Tuesday, 18th July, 1978.

The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to try to improve the appreciation by the public of the issues raised in the recent report by the Advisory Council on the Penal System on sentences of imprisonment.

2.42 p.m.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the recent discussions with the United States on the Bermuda II Agreement.

2.44 p.m

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to raise payments for homworkers.

2.52 p.m.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take with regard to the practice of reductions in price printed on the containers of consumer goods without the consumer being able to learn from what base price the reduction should be calculated.

Read 2ª, and committed to a Select Committee.

Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—( The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—( The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Read 3ª, and passed.

3.1 p.m.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—( Baroness Birk.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Lord GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [ Grants for thermal insulation]:

The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises out of a point which I endeavoured to make on Second Reading. If we have a grant-aided scheme which is so rigid that, apart from the insulation of water supplies, the only other kind of insulation that we are prepared to grant-aid is the insulation of roof spaces, that is pretty hard luck on those few people who simply do not have access to their roof space in order to lay the insulation. It is that situation which this Amendment seeks to remedy.

In the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to the debate on Second Reading she was able to go so far as to say that the cost of fitting a trap-door into the top ceiling to give access to the roof space would count as eligible for the grant for that work. So far, so good. But we are still left with a very small number of people in respect of whom any builder or architect would say, "Here we have a ceiling which is probably over 100 years old; it is rather bowed and it shows signs of its great age. Nevertheless, if it is left undisturbed, it will probably last safely for a few more years, but if you start cutting into it in order to try to fit a trapdoor through into the roof space, you will be asking for trouble and you will be in grave danger of fetching down the whole ceiling." This Amendment seeks to deal with that situation.

It is difficult to know what argument can be advanced against this Amendment, unless it be the argument that we must have rigidity for the sake of rigidity in the scheme. Is it to be said that the administrative cost of taking into account this very small number of applicants will be harmful to the scheme? I should have thought not, for two reasons. First, it is well recognised that to insulate the roof space is the most cost-effective means of insulating a house. Therefore, nobody would go out of his way to try to pretend to the local authority that he had no means of access to his roof space if that was not true. If he said that, I should have thought that the local authority could accept that that was the true state of affairs. But, even if there was some small increase in administrative costs, in view of the very small number of cases with which we are dealing the extra administrative cost would be minute in relation to the administrative cost of the whole scheme.

I am not asking for increased grants for these few exceptional cases. Under the Amendment, they will still receive only the maximum grant of £50, which everybody else will be eligible to receive. This will ensure that the Government's anxiety that as many people as possible shall share in the limited £15 million a year, which is available for the whole scheme, will apply and that nobody will get a higher maximum grant than anybody else.

Your Lordships will see that the control of the scheme remains in the hands of the local authority. So there will be no question of anybody getting grant-aid for some fancy kind of insulation which he dreams up for himself and which the local authority would not be satisfied would be cost-effective. I imagine that the alternative form of insulation that, in practice, we are here discussing is double-glazing of the living room, because I think it is generally agreed that when it comes to cost-effectiveness there is very little between insulating the roof space and double-glazing the living room. I hope that the Committee will think that rigidity for rigidity's sake is not a good precept on which to work and that this Amendment is worth while in order to do justice to the very few people who will not otherwise be able to take advantage of the scheme. I beg to move.

3.17 p.m.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.28 p.m.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment arises out of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, on Second Reading. The noble Lord asks me to apologise for his being unable to be present this afternoon. I shall do my unworthy best to make the points that the noble Lord would have made. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, heard the Opposition Front Bench describe this Bill as a very small mouse. He felt that as it said at the bottom of page 1 that the Secretary of State might alter the amount of money available for grants, it could not be contemplated that the Secretary of State could envisage reducing the modest £50 maximum grant; with inflation and other factors, the only possible contemplation would be some future increase in the maximum grant available. If that is the position, let us have it so in the Bill.

If this Committee thought that the Government might envisage reducing this modest £50 maximum grant, it might not be satisfied with that. It might wish to reject it. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the noble Baroness that the only alteration of the small maximum grant will be an alteration upwards: in which case, let us put it in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

3.38 p.m.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Following is the Declaration referred to:

The Heads of State and Government of Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America met in Bonn on 16 and 17 July 1978. The European Community was represented by the President of the European Council and by the President of the European Commission for discussion of matters within the Community's competence.

1. We agreed on a comprehensive strategy covering growth, employment and inflation, international monetary policy, energy, trade and other issues of particular interest to developing countries. We must create more jobs and fight inflation, strengthen international trading, reduce payments imbalances, and achieve greater stability in exchange markets. We are dealing with long-term problems, which will only yield to sustained efforts. This strategy is a coherent whole, whose parts are interdependent. To this strategy, each of our countries can contribute; from it, each can benefit.

GROWTH, EMPLOYMENT AND INFLATION

2. We are concerned, above all, about world-wide unemployment because it has been at too high a level for many years, because it hits hardest at the most vulnerable sections of the population, because its economic cost is high and its human cost higher still. We will act, through measures to assure growth and develop needed skills, to increase employment. In doing this, we will build on the progress that has already been made in the fight against inflation and will seek new successes in that fight. But we need an improvement in growth where that can he achieved without rekindling inflation in order to reduce extremes of balance of payments surpluses and deficits. This will reduce destabilising exchange rate movements. Improved growth will help to reduce protectionist pressures. We need it also to encourage the flow of private investment, on which economic progress depends; we will seek to reduce impediments to private investment, both domestically and internationally. Better growth is needed to ensure that the free world is able to develop to meet the expectations of its citizens and the aspirations of the developing countries.

3. A programme of different actions by countries that face different conditions is needed to assure steady non-inflationary growth. In countries whose balance of payments situation and inflation rate does not impose special restrictions, this requires a faster rise in domestic demand. In countries where rising prices and costs are creating strong pressures, this means taking new measures against inflation.

Canada reaffirmed its intention, within the limits permitted by the need to contain and reduce inflation, to achieve higher growth of employment and an increase in output of up to 5%.

As a contribution to avert the world-wide disturbances of economic equilibrium the German Delegation has indicated that by the end of August it will propose to the legislative bodies additional and quantitatively substantial measures up to 1% of GNP, designed to achieve a significant strengthening of demand and a higher rate of growth. The order of magnitude will take account of the absorptive capacity of the capital market and the need to avoid inflationary pressures.

The President of the French Republic has indicated that, while pursuing its policy of reduction of the rate of inflation, the French Government agrees, as a contribution to the common effort, to increase by an amount of about 0·5% of GNP the deficit of the budget of the State for the year 1978.

The Italian Prime Minister has indicated that the Government undertakes to raise the rate of economic growth in 1979 by 1·5 percentage points with respect to 1978. It plans to achieve this goal by cutting public current expenditure while stimulating investments with the aim of increasing employment in a non-inflationary context.

The Prime Minister of Japan has referred to the fact that his Government is striving for the attainment of the real growth target for fiscal year 1978, which is about 1·5 percentage points higher than the performance of the previous year, mainly through the expansion of domestic demand. He has further expressed his determination to achieve the said target by taking appropriate measures as necessary. In August or September he will determine whether additional measures are needed.

The United Kingdom, having achieved a major reduction in the rate of inflation and improvement in the balance of payments has recently given a fiscal stimulus equivalent to rather over 1 per cent. of GNP. The Government intends to continue the fight against inflation so as to improve still further the prospects for growth and employment.

The President of the United States stated that reducing inflation is essential to maintaining a healthy U.S. economy and has therefore become the top priority of U.S. economic policy. He identified the major actions that have been taken and are being taken to counter inflation in the United States: Tax cuts originally proposed for fiscal year 1979 have now been reduced by $10 billion; government expenditure projections for 1978 and 1979 have been reduced; a very tight budget is being prepared for 1980; steps are being taken to reduce the direct contribution by government regulations or restrictions to rising costs and prices, and a voluntary programme has been undertaken to achieve deceleration of wages and prices.

The meeting took note with satisfaction that the common approach of the European Community already agreed at Bremen would reinforce the effectiveness of this programme.

ENERGY

4. In spite of some improvement, the present energy situation remains unsatisfactory. Much more needs to be done.

5. We are committed to reduce our dependence on imported oil.

6. We note that the European Community has already agreed at Bremen the following objectives for 1985: to reduce the Community's dependence on imported energy to 50 per cent., to limit net oil imports, and to reduce to 0·8 the ratio between the rate of increase in energy consumption and the rate of increase in gross domestic product.

7. Recognising its particular responsibility in the energy field, the United States will reduce its dependence on imported oil. The U.S. will have in place by the end of the year a comprehensive policy framework within which this effort can be urgently carried forward. By year end, measures will be in effect that will result in oil import savings of approximately 2·5 million barrels per day by 1985. In order to achieve these goals, the U.S. will establish a strategic oil reserve of 1 billion barrels; it will increase coal production by two-thirds; it will maintain the ratio between growth in gross national product and growth in energy demand at or below 0·8; and its oil consumption will grow more slowly than energy consumption. The volume of oil imported in 1978 and 1979 should be less than that imported in 1977. In order to discourage excessive consumption of oil and to encourage the movement towards coal, the U.S. remains determined that the prices paid for oil in the U.S. shall be raised to the world level by the end of 1980.

8. We hope that the oil exporting countries will continue to contribute to a stable world energy situation.

9. Looking to the longer term, our countries will review their national energy programme with a view to speeding them up. General energy targets can serve as useful measures of the progress achieved.

10. Private and public investment to produce energy and to use it more efficiently within the industrial world should be increased. This can contribute significantly to economic growth.

11. The further development of nuclear energy is indispensable, and the slippage in the execution of nuclear power programmes must be reversed. To promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation, the nuclear fuel cycle studies initiated at the London Summit should be pursued. The President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada have expressed their firm intention to continue as reliable suppliers of nuclear fuel within the framework of effective safeguards. The President intends to use the full powers of his office to prevent any interruption of enriched uranium supply and to ensure that existing agreements will be respected. The Prime Minister intends that there shall he no interruption of Canadian uranium supply on the basis of effective safeguards.

12. Coal should play an increasingly important rôle in the long term.

13. Joint or co-ordinated energy research and development should be carried out to hasten the development of new, including renewable, energy sources and the more efficient use of existing sources.

14. In energy development, the environment and human safety of the population must be safeguarded with greatest care.

15. To help developing countries, we will intensify our national development assistance programmes in the energy field and we will develop a co-ordinated effort to bring into use renewable energy technologies and to elaborate the details within one year. We suggest that the OECD will provide the medium for cooperation with other countries.

16. We stress the need for improvement and co-ordination of assistance for developing countries in the energy field. We suggest that the World Bank explore ways in which its activities in this field can be made increasingly responsive to the needs of the developing countries, and to examine whether new approaches, particularly to financing hydrocarbon exploration, would be useful.

TRADE

17. We reaffirm our determination to expand international trade, one of the driving forces for more sustained and balanced economic growth. Through our joint efforts we will maintain and strengthen the open international trading system. We appreciate and support the progress as set forth in the Framework of Understanding on the Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations made public in Geneva, 13 July, 1978, even though within this Framework of Understanding some difficult and important issues remain unresolved.

The successful conclusion of these negotiations, the biggest yet held, would mean not just a major trade liberalisation programme extending over the 1980s but the most important progress yet made in the GATT in relation to non-tariff measures. Thus the GATT rules would be brought more closely into line with the requirements of the next decade—particularly in relation to safeguards—in ways which would avoid any weakening of the world trading system and be of benefit to all trading countries developed and developing alike. A substantially higher degree of equity and discipline in the international trading system would be achieved by the creation of new mechanisms in many fields for consultation and dispute settlement. Uniform application of the GATT rules is vital and we shall move in that direction as soon as possible.

In all areas of the negotiations the Summit countries look forward to working even more closely with the developing countries. We seek to ensure for all participants a sound and balanced result, which adequately takes into account the needs of developing countries, for example, through special and differential treatment, and which brings about their greater participation in the benefits and obligations of the world trading system.

At last year's Downing Street Summit we rejected a protectionist course for world trade. We agreed to give a new impetus to the Tokyo Round. Our negotiators have fulfilled that commitment. Today we charge them, in co-operation with the other participants, to resolve the outstanding issues and to conclude successfully the detailed negotiations by December 15, 1978.

18. We note with satisfaction the renewal of the pledge to maintain an open market oriented economic system made by the OECD Council of Ministers last month. Today's world economic problems cannot be solved by relapsing into open or concealed protectionism.

19. We welcome the statement on positive adjustment policy made by the OECD Ministers. There must be a readiness over time, to accept and facilitate structural change. Measures to prevent such change perpetuate economic inefficiency, place the burden of structural change on trading partners and inhibit the integration of developing countries into the world economy. We are determined in our industrial, social, structural and regional policy initiatives to help sectors in difficulties, without interfering with international competition and trade flows.

20. We note the need for countries with large current account deficits to increase exports and for countries with large current accounts surpluses to facilitate increases in imports. In this context, the United States is firmly committed to improve its export performance and is examining measures to this end. The Prime Minister of Japan has stated that he wishes to work for the increase of imports through the expansion of domestic demand and various efforts to facilitate imports. Furthermore, he has stated that in order to cope with the immediate situation of unusual surplus, the Government of Japan is taking a temporary and extraordinary step of calling for moderation in exports with the aim of keeping the total volume of Japan's exports for the fiscal year of 1978 at or below the level of fiscal year 1977.

21. We underline our willingness to increase our co-operation in the field of foreign private investment flows among industrialised countries and between them and developing countries. We will intensify work for further agreements in the OECD and elsewhere.

22. In the context of expanding world economic activity, we recognise the requirement for better access to our countries' markets for the products of the developing countries. At the same time we look to increasing readiness on the part of some of the more advanced developing countries to open their markets to imports.

RELATIONS WITH DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

23. Success in our efforts to strengthen our countries' economies will benefit the developing countries, and their economic progress will benefit us. This calls for joint action on the basis of shared responsibility.

24. In the years ahead the developing countries, particularly those most in need, can count on us for an increased flow of financial assistance and other resources for their development. The Prime Minister of Japan has stated that he will strive to double Japan's official development assistance in three years.

We deeply regret the failure of the COMECON countries to take their due share in the financial assistance to developing countries and invite them once more to do so.

25. The poorer developing countries require increased concessional aid. We support the soft loan funds of the World Bank and the three regional development banks. We pledge our governments to support replenishment of the International Development Association on a scale that would permit its lending to rise annually in real terms.

26. As regards the more advanced developing countries, we renew our pledge to support replenishment of the multilateral development banks' resources, on the scale needed to meet the growing needs for loans on commercial terms. We will encourage governmental and private co-financing of development projects with these banks.

The co-operation of the developing countries in creating a good investment climate and adequate protection for foreign investment is required if foreign private investment is to play its effective role in generating economic growth and in stimulating the transfer of technology.

We also refer to our efforts with respect to developing countries in the field of energy as outlined in paragraphs 15 and 16.

27. We agreed to pursue actively the negotiations on a Common Fund to a successful conclusion and to continue our efforts to conclude individual commodity agreements and to complete studies of various ways of stabilising export earnings.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY

28. The erratic fluctuations of the exchange markets in recent months have had a damaging effect on confidence, investment and growth throughout the world. Essentially, exchange rate stability can only be achieved by attacking the fundamental problems which have contributed to the present large balance of payments deficits and surpluses. Implementation of the policies described above in the framework of a concerted programme will help to bring about a better pattern of world payments balances and lead to greater stability in international exchange markets. This stability will in turn improve confidence and the environment for sustained economic growth.

29. Although exchange rates need to respond to changes in underlying economic and financial conditions among nations, our monetary authorities will continue to intervene to the extent necessary to counter disorderly conditions in the exchange markets. They will maintain extensive consultation to enhance these efforts' effectiveness. We will support surveillance by the International Monetary Fund, to promote effective functioning of the international monetary system.

30. The representatives of the European Community informed the meeting of the decision of the European Council at Bremen on 6/7 July to consider a scheme for a closer monetary co- operation. The meeting welcomed the report and noted that the Community would keep the other participants informed.

CONCLUSION

31. It has been our combined purpose to attack the fundamental economic problems that our countries confront.

The measures on which we have agreed are mutually reinforcing. Their total effect should thus be more than the sum of their parts. We will now seek parliamentary and public support for these measures.

We cannot hope to achieve our purposes alone. We shall work closely together with other countries and within the appropriate international institutions; those among us whose countries are members of the European Community intend to make their efforts within this framework.

We have instructed our representatives to convene by the end of 1978 in order to review this Declaration.

We also intend to have a similar meeting among ourselves at an appropriate time next year.

Bonn, den 17 Judi 1978

Veroffentlicht durch das

Presse-und Informationsamt

der Bundesregierung

3.46 p.m.

4.1 p.m.

House again in Committee.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [ Finance]:

The noble Lord said: Let me reassure the noble Baroness at the outset that this is purely a probing Amendment, but it arises, I think, from a rather important point on which I did not think that her reply during the Second Reading debate was wholly satisfactory. Indeed, it might even have been confusing, and I wanted to try to clarify the position for the record and also, in the process, perhaps, to point out a slightly alarming limitation which lies within the scheme. This concerns the question of the allocation of money for the scheme, to which we have already referred when discussing the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, at the beginning. In the Memorandum to the Bill we see:

"Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to reimburse local authorities in full for grants paid by them"—

and this is the important point —

"within the limit of total expenditure which he authorises in any year …".

Then, later on the Memorandum returns to this point and says:

"The annual cost of grant will be controlled by allocations made to individual local authorities and grants may only be given by an authority within the total amount allocated for this purpose".

Then there is a rather strange sentence which does not read awfully easily, but says:

"For 1978–79 and 1979–80 United Kingdom provision of £15 million and £25 million respectively has been announced to cover both grants and the payments made by the Secretary of State in respect of administration expenses …".

I think it has been subsequently confirmed by the noble Baroness, in (if I may say so) an admirable letter to me on this subject of resource availability, that it is envisaged that there is a fixed amount of money to be made available by the Government in the first year, and that when that amount of money is exhausted the scheme comes to a halt; and this, of course, is the point I wanted to bring out. The noble Baroness herself, in her letter, says:

"Your question essentially is, what happens if the initial demand is much greater than the initial allocation of resources can accommodate?".

So let us get out of the way the rather sad circumstance, as it would be, if it should happen that the scheme was such a flop that few people came forward to demand the money which was being made available. While this might be very satisfactory to the Treasury, who would not have to find the cash, it would be extremely unsatisfactory to the Department of Energy and, presumably, to the noble Baroness's Department, who are dying to get insulation installed. As I said on Second Reading, there is a very pressing case because the cash return on some of these insulation investments, be it to the individual, to the local authority or to the country as a whole, is extremely high and very quick indeed.

But the point is that I pressed the noble Baroness during the course of her winding-up speech on Second Reading (for which interruption she was not very grateful, but there it is) and asked her the question: What happens if the money runs out? She said:

"I do not think there is any danger of it running out at the moment. We have given ourselves the flexibility"—

that favourite word of all Government Ministers—

"commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, to alter the amount. There is no doubt that if the Government find it is working successfully and we can allocate more resources to it, we shall do so ".—[Official Report, 12/7/78; col. 1676.]

That, of course, was intended to be reassuring, and so it was. But what I have to say to the noble Baroness is this: Is she really sure that what she was saying is entirely right? Because, with the greatest respect, I rather suspect that it really was not quite true. Everything the noble Baroness said in the first debate we

had this afternoon indicated that the Government did not feel able to be very flexible about the amount of money to be made available; and it has been pointed out to me since our Second Reading debate that £15 million covers the insulation needs of something like 3 per cent. of the houses requiring insulation, and that is all.

There is a further worry, and I think this is perhaps a good moment to raise it. I have mentioned it, but I should like to develop it again. There is the question of what happens to those who need the money most; because the fear is that some of those who are in the greatest need—some of the aged and the sick—are the people who are most likely to be slow off the ground in applying for this grant. I fear that if we are saying it is strictly on a first-come-first-served basis, and then the shutter comes down and the scheme comes to a grinding halt, then the people who are most likely to he left out in the cold—and that is literally the right expression to use—are precisely those who are most likely to need insulation and to benefit from it. I fear that in this way we may be leading ourselves into the very worst example of what we call "Stop-Go" legislation; and again one could say, most suitably, that the Government will find themselves blowing hot and cold on this issue of insulation—and I suspect more cold than hot. This troubles a lot of us. Also the Government talk of building up the momentum of this scheme and say that it is only an initial scheme, the first scheme, and that there is scope to increase it, as the noble Baroness said earlier today. She talked about it being comprehensive in the long term.

However, again, what worries some of us about this is that the scheme is just getting under way, people are getting trained and then suddenly: "Frightfully sorry! The scheme has run out of money. We shall have to stop!" One can understand this and it is by far the easiest way of controlling the outflow of cash; but if one wants to get on with the job of getting a comprehensive energy conservation programme, then I suggest that anything on these lines would he rather disastrous. When one breaks it down (as I understand is going to happen) to a local authority basis one can see a number of anomalies cropping up whereby one authority runs out of money and one will not have the full allocation taken up. All those kinds of anomalies will be created.

Having referred to old people, may I raise another question which does not, strictly, come within the terms of this Amendment? I understand that not only are the Government not intending to use the clauses inserted into the Bill in another place whereby "special need" is defined, but that they do not intend to use these clauses to introduce a special scheme for people in special need; and, to my astonishment, the home improvement grants for this purpose are actually to be stopped. Can this be right? If so, is it not a sad and retrograde step when in this Bill we are introducing a scheme for home insulation and saying, under the urging of special pleading from various people, that the Minister needs to have the opportunity to make special grants for special need and, with the other hand, stopping these grants under the home improvement scheme—bearing in mind that this scheme is very limited in scope and liable to be stopped dead in its tracks if the build up is successful. Surely, what we want to do, in some way or other, is to build it up and keep it rolling. Nothing seems more disastrous than when the £15 million runs out to have to say, "Sorry, boys. Come back next year and try again!" That is the reason why I put down this Amendment.

I was hoping to ensure, by taking out the second half of the first subsection of Clause 2, that there would inevitably be a rolling programme and continuity given to the purposes of the Bill. Let me say quickly, before the noble Baroness tells me so, that I accept that it is possible that, in fact, this Amendment would not achieve that. My point was to call attention to the need to do it in the hope that the Government might see their way to give us some reassurance that there is no danger of "Stop-Go" in this scheme and that they might even introduce an Amendment later, because I dare say that I shall be told that mine does not do what it intends to do; but I believe that the underlying purpose is good. I beg to move.

4.25 p.m.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—( Lord Wallace of Coslany.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

4.32 p.m.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—( Lord Peart.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Baroness WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Ministerial Pensions

".—(1) For the purposes of this section "qualifying office" means an office held by a Minister in charge of a Public Department of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom whether or not he is a member of the Cabinet and for whom no provision as to pension is made by any other enactment.

(2) Any person who, before the 16th October 1964—

(3) Her Majesty may front time to time by Order in Council substitute any figure for that given in subsection (2) above; but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under this subsection unless a draft of the Order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.".

The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I am sorry to say that in the printing of this clause a most extraordinary mistake has occurred; that is to say, in Clause (2) ( b) the words—

"for a period or periods amounting altogether to not less than seven years, shall be entitled to an annual pension of £2,500 payable from 1st April 1978"

should, of course, apply to both ( a) and ( b) and should be a separate subsection. Perhaps that does not matter too much, because I should not like to ask your Lordships to divide on an Amendment under which I myself was going to receive a pension of this nature. However, this is the only opportunity to appeal to the Government to put right an injustice to a dwindling number of former Ministers of the Crown. I refer to the handful of right honourable gentlemen and noble Lords who retired from office before Members of Parliament voted themselves—Members and Ministers—pensions.

The new clause is intended to provide that a Minister who has served for a total of not less than seven years and is now not entitled to a pension of any kind, should receive £2,500 a year: that is, half the salary which most of us received when we were in the Government. It is not only Her Majesty's present Ministers who are in receipt of pensions to whom one must compare our sad lot. There are millions of other servants of the State who receive generous pensions and pensions which are increased with the rise of the cost of living. In that sense, the arrangements are retrospective, as is the case with my proposed clause: you get more money than you bargained for when you retired.

Many of those civil servants were officials of the Departments for which the former Ministers were responsible, as their political heads. Of course it may be said that we were adequately paid when in office. We were not permitted—nor did we wish to do so—to make any money on the side. Indeed, in 1951 Sir Winston Churchill urged us individually to sell or otherwise dispose of all the ordinary shares which we held. Of course, it is true that some Cabinet Ministers did not need larger salaries when they were in office, or a pension in retirement; they had private means. I suppose I come into that category myself. But others did not. They had a very hard time in office and now they are having an even harder time, because inflation is eating into whatever resources they still possess.

The question at issue is not one of comparative poverty, but of justice. Is it fair that these old servants of the Crown should get nothing simply because they retired before a certain date fixed by Parliament at the very time when Members of Parliament were voting themselves pensions? Perhaps it is simply because these former Ministers are now too few and too dilapidated to be much of a nuisance. Members of Parliament looked after themselves and neglected their predecessors, and that is a sore point.

Ministers cannot argue that the failure to give their former colleagues any pension is the responsibility of an outside body. I have spoken to my noble friend Lord Boyle of Handsworth, who incidentally regrets that he cannot be here today. As I understand it, his terms of reference prevented him from including in his review those Ministers who had retired before the Act was to come into force. So responsibility rests squarely on Parliament itself. Some day before we old-stagers are all dead, I hope that Parliament may do justice in this small matter, and this afternoon I trust that your Lordships think that I have been right to bring it to your attention.

4.39 p.m.

4.49 p.m.

4.58 p.m.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.

5.8 p.m.

Widowers' pensions

(".—(1) In section 14 of the Act of 1972 (pensions for certain widowers), after subsection (1) (qualifying conditions) there shall be inserted as subsection (1A)—

" (1A) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the widower of a woman who was a Member of the House of Commons at any time after the passing of the Act of 1978 shall, if at the time of her death she fulfilled any of the conditions specified in paragraphs ( a) and ( b) of subsection (1) above (as it applies in her case), be entitled to receive a pension under this section—

and subsection (1) above shall not apply in the case of a widower to whom this subsection applies".

(2) In the case of a widower to whom subsection (1A) of section 14 of the Act of 1972 applies, subsections (3) and (4) of that section (Trustees' power to terminate or restore pension in certain events) shall have effect with the following modifications, that is to say—

and where his pension has been terminated under subsection (3) of that section on his ceasing to be incapable as there mentioned before attaining the age of sixty-five, that fact shall not affect his entitlement to the pension as from the time when he attains that age.").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to this Amendment I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 which are consequential. During the Second Reading debate I promised that Government Amendments would be introduced that would meet the wishes of those who have advocated a step towards sex equality in the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme. In another place my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Social Services put the case for improving the provisions in the scheme for widowers. At present the widower of a lady Member office-holder receives a pension only if he was dependent on his wife at the time of her death because of physical or mental incapacity. No such dependency is required in the case of widows although women pay the same contributions as men to the Parliamentary Scheme. The Amendment now before us makes a modest start in equalising the position. Widowers who are over age 65 at the time of their wives' death, or who later reach age 65, will receive the same pension entitlement as widows. In addition, a widower under 65 will receive a pension if, at the time of a Member's death, he is incapacitated to the extent that he cannot earn his own living, or if subsequently he becomes so incapacitated. These Amendments give effect to the changes suggested by my right honourable friend in another place, and reflect the concept of a "survivor's pension" which is already a feature of the State pension scheme.

This Government are a Government that have proved their commitment to greater equality between the sexes by

passing legislation to counter discrimination. These changes to the Parliamentary Pension Scheme are consistent with the conclusion reached in the 1976 report of the Occupational Pensions Board on Equal Status for Men and Women in Occupational Pensions Schemes. That conclusion was that, while progress towards equality was desirable, progress should be made only as resources permitted. In this case the cost will be negligible. I therefore commend these changes to your Lordships. I beg to move.

5.10 p.m.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 [ Widows', dependent widowers' and children's pensions]:

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 [ Short-term pensions for widows, dependent widowers and children]:

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 [ Children's pensions]:

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 7 is a straightforward drafting Amendment which contains no implications of substance. Its intention is only to bring consistency to the expression in this clause which, as noble Lords will realise, was introduced in Committee stage in another place. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [ Reckonable service]:

5.20 p.m.

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 8 and Amendment No. 12, which also stands in my name, are an attempt to deal with the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. I shall deal with the problem of retrospection in, I hope, a way that will convince your Lordships that something ought to be done about it. However, I am concerned about those of my colleagues in another place. I think some noble Lords, and ex-Members of the House of Commons—whom I do not know—who are affected. I do not know how many people are involved, but there cannot be very many. There is a dwindling number who, after long years of service in the House of Commons, now find themselves in a position of straitened circumstances, and they suffer in dignity and in silence.

The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, will remember that when he and I sat in another place I became disturbed about two or three cases which had come to my notice. I say "to my notice", because they happened to concern Members I had known and who had found themselves in difficult circumstances, and I felt that something ought to be done about them.

It was ex my political philosophy that I went to my noble friend and put to him what, after all, was the nub of the idea that subsequently became a scheme which raised a fund for the benefit of Labour Members of Parliament. We subscribed to the fund ourselves and trustees were appointed. He and I did a great deal of work behind the scenes at the beginning and the scheme after all has grown and has brought great benefit.

Substantially, the point that I am making is that there is an unknown number of ageing individuals who at present are in straitened circumstances and we ought to do something about it. We are told that we cannot do something about it because of the principle of retrospection; and of course, it would be almost impossible to do something about it within the framework of this Bill because it is a contributory scheme. That is why I have helped by suggesting removing the word "contributory".

I am not such a political mutt as to believe for a split second that my Amendments, however great my effort, will get very far. I can think of a number of valid arguments for the Government—indeed, I could almost, if I may say so with respect, write the brief for the Leader of the House. He is a kindly and compassionate man and he would not want to say to your Lordships that if your Lordships accept the Amendments standing in my name when they get to another place the issue of privilege could arise. I can see that it could. I could also say that if it goes to another place it will never be called because it is not within the Money Resolution.

I am one of those who believe that "Where there's a will there's a way". Let us examine the merits of my Amendments. Amendment No. 12 would remove the word "contributory" so that the bill would be paid from the Consolidated Fund. It would be a charge by the Government, and I entirely agree that there would have to be a Money Resolution. As regards the issue of retrospection, if the Government want to deal with it they could, of course, accept the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Glenamara. He made an absolutely valid point and that is why I was brought to my feet. I should not like him or the Leader of the House to think that I did not support what the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said. I wish to point out that if the Government really want to do this I can tell them—as they know, I am always trying to be helpful—a way in which it can be done.

Let us meet the problem of retrospection. The Government say, "Right, this is so enshrined in our hearts. Of course, we can give a 40 per cent. increase in pay to policemen as a special case, but we could not deal with an ageing number of legislators as a special case". What does "a special case" mean? "A special case" can have no other meaning than that it must not be quoted as a precedent. After all, if a special case does not mean that in relation to the police force, then everyone from dockers, miners and everyone else will ask for the same. By treating it as a special case it is out; it stands on its own, once and for all. It is just confined to that issue.

Let us go further because that, after all, is only dealing with the surface—just the kind of argument that could be used. There is another one. The Minister wants to go for retrospection. Very good. Give the pension, give the increase that I want to everybody as from the first day of some month in the future—the 1st August or the 1st September; give it to all those on attaining the age of 80 years. I realise, of course, that by putting it that way—that is in the future and not with retrospection—if, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said, they can concede the 10 to 15 years to those who are serving, they can also say: "Ten years it is, but 15 years it will be for all those who come to a certain age at some time in the future". That seems to me to successfully demolish the argument of retrospection—if they want to do it. It is perfectly true, of course, that the Lawrence Commission found difficulties. Whether this has gone to Boyle or not, I do not know. I suggest with great respect that the Committee needs to be told whether it has been formally put to Boyle, and whether the suggestion that I am making has also been put to Boyle; because if it has not, then in fact I suggest that it ought to be.

I do not want to draw from a wealth of personal experience, but I want to remind the Leader of the House that I come from a family which, going back certainly 150 years, back to the Light Brigade, has served the Crown in various capacities. I spent nearly 30 years in the Army, with several years of commissioned service holding senior staff appointments, However, the pension which I receive is, of course, that of another rank. When I left the Army I received a gratuity of £2. My stepfather served for 30 years and received a pension of under £6. My grandfather served for 22 years and was dead within a few months of leaving the Service, and his pension was tenpence a day. So, over the years of service that we have given we have not exactly got a great deal out of the Crown. However, there is always the argument, "Well, you were born too soon." We are saying to the Members of Parliament who have given service "You were born too soon." They get nothing.

It is possible that one of the arguments which will weigh with the Government—and may well weigh with the Leader of the House who is a good Parliamentarian—is what Members of another place will say about our discussions today and the Amendments which have been tabled. As I have said, there will be some who will very quickly say that it is a breach of privilege. There are some who will certainly say that it is out of order because of the point about the Money Resolution. Others will say that we are usurping the rights of the House of Commons in discussing the matter at all. That argument, with great respect, I reject in its entirety.

There is no need for the Government to be afraid of that for the following reason —and let us ponder it for a moment. There are many Members of another place who would have viewed the Palace of Westminster only from the top of a No. 11 bus or from a boat going up and down the river, had it not been for the sacrifices of the men and women for whom I am making my plea now. Therefore, if there is any Member of another place who wants to bandy words about this—about usurpation—I shall turn round and throw the words back again. I say that anyone who believes in the principle of public service must also believe in human dignity to the point of saying that it is an outrage and an affront to all of us, if in fact, those who have given devoted service in the interests of their fellow man should, now in their few remaining years or months, live in poverty, all the worse because it is poverty borne in silence.

Finally, my view is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. He and I share one or two things in common. I have always been right, and that is a valuable asset, especially if one backs horses—I find it an advantage. However, I say this to the noble Lord: "It may even be that the result of something that I have said today will indirectly be to my personal advantage. I say the same as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby: anything, even one halfpenny, that comes to me as a result of any words of mine or any action taken by your Lordships, I do not want and I shall not take. I beg to move.

5.43 p.m.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I am dealing with a narrower point than that which we discussed on earlier Amendments, with which I have full sympathy. On Second Reading, I referred to the anomaly existing on the subject of reckonable service. This Amendment is about reckonable service, which need not be explained in full. I shall simply say what I said before. Those people who were Members of Parliament when the Lawrence Report's recommendations became law after the 1964 General Election, and who had had service in excess of 10 years before 1964, were allowed to count 10 years as reckonable for pension purposes. The Government paid into what was then the new fund an amount of money to cover this. It was agreed that from that date anyone with service in excess of 10 years should count 10 years; and if they had seven they should count seven, and so on.

The current situation is that Members of Parliament with service in excess of 10 years before 1964 may count 10 years reckonable. However, the Bill now proposes, in respect of present Members of Parliament, that the reckonable amount of service prior to the 1964 General Election shall be 15 years. It is a retrospective action. This is a retrospective Bill in that respect. It will throw up many anomalies. We can all think of them.

One may think of two Members of Parliament entering Parliament, as I did, in 1945, straight out of the Forces. One decides a month ago to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, for some reason or another. The other decides to wait until the dissolution of Parliament, perhaps in a month or two, and then retire. The Member who applied for the Chiltern Hundreds will have done exactly the same amount of service, but he will count 10 years reckonable; whereas the Member who continues until the dissolution of Parliament—without sitting for one day after the new Parliament commences—will count 15 years. That is one of the anomalies.

There is perhaps a greater anomaly for the widow. Two Members of Parliament may have served exactly the same length of time. One wife is widowed before the other, in that awkward period before the dissolution of Parliament. One widow will receive £150 a year more than the other by sheer accident. Members may work out anomalies of those kinds for themselves.

My Amendment is simple. I hope that the wording on the Marshalled List will do this. If not, I am prepared to change it. I seek to make the reckonable service 15 years for everyone who has served for 15 years or more prior to the General Election of 1964. Those who have done the service will qualify. They will be treated in precisely the same way as the present Members of Parliament who retire in a few months' time. To benefit from my Amendment a person must have been a Member of Parliament in or before 1949. I shall mention the figures which I obtained in reply to a Parliamentary Question. This affects 70 Members of Parliament and 45 widows. The widows are probably more important than the 70 Members of Parliament, as some ex-Members of Parliament—not the majority—are in this House.

On Second Reading I said that the cost would be negligible. I put the annual cost at about £20,000. I suggested the that if the Government cared to be generous and added a cost-of-living index-related figure to it, it could cost as much as £55,000. In a letter which I did not receive but which I have seen, the Leader of the House in another place said that the annual cost would be £86,000. There is not much difference between us. I assumed that everyone who received anything would pay income tax. It is a net figure. The Leader of the House went on to say that the total capital cost of extending the five years would be about £l¼ million, worked out by Government actuaries. I have every respect for Government actuaries. If the annual cost can come within £20,000 to £50,000, surely the Government actuaries must be taking everything possible into consideration—that all Members of Parliament might die at the same time, the kitchen sink, the number of lamp posts, and whatever else one takes into account. It is like working out the old rate grant that local authorities used to receive. One cannot have a figure of that kind. I was talking about annual costs. Members of your Lordships' House may not agree with me. However, if one multiplies 70 by 300 in the case of Members, and 45 by 150 in the case of widows, one will reach the figure I mentioned. It is not excessive.

May I make a point in relation to something that my noble friend Lady Bacon said about the Members' Fund? She called it the Members' Pension Fund. It is the Members' Fund. I was trustee of that fund for some time. Although it does excellent work in helping those people who fall outside the contributive scheme, it has not, so far as I know, ever taken up its full amount of Government grant. Perhaps some of that money could be used in another direction. Perhaps my noble friend the Leader of the House will bear that point in mind.

I suggest that the pension should not be based on contributions but on years of service. My view is that we should clearly state our position in the House of Lords. However, I wish that the appeal had come from someone outside this House or from another place, so as to afford those in the other place an opportunity to discuss it again. I should think that that would probably have afforded a better result than we obtained following many of our representations previously.

I do not wish to divide the Committee. However, I feel keenly about this matter. I am in a sense responsible as I was Leader of the House of Commons when the Lawrence Report recommendations became law. I know that my noble friend who speaks today from the Front Bench as Leader of the House of Lords is fully sympathetic. I understand that. In making this comment this afternoon on the Amendment I am speaking not only to him but to the Leader of the House in another place who perhaps has equal, if not greater, authority in this respect. I shall not take this Amendment to a Division if I obtain a firm assurance that the Government are prepared to do something about it.

6.20 p.m.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 19 agreed to.

[ Amendment No. 10 not moved.]

Remaining clauses and the Schedules agreed to.

[ Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

6.34 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 2 [ Further provisions about community service orders]:

The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships, or at least some of your Lordships, may recall that this small Bill was considered in Committee last week, when we had a debate, or a series of debates, on precisely the Amendments which I have tabled again and seek to move this evening. It may be thought that this is not a very important Bill and that, with the state of the Parliamentary timetable being what it is, it is perhaps not particularly fitting that too much time should be spent on it. But I make no apology for returning to the subject tonight, and I say that for this reason. Scotland does not enjoy, or has not in the past enjoyed, its fair share of Parliamentary time; it lags behind England so far as penal reform is concerned; and those of us who care passionately about the subject—and I am very happy to number myself among those—feel that when Scotland is offered the opportunity to consider penal reform (and this Bill is no less than that) the matter should be thought out with the greatest of care, and it is right that Parliament should give the matter the time and the care it deserves before, hopefully, this enactment passes on to the Statute Book.

Some of your Lordships may know that it was the Government's intention to pass a far more far-reaching criminal justice Bill for Scotland; but, unfortunately, time has prevented such happening. It should be realised, however, that we in Scotland do not have, for instance, suspended sentences; we do not have the equivalent of English attendance centres, and this I regard as important; we do not have, although there was an experiment which failed, the equivalent of detoxification centres. We lag behind in the treatment of our criminal population; and we should also remember that the prison population in Scotland, as a proportion of the population of the country as a whole, is among the highest in Europe. After that short sermon, if I may so describe it, I will get ahead and describe my Amendment.

In Clause 1 of this Bill the court is entitled, subject to various subsections, to make a community service order in respect of an offender. It is right to point out that in subsection (2) the offender has to consent, the court has to be notified by the Secretary of State that arrangements exist for persons to perform work in that locality, and various other matters have to be gone through or satisfied. In Clause 2, to which this Amendment is directed, the community service order has to set out various requirements and details which will apply to the particular offender. I think that there is really not so much between the Government and me as at first blush might appear. The court may make this order, which will, in effect, condemn the offender to do unpaid work on behalf of the community. I am not going to go through all the authorities which I quoted in Committee, but in the view of the Government such orders are meant to act as a deterrent. The Bill was amended in the Commons so that it should be made perfectly plain to courts that this is by way of being an alternative to imprisonment and is not meant to be a soft option by a court which does not really know what to do with an offender.

All these matters, I submit, are important, and play a part in how the scheme is going to operate and whether it will be a success; but what the Government contemplate, apparently, is that the court will make up its mind as to whether a community service order is justified, no doubt will make the necessary inquiries locally, and then, once it has satisfied itself, first, that it would be appropriate to sentence the offender accordingly, and, secondly, that the various conditions which I have already related in Clauses I and 2 of the Bill are met, will make the order, after which it will be up to the social work department to allocate the work, see to it that the offender carries it out, and generally complete the process.

In the Commons there were various analogies and examples given of the sort of behaviour which might lead to these orders; and we in this House, too, talked about young gentlemen who misbehave at football matches, and so on. That is not a bad example, I think, and it is one which I propose to use tonight. It seems to me that it would be desirable, to put it no higher, if a court when it is sentencing an offender to undergo a community service order should be entitled to say, in effect; "You have made misuse of your spare time or your free time or your leisure time and we are going to see to it that for a period you will not be free to enjoy, for instance, going to a football match on a Saturday afternoon." What the deterrent value of that is, I should not like to guess. I would submit that it must be considerable.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, when we discussed these matters before, said that he wanted to see what he would term the maximum flexibility; that it should be the service people there who allocate the work and it is really a matter for them rather than the court. The social work department in Scotland, as I suggest and have been told, are very much overstretched. They do not enjoy the service and resources lavished on them which they no doubt deserve and which, if we were a richer community, we would allocate to them; but the fact is that they do not enjoy the resources which they should. I believe it would be a very much better way of making these orders if there were a partnership as between the court and the social work department which would give the eventual community service order, in the proper instance, a rather greater authority than I suggest it would have if the court does not have the opportunity of making known, in the right instance, its views on what periods should be served by the offender.

I know that, again, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that there is nothing to stop a court from making any recommendation or suggestion that it may make. The answer to that is that courts are very ill-advised, in my experience, if they trespass beyond the realms of what they are entitled and enjoined, either at common law or by statute, to do and say. Many judges have got into trouble by going beyond their actual task. For a judge to make a recommendation which may or may not be carried out by the social work department is, I think, at best risky and at worst could bring the courts into disrepute or, dare I say, even contempt.

It is all very well for a court to come to a decision and announce what it considers its preferences to be; but if they are not followed by the social service department that would have a bad effect, or a potentially had effect, in the mind of the offender. The analogy was also taken that if the court sentences somebody to prison, that is the end of it; and it is for the prison service to decide where he serves it and how he serves it; it is not for the court. I suggest that that is not a wholly fortunate analogy. A proper sentence is a sentence for the deprivation of liberty. That is all it is. A sentence, I suggest, of a community service order, in fact, is a positive order for somebody to work without pay at certain times. Who decides those times is what we are talking about. There is no deprivation of liberty. So at that stage I would say that my argument rests, except that there is one more matter which arose during the Committee stage of this Bill.

Under Clause 7 of the Bill, the Government have retained and legalised the experimental sentence which has been carried out in four areas in Scotland and which is, in effect, a sentence of probation coupled with a community service order on top of it. In Committee—and I am not going over it again—I tried to argue that that was not a good idea because it was neither fish, flesh nor fowl. What I do pray in aid is that when he came to reply to that part of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said—and rightly, if I may respectfully agree with him—that the court may order any requirement in effect which may be necessary to secure the good conduct of the offender. It seems to me that it would be perfectly in order for a court—and let us once more, and possibly for the last time, take the football offender—to say to itself: "What are we going to do with this young man who, because of his past record or the nature of the offence, is liable to a term of imprisonment? We could do a number of things. We can put him on probation and order that he does not attend football matches. That is not something unknown in Scotland. We could put him on probation with a community service order and, in brackets, tell him not to go to football matches".

If that is so, it makes a nonsense of a requirement for flexibility. If an order is made under Clauses 1 and 2 of this particular Bill the court is not only not under any duty to give an opinion as to time or dates, but is not empowered to. I shall he interested to get the reaction of any other noble Lord, if there should be one, or, in any event, the reaction of the Government on this matter once again. I beg to move.

6.46 p.m.

6.58 p.m.

There is no question in my mind of a sheriff or a magistrate of a district court in Scotland (because this Bill applies to them too) saying, "You will go and make this bit of motorway", and then the work is finished and, if it is in Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, goes along and opens it and we all drive along it. That would not happen at all, as I see it. As I see this, it would be a partnership as between the court and the social work department. Obviously there would be a remand, and the court would make up its mind as to what to do only at the end of the period after the fullest consultation.

All I am seeking to write into the Bill is that in certain instances, which would be by no means universal and probably infrequent, if a court felt the community service order could be improved by stipulating some time or date or by relating the work to the nature of the offence, that could become part of the order. That is all. I really think that some of those who oppose this suggestion perhaps may not have paid sufficient attention to how people comport themselves in court. This is not going to be some judge, red in tooth and claw, condemning someone to hours in some penal colony. This is just one more effort to help the court in an otherwise excellent measure of reform. I think the cleavage between the Government and me is complete, as I said before; and I want to test the opinion of the House.

7.5 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 35.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

7.13 p.m.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has spoken against this Amendment, although I have not as yet spoken in favour of it. Whether that is the kiss of death, or whether it is more likely to succeed, I do not know. But I should have thought, in view of the way in which the House came to its decision a few moments ago, that it might be an idea if I said nothing more, except that I think this is a thoroughly commendable, well-drafted Amendment and then sit down, and the Government accept it as such without prejudice to anything they may do in the future. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.14 p.m.

Annual Reports to be laid before Parliament

(". The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament each year, or incorporate in annual reports he already makes, a report of the working of community service orders.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this, too, is a matter which was debated last week in your Lordships' House, but I anticipate that we are here in slightly calmer waters, if I may so put it, because over the weekend—if I am not giving away what, when I was at the Bar used to be called robing room secrets—I had a most agreeable letter from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in which he said, in effect, that there may be some faint merit in this Amendment and, in the event, I think that the Government are prepared to accept it.

Speaking seriously, I was very much gratified by the support which I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, on the last occasion. In any matter of penal reform, it is essential to have full knowledge on the part of all those who take an interest in these matters, and I do not just mean the laity. It is essential that the Government should publish reports and various statistics and data, as and when they get them, and, generally speaking, make them available. I am glad to say that I believe the Government now share that view, at least in part. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.17 p.m.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—( Lord Scarman.)

7.48 p.m.

8 p.m.

On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

7.55 p.m.

In 1962 in this House I opened the debate on victims—before, I imagine, many of the Members of the House, and certainly most of the journalists on the Evening Standard, were very mature. That was the last systematic discussion on victims that we held here. I had, a short while before then, been chairman of a committee of Justice and a short while after that—I shall not say that it was propter hoc but it was certainly post hoc—steps were introduced to give us the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In the meantime, since 1962, there has been an immense increase in crime, especially violent crime, and a corresponding increase in the number of victims and their sufferings.

In the interim report which I have just mentioned our sole object has been to improve the lot of victims by direct initiative. To draw up a complete charter for victims would require a fundamental study of the causes and prevention of crime and of the punishment and treatment of criminals. Victims themselves not only desire compensation for their injuries; they are just as anxious to be protected from similar aggression in the future.

We support all efforts to provide more effective law and order, and naturally we are delighted to see that the rewards to our devoted, but much harassed, police forces are about to be increased. However, when we come to penal policy, no one could pretend that there is, or is likely to be, any consensus in this country. Many victims and their relatives, and many members of the general public, are convinced that victims will never be adequately protected until criminals are punished more severely. Many others believe the precise opposite: they believe, as I do, that more humane methods of treatment will benefit not only the criminals but society, and, by inference, the victims.

We have not attempted to thrash out this argument which will perhaps continue throughout the lifetime of even the youngest of us. We come before the public, and I come before the House tonight, insisting that the immediate plight of victims is too urgent to be left over until the main problems of penal policy arc resolved. Therefore, we have not considered in our report, and I am not considering this evening, the penal system, which we have discussed often enough under one aspect or another in this place. In one respect we have considered the penal system. We have agreed that much more emphasis in imposing punishment should be laid on the necessity that reparations should be made to society and, where possible, to the individual victim. We urge that much more use should be made of compensation orders and the machinery of criminal bankruptcy. The complexities involved here have been set out in expert fashion in various reports, but in a recent report of the Advisory Council on Penal Policy. Although there are many difficulties in that area I believe that they will be solved one day, but they will certainly take a long time to straighten out. As a famous theologian once remarked, "A hundred difficulties do not make a doubt", and that does not weaken our belief that the future of punishment should lay much more stress on reparation.

Our report is essentially an interim report. We have stressed the need for something much more comprehensive and more precise, whether under Government or under voluntary auspices. In any further report we would hope to see explored the whole idea of reconciling offenders and victims—an inspiring, if arduous, aspiration. The problems involved in any such reconciliation are as varied as human nature itself. No other individual has contributed as much to the work of our committee as Mr. Michael Whittaker, whose daughter was raped and strangled. He is an example of the victim who seeks reconciliation, although in that particular case the murderer killed himself. But I have met mothers who would, initially at any rate, have regarded it as a betrayal of their murdered children if they had any truck with the murderer. So it is no easy problem from that side.

On the other hand, if we take the criminals, I know of a young policeman whose career in the Police Force was ended by a brutal assault. He visited his assailant in his cell and was told by the assailant, "I would have killed you if I had known you were alone". I firmly believe that no human being is irredeemable, but on the face of it there is no immediate prospect of reconciliation there. On the other hand—and no human being is really typical—I know of a young man whose terrorist activities caused terrible damage. He has now publicly repudiated all violence and for some time has expressed the desire to apologise to his victims. Unfortunately, the authorities have been somewhat sluggish in giving him any encouragement. But I hope and believe that more enlightened counsels will prevail.

I shall not weary the House this evening with statistics. No one seems able to make a reasonable estimate of the number of victims in this country, or even the number of victims of violence. The House will be aware that the victims of violence are the only victims who are compensated at present through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. In 1976 to 1977 about 14,000 people received awards, but no doubt there were many others who would have qualified if they had come forward. The Board itself has again and again admitted that large numbers of victims do not apply for compensation for a number of reasons. Perhaps the simplest is that a high proportion of victims do not wish to appear in public; they feel humiliated and the whole idea of emerging in some sort of public argument, either about their own sufferings or victims generally, is repugnant to them. At any rate, everyone knows that many more victims exist—even victims of crimes of violence—than those who put in any kind of claim. I should mention in passing that there is a limit of £150 at the present time; one cannot put in a claim for less than that. I shall mention only one or two other figures.

The amount paid out to victims through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was about £9½ million in 1976–77, which is the last year for which figures are available. That is known. That is a figure. We have pointed out in our report—perhaps somewhat speculatively, but I personally believe that we are not far wrong—that well over £300 million would appear to have been spent in the same period in dealing with crime. This takes no account of the actual damage done, let alone the suffering caused.

What, then, do we suggest should be done? Five of our 14 recommendations involve the strengthening of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and extending its responsibilities. The Board should be much more generously staffed than it is now. That would serve the double purpose of enabling the facilities to become much better known to the public; the present painful delays in payment should be much reduced. The Board should be equipped with the resources to make possible a much higher total of payments to qualified victims, assuming that they are ready to come forward. Large numbers of victims not qualified at present should, in our view, be entitled to claim benefit in future.

Beneficiaries would no longer be restricted to those who have suffered crimes of violence and their dependants. We are clear about that as a broad statement, but we admit that once we pass beyond that broad statement we get into very great difficulties. The 64,000-dollar question for public inquiry is where exactly the new line of qualification should be drawn. For example, when houses and flats are broken into the injuries are of two kinds: one, the loss of money and goods and, the other, a permanent sense of insecurity and a persistent fear that the home is now vulnerable. So we feel that we must move beyond the present narrow limits of the scheme. But I recognise that this question of drawing the line between those who are qualified and those who are not is perhaps the most difficult issue. We have not provided a solution in this interim report, but we have placed the issue fairly and squarely on the table.

Wherever the line is drawn the scale of compensation should be raised immediately, without delay, to that prevailing in similar civil cases. This is, indeed, the theoretical position at present, but I have found no one—and I repeat "no one"—who comes at the matter from the victim's end (and that includes legal people who try to assist them) who believes that things work out that way in practice. We are all convinced that the damages received are considerably lower in these criminal injuries cases than in corresponding civil actions.

If steps of this kind were taken, there would be a substantial improvement in the treatment of victims, but we are convinced that something much more fundamental is required. We believe that there should be a much more human approach to the total damage suffered by a victim, phychological and moral as well as physical. The psychological consequences of being a victim—for example, the humiliation—are often still more severe than physical. In many cases prolonged therapy may be essential. Rape is an example of that, but there have been many others.

We call for the establishment of local victim centres. They would be staffed by professionally-qualified people, assisted by voluntary workers and would involve collaboration on familiar lines between the State, local authorities and the voluntary bodies. We believe—and I bring out the most definite point of all—that none of these things will happen effectively through a series of happy accidents. A minister for victims should be appointed on the analogy of the Minister for the Disabled. This new Minister would not be a Cabinet Minister, but he would have a good standing; he would perhaps be a Minister of State. He would be responsible for promoting the interests of victims generally, for the requisite allocation of public funds under the decisions of the Cabinet, and for encouraging voluntary action. He should be ministerially responsible for a much expanded Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. His mandate would include the establishment, in conjunction with the local authorities, of the local victim centres, which I mentioned a moment ago.

Those of us who have kept in touch with the work of the Minister for the Disabled—and he will always be associated with the disablement Bill, which I had the honour of carrying through this House—in the last few years will realise what an enormous difference a dedicated Minister can make to the strengthening, coordination, and inspiration of all the services in a hitherto neglected field. A commission publicly financed but operating independently like the Commission for Racial Equality would, in our plan, serve the cause of victims outside the Government.

In short, we are calling not just for an increase of money—though some increase is inevitable if anything like justice is to be done to victims of crime; we are calling much more profoundly for a new, positive, caring approach under which the victims are not left to face unaided the prospect of what amounts in their eyes to a complicated legal action, from which many of them shrink. We believe that society should recognise an active responsibility for those whom it has found impossible to protect from criminal aggression. We believe that victims should no longer be left alone uneasily in the shadows fearful, rightly or wrongly, of a stigma being attached to them, fearful of becoming a source of embarrassment in their circle. We believe that victims should be encouraged to come out into the open, and be treated as they deserve to places of honour. I ask the Question standing in my name.

8.12 p.m.

8.28 p.m.

8.52 p.m.

9.8 p.m.

9.19 p.m.

9.24 p.m.

9.33 p.m.

9.48 p.m.

10.3 p.m.