Lords Sitting of 13 May 1983

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

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

Appropriation Act,

Finance Act,

Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act,

Diseases of Fish Act,

Coroners' Juries Act,

Marriage Act,

Solvent Abuse (Scotland) Act,

Mobile Homes Act,

Litter Act,

Social Security and Housing Benefits Act,

Importation of Milk Act,

Dentists Act,

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act,

Education (Fees and Awards) Act,

Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act,

Copyright (Amendment) Act,

Road Traffic (Driving Licences) Act,

National Audit Act,

County Courts (Penalties for Contempt) Act,

Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Act,

National Heritage Act,

Parkeston Quay Act.

The Judiciary and Matters of Public Importance
11.8 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any guidelines have been issued to judges to ensure that they protect the freedom of the individual to bring to the notice of the media matters of public importance dealt with in open court.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, guidelines are not issued to the judiciary by members of the Executive.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord consider the specific case to which I have drawn the attention of his office which was the case of a Mr. Zavorka in the Bloomsbury and Marylebone County Court on 11th March? The question which I want to put to the noble and learned Lord is that in this
708
case—there is no criticism of the judge or the justices in this question—the judge approved a settlement which prevented the defendant from speaking to the media after the case. This matter has been raised with me by the BBC which raised the issue and tried to interview the defendant. Will the noble and learned Lord give the House his wisdom on the principle of judges allowing such a settlement to prevent a defendant from making contact and giving information or an interview to any part of the media?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in this country people are free to settle their cases on terms that they choose and should keep their bargains after they have made them.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that many will be disturbed that a Question such as this appears on your Lordships' Order Paper? To imply, however obliquely, that the judges need guidelines from politically orientated Governments is disturbing when one considers the importance of the impartiality of the judges in this country.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I hope that my original reply will dispose of the anxieties which my noble friend might feel.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, surely there is no objection to putting down such a Question particularly when it receives such a robust Answer.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am the servant of the House in such matters. If the Question appears on the Order Paper I assume that it is in order; and, if it is in order, I answer it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept that there is absolutely no political motive in this Question? It is purely a matter of public interest. Will he address himself to the 1688 Bill of Rights? Does that not imply a freedom of speech which would at least suggest, in a case of this kind where a settlement has been reached which infringes the right of free speech, that in those circumstances judges might well intervene to disallow that part of the settlement which prevents either party from being in contact with the media after the case has finished?
The Lord Chancellor: The Bill of Rights, my Lords, certainly protects the right of free speech; but the right of an individual to forgo communication by agreement with his opponent of that right in relation to the media is one that also has to be protected and defended when he has made the bargain.

Trade with Canada
11.12 a.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the current volume of trade

709
between the United Kingdom and Canada: what were the respective figures of imports and exports for the years 1979–80 and 1981–82; and what immediate measures they have in mind to increase United Kingdom exports to the Canadian market.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, there are sound historical reasons why our two-way trade with Canada has declined. But Her Majesty's Government are not content to see this decline continue further. The British Overseas Trade Board provides a wide range of services to exporters to Canada. Its North America Branch is working with the North American Advisory Group and with our commercial representatives in Canada to identify particular areas of opportunity which can be brought to the attention of British Industry. I am arranging for the detailed figures to be published in the Official Report.
Following is the information referred to:
The figures of U.K./Canada trade requested are as follows:

1979

1980

1981

1982

£m

£m

£m

£m

U.K. Imports

1,272

1,412

1,509

1,440

U.K. Exports

767

752

845

852

Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very careful reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that I have just returned from Canada, from the Second Commonwealth Conference of the Delegated Legislated Committee? Is he aware further that our consul in Toronto asked personally to see me to express certain anxieties implied in the Question? Will he accept that there is still a deficit in Canada's favour in our overall exports? Will he also say whether joint ventures, particularly with small companies, are going to be seriously considered by Her Majesty's Government? Will he not agree that in items such as medical equipment this will do much to restore the imbalance with one of our most valued Commonwealth countries?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am most interested to learn of my noble friend's peregrinations, and of all the work that he did when he was in Canada. My noble friend will be able to read the figures of the trade deficit between this country and Canada in the Official Report. I am able to assure my noble friend and the House that the Government take very seriously the prospects of improving our trade with Canada. I am sure that he will be pleased to know of the highly successful seminar in London in March of this year which was held in conjunction with the Ontario Ministry of Industry and Trade. This was attended by no fewer than 50 Canadian firms and over 300 British companies. The areas of trade and industry which were covered were wide and included speciality foodstuffs (which, I am informed, covered Scottish game soup), medical equipment, plastics and defence procurement.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the decline of our trade with Canada and other Commonwealth countries is a very regrettable feature of our membership of the Common
710
Market? May we not all look forward to our coming out of the Common Market after the coming general election?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord is extremely eloquent in putting his own point of view.

Seveso Explosion: Poisonous Waste
11.17 a.m.
Lord Hale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an unequivocal refusal to the request of the Italian Government for permission to receive into Great Britain 21 drums or bidons of soil from the explosion of Seveso in 1976 which is believed to contain the most deadly poison known to man for which the authorities have been seeking acceptance throughout Europe, and which is now detained at St. Quentin in France.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is a serious matter. No request to receive this waste has been made to the United Kingdom Government by the Italian Government or anyone else. In principle, it would be an unwelcome import.
Lord Hale: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am grateful for that Answer and that I am very reassured by it, because what this Government might do in any given circumstances is unpredictable? I took this information straight from The Times newspaper, and I think I have referred him to that.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Hale: My Lords, indeed I have a dozen extracts from The Times which show that 41 bidons (not 21) have been making the "Grand Tour" of Europe, carting about the most deadly poison in the world from a spot where it has been dug over for 20 years and at the very moment when a trial to investigate the origin of the poison and the question of care or otherwise in the exothermic explosion was actually starting in the absence of the defendants at Monza—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Hale: My Lords, I agree. May I add this? Would the noble Lord bear in mind that this is, as he says, a very serious matter, and that it would be to repudiate many pledges if there was any question of allowing this stuff to come into this country, and that—
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to put his supplementary question as succinctly as possible. I think that would be for the convenience of the House, and my noble friend would then be able to reply to it.
Lord Hale: My Lords, I am only too delighted to do so. Would the noble Lord bear in mind that the British citizen has had to put up with a great deal over the past four years? This really is something that he could not stand, and, indeed, is also clearly, literally, something that he could not swallow.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are fully aware of the concern evidenced by the noble Lord in his taking up the substance of an article (which, I must say, at this stage appears to be a little speculative) in The Times newspaper. As I have already said, this is a very serious matter. There is no evidence that the waste has been brought into the United Kingdom, and we are taking every practical step to ensure that it does not enter the country.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, could the Minister tell us why the Government did not place an immediate ban on the importation of these barrels—a power which they have under the Control of Pollution Act 1974? Secondly, since representatives of county councils and port authorities recently told a Select Committee of your Lordships' House that they are not satisfied with the Government's promises to close the loopholes, could the Minister reassure the House that the present regulations governing the importation of dangerous chemicals are adequate?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Baroness will know, in this respect the Control of Pollution Act operates under a system of licences, and the Government are convinced that this system of licences is adequate. Powers to ban or restrict imports exist, but whether they would apply would depend upon the actual material, its condition, packaging and what was proposed to be done with it; and, indeed, whether a licence was in force which would cover the particular chemical and the proposed action with regard to it.
But we do not know for sure what the waste is, or in what condition, and I really cannot say whether that would apply. Simple dislike of the material is not a reason in law.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, bearing in mind that this consignment of poison is reported to have left Italy in a lorry with a Right-wing Italian senator sitting beside the driver, will the Government take special care to investigate the cabs of all lorries arriving at our ports to see which Right-wing legislators are sitting beside the drivers?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, any containers which could possibly contain this waste will be examined at all ports of entry into this country, whoever may accompany them or drive them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether within the Community context there are any arrangements for the disposal of this sort of material, and what is to be done with it eventually?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this is exactly the problem. Nobody knows what is to be done with it eventually because the transport of hazardous waste
712
throughout the Community is accompanied by licences to enable it to be transported from one country to a different country. The Select Committee on Science and Technology of your Lordships' House have recently reported on their investigation into hazardous waste disposal, and they comment on the proposed draft directive to deal with just that problem.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, as we are talking about some deadly poison, should there not be some international convention or control, even wider than the Community, to prevent this sort of hazard being carted around the world in the hope that some unfortunate people will be foolish enough to accept it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would not accept that although this is a hazardous poison it is necessarily a deadly one, because, as I have said before, we do not know exactly what this waste is. An international treaty covering the disposal or transport of such waste does not exist, so far as I am aware; but I certainly agree that this is likely to become a worldwide problem and should be dealt with on a worldwide scale.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, if this waste is dioxin, as a lot of people suspect, would my noble friend confirm that there are firms which have the competence and the capability to incinerate this stuff, which reduces it to harmless waste?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. My information is that there are firms, both in this country and on the continent, which have the capability of "neutrifying" this very dangerous substance by using temperatures of enormous magnitude.

Housing: Empty Properties
11.23 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they are making towards reducing the number of empty residential properties in the public sector.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government are greatly concerned at the 19,000 residential properties which were reported on 1st April 1982 as having been empty for more than one year. Among many Government initiatives, the most recent is to ask councils in their housing investment programme returns for 1984–85 to indicate their specific intentions for bringing back into use dwellings empty for more than one year and the proposed expenditure, if any, involved.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his informative reply. Does he agree that the unacceptably large number of empty houses in the public sector is really a shameful reflection of the failure of certain local authority housing policies? Can

713
he identify today some of the worst cases and also say what success Her Majesty's Government have had during the lifetime of this Parliament in persuading local authorities to reduce the number of empty houses?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in the HIP returns to which I referred, the regular quarterly up-date is to be found in your Lordships' Library. I regret to say that included among the figures is a list of what I can only describe as "the good, the bad and the ugly" in this respect.
The important figure is the long-term vacant, as a percentage of the totally vacant, housing stock, which ranges in the worst 34 cases from 8·44 per cent. in Leeds to an enormous 80·83 per cent. in the district of Sedgefield in County Durham. The Government's policies are well known, but I am glad to have this opportunity to reiterate the measures taken in the last four years, which include the improvement-for-sale scheme, permits issued to those authorities wishing to waive for a period the interest on mortgages granted for homesteading, powers for local authorities to guarantee building society mortgages and many, many other things. I hope that will give a guide to the great work that this Government have done during their period of office.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that this is a vital Question which has been raised by the noble Earl, for one particular reason? Acknowledging that the local authorities have done a magnificent job in providing homes for millions of British families—that is why this is such a poignant subject when there are residences in both the public and private sectors which are left to rot for whatever reason—will the Minister be prepared to consider that this must be an offence against the planning regulations of those very authorities?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I seem to remember describing this particular problem last week as "a scandal". Certainly, I would stick by that, and so I am sure would the noble Lord.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what figures he was working from? The latest figures I have been able to find relate to the situation in 1979, and one cannot get any later figures from his department. I agree with everybody that any waste of housing, under whatever Government, is a very bad thing with the housing waiting lists as they are. Is it true that these figures are due to over-eager purchase in the late 1970s? Does he agree that the 50 per cent. reduction in the housing investment programme between 1979 and 1982—including a moratorium—has had an effect, as has also the operation of the project control system, whereby many of the local authorities which have asked to carry out this work to make houses habitable have been rejected by the DoE?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I do not think that is true at all. The noble Baroness says "Yes, it is". We shall get to that in a moment. The figures to which I am referring, and which I said were in your
714
Lordships' Library were the housing investment programme returns dated April 1982. They are the most recent figures that I have, and I quoted just now from that list.
My honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has recently commissioned a study by the department's housing services advisory unit, and copies of its report, Reducing the Number of Empty Dwellings, have been sent to the local authorities. The Government accept that in certain cases local authorities face inherent difficulties in dealing with these properties. But nearly 300 authorities managed to keep their void level to 2 per cent. or below—incidentally, 2 per cent. is the national average—and the 60 or so authorities' with higher void levels should naturally aim to match this performance. Surely if 300 can do it the rest can do it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister able to tell us whether he believes that some of these long-term vacancies are in areas where there is a very small waiting list and where there is really an over-supply of accommodation? This is a complex problem and I ask the Minister to consider the point that in some areas there is a great shortage of council accommodation while in others there is already an over-supply.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in the time available I am afraid that I have not been able to correlate the two sets of figures. However, if there is a very short waiting list—in other words, virtually instantaneous housing, which my noble friend will know far better than I whether or not is a comparatively rare occurrence—it would presuppose that the councils have no need for the buildings and therefore are perfectly entitled to sell them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government will make every effort to ensure that a certain residential property in the public sector not far from here does not become vacant—even briefly—in four weeks' time?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can think of whole streets not very far from here—one, in particular—which I am absolutely determined shall not become vacant in the near future.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I ask how the Government would reconcile that reply with their stated policy of encouraging social and housing mobility, with an eye to the industrial regeneration of this country?
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sorry my Lords. There was rather more laughter than I expected at that question. Therefore, I did not get the full purport of it.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to a document which he described as "HIP". Can he explain the meaning of those letters? Have they anything to do with urging us to shout "Hip, hip hooray!" at the end of the Government today?
Lord Skelmersdale: Alas not, my Lords. It is a very serious table and it refers to the housing investment programme.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1983
11.31 a.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Cowrie): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we take this order together with the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1983, which was also laid before the House on 10th May. I take it that there is no objection to the suggestion that we whould take the two orders together.
The effect of this order is to extend the period of direct rule by 12 months until July 1984. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, the interim period of direct rule cannot last for more than a year without being extended by order. That Act not only provided that the Northern Ireland Assembly elected in the previous year should be dissolved; it also provided that, during direct rule, legislation for Northern Ireland which would have been passed by the Assembly could instead be passed at Westminster by Order in Council, and that the executive responsibilities of the Northern Ireland administration should be exercised by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
It is necessary to extend these direct rule provisions even though, following the passing of the Northern Ireland Act 1982, an Assembly has once again been elected in Northern Ireland. That Assembly has entered with energy on the task of scrutinising the activities of the Northern Ireland departments, but, as the House will be aware, responsibility for all aspects of Northern Ireland affairs remains with Parliament, and with Ministers of the United Kingdom Government who are answerable to Parliament, pending any devolution of powers. It is therefore necessary to renew the provisions for this direct rule.
The Government recognise both the strengths and the weaknesses of direct rule. Although I do not believe that direct rule aggravates the differences in Northern Ireland society, and may indeed to some extent neutralise them, it does not offer the prospect of a settled and stable political framework for the long term. That is why the Assembly has been elected in a positive and constructive attempt to respond to the particular needs of the Province. We hope that in time the elected representatives of all constitutional parties will move towards agreement on devolution in the Assembly. Meanwhile, the machinery of direct rule must be maintained, and I accordingly commend this order to your Lordships.
I now turn to the security situation and to the renewal of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act for a further six months' period. There are two questions: are these provisions needed, and, if they are, should they be renewed in the same form? I know that the House is well aware that violence in Northern Ireland, although greatly diminished over the past decade, still continues at a high level, and that the threat of further violence remains very real. So far in this year, 10 members of the security forces and 10
716
civilians have been killed by terrorists; the last of these incidents occurred just two days ago in Londonderry, when a wife who was trying to protect her husband was murdered while he (a soldier) and her sister were wounded. Only last Monday night, four bombs were planted in and around the centre of Belfast causing extensive damage but, mercifully, no further loss of life.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the absence of further tragedies on the scale of last December's explosion at Ballykelly is not due to any lack of effort on the part of those violent men; in a small part, it could be attributed to good fortune. But I remain convinced that it is principally due to the care and vigilance of the security forces, and to the co-operation of the whole community in Northern Ireland with them. One can well imagine the devastation which the 500lb bomb which was intercepted by the security forces on 26th April on the Falls Road could have caused in a busy street or shopping centre. The Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding strongly believe that, if it were not for their emergency powers to carry out operations based on the provisions of this Act, their ability to protect lives and property in Northern Ireland would be seriously eroded.
The same arguments can be applied to the operation of the courts in Northern Ireland. Many of the special provisions in the Act relating to the trial of what are called "terrorist-type" offences are designed to overcome problems caused by intimidation of both witnesses and jurors—a problem that has also had to be faced, as your Lordships will be aware, in the Republic of Ireland. Over the years, terrorists have demonstrated their ability to try to circumvent or subvert the judicial system. They have ruthlessly attacked the judiciary—the murder of Judge Doyle being the latest example—and have also attacked members of the public who have had the courage to act as witnesses against them. As we have seen from the pressures put upon these witnesses, which have included threats of violence against their families made in open court, these men of violence are deeply concerned about the damage which such evidence can cause to their own organisations. I am convinced that we must ensure that the courts have the powers to withstand these pressures and to arrive at the true facts. Without the special procedures introduced by this Act, the courts would encounter serious difficulties in ensuring that justice is done.
I recognise that there are those who have reservations about certain of the provisions in this Act, notwithstanding the fact that they may in principle agree to the need for its continuance. I do not intend to take up time at this stage with detailed arguments for the renewal of each separate element of the Act. Your Lordships will be aware of the review which has now been set up to inquire into the Act, with a view particularly to ensuring that—however difficult—a proper balance is maintained between the liberties of the individual and the need to give the security forces and the courts adequate powers to protect the public from a unique and awful threat. The review is being undertaken by Sir George Baker, who has already started work. I have myself in this week had a meeting with Sir George. I am sure that it would not be right to make any changes to the legislation by allowing any

717
particular sections to lapse until Sir George's work is completed. It is then, not now, that the Government and your Lordships will want to consider the nature of the provisions. For all these reasons, I believe that it would be imprudent and prejudicial to do anything other than extend their life for another six months, and I seek your Lordships' agreement to that. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
11.39 a.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I always find it useful to follow the noble Earl, because, in general, I find that his approach to these serious problems is one which is in line with the views of myself and my colleagues. I join him in his tribute to the effectiveness of our security forces. Naturally, we regret that continued violence and terrorism necessitates renewal of the emergency provisions order. Although it is generally accepted that the basic cause is men of and violence, nevertheless the serious economic and social conditions which we have debated on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House are also contributory causes. That is one reason, apart from others, why we supported the recently debated move towards industrial incentives.
We on this side of the House have always regarded the six-monthly consideration of the renewal of the order as an opportunity also to discuss the operation of the emergency provisions. As the noble Earl has said, for some time there have been reservations, particularly by those on these Benches and by my colleagues in the other place, about certain aspects of the emergency provisions. I agree with the noble Earl that this is neither the time nor the place to go into the details. First, your Lordships discussed many of these points in the recent debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Secondly, as the noble Earl has said, the review, which we have repeatedly urged, is now to take place. We shall await the report with considerable interest. I was pleased to note the stress laid by the noble Earl on the terms of reference: that the review must balance the interests of individual human rights and the liberty of individuals against the need for security. This, we noted, was the attitude adopted by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his report on the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This we all welcomed. I am pleased to note that this attitude is to be adopted by the review to which the noble Earl has referred.
Despite the general election, I hope that this will be the last occasion when there will be a need to renew the order and that the review will enable new legislation to be introduced. In the event of a change of Government, my colleagues and I would wish this review to be completed before the order again has to be renewed. I hope this will also be the attitude of the present Government if, unfortunately, they are returned to office.
Over and above whatever steps have to be taken which are thought to be necessary in the interests of security, it is generally recognised that eventually there must be a political settlement. The last day of this Parliament is not the occasion to have a detailed debate on the future of the political situation in
718
Northern Ireland. However, as we are debating the renewal of the order which continues direct rule, some comments must be made about it. We recognise that the continuing circumstances necessitate the renewal of the order, but we do so with reluctance. We on these Benches have never believed that direct rule could or should be a permanent or satisfactory system of government for Northern Ireland. We on these Benches gave support to the Northern Ireland Bill. We hoped that the Assembly would be able to establish a local form of administration which would receive the broad support of both communities.
Speaking for myself, I have been encouraged by the reports of discussions in the Assembly. I echo the plea of the noble Earl that even at this stage the constitutional parties and the other parties which have elected representatives at the Assembly will participate in those discussions. I am also pleased that the Secretary of State and the noble Earl have made it absolutely clear from time to time that they would not propose any steps towards devolution which did not command cross-community support. We cannot tolerate for many years the administration of Northern Ireland by Orders in Council. Although it may seem trivial to refer to it, our recent debate on the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order showed clearly that matters which ought to be the subject of primary legislation should not be dealt with by Orders in Council. That order introduced, as was mentioned in the debate, primary legislation which should have been the subject of a Bill.
We have considered the emergency provisions. These orders go together. We on these Benches have declared our desire for reconciliation between the two communities in Northern Ireland and, ultimately, reconciliation between North and South. However, we have no illusions. Reconciliation cannot be achieved overnight. We have also declared unreservedly that any constitutional change would require the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. I have no desire to engage in electioneering on a matter of this kind. However, noble Lords may ask about the policy of the party which sits on these Benches. In our campaign document, which undoubtedly will be part of our election manifesto, we make this clear declaration. We aim to establish an agreed devolved administration; in the meantime we shall continue with direct rule. We shall also initiate early discussions between the British Government, the Irish Government, the Irish Labour Party, the trade unions on both sides of the border and political representatives of the people of Northern Ireland on how best to proceed with our policy of unification by consent.
It is in that spirit that we support renewal of the first order, which continues direct rule, and also the renewal of the emergency provisions order, for the reasons outlined by the noble Earl, which we support. In the meantime, it behoves everyone who believes in constitutionalism to be careful in their words and actions. Eventually there has to be a political settlement. Security measures are required now, but at the end of the day there must be political action to deal with this problem. If we cannot in our own civilised way deal with the problem of Northern Ireland, the outlook for the wider problems of the world remains dismal.
11.48 a.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I am not very well up on dissolutions, but instinct tells me that this is not the time for lengthy debate. I shall speak to both orders together, and briefly. My party supports the present Northern Ireland Assembly, favours its deliberations by elected members and looks forward to a return to power sharing in the Province. One hopes that this could then be followed by the rolling devolution of powers, in place of direct rule from Westminster.
I was attracted by a misguided, while welcome, suggestion that a good answer to the Irish problem would be a united Ireland hack in the Commonwealth, but realism forces one to accept that that idea is not attractive to a majority of the people concerned. Both Labour and Conservative Governments have supported the guarantee that Northern Ireland should stay within the United Kingdom, so long as a majority of people clearly wish it. It would be immoral as well as unwise to go back on this guarantee.
We would welcome participation by the nationalist SDLP in Assembly affairs. We admire the work of the non-sectarian Alliance Party of Northern Ireland which is seeking with effect to bridge the divide between the two communities. We believe that consultation must certainly also proceed with Dublin. We recognise that security will have to be maintained at a very high level and that greater cross-border co-operation needs to be further encouraged. The major responsibility for security lies with the RUC and the UDR, supplemented when necessary by British armed forces. The need to protect citizens from violence and intimidation remains. Emergency legislation needs to be kept under constant review, and we anticipate Sir George Baker's review with interest. The operation of temporary provisions requires constant vigilance.
At the same time we are in no doubt that it is better to have one's liberty mildly interfered with than to suffer the ultimate in the loss of life or limb in a bomb outrage. In general, we believe that the situation in Ulster is very slowly improving and that great patience is necessary—particularly when depression sets in over renewed acts of violence and terrorism. As always, we repeat our thanks to the security forces for their courage and efficiency. We offer our support also to the great number of good people in the Province who are working—not without effect—for a better day.
I thank the noble Earl for introducing this order, but will ask him just one question. I understand that neither of these two orders needs to be renewed before the end of July. Why, then, are they being rushed through today? Since they have been passed in another place, however, it is clearly unthinkable in any case that we should oppose them now. We support them.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like briefly to express my support for what has been said by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and I will just take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, about the early renewal of these two orders, one of which does not expire until the very end of July. Mine is a completely non-controversial question, but I should like to know whether the period for which these orders are introduced—12 months and six months respectively—will run from today or from the day on which these orders would otherwise have expired?
11.52 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, It would take a much braver person than I to prolong the debate of this particular Parliamentary Session by more than a few minutes; but I believe we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland whose lives are fundamentally affected by the powers contained in these orders not to treat the passing of them as a mere formality.
On the first order concerning direct rule, it seems entirely appropriate that we should use the opportunity of this debate to examine the machinery of direct rule and to ensure that it is working as well as it possibly can. It is an important moment at which to remind ourselves of the existence of all the other frameworks available for working towards a final political solution for Northern Ireland which exist.
Frameworks exist to take the strain off all the vulnerabilities which prevail in the present system of direct rule. We are very grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for telling us how the new Northern Ireland Assembly is working. We all wish it well. It looks to be surviving, and discussion continues there. That is of great importance. We are also extremely grateful that such a thorough examination was made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, into the workings of the PTA, and we are pleased to hear that Sir George Baker has already started on a review of the EPA. We should like the Government to give constant support to the enormous amount of community work that is in progress in Northern Ireland—without which no political policies could be of any avail. We must also ask the Government to remember that the economic conditions in Northern Ireland, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, will be almost impossible to improve without a political solution.
From the point of view of the other frameworks, we hope the Government (if they are returned) will remember that there is, first, a very good relationship between Dublin and London. This sometimes suffers from the most terrible hiccups, and we have seen that happen very recently. It is all the more reason why the work of finding a solution for Northern Ireland should be based on mutual trust and good relations. Another framework is that presented by the EEC. Again, we should like the Government to remember that, in order to establish a framework that eases the tensions of direct rule, we should like them to think again about the report offered by the European Parliament on the political and economic crisis. If something were to come out of this, it would be advantageous to the people of Northern Ireland.
With regard to the second order before us, the noble Earl himself was saying that we must concentrate on the balance between the need to maintain law and order and the need to preserve civil rights for the people in Northern Ireland. Getting that balance right is of critical importance when one is involved in a struggle with paramilitary organisations of such a horrific nature.
I welcome the review. We on this side of the House have been asking since 1981 for this review and we eagerly look forward to its findings. As the noble Earl said, many of us are concerned about particular areas. We are concerned that the people of Northern Ireland cannot get justice from these courts. They are worried

721
about the length of time that suspects are held by the police for interrogation. It is a well known fact that if someone is held for seven days, all kinds of problems and repercussions result; for example, a man may lose his job if he is so detained. This is of great concern to the people who live there and who may suffer under the particular powers in these orders.
I should like also to ask the Minister just two further questions. First, will the Government remember that it is important that any preventive programme carried out either in the social services or among community workers should aim to reduce the incidence of crime and the potential for it among young people in the Province? While the rate of unemployment is particularly high in the Province, juvenile crime in Northern Ireland is very often brought on by boredom and frustration. Once a young person becomes involved in crime in Northern Ireland, the next step might be for him to enter one of the paramilitary organisations. Preventive work is of enormous importance in the area of security in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, does the noble Earl the Minister not agree that in order to help all those responsible for religious communities in Northern Ireland to maintain security, the press and other media of this country would be encouraged to give a more balanced view of what is going on there? I am constantly made aware of the fact that people here have no idea of the sterling work that is being done among the communities of Northern Ireland to overcome their own problems. This is very much the fault of the media, which should give some encouragement and a more balanced view of what is happening, which would be highly supportive to all those people who are working for a better future. Having said that, I should like to support the passing of these orders.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be permitted to add just one sentence? I was fortunate enough to win the first place in the ballot for 25th May in respect of a Motion favouring a united Ireland. The general election will no doubt bring many benefits to many people but unfortunately it has had the disadvantage of postponing that Motion. Indeed, I believe that I have to start all over again and there is no certainty that I shall be so successful. I should just like to assure everybody that I shall not only do all in my power to ballot again but also to exercise any influence that I may have to bring a Motion of that kind before this House as soon as possible. I am very glad that the attitude of our party as stated by our deputy leader, my noble friend Lord Underhill, is as he described it.
12 noon
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am most grateful for the general tone of the short debate on these orders, and the supportive line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, from the Opposition Benches. I would like to thank both noble Lords for their conduct of Opposition throughout this Parliament while they have had that task. It is, I think, immensely important, far more important than many people recognise, that there should be some
722
continuity and balance of policy in respect of Northern Ireland between the major political parties here, simply because Northern Ireland politics, which we all know are very difficult and intractable, are fundamentally about Northern Ireland issues and not about issues which directly affect the parties within the rest of the United Kingdom.
Of course, one of the reasons why we agree with the Benches opposite that direct rule is not satisfactory is not because it has not provided stability and equity of administration—I believe it has, under successive Governments—but because the different political system in Northern Ireland means that there is no input from the Northern Ireland electorate to those who govern them, and in the long term that must be a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is for those reasons, rather than for any sinister constitutional ambitions or for any desire to tinker around with a sensitive and difficult area of politics, that we have determinedly and against great odds tried to assemble together some form of local political debate and movement, with the prospect at least of the possibility, however hard it may be to achieve, of that Assembly taking back some regional responsibility for matters which, as all noble Lords have said, are deeply the concern of the people who live there.
Having thanked the noble Lords opposite—the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in particular—for supportive conduct of Opposition, I do, I must say, slightly regret (and I say this in no electioneering spirit, as I am sure noble Lords will be aware; Northern Ireland is not fundamentally an election issue in Britain at this time) the line taken by the Labour Party about unification by consent, because in a way this somewhat obscures the issue and the difficulty. The position of the British Government, of successive British Governments, has been very clear, that if consent were forthcoming there would be no great pressure from the rest of the United Kingdom against Irish unity being achieved. But in a way it makes the position harder in Northern Ireland if any expectations are stirred, whether here or in Northern Ireland itself, that this consent will be very likely to be forthcoming. It seems to me that it will not be forthcoming foreseeably, certainly in nearly all our lifetimes, and that therefore we must slowly start thinking, both here and in the province, and indeed among my compatriots and those of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in the Republic of Ireland, about what I would prefer to term plural or pluralist solutions, because foreseeably in the island of Ireland there will for a very long time be a British orientated population and an Irish orientated population. Those are the facts of life and we must seek to live with them. I believe that a policy which instead of remaining relatively neutral comes out for unification by consent may make the solution even harder.
That point aside, may I quickly come to some of the questions which have been put to me. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, why these orders were being put through now rather than waiting until the normal time of July and the outcome of the British general election. It seems to me that there is an important issue of confidence here. One of the problems of Northern Ireland politics is that the calling and holding of British

723
general elections, as I have suggested, takes place in a context which is not concerned with Northern Ireland affairs. Therefore, protagonists in Northern Ireland politics are able to use British general elections as a method of putting across rather different sets of attitudes and different appeals for one kind of policy or another. It seemed to us that it was, therefore, important to make it very clear that Parliament as a whole, and all the major parties in Parliament, were concerned to underpin stability with continued direct rule during this electoral period. It makes sense, therefore, to have these orders in good place in good time before the relevant expiry dates get too close. As to the specific point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, after renewal and extension direct rule and emergency powers will run for 12 and 6 months respectively from July, not from the date of this debate.
I very much agree with the tenor of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. Did time permit—we have, I think, gone over this during economic debates—I could tell the House about the special programmes for young people and the support systems we are seeking to provide. We have some advantages over the rest of the United Kingdom. We are smaller and more intimate in scale, and we have been able to get some of these programmes off the ground rather faster than has been the case here in Britain. I am glad to report that they are working quite well.
As to the appeal the noble Baroness made—I do not know whether this was made to me or through me—for a more balanced presentation by the media, I am glad to be able to remind her and the House that the recent Northern Ireland marathon got admirable coverage on television and in the papers here. I think it did surprise and please many people, not only here but in all parts of Europe, to get television coverage showing people of all persuasions, including some members of the security forces, running through West Belfast in an amicable spirit and being cheered by large crowds of onlookers. This serves to remind us that normal life has been breaking out all over in Northern Ireland, and whatever the intractable nature of Northern Ireland politics and whatever the threats to security, which still regrettably mean that I have to come before your Lordship to renew the second order in particular, in fact the general tenor of life in the Province has immensely improved for the better.
The last word I would say is that I am very sorry, because I was looking forward to the debate that has been referred to; but the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is not the first aristocrat to become a victim of the guillotine; I rather bleed for him in this respect, as I was looking forward to going over the issue with him. That is, I am afraid, the luck of the game. My commiserations, and I hope he will be fortunate in the next Parliament.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) Order 1983
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move the second order standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on I 10th May be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Bill [H.L.]
12.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Prohibition of female circumcision]:
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 7, after ("person") insert ("for non medical reasons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may, I would like to speak also to Amendments Nos, 3 and 5 standing in my name because, as I will explain, they are linked. This amendment is really the same of that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, at Committee stage three days ago, but the wording is altered so that it will, I hope, be more acceptable. It clarifies which operations should be prohibited. In the Bill as it stands at present approximately 9,000 legitimate operations per annum could be classified as prohibited. I understood the problem involved in using the words,
"for ritual, cultural or traditional reasons",
in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, from the point of view of both interpretation by the court and also that it could be interpreted as revealing an attitude in this country which is intolerant of the customs of other cultures, although in this case everyone will agree that no one should tolerate this particular custom.
For these reasons I did not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, although I fully agreed with and understood his purposes. I have the highest regard for the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, who always makes clear and extremely helpful contributions in this House. However, in this case I think he was too modest and did not spell out the purposes of his amendment as loudly and as clearly as he might have done.
In his comments on the amendment the Minister intimated why he felt that the amendment was a good one and why he was in favour of it, but I do not think his words sank in so I shall quote some of them again. He said, referring to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet:
"the way he has constructed his Bill is to prohibit all operations on these parts of the female anatomy and then to provide certain savings in terms of medical necessity".—[official Report, 10/5/83; col. 440]
I hope I have made the purpose of this amendment clear by linking it with the elimination of the enforcement Clauses, Nos. 2 and 3. It is these clauses that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists finds objectionable, and although the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has softened them with his amendment, the fact that parts of them stand will still be regarded as undesirable and even rather insulting by many reputable gynaecologists who have been helping women for decades by operating on this highly personal part of their bodies. They justifiably ask why it should now be necessary for every operation which they carry out on these parts of the female body suddenly to be subject to legislative scrutiny because a few "cowboy" gynaecologists, who are not even

725
National Health Setvice consultants, have been undertaking for private gain procedures which all professional and nursing organisations regard as totally abhorrent and unacceptable. Why, in order to prevent what is admittedly a rare occurrence, should their normal professional practice be so scrutinised? I can understand why they should feel irritated and why the Department of Health and Social Security, which is perhaps closer to professional opinion and needs the co-operation of the profession, feel unhappy about the Bill as it stands.
I am as interested as anyone in the House that the Bill should become law. I have supported it from the start. It will be of great help to its passage in the next Parliament if we in this House pass it now. However, to ban all operations on these parts of the body and then make exceptions is, as I think the noble Lord the Minister said, perhaps the wrong way of going about it. It is very important that today we totally eliminate these parts of the Bill which are causing problems to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Department of Health and Social Security, and simply produce the essential nugget or distillation that the Bill embodies.
I am fully aware that the words "for non medical reasons'. may not be the final formula which this House or another place at a later stage will decide is best, but by using this formula the spirit of the Bill will be fully understood by any court. For example, if a woman says that she is depressed because she has not had this operation which was traditional in her country, and if a doctor claims that that is a medical reason, I do not think that will he upheld in any court in this country, particularly after the very clear and forthright statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading drawing attention to the provisions of the 1861 Act relating to offences against the person.
Some may say that the law is an ass, but I do not think that it is such an ass as to ignore the powerful message which this Bill embodies. What is needed is a clear statement that this operation is totally abhorrent to the people of this country and that there are severe penalties for doing it. Thanks to the researches of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, as well as to the statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, these are now embodied in the Bill. Twice during her remarks at Committee stage the noble Baroness used the phrase, "for non-medical reasons". No one questioned what she meant; it was clear enough to us. By cutting the Bill down to its bare essentials and leaving out the contentious enforcement clauses we shall leave those in this House and in another place during the next Parliament a sound basis on which to build if they wish. I think the Bill would serve its purpose if we amended it in the way I suggest. I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, covered three topics in the course of his remarks. I am not sure whether the House wishes me to follow them through, but unless anyone is against it I will address myself to all three topics in the three amendments.
The first, and no doubt the most important, is Amendment No. 1, which proposes the addition of the
726
words, "for non medical reasons". The effect of this would be that any person performing this operation or these mutilations for non-medical reasons would be guilty of an offence and any person performing them for medical reasons would be within the law. Of course, everyone agrees that anything which is clearly non-medical should be banned. We have to look closely at the effect of permitting that which could be described as a medical reason.
The noble Lord is right in saying that very little is known at present about cases that have taken place in this country. A great deal is known about one such case which has been widely and credibly reported in the press. In that case the surgeon concerned told the press, as reported:
"If someone comes in here saying they are depressed, or something, then we do it."
That means that if a surgeon, a gynaecologist or a GP—mark you, it does not have to be a psychiatrist because we ruled psychiatrists out in Committee, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, does not want them back in—decides that a woman is clinically in a state of depression, the question arises: is an operation to improve that state of depression medical or non-medical?
The next question that arises is: is depression an illness, and is its treatment a medical matter or not? If we are to maintain that depression is not an illness and that treatment of depression is not a medical procedure, we are ruling out a very large part of a medical practice in advanced countries at the moment. Of course depression is an illness; of course its treatment is medical; and of course those who want to do these operations will plead that in court if they are charged, and thereby we shall write a very large loophole into the Bill.
I now refer to Amendment No. 2, in my name, which is an alternative to the "non medical" of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The House will see that there is a better way of helping to overcome the objections which have been raised by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I do not want to confuse the issue by talking about Amendment No. 2 at the moment, but would simply ask the noble Lord, Lord Rea, whether he would be prepared not to press Amendment No. 1, and I shall then proceed with Amendment No. 2 and hope to convince the House that that is the right way to do it.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, because this would otherwise leave a dangerous loophole. I do not want to repeat what I said on Second Reading. Indeed, I have the highest admiration for the distinguished gentlemen who make up the hierarchy of our royal medical colleges, but they were born and bred with ethics which existed in a period when they never had to deal with this problem because it was not acceptable or in any way natural in this country.
Overall, these operations will be done by doctors who were born in countries where it was the practice to perform the circumcision of females, and they will in the main, as Lord Hatch of Lusby pointed out last time, be more likely to be carried out as back-street abortions for a price. To protect themselves, they will of course say that it was medically necessary. Although

727
I appreciate the objections of the members of the Royal Colleges, I think we have also to consider those who will do this for a price, or under great pressure from parents, husbands, mothers or grandmothers, who may themselves have suffered this as a cultural and traditional custom in their own countries and who will be quite prepared to defend and support a doctor who will carry it out. I think it is far too dangerous a loophole to be introduced into the Bill.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should just like to reinforce what I said at the Committee stage about the inclusion of psychiatrists. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has pointed out, we accept that depression is a medical disability in this country. Although I fully appreciate the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in putting forward this amendment, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that it would weaken the Bill. It would create another loophole, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, has just pointed out, for a defence against the continuation of this practice. It would open the loophole that the operation had been performed for medical reasons because of the depression of the patient.
We must be quite clear. This is a very real problem. For a considerable number of young women who come from cultures in which circumcision is an essential part of the growing up and acceptance process, the operation is considered essential for adulthood and for that acceptance. Therefore its prohibition may very well lead to acute depression, which would be of a medical nature. As I said in the Committee stage, it is in my view, the responsibility of psychiatrists to remove that depression without performing the operation of circumcision. For those reasons, I would support the rejection of Amendment No. 1, while still recognising the constructive purpose behind it.
12.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I have to say that of the two alternatives before your Lordships now—and I hope that I may be forgiven for speaking both to Amendment No. 1 and to the essence of Amendment No. 2, which I think is an alternative course—I am attracted to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. But, having said that, we should need, I think, to be clear that the words which the noble Lord proposes to include in fact achieve what they are intended to achieve. I am not entirely certain that is so in the short time in which it has been possible for me to consider these matters.
A doubt has been cast by more than one speaker upon the efficiacy of the provision for determining the mental health of a patient. Although I do not doubt that there could be some difficulties in that particular area, I would remind your Lordships that it would be open to a court to look behind the assertion of a medical practitioner that the medical health of the patient was involved and to satisfy themselves that the surgeon was indeed justified in reaching that opinion. They can, for example, take the view of other medical experts.
But, having said that, I fear that the difficulty that the Government find themselves in now is that we
728
have not been able to reach a definitive view on these matters. Although I am attracted, I must say, to the line proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I can see, too, that there are merits in the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and must therefore leave it to your Lordships.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I just ask him to define something a little more clearly than he has done? It might leave a misapprehension. He was apparently suggesting that if there were medical psychological reasons this operation should be performed. I am sure he does not mean that. But if the patient were in such a state of depression (as I pointed out that many patients could be if they were prevented from having the operation) presumably the noble Lord and the Government would still not wish her to have this operation.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will recall from earlier stages, there is most certainly a form of operation on these parts of the female anatomy which could indeed be rendered necessary by psychological considerations, and quite properly so as well.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said that it would be for the courts to pursue the investigation, but I cannot see the practicality of that happening. The girl is frightened by the cultural pressure of her family, and indeed perhaps by faith in the procedures in which she has been bred. The father will not report the doctor. The doctor will certainly not report himself. The only cases likely to come before the court would be those which resulted in some form of medical disaster—septicaemia or something of that sort—where the girl had to go to a National Health Service hospital and then it was investigated. Otherwise, I cannot see any reason why such a case should come to court.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I was seeking to encompass the sort of problem which I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has sought to encompass in the amendment that he has to follow this one on the Order Paper: that is to say, the rectification of abnormality. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who, at an earlier stage, described the circumstances where this might be necessary.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if that is what the noble Lord has in mind, that and that alone would be covered by Amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 1 of course would cover any kind of depression, or any kind of subjective judgment by any GP anyway.
Lord Monson: My Lords, having heard both arguments, I am entirely persuaded by those of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I have no wish to press the amendment, but I should like to say one or two things. First, of course depression is a medical matter, but I wonder whether it is a surgical matter. Very occasionally lobotomy—that is, an operation on the brain—has been justified as a treatment for severe depression, but I am not sure that operations on other

729
parts of the body can be taken as legitimate treatments or operations.
I do not wish to take this any further now, but at a later stage I think it would be possible, by means of a codicil or schedule—I am not a parliamentary draftsman—to define completely clearly, with professional advice, which operations are medical and which are not medical, and have these stated in the Bill, though not necessarily as part of one of the main clauses. My Lords, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Saving for necessary surgical operations]:
12.30 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 23, after ("person") insert ("or for the rectification of abnormality").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for withdrawing the amendment after discussion. As he, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, rightly said, Amendment No. 2 is an alternative. It seeks to meet the doubts of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on what appears to be the most important part of the area, without opening a very broad loophole, as the "non-medical" phrase would have done. That is the question of trimming, to lay it out quite plainly. It is contended, with what validity I do not know, that a depression, which is surely a medical matter, can be alleviated, or removed, if it is associated with the conviction on the part of, typically, a young woman or girl, that her labia majora are too large. For the purpose of permitting such operations at the discretion of doctors in the ordinary way, as they have traditionally been done for a long time, I have adopted the phrase,
"or for the rectification of abnormality".
I think that that is likely to be the most common abnormality to be rectified, if this amendment is adopted. There are of course other, much grosser, ones, which it might have been held would have been forbidden by the words formerly in the Bill, though I cannot imagine that they actually would have been, because surely their rectification would have been for the physical health of the patient. But in order to put the matter beyond doubt, I have suggested this formulation, which I commend to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in the place of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Am I out of order in moving an amendment which is down in the name of another Peer?
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord is in order.
Lord Kennet: I beg to move the amendment, though I shall not recommend the House to accept it. In his opening remarks—
A noble Lord: A waste of time.
Lord Kennet: No, it is not a waste of time, as noble Lords will find if they are courteous enough to hear me out. In his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked, why should the normal operations of doctors and surgeons be subject to increased scrutiny simply because a few "cowboy" gynaecologists do something abhorrent? The reason why they should be subject to increased scrutiny is that a few "cowboy" gynaecologists and surgeons do something abhorrent. Among those who do these operations are qualified people, and it is in order to prevent qualified people from doing them that I have drafted the Bill so that it has a few teeth in it—not very many, but a few. If there were no qualified persons doing these operations, it would not have been necessary to have a Bill.
The noble Lord. Lord Rea, also touched on the Lord Chancellor's intervention at an earlier stage, and I should like, if I may, to say a few words about that. Of course, nobody in this House now can have a judgment to compare with the Lord Chancellor's about whether or not these operations are already illegal under the nineteenth century legislation. I merely notice that the evidence has been public and has been publicised since October 1982 that one of these operations was carried out in April 1981. I stated this on Second Reading, and informed the House that I had in my possession incontestable documentary evidence of that fact. No prosecution has been brought. Nobody has approached me for that evidence—
Lord Denham: My Lords, if the noble Lord would be kind enough to give way, I would point out that he was of course quite in order to move the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, but he would not be in order if he did not speak to that amendment.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the effect of the amendment is to remove all the teeth from the Bill and to make it merely a declaratory one. I was giving the reasons for desiring to keep in the teeth.
At this stage I should point out to the House that all the copies of the Bill which have been circulated to noble Lords are wrong. What has been circulated is the Bill as passed on Second Reading. What should have been circulated was the Bill as amended in Committee. The wrong Bill is marked "(102)" in the bottom left-hand corner. The right Bill is marked "(170)" in the bottom left-hand corner. If any noble Lord has not a copy of the right Bill, I do not think that it matters too much, but I should simply like to avoid possible confusion in later amendments by pointing that out at this stage.
I am glad that the noble Lord has not moved his amendment, and because I want the Bill to have one or two minimal teeth, I shall now, with the leave of the House, withdraw the amendment—
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord really will be putting himself out of order if he does that. The Motion must be put, and then the noble Lord may, if he so wishes, withdraw the amendment—and I hope formally.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I apologise to the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Notification of operations under section etc.]:
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("and")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, amendment No. 4 makes sense only if your Lordships have in your hands the right copy of the Bill. It is simpy a drafting amendment, consequent on changes made in Committee. Since the changes made in Committee do not appear, or appear only imperfectly—I believe that even the Bill marked "(170)" is wrong: there has been confusion between these two papers—I think that the safest thing that I can do at the moment is not to move Amendment No. 4.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 10th May):
Lord Kennet: My Lord, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Kennel.)
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, just before we now read the Bill a third time, I think that I would not wish to leave you Lordships under any misapprehension that the Bill passing, as I presume it will in a moment, is actually passed in accordance with Government approval. We have not expressed a formal view on the merits, or otherwise, of the Bill. Of course we agree with the principle which the noble Lord has adduced, but we have considerable reservations about some of the provisions of the Bill, and I should not wish your Lordships to be of any other view.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, if I may take the opportunity to say so, of course I acknowledge the objective truth of what the noble Lord has said. But there was the usual gap between First Reading and Second Reading, and there was the usual gap between Second Reading and Committee stage. The noble Lord has personally been most courteous to me throughout. I have been in touch with him throughout. But it is the case that the Government have not been able to give me any very firm advice on what to do, let alone to provide any formulations of their own—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, the Question before the House is that the Bill he now read a third time.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, should not the Question be, That the Report be now received?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that the Bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content? To the contrary, Not-Content? The Contents have it.
The Question is, That the Bill do now pass?
Now the noble Lord may continue.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I was content to make my remarks on this Motion, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was to make them on the Motion before it; I do not really see the distinction. I should like to set it on the record that, though I am grateful for the personal courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I regret that the Government have not been able to give any constructive help to the formulation of the Bill so far. Of course, it will not become law when it goes out of this House, and if it is to become law it will be necessary to reintroduce it in the next Parliament. I hope that the labours of the House on the three stages that we have had will not prove to have been wasted and that the Bill will be in a better condition than it would have been had it not been carried forward to concluding its passsage through this House.
Lastly, I wish to thank all those noble Lords who have worked on the Bill, spoken on it, and improved it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister—to whose courtesy the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has paid tribute—assure the House that during the next four weeks his department will do some work on the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has pointed out, the Second Reading took place on 21st April. The only excuse that the noble Lord the Minister has given for being unable to respond on behalf of the Government is the panic of last weekend. That is a very feeble excuse for a department that has had since 21st April to consider its attitude to the Bill.
Can the noble Lord therefore give us some assurance that when the next Parliament meets the Government will be in a position to associate themselves with those of us who have taken the trouble to put the Bill before the House so that the measure can be moved speedily through the House with the Government's consent and with the principle to which the Government agree put into practical textual form to enable it to be passed from this House to the other place with the Government's blessing?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if it is in order to respond to that point, there are two matters that I should mention. First, the Bill that we are now considering is not going to become law. The Government's view on some future Bill that might be introduced in some future Parliament will have to be expressed when that Bill is introduced. I am not of course certain that anyone proposes to reintroduce the Bill or even whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, proposes to do so.
As for the time taken to reach a Government view on the matter, the consultation has to go a good deal wider than within my department. Ministers have to reach a collective opinion on the matter not only in accordance with the views of their officials but also having regard to the views of a wide range of professional and other opinion outside the department and in the country at large.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Motion for Adjournment
12.42 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, before moving that the House do adjourn, I should like, as has become customary, to say a word or two. We have been through a Session rather shorter than we originally expected. That does not mean to say that the Session has not been an extremely tiring one. I think that it has been. I should like to thank all noble Lords in all parts of the House for the courtesy and the patience they have shown. We have, on occasion, asked the House to work rather harder than is usual. I shall not be alone in mentioning the help and support received from everyone who serves the House in the building. In spite of the extra difficulties and the extra strain, they have been unfailing in their courtesy, their willingness and their helpfulness. We are all grateful. I should like to wish your Lordships in all parts of the House a pleasant Recess. I look forward with confidence to seeing all Members of the House back in their accustomed places in June.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves for the last time in this Parliament that the House do adjourn—I should also like to hope that it will be for the last time—may I join him in thanking all members of staff and all those who have supported the staff in this tiring Session. I hope that the next Session will not be so tiring; but I can give no promises of what form of legislation an incoming Government might produce for the House. Indeed, the new Session might be even more tiring. However, we join the noble Lord in his remarks concerning the support that we have received from the staff of the House.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I too should like to associate these Benches with what has been said about the staff. As regards the future Parliament, all I can say is that if we are confronted, as may happen, by a Government intent on abolishing this House, we may have more work to do than was contemplated. As to the staff, I am sure that we all pay the greatest tribute to their devoted assistance. Their work—often in the middle of the night when most of us, including myself, are safely in bed—is beyond praise. I suppose the only satisfaction is that they undoubtedly serve what, in my view—and I am sure the view of many of your Lordships—is the most efficient Second Chamber in the world in its revision of legislation and in constantly giving wise advice to the Government, perhaps even on a non-party basis. With those remarks, I hope that we shall come back, perhaps in a slightly less cantankerous mood, in a month's time. It is certainly possible that places may have changed.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I associate those who sit on this Bench with all—or almost all—that has been stated. It is a pleasure to be able to put on a party hat and to be nice, having worn a non-party hat and been rather nasty just now. I agree with all that has been stated about the service given to us by the staff. It has been beyond praise throughout the Parliament. I wish all noble Lords on all sides of the House a very pleasant election campaign—although not of course equal wishes for success.

Staffordshire Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee on Unopposed Provisions, with amendments.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before one o'clock.