on the basis of mottos at party conferences. That demeans our society.

I have only one last word, to which I believe myself to be entitled. The experience of the United States has been mentioned already and I respectfully agree with what has been said. The United States has some virtues and expresses noble principles. One of them is this:

"I will not cut my conscience according to this year's fashion".

That sentence could have been made and minted for our present Lord Chief Justice.

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, the Lord Chief Justice deserves the gratitude of the whole House and, indeed, the nation. I believe that he will be recognised by future generations as the greatest Lord Chief Justice of this century. During the all-too-brief four years in which he has served in that high office, the noble and learned Lord has performed his daunting responsibilities with humanity, firmness and distinction—not only as a fine jurist, but also as a well-rounded sensitive human being whose sense of humour matches his sense of justice. Under the leadership of the Lord Chief Justice much has been done to repair the damage done to the criminal justice system by the notorious cases involving serious miscarriages of justice. Much has been done by him to restore public confidence. He has blown away cobwebs and encouraged a more open system of justice. I hope that he will permit me to say that during a period of anguished personal tragedy he has displayed the courage of a lion, seeking unremittingly to protect the independence of the judiciary against unwarranted executive interference without descending into the political arena.

Judicial independence is not some minor attribute of a civil society. It is a necessary condition of constitutional government under the rule of law. It can be preserved only if there are senior judges who are fearlessly independent and impartial and if it is nourished and sustained by Ministers and civil servants. Thanks to the appointments made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor we are fortunate to have fearless, independent and impartial senior judges. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, whose maiden speech we eagerly await, is also an outstanding example. He is a brilliant, independent-minded Commonwealth judge whose presence in this House, as well as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, will illuminate our jurisprudence and proceedings.

Most regrettably, sometimes the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, has needed the courage of a lion in winter, having to take a public stand against a Home Secretary whose reputation will, I believe, be recorded by future historians as lacking the very qualities which we attribute to the present Lord Chief Justice.

If the sentencing proposals contained in the White Paper are introduced in their current form the most powerful and memorable speech of the Lord Chief Justice this afternoon will guide us as lawmakers in rejecting an interference with ancient English constitutional principles, originating long before the Bill of Rights of 1688 and now anchored in the international human rights codes by which this country is firmly bound.

My judicial experience in contributing to this debate is modest indeed: 10 years as an assistant recorder and recorder trying criminal cases in London, attempting the difficult task of imposing sentences consistent with the guidance given by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and trying to make the punishment fit the crime. I do not say that the system is perfect. No one would say that. Nor do I say that sentencing policy is the exclusive preserve of the judiciary. I would favour a sentencing council presided over by the Lord Chief Justice and composed mainly of senior criminal judges, periodically reviewing policy within a framework established by Parliament and developed by the common law.

But what is entirely contrary to principle, logic and common sense is a statutorily imposed system of automatic life sentences for serious offenders and mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers and persistent burglars. The rule of law requires that legislative, executive and judicial actions which deprive a person of his liberty should be right, just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.

Being mandatory in nature, the Home Secretary's system would authorise arbitrary and excessive sentencing, and preclude judicial assessment of the likely danger to the public in individual cases. It would vastly increase executive discretion and leave the Home Office to decide upon the effective length of imprisonment to be served by serious offenders. I believe that it would not deter but would encourage crime.

Where a mandatory penalty was prescribed for an offence, the court would not be able to take account of mitigating circumstances such as whether the defendant had potential for rehabilitation, his individual personal circumstances, a confession, a plea of guilty or repentance. To exclude from judicial consideration the circumstances peculiar to the defendant would obviously lead to manifestly unfair and disproportionate decisions in individual cases.

Judges would be obliged to set aside their unique working experience and their individual judgment. Sentencing would be determined by the name of the offence. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said, there would be perversions of justice: a young man breaking into two empty properties for a few pounds of scrap and a professional stripping out the contents of one home after another would both be committing burglary and would receive the same mandatory tariff. Yet the proposal would do nothing at all to increase the protection of society from a child sex abuser guilty of a crime which, though appalling, did not happen to come within the offence of rape.

The role of the courts in deciding whether a statutory penalty is proportionate and reasonable in individual cases is essential if citizens' fundamental rights are to be protected. The courts have ample statutory powers to impose life sentences on serious and violent offenders who endanger society. The White Paper proposals would remove that role of ensuring that the punishment fits the crime in all but the most serious and exceptional cases, on the basis, as the noble Lord, the Lord Chief Justice said, of ill-supported statistical claims and unfounded assumptions about penal theory. If these proposals were enacted, they would lead also to certain breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires effective judicial protection and control of deprivations of liberty.

The philosophy of the common law is, at bottom, the philosophy of principled justice combined with pragmatism. In Justice Cardozo's well chosen words, a judge has to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodised by analogies, disciplined by system, and subordinated to the necessity or order in the social life. The wise exercise of that discretion by our modern judiciary is essential to the good government of this country as a democratic nation of equal citizens whose rights and freedoms are effectively protected by the rule of law.

This White Paper would violate that system and those principles. We thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice for calling urgent public attention to what is a real and insidious threat.

My Lords, in a former life I was president of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. The process of rebirth into your Lordships' House is, I can testify, novel and nerve-racking, despite all the surrounding kindness. I must ask your Lordships' indulgence as I begin to learn to walk here, and find myself speaking in the presence of both the noble and learned Lords, the retiring Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor.

One comes not in entire forgetfulness. In the past quarter of a century, sentencing patterns and principles in the UK and other Commonwealth courts have become noticeably more consistent and coherent. In large measure that has been due to the role assumed by successive Lord Chief Justices of England and their colleagues in delivering avowedly guideline judgments. In turn, academic scholars, such as Dr. Thomas of the University of Cambridge, have incorporated those in books and encyclopaedias of sentencing practice.

Sentencing problems are much the same in all developed countries, as are trends in crime. Currently, for instance, crimes of appalling horror and cruelty, such as mindless mass killings and collective abuse of children, seem to disfigure most allegedly civilised societies. The states of mind of the perpetrators are so abnormal that changes in sentencing policy may well have little impact. Yet the legislature and the courts must do their best to meet the problems. The available measures are necessarily limited. While the details of statutory regimes vary, there is much identity in practical substance.

So it is that in my court, when faced with the need to enunciate new guidelines or with some unusually difficult sentencing issue, one constantly looked to other jurisdictions in a search for guidance or suggestions; and to no jurisdiction more often than England, and in particular in recent years to judgments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, former Lord Chief Justice, and the noble and learned Lord to whom we owe this debate.

His relinquishment of his high office is a grievous loss which will be sensed wherever English is the language of the courts.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, there can be no sharp constitutional boundaries between the legislature and the judiciary in evolving sentencing policy—only a delicate practical balance. If the Government of the day are able to persuade Parliament that a generally stricter regime is called for that must be their right no matter whether or not the change is likely to reduce the incidence of crime. And it will be the duty of the courts to heed any new legislative precepts. Wisdom is likely to dictate, however, that as the facts of individual cases are found to be infinitely variable when encountered in the reality of the coalface, some elasticity should always be left. The present White Paper, although envisaging an automatic life sentence for a second violent or sex offence, does allow for "genuinely exceptional circumstances". If the proposal is enacted much will indeed turn on the ambit of that potentially quite wide phrase.

The main difference between the proposal and the present law appears to be that what have been discretionary life sentences will become prima facie mandatory. Having read with profit the line of the recent English Court of Appeal decisions on discretionary life sentences, I suggest that no noble Lord who contemplates supporting the change should do so without having enjoyed the same advantage. A concise summary will be found in the work called Blackstone's Criminal Practice. Your Lordships will find that the courts have not shrunk from imposing life sentences where the public safety has clearly so demanded.

In one respect the existing statute may have unduly shackled the English courts. In imposing a minimum non-parole period linked with an indeterminate sentence, they have been limited to two-thirds of what would have been the appropriate finite term but for the need to protect the public further. That has been found to be an effect of Section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

In one of my last New Zealand judgments, we upheld an indeterminate sentence of preventive detention, with a non-parole period of no less than 25 years, on a serial rapist. At the age of 37, he had committed shocking crimes, many of them of a violent sexual nature, over a 12-year period, against a total of 47 women and girls. And yet it was a tragic case. He had himself been a victim of continual sexual abuse as a child. But the demands and anxieties of the public had to influence the court significantly. It was easier, though, to endorse 25 years because the Act left open the opportunity for an individual member of the parole board to bring the case before the board at any earlier date. We drew attention to that possibility in our judgment.

Counsel for the prisoner commented publicly that the decision was fair because it left his client with at least a ray of hope. Perhaps always, my Lords, Parliament should leave a little room for the quality of mercy if it can be combined with public safety. May that age-old truth not be lost sight of when any legislation implementing the White Paper takes its final form.

My Lords, it falls to me to have the great pleasure of expressing on behalf of the whole House our delight and thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, on his admirable maiden speech. He speaks with all the authority of a distinguished president of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand for many years and also with the distinguished past of being a visiting Fellow of All Souls. I know that we shall all look forward to hearing from him on other occasions.

As a member of the Bar, perhaps I may be permitted to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in regard to the Lord Chief Justice. I believe that it is the view of the whole Bar that his contribution in his period of office has been enormous. He will be remembered with respect and gratitude by all those who appeared before him.

I share the concern expressed in relation to the proposals on sentencing contained in the White Paper. I believe that they are unjustified by argument, illogical and sadly ill thought through. I wish to devote the few moments that I have to speak especially about what I believe will be the effect of the abolition of early release and going into real-time sentencing. Before doing so I make what I hope is a helpful and constructive comment in relation to minimum sentences. Of course we are all concerned about the serious and distressing nature of domestic burglary. But rather than going down the route of mandatory minimum sentences, would it not be sensible to look to see whether domestic burglary should not be added to that group of offences on which the Crown has a right to appeal to the Court of Appeal for over-lenient sentences? Further, if we are, regrettably, to go down the route of mandatory minimum sentences, I believe that the exception set out in the White Paper is, with respect, far too narrowly drawn. To say the least, a mandatory sentence must be passed unless the judge is satisfied that to do so would be unjust.

So far as concerns the provisions on life sentences, it is possible to say that there is a case for considering such a sentence in regard to rape. However, can it seriously be suggested that mandatory life sentences are appropriate for a second offence of wounding with intent or causing grievous bodily harm with intent with the vast variety of degrees involved?

Can my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor tell me on what criteria the Parole Board is to satisfy itself that someone who has committed a glassing in a moment of fury in a pub brawl is safe to be released? Further, can the noble and learned Lord say whether that person would have the right to be represented before the Parole Board when it makes its vital decision?

Finally, on that part of the White Paper, I am frankly amazed at the naïveté with which it appears to be thought that one can successfully identify whether or not a person is safe to be released. I say that with a good deal of experience. I was the junior Minister who released the poisoner, Graham Young, back into society; I took that decision. It was done on the basis of clear, firm and unanimous medical advice from the senior doctors of Broadmoor at the time which stated that the man was completely safe to be released. I wonder whether anyone can really be sure of such decisions.

I turn now to the subject on which I wish to devote the last five minutes of my speech; namely, the effect, as I see it, of doing away with automatic release. We have had automatic release in this country in some form since the middle of the last century. We have had it for all forms of imprisonment since 1898. The present system was introduced as recently as 1991 and was the result of the unanimous recommendations of a committee I had the honour to chair which included members of the judiciary and also a chief constable. Perhaps I may remind the House that it was, ironically, put forward as a method of returning honesty, clarity and meaning to the sentences passed by the court. We are now told that it is to go. There no reason advanced in the White Paper to explain why it has failed. The only argument put forward is that the system of release at a half way stage—the second half being spent in the community with the risk of being recalled if one commits a further offence—is that it is complicated and confusing both to the public and to the courts.

What will the effect be? I am not opposed in principle to real time sentencing. However, the House must face up to the fact that there are two alternatives. Either one has a massive and enormous increase in the prison population as prisoners spend a longer period of their sentence in prison, or one has a dramatic reduction in the sentences passed by the court. The White Paper makes clear that it goes for the second option.

As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, the White Paper says in terms that the proposals should not increase the period of time that a person spends in prison. However, can my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor say whether the Government realise that that means that every sentence—and I mean every sentence, including those for burglary and for serious crime—other than those in the identified special categories will have to be reduced by between a third and a half? For three years read two, and for 18 months read nine months. I ask the Government whether that is really what they intend. If it is, how do they propose to achieve that end? Is it to be done by the rewriting of all the guideline cases? What worries me is that it appears the Government are trying to pursue two contradictory ends. They suggest putting an end to half-time sentencing for full-time crime and say that people should not be released so early. But at the same time they suggest that judges should take account of the proposals to ensure that time spent in prison is not longer.

I do not believe that the aim set out in the White Paper will be achieved. If it is, the only effect will be that the time of those on supervision in society will be less than it is at the moment. If, as I believe, the aim is not achieved, the effect will be a massive increase in the prison population. The predictions in the White Paper take no account of that effect. The increase will be far greater than is suggested. There will not be an increase of 10,000; there will be an increase of something like 30 or 40 per cent. in the prison population. Where will they go? Rather than planning, without any justified argument, a system which will mean people spending longer in overcrowded prisons, leading to a requirement for new prisons with all the expenditure involved, surely it would be better to use the same resources to attempt to stop crime by increasing powers of prevention. That is the way the Government should proceed.

My Lords, I join other speakers in heartfelt tributes to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. I am not qualified, as others are, to speak of him from personal knowledge but I think one can say to him, in the words of the poet,

"When the high hope we magnify and the true vision celebrate, ourselves are great".

I am bound to say that he compares in my eyes very favourably with someone with whom I became friendly in his last years; namely, Lord Goddard who sat on the other side of the House and said perhaps 40 years ago in a debate on capital punishment that a particular man he was discussing should be destroyed. I do not even think that Mr. Michael Howard would use that language today. Much progress has been made since that time and that is exemplified by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice.

I respect, as always, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and congratulate him on facing this barrage of criticism. In half a century in this House I have never heard a debate which, at any rate, started so unfavourably for the Government. However, I suppose he is accustomed to this as he is a tough guy, if I may use such an expression. He is a man of courage. All Roman Catholics are aware that he was ready to sacrifice his beloved membership of his Church to attend a Roman Catholic service. If he is ready to do that, he will be prepared to take on the whole of the House of Lords, bearing in mind of course that he is defending policies which—as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice pointed out—are a total contradiction of those which he defended as Lord Chancellor a few years ago.

However, all that is by the way. All noble Lords speak from varied experience. That is true of myself, but today I speak from the angle of one who visits prisons regularly and has done so for many years. I visited a prison earlier this week and I shall visit another tomorrow. This week I have also visited a mental offender on a psychiatric ward. I submit that Howardism is totally incompatible with rehabilitation. Many years ago I wrote a book, The Idea of Punishment, which referred to reform as being among the elements that are required in a just settlement. I think that everyone will agree that reform, rehabilitation—or whatever you like to call it—is at any rate part of a correct sentence and of a correct penal objective.

Let us try to imagine ourselves as prison officers. I do not believe we have ever had a prison officer in this House; I hope we have one fairly soon. Let us imagine being a prison officer in the age of Howardism. Imagine saying to a prisoner, "I say, old chap, I know you were hoping to get home leave but it has been cut down. There has been a 40 per cent. reduction—so too had. And you had television, did you? That's coming to an end. And your visits, too, will come down". That is what Howardism means on the spot. We know that the principles of Howardism are twofold: that prison works; and it will work better if made nastier for prisoners.

I hope that no noble Lord finds himself in such a position, but how does one defend such a policy when confronted with a prisoner who has been in prison for some time. One might call him by his Christian name; I do not think prisoners use the address "sir" nowadays. He asks, "Do you defend this?" and you say, "They are not my orders". Howardism is despised throughout the Prison Service at all levels. If any noble Lord wishes to question that, let him come with me the next time I visit a prison.

What about rehabilitation? Rehabilitation depends on many people playing their part—the education service, the chaplains, the Probation Service and others. Governors are all important. However, in the last resort rehabilitation depends on the prison officers keeping in touch with the prisoners. Those people have lost total confidence. If anyone doubts what I say, let them come with me to a prison to test it out. How can those prison officers play any part in rehabilitation, which is said to be part of the objective? A prison officer said to me recently, "Of course, we know Mr. Howard would be upset if he saw a smile on a prisoner's face". I said to another prison officer that things had been made a little difficult for visitors nowadays. (I shall not go into all the formalities; some are rather humiliating.) He said, "Not half so difficult as for us".

That is what one has: government servants totally disaffected but doing the job that they have to do and being expected to play a part which cannot be played as regards rehabilitation. That is the situation today.

One may ask: how did that come about? Better men than me and others will explain that all people who know anything about prisons are against Howardism. You cannot find a single person with any knowledge of the situation at any level who is in favour of it. Nevertheless, it is the official policy of our country at this time. It is carried out by the Government who have for the moment a majority behind them, although they were elected some years ago. How did this come about? It can only be because the Government assume that the policy is popular. If asked to explain how it could be popular, one reads the tabloid press and finds some support for Mr. Howard. The Daily Mail—an otherwise excellent paper—is ghastly on penal matters. It calls Judge Tumim, who knows more about prisons than the whole staff of the Daily Mail will ever know however long they live, a foolish judge. That is the conflict between the Daily Mail and Judge Tumin. The tabloid press have much to be responsible for.

However, that situation does not apply only to people who admit to reading the tabloid press. I met a distinguished QC recently—I must not distinguish him more clearly—for whom I have a particular regard. He is a man of strong moral principles. I asked him, "Would you not agree that a certain prisoner who has been in prison for 30 years and is not dangerous should come out?" He said, "I know that it is illogical, but I have a gut reaction against it". On the one hand, we have great knowledge of these matters and on the other the gut reaction. What is the gut reaction based on? In a notable speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury, to which I had the pleasure of listening, he warned us against the policy of vengeance.

I conclude by quoting a taxi driver who said to me, "When Fred West committed suicide, I felt cheated of my vengeance, but I know it was wrong". I implore the Home Secretary to try to extract some of the wisdom of that taxi driver.

My Lords, this White Paper has provoked a fine argument, first in the press and then in this Chamber. Most of us can only listen in awe to the views of judges and government on sentencing and custody. Like First World War Tommies we crouch in the trenches wondering, as paragraphs whistle over our heads, while popular editors add their fury to the din with purple cheeks and bulging eyes. And like a First World War Tommy I find myself more and more convinced that this is the wrong battle, fought on the wrong grounds at the wrong time.

Both the White Paper and your Lordships are asking the wrong questions. You are asking schoolmaster's questions: "Who is the culprit? Where has he gone? How can we catch him?" And above all, "How shall he be punished?". Surely we should be asking not the schoolmaster's questions, but the parents' question. "How can we stop Tommy becoming a criminal at all?"

Surely the figures alone make that obvious. The Home Office Digest of Information puts total expenditure on the criminal justice system in England and Wales in 1993–94 at £9,424 million. And these figures include not a penny for Scotland or Northern Ireland. Thus the total bill to the taxpayer is well over £9,500 million.

But that is not all. The Association of British Insurers tells me that the cost of successful claims for commercial property was £205 million; for domestic property £567 million; and for motor crime £603 million. That brings the total of its bill to £1,375 million. That brings us to a grand total of £10,799 million, excluding the cost to government in Scotland and Northern Ireland. So certainly the figures suggest that we should intervene in people's lives before they become criminals, not wait to react until they do.

But it is not only the figures that tell the tale. It is a sad commentary on our generation that it seems natural to place them first in the order of argument. The really telling argument surely remains not the financial, but the human cost of crime: the cost in death, loss, pain, insecurity and fear. Crime can devastate the lives of victims and it diminishes the quality of life of whole communities.

Certainly that provokes us to retribution and deterrence. I can understand some people wanting to put a teenage thug into the slammer and throw away the key forever, even if, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, I think it is rather often a wrong or avoidable response.

But which of your Lordships seeing that teenager at the age of 3 or 5 could possibly wish that future upon him? "Of such", you remember, "is the Kingdom". Which of you would then be content to stand aside and let him follow his course into bovver boots, flick knives, drugs and gaol?

If we can intervene then, and throughout his childhood and adolescent years, so that the path to a good life is always open and attractive, shall we not prevent untold sorrow and misery as well as a great deal of the inordinate expenditure that results from our present failure to do so?

Much work has lately been done to find out what predisposes children to crime. As the White Paper acknowledges, the causes come about very early in life. It is a striking fact, if only a coincidence, that there seems to be an hereditary element in the criminal classes as well as in this House. I cannot help thinking that it would reflect better on those concerned with the latter if they gave the former a higher priority.

The children of inadequate parents tend in their turn to raise another generation of inadequate children, simply because they have never experienced good parenting themselves. That is a dismal cycle and we have to break into it. In 1988 the report of my Committee of Enquiry into Discipline in Schools urged the Government to develop a post-school education strategy aimed at promoting socially responsible parenthood. I repeat that advice today, with the emphasis of a desperate plea.

The Government are rightly moving to make nursery education more general in the pre-school years. The means is a matter for another debate in which the art of lobbying looks like coming of age long before the pupils that we shall be discussing; but the intention is entirely admirable and I applaud it.

In the classrooms things are less happy. Large numbers of children absent themselves without leave. The paper rightly points to the links between family support and both truancy and crime, and to truancy as one of the many factors predisposing to crime. Paragraph 2.35 lists all the government and public sector agencies that are currently deployed against juvenile offending and advocates more effective partnership between them and parents.

That paragraph brings the welcome news of a new ministerial group on juveniles to review policy. I hope that it will resolve some of the financial tensions between departments with complementary programmes. I believe that we in this House should help to support it and I wonder whether we should consider making that area of policy the next subject of an ad hoc Select Committee.

However, the paragraph makes no mention whatever of the voluntary sector or the vast resources that it can deploy. I hope that I am wrong and that I shall be corrected by my noble and learned friend. But I can find no reference to Home Office support of voluntary efforts in this field and I find that disturbing.

But children are not only absent from school by choice. Increasing numbers of children are being thrown out, partly as a result of the otherwise beneficial competitive element brought into education by the Government. Three short paragraphs neatly summarise the existing practices and approaches to both truancy and exclusions.

The potential of the voluntary sector in both those areas is enormous. I hope that we will see a practical demonstration of that in Nottingham in the coming months. There is a high exclusion rate there and the proportion of African/Caribbean children involved is far greater than their total number would justify. The DIVERT Trust, in which I declare an interest as chairman, is engaging the black-led churches, and others, in a mentoring scheme for children who have been or are on the brink of being excluded from school, and in the provision of supplementary schooling elsewhere. Our intention is to help them either to stay on the raft of education or to climb back on board as well behaved pupils. Experience in both America and North London suggests that mentoring, which provides a stable reliable friend and counsellor for each child involved, does a great deal to improve the pupil's behaviour. The trust was invited to bid for Home Office funding for that but was unsuccessful. That refusal was deeply disappointing, but it does not colour my views and I do not want to finish on a sour note.

We are all of us engaged in a struggle which is of increasingly crucial importance to the welfare of this country, a struggle to bring light and order into confused and potentially criminal young lives. The fact that the efforts of my friends and myself are neglected on this occasion does not blind me to the merits of what is being achieved elsewhere or to the earlier support that we had in the past from the Government and to the very welcome personal support from my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.

I ask those members of the press who very occasionally pay attention to what goes on in this Chamber to do one simple thing. In a democracy in which the Government are answerable to public opinion, which, as has already been forcefully pointed out, the press moulds, they owe us no less. I say to them, "Before you portray this country as sunk in lawless violence, and before you write off entirely the efforts of this Government and their predecessors, of its parents and its teachers, raise your eyes and look about you. How do we compare with other countries?"

In a short debate, a short illustration must suffice. Let me take the homicide rate per 100,000 simply as an indicator. In Washington the rate is 75.2—that is in the capital of the country from which the policy in this paper appears to derive; in Birmingham (not in Birmingham, West Midlands, but in Birmingham, Alabama) the rate is 48.8; in New York, it is 27.1; in Amsterdam, it is 7.1; in Lisbon, it is 4.8; in Stockholm, it comes down to 3.8; Brussels and our own Birmingham tie at 3.2; in London, the country receiving American precepts, our capital, it is 2.4 per 100,000. Only Edinburgh beats us at home. The rate there is 2.1. We are not a lawless country and should not be stampeded into behaving as though we were.

My Lords, in common with other noble Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, for the distinction with which he has held the office he is so sadly about to leave: first, for the skill of his political leadership during a period in which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, has said, "Relations between the executive and the judiciary are perhaps worse than at any time since the reign of King James I."

King James I was an ultra-positivist in legal matters with an over-developed concept of sovereignty and with a conceptually, sadly-limited understanding of a jurisprudence based on precedent. The common law survived his reign, it is commonly thought thanks to the highly visible and combative activities of Chief Justice Coke; but also, equally, through the rather more discreet, rather quieter inside track activities of Lord Chancellor Ellesmere. It is the distinction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, that he has managed to exercise the skills of both those men within his single person; and when perhaps in 500 years lectures are delivered in the Inns of Court about how the common law survived the 1990s, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be given the credit he deserves.

I should also like to congratulate him, if I may he forgiven a moment on a matter of personal interest, on his judgment in the Ahluwhalia case. That was a case of a victim of domestic violence where the worm turned and killed her husband. The noble and learned Lord found it to be a case of diminished responsibility. That judgment has done a tremendous amount of good in a field about which I know something. I hope, layman though I am, that I know enough not to praise a legal judgment solely because it has done good in the social field.

That judgment saved the common law from an argument about provocation, from which I believe no good could have come. It was also a thing of intellectual beauty, such that I would have been proud to do anything on that intellectual level. Above all, which is what brings it into the point of today's debate, it showed an absolutely meticulous attention to the evidence in the individual case. In fact, it was from the study of the evidence that it arose. When judges decide to which other cases that principle shall apply, the same meticulous attention to the evidence is necessary in each individual case. That is one of the cases which entitled the noble and learned Lord to say in the article in this morning's Times,

"certainty in sentencing can be achieved only by sacrificing justice".

That is the main point to which I shall speak.

I say in passing that I do not believe that this White Paper will be put into effect. If the voters do not stop it, the Treasury will. My party is one which is sometimes praised—I believe rightly—for its willingness to be honest about being prepared to spend money and to raise taxes to pay for a particular proposal. But if I were to go to my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown with a spending proposal as large as this for so uncertain a rate of return, for so poor an investment, I believe that I would be lucky to emerge from his office with nothing in my ear any larger than the proverbial flea.

I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I hope he will forgive me if, rather than side-tracking this debate, I reply to him during the course of our next social security debate. The deferring of the reply does not mean that I listened to him any less carefully.

In the principle of attention to the evidence I must say that one can know very little about any case from reading the press reports. It so happens I learnt that the hard way in a case with which I became associated some three years ago. Any of us who knows anything about that case only from the press know very little about it. Incidentally, it gave me far more credit than I deserved, but that is by the way.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, once said to me, "I never thought of you as an expert on date rape". I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that remark, but there is such a thing as having expertise thrust upon one. I shall therefore look at the proposals in Chapter 10 of the White Paper about rape. First, they illustrate the need for meticulous attention to evidence. I should say that there seems to he some doubt about how that principle of the automatic indeterminate sentence plus the tariff will work.

The key question, as with the mandatory life sentence, is whether the tariff is going to be made public. It seems to me that we have a fork here. Either we have too much executive discretion or we have an infringement of the principle of honesty in sentencing. But when we come to individual rapes, some are inflicted at knife point in a dark alley, and sometimes with inexpressible cruelties beyond that, without even a whisper of suggestion of consent, in which I would have no objection to a life sentence for a first offence. There are others where perhaps the woman has embraced the man, enticed him, taken off her clothes, got into bed with him and at the last moment decided to say no. I accept that no means no. The woman has every right to do that. But the man who ignores her at that moment, though I believe he commits a crime, does not commit a crime which in any way resembles the crime committed by the man with a knife in a dark alley. To put those two cases under the same automatic rubric is absurd. That strikes me as a case resembling formula fetishism.

I wish to touch also on the provisions for keeping people in prison at the end of the tariff because it is dangerous to release them. It is true that there are people whom it is dangerous to release at the end of a sentence and that the public needs protecting from them. That is not in dispute. The question is under what head it should be done. If they have served their tariff, they are not being kept in prison under penal policy; they are being kept in prison for reasons that have more to do with mental health than with penal policy. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, in his court and out of it, has called attention to the extreme difficulty of finding hospital places for offenders who ought to be treated under the Mental Health Acts but in fact end up in prison although they do not belong there. I understand why there has been a policy of closing long stay mental hospitals. I respect those reasons. However, I think we have to accept that it has gone too far and that Chapter 10 of the White Paper shows how that decision has put a burden on the criminal justice system which it is not only logistically but also conceptually unable to bear.

The object all sublime is to make the punishment fit the crime. It is not to make it fit the criminal offence. We can do one thing or the other. We cannot do both.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, for initiating this debate today. I should like to add my personal good wishes to the noble and learned Lord, who has served his country so well in his high office. I must declare an interest in the noble and learned Lord's debate today as Chairman of the Parole Board.

I hope I shall not be thought ungracious by the Government when I observe that although there are proposals in the White Paper for automatic sentences which would in fact, if they pass into law, give more work to the Parole Board, it is to Chapter 9, which would end parole for all determinate sentence prisoners, to which I should like to direct my remarks in the few minutes available to me.

I well understand the reasons which prompt the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary to put forward proposals for the sentence served to relate more closely to the sentence given. However, I have concerns as to how that is going to be managed, and I hope to show that my concerns run very much wider than any desire simply to protect the status quo.

My concerns rest on the belief that the Home Secretary, in aiming for what is described as "honesty in sentencing" is in grave danger of jeopardising the main aim of the White Paper, which is summarised in its title Protecting the Public. In order to substantiate that charge I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment the effects of the changes which are outlined in Chapter 9.

The present system of parole was introduced only three and a half years ago as a result of the proposals brought forward by the committee which sat under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. One of the aspects of my noble friend's proposals which passed into law was that the parole scheme would be restricted to long-term prisoners, defined as those who are serving four-year sentences or longer; a dividing line which was very carefully chosen in order to include the more dangerous and persistent criminals. Although I would be the first to admit that risk assessment still remains a very uncertain science, it is a fact that research studies show that parole can break a pattern of offending so that in general statistics show that parolees reoffend much less frequently than do prisoners who are not paroled.

As many of your Lordships will know from personal experience, the parole system depends on the examination of reports which focus on crucial issues, including the nature and circumstances of the crime; the criminal record; the attitude and behaviour of the criminal; whether there is a realistic resettlement plan; any psychiatric or psychologist's report; and always, I am proud to say, on a one-to-one interview conducted with a Parole Board member.

That brief list is a reminder that parole is a system which gives an incentive to a prisoner to try to reduce the risk of reoffending. It also provides information for managing that risk by supervision when a prisoner is released. When a panel of the board comes finally to decide or recommend to the Home Secretary either for or against parole, its primary concern, based on the reports received, is always, first and foremost, the risk to the public.

But under Chapter 9 of the White Paper all that is going to change. Most of the reports which assess risk will presumably be discarded in favour of the mechanical adding up of days earned for good behaviour. The problem which that presents is that good behaviour in prison does not of itself predict good behaviour after release. It is perfectly true that Chapter 9 says that a prisoner's behaviour will have to be looked at as "positive" and "diligent". But Ministers must be aware that there are prisoners who can say the right things and attend the right activities, but who have not had a real change of heart or mind. How cases of that kind will be identified with any accuracy is not made clear. That is not surprising, bearing in mind that the White Paper proposes that all the long-term and short-term prisoners are swept up into one huge remission scheme, which will mean about 25,000 prisoners each year being eligible for earned early release, which will depend on being co-operative in prison.

Perhaps I may give just one other example of why I am so worried that the White Paper is on the way to reducing and not increasing protection for the public. These days we are rightly concerned with the protection of the victims of crime. One of the ways in which that can be done when a prisoner is being released is to impose special licence conditions which will assist the Probation Service in supervising the prisoner. For example, a condition of non-contact with the victim or the victim's family may be imposed, or a condition not to engage in work which may bring the offender into contact with likely victims. They are conditions which trip very easily off the tongue, but when one has to decide whether they are to be imposed they are quite difficult to decide.

If prison governors, with all their many responsibilities, have to decide on special licence conditions in future, all I can say to them is that they are going to find themselves writing some 25,000 licences a year and the reports on which those licences need to be decided will be phased out.

I am therefore deeply concerned that the proposals for "Honesty in Sentencing" have not been thought through. There are other issues which lead to the same conclusion, but there is time only to mention them. How will supervision work for earned early release when for most prisoners the supervision period in the future will be appreciably shorter than it is now, and when prisoners who have failed to get any remission at all and are therefore, by definition, the most difficult of people, will be supervised entirely after they have finished their sentence? How will recalls of long-term prisoners under supervision work? That is an absolutely prime protection for the public and is at the moment dealt with by the immediate involvement of the Parole Board. What are to be the changes in sentencing to fulfil the Government's intention that the prison population will not increase in consequence of Chapter 9 of the White Paper? That is a particularly sensitive issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, showed in his speech, if "Honesty in Sentencing" is to live up to its name.

In its response to the White Paper which the Parole Board submitted yesterday, we fully endorse the Government's aim of providing better protection for the public. As I have already said, I well understand the reasons which have prompted the Home Secretary to put forward his "Honesty in Sentencing" proposals. But that objective could be achieved without discarding the process of rehabilitation and the genuine attempt to try to assess risk. I wonder why the Government have not, apparently, even considered a much simpler option and one which would not require judges to reduce sentence length at all, as far as I know. That option would require all prisoners to serve two-thirds of the sentence in custody, followed by a maximum of one-third earned early release as envisaged in the White Paper for those sentenced to under four years, and one-third discretionary parole for those sentenced to four years or more. There would still be a minimum of three months' supervision at the end of the sentence for those who do not either earn early release or gain parole at all.

The result would be that without having to tinker—that is a euphemism—with sentences, the time served in prison would be just about the same as will be served following the scaling down of sentences under the White Paper proposals, and longer-term prisoners would continue to be subject to discretionary release which requires more than mere good behaviour and tries to take account of risk factors before a prisoner can be released early.

However, if government policy remains as it is, I believe that the general public will rapidly begin to feel that they are afforded less, rather than more, protection than at present. If that is the result of Chapter 9 of the White Paper, that will be a very bad day indeed.

My Lords, at the risk of taking up time which should perhaps be devoted to the subject matter of the debate, I must pay my own personal tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, thanking him for initiating the debate and above all paying tribute to him for all he has done for the judiciary and the law during his time on the Bench. I say that from greater personal knowledge than some of your Lordships, having been a fellow member of the Court of Appeal and one of the four Heads of Division after the noble and learned Lord became Lord Chief Justice. The noble and learned Lord's contribution has been of the greatest possible value. I hope that neither the fact of his retirement nor the state of his health in the future will in any way inhibit him from coming back here and giving us the benefit of his experience.

Turning to the subject matter of the debate, as we all know we enjoy an unwritten constitution under which there is a separation of powers and a division of responsibilities. The government of the day are responsible for law and order. The judiciary is responsible for determining guilt or innocence and what is the appropriate sentence when guilt is established in the normal way. There is a very obvious interface between those two responsibilities by two bodies which are separate and independent. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, has hinted, it calls for a high degree of sensitivity and mutual trust and respect.

The problem that arises in the context of the White Paper and the pronouncements of the Home Secretary, in support of it, both before it was published and since, is that it gives a message loud and clear to the public generally, and to anybody who will listen, that the judges are not to be trusted. That is what it amounts to. I hope and believe that that is an unprecedented attitude on the part of any government. It is as deplorable as it is unprecedented. I have searched my conscience, in so far as I have been a judge, and find nothing in the conduct of the judiciary to justify that lack of trust, or anything which has displayed on its part an equivalent lack of respect for the Home Secretary and the Home Office.

I shall try to justify the statement about the loud and clear message. There is to be a mandatory life sentence for a second offence of serious violence or a serious sexual offence. We have always known that there is a problem about protecting the public against a repeat offender in this category. We have always had the tool of the discretionary life sentence. In the 1970s I used it myself in a case of rape. There had been two successive rapes, one a carbon copy of the other. It struck me that while there was no basis for treating the person concerned as a mentally afflicted offender the defence of the public required a life sentence, and that was the sentence passed. What evidence is there that judges are not doing the same today? What evidence is there that more are slipping through the net than is inevitable in any system, particularly in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that it is difficult to spot those who will re-offend?

I have one minor complaint about discretionary life sentences. I believe that those who are subject to such sentences ought not to be described as life prisoners. That is not an honest description of their sentence. Further, I believe that their release ought to be determined by the courts on the basis of advice tendered by the Parole Board, but that is a matter of no great importance in the context of what is proposed in the White Paper.

The same message is given on drugs. There is to be a mandatory seven-year sentence for a third conviction. A wholesale drug supplier will receive such a sentence on first conviction, let alone third conviction. What are we talking about? Regrettably, we read regularly in the press—heaven forfend, not on a daily basis—cases of teenagers who buy Ecstasy or similar drugs. They may buy rather more than they need and share it out with their friends. Is it to be said that a teenager who does that three times is to receive a seven-year sentence? No judge would contemplate it. But this Government do not trust the judges.

In respect of burglary, there is to be a mandatory sentence of three years. Whether that is for a second or third offence does not really matter. Average figures for sentences are trotted out to support this policy. What on earth is an average sentence? It is a pure arithmetical abstraction.

When those figures were being trumpeted by the Home Secretary, I said, "It cannot be true. It is contrary to all experience." I am bound to say that it surprises me that he, as a lawyer, did not have the same reaction. I was able to ask Questions for Written Answer in this House which revealed that the figures are highly misleading. My noble and learned friend Lord Taylor has dealt with some of the misleading aspects. I add only one. I asked also for details of the range of sentences imposed in cases of burglary in the sample, which is a very stale sample anyway. In a Written Answer I found that for a first conviction the range of sentences started with one month and ended with seven years; for a second conviction, it started at two months and ended with 10 years; and for a third conviction, it started with six months and ended, again, with 10 years. That illustrates, as perhaps nothing else does, the enormous range of offences which come within the general category of burglary. The same is true of almost every offence.

Let me say one quick word about the escape clause upon which I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will rely. It is a snare and a delusion. I quote from the White Paper:

"This is intended to allow for occasional quite unforeseeable circumstances where it would plainly be unjust and unnecessary to impose the mandatory sentence".

We have been foreseeing those circumstances throughout the debate, so none of those circumstances can be contemplated. The White Paper continues:

"But it should be emphasised that this provision will be designed to cover only genuinely exceptional cases—it will certainly not be open to the courts to set aside the mandatory sentences merely"—

that is a funny word—

"because it is higher than the sentence they would otherwise have been minded to impose".

In other words the mere—the Government's word, not mine—fact that the sentence would be unjust is no ground for using the escape clause.

I ask the Government most sincerely to think again—and to think several times—before they again tell the country as a whole that the judiciary is not to be trusted.

My Lords, when the White Paper was produced I received a personal message from the Home Secretary suggesting that I might like to see him so that he could run through the proposals with me. In my reply I made it clear that I was afraid that at least my first reaction to the proposals was not terribly friendly, but I said how much I appreciated the offer. I accepted the offer to talk to him about it. Unfortunately, through no fault of his—it is entirely my fault for being away—I have not been able to have that meeting with the Home Secretary. In those circumstances it is probably fairer, and anyhow more polite of me, not to express my views on these proposals one by one.

I want to use my time to do something rather different and to look ahead. I am one of those who hopes that the Government will not proceed with legislation based on proposals in the White Paper, at least without very substantial alterations. If they do decide to go ahead, I beg them not to do so hastily.

We have had a serious debate on this subject today. The whole temper of it has been serious. Polemics have been absent. Every speaker so far has expressed grave concerns about some of the major proposals in the White Paper. Since all those comments come from Members of your Lordships' House with real, deep, and long experience and knowledge of these matters, it is important that the Government take those fears seriously, and think, and think again, about them.

What we have heard and will hear today will be of public record. It is also important to make available for public record the representations which the Home Secretary may have received and will receive before the end of the consultation period. We all ought to see the views on the proposals of the people involved before Parliament as a whole is asked to legislate to put them into action. I make that plea most strongly.

My plea is strengthened by the fact that the Government are overturning—there is no other way to describe it—the proposals, principles and philosophies which were put forward as recently as 1990 and embodied in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. They were not the principles and policies of a government of another party or of some distant Conservative Government. They were the policies and proposals put forward only six years ago by a Conservative Government whose membership is similar to the present Cabinet. Indeed, the Home Secretary was a senior member of that Government at that time and entered the Cabinet in 1990. I do not know whether he was a member of the Cabinet when the White Paper was published but he was certainly an important Minister.

I do not believe that in respect of such a vital matter the Government can just go into reverse in this way without explaining more deeply and clearly to us in Parliament and to the public as a whole why six years ago they were wrong—not just a little wrong but fundamentally wrong—and are now fundamentally right. It does not seem to be credible to have such a change of heart in such a short time and to carry any authority or persuasive power with the country as a whole. I strongly urge the need for careful further thought and explanation before we have to cope with legislation in this House or another place.

I ask the Government before proceeding with legislation to include in the publication for which I have asked some broad figures showing in financial terms their priorities for the law and order budget. I am pleased that the Treasury has been remarkably generous in allowing expansion of the law and order budget in recent years. I do not know how expenditure falls in different areas but I know that prisons take up a huge part of that budget, and that has not changed since I was Home Secretary. Prisons are very expensive, and money spent on them cannot be spent on other things. There needs to be a well thought out and publicly known balance in the financial priorities. In this area of Government as much as in any other the need to obtain the maximum value for money in protecting the public is vital.

Prison is very expensive. It is essential for punishment and for protecting the public from dangerous men and women. Nothing can take the place of prison, but I have seen no evidence from this country or any other which does other than confirm me in the belief that I formed when I was Home Secretary that imprisonment is the most expensive and least effective way of deterring or reforming. Therefore, in the law and order budget there must be a bigger share for measures which deal not only with the measles spots of the criminal problem but with the disease of criminality in the community as a whole.

Of course, that takes one into the field of education and other things which are nothing to do with the Home Secretary's budget. But within the Home Secretary's sphere of responsibility there are, for example, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Elton, whole areas of voluntary work and voluntary activity. There is a great deal of experience there. For some years I have been president of the Rainer Foundation and I know from my experience of that that one can find whole areas of constructive treatment for young people which reduce significantly the rate of recidivism. But once you put people, and in particular young people, into institutional custody, the rate of recidivism is appalling.

Therefore, if we are really going to protect the public from crime, we must devote adequate resources, which I suspect we are not doing at present, to treating what I would describe as the disease of criminality in society and not merely punish those who commit those crimes.

Therefore, while I welcome the priority which this Government give to law and order, and while I am sure that the public welcomes it, I beg the Government to think carefully and to look deeply into public opinion. I urge them not to be swayed by the noisy clamour which comes from a minority at party conferences or what I am afraid is no longer the minority of the press, much of which is ignorant and deliberately stirring up and exaggerating fears. As my noble friend Lord Elton said in his concluding remarks, when one looks at the figures—and figures are not easy to look at in this field—we are not by any means a very criminal country compared with some others. Let us have a little more hope and put a little more constructive work into that area, and I believe that we shall all reap the benefits.

My Lords, we are all deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, for initiating this important debate, as we are indeed for his distinguished service to the people of this country.

There is no doubt that the problems presented by crime and the fear of crime are real, even if that is less than is sometimes supposed. Were there time, I could tell your Lordships stories of clergy in the inner cities being mugged in broad daylight; of a nun raped by an intruder in the middle of the night; of repeated burglaries of vicarages; of elderly women no longer daring to visit their neighbours, even in daytime, not only because of the fear but because of the experience of mugging; and of clergy who tell me why they feel unable to send their children to local secondary schools because of drugs, abuse and violence. That is at first hand.

But in considering the Government's White Paper, the question that I put before your Lordships' House is: how effective are the Government proposals likely to be in the long run, not for the immediate satisfaction of the demands, which are not always well-informed, of public opinion, but for making this country a better place in which to live?

In that perspective, the Government's proposals seem to me to be fatally flawed by their narrowness of focus and preoccupation. Although the White Paper contains a chapter on the prevention of crime, its approach as a whole is focused on response rather than prevention; on response primarily in terms of punishment; on punishment primarily in terms of imprisonment; and on imprisonment primarily seen as containment. That whole scheme of things is unbalanced.

A telling example of that lack of balance is to be found in the little paragraph on bail. The Government are rightly concerned about the abuse of bail. But it seems that they are concerned only with the inappropriate granting of bail, not about the inappropriate withholding of bail. To my mind, that betrays an unbalanced perspective on the overriding issue of justice as a whole.

The White Paper also contains some unhappy and frankly unworthy rhetoric, notably that catchphrase "Honesty in Sentencing". Without actually saying so, such words imply that at present there is some dishonesty in sentencing. Honesty and dishonesty are qualities of persons. So who is being pointed at? If nobody in particular is in mind, such language should not be used.

The Government's proposals are focused on imprisonment, with some attention given also to community sentencing. Within that framework, the emphasis is almost wholly on containment and security. But if the effects of punishment are not to be almost wholly negative, then proper and proportionate attention must also be given to education, rehabilitation, reparation, facing up to the human consequences of offending behaviour, dignity and hope and to the needs and circumstances of particular offenders. I am sure that the Government would gladly affirm the importance of all those matters; but, once again, their absence or marginalisation from the discussion betrays an imbalance of perspective.

Above all, if there really are the resources available for the massive expenditure implicit in the Government's proposals, why spend it all on more prisons? Are they really our priority? Would it not be far better to deploy such resources in a more constructive and positive manner in ways that will in the long run help to starve criminal behaviour of the soil in which it grows? The place where money above all needs to be spent is in the building up of healthy communities in which crime will not flourish, or not flourish so much—that is, on things like families, nurseries, schools, youth work, training, jobs and hope.

Of course, people will always misbehave. But the ways in which they misbehave are conditioned by the opportunities and by the social and moral conventions of the communities in which they live. The building of a healthy or a more healthy society: that is an awesome task for us all, and not least for the Churches. But government, too, have an indispensable part to play. Indeed, I would say that the nurture of a healthy and justly-ordered society is one of the noblest tasks of government.

How can we best build, not indeed a perfect, hut, at least, a better society? That is the perspective in which any ultimately profitable discussion of criminal behaviour needs to be held.

My Lords. I want to speak as a non-legal Member of the House. I have not had any connection with the law, except for 10 years as a magistrate in inner-London. I should also like to join the thanks expressed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice for giving us this opportunity to debate the White Paper.

Listening to the debate, one needs to remember that it is the two Houses of Parliament which make the law and not parties, lawyers, judges or government. That is what should result from today's debate and the White Paper. The implication that it is some diktat from the Government really cannot stand up to scrutiny.

It is important for the public to have confidence in our criminal justice system. There has been a growing belief over the past decade or so that things have got out of kilter. That applies to public and media perception, but to public perception in particular. Those of us who have had the privilege of serving in the other place know what the public are actually saying about "softies". There are some who say that members of the judiciary have not always been as much in touch with the real world as they might have been. That is not a criticism; it is stating a fact as perceived by a large number of the population in this country—that is, not by the media alone, but by many other people.

I turn now to the man on the Clapham omnibus. I am glad to see from the advertisement on the side of the No. 88 bus which I often use that there is actually a Clapham bus now. It is perhaps better to listen to those who travel on such buses than to listen to a taxi driver, because there are rather more of them. People feel that the criminal is receiving more attention than the victim. I believe that the White Paper tries to redress the balance.

Talking to members of the police at several levels, it seems to me that they feel aggrieved at the way in which the courts seem to hand out sentences which they believe are far too lenient. The new Bill must ensure that in future convicted offenders should spend no less time in prison than the sentence passed. I do not understand the feeling that, if parole is not necessarily given, it is a bad thing and it may upset the prisoner. Indeed, he does not have to be there in the first place if he does not break the law. We tend occasionally to forget that fact.

Members of the judiciary may, very rightly, say that they can only operate within the limits laid down by Parliament. That is all well and good. Therefore they should welcome the tougher sentences proposed in my right honourable friend's White Paper. We have all read the comments of judges that they wish they could give tougher sentences, but Parliament has not written the law to allow them to do so.

Minimum sentences seem to irritate some judges but I think the public would say, as I do, that experience shows the need to have a floor below which the courts cannot go, particularly when, as at present, sentences can be reduced enormously by the implementation of parole. I am glad that the DPP is thinking again about the guidelines on prosecutions for those "having a go" to protect their dwellings, because some of the cases that we have seen have astounded many people by their sheer idiocy.

Mandatory sentences for drugs offences, burglaries, offences of violence and sexual crimes will certainly be welcomed by members of the public who want their confidence in our judicial system restored. The judiciary may well feel that it has a role to play in reforming the system within the Acts of Parliament under which it operates, and perhaps of adopting in certain circumstances a policy of leniency. However, that in my view is the role of Parliament and not the role of the judges. What I think the judiciary sometimes fails to understand is that it is no longer held by the public in the high esteem in which it needs to be held, or in which it should be held. I emphasise that I want to see the judiciary in this country held in the highest possible esteem because those who carry out these tasks do so at great personal sacrifice and have an immense sense of duty.

Some of the problems may have arisen from the growing willingness of the judiciary—I suppose that former Judge Pickles is the best example of this—to speak on every possible occasion. I believe that the old fashioned mystique of the judiciary held it in good stead. I would rather like to see a limitation on the number of times judges speak out in public. It has been said in this debate that the White Paper indicates a reversal of previous policies. If that is so, it is done for one reason only. As the statistics show, the policies do not appear to have worked. If the Government were to continue on the same lines, I would criticise them strongly. I have read the White Paper twice, not once. The Government believe that their ideas will help to reduce crime. I believe that they are justified in reaching that decision.

My noble friend Lord Carlisle is an old friend. He referred to the advice that he had to accept from doctors at Broadmoor. When my late wife was alive she was a lay member of the panel which advised on cases at Broadmoor. On numerous occasions she told me that she was not sure whether she was listening to the prisoner, the doctors or the psychologists. I believe that many of us echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, on that matter. Tough sentencing has had a great effect. I am not sure how many of your Lordships will recall the late Sylvia Campbell who was a distinguished magistrate in East London. She decided that she had had enough of the phone box vandalism that was occurring in her part of the world. She said that the next case of phone box vandalism that came before her would receive an automatic prison sentence. The incidence of phone box vandalism dropped enormously in her area. I do not necessarily believe that one should be too soft on many of these issues.

I look forward to seeing the Bill, which I hope will incorporate the ideas in this White Paper, and take into account the views expressed in your Lordships' House today and the responses to the consultative document which I hope will come from all sections of the United Kingdom and from all sorts of persons, and not merely from those, if I may so put it—I include myself in this, being a Member of your Lordships' House—who can at a distance decide that this is a good thing for the public. I believe that we shall find a different response when the policy is tested, when I hope that Parliament implements the White Paper.

My Lords, if I devote my speech to criticisms of the proposals made in the White Paper, I hope that I shall not be thought to be taking a purely negative attitude, still less one of hostility to the Government.

I welcome the majority of the proposals which the White Paper makes on matters such as preventing crime and more effective policing, and the good sense which it contains. My criticisms, like those of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and, I think, almost all previous speakers, arise over the matter of sentencing.

The first is this. I accept at once that the primary purposes of imprisonment are to punish, to deter and to protect the public, if only temporarily, from the attentions of criminals. I accept also—I quote from Chapter 1 of the White Paper—that,

"Time spent in prison can be used to rehabilitate offenders, for example by improving their training or education".

Prisons are not necessarily and not always places of despair. I have met a number of men, as I am sure other noble Lords have done, who as youngsters have been helped out of the criminal rut while in prison or in detention, and who in later life have been particularly influential in preventing younger people from getting into trouble. But there are too few of them, and we need more. The White Paper recommendations on sentencing will, I believe, inevitably increase the prison population which is already too high and so will further reduce the possibility of rehabilitation.

My second reservation, shared by so many of your Lordships, goes to the matter of minimum sentences. Again in agreement with the spirit of the White Paper, I accept that a persistent offender should expect severe punishment. That is perfectly obvious and will be one of the main factors taken into account by the judge who sentences him. But of course the unspoken premise upon which the minimum sentence is proposed is that the judges cannot be relied upon by the general public to be sufficiently severe.

There can be no doubt of the existence among many members of the public of a widespread feeling that the judges tend to be soft and out of touch with the views of the man and woman in the street. The feeling comes, I am sure, from the fact that all the public have to go by is necessarily condensed accounts in the newspapers of what seem on the face of it to be surprising sentences. But as your Lordships will know, it is really impossible to form any sensible view about the appropriateness of a particular sentence unless you have been in court and heard all the considerations which the sentencing judge has had to take into account.

The people who are in a best position, so to speak, to judge the judge, and to apply a layman's yardstick to his or her sentence, are the men and women who have served on juries. It is not, I believe, widely known that they were the subject of a study carried out by Professor Michael Zander in his capacity as a member of the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman. Professor Zander sent out a questionnaire to the members of over 800 juries—that is to say, getting on for 10,000 people—and asked for their views about various aspects of the trials in which they had taken part. The judges had an excellent report for their conduct of the trials. I can say this without immodesty because the survey took place after I had ceased to sit as a trial judge.

What is perhaps more to the point are the views expressed by the jurors on the sentences passed in the cases in which the defendant had been found guilty. About a third had no particular views about the sentence; of the remaining two-thirds, one half said that it was just about what they would have expected; a quarter said that it was rather more severe than they would have expected; and a quarter said that it was rather less severe than they would have expected. These were people who had sat through the whole case and really knew what the judge was dealing with. I would suggest that this massive and authoritative study goes far to refute any idea that the judges are failing to satisfy the perfectly proper demand for punishments which fit the crime. I only wish that the report by Professor Zander had received more publicity. The trouble, as we all know, is that good news is no news.

The Court of Appeal can increase sentences which are excessively lenient, but it spends far more time having to reduce sentences when the judge has been too severe. But even these are a tiny minority—some 2 per cent.—of all sentences passed. The vast majority of sentences are not appealed against or questioned at all, because they are as right as they can possibly be.

Sentencing is the most difficult part of a judge's work. Trial judges today do it well. No one could do it better. The discretion of the judges should not be cut down.

The one redeeming feature, whatever its difficulties, of the proposals in principle is the preservation of the judges' discretion in genuinely exceptional cases. Without that, the case for minimum sentences would be not merely bad but wholly unarguable. At least this exception recognises the truth that all cases are different. That is why sentencing is so difficult. The exception for exceptional cases is vital, but it would be better by far to abolish the proposed general rule.

So I strongly support my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice in his view that minimum sentences are both unnecessary and profoundly unjust. Your Lordships will appreciate that in this, as in other matters, the noble and learned Lord speaks not only with the authority which his office commands but with the authority conferred upon him by the confidence placed in him by his fellow judges and the high personal regard in which he is held by them. This is not the occasion to speak of that matter in greater detail. I simply say that I count it an honour to have served as a Queen's Bench judge under his leadership.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, for introducing this debate. As someone who disagrees with much of what he said today, I immediately pay my own tribute to him. We all hold him in very great respect. We admire his professional courage and the way in which he has put forward his views. He has done so not only with judgment and skill but with persistence and persuasion. Those qualities are impressive to those of us who have hesitations about accepting what he says. We also all admire his personal courage, and we wish him well.

The debate has consisted largely of contributions from those who either have a central role in our legal system or are at least in other ways quite closely connected with it. What worries me very much—and I reflected upon it particularly as I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson—is the gulf in understanding between those in the legal world and those outside it.

Most of the comments made this afternoon about judicial approaches to sentencing have been of a conceptual kind. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, it is a very important and essential ingredient in the approach to sentencing. However, it is possible to start from the other end and say what sort of custodial sentences are needed for persistent criminals in order to give the public the degree of protection and security they feel entitled to receive. If there is a sense, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, of some sort of attack on the judiciary, I do not see matters in that light. I think the situation results from the lack of coming together of those concepts. It was illustrated during today's debate by the relatively minor, indeed passing, references to protection of the public which figured in most of the speeches.

I do not claim any kind of legal technical knowledge at all, although as a former representative of 80,000 fellow citizens, inevitably, like many others, I have gained a sense of their attitude towards these issues. It is not a campaign by the press that has generated the widespread feelings of unhappiness about the inadequacy of sentencing. It is a general and long-standing sense that persistent criminals—there is a very important distinction to be made between persistent criminals and those who only once or occasionally commit a crime—are a serious menace to society. Almost any police force will say that they believe that the greatest, quickest and surest effect on the level of crime in their area would be achieved by securing convictions for a small number of persistent criminals.

It is difficult to dismiss that kind of comment. I hope that, in examining the implications of this debate and the comments that have been made in reaction to the White Paper, the Government will consider very carefully the judicial and legal points of view, and in particular many of the technical comments which have been made about the possible working of some of the specific proposals. I hope that they will not be deflected from measures which will give greater reassurance to the public and, unless it can he argued to the contrary, are likely in all self-evidence to take more persistent criminals out of currency for longer. Nobody today has attempted to argue that taking more persistent criminals out of circulation for longer will not have a beneficial effect on crime levels. I am open to persuasion that that is not the case, but I believe that it is highly improbable. Certainly, commonsense would say that it is one of the practical measures that can be taken in order to deal with the volume of crime and indeed with the degree of insecurity, anxiety and suffering that the victims or potential victims of crime continually have to face.

When the White Paper was brought forward and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary published his proposals originally, there was a tendency to say that they were being brought forward purely for "political or symbolic reasons"—the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, earlier this afternoon. I do not believe that is true.

In the case of any proposals of this kind, one has to consider their origins and genesis. Like all proposals, they come in some kind of political wrapping. But if the Government and Parliament will not listen to the long sustained views of what I believe to be the great majority of the British public, they are in danger of getting out of touch and, accordingly, of behaving in ways which do not carry the support of the public.

The last thing that I would wish to see is any kind of disagreement or row about such a proposal undermining the reputation of our legal system and judges. I hold them in the highest regard and everything that I have heard this afternoon confirms me in my view. But what is missing is a stronger ingredient in the dimension of the protection of the public. That is the title of the White Paper, yet it has received only the most cursory attention in your Lordships' House today. I feel that that balance is wrong. I hope that the Government will maintain a balance that we should all like to see.

My Lords, although there have been a number of intervening speakers, perhaps I may say with what pleasure and admiration I listened to the maiden speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Cooke of Thorndon, whom I am proud to call an old friend.

Your Lordships will not wish to see this debate as a dispute between the judges and the Government. Indeed, it is clearly not that kind of argument when one recalls that we have had the benefit of hearing from five very experienced former Home Office or Northern Ireland Office Ministers, including two who were distinguished Secretaries of State. The White Paper makes it easier for me to avoid the adversarial stance evident in some earlier statements by which I was quite shocked. We must now seek a solution which promotes both the public interest and justice.

Sentencing is a judge's function and, in relation to it, judicial independence from the executive is paramount. Indeed, in doing their duty judges should be independent of all higher authority but, without any sacrifice of independence, greater consistency in sentencing has been secured through the Judicial Studies Board and the positive role of the Court of Appeal in laying down principles.

A White Paper in 1990 entitled Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, stated,

"The independence of the Judiciary is rightly regarded as a cornerstone of our liberties".

The White Paper continued with a passage already cited by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, which I need not repeat. I need only say, "Fine words, indeed." However, one might be excused for thinking that the ministerial statements which preceded the new White Paper strongly contradict the wise words which the Lord Chief Justice read out and which, in my opinion, were sound. I am only sorry to recall that the words were followed by an Act containing some provisions—happily of short duration—which tied the hands of judges in the direction of undue leniency.

The new White Paper attempts to rationalise earlier statements. It features minimum and mandatory sentences but it still enunciates an admirable general principle at page 3 which reads,

"The Government's role is to provide the statutory framework for sentencing, and to ensure that the courts have the powers they need to impose appropriate punishment in individual cases".

I emphasise the words,

"appropriate punishment in individual cases",

because that is the essence of good sentencing. I refer also to page 25 which states:

"The purpose of the criminal justice system is to sustain the rule of law and to protect the public".

It should be noted that "the rule of law", as lawyers understand it, is a high ideal of justice and not a synonym of the expression "law and order".

I share the misgivings which have been expressed regarding minimum and mandatory sentences. I also foresee that the introduction of mandatory life sentences will devalue the effect of discretionary life sentences. However, I shall not repeat what has been said better by other noble Lords. There is just one point about mandatory sentences which I should like to make. Their object is to let the Parole Board decide how long—perhaps for life—violent and sex offenders should stay in prison after the expiry of their tariff sentence on the ground that they may still represent a danger to the public. That danger poses the real problem and is not catered for in our present criminal system, no matter how severe the sentence.

That is the only defensible reason for the mandatory life sentence proposal. As now proposed, it will involve a kind of adjudication by the Parole Board. But there are alternatives. Why not have a real adjudication by an experienced judge based on the latest evidence? If the Home Secretary is advised that an offender should, for the safety of the public, remain in prison, he could, before the tariff expires, apply to a judge, who need not have been the trial judge, for an order to that effect. The offender would be the respondent to the application. In that way a judge would decide the issue; there would be no need for an artificial life sentence; the executive would not be responsible, even at second hand, for releasing or retaining the offender; and the dangerous accusation of executive detention without trial could not be raised. I have not thought this suggestion through but I would be more than content if my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack could indicate that the Government are willing to contemplate alternatives to this mandatory life sentence system.

It is difficult to comment usefully on certain points until the precise words of the Bill, if there is to be one, are before the House. It is eight years since I passed sentence or reviewed a sentence on appeal so I shall not consider the actual figures proposed as minimum sentences or the conditions which are to bring them into play.

There is just one more point I want to mention because I think it is very important to the standing and independence of the judges and to the achievement of justice. I am conscious that I am returning to a point already well, and no doubt sufficiently, made by my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson but I do not apologise beyond that. The White Paper recognises "genuinely exceptional cases" in which the court will have discretion not to pass the mandatory minimum sentence. It then says:

"This is intended to allow for occasional quite unforeseeable circumstances where it would plainly be unjust and unnecessary to impose the mandatory sentence".

I heartily approve of the principle, assuming that we are to have mandatory sentences. But I strongly dissent from the very narrow way in which it is expressed by the words "quite unforeseeable circumstances." I regard that as a quite sinister method of softening the compulsory sentencing process. It is not at all difficult to foresee circumstances in which it will be inappropriate to impose the mandatory sentence. But what we are told by the White Paper, if the Bill should reflect its words, is that all those cases, because we could foresee them, will not count. Secondly, circumstances might have to arise only once and thereafter they would presumably be foreseeable.

Of course if the minimum sentence idea is accepted, we do not want a formula which sets it at naught. Nevertheless, some much more flexible words must be found if judges are to be able to do their duty properly.

Finally, if indeed there is to be legislation, let us ensure that its provisions promote a status and an independence of the judges which will be worthy of the noble and learned Lord who, with such an exemplary sense of duty, initiated this debate.

My Lords, I, too, would like to add my heartfelt tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, and my regrets at the circumstances of his early retirement. He is a man for whom I have great admiration and I am most grateful to him for the opportunity to debate this White Paper, Protecting the Public.

I rise to speak with a certain reticence, as an ordinary member of the public, in a debate with so many learned, distinguished and experienced Lords. As the Home Secretary says in the Foreword to the White Paper,

"The first duty of government is to maintain law and order: to protect people's freedom to walk safely on their streets and sleep safely in their homes".

I have read the paper carefully. I believe that its aim is genuinely to reduce crime. It covers three areas: burglary, rape and drug dealing; all of which, I am sure your Lordships will agree, are serious crimes. In the short time available I would like to talk only about the second; namely, rape. I shall not quote statistics or go into technical details which I do not know, but briefly speak as, so far, the only woman and from personal experience.

My first job was with the London County Council. I know that that dates me a bit. I worked for the Children's Care Committee in Stepney, Bow and Poplar during the day and early evenings, visiting families with various problems. They lived mainly in high-rise buildings or very modest housing. I was still in my teens. Yet never once was I frightened to walk alone or visit people in their flats. I never even locked my car. Today, I would be quite wary to walk alone any distance at night, even around Belgravia, as several of my friends have had horrible experiences.

We all know that crime has always existed, but I do believe, unlike many of your Lordships in this debate, that the proposals in this White Paper are much needed and are an encouraging step forward. I was prompted to speak today as a modest layman—not part of the legal system—by an interview I read several months ago in the Daily Telegraph, not the tabloid press. It shocked me. It reminded me of yet another horrific piece on the front page of the Daily Telegraph yesterday. It said,

"Mother raped in front of children".

A man held a knife to this 28 year-old woman's throat at 3 p.m., mid afternoon—not in the middle of the night in a dark alley as a noble Lord mentioned—very close to the road in a rural area. She walked with her two year-old son and six months' old daughter. This happened when parents and children from the nearby schools could have passed by. It is frightening that he was prepared to carry out such violence in broad daylight, at a time and place when he could easily have been discovered.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, writing in The Times today, says,

"I have no doubt that what mainly deters criminals is the real likelihood of detection and arrest".

That is surely not the case here. In the interview that I read several months ago it was of a young Italian girl, a businesswoman, who was about to return to her family in Italy for a visit. This should have been a happy occasion. She would no doubt chatter and smile and tell them everything she had been doing, except for the fact that she had just been headline news in every British newspaper. The rape of their daughter would, she said, destroy her parents' peace of mind for the rest of their lives. They are firm Catholics, with an upbringing that included no open discussion of sex, let alone of sexual abuse. They live in a place where rapes are terrible things you read about only in the papers. The article stated,

"The news would wreck them as it nearly wrecked her".

That young girl stood in the witness box at the Old Bailey and gave evidence against her attacker, a paranoid schizophrenic who raped her three times at knifepoint four days after being discharged from a psychiatric unit—only four days afterwards. She listened and trembled uncontrollably to him being given five life sentences.

That 27 year-old businesswoman is the sort of victim that justice needs but seldom gets. Not only was she prepared to testify in open court, but she also gave evidence in a way that should fill every other victim of sexual assault with courage, and every rape counsellor with hope.

Although more than enough to secure a conviction, the story of terror, violence and degradation that emerged in court was far from the whole story. It barely touched on the extraordinary battle of wills—one mad, one sharpened by fear—that went on between the rapist and his victim once he had beaten her in to physical submission. Had she not won the psychological struggle and outwitted him, she believes that she would not have escaped from her flat alive.

She was attacked in her own home one evening in April 1995. As she answered a knock at the door, a 6ft. 4in. psychopath burst through the security chain and slammed her against a wall. The first signal that he had picked on an unusual victim was when she started to put her Thai boxing skills to the test. When she refused to give in to his demands for sex, he became increasingly violent and finally threatened her with a kitchen knife. From that moment, she said, she switched tactics,

"as if my head were operating outside my body".

Throughout the rest of her ordeal, she never stopped talking to him. Every second she was searching for a plan of escape. Passivity never occurred to her. He raped her forcibly three times, the knife resting on a pile of clothes beside him. Twice he agreed to her plea that he should use a condom. The third time, he refused and taunted her afterwards:

"You are a Catholic. You'll be pregnant and you won't be able to have an abortion".

She said that she knew within minutes that he was unbalanced, and is scathing about a system that allowed him to be released while still a danger.

After the sex part was over, she knew that she had to survive by her brain if she was going to get out alive. She worked at getting him to trust her. It was still light outside. She knew that she had to act before it was dark. She fled to the door and escaped. He would have killed her, but somehow she kicked him off. There is no limit to people's appetite for survival. He did not manage to kill her. Although slim, she is striking. She said:

"I'm tired, I feel old, I think I used up the energy of a lifetime that night. I don't like myself now. I used to be so confident; I'd never been scared of anything".

Now she does the most ridiculous things, like sleeping in her tracksuit and refusing to put on a nightie in case she needs to escape into the street. If she goes down to the corner shop for a pint of milk, she checks all the rooms immediately she returns, afraid of being outside, afraid of being inside.

"You feel so alone after something like this, because although people sympathise, they cannot understand. You are locked in a cell of your own fear…I will never be the same person again",

she said. I have left out the more gruesome details on purpose.

We have a legal system that is highly respected, and rightly so. It is one of the best in the world. I would not dream of contradicting the figures or facts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, but the cases of which I have spoken are real and are still happening. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime, like rape or murder. Unless they get a life sentence—

Time!

My Lords, I have just one more sentence. Unless they get a life sentence, they must be released after serving two-thirds of their sentence even if they are still a public danger. Under the Government's proposals, anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted of a serious sexual or violent offence for a second time will automatically get a life sentence. They would then only be released when they no longer posed a danger to the public. The Italian girl's life and no doubt many others would not have been ruined. Let us not forget the victims of crime. I hope that the Government will listen and that your Lordships will support the White Paper. I hope that we shall give more support to the victims.

My Lords, I rise to speak in the gap because I was inefficient and did not put my name down to speak as a main speaker.

I should like to reinforce what the last three speakers on this side of the House have said and to put the general public's point of view about what highly respected judges have said in this House. Like other noble Lords, I respect the judges, and the general public respect the judges. Do not listen to the tabloid press.

The ordinary person in the street knows what the tabloid press is like and has the sense to see what it is up to. In view of the time, I shall say no more.

My Lords, I am taken by surprise. We move to the end of a most important, fascinating and memorable debate. We owe it entirely to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor. Had he not taken the initiative this debate would not have taken place. I believe that there is much unfinished business. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, I believe that the Government should provide time for further discussion of the White Paper before the end of this Session of Parliament.

I remind noble Lords of the opening remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor. He said that never had such far-reaching proposals been based upon such shallow and untested figures. He went on to warn your Lordships' House and the country of the grave consequences that would follow should the main proposals be given statutory effect. I believe that that was the core of the message of the noble and learned Lord. It has been endorsed by both sides of the House throughout this debate. Apart from the one late entrant, only three of the 19 speakers have sought to make a case for the White Paper. Of the remaining speakers who have in one way or another severely criticised the White Paper, only four have been from the Opposition Benches. We know from experience in this House that when there is such a degree of unanimity embracing noble Lords on both sides of the House we are passing on a message to which the Government should listen.

I speak as a layman without any deep experience of the penal or judicial system. I have been struck by the deep and extensive knowledge of all those who have spoken and the sense of feeling that they have brought to the occasion. They have cared about the issues raised by the White Paper, and for that reason they have spoken as strongly as they have. I believe that the message is a simple one. They have no wish to be critical of the Government simply for that reason. They wish to be critical only in the hope that the White Paper will not proceed. I believe that the message that goes out from the House today to the Government is a simple one: "Please think again because you are making a grave mistake and have it in you to recognise that that is the case".

We hold this debate entirely on the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor. It should have been held in government time. The White Paper was published nearly two months ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Can of Hadley, reminds us, the consultation period extends to 30th June. Had we not had this debate the Government would not have been consulting Parliament about proposals on which they proposed to legislate. I believe that your Lordships agree with the normal extensive consultations with outside bodies which now take place. But in consulting those outside Parliament the need to consult those within both Chambers should not be neglected. It is not sufficient to say that when legislation comes forward, if indeed it does, that is our opportunity to express an opinion.

We know that this Government more than most governments are reluctant to make substantial changes to their proposals once they have placed them before the House with legislation in mind. If we are to change the Government's mind today it must be in this debate and in another debate like it, not waiting until legislation comes before the House. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State at the Home Office, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will carry back the message that there is still a great deal to be discussed arising from the White Paper.

It is easy to reach the conclusion—it may be easier for those of us who have lived in politics and who have approached the White Paper from a different experience and careers—that the Whit Paper is not expected to reach the statute book after all. Essentially it is a manifesto. It is a manifesto, as has been frankly admitted in the foreword of the White Paper, based on remarks made by the Home Secretary at the Conservative Party Conference last year.

There are a number of lessons which all of us carry in our minds about party conferences. It is the invariable rule for all parties—I mean all parties—that speeches made to the massed ranks of the faithful at the conference represent policy making at its worst. The Home Secretary should be more responsible than to make such partisan speeches, or, having made them, conveniently to forget something of what they contained.

Not all of the White Paper is irredeemably unacceptable. That is why I would welcome another opportunity to discuss it. We are all disturbed by rising crime, particularly violent crime. We must all acknowledge—I believe all Members of your Lordships' House acknowledge, although perhaps the Home Secretary does not—that we do not know why that is happening. If we look back at the figures, we see that the rise began in the late 1950s. We might say that it was the end of a period of low unemployment, low inflation, steady economic growth, and far better living conditions in some respects for those in our cities than today. But we do not know. We must admit that we cannot be sure of the solutions.

For that reason, it would be much to the advantage of Parliament and the nation were the White Paper to be tentative rather than dogmatic, reflective rather than campaigning. But it is dogmatic; it is campaigning. That subtracts substantially from what virtue—there are some virtues—there may be in it.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, quoted, I think to widespread approval, the White Paper upon which the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was based. I have read that White Paper, which was published in the previous year. I thought that I would look also at how the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was presented to your Lordships' House. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for a moment if I quote one or two extracts from the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who introduced the Bill into the House. It was, he said:

"one of the most important criminal justice measures of our time. It will affect the way in which the courts operate and the way in which offenders are dealt with for many years to come".

That was five years ago. He went on to say:

"The main purposes of the Bill are to reform sentencing practice—the way in which a sentence is determined—and the way in which sentences are actually carried out. The sentence in an individual case is, of course, a matter for the magistrate or the judge concerned. It is not a matter for Parliament. It is, after all, only the sentencer who will know all the facts of the case".

That again has been endorsed today.

The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, went on to refer to many offences for which the only fitting punishment is imprisonment, but then he said:

"But for many other offences, particularly for property offences, it has long been recognised that imprisonment frequently does more harm than good. It can turn inexperienced offenders, who may be verging on the edge of a criminal career, into hardened criminals."-[Official Report, 12/3/91; col. 74]

That was said only five years ago. It is not the sentiment reflected in the White Paper, but it is still the view of your Lordships as reflected in this debate. Further on in that debate, the noble Earl referred to the changes as embodying best existing practice.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will tell us why existing best practice has changed. If one compares the White Paper before us with the White Paper of 1990, or the speeches which we anticipate on legislation, with the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, there is no doubt that there is a huge and unbridgeable gap. If it is true, as the Government say, that crime statistics have improved during the past three years it becomes increasingly difficult to understand why the promised legislation is to come before the House.

The White Paper vibrates with short-term expediency and is totally lacking in a long-term perspective. If it were to be implemented in full it would be a disaster.

My Lords, when the announcement of the premature retirement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, was made some weeks ago at the Central Criminal Court there were that morning among the barristers who were waiting to go into court universal expressions of sadness and real loss. In losing "the Chief", as we at the Bar call him, we are losing from that office a man who possesses in spades those qualities which a good judge needs: wisdom, fairness, a total lack of pomposity and, above all, courage. If an example of that courage were needed his initiation of today's debate and the manner in which he introduced it said it all.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, protecting the public from crime and its consequences is an aim which we all share. It must be one of the most important roles of any government. To fight crime effectively, surely the battle must be fought on four different fronts and not fought simply by introducing a sentencing policy written at the apparent dictation of the rope and stick school of sentencing.

First, we must try to prevent crime—we must stop it happening in the first place—in ways drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Secondly, we must improve the detection of crime so that when it occurs we catch those responsible. Thirdly, we must make sure that we have a criminal justice system which is as fair and efficient as possible in ensuring that only the right people are convicted and properly dealt with. Fourthly and lastly, we must make sure that we have a penal system which is constructive and which discourages those who have offended from doing so ever again.

We on these Benches totally accept the fact that there is real public concern about potentially dangerous criminals returning to the community and there is real concern about sentencing levels, too. What troubles us is that the proposals in the White Paper are not merely wholly inadequate and inappropriate to meet those concerns but in some ways they are precisely the opposite and are counter-productive.

The White Paper refers to wanting greater honesty in sentencing. We on these Benches believe it right that every member of the public sitting in court, especially the victim, should know from what the judge says how long a defendant will serve in prison. That could, quite frankly, be achieved easily by requiring the judge to spell it out. He should be required to say, for example, "The sentence is three years and that means that you will serve 18 months if you behave yourself and then you will be released under supervision. If you commit any further offence in the following 18 months it is likely that you will be returned to prison to serve the rest of your sentence".

Instead of adopting that solution the proposals in the White Paper amount—I cannot mince my words—to a deception on the public who have been led to believe that they involve tougher sentences. In fact, they involve precisely the opposite and are also a recipe for chaos and disturbances in our prisons. What the Home Secretary is proposing in the White Paper is that, in essence, three years will mean three years. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, pointed out, there would be a vast increase in the prison population. Dr. David Thomas of Cambridge University, using the present prison statistics, has estimated that that would mean 20,000 more short-term prisoners and between 5,000 and 7,000 long-term prisoners with whom our prison system, even with the planned expansion, could not begin to cope. Therefore, Michael Howard suggests that the courts will take full account of those changes when sentencing. In terms, that means that they will reduce sentencing levels.

I wonder whether the public understands what is really meant by those proposals. Does the public realise that the reality of what the Home Secretary is suggesting is that rather than having tougher sentences, they should be made shorter? In reality, will the judges cut their sentences by between one-third and one-half, particularly at a time when judges are often criticised in the newspapers for being too lenient? I doubt whether they will jump to cut their sentences in that way.

Therefore, in reality, through these proposals, the Home Secretary is appealing to the judges to bail him out for his proposed policy which, on the face of it, is tough but in reality will not be. If the judges will not do that, where does that leave the position of our prison officers? Under these proposals, they are to be stripped of one of the few powers which a prison governor has to assist in maintaining discipline and good order in a prison; that is, the power to encourage good behaviour and the power to punish disorder. Big talk is what we have heard, but the end result is a recipe for overcrowding in our prisons; a recipe for prison disturbances; and above all, a deception on the public.

The public is rightly concerned about dangerous offenders who may be released to commit further crimes, the sort of examples which the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, gave a few moments ago. The public deserve to be protected from them. But this document, this White Paper, does precisely the opposite. Its proposals for mandatory life sentences for all save a few exceptional sexual offences and offences of serious violence or serious sexual crime will have the effect that the rapist, facing life if identified by his victim, is given a positive incentive to commit murder. He will not receive a longer sentence if he does so, a point raised by Lord Justice Rose, which has not so far been answered in any way in this debate. There will be no incentive to the rapist faced with a life sentence to plead guilty, even in an overwhelming case. Virtually every such case will be contested to the hilt, with the consequent added distress to the victim and public expense. That is precisely what happens today where virtually every murder case, where the sentence is of course a fixed life sentence, is contested.

There is to be no incentive to the accomplice to serious violence or sexual offences—and often the evidence of an accomplice is the only means of obtaining a conviction—to plead guilty and give evidence against his co-accused, with the result that more guilty people will escape justice.

More victims of sexual assault, who are often required to give evidence against close relatives—and that applies particularly to children—often in situations where affection continues to exist or where there is heavy family pressure, will refuse to testify in cases where the consequence of a conviction will be a life sentence, with the result that more guilty people will escape justice.

Trial judges, of course, must have adequate powers to deal with a dangerous offender. They already have many powers. As we have heard from noble Lords who have been involved with sentencing over many years, they have the power to impose a life sentence for rape or serious violence with intent, and they often do so. There certainly is an argument for giving judges additional powers such as a reviewable sentence of the type suggested by the Butler Committee, to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred when he opened this debate. That is a matter which deserves serious attention and consideration.

But there can surely be no valid argument for reducing judges' sentencing powers by tying their hands. The trial judge is the person best fitted to pass the appropriate sentence. In most cases, he will have seen and heard the victim, the defendant and the eye witness. There is no suitable substitute for that experience in arriving at the right sentence. It is certainly not suitable to substitute a Home Secretary on an election trail.

I suspect that members of the public believe that sentencing policy should be, first, effective and, secondly, fair. I am concerned that the sentencing proposals in the White Paper are likely to produce more victims of crime and not fewer. Surely, when the Lord Chief Justice of England says to this House, as he has done today, that these Government proposals are likely to lead to real injustice, even this Government must listen.

My Lords, I, too, am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor of Gosforth for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the matters now before us. However, before I turn to that subject matter, I am sure that your Lordships will allow me the opportunity to join with other speakers in paying a sincere tribute to my noble and learned friend's achievements. He will retire with the warm good wishes of us all. We all admire his commitment, the clarity of his judgments, the elegance of his speeches and his warm personality.

I particularly appreciate my noble and learned friend's courage in the past few, sad weeks and his determination that, in view of the deterioration of his health, he should lay down the responsibility of his office. I hope that he will give us the benefit of his great legal talents in the judicial work of this House as long as his health permits.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, I should also like to put on record the fact that there is no question from the Government side that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice speaks out of any animus to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is extremely appreciative of the great help that my noble and learned friend has given to him during the all too-short period in which he has held his present office. I know that often—because I have sometimes shared in that experience—answers are requested on questions of policy in a fairly short time. My noble and learned friend has always done his very best to respond constructively in that situation.

I should also like to say that many of your Lordships and many people outside the House have had the privilege of enjoying the musical talent of my noble and learned friend. He has always used that talent to seek to support charitable organisations and objectives, particularly those connected with the law. I am sure that all those organisations are very appreciative of that fact and that they share our sadness at the deterioration in my noble and learned friend's health.

I must now turn to the White Paper and the matters that are raised therein. Recorded crime has risen throughout the industrial world since the 1950s. There has been a tendency at times to regard that as inevitable. However, I regard that particular trend as unwise. The logical consequence of that could be a serious deterioration in the cohesiveness of our society, and potentially unsustainable increases in resources required for policing and for the criminal justice and penal systems.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to the significant decline in recorded crime over the past three years. I think that it is the largest fall over three years ever recorded and it suggests that the upward trend may not be inevitable. I would not want to claim too much from those reductions, but they do give hope. They underline the need for the Government to play their part in enabling all of us—all citizens, and not just the professionals in various parts of the criminal justice system—to sustain that improvement. My noble friend Lord Elton asked about references to the voluntary sector. I believe that paragraph 2.22 at least contains something which could be encompassed within that idea.

The proposals set out in the White Paper are one element in a four-part strategy which the Government pursue to tackle crime effectively. First, everything possible must be done to prevent crime from occurring. There is growing evidence of the success of closed circuit television, and there are new partnerships between the police, the private sector and local authorities. That is mentioned in paragraph 2.22 to which I have referred. The newly constituted police authorities and their chief constables are able to give a stronger local emphasis to local needs and objectives in crime prevention.

Secondly, the police must have the powers they need to detect and apprehend the guilty. The current Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill contributes to that. We are making major changes in the way the police, with support where necessary from the Security Service, can tackle organised and serious crime. Thirdly, procedures must be in place to ensure that the innocent are acquitted and that the guilty are convicted. The procedural changes I have already mentioned are relevant here, as of course is the imminent establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and other changes following the proposals of the Royal Commission of which the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, was the chairman.

Fourthly, our main concern today is that we must ensure that those who are convicted are dealt with effectively and appropriately. The Government do not approach the question of punishment in any vengeful spirit. Our obligation to the public is to adopt measures which seem to us to be most likely to be effective and which command public support. We are not free to ignore public opinion. That particularly applies to the Home Secretary who is accountable to another place.

The Government of the day must take careful note of public expectations and concerns in framing their policies because the structure of law and order in a democratic society rests on the broad consent of the population to the way their safety and rights are safeguarded. I believe that these proposals received considerable support when they were made public. The White Paper sets out detailed proposals on sentencing and invites comments by 30th June. Not surprisingly, given the short period of time since the White Paper was published, relatively few comments have so far been received. That is the question that I have been asked, and I had better answer it.

The Police Federation warmly welcomed the proposals. Some 25 or 30 letters have arrived from members of the public which divide almost equally between those who support the proposals and those who find fault with at least some aspects of them. No doubt most of the organisations which have an interest in the proposals will take time to consider their views and submit detailed responses towards the end of the consultation period.

As has been said, the proposals fall into three main parts. The first is under the heading "Honesty in sentencing". The Government believe that the public and offenders should know that a court's sentence means what it says. I believe, to a degree, that is generally accepted. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice commented on arrangements of the kind that we have now which, he said,

"have the appearance of a charade with everyone engaged in a calculation of how much less than the pronounced sentence will actually be served".

This enrages victims and undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system. Accordingly, the Government propose that the present arrangements for parole and early release should be abolished. Instead prisoners will be able to earn a small discount by co-operation and good behaviour. All prisoners serving 12 months or more will remain under supervision for a period after they are released, and will be subject to recall by order of the court if they breach their conditions of supervision.

I believe that my noble friend Lord Belstead was the Member of your Lordships' House who had most to say on that aspect of the matter. He suggested a variant in the present arrangements for early release which would retain an element of parole as an incentive for long-term prisoners serving four years or more. This variant would not meet the Government's objective in introducing honesty in sentencing because there would not be—it is the objective of the proposals—a sufficiently close match between the announced sentence and the sentence served. The Government's proposals achieve this result while ensuring that prisoners continue to have an incentive for good behaviour in the form of an early release scheme, and those serving 12 months or more continue to be supervised for a period after release.

I turn now to the other two parts of the proposals. The reason, I believe, that there has been a change in Government policy in relation to this particular and narrow field is the realisation of the extent to which actual crime results from persistent offending. It is that realisation which has led to these proposals. There is no question of the Government scrapping the general principles of the 1990 White Paper about sentencing, and so on. It is focusing on the specific problem of persistence of two main kinds which has led to the proposals. They are structured to deal with those specific matters.

The proposal is that those who are guilty of the serious crimes which are mentioned in the White Paper—the sexual or violent offences which carry a maximum life sentence—should receive such a life sentence on a second offence unless there are genuinely exceptional circumstances. The offences covered by this proposal will include, among others, rape, attempted rape, attempted murder, manslaughter and wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Examples were referred to by my noble friend Lady Rawlings.

The system proposed is that the judge should set the tariff, and the procedures for determining release will follow those which currently apply to discretionary life sentences for offences such as rape, not the mandatory life sentence for murder. In other words, the trial judge will set the tariff to be served for retribution and deterrence, and at the end of that period the parole board will determine whether it is safe to release the offender. In answer to my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, there will be, as there is at present, in the discretionary life sentence the opportunity for the person concerned to be at the parole board and to be represented. In those circumstances, the parole board would be chaired by a judge. Neither the Home Secretary nor any other government Minister will play any part either in setting the tariff or in determining whether it is safe to release the offender.

The present situation is that where someone has committed two of these offences, and on the second occasion has been sentenced to a determinate sentence, that person must be released at the end of the determinate sentence although everyone knows that there is a high risk that once he gets out he will commit a third offence. I think that it has been recognised in the debate, in particular perhaps by my noble and learned friend Lord Lowry but also by others, that there is a problem here. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice referred to the Butler solution for it in relation to mentally affected offenders.

I submit to your Lordships that this is an important problem and that this is a solution to it. The proposal has a better hope of targeting those who are dangerous than leaving the matter to the judge at the beginning. The judge will have this in his mind at the beginning of what in all likelihood will be a quite long sentence. My noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow said that it is difficult to determine whether it is safe to let someone out. We have had an illustration of just how difficult that is. It must be easier to determine whether it is safe to release someone near the time at which one is considering releasing him than eight or nine years previously. In my submission to your Lordships, this proposal is well targeted to a specific problem.

My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice gave the figures, which are not insubstantial. It is true that one could raise these by the Attorney-General's reference; but the question is not one of lenience or otherwise in respect of the particular offence. The real question is to produce within the judicial system, and covered by judicial order, a result which protects the people against someone being released when it is clear that that person is still a very great danger to the public having committed two offences of a kind which carry, as a maximum, life imprisonment.

The third proposal is that of minimum sentences in respect of those who commit burglary and are guilty of certain types of drug offences. In such cases it is a necessary part of the realisation that persistent offending is really the problem to have a structure under which the public at large, the judiciary and everyone else involved understand that the sentencing regime will become more severe if that persistence continues. Persistence is the difficulty that is specifically addressed by these proposals.

A number of questions have been raised. As was pointed out—and it is important—in both the mandatory life case and in the burglary and drug offences case an exception provides that, where injustice is to result for reasons that cannot be foreseen, the court shall have discretion. The precise terms on which the exception will be framed will be a matter very much for Parliament to determine.

The Home Secretary, as the member of the Government who has prime responsibility for policy relating to criminal law, has a duty to do what he sees as necessary to protect the public from dangers which they perceive. There is no question that the public do perceive considerable dangers from criminal activity in our present situation. My noble friend Lord Windlesham said that they may not be as great as some people feel. That may be so; but there is still a lot of it about. The account of these matters given by my noble friend Lady Rawlings showed just how real that perception is for many people. The Home Secretary has the responsibility to put forward proposals which seem to him to be effective.

The structure that he proposes in no way interferes with the independence of the judiciary. It of course limits the discretion of the judiciary in relation to particular cases; but it does not in any way interfere with the independence of the judiciary to reach the appropriate sentence within the structure of law laid down by Parliament.

All the remarks made in the debate will be carefully listened to and taken note of. Those who respond to the White Paper are perfectly entitled to publish their comments. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will in due course publish an analysis of those comments. He may not publish the detail of every individual's comment unless that person has given an indication that he or she would like that to happen; but those who comment are free to publish on their own account.

One of your Lordships said that governments do not often change their proposals. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. That is not my experience. The parliamentary process will itself give rise to opportunities for discussion. It is only fair to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to say that he had planned to seek time in the other place for a debate on these matters. But when my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor of Gosforth proposed a debate in this House, in the very special circumstances, we thought it preferable that such a debate should take place. Now we have had it. I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend, as he knows.

My Lords, I am most grateful to all those noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon and I am particularly grateful for the very kind expressions of personal regard, which I am sure were far better than I deserve. I am also grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for replying on behalf of the Government. Perhaps I may also single out the contribution of my noble and learned friend Lord Cooke of Thorndon in his maiden speech. I hope that it will be the first of many occasions on which he is able to contribute to our debates.

There is something familiar about a pattern of events in which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor valiantly defends Home Office proposals for which he is not directly responsible from an onslaught of criticism from those noble Lords who are perhaps most knowledgeable about and experienced in the criminal justice system. Perhaps I may say that we appreciate his difficulties.

However, there is one important difference today in that we are debating not a Bill but a White Paper. The Government have offered up these proposals for consultation and, we must presume, will take the responses seriously. Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary will treat today's debate as a valuable opportunity to listen to your Lordships and to think carefully about the views which have been expressed. It is possible that, in doing so, he may conclude that on some points he has been mistaken. None of your Lordships would quarrel with his aim of attempting to reduce crime and protect the public from dangerous criminals. Our objection is that these proposals will not achieve that aim. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.