Sitting of 1 July 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WOOLWORTHS (ABERDEEN DEVELOPMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Security
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a further statement on the security situation.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): Since I last answered questions on 27 May, two members of the security forces and two civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation. Four members of the security forces have been injured, two of them very seriously. A rather larger number of civilians have been injured—evidence of the criminal, cowardly and indiscriminate nature of the terrorists' attacks. The victims included a boy killed by a bomb on a booby-trapped motor cycle and a retired RUC inspector shot dead in front of his wife. Twenty-six people were injured in Belfast city centre last Friday by a car bomb which exploded while the police were still clearing the area. On Monday, a massive bomb in a van in West Belfast exploded while Army personnel were attempting to neutralise it. Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt but extensive damage was done to homes and property. There have been four other bomb attacks on property and commercial targets. The terrorists have shown once again that they have nothing to offer the people of Northern Ireland but indiscriminate savagery.
    Since 27 May, 52 people have been charged with terrorist type offences, including nine with murder, and one with attempted murder. Twenty-eight weapons and 1,760 rounds of ammunition have been recovered. I pay tribute to the security forces for their efforts, including those of bomb disposal teams, and I pay tribute to the ordinary people of the Province for their fortitude.
    Mr. Latham: The House will have heard those figures with sadness. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that cross-border co-operation remains immensely important in catching these murderous terrorists? Although our relations with the Republic are at present frosty, because of its deplorable behaviour over the Falklands crisis, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this aspect of cross-border co-operation remains pre-eminent?
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words. Yes, I confirm that cross-border security is of vital importance to us. I am aware that there have been reports of some redeployment of Gardia throughout the Republic, but the RUC is confident that that has had no effect on the joint security effort against terrorism.
    Mr. Proctor: As my right hon. Friend's Northern Ireland Bill is likely to pass through both Houses of Parliament, will my right hon. Friend say whether terrorism in Northern Ireland is likely to increase or to diminish?
    Mr. Prior: It would be wrong to speculate on the impact of any legislation on the immediate security problem. Of course, one knows from experience that those who seek to undermine and destroy the constitution of Northern Ireland, and perhaps wider than that, will do anything they can to prevent stability from being established.
    Mr. William Ross: it is clear that the terrorists now have access to a greater quantity of explosives than for some time past. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where this explosive is coming from, how it is getting into Northern Ireland, and whether it is commercial explosive or a mixture?
    Mr. Prior: Some of it is commercial explosive and some a mixture of fertiliser and other ingredients. I expect that some of the explosive comes from a large quantity that was stolen in the South and has now found its way to the North.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure that these vast quantities of explosives do not come over the border?
    Mr. Prior: Every step that it is physically and humanly possible to take is taken, and will continue to be taken. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, it is no easy task to protect a boundary of 300 miles, some of which is extremely difficult territory.

    Constitutional Reform
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of Slate for Northern Ireland if he remains satisfied with the level of support in Northern Ireland for his constitutional proposals.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further representations he has received over the proposed Assembly in the Province.
    Mr. Prior: I am confident that the people of Northern Ireland welcome the opportunity of having a greater say in the conduct of the affairs of the Province. Despite reservations, no political party has demonstrated an intention not to take part in elections for the proposed Assembly. I have received only a small trickle of further

    1025
    representations, including a welcome from the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland for the attempt to fill the political vacuum.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Official Unionist Party on its decision actively to recruit candidates to fight the Assembly elections? Will the SDLP do the same?
    Mr. Prior: I am glad that the Official Unionist Party is recruiting candidates to fight the elections and I hope that they will be determined to make the Assembly work once it is established. The same applies to the SDLP.
    Mr. Winnick: We know that the Secretary of State will do his utmost to make the Assembly a success, but if, despite his efforts, it does not succeed, is it likely that the Government will bring forward further constitutional measures for the Province?
    Mr. Prior: I think that "One at a time" is the answer to that.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Assembly elections be fought on the 17 new boundaries or on the existing 12, as the change would provide fairer and better representation for the Ulster people? Is the Secretary of State aware that there is anxiety about the delay in the announcement?
    Mr. Prior: I cannot yet make an announcement on this matter. It depends upon the progress that the Bill makes in the House of Lords. As soon as I can make an announcement, I shall. However, we must bear it in mind that the Boundary Commission has not yet received final representations. It will take some time to consider those representations, and it may be too late for us to move the necessary orders to enable us to hold the elections on the new constituencies.
    Mr. Concannon: During our debate on the Northern Ireland Bill the Secretary of State said that he would order an internal inquiry into the documents so dramatically produced by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). Can he tell us anything about the authenticity of the documents or the academic researcher? Will he comment on the rumour that the academic researcher is or was a paid or unpaid employee of the Official Unionist Party?
    Mr. Prior: I cannot comment on the latter point, but I have received the letter that the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) sent to No. 10 Downing Street. I shall consider it properly and carefully. The material comprises no official documents or material authenticated by the civil servant who has been named. The hon. Gentleman gave the name of the person who made the notes, but asked that it should not be disclosed. I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister respected that wish. However, I understand that the name has subsequently been published in the Press. I should prefer not to comment on the politics or motives of the author of the document that the right hon. Gentleman believed it right to bring to the attention of the House in the way that he did.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Secretary of State agree that, irrespective of the support that his constitutional proposals enjoy throughout the community, the performance of the Northern Ireland football team in Spain enjoys widespread support throughout the Community? It has performed magnificently during the past few weeks. Will the
    1026
    Secretary of State join me and other Northern Ireland Members in sending them best wishes for the match with Austria this afternoon?
    Mr. Prior: Yes. This proposal enjoys full cross-community support, widespread acceptance throughout the entire Province and deserves the warm congratulations of the United Kingdom and beyond. I shall be there on Sunday to see the team play.

    Cross-border Co-operation
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when next he expects to meet the Taoiseach to discuss cross-border security.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland to discuss cross-border co-operation.
    Mr. Prior: At the moment I have no plans to meet members of the Irish Government. But when a meeting is arranged, I should certainly expect to discuss cross-border co-operation on practical matters of benefit to Northern Ireland, including security co-operation.
    Mr. Parry: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that talks with Taoiseach will continue? Is not such dialogue of mutual benefit to both countries and will it not help to secure peace in the Province? Will the right hon. Gentleman ignore right hon. and hon. Members who believe that such talks are a waste of time?
    Mr. Prior: Of course I wish to see good relations maintained and extended. Matters concerning the Prime Minister of the South are generally dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We have been disappointed by the Irish Government's attitude in recent weeks, but I see no need to discontinue meetings of benefit to Northern Ireland on such matters as gas supply and many other economic affairs.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us are reassured by his statement that whether the discussions are about cross-border co-operation or the many other facets of politics in Northern and Southern Ireland, they must continue, no matter who tries to stop them? Does he agree that the position in Northern Ireland is such that it can only help all of us if the discussions continue and if it is made clear repeatedly that they will continue despite efforts to stop them?
    Mr. Prior: We should also make clear what the discussions are about, so that there can be no reason for anyone in Northern Ireland to doubt the attitude of the British Government. Charges levelled at the Government that are completely untrue can then be strongly refuted.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that extradition, apart from its security implications, is a touchstone to the Unionist community of the attitude of Dublin towards it? While extradition is absent, that will be viewed by Unionists as hostility from the South to the North?
    Mr. Prior: I am aware of my hon. Friend's views, which are widely shared. Our views on extradition are well known in the House and to the Irish Government. Although there has been a considerable improvement in the operation of extra-territorial jurisdiction, we should prefer to have extradition.
    Mr. Concannon: When the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister next meet the Taoiseach to discuss cross-border security—it is agreed that security and politics go together—will they emphasise to the Taoiseach that it would be advantageous for the Republic to enter into discussions with the Assembly, in line with our new clause 1, which the House decided to reject?
    Mr. Prior: We have had many discussions about that during the past few days and I do not wish to go further than what I said in the debate.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: What hope does the Secretary of State have for successful talks with Mr. Haughey, when his spokesman recently reaffirmed that Britain was the aggressor in the Falklands dispute?
    Mr. Prior: I always hope that any sinner may repent of his manner.
    Mr. McNamara: We rejoice at the conversion of the Secretary of State. Is it not a fact that of the nine cases that have been taken by the Government under extra-territorial legislation, six have resulted in convictions, which is a 66⅔ per cent. success rate? Furthermore, is it not a fact that neither Government could be asked to produce the evidence upon which extradition was demanded? That would be the evidence needed for the extra-territorial legislation.
    Mr. Prior: Although extra-territorial legislation has taken longer to prove effective than we would have wished, there are signs that that is changing. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed the Gerard Tuite trial that is now taking place. As to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I must check whether evidence could be given in such terms, but we would provide some evidence if we could obtain extradition.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Ron Brownasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions he has met representatives of the trade unions in Northern Ireland since he took office.
    Mr. Prior: I have met representatives of the trade unions on 12 occasions.
    Mr. Brown: This may seem a slightly unusual question. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that a large number of Catholic and Protestant workers are demanding that the Northern Ireland trade unions form a Labour Party to represent common interests in the struggle to defend jobs and living standards? Is that not important?
    Mr. Prior: It is hardly for me to pursue the question whether the trade unions should form a Labour Party.

    New University and Ulster Polytechnic
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, in view of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the establishment of a new central body to oversee the financing and the management of higher education outside the universities, he will suspend action on the proposed amalgamation of the New University of Ulster and the Ulster Polytechnic until consideration of the two approaches outlined in the July 1981 consultative document issued by the Secretary of State for Education and Science have been completed.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): No, Sir.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that senior academics are angry because they suspect certain members of the University Grants Committee of secretly using the proposed amalgamation of the Ulster Polytechnic and the New University to bolster the continuing role of the UGC as the pre-eminent body in higher education?
    Mr. Scott: The proposals for the new institutions to replace the polytechnic and the New University were decided upon by the Government in response to the future higher educational needs of the Province, and for no other reason.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister agree that a province the size of Northern Ireland, with a population of its size, needs one good university and one good polytechnic? Is there not a grave danger that with his proposals we shall finish up with two second rate universities?
    Mr. Scott: The point to be drawn from the size of the Province and its higher educational needs is that the binary system makes no sense in the Province. To have two good universities with complementary roles is the real answer to our needs.
    Mr. Rhodes James: Can my hon. Friend say something about the timing of this matter and when he expects to hear from my distinguished constituent Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer on the methodology how these institutions can be brought together? In contradiction to the view of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), will the Minister accept my view, and that of many in the Province, that this amalgamation presents the possibility of having two great universities in Ulster?
    Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, and I agree with the latter part of them. It would be wrong for me to lay down any rigid timetable, because I look forward to receiving sustained advice from the steering group. The most important first task is to examine the staffing implications and the assurances that it can give to the staff and the students of the two institutions concerned.
    Mr. Soley: Can the Minister give any reassurance to the teaching staff and other related staffs in the institutions concerned that there will not be a significant reduction in jobs as a result of the measure? Is the Minister aware that there are real fears that this is cuts in education dressed up as educational progress?
    Mr. Scott: That is not the case. I have now given broad financial guidelines to the steering group, and I look forward to having its advice in the near future on the staffing implications of the merger.

    Higher Education
    Rev. Martin Smythasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied that the Chilver report included accurate figures both as to the scale of provision needed within the Province for higher education and the cost involved in the various institutions and separate disciplines; or whether his Department has made other estimates.
    Mr. Scott: I accept the report's overall assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Northern Ireland

    1029
    higher education system and of the need for major changes to match the likely future needs. I have no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the statistics in the report.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Is the Ministr aware that some people challenge some of the statistics? Will he give an assurance that, in implementing whatever recommendatons are made, nothing will be done to impair the high standards of tertiary education in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Scott: Statistics always lead to arguments between those who produce them. I see that there is a division, but it is not for me to arbitrate. My aim is not simply to maintain but to enhance standards.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I commend the efforts that my hon. Friend is making to meet various interested bodies and discuss the Chilver report, but may I ask him whether he has now succeeded in allaying the fears and misgivings of the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland about the recommendations of the report?
    Mr. Scott: The question asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to the main Chilver report about universities. I am still having discussions with those concerned with the interim report on teacher training, but I hope that I have managed to allay any fears of the Catholic Church that the proposals in the interim report or the Government's response to it are in any way designed to interfere with the strong denominational content of teacher training in the Province.
    Mr. Kilfedder: The Chilver report at least had the merit that it envisaged the continuation of non-sectarian teacher training in a university setting. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will not be a reduction in nonsectarian teacher training places?
    Mr. Scott: I can see nothing in the suggestions or proposals that would bring that about.

    Employment
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the current state of employment in the Province.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): The latest available employment figures are for December 1981. At that time there were 464,050 employees in employment in Northern Ireland. At June 1981, a further 72,950 persons were self-employed.
    The latest unemployment figures for June 1982 show the number unemployed in Northern Ireland at 116,071, which is 20·3 per cent. of employees.
    A breakdown of these figures demonstrates the narrowness and fragility of the Province's industrial base and the appallingly high level of unemployment in certain areas. While Northern Ireland's economy is very dependent on that of the United Kingdom as a whole, and prospects for inward investment are affected by continuing international recession, the Government are persevering with their industrial development drive and with their comprehensive range of special measures designed to alleviate unemployment in the shorter term, particularly among young people.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: May we be assured that the percentage of Northern Ireland public expenditure given to industrial development is more than being maintained?
    1030
    Will the Minister assure us that EEC money will not, in this distressed region, be the victim of the Treasury rules about additionality?
    Mr. Butler: I assure my hon. Friend that the proportion of public spending in Northern Ireland given to industrial development will be maintained. It is running at a higher percentage than under the previous Administration and is a priority for spending. As to additionality, the Treasury would argue that as public expenditure as a whole takes into account receipts from the Common Market, in theory, if the rule were not applied, there would be no net benefit to the Province.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: As circumstances in Northern Ireland are so grave, and as the possibility of employing people in construction is probably the best way, for a relatively low sum per head, of getting jobs, will the Ministers from Northern Ireland again represent to the Treasury that in this case additionality should not be applied?
    Mr. Butler: The additionality rule is not being applied to the £16 million for housing. Representations continue to be made through the Council of Ministers to remove the block on that money so that it can be spent where it is most deserved.
    Mr. Soley: In view of these devastating figures, will the Secretary of State give an explanation to the House, either now or in the near future, of why he started the small engineering investment scheme in March of this year and cancelled it in June, on the apparently incredible basis that there were too many applications costing too much money?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is demonstrating, as he frequently does, his complete lack of appreciation of what public expenditure is about. The Government decided that £20 million would be made available to the scheme throughout the United Kingdom. It was increased to £30 million and it was decided in the interests of public expenditure as a whole that that was all that could be awarded for the scheme at the moment.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: As the borough of Carrickfergus has been hardest hit by unemployment in the east of the Province, will the Minister tell us whether there are any prospects of new jobs in that area?
    Mr. Butler: I cannot specify any new jobs, but the hon. Gentleman is well aware that Carrickfergus has a higher grant eligibility, which recognises the serious problem there. I commend the efforts of the Industrial Development Organisation, in particular, and the work that it is doing to attract jobs to the area.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister accept that one of the great hopes for the new Assembly, which I very much support, is that it will create more employment in the Province, because those in the Province—politicians who are nearest to the work force and who know the area best—can often take initiatives which people in Whitehall and Stormont cannot do?
    Mr. Butler: The Assembly, which represents a first step towards devolved government, will provide greater confidence that the present political instability in the Province will be overcome. That will have an important effect. Moreover, the presence of the Select Committees,

    1031
    as they come face to face with the industrial realities, will develop a greater responsibility among local politicians. That, too, will be of benefit.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that the disgracefully high unemployment in Northern Ireland is now so severe—even worse than elsewhere, as far as I know—that it is undoubtedly eroding the very industrial base of the community? Is not the Minister deeply worried that if there is an upswing that erosion will have been so severe that industry in Northern Ireland will not be in a position to fulfil the commitments that will arise in such an upswing?
    Mr. Butler: I do not believe that. The economy of the Province has depended on that of Great Britain for a long time, and I believe that it will respond to an upturn in the United Kingdom economy as a whole. Nevertheless, when employment in manufacturing is as low as 105,000, it shows, as I said in my original answer, how narrow that base is.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend say to what extent the Belfast enterprise zone is helping to generate employment opportunities?
    Mr. Butler: I shall certainly give my hon. Friend details, but it is correct to say that it is attracting both new businesses and relocated businesses, and therefore is of considerable help. It is too early to say whether the experiment is something that we should build on in the future.

    De Lorean Car Co.
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the latest position concerning the De Lorean sports car company.
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the De Lorean Car Co. Ltd. at Dunmurry.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement about the receivership of the De Lorean Car Company.
    Mr. Adam Butler: On 31 May 1982, production ceased at Dunmurry and almost all of the employees were made redundant. The joint receivers and managers continue in discussion with a United Kingdom consortium and with De Lorean Motor Company Inc. about the acquisition of the business and the eventual resumption of production at Dunmurry. If these discussions should fail and no other firm proposals come forward, the liquidation of the company would be inevitable. The prospects of a favourable outcome are not enhanced by the prolongation of the sit-in and picket of the company's premises conducted by former employees.
    Mr. Ross: The Minister will know that it was widely reported in the press recently that Mr. De Lorean himself was intending to restart production. Does he have priority over the other interests? What is his present interest in the factory?
    Mr. Butler: We understand that Mr. De Lorean is a small shareholder in the newly registered company, De Lorean Motor Company Inc., to which I referred. A letter of intent was signed to the effect that that company would
    1032
    purchase the shares of De Lorean Motor Cars (1982) Ltd. from the receivers, effective on or before 1 September 1982. The agreement is subject to contract and provides that the receivers might, on or before 31 July 1982, enter into an agreement with another party if, in their judgment, the other party offered greater security for the continuance of the business.
    Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister assure the House that in any dealings with the receiver, his main priority will be security of jobs in Northern Ireland? In particular, will he be very guarded about any front organisation that has John Z. De Lorean behind it, and thus ensure that the assets remain in Northern Ireland to secure jobs there, rather than being removed to establish jobs in, say, Puerto Rico? Does the Minister accept that the sit-in is a desperate attempt to preserve jobs by workers who realise that for a long time in this company they have been the pawns between the Government and Mr. De Lorean?
    Mr. Butler: There is no doubt that the receivers know that any proposition that they put to the Government would have to involve a continuation of production at Dunmurry.
    In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point, in my opinion the sit-in is not making a contribution. Indeed, to the extent that spare parts have not been allowed out and that maintenance has not been possible, the workers are seriously harming the prospect of a settlement. However, the receivers have assured me that they hope that the sit-in will be terminated.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend say whether, in discussions with the possible consortium, there has been any suggestion that the Government should give some financial assistance to enable the consortium to take over De Lorean?
    Mr. Butler: The negotiations with the consortium are between the receivers and managers and the consortium. The Government are not a party in them. The receivers and managers are well aware of the Government's views on the matter.
    Mr. Molyneaux: As many subcontractors were encouraged by the Labour Government to believe that the company was a Government-backed concern, will the Minister and the Government do everything in their power to protect the interests of those creditors, for whom the consequences could be disastrous?
    Mr. Butler: I am aware of the serious position of the creditors and of what a final collapse of the company would mean. The best thing for the Government to do, and what they are doing, is to encourage the receivers and managers in their efforts to come to an agreement with the consortium or with any other party that can provide a viable future. Therein lie the best prospects for the creditors.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Can my hon. Friend assure us that the discussions between the receivers and the consortium, and perhaps De Lorean, are not exclusive of efforts to find alternative uses for the plant in the event of those discussions not being successful?
    Mr. Butler: Certainly, the discussions are not exclusive. The responsibilities of the receivers and managers are well defined. At present, only the United Kingdom consortium and the De Lorean interest, the new

    1033
    registered company, are on the scene. If other proposals are made during the comparatively short time that is left, I know that the receivers will take them seriously.

    Rubber and Plastic Bullets
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on 27 May, Official Report, column 1043, make a further statement on the use of plastic bullets by the security forces.
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have died and how many have been injured by rubber or plastic bullets.
    Mr. Prior: Although not all inquiries into recent incidents have yet been completed and a number of inquests have yet to be held, I believe that since 22 April 1972, when the first such death occurred, 13 people may have died from injuries caused by baton rounds. Since 17 March 1981, when we began to keep records of such injuries, 203 people have received some form of hospital treatment for injuries thought to have been caused by plastic baton rounds. Information from the police is not readily available as to how many people sustained injuries before this date.
    As I told the House on 27 May, the Government are fully aware of the concern about baton rounds and deeply regret that their use may have resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.
    However, I must also emphasise that baton rounds are used only as a last resort. Without them, there would be a grave risk that the security forces would have to resort to conventional firearms, with much greater loss of life. Without riots and mob attacks on the security forces, baton rounds would not need to be used—only three have been used in the past month. I remain in close touch with the security forces' commanders on this issue.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, particularly his last remarks. Does he recall that the last time he answered questions on Northern Ireland he was subjected to considerable personal attack over the use of baton rounds by the security forces? Does he agree that the use of such bullets is an example of restraint in the face of almost intolerable provocation, in contra-distinction to what is happening in the Lebanon at the moment? Does he not further agree that most nations, faced with insurrections such as we face in Northern Ireland, would use real bullets?
    Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend's last remark is correct. Baton rounds should be used only as a last resort. I am satisfied that that is the view of the force commanders. The obvious answer is for us not to have riots.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State confirm that about half of the fatal casualties were children? Will he investigate reports that in some cases the bullets had been doctored by the insertion of blades, nails and electric torch batteries? Is it not high time that the Government, once and for all, implemented a complete ban on the use of those lethal weapons, which have been used to murder innocent children?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I am not prepared to place the forces of law and order at risk in the manner that the hon.
    1034
    Gentleman suggests. What is more, I refute his allegations about the improper use of baton rounds. I can assure him that in every case where injury is alleged to have been caused by a baton round it is fully investigated. Rather than make such remarks as he has made this afternoon, I hope that he will encourage parents not to allow young children on to the streets, because that is the way to prevent them from being injured.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: What is the logic of the argument against the use of baton rounds? Is it that live rounds should be used or that there should be a surrender to anarchy?
    Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend. The right answer is to reduce the tensions and rioting in Northern Ireland so that we do not have to use such weapons, so that there would be none of the consequences that their use has at times resulted in.
    I am trying to do everything that I can to quieten the situation in Northern Ireland. I look for the support of the House, including that of those who have taken a contrary view to me on recent legislation that I have introduced.
    Mr. Concannon: Does the Secretary of State agree that security forces in Northern Ireland have used baton rounds when they would have been within their rights, according to the yellow card provisions, to use conventional weapons? However, there is some disquiet—I put it no higher than that—that the strict criteria, equivalent to that imposed by the yellow card on the use of lead bullets, have on some occasions been relaxed. I am not saying that that is happening now, but will the Secretary of State give the assurance, implicit in his statement, that the number of occasions on which baton rounds have been used has continue to decrease since the peak during the hunger strike riots last year and that the strict criteria for the use of baton rounds are being followed?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I can give the assurance asked for by the right hon. Gentleman and the House. Of course I am worried, because I know the effect that the use of baton rounds can have on the general population. However, I am not prepared to leave the forces unprotected by the withdrawal of a weapon which they may need and the use of which I know the right hon. Gentleman respects.

    Cross-border Security
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the co-operation with the Republic of Ireland over security in the border region.
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on frontier security.
    Mr. Prior: I know from my regular discussions with the Chief Constable that the close and professional relationship between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana continues to be of great importance in the prevention and detection of terrorist activity on both sides of the border.
    Mr. Marlow: Is there sufficient will power in the Republic for such a relationship to continue and has it increased recently? How many people have been apprehended on the Irish side of the border since Mr. Haughey became Prime Minister again?
    Mr. Prior: I cannot give the figure for which my hon. Friend asks. I am not even certain that it is in our possession. However, I shall see what figures can be given, although they are not our responsibility. I am satisfied and confident that the joint security effort against terrorism continues at the same level as before.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State accept that approximately 40 per cent. of terrorist attacks originate in the Irish Republic and that most are directed against targets within 10 miles of the frontier? Despite the attitude of the Government of the Irish Republic towards the Falkland's war, does he argue that they should do their plain duty with regard to the invasion nearer home?
    Mr. Prior: I sincerely hope that that will be the case; that they will recognise the importance to them as well as to Northern Ireland of fighting terrorism by every means in their power. Many attacks are launched across the border, although I do not have the exact percentage. The remarks of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) in the House yesterday will have drawn attention to those terrible crimes once more.

  PRIME MINISTER

    GEC Large Machines Ltd.
    Mr. Fordasked the Prime Minister what reply she has made to the letter addressed to her from Mr. Copley of the boilermakers union regarding the consequences of redundancy at GEC Large Machines Ltd., in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bradford, North.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I replied on 30 June to Mr. Copley and I have sent the hon. Gentleman a copy of my reply.
    Mr. Ford: May I acknowledge the Prime Minister's courtesy in sending me a copy of the letter. Does she agree that large industrial organisations owe a social obligation to the community in which they operate and that if they have any liquid assets they should be invested at home rather than abroad? Will the Prime Minister say what positive steps the Government are taking to deal with unemployment, rather than sitting back and negatively waiting for all good things to flow from the drop in inflation?
    The Prime Minister: I know that people who have worked for a company in the hon. Gentleman's constituency for a long time have been made redundant. From the notices issued the hon. Gentleman will know that the costs of that company exceeded the revenue from sales and that it could have produced its turnover in only half the space being used at present. On commercial grounds, it could have closed down with the loss of all the jobs, but, because it realised the effect that that would have on the area, about 350 jobs were kept in Thornbury.
    There are occasions when, unless one invests abroad, all possibility of export is lost. Therefore, it is better to consider investing abroad. It also has an effect upon our earnings. —[Interruption.] I am trying to give the hon. Gentleman a thorough reply to his courteous question. All the services of the Manpower Services Commission are, as I have told the hon. Gentleman, at the area's disposal for the purpose of relieving unemployment. In the end, we
    1036
    must try—[Interruption.]—Solid jobs depend on producing goods that customers want to buy at a price that they can afford to pay. I am afraid that there is no way round that truism.

    Engagements
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full and interesting reply. What is the Prime Minister's view, bearing in mind her words in the House last Tuesday concerning the NUR dispute, on the possibility of a strike being called for this weekend by ASLEF? What advice would she give to ASLEF members?
    The Prime Minister: I regret that ASLEF has not shown the good sense and consideration for travellers that the NUR has shown. Flexible rostering, which I understand is the breaking point with ASLEF, has been discussed by the Railway Staff National Tribunal, by Lord McCarthy, by ACAS—by almost everyone. There is not much more room for further discussion. The issues are clear, and I hope that ASLEF will realise that, consider the travellers and the customers—those who wish to go on holiday and who have to travel to work—and refrain from striking next week.
    Mr. Foot: Since it is clear that a railway strike next week would be disastrous for the railway industry and for the country as a whole, does the right hon. Lady agree that we should all approve of the fact that there is at least a glimmer of light? In the past few hours the possibility has arisen of fresh discussions at ACAS, and they might succeed if everyone works towards that end. Cannot the Government encourage British Rail to contribute to a settlement, just as Mr. Len Murray has helped, by encouraging the unions to reach a settlement? Is that not the best way forward, and should we not encourage that possibility of a settlement?
    The Prime Minister: British Rail has done almost everything possible—indeed, it has done everything possible—on flexible rostering. The issue has been referred to the Railway Staff National Tribunal and has already been considered by ACAS. After all, British Rail paid in advance for productivity that the unions promised to deliver. British Rail has played its part, and so has Lord McCarthy. Therefore, I hope that there will not be a strike on Monday.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady give her encouragement to this latest attempt to stop the strike?
    The Prime Minister: I have already said that I hope that there will not be a strike on Monday and that the productivity, for which money has already been paid, will be forthcoming in the interests of those who work in the industry, of the railways, and of the travellers.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that about 2·5 million Afghans have now left their unfortunate country and that they represent about one-seventh of the population? Could not the British

    1037
    Government take the initiative within the international community—just as we did over the Vietnamese boat people—and obtain better conditions for those refugees, who are the latest victims of Soviet colonial policy?
    The Prime Minister: The number of refugees who have left Afghanistan for Pakistan must be at least 2 million, and the figure is probably nearer 2·5 million. We have made separate efforts to help and have given money towards maintaining those people. Through the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees, who is doing a superb job of caring for those people, we are helping the refugees. In addition, the Government of Pakistan and its people are doing very well in looking after the tremendous number of refugees who have suddenly crossed their borders. We shall certainly see whether there is anything more that we can do.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister urgently discuss with the appropriate Ministers the findings of the Select Committee on Energy, which were published this morning, and which state that cost-effective savings of 30 per cent. in energy consumption could be made? Will she consider the criticisms of fragmentation of responsibility among Government bodies and of a lack of political will at the heart of Government? There could be a lot of jobs in this.
    The Prime Minister: There is no lack of political will on the Government's part to reduce energy costs and to make energy savings, whether they are made through insulation, or better systems. Much is already being done. We shall, of course, reply to the report, but the best way to reduce the cost of electricity is to keep down the cost of coal.
    Mr. Alan Clarkasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clark: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in today's edition of The Times stating that there is to be "no question" of a parade by returning units of the task force prior to the thanksgiving service in St. Paul's, although that has been the tradition when commemorating such victories? Has my right hon. Friend also noticed that the service is to contain passages in Spanish, as a gesture to the people of the Argentine? Will she at least congratulate the lord mayor of Plymouth, whose city is to have a proper victory parade and whose service, in St. Andrew's church, will be in the old form and in the English language?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that there will be a thanksgiving service in St. Paul's cathedral on Monday, 26 July for the liberation of the Falkland Islands and in remembrance of those who fell in the campaign. As a considerable number of the task force will still be in the Falklands area and in the South Atlantic, we thought that that form of thanksgiving would be better than a victory parade. Nevertheless, victory parades can be held in other parts of the country and I congratulate the lord mayor of Plymouth on his initiative. It has not yet been decided whether there will be a final victory parade, but if there is one, it will have to be delayed for some time. My hon. Friend mentioned the report in The Times. The order of
    1038
    service has not yet been decided. I can understand the parts of the report that gave rise to concern. I share that concern and I hope that there is no truth in it.
    Mr. Winnick: Since Lord Carrington resigned—presumably as a matter of honour—with two of his colleagues, is it not of some interest that the Head of Government, who wrote on 3 February that there was a sufficient force in the Falklands to deter any possible form of aggression, should have a somewhat different concept of honour or responsibility? Or does the right hon. Lady take the view that any one else in her Administration can take the blame for errors or misjudgments—and the Falkland Islands were a costly error for Britain in terms of blood and money—as long as she can keep her job?
    The Prime Minister: I have already replied to that point. The Government's decisions, supported by the House—in the main—and by the people, to recover the Falkland Islands were excellently taken, and the islands have been liberated. I believe that the inquiry will show that anything sent to the Falkland Islands would have been insufficient to deter an invasion, but could have led to many casualties without ships or facilities being available to pick up the soldiers and sailors. However, I have seen the leaders of the Opposition parties and I hope to be in a position next week to make an anouncement about a full—indeed very full—inquiry.
    Mr. Durant: Has my right hon. Friend read the report in today's edition of The Times to the effect that Guatemala does not recognise the independence of Belize? Will she ensure that little Sate's independence?
    The Prime Minister: Belize is, of course, fully independent. At the moment we have a garrison and a number of Harrier aircraft there. They will stay there, at any rate for the time being.
    Miss Maynard: Is the Prime Minister aware that 600 more jobs will be lost from three British Steel Corporation factories in Sheffield in the next few weeks, despite the fact that they are three of the most modern factories in the world? Does she appreciate that the world recession, the Government's strict cash limits, and cheap imports from Europe—which heavily subsidises energy costs—mean that every time there is a recession the British Steel industry suffers more than any other industry? When will the Government attack growing unemployment as energetically as they prosecuted the war in the Falkland Islands?
    The Prime Minister: In Europe and throughout the world there is great over-production of steel. For that reason, Europe came to an agreement that each country would produce a certain amount of steel. We are trying to ensure that that agreement is honoured. As the hon. Lady knows, we have also made representations to the United States of America about the countervailing duties that have been imposed, because they have been wrongly imposed on steel products from Britain. British steel was once heavily subsidised, and coal is still subsidised. Indeed, coal is one of the main factors in the price of electricity.
    Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend just said that she hoped to make a statement next week about an inquiry into the Falkland Islands conflict. If the reports that have appeared in the press are correct and she wishes to institute an inquiry that predates the recent incidence, there are five former Prime Ministers alive who have an equal right to

    1039
    take part in the decision about an inquiry. Indeed, they have just as equal a right as the leaders of the Opposition parties. By what constitutional right does my right hon. Friend presume to institute an inquiry into the policies and management of previous Administrations—[Interruption.] What is more, may I ask my right hon. Friend what consultations have taken place with the previous Heads of Administration? As far as I am concerned, there have been none.
    Mr. Winnick: Scandalous.
    Mr. Heath: I have no objection to the record of my Administration being examined. However, I have not been asked to give authority for the release of papers from 1970 to 1974, which are still covered by the 30-year rule. May I also ask the Prime Minister whether she recognises that those of us who have experienced the treatment of a previous Administration by herself and her advisers can have no confidence whatever in an inquiry set up without consultation or consideration with the previous Heads of Administration?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to going back over the records of previous Administrations, it is necessary to adjudge our intelligence and defence assessments by the side of previous intelligence messages and defence assessments. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not
    1040
    in any way wish to prejudice a judgment made on a very distinguished Foreign Secretary by withholding that or by withholding the documents. With regard to permission to consult Cabinet papers, I am advised that I do not necessarily have to ask for that. Nevertheless, I have made it known that it would be my intention to ask each and every previous Prime Minister, as a matter of courtesy, whatever the constitutional position, if he would agree that the appropriate Cabinet minutes and committees can be looked at. At present the rule is that they can be looked at only by those who were involved. They have a right to look at anything in which they personally were involved. I shall, of course, therefore consult previous Prime Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".]—about whether they will agree to the papers connected with their Administration being put at the disposal of the inquiry. That will be the right way to proceed. I shall be astonished if there are any difficulties.
    Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In reply to questions the Prime Minister said that she would make an announcement on the Falkland Islands inquiry next week. Can it be made indelibly clear that that announcement will be in the form of a statement to the House, which is absolutely necessary, in view of the previous exchanges?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that.

European Council
3.33 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the meeting of the European Council which I attended in Brussels on 28 and 29 June with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. That meeting of the European Council was dominated—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should listen to the statement that is being made. There will be no questions on it if we cannot hear it.
The Prime Minister: This meeting of the European Council was dominated by external problems of a political and economic kind. The texts of a number of conclusions were agreed and I have placed copies in the Library. They deal with the hostilities in the Middle East, economic relations with the United States, and the economic and social situation.
As is customary, the meeting discussed current political questions, notably the Middle East. We shared the intense concern at the situation in Lebanon, where the present ceasefire must be preserved and used to secure first disengagement of the forces in and around Beirut, and thereafter full implementation of the recent resolutions of the Security Council.
In the broader Arab-Israel context we continued to see no alternative to negotiations between the parties, based on the two fundamental principles of the Venice declaration: security for all States, including Israel, and justice for all peoples, including the Palestinian people.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two hon. Members are talking so loudly that I cannot hear the statement.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Everyone in the House should settle down and listen to the statement.
The Prime Minister: The European Council's discussion of economic relations with the United States reflected the concern that all of us felt about certain decisions taken by the United States Government. Their actions in respect of steel imports and the Siberian gas pipeline could have serious consequences, which everyone in the Community wants to avoid.
The European Council agreed that representatives of the Community should immediately contact the responsible authorities in the United States to see if an acceptable solution could be found.
The discussion of the economic and social situation was relatively brief. The European Council had already decided at its last meeting in March that industrial questions and unemployment should be a major theme at the meeting to be held in Copenhagen in December under Danish Presidency.
During yesterday's discussion the Governments of the member States, the Commission and the Council of Ministers were asked to take certain specific steps between now and December so that the next European Council will be in a good position to review this whole area of policy.
The question of the enlargement of the Community was discussed informally and we did not seek to reach precise conclusions. It is agreed that the negotiations with Spain
1042
and Portugal will continue and the Commission has been asked to make a list of the outstanding problems and to propose solutions to them.
All member States recognise that there are problems that must be solved in these negotiations. The position of the United Kingdom is clear—we want these negotiations to succeed as soon as possible and we shall continue to work towards that objective.
Finally, the Greek Prime Minister made a statement of his Government's reactions to a recent Commission paper about the position of Greece in the Community. This paper, together with the earlier memorandum on the subject by the Greek Government, is now to be studied by the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Michael Foot: The Prime Minister referred to Lebanon in her statement, and it was also referred to in the communiqué. We fully support the proposition that the Security Council's resolution should be backed and sustained. Can the Prime Minister give us any information on the response of the Israeli Government on that subject?
I am surprised that the right hon. Lady did not refer to the operation of the Luxembourg compromise and the veto. Before she left the summit meeting, did she raise the matter with the other Heads of State, and if so, what response did she receive? The Foreign Secretary had led us to believe that the matter would be discussed at the meeting. In any case, does the Prime Minister think that if is right for the matter to be formally established before there is any further movement on the proposal to secure a fisheries agreement? The veto might arise in that connection.
With regard to trading policy, we were glad to hear what the right hon. Lady said in answers to questions on the steel industry. Is it not the case that in some of the reports it is suggested that she has sought to soften the representations that were made on trading policy matters? Is there not a real danger of a trade war between the United States and European countries? We have major interests in the matter.
In the last day or two a statement has been made by a spokesman from the Department of Trade, who said:
"What we are seeing is an attempt to export unemployment from the United States to Europe, through the unilateral use of a protectionist weapon based on what we regard as an unreasonable and arbitrary definition of subsidy."
Is that not the view of the British Government? If it is, should it not be pressed with all possible strength, as our steel industry and other industries are seriously affected?
I have some questions to put to the right hon. Lady on what she said about more general economic matters. She or the Council seems to envisage that a discussion on unemployment in general terms is not to come forward again to the Council until December. However, the situation is extremely serious.
I hope that I shall not be thought indelicate or discourteous to the right hon. Lady in quoting the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who had something to say on this matter. He made a few remarks some minutes ago, but he was in equally explicit form yesterday. He said that what was happening at the moment in the United States was more misguided than what has happened in the history of the Western Alliance. He was talking about the policies that were being pursued and their relationship to Western Europe as a whole and the United Kingdom in particular.

1043
The right hon. Gentleman continued:
"The vicious spiral of increasing budget deficits and high interest rates is deflating the entire world economy, throwing millions out of work and provoking a desperate race by Governments to subsidise exports in order to cling to what they can of the world's dwindling markets."
Does the right hon. Lady agree with her right hon. Friend? I am sure that she does on this matter. If she agrees with him, as I am sure she does—I am certain that she will be eager to say so—does she not think that more much more urgent action must be taken to deal with a matter of such seriousness?
We hope that, far from being content with this statement, which seems, incidentally, to dissipate all the prospects held out at the Versailles summit a couple of weeks ago, the right hon. Lady will bring to the House next week a policy and programme for trying to get British proposals accepted for dealing with this world-wide crisis at a much earlier stage than December.
The Prime Minister: Let me deal with the four main points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. The first is the serious situation in the Lebanon. There obviously has been no response direct to the Ten from Israel, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, it looks as though there is some hope that the PLO will leave West Beirut without any further fighting. If that could be arranged it would be very welcome.
The Luxembourg compromise was discussed in detail at a special meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers. There was a good deal of support for the view of the British Government that, where a member State considers that a very important matter of national interest is at stake, voting should be deferred. I am well aware that that arrangement has been broken once in practice, but if the right hon. Gentleman goes right back to the initiation of the Luxembourg compromise in 1966 he will see that it was never universally agreed, although when we went into the Common Market we assumed that all highly important decisions would be taken by unanimity and not on majority voting.
Trading policy was discussed mainly under two heads. We discussed, first, the countervailing duties on steel. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as we are concerned, the countervailing duties seem to be wrongly applied, because most of the assistance that goes to the British Steel Corporation now is to help to reduce productive capacity. A great deal, therefore, goes to redundancy payments, and that cannot properly be called a subsidy to output. It has been treated in that way, we believe wrongly, and we are taking it up both bilaterally and through the Community itself. The Community is pursuing this matter with the United States very vigorously.
With regard to the Siberian gas line, we have an interest because John Brown has a contract to deliver a certain amount of equipment to the Soviet Union. With regard to the announcements made by the United States, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen that my right hon. and noble Friend yesterday made an order under section 1(1) of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980. British firms that are adversely affected by the measures taken by the United States Administration are invited to make representations to the Department of Trade. I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and we take what has happened very seriously. Whatever measures are taken by
1044
a nation as far as ordinary contracts are concerned, existing contracts should always be allowed to be fulfilled in the proper way.
With regard to interest rates and the United States financial policy, I am very much against high deficits. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is. High deficits lead to high interest rates and high public expenditure leads to high deficits. I am delighted to have the right hon. Gentleman's support.
With regard to unemployment, we had a considerable discussion at the last European Council and at Versailles. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen in the communiqué that the Council confirmed the conclusion that it reached in March regarding a co-ordinated policy for combating unemployment by promoting productive investment. He will see elsewhere in the communiqué that that can be promoted only by transferring resources, usually from consumption to investment, and increasing competitiveness and productivity as well as developing a Community industrial strategy based on a technology and innovation policy. These issues were discussed in detail and published in European Council documents. They will be further discussed in December.
Mr. Foot: I must ask the right hon. Lady to amplify one or two matters. In view of the extreme importance of the questions raised about the economic future by the right hon. Member for Sidcup, we shall be happy to stage a debate in which all can participate. Certainly the questions are so serious, if what the right hon. Gentleman says is true, that much more urgent action should be taken, and we should discuss them before the House rises for the Summer Recess. That is one request that I make to the right hon. Lady.
I think it is most extraordinary that the right hon. Lady made no attempt to comment upon the veto in her original statement. She may have said that it was discussed by the Foreign Ministers elsewhere, but what she has said today is not satisfactory thereto and we want a statement about that matter also. As for taking action to protect ourselves and British traders from unfair action from the United States, the right hon. Lady will certainly have the strongest support from the Opposition. I hope that she will not weaken the representations that are made by other countries.
The Prime Minister: With regard to high interest rates, to which I think the right hon. Gentleman is alluding, they are caused directly by a high deficit coupled with a low savings ratio. They are caused by the fact that the market does not believe that the reductions in expenditure that are going through Congress will be sufficient. If they were sufficient, the deficit would come down and interest rates would fall very quickly. In my view it is important that interest rates come down. I do not see how there can be a major recovery in the United States with the present levels of interest that are charged. The other way is to put up taxation. That was the way that we followed during our second year of office. We have been correct in getting down those high deficits. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with us.
With regard to the Luxembourg compromise, I said that opinions were always divided as they have been since this issue first came up at the instance of the French President in 1966. If the right hon. Gentleman goes back to those papers, he will see that there was never unanimous

1045
agreement on the use of the compromise. The matter was extensively discussed. There is disagreement about it. We believe that it is in Britain's interests still to retain the Luxembourg compromise.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the Prime Minister regard 1984 for Portuguese and Spanish entry as having slipped? Will she confirm that it is still the Government's view that such delays are highly undesirable in the interests of democratic stability in an important part of Europe?
The Prime Minister: A number of us had hoped that Spain and Portugal would come in before 1984. Many of us think that it is extremely important that they both come into the European Community for the reason that the right hon. Gentleman has given, which is to keep democracy in both countries. I have no doubt that that would be helped by their being full members of the European Community. With the present problems, we shall be doing quite well if we succeed in getting them in by 1984, but the Government hope that they will be in by that time.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that whatever view we may take of current American trading and financial practices, some of us believe that the United States Administration are right in believing that the pipeline deal with the Soviet Union is a most profound mistake which will greatly weaken the West since most of the large amounts of foreign exchange which the Soviet Union will earn as a result of it will be spent on armaments designed to destroy liberty?
The Prime Minister: Many people would agree with my hon. Friend. However, at the moment that is not the point at issue. The question is whether one very powerful nation can prevent existing contracts from being fulfilled. It is wrong that it should prevent those contracts from being fulfilled. It is also ultimately harmful to American interests because many people will now say that there is no point in making a contract for materials, machinery and equipment from the United States if, at any time, that contract can be cancelled. It is not, therefore, in their or our interests to stop those contracts being fulfilled.
Mr. David Steel: What policy action is the Council of Ministers prepared to take to register the Community's disapproval of the continued presence and activities of the invading Israeli forces in Lebanon?
The Prime Minister: We have issued vigorous statements on the matter whenever we or the Council of Ministers have met. A further vigorous statement was issued this time. The fact remains that the country that is likely to have the most influence with Israel is the United States. We also make our views known to the United States.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Does the Prime Minister agree that our friends in Washington recently have not sufficiently appreciated the economic anxiety in Western Europe and that unless they change their attitude there is a real danger of conflict between the United States and its allies in Western Europe?
The Prime Minister: They now appreciate our anxiety, which is on three fronts—first, the continuation
1046
of high interest rates in the United States. They will say that they are trying to deal with them by reducing public spending. That will depend upon the decision that their Congress makes. Of course, it is not for us to tell their Congress how to act. It would be counter-productive if we did. Secondly, they are aware of our dismay at the duties that they have placed on steel. Both we and the Community are taking that matter up. Thirdly, we issued a strong statement about the termination of existing contracts.
Sir Hugh Fraser: Whatever the rhetoric of United Nations statements or communiqués, I hope that my right hon. Friend agrees that the most important thing now is to avoid further bloodshed in Beirut. To that purpose, her statement is welcome. I hope that the PLO will now face military reality and remove itself.
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend knows that many efforts have been made during the past three or four days to make arrangements for the PLO to leave West Beirut and the Lebanon, possibly by boat, if necessary with small arms. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the difficult questions are, where do they go to, who will accept them and will they go to those places? That has still to be arranged.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Prime Minister agree that, however late the President of the United States' statement was, the statement that he made today warned the Israeli Government that they do not have the tacit approval of the Americans to continue the genocide in the Lebanon? Does she further agree that now is the time to implement economic sanctions against Israel until she withdraws from Lebanon?
The Prime Minister: I also heard the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers, in which the President of the United States made it perfectly clear that any further Israeli action in Beirut would not have the consent of the United States. He also said that he, too, hoped that it would be possible to make arrangements for the PLO to leave West Beirut and for there to be no further bloodshed. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Community is not signing a financial protocol with Israel but there was not agreement on whether further economic sanctions should be imposed.
Mr. John H. Osborn: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the revival of the economy is the concern of both the Council of Europe and the European Parliament and that revival means the elimination of unemployment? Will she therefore establish guidelines or urge that guidelines be established as quickly as possible to deal with the problem? Does she agree that unemployment is the cause of recession in the steel industry—a mutual problem between the United States of America and Western European countries? When the next discussions take place, will she ensure that the interests of the private sector steel industry are looked after?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is why, when we referred in our communiqué to the problem of unemployment and to the need for more investment, we made it perfectly clear that productive investment was needed. Most of that investment occurs in the private sector, although there is some in the public sector. The Commission will soon produce a paper. We

1047
are aware that we must not spend so much in the public sector that we deprive the private sector of the finances that it needs to expand its activities.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members from each side. Thereafter, we shall proceed to the second statement.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Prime Minister agree that the problem of high interest rates and deficit in the United States affects the European economy and that it was brought about by the massive arms expenditure in which the United States is indulging? Will she therefore examine the Siberian pipeline in a different light? Does she agree that it would be better to improve trading relations between East and West—for there to be peaceful co-operation between East and West Europe? What is the EEC doing to ensure that the United Nations special session on disarmament will be a success?
The Prime Minister: There is nothing that I can usefully add to what I have already said about high deficits and high interest rates. Getting the one down will lead to the reduction of the other. With regard to the high deficit being caused by arms expenditure, the hon. Gentleman will also discover that there is an enormous projected increase for social services expenditure. The President intends to deal with that increase at the same time as reducing the deficit for two or three years. With regard to the Siberian pipeline, the President has expressed his view and we have confined our comments to what I have already said—that existing contracts should be allowed to be fulfilled.
Mr. Michael Latham: When my right hon. Friend gave a positive reply to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) about Spain entering the Common Market, did she forget about Gibraltar? Did she raise that matter in the Council of Ministers? Did she make it absolutely clear that the people of Gibraltar will not be sold out and that there can be no question of letting Spain into the Common Market so long as the border remains closed?
The Prime Minister: We are fully committed to the people of Gibraltar. There can be no possible change in the status or sovereignty of Gibraltar without the full consent of the people of Gibraltar. That has always been our position. I agree with my hon. Friend that Spain cannot enter the Common Market as long as her side of the border with Gibraltar remains closed.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: In an earlier reply about the Luxembourg compromise, the Prime Minister referred to a meeting of the Foreign Ministers where she said that there was a view that matters should be postponed or deferred if there was disagreement. Was that postponement or deferment indefinite or just until the next meeting? Was that the unanimous view of all the Foreign Ministers present?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has taken the word "deferred" as referring to something else. I said that there was a good deal of support for the British Government's view that when a member State considered that a very important national interest was at stake, voting should be deferred. That refers to the language of the
1048
original Luxembourg compromise—one does not come to a conclusion so long as there is disagreement between the States.
The main discussion on the Luxembourg compromise took place on 20 June. Opinions were divided. They have always been divided on the Luxembourg compromise. We continue to discuss it. We believe that it is in Britain's interests to continue the Luxembourg compromise.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that she will receive widespread support for what she has said about conditions of contract? Does she agree that the principle of upholding the obligations of contracts in international trade extends far beyond the immediate issue of obtaining the turbines order for the Siberian pipeline? Will she employ whatever diplomatic channels are open to Britain to impress a more considered attitude on the American Administration in addition to the representations that are being made by the Community?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I have already made my own views on this known directly to the President when I spoke to him. I entirely agree that ordinary commercial contracts should be fulfilled. The only exception to that is if there are hostilities or war breaks out. On such occasions, with regard to military arms, we have asked other countries to hold up the delivery of arms and have ourselves done so, but that is a separate question from an ordinary commercial contract.
Mr. Sidney Bidwell: Has the right hon. Lady looked at the standard practices in the EEC regarding womens' rights as they apply to foreign husbands and the right to choose whether to go to the husband's country or to stay put to raise their families? Is it not ridiculous that in some instances women citizens of this country have to go to another EEC country where equality of spouses is standard practice? Will she consider the immigration debate on Monday, in which this matter was highlighted, and stop acting against the interests of women in my constituency?
The Prime Minister: I have nothing further to add to what was said in the immigration debate on Monday The specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised was not discussed at the European Council, but with the presence of Madame Flesch and myself, our fellow heads of Government and Foreign Secretaries will have been in no doubt whatever that women have rights.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the stated American deficit of $100 billion is grossly understated, as, when off-balance-sheet items are added, it is almost $250 billion? Does she agree that it is grotesquely misleading to try to blame a deficit of that size on the current American Administration? The Reagan Administration were quite obviously locked in to many of those deficit expenditures by the policies of past Administrations?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. Many of the increases now taking place arise from decisions taken previously and it is they which are partly giving rise to the enormously increased deficit. I agree that there is also a certain amount of off-balance-sheet financing. Indeed, that is a factor that we should remember when people say that we could remove things from the public sector borrowing requirement. That would not help, because the money still has to be found.
Mr. Michael English: With regard to the possible admission of Portugal and Spain to the EEC, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), has the Prime Minister conveyed her own and the country's appreciation to Portugal, our oldest ally, for its attitude in our recent war with Argentina? In the opposite sense, has she also conveyed our view of the malign and mendacious attitude of Spain? Will she bear both those factors in mind in relation to future events in the EEC?
The Prime Minister: I have personally thanked Portugal for its splendidly supportive attitude throughout the whole of the Falkands crisis. It was much appreciated by all our people. In the same spirit, we felt very resentful of the attitude taken by the Spanish, and they are in no doubt about that.
Mr. Bill Walker: On this very important day for Scots who wear the kilt—the anniversary of the wearing of the kilt—does not the matter of John Brown show clearly how important it is for this country to maintain research and development facilities and manufacturing capacity in the high technology areas on which Scotland is so dependent for export orders?
The Prime Minister: Yes, it does indeed, but I think that it is common practice in almost every country to manufacture good, high technology products under licence from other countries. As my hon. Friend knows, that is what has happened in this case. Therefore, we still need the export licence from the United States.

Business of the House
4.4 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I wish to make a short business statement. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 JULY—Private Members' motions until seven o'clock. Afterwards, Supply (22nd Allotted Day)—(First part). Debate on a Liberal motion on specific and practical measures to reduce unemployment.
Second Reading of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Bill.
TUESDAY 6 JULY—Conclusion of the debate of the statement on the Defence Estimates, 1982.
Motion relating to the National Health Service (Charges to Visitors) (No. 2) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 7 JULY—Conclusion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Motions on the international fund for agriculture development and the African development fund orders and on the Building Societies (Special Advances) Order.
THURSDAY 8 JULY—Supply (23rd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on the Army, on a motion for the adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 9 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY I2 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Michael Foot: I wish to put first to the right hon. Gentleman one or two matters arising from the Prime Minister's statement today.
The Prime Minister's answers on the Luxembourg compromise leave a most confused situation. I therefore believe that we must have a further statement from the Prime Minister at a very early stage to clear up the discrepancies.
The Prime Minister's remarks about the general economic situation only reinforce the case that we have urged for a general debate on unemployment at a very early stage. We certainly renew that application today.
I also reiterate the case that I put to the right hon. Gentleman last week for a further debate on disarmament—not a debate concerned solely with defence matters, but a general debate on disarmament. While the United Nation's session on the subject continues, the House should have that opportunity.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information on when the 1982–83 higher education mandatory awards regulations will be laid before the House? Does he appreciate that further delay will cause confusion among students and universities? Is he aware that if the regulations are not laid until late July the House will be denied an effective opportunity to influence the regulations which, due to cuts, are extremely contentious? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that that matter is speeded up.
Finally, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will assist us by ensuring that proper reports are given to the House about what the Government are trying to do to stop the railway strike. A few minutes ago, we urged the Prime Minister to support the current discussions at ACAS. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give an

1051
undertaking that there will be a report about that tomorrow and that we should continue to do our best to see whether the strike can be avoided.
Mr. Biffen: I shall try to answer the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman in reverse order.
With regard to the impending rail strike, over the past few days my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been most anxious to present to the House his view of these matters through statements. I note that the right hon. Gentleman would like a statement tomorrow, as was the case last Friday. I shall pass that request to my right hon. Friend.
With regard to the 1982 higher education mandatory awards regulations, I cannot give an immediate answer to the right hon. Gentleman but I will certainly have the matter investigated and will be in touch with him.
As to a general debate on disarmament, I realise that in many parts of the House there is a deep and committed concern on this topic. I thought that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister after her return from New York gave some opportunity for ventilation of this topic. The debates on the Defence Estimates also give a chance to consider disarmament in the general context of defence. Nevertheless, I of course take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
On the right hon. Gentleman's request for a general economic debate, I am sure that he will realise that we are now approaching that time in a Parliament when in a sense the Opposition have proportionately more time at their disposal than is available to the Government. There will be the opportunities that are provided by Report and Third Reading of the Finance Bill—[Interruption.] I shall not be thrown off my stride by those sedentary comments. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) knows that he is protected and his name can never appear in the columns of Hansard. We all know that there are a number of Supply days and that the Opposition are acutely embarrassed in trying to resolve the subjects that should be chosen. This subject is pre-eminent for the purpose.
I have noted what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) says about a statement on the Luxembourg accord. I shall draw the Prime Minister's attention to his remarks.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House hope to speak in the debate on the Defence White Paper. I therefore propose that questions on the Business Statement should under no circumstances continue beyond 4.30 pm by the digital clock.
Mr. Terence Higgins: Could my right hon. Friend arrange a debate at the earliest possible moment on motions implementing the proposals of the Select Committee on Procedure (Supply) of the last Session, as it is important that Select Committee Chairmen should know what the position is if they are to take advantage of that during the next Session?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend has raised this matter previously. I assure him that it is my hope that the matter can he debated reasonably early in July.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the dramatic intervention this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), is it not proper
1052
that the issue of the terms of the inquiry—in view of the considerable divisions that exist on the Government Benches as to how that inquiry should be managed—should come before the House for an open debate to satisfy millions of people who believe that the Prime Minister is covering up what happened in the six weeks before the invasion by Argentina?
Mr. Biffen: I do not think the intervention was half as dramatic as the riposte was effective. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that she will make a statement next week.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 580?
[That this House, deeply concerned to achieve balanced economic growth throughout Great Britain, and believing that the proposed massive expansion of Stansted airport would produce unjustifiable urban growth and congestion in North West Essex and East Hertfordshire, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to opt now for a policy which, while providing for a modest increase in activity at Stansted, subject to a fixed ceiling, would place the greater emphasis on taking all possible steps to expand the use of provincial airports to meet demand in the region of its origin, the case for which has been well documented and shown to be financially viable by various groups, notably the North of England Regional Consortium.]
It relates to the British Authority Airports policy with particular reference to Stansted airport. It was signed by 105 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House. Will my right hon. Friend give that matter priority in his consideration of debates before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that the British Airports Authority has elaborated plans which are now subject to a wide-ranging inquiry. It would be helpful to have the outcome of that inquiry before the House sought to make a judgment. I cannot hold out hope of a debate on the motion before the Summer Recess.
Mr. John Roper: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a number of prayers on the Order Paper in the name of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends dealing with industrial training? Will there be an opportunity to debate them in the near future?
Mr Biffen: I shall take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that we shall have a debate on industrial training, but I shall be in touch with him on that matter.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Could the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the statement by the Secretary of State for Industry last Monday on the cutback of assisted areas? Is he aware that in my constituency, since May 1979, there has been a 180 per cent. increase in unemployment and a 200 per cent. increase in payments to people who are unemployed and in receipt of supplementary benefit and that at the same time intermediate area status is being abolished? That applies not only to Keighley but to many other areas. We should have a debate on that issue. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that when there are three million people on the dole assisted area status is an important symbol of possible assistance?
Mr. Biffen: I accept the direction of the hon. Gentleman's argument. After my right hon. Friend the

1053
Secretary of State for Industry made his statement, he was subjected to an extended period of questioning, although I agree that that still left many hon. Members hoping to be called. In those circumstances, I cannot hold out hope of a debate next week or before the end of July.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: As there are firm indications in Southend and Shoeburyness that many train drivers will be driving trains on Monday and signs of a lack of support throughout the country, may we have a debate tomorrow on a simple motion urging ASLEF to hold a ballot before it brings about another strike which will cause immense damage to British Rail and dreadful inconvenience to the travelling public?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot give such an undertaking in respect of tomorrow's business. Were my hon. Friend successful in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that he could make the speech in the private Members' debate on Monday.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that a report that is of great importance to disabled people by the Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People has been published? It contains 42 recommendations, including one for antidiscrimination legislation. May we have a debate on the report as soon as possible?
Mr. Biffen: I have a lively sympathy for the subject that the right hon. Gentleman raises. I must be candid and say that there is no likelihood of a debate in Government time before Parliament goes into recess. There is plenty of scope for hon. Members to use their ingenuity to see that the matter reaches the Floor of the House.
Mr. Tony Marlow: In view of the inadequacy of the European Community's response to the barbaric Israeli invasion of Lebanon, will it be possible to have an early debate to discuss the requirement that the Palestinians should leave Beirut, as that is one of the Israeli war objectives? We have just fought a war in the South Atlantic to stop an aggressor getting away with his spoils. The requirement will give the Israelis a further excuse to stay in the Lebanon until the Palestinians withdraw. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a debate would enable the House to put forward proposals so that we could help to bring about the end of that violent war, whereas the Community has done absolutely nothing?
Mr. Biffen: Within the recent past the House has had the chance to discuss the tangled issues of the Middle East and show the wide range of views that there are within the House. I cannot offer the likelihood of a second debate so soon after the first. We might have a prudent regard for realism. Motions and decisions of the House are not likely to be that much more effective than those of the European Community when it comes to influencing fighting on the ground in the Middle East.
Mr. Greville Janner: On a matter upon which the House has some influence, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Home Secretary about making a statement on his proposals for increasing the deposit at parliamentary elections? The level was fixed in 1918 and the present increasingly farcical element caused by the deposit becomes obvious with each by-election.
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the point made, not for the first time, by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: To enable wives and husbands of hon. Members to attend and listen to the business of next and every week, will my right hon. Friend consider setting aside a portion of the Strangers' Gallery specifically for them?
Mr. Biffen: That is something that might reasonably be considered by the Services Committee.
Mr. David Stoddart: May I remind the Leader of the House of the Falkland Islands (British Citizenship) Bill 1982 that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and given an unopposed First Reading on 22 June? It seeks to give Falkland Islanders the British citizenship that was denied them under the British Nationality Act 1981. Will he give Government time to ensure the passage of the Bill? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he does not do that it will be considered an affront to the brave British troops who released the Falkland Islanders from the yoke of a Fascist dictatorship and will be an insult to those who fell in the battles for the Falkland Islands?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot give that undertaking, but the important thing is that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made it clear that no Falkland Islander, whether or not he has the right of abode, will have difficulty over admission to this country.
Mr. Robert Banks: As civil defence is an element of defence, and that is a matter for the Home Secretary and outside today's debate, will my right hon. Friend find time for a separate debate in the near future on the important subject?
Mr. Biffen: I recognise the importance of the subject. But I have to give the same surly negative reply that I cannot guarantee to find time. I should like to take my hon. Friend to one side to suggest how with a little ingenuity he can get the topic into the appropriate defence debate.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that some of us are getting tired of the inspired leaks in the press about who is to be the next Speaker when the present occupant of the Chair retires? If there is to be discussion, should it not be open and not this hole—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I can save the time of the House. There is no need to discuss the matter just yet.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did say "when the present occupant of the Chair retires".
Mr. Speaker: There is no danger of that just now.
Mr. Viscount Cranborne: May I say how relieved I am to hear your remarks Mr. Speaker?
Would my right hon. Friend consider finding time next week to discuss the effects of Russian policy on South Asia? Is this not a particularly appropriate time to discuss it when one inoffensive and scholarly British subject has been sentenced on trumped-up charges for no reason whatever for 10 years by the Kamal regime in Afghanistan?
Mr. Biffen: I realise that the case causes great distress in the United Kingdom. But the opportunity to debate such

1055
matters, important though they are, must be considered, in the context of the Government's legislative programme and the general desire that we should rise for the Summer Recess at a civilised traditional time.
Mr. Robert Parry: When will the Leader of the House make a statement on the Summer Recess so that hon. Members—particularly my Scottish colleagues with children at school—may make holiday arrangements?
Mr. Biffen: When the accommodating behaviour of the Opposition enables me to make a statement with confidence.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that he gave the Leader of the Opposition about the possibility of a debate on disarmament? Is it not slightly incongruous to suggest that speeches on disarmament should be made in debates on the Defence Estimates? As we had the United Nations special session on disarmament only last month and at present two major rounds of talks are going on in Western Europe on the limitation of nuclear weapons, should not the House make its view known on this crucial subject?
Mr. Biffen: As disarmament is normally discussed not in absolute terms but in terms of the level of arms and the balance between conventional and nuclear weapons, there is nothing extraordinary about discussing such matters in the defence debates.
Mr. John Stokes: In view of what the Prime Minister said earlier about a national thanksgiving at St. Paul's for our victory in the Falklands campaign, will my right hon. Friend be making a statement next week? Is the report in The Times correct that the service will take into account the views of those who opposed the expedition? Is that not absurd? Can those people have their cake and eat it? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the thanksgiving will not be watered down in any way at all?
Mr. Biffen: I do not believe that I can helpfully add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during her Question Time. As soon as it is possible, a statement will be made, but I can give no undertaking that that will be next week.

Business of the House

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
  Ordered.
  That the matter of road and sea transport in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their consideration.— [Mr.Biffen.]

Defence
[FIRST DAY'S DEBATE]
4.24 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1982, contained in Cmnd. 8529.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the party below the Gangway.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I request that you are a little more precise because of the nature of the people who have suddenly discovered an arresting interest in prayers, which they never betrayed when they were on the Labour Benches, and then litter themselves on what is traditionally the Tribune Bench, which is part of the Labour Party.
Mr. Speaker: Although this does not directly relate to my ruling on the amendment, I would have thought that the House welcomed anyone who took a new interest in prayers.
I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
Mr. Nott: The opening words of the White Paper on defence policy last year were
"The first duty of any British Government is to safeguard our people in peace and freedom."
That duty rests on three defence commitments. The first is the maintenance of a credible strategic nuclear capability to deter nuclear blackmail by our enemies. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will say more about that in the second debate next week. The second is the collective security provided through our contribution to NATO of strong naval, army and air forces for the defence of the West. The third is a force structure, within the NATO framework, which has the balance and flexibility to enable us to respond to a challenge to British interests at home or abroad.
The events of the past few weeks have concentrated all our attention on the third commitment—our ability to respond in defence of uniquely British interests—although our determination to resist aggression will have strengthened the whole deterrence strategy of the West. In these past few weeks we have seen British power projected over 8,000 miles into the South Atlantic to restore the rights and freedom of British citizens.
I must single out for a special mention at the outset the Royal Navy: putting the Fleet to sea in such a short time and sustaining it over such a long distance into the South Atlantic have been a remarkable achievement. The many essential refuellings and transfers at sea in often appalling weather required seamanship of the highest order. When the historians come to write about the operation I believe that achievement by the Royal Navy will have a special place.
Our armed forces conducted themselves at every stage with great gallantry under intense attack and in the most hostile climatic conditions. A major amphibious landing has been successfully conducted; a major and decisive land battle has been fought by the men of 3 Commando Brigade, 5 Infantry Brigade and the 2nd and 3rd battalions of the Parachute Regiment against great odds over the

1057
most inhospitable terrain, thus writing another historic page in the annals of the Royal Marines and the British Army.
Incidents of individual courage, initiative, and also compassion, on the part of our forces have been shown at every level and at every stage of the operation. I pay my tribute from this Dispatch Box to the men and women of all three Armed Services and to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service, the Merchant Marine and to the many military and civilian personnel who provided support for the task force. A special place in our thoughts will remain for them and most particularly for those who were injured, and for the families and friends of those who gave their lives that others could be free.
Our forces in the South Atlantic were for the most part equipped with weapons, ships and aircraft which had been optimised under successive Governments for battle under very different circumstances. Some, such as our amphibious force, amply demonstrated the advantage that their inherent flexibility confers. The quality of our men and equipment on sea and land and in the air was amply proved.
Let me give a few examples. Twenty-eight of our 32 Sea Harriers were deployed to the area and they achieved at least 28 kills without a single loss in air-to-air combat. There were more than 2,000 operational sorties from the carriers, and one of the most remarkable features of the whole operation was the 90 per cent. availability of all aircraft embarked.
The first order that I intend to place following the Falklands crisis is for new Sea Harriers. All seven Sea Harriers lost will be replaced—and I intend to fund out of the existing programme, rather than out of replacement funds, a further seven Sea Harriers, making an immediate new order of 14 in all for British Aerospace.
The crisis showed that flexibility, adaptability and the imaginative use of national resources were crucial to the success of our operation. Particularly notable was the extensive use made of air-to-air refuelling. Seven Hercules and 13 Nimrods have already been adapted for it, and that will greatly enhance our capability. Hercules regularly made, and are still making, 25-hour, 8,000-mile round trips from Ascension to drop supplies to the task group around the Falkland Islands. Nimrods flew more than 110 maritime surveillance sorties—including regular air-to-air refuelled flights of 19 hours to the Falkland Islands area. RAF Harriers were flown to Ascension direct on a nine-hour, air-to-air refuelled mission and then—almost miraculously—four were flown non-stop to the deck of HMS "Hermes", another nine-hour flight.
The performance of the Victor tanker forces was outstanding and six Vulcans and four Hercules are being converted to the tanker role. We will be devoting increased resources to in-flight refuelling as a major force multiplier—it will be particularly valuable in the United Kingdom air defence region, extending our ability to maintain combat air patrols over the North Sea for long periods and it gives us the ability to extend dramatically the flexibility and scope of the projection of our air power. The first VC10 tanker for the RAF had its maiden flight a few days ago.
One notable feature of the Falklands campaign was the enormous contribution made by shipping taken up from
1058
Britain's merchant fleet and its Merchant Navy crews. At peak, more than 50 vessels were involved. The campaign has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that necessary modifications, such as fitting helicopter platforms and at-sea refuelling facilities, can be made quickly and efficiently. From the container ships not only did helicopters successfully carry out limited operations, but Sea Harriers made several flights in the vertical take-off mode from those ships.
As part of the studies of the campaign, we shall be taking another look at such use of civil resources in wartime. The Ministry of Defence does not claim to have any monopoly of good ideas in this area and I hope that organisations and individuals will come forward with their own suggestions—a point I made when identifying the importance of this area in chapter 2 of the defence White Paper in the section on the use of national resources.
Mr. Dick Douglas: On the Merchant Navy, is it not a fact that if we are to get this type of resource it is essential that we retain the standing of the British flag fleet and ensure that replacements for the "Atlantic Conveyor" and other ships are built in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Nott: I share the hon. Gentleman's wish that the maximum number of our merchant fleet, now and in the future, should be built in British yards. I do not need to say that the ultimate choice is for the shipping company concerned.
During the whole Falklands operation, our helicopters all performed magnificently. They flew round-the-clock in all weathers to provide anti-submarine warfare support for the task force, to carry out reconnaissance and to carry troops, stores supplies and men. The assault helicopters were most successful in the ground attack role. Our experience during operations in the South Atlantic has demonstrated clearly that helicopter support is vital in the land battle. It is difficult to see a situation in which there could ever be too many helicopters available to our forces.
I intend to authorise immediately the placing of new orders for helicopters to replace losses during operations and also to strengthen our reserve holdings where necessary. We recently ordered five Sea Kings; that order with be increased to 16—eight in the ASW role and eight in the commando role. In addition we shall purchase three Lynx and up to five Gazelles, and we shall replace all three Chinooks lost in the "Atlantic Conveyor". These and other equipment orders that I am announcing today will, of course, be subject to satisfactory terms of contract, including price.
At this point, I should also like to confirm to the House that HMS "Endurance" will continue in service, and after a refit she will continue to deploy to the South Atlantic. I shall return to the Falklands crisis later in my speech, but I must first touch on other matters.
When I published the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" last week, I said that it would serve partly as a reminder and also as a tribute to our Armed Forces who are now engaged elsewhere than in the Falklands. Their tasks may not have attracted the headlines in the past few weeks, but their work has been no less important.
Regrettably, the internal security situation in Northern Ireland still requires the presence of substantial numbers of Service men. They continue to play a vital part in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in containing

1059
terrorist attacks and bringing their perpetrators to justice. Their task is frequently dangerous and disagreeable, but their presence is an essential part of our efforts to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland can be freed from the fear of terrorist violence.
Further afield, our forces in Hong Kong, Cyprus and Belize continue to contribute to the maintenance of peace. Our relations with countries in many parts of the world are also strengthened by the military assistance that our Armed Forces are able to provide. Their professionalism and technical skills are rightly held in high regard. This year Service personnel are on loan to 30 overseas Governments.
That aspect of the work of our forces attracts little public interest, but it is nonetheless very important in helping to maintain peace and stability around the world.
Dr. Alan Glyn: In view of the news that we have received today from Belize, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we have sufficient forces there to deter an aggressor?
Mr. Nott: I am satisfied that our forces there are adequate at the present time. We are giving assistance to the Government there in the training of their defence forces. That is an important feature for the future.
It is to our NATO contribution that I must devote the major part of my remarks, since the main threat to the security of the United Kingdom remains the nuclear and conventional forces of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. In last year's White Paper we stated:
"The Central Region is the Alliance's heartland in Europe; the forward defence of the Federal Republic is the forward defence of Britain itself."
I make no apology for reiterating those words; none is required, given the realities of the threat. Those who argue the case for renegotiation of the Brussels treaty, the further reduction of our continental commitments, or our withdrawal, ignore three elements in our current strategy.
The first is the straight military fact that there is no adequate substitute for in-place forces. None of our allies is ready to fill the gap; they are already committed and extended to forward defence. A reduction in our commitment would not strengthen the security of the United Kingdom; it would weaken it. Exercise Crusader proved that our reinforcement plans work, but it also demonstrated that there are finite limits to the size of reinforcements that we could sensibly hope to deploy in the warning time available.
But our contribution is not just military—its political significance is equally important. What lessons would the Soviets draw from any reduction in our commitment on the central front at present despite events in Afghanistan and Poland and in advance of any mutual and balanced force reductions agreement? Similarly, what effect would it have on the perceptions of our allies, not least the Americans who expect—and quite reasonably so—to see the Europeans as committed to the forward defence of Europe as they are themselves? The United States maintain, 200,000 army personnel in Germany, as against our commitment to 55,000 men. Isolationism may be dormant in the United States, but none of us can be sure that it is extinct.
Finally, it would cost us more in the short and medium term to bring back our forces, to house them, to create training areas in the United Kingdom and all the necessary support and infrastructure than it does to maintain them in
1060
Germany. We would need more money for such a change, not less. Nor could we afford to disband elements of our Army. The planned size of 135,000 for the Army is the minimum needed to meet our peacetime and wartime commitments. By maintaining a strong land-air capability in Germany we are pursuing the wisest military, political and financial course.
However, we must ensure that our forces on the central front are structured in such a way as to produce the most balanced, effective and powerful deterrent to a potential aggressor. That is being achieved by the reorganisation of BAOR into three larger and more powerful in-place divisions, which will provide the corps commander, by the middle of next year, with what he needs to fight the immediate tactical battle, if necessary in a short-warning scenario. It will also produce a credible corps reserve. As part of this reorganisation a non-mechanised infantry battalion and a FH70 artillery regiment will be relocated in the United Kingdom.
Since the Government took office, as the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" makes clear, we have transformed the capability of our land forces on the central front. The number of manned tanks has increased by over one quarter in the past three years and a ninth armoured regiment has been formed. I can now announce that the introduction of Challenger in the mid-1980s will permit two additional armoured regiments, the tenth and eleventh, to be formed and the provision of a full complement of Chieftain tanks as a war maintenance reserve.
At my request, the general staff has recently been studying the role of the infantry in the 1990s. I am anxious that in all our defence planning, particularly in procurement with its very long lead times, we should look forward to concepts of operations a decade from now when electronic and missile technology will have taken another leap forward.
The infantry will need to operate and keep pace with the tank formations for which they will require more heavily armoured vehicles than we now possess, with intrinsic firepower. The sheer weight of conventional firepower to be expected in the initial battle also requires all our forward infantry to be protected by the latest armour, as well as the mobility to fight in depth. In a relatively small Army like ours, we need forces that are both mobile and flexible to offset the greater numbers of the Warsaw Pact. We are, therefore, looking at a new mix of vehicles for our mechanised infantry in the 1990s, including MCV 80, as well as derivative and alternative vehicles.
Our forward air defence capability also needs enhancement. It will be increased by the entry into service over the next couple of years of self-propelled Rapiers. Sufficient have been ordered to equip three batteries. The delivery of the Blindfire Rapier missile system to 1 British Corps for the towed version has been completed.
To deter, 1 British Corps must be modern and effective, but I am no less concerned at what I would call our "second line" Army and the reserves. The balance of strength and the quality of equipment as between 1 British Corps and the rest of the British Army is a vital issue.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: My right hon. Friend has referred briefly to the importance of air defence in the central European region. In regard to tanks, he mentioned the importance of looking 10 years forward. Will he do the same in regard to air defence and recognise

1061
that when the Jaguar squadrons become obsolete, we shall need a replacement for this tactical combat aircraft and many of us hope that it will be the P110.
Mr. Nott: I recognise my hon. Friend's great interest in the P110 programme. We should be able to say more about this in the debate on the Royal Air Force Estimates. I recognise that, at the moment, we are not planning for a Jaguar replacement in our programme. I shall be saying more in a moment about air defence in Germany.
Mr. John Morris: On armour planning on the central front for 10 years ahead, will the Secretary of State say to what extent we shall be able to see eye to eye with our allies in Europe on the same operational requirements and the same provision? Or are we as far away as ever from having the same kind of tank to fight the same kind of battle?
Mr. Nott: I regret that standardisation of equipment on the central front is far from being what it needs to be. There is still no agreement—I take one example—on the Franco-German tank. There has been disagreement on that for years. I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's concern that there is inadequate standardisation. We shall continue to try for it. In the end, it comes back to the industrial interests of each member country of NATO and those industrial interests seeking naturally for equipment to be built by their own people in their own factories. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's general point.
We must defend the United Kingdom base, not just as the unsinkable aircraft carrier of the Alliance but also as the principal source of United States and United Kingdom reserve forces for the Continent itself. The increase that I have proposed in the size of the Territorial Army, the formation of a new home service force, three additional Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment squadrons for the ground defence of operational airfields, and the formation of a new reinforcing division, 2 Division, here at home, with its headquarters in York have all been announced in the past year. We have also recently, on the subject of the reserves, announced tenders for the first batch of a new class of minesweeper for the Royal Naval Reserve.
On current plans, a number of naval Wessex 5 helicopters may become surplus to requirements as new Sea King 4s are delivered to the Royal Navy over the next few years. These plans will need to be reconsidered in the light of our Falklands experience, but if they are confirmed, I would like to examine the use of one squadron of Wessex 5s here in the United Kingdom in support of the predominantly TA reinforcing division.
I would not wish to raise any false hopes in this regard but we shall examine, if this proves possible, whether the Wessex 5 helicopters with the TA reinforcing division might be flown by pilots of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force thereby giving the RAF reservists a flying role again.
I come now to the RAF. We station 12 squadrons in Germany as part of NATO's second tactical air force. They are an essential part of the forward defence of the Alliance, but they also provide a crucial contribution to the defence of these islands since our own defence is integrated into the airborne early warning system and ground-air defence of the Alliance. Enemy air forces will be attacked early and well forward so facilitating, in depth, defence of the United Kingdom home base.
1062
We intend to provide for the United Kingdom itself a much improved and resilient air defence system, with the introduction of the air defence variant of the Tornado, greatly enhanced by air-to-air refuelling, the entry into service of the Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft, and the modernisation of the United Kingdom air defence ground environment.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend able to give any indication of when the decision on the Rolls-Royce RB 199–67 R engine, the uprated version for the Tornado ADV, will be made, bearing in mind the discussion that has taken place about the possible lack of thrust of the ADV?
Mr. Nott: We have made forward provision in our programme for the improvement of this engine. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an important matter that we shall have to consider shortly. It is a very expensive programme. I am conscious of its need.
Turning now to aircraft, we intend to acquire 60 advanced Harrier GR5s—the AV8B—for the Royal Air Force. The RAF Harriers lost in the Falklands will be replaced by additional Harriers in due course. The virtues of the existing Harrier GR3 have been amply demonstrated in operations in the South Atlantic. The GR3s were equipped successfully with Sidewinder and now have an air combat capability to add to their principal ground attack weapons. Our decision to retain a VSTOL capability to the turn of the century by the acquisition of the GR5 Harrier with much increased range and payload has been fully vindicated. I expect orders for some initial production items to be placed by the end of this year.
Meanwhile, work continues on the Tornado programme which will result in the re-equipment of about half the RAF's front line. Authorisation has just been given to the United Kingdom element of the fifth batch of Tornado production aircraft which will complete the RAF's order for 220 GR1 aircraft and will carry its F2 order—the air defence version—to the 70 mark.
I come now to our maritime-air capability. The adaptability of the Nimrod airframe and its advanced electronics and radar capability make it a quite remarkable aircraft, and if I could find the funds I would dearly like to reopen the Nimrod production line as a major defence and sales priority.
In the past few weeks, we have been fitting Harpoon to the Nimrod maritime reconnaissance fleet. The Harpoon, coupled with the Nimrod Mark 2's Searchwater radar will enable surface ships to be identified and attacked at ranges of the order of 70 miles, more than double the range of Exocet.
Our decision to purchase the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile for use by the Buccaneer, the Sea Harrier and possibly the Tornado is unaffected, but we will retain Harpoon on the Nimrods, for the time being. We are equipping some of our submarines with Sub-Harpoon giving them an anti-ship missile capability, as well as the new underwater guided weapon, the heavyweight torpedo, to which we have allocated very substantial funds in the past year.
Mr. Keith Best: I am sure that the House welcomes what my right hon. Friend has said about Nimrod and the fitting of Harpoon. Does he not accept that, in many circumstances that some of us can postulate, there would be insufficient bases for the effective

1063
operation of Nimrod? Is he satisfied that there are sufficient bases available to ensure that Nimrod could be used in any future conflict?
Mr. Nott: I think I am relatively confident about giving my hon. Friend an assurance in that regard. After all, Nimrods have been performing 19-hour flights with air-to-air refuelling down to the Falklands from Ascension. In my part of the world, in Cornwall, there are many stand-by airfields as well as St. Mawgan. The Nimrod is an adaptable aircraft and can be operated from many airfields. I feel relatively sure that my hon. Friend need have no concern.
Mr. John Gilbert: Bearing in mind the intelligence assessment of the threat from Soviet surface ships, with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar, will he explain why he is concentrating on arming Nimrods—I assume he refers to the maritime reconnaissance Nimrod and not the AEW—with air-tosurface weapons rather than air-to-air weapons for self defence? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to put air-to-air weapons on the AEW aircraft so that they can defend themselves?
Mr. Nott: During the Falklands conflict we carried out tests by fitting Sidewinder missiles to the Nimrods. That can he done, and there is no reason why Nimrods should not carry Sidewinder missiles as an air defence weapon. However, the Nimrod's radar capabilities, and the manner in which it operates, are such that it should not be under threat from enemy fighter aircraft. The way that Nimrod uses Harpoon keeps it out of range of enemy fighters. That is one of the great merits of the aircraft.
Right hon. and hon. Members will note in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" a section on the maritime balance. This is to some extent relevant to what the right hon. Gentleman said. It shows an adverse trend in the balance of forces in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel, an area of crucial importance to the United Kingdom and its allies. To judge the maritime balance accurately, however, it is also necessary to take into account the different maritime requirements of the two alliances. Should the Soviet surface fleet ever venture out into the North Atlantic it will meet the growing capability of our modern anti-ship missiles, particularly from land-based aircraft such as the Tornado, Buccaneer and Nimrod, where we have the geographical advantage over the Soviets.
I turn now to naval affairs. Over the next few months we shall be considering ship replacement orders following the Falklands operation, but in the meantime I have decided to order, within the already planned programme, another type 22 ASW frigate—the ninth of its class.
It will not be easy in the next few years to sustain frigate numbers because of the losses suffered in hostilities, but we shall press ahead as rapidly as we can with the current construction programme, bringing forward all existing plans as fast as possible. I also intend to retain the County class destroyers "Fife" and "Glamorgan" and the type 82 destroyer "Bristol", which were planned for early disposal by the mid-1980s.
Looking to the future, I am glad to inform the House that I have recently endorsed the general configuration for the type 23 frigate and that we are now ready to undertake detailed development work. We shall shortly be placing a design contract with Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd. I hope
1064
that the first order will be in 1984. Our aim is eventually to achieve an order rate of three new type 23s per year—and this is provided for in our forward financial plans.
Sir Frederick Burden: It was assumed that the type 23 prototype would be available in 1988. Can we be absolutely assured that all the lessons—and there are many—connected with the Falkland Islands and the vulnerability of shipping under war conditions have been taken fully into account before the order is placed?
Mr. Nott: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In the next few months, as the factual data come back from the Falklands, we must ensure that any changes needed to the type 23 are incorporated in the design. As my hon. Friend knows, we intend to place an order as soon as possible in 1984 so that we can have the type 23 in service by 1988. I should like to see it in service earlier, but 1988 still seems to be the date.
The type 23 will be a general purpose frigate—suited to operations outside the NATO area, but fully able to conduct anti-submarine warfare operations in the harsh and operationally difficult environment of the North Atlantic. The type 23 will, therefore, be equipped with the most advanced hull-mounted sonar as well as the latest towed array for detecting submarines. Its armaments will include two separate trackers for the Sea Wolf point defence missile system incorporating the latest improvements now under development, an anti-ship missile capability, self-defence torpedo capability against submarine attack and a light gun. For quietness to maximise detection ranges on her sonar her main propulsion will be diesel electric, supplemented by two of the new Spey marine gas turbines for high speed boost. We are determined to keep the costs of the type 23 down, but it must be designed to meet essential needs in full. Thus, while the price is now likely to be rather more than originally forecast, it will still be around £90 million at September 1981 prices, against around £135 million for the type 22. I believe that in terms of fighting power it will offer excellent value for money. The type 23 will have a ship's company of about 150 officers and men against up to 250 for the type 22.
The most important feature of the type 23 for antisubmarine warfare will be a specially designed platform for a new helicopter—the Sea King replacement. This will be heavier than the existing Sea King, but it will be very much more agile, enabling it to operate safely from small ships in foul weather. It will have a much greater load-carrying capability and will carry Sting Ray torpedoes as well as advanced sonics. In this respect it will have some of the characteristics of the Nimrod which will make it a formidable ASW system. It will provide a full capability in one helicopter both to detect and kill enemy submarines at longer range.
The intention is to develop the helicopter in collaboration with Italy and jointly with industry. Good progress has been made with the Italian Government—I discussed the project with my Italian colleague as recently as this Monday—and I hope that a joint contract can be signed early next year. Commercial and military versions of the helicopter are also planned to increase numbers and keep down unit costs.
The type 23 will be able to operate as an independent unit with its embarked organic air capability for considerable periods, without support.
Mr. Keith Speed: That is encouraging news on the type 23. Am I right in assuming from what my right hon. Friend said in connection with the E101 helicopter that the type 23 will have a hangar rather than just a flight deck? That appears to be inherent in what my right hon. Friend is saying.
Mr. Nott: The type 23 is planned to have a hangar which will take the new Sea King replacement. We may also lengthen it slightly so that it is capable of taking the existing Sea King, although clearly the existing Sea King is not a suitable aircraft for landing on decks in bad weather, as my hon. Friend knows.
The House will know the importance that I attach to increasing the submarine flotilla. With its long endurance, speed and modem sonars, the SSN—the hunter-killer nuclear submarine—is a vital part of our armoury of weapons for dealing with the threat posed by the Soviet submarine and surface fleet. SSNs neutralised the whole of the Argentine fleet. Four SSNs are currently being built. We plan to order another—SSN 17—later this financial year, with a further order—SSN 18—following in 1983–84 in order to meet our aim of achieving a force level of 17 later in the decade. If resources permit we also hope to place an order for a further SSN—SSN 19—before work starts on the Trident submarines.
To complement our nuclear-powered submarine fleet we need a successor to the current very successful Oberon class of conventionally powered boats. Quieter than the SSNs, they are particularly difficult to detect and are in many ways superior to an SSN in shallower waters.
Work on the new type 2400 class is now well advanced. I am glad to inform the House that we are going out to tender today for the first of this new class, with a view to placing an order next year. This is a major step forward in an important field and I am sure that the House will welcome it.
I come next to HMS "Invincible" which has given such invaluable service in the Falklands conflict. The House is aware of the characteristically generous offer from the Prime Minister of Australia. We have taken up his offer of discussions and I hope to make a full statement on the subject in due course.
A significant enhancement of our capability would be an airborne early warning radar on our carriers. We are, therefore, as an interim measure fitting a maritime search radar—modified significantly to give it an airborne early warning role—in Sea King helicopters for deployment to the South Atlantic in order to respond to our immediate AEW needs. For the longer term we are conducting urgent studies into the overall need for shipborne AEW.
I must now talk briefly about money. Some of the comment in recent weeks has been conducted as though we could somehow enhance our defences yet further, within the 3 per cent. target, either by robbing one capability or one NATO role to pay for another or by re-organising our procurement processes. There will always be some savings to be made from greater efficiency—we have introduced new procedures throughout the MOD this year—but to suggest that in greater efficiency there is a crock of gold that will finance major new defence capabilities is quite frankly nonsense.
Nor do I believe that any of the capabilities that I have so far described can be safely reduced or eliminated. If we gave up one capability—to shelter under the protection of our allies—what would happen if we found ourselves on
1066
our own again, as we have in the past few weeks? If Great Britain ever abandons a balanced mix of forces—Navy, Army and Air Force—we shall ultimately rely on someone else for a key part of our defence and ultimately we shall be vulnerable to someone else's blackmail.
As I have already announced, warship and equipment losses during the Falklands campaign will be replaced—not necessarily on a like for like basis—out of moneys in addition to the 3 per cent. commitment, and the same applies to the cost of a garrison, although it is too early to say what that cost will be. I have taken note of a motion on the Order Paper signed by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which urges a significant increase in defence expenditure in real terms over and above the cost of the Falkland Islands expedition and garrison.
Of course the Government will be considering in the annual public expenditure survey whether more can be made available for defence beyond our commitment to meet the 3 per cent. NATO aim in full plus the Falkland additions. But I would be failing in my duty if I were to propose a new defence programme—based on additions to our existing capability—either before we had studied the lessons of the Falklands or without the cash to pay for it. That way lies chaos.
I have noted the criticisms of the Labour Opposition, some of which have been widely voiced, about the size of the surface fleet. But the facts are that we are spending nearly £500 million more in real terms on the conventional naval programme than the previous Government in the year before we took office. We shall still be spending more on the conventional Navy, at the peak of Trident expenditure, than when the Labour Party was in power. It is true that I have made a switch in emphasis in our forward plans from ship platforms to naval weapons, but I made it clear that our force structure must be one that we can afford to sustain with modern weapons and equipment and with proper war stocks. That is less glamorous than maximising the number of large and costly platforms in our armoury but it is far and away the best way of spending money for real security value.
I hope that I have not made a controversial speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "You have"] It is controversial in the defence sense but not in the political sense. I have just seen the new policy document that the Labour Party's National Executive will submit for approval to the Labour Party conference. It repeats the motion on which the Labour Party voted last year:
"Labour will reduce defence expenditure to the average proportion of the gross domestic product spent by the other European NATO countries."
Such a commitment—
Mr. John Silkin: Will the Secretary of State read the proviso?
Mr. Nott: The proviso is:
"bearing in mind the need to avoid widespread and precipitate redundancies for which no alternative work has been provided, and Britain's need to provide adequate conventional defence forces."
Last year the Labour Party voted to reduce defence expenditure to the European NATO average. Such a commitment would reduce our total planned defence budget by about one-third. In the planned 18-year procurement period of Trident, the reduction implied in such a commitment would be equal to about 11 Trident programmes.

1067
A study of the conflict in the South Atlantic and the lessons of it will necessarily take some time. On their return we shall be debriefing the operational commanders at all levels who took part in the campaign. There is, naturally, keen parliamentary and public interest in this exercise. Until we have done so, it would be wrong for us to rush forward in the next few weeks with a preliminary statement of our conclusions. Some aspects, such as the effectiveness of individual weapon systems, will remain operationally sensitive for some time and others will require considerable research and analysis before the facts can be established and the right conclusions drawn. I shall publish a White Paper on those conclusions and what they imply for the future towards the end of the year.
Mr. Cryer: The Secretary of State will have seen reports that HMS "Sheffield" carried nuclear weapons and that there may be contamination of the South Atlantic. There have been denials from the Ministry of Defence, but can the Secretary of State say categorically that the reports are untrue and that no nuclear weapons were carried?
Mr. Nott: We never confirm or deny rumours about the carriage of nuclear weapons on any of our ships or aircraft. I have no intention of being drawn further on the subject.
Mr. Stanley Newens: Does the Secretary of State accept that if we provide all the additional conventional equipment that he has suggested and continue with Trident, we must sustain a vast increase in the defence budget? Is there not a strong case for reviewing the Trident programme and excluding it completely from our future defence plans? That would still enable us to have a reasonable conventional defence force.
Mr. Nott: The programme that I have outlined, including Trident, can be contained within the planned amounts that the Government have announced—the 3 per cent. growth in the defence budget.
It is already clear that, by any historical standard, the ships of the task force and its aircraft performed a magnificent feat of arms. The Argentine fleet was largely bottled up throughout the conflict in port or in home waters by our nuclear submarines. Our destroyers and frigates in the front line showed great courage in ensuring that the landing at San Carlos beachhead was achieved with such success. In such dangerously exposed conditions we could not have expected to achieve that objective without losses and damage to our ships.
Repair work to the damaged ships will be undertaken as a matter of urgency. In the immediate future much additional work must be done to repair battle and weather damage and, equally important, to catch up with the normal programme of repairs, dockings, and maintenance periods disrupted by the Falklands crisis. It is not yet possible to assess precisely the extent of the task or how it will affect the rate at which we move towards a naval operating and maintaining base, which remains the intention for Portsmouth, but I can say that no further compulsory redundancy notices will be issued at Portsmouth before 1 January 1983. The 180 redundancy notices already issued before 2 April will also, for the time being, be withdrawn. We should be in a position by early in the New Year to announce a firm plan for the rate of manpower reduction at Portsmouth. The planned expansion of Devonport and Rosyth will continue.
I have considered whether there are grounds for retaining the hold that was put on redundancy notices at
1068
Chatham. However, our conclusion is that the work required on the surface fleet as a result of recent operations can be accommodated at the other dockyards, including Portsmouth, where many of the ships are based.
Chatham has a nuclear submarine refitting load to complete but while we have re-examined the future nuclear work load in view of the proven importance of the SSN fleet, it is with regret that I must confirm our previous plans for the closure of Chatham dockyard and naval base by April 1984. That will also allow for the transfer of specialist staff from Chatham to Devonport to be resumed, which is necessary for the build-up of capacity there.
Gibraltar dockyard may take some of the less complex work arising from the South Atlantic operation, but there are no plans to reverse the decision for it to close next year. In discussing its possible future commercial operation with the Gibraltar Government we have proposed and they have welcomed the possibility of a continued naval work load.
Sir Frederick Burden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that HMS "Swiftsure" has already been at Devonport for nearly three years, and it is not believed that she will become operational after refit until next March, so that she will have been there for three and a half years, whereas Chatham is the only Royal Naval dockyard that has so far refitted, refuelled and produced seven operational SSNs? Therefore, how can my right hon. Friend possibly place at risk the future operational efficiency of the SSN fleet, when not one SSN has yet been produced at Devonport, and he stated in the last White Paper that it is the most important naval weapon that we possess?
Mr. Nott: The recent record of Chatham in the SSN refit has been excellent, and I have nothing but praise for the work that the men in Chatham have undertaken. It therefore makes it all the more distressing for my hon. Friend, and for myself, to insist that it is necessary to close Chatham. It cannot be kept open within the resources that we now possess.
I should like to have a fall-back insurance nuclear refit capacity if I could, but I am afraid that within our resources it is better to build up the assets that we have at Devonport and Rosyth, and proceed in that way. I regret that I must confirm this closure. I knew that it would upset my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that that is the way it has to be.
Sir Frederick Burden: Disgraceful.
Mr. Roger Moate: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the widespread anger in the Medway area, and the tremendous disappointment at his announcement. However, will my right hon. Friend tell us how many SSNs were engaged in the South Atlantic operations? Must not the intensive use of the SSNs in that campaign have an affect on the refuelling and refitting programme? Surely the expansion of the submarine programme must make it common sense for my right hon. Friend to consider his plans for the dramatic cutback on the refitting and refuelling capacity for our submarine fleet.
Mr. Nott: I cannot reveal the number of SSNs that were participating in the Falkland operation. We never reveal matters of that kind. We hope to have 17 SSNs in the Fleet by the end of the decade, and the programme for their refit can be done in Rosyth and Devonport. My hon. Friend does not believe that that is the case, and I respect his judgment, but that is the decision that we have had to come to.

1069
The manpower plans of the Royal Navy too will, of course, need to be reviewed in the context of decisions on ships and equipment and the consequential effect on naval shore posts. This review will take a little time to complete, since it must take account also of our studies in depth of the Falklands' campaign.
The "Statement on the Defence Estimates" which I present to Parliament today represents, in the same form and covering the same period as its predecessors, the defence programmes and the activities of our Armed Forces in the period leading up to the beginning of this financial year. I believe that the continuity of these statements is important, and has proved of value to Parliament over many years. That the statement contains the names of ships tragically lost or of matters overtaken in the events of the past few weeks does not negate its value, particularly with reference to the main threat to the United Kingdom from the Soviet Union.
It was, I believe, in accordance with the general mood of the House that publication of the statement was delayed at the outset of the Falklands crisis. Our debate today therefore takes place several weeks later than is normal. In the intervening period our Armed Forces have been engaged in one of the most brilliantly conducted military operations of recent times.
By their bravery and by their skill, by their heroism and by their sacrifice, they have restored the liberty and rights of the Falkland Islanders. In so doing, they have demonstrated the principles for which we as a nation stand, and for which we are prepared to fight. Let those who might seek to attack our freedom, and that of the Western Alliance, be warned. Our defences are strong and it is our earnest intention to strengthen them further, year by year.
5.15 pm
Mr. John Silkin: I am glad that the words in the foreword issued by the Secretary of State to the statement on the Defence Estimates, in which he praises the professionalism of the Armed Forces used in the Falklands campaign, have been amplified by him today. I happily join him in congratulating our troops on their skills and heroism and in mentioning, because this will be the will of the House, not just those who died and suffered in the campaign but those who may be permanently injured. May we never forget what they did.
The defence statement is out of date and irrelevant. The Secretary of State, if he had wished, could simply have given us a single statement in which he said, "I shall spend a few months—I or my successor—looking at the lessons that have been learnt, and I shall bring the Defence Estimates up to date". That is what he should have done, because this defence statement is out-of-date. It has no real relevance.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Why?
Mr. Silkin: I am about to explain, if the hon. Gentleman listens to what I have to say, as I am sure he will, with the courtesy that we all know is part of his nature.
It is because the defence statement is about as relevant as a punctured balloon that the Opposition do not intend, unlike the minority parties below the Gangway, to table an amendment. There seems to be no possible reason why
1070
we should try to reconstitute a punctured balloon. We are simply against the defence statement and I propose to give the reasons why.
First, has the Secretary of State—have all of us—learnt lessons from the Falklands campaign, and, if so, what lessons? The one lesson that I hope that the House has learnt applies to present and previous Governments. It is something that we could, with due humility as a House of Commons, understand and learn. The subject comes in paragraphs 404 and 409 of the Estimates. I quote from paragraph 409:
"We shall also be paying greater attention to the sales potential of projects and programmes authorised for the Armed Forces… We estimate that defence sales transactions will reach £1,800 million in 1982/83."
That is a lot of money, and it may be a lot of jobs, but it can also be, as we have learnt to our cost, a number of lives, and a number of British lives.
The same thing happened in the Second World War, when many arms supplies were sent to Japan and Germany and later used against us. If we have not learnt that lesson, all Governments should learn it in the future. I should have preferred the Secretary of State to say something about arms sales, and at least to have told us that he and his successors intended to be much more careful about where the arms were going, as I hope we shall when the Labour Party is in Government.
Sir Frederick Burden: I was concerned to note that, when it was stated that the type 23 frigate would be used as a replacement, it was also stated that it would have considerable export potential. It occurs to me to wonder, if it is to be such a vital part of our defence in the future, why we should make it available to a potential enemy.
Mr. Silkin: I was about to say that the Secretary of State and all right hon. and hon. Members should consider to what extent we are trying to produce arms for export which are not necessarily suitable for our own defence purposes. That is not necessarily relevant to what the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) said, but it has a general relevance, and is something of which we should all be aware.
Second, in the foreword, the right hon. Gentleman rightly pays tribute to the professionalism of our Armed Forces, and we join him in that tribute. It says that
"evidence that our force structure is adaptable enough to permit an effective and timely response to developments both within and outside the NATO area"
is demonstrated by the Falklands campaign. That is a most extraordinary comment. Had the Argentine Fascists not been so impatient and had they waited a year or two, it would have been demonstrably false. That is a lesson that I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman had learnt.
The third reason relates to the query that was raised by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). Here again, the foreword says:
"The framework of that programme"—
that is, the previous programme in Cmnd. 8288—
"remains appropriate".
How can it possibly remain appropriate, in view of the difficulty of sending a fleet 8,000 miles across the world, and when that fleet, in the Secretary of State's own plans, would be decimated in a year or two?
Mr. Robert Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman provoked me somewhat by saying that he thought that the defence White Paper was a punctured balloon, although he has not yet proved that statement. As 98 per cent. of the

1071
defence White Paper concerns the Warsaw Pact threat, such as it is, and the threat from the Eastern bloc, to what extent has that changed, except to increase, since we debated the matter, and before the Falklands campaign had its effect?
Mr. Silkin: I am coming to that matter in the few minutes in which I hope to be allowed to address the House on this important question.
We and every generation have to learn the lesson that we have been told over and again, that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Each generation learns that. Here I should like to quote the Labour Party's defence policy—more fairly than the right hon. Gentleman did—hoping that the House will bear with me:
"The central objective of Labour's defence policy is the promotion of peace and security. Britain should have sufficient military strength to discourage external aggression and to defend ourselves should we be attacked".
I hope that every hon. Member will agree with that proposition. It is the framework of the Labour Party's defence policy.
There are three elements in any defence policy, and certainly there are three elements in the present Government's defence policy. The first is our policy in the area outside NATO. According to the Secretary of State, the framework in Cmnd. 8288 is appropriate. Despite what he says, much of the surface fleet was laid down in the days of the Labour Government, and it is coming to fruition now. However, the right hon. Gentleman proposes a cut in the active fleet. The fleet of destroyers and frigates is to he cut from 56 to 42. I am glad that we are to replace, although we do not know in what way. I gather that like for like is out. We are not certain how it will be done. What the Secretary of State has told the House this afternoon deserves much more study.
It is also true that, since the start of March, nine ships have been reprieved. "Fearless" and "Intrepid" were reprieved in March. We are glad to hear about "Endurance", but that news came rather late, after the rather contemptuous reply that the right hon. Gentleman gave on 29 March to a question from one of his hon. Friends, and the contemptuous reply of the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Prime Minister. "Falmouth" and "Londonderry" are already operational, and "Berwick", "Tartar", "Gurkha" and "Zulu" will be operational by the end of July. So that is all right. Nevertheless, we still have a fleet which looks considerably smaller in the years ahead in this decade than it was when the Government came to office.
The hon. Member for Preston, North asked, "What about the Russian threat? What about NATO? Why should we bother outside NATO?" I looked for a moment at the strains that had been put on the Fleet over the past few years, under both Labour and Conservative Governments. There was the Beira patrol and the cod war, and there still is the Gulf patrol. There is the Caribbean frigate and—very relevant today—Belize and the guard ships that are necessary there. There is also, for the future, fortress Falklands. No one has said for how long that will be necessary. The Government have not told us. If the Prime Minister had her way, no doubt it would go on for ever. No doubt the Thatcher-Nichols correspondence will be a gem for naval historians for years to come, but if anyone
1072
were to tell me that 75 marines were sufficient to deter aggression, I would not believe it. We shall need a fleet, and we shall need a surface fleet.
There are other bases too. If any part of the world wishes the British Fleet to continue and wants to have its protection, that area is the Third world. There are good reasons for that. The Third world does not trust the superpowers. It does not trust the United States or the Soviet Union, but curiously enough, it has a great belief in the ability and willingness of the United Kingdom and the British Fleet to protect it.
One day we shall have something else to reckon with. It is all very well for us to say, as we often do, that the United Nations is a powerless and impotent institution. The truth is that the United Nations needs to come into a crisis before war breaks out. It has proved a failure as a viable force when it comes in after a war has been declared or after it is over, merely as an occupying force. For example, when it was in Sharm E1 Sheikh in 1967 it really stopped Middle East wars, and the succession of Middle East wars that followed 1967 owe much to the United Nations forces having been removed from Sharm E1 Sheikh at that time.
All this leads to another consequence. One day there will have to be a directly recruited United Nations police force. It need not be very large, but it should be capable of great mobility and of going to any area in the world. If it is to do that, it needs to be backed up, and it would need to be backed up by a force such as the British Fleet.
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most regrettable decisions was the premature reduction of British forces in the Gulf by the Labour Government in 1967? Would he and the Labour Party consider it right that there should be an allied naval force in the south Atlantic and the Indian Ocean, since we cannot have a United Nations force?
Mr. Silkin: I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), and it would be futile of me to say that I did. Moreover, that is not relevant to the debate. I am prepared to argue with him about history any day he wishes, over that glass of cognac which he once said enabled all arguments to be settled, but not in the House on this defence debate.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend rose—
Mr. Silkin: May I be allowed to proceed? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will intervene later.
If we are to fulfil the obligation of keeping the peace outside NATO, we need a surface fleet. There is a great deal to be learnt about sea-to-air missiles, decoys, electronic counter measures, Sea Harriers and helicopters from the Falklands crisis. There is also a great deal to be learnt in general terms.
I agree with the Secretary of State about the effect that the hunter-killer submarines had during the campaign. They certainly kept the Argentine navy in harbour. In doing so, they saved many lives, British and Argentine. However, they could not protect the merchant ships, the landing ships, the marines who served so gallantly during the war, or the troops who landed there. Only "Hermes" and "Invincible" could do that, and only "Hermes" and "Invincible" did. We were lucky to have other makeshift decks. We were lucky to have "Atlantic Conveyor". 'We were lucky to have the brave men of the Merchant Navy.

1073
It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East who, when he was Prime Minister, saw that we had the merchant shipping register. I think that that was about 1978. Would we have been in a position to send the merchant fleet train into the Falklands area if he had not done so?
We must learn that such an expedition needs to be protected by a surface fleet. I have tried to show that such a crisis can happen anywhere in the world at any time. The moment that one destroys that capability, the possibility of our being able to act is destroyed.
Again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has learnt that lesson. I doubt that he will be in the same position 18 months or two years from now. However, if he were, could he mount that expedition to the Falklands again? Of course he could not, and he knows that he could not. That should have been the main lesson that he learnt.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to create a balance in this matter, should he not also draw attention to the incredible vulnerability of surface ships, both to conventional bombing and to advanced missile technology? Does not that highlight one of the basic points in the White Paper that we must gently tilt the balance in favour of our underwater fleet?
Mr. Silkin: The terrible vulnerability of warfare is that ships are sunk and people get killed. That has happened in every sea battle. Of course, there may be technical lessons to be learnt. However, the lesson is not that surface vessels should be abandoned. If that were done, how could the fleet train be sent out? With the best will in the world, it could not be done with SSNs. I agree, they are good, but that is not the way to do it.
Mr. Ioan Evans: The White Paper has been overtaken by the Falklands crisis. My right hon. Friend referred to the intervention of the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) and the intervention in the Trident debate—which must be spelt out again—when the Secretary of State was asked why £3 million could not be spent to defend the Falklands yet the Government were prepared to spend £8,000 million on Trident. Did they not make a complete hash of Britain's contribution to Western defence and is that not why we should have a new White Paper today?
Mr. Silkin: That is right. My hon. Friend is merely underlining what I say.
I said that three elements should be considered. The second of those elements is our position inside NATO. NATO has now been in existence since 1949–33 years; a generation and a half. It is after an event such as the Falklands war that we should reconsider the relevance to NATO of the lessons that have been learnt.
The Labour Party is right to say that our first duty is to defend our island and to deter external aggression. Our first duty should be to protect the United Kingdom and its air region.
Let us consider what is happening inside NATO now—the Russian threat that the hon. Member for Preston, North mentioned. Seventy per cent. of the naval forces guarding the eastern Atlantic and the Channel are British. One quarter of our defence budget is spent on achieving that defence. Ten per cent. of the troops are
1074
British. The Secretary of State gave the figure of 55,000 and over 40 per cent. of the budget is spent on them. The cost of manufacturing investment forgone, the cost of research and development channelled into military rather than civil projects, bears heavily upon Britain.
The Secretary of State made much play, some of it teasing, of the Labour Party's defence programme. He arrived at astronomic savings which would result in a negative figure for defence. Although he was asked to do so, he did not fully quote the extract from the National Executive Council's defence programme.
The right hon. Gentleman never tells us, although it happens to be true—it was denied at one point but I believe he accepted it later—that the amount of GDP spent by Britain in NATO is a greater percentage than that of any other NATO power, not excluding the United States. We have always talked in terms of Germany and "?France" which is both in and out of NATO. Incidentally, on a technical point, why does the right hon. Gentleman exclude France from NATO in this Cmnd. Paper whereas in Cmnd. 8288 he included France? It would be interesting to know what curious mechanics resulted in that.
Britain spends more of its GDP than any other NATO power defending NATO—more than the Americans. It would not be a bad thing if the burden was shared. I fully accept that defence inflation in all countries—West Germany as much as ourselves—is greater than ordinary inflation. That is one reason why more is being spent by the Government on naval defence—as the right hon. Gentleman so often tells us—than was spent under the Labour Government. However, that is no reason why we should have to bear the lion's share the whole time. There should be a more equal distribution.
I do not know what the basis of such a review might be, but, taking the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman in the defence statement, there are about 70,000 British troops and RAF personnel; 10,800 in the RAF and about 60,000 in the Army. Of course, there is a huge backup. About £650 million in German deutschemarks is spent on local German personnel and on their housing. However, France contributes 51,000 personnel.
France is, and always has been, a continental power. We are not. For centuries, our policy has been to use our island as a floating platform for landing troops on the Continent and for sending them wherever they are needed. Why should France contribute only 51,000 personnel, when we contribute 70,000? Sometimes France is in NATO, and sometimes it is not. However, it is part of our defence and an ally of NATO. That is the truth of the matter. Therefore, there is much to be sorted out and settled between us.
Is it right that we should welcome the arrival of cruise missiles in Britain next year?
Mr. Best: Both World Wars involved Britain because of treaty obligations that contained a commitment to Europe. Were those obligations wrong? Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that Britain would have had a better chance of survival in those two world conflicts if it had waited for the aggressor to march up to the Channel?
Mr. Silkin: It was not wrong to enter into such obligations, but if the hon. Gentleman had listened to me he would not have thought that I wanted to withdraw troops from West Germany. I sought to find a more equitable balance, and that is a different matter.

1075
[Interruption] To do that, I would discuss the issue with our allies. What are allies for? I would point out something that the Government have never pointed out. I would say that we are the paymaster and that it might be right to share the burden a little more equitably.
During Question Time on Tuesday the Minister spoke about cruise missiles and said that they were
"intended by the United States, at the request of Europe, to demonstrate its commitment to the defence of Europe."—[Official Report, 29 June 1982; Vol. 26, c. 738.]
In other words, the Minister thought of it as a political, rather than a military, commitment. Millions of people all over the world are rightly querying the use of nuclear weapons, and have come to the conclusion that there should be a freeze on them and that their use should be limited as quickly as possible. When I was at the United Nations for the second special session, I saw many people demonstrating. There may have been 1 million, although I do not know if the figure was that high. There have been demonstrations all over Europe. We should be talking the matter over with our allies. We should be considering the matter as part of our policy review.
Let us examine our commitments both outside and inside NATO. What we are talking about adds up to a very large proportion of our budget and to heavy expenditure on defence. That must be so. That brings us to the third element in the defence budget—Trident. I do not know whether the Secretary of State wants to bring his figures up to date. He says that Trident will cost £7·5 billion at September 1981 prices. On reflection, he might care to re-examine that figure. After all, the pound is not worth as much as it was in September 1981. The figure usually quoted for Trident is about £10 billion. That is probably the right figure.
As we always have this argument, I shall put the matter quickly, and if I may, slowly, to the Secretary of State so that he has a chance to disagree with me. [Interruption.] I shall go through the arguments statistic by statistic. The right hon. Gentleman needs to be told slowly, because he always gets things wrong. [Interruption.] By "slowly" I mean slowly in words. During the peak years of the Trident programme will it not cost 10·5 per cent. of all equipment?
Mr. Nott: About that.
Mr. Silkin: Is it not a fact that during the peak years the cost will be close to 20 per cent. of new equipment as opposed to all equipment?
Mr. Nott: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but we do not have a concept of "new equipment". Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will define what he means. At the beginning of every financial year 90 per cent. of the continuing defence budget is committed. We have never had a concept of "new equipment". The right hon. Gentleman is trying to coin a new concept.
Mr. Silkin: I am trying to coin a practical concept. I am talking about new orders. Perhaps I was speaking too quickly for the right hon. Gentleman. If he studies the matter, I think that he will find that my figures are right and that Trident will cost the equivalent of 20 per cent. of new orders each year during the peak years.
Mr. Nott: That could be right. Is the right hon. Gentleman not in favour of re-equipping the RAF with Tornado? This year and next year Tornado will take up a
1076
far larger proportion of the existing equipment budget—and, if the right hon. Gentleman likes, of the new equipment budget—than Trident will take up at the peak.
Mr. Silkin: I am in favour of Tornado, but not of Trident. I have been trying to tell the right hon. Gentleman that for a long time. We cannot have both and that is the truth of the matter. Let us continue with the statistics.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Trident will cost 30 per cent. of the Royal Navy's budget during the peak years? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will check the figure. He will find that I am right. Does he also agree that Trident will cost the equivalent of more than 50 per cent. of new orders for Royal Navy equipment during the peak years? That is what it is all about.
Mr. Nott: The Royal Navy is in favour of Trident and believes in it. I have not heard the Royal Navy say that it would rather not have it.
Mr. Silkin: If the Royal Navy was asked to choose between having a surface fleet and Trident in the knowledge that there was a limit, the answer would no doubt be different. I fully understand the views of those Conservative Members who say that they should try to get the money for everything they want. However, that is not the way things go. There will be cash limits of a sort, because there have to be.
Trident represents the Secretary of State's attempt to turn Britain into a super-power. That is the whole purpose of Trident.
Mr. Julian Amery: Earlier, the right hon. Gentleman made an eloquent defence of sending the task force to the Falkland Islands. He went on to say that we should think in terms of being able to operate, in addition, outside the NATO theatre. However, if he had been Secretary of State for Defence, would he have dared to send a task force 8,000 miles away unless we had our own deterrent to guard against nuclear blackmail from the Soviet Union, or from any other quarter? I could understand if the right hon. Gentleman was simply arguing that there was some better or cheaper system than Trident. However, that would be a difficult argument to sustain. Nevertheless, if we are to play a role outside NATO—as we have recently done and as we might have to do again—we must have a deterrent force to guard against nuclear blackmail.
Mr. Silkin: I have always had great respect for the right hon. Gentleman's views on defence, but this is where he and I part company. There is no meeting of minds on this subject. I do not believe that our own nuclear deterrent would have the effect that he says. There is no agreement between us on that point.
Mr. Churchill rose—
Mr. Silkin: In paragraph 102 of the White Paper the right hon. Gentleman says that the cost of Trident is equivalent to that of 300 tanks. He then says that the 300 tanks would not be worth having because of the thousands of tanks in the Warsaw Pact countries.
Let us try another comparison. Trident would be the equivalent of two dozen "Invincibles". It would be the equivalent of over 50 type 22 frigates. It would be the equivalent of 21 more hunter-killers. There is no fairer comparison than that. Therefore, the right hon.

1077
Gentleman's policy is wrong. His policy as defined in the White Paper does not make a suitable or appropriate framework for defence.
Mr. Michael Mates rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order.
Mr. Silkin: I thought that you called "Order", Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I sat down.
Mr. Mates rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did call "order". It was directed to the hon. Member for Petersfield. I was indicating that he should sit down if the right hon. Gentleman did not want to give way.
Mr. Mates: But the right hon. Gentleman will give way.
Mr. Silkin: No he will not. I am nearly at the end of my speech. I do not want to be diverted from it.
The Royal Navy sailed halfway around the world to resolve a conflict, which, with foresight, could have been avoided. The fleet consisted of men carrying redundancy notices on board ships bearing "for sale" signs. That fleet liberated the islands. It kept the Secretary of State in a job for which he has shown himself to be totally unfit. Above all, the Falkland Islands crisis has proved conclusively that last year the Secretary of State adopted a biodegradable defence programme. In common with certain plastic cartons, it rapidly disintegrates when exposed to reality. We have no confidence in the Secretary of State's policy and we have no confidence in him.
5.53 pm
Mr. Alan Clark: This is the first defence debate—I hope that it will be the last—in the immediate aftermath of a brilliantly successful war. Those who gave their lives in the conflict have bought for us by their sacrifice and by their gallantry an inestimable prize, not only in the prestige that they have brought to this country, but in all the lessons that we can now apply to policy and detail of the way in which we defend ourselves.
In the last 20 or 30 years we have been dealing in unrealities, secondhand information and surmise. At last we now have the immediate recollection and lessons of one of the most successful campaigns, one would say the only successful campaign, that has been fought by a member of the Western Alliance since the end of the Second World War. [Interruption.] I hear murmuring behind me. I do not know whether it is acclaim or dissent. I think that I heard one of my hon. Friends mention Malaya, but there is no comparison. This has been a war fought at every level, by every branch of the Services and against every type of conventional weapon. The lessons from it are still being collated. The esteem in which our Services are held throughout the world, not least in the Soviet Union, has advanced immeasurably.
It is a marvellous thing to be able to come to the House of Commons and make those remarks representing a city that played the most conspicuous part in the task force and in the victory. Plymouth supplied more people as a city than any other town in the Kingdom to make up the content of the task force. Its civilian work force played a tremendously important role in the dockyard. Many of us
1078
heard the Commander-in-Chief in the Falkland Islands reproaching those who said that the youth of this country were rotten or corrupt because, in his experience, he had seen that they were absolutely outstanding in quality.
Mr. Edward Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman was one of those people.
Mr. Clark: I never said anything of the sort. How could the hon. Gentleman say that? He never heard me say that. I challenge him to quote it.
Over the past years many people have said—I am not among them, in case the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene—that the work force of this country has often been bolshie and demarcation-minded. The work force of Plymouth dockyard, which has often been been the subject of oblique criticism if not direct reproach, rose to the occasion brilliantly. All trades worked 16 or 20 hours a day. When 20 welders were called for to go to the South Atlantic when it was clear that it was an extremely dangerous assignment, every qualified welder in the dockyard volunteered to go on the assignment.
The response of the civilian work force in the dockyard was without parallel and was a tremendous encouragement to the wives and families of those who were serving in the Falkland Islands. The whole city was of the same mind about the merits of the enterprise and shares in the pride at its successful conclusion.
It is too early for us to digest the detailed military lessons of the campaign. I accept that it was appropriate to publish the White Paper, although it had been printed when none of what has occurred in the past two months had been anticipated. It is useful as a data bank of detail and certain fundamental truths and dispositions. However, I suspect that the fundamental problems that have beset British defence policy, which are that requirements and resources do not match up, remain unaffected by the experience in the South Atlantic. They may be aggravated by it.
I am particularly concerned that our Estimates for the amount of money that will be available are inadequate for the tasks that we shall have to fulfil and the commitments that we have undertaken.
In the Government's plans for public expenditure until 1984–85, £14·1 billion is allocated to defence for 1982–83, £15·3 billion for 1983–84 and £16·4 billion for 1984–85. We shall need to replace not only all the inventories that have been depleted by the Falkland Islands battle, but equipment that has been lost or destroyed. I understand that Treasury Ministers may have agreed to this idea in principle, but in view of the parsimonious record of the Treasury, it would be comforting to have an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—though preferably from the Prime Minister—as soon as possible that that replacement has been authorised and is a separate accounting item from the progression from £14·1 billion to £16·4 billion over the next three years.
The natural upgrading of requirements for defence replacements will make that much more expensive than the original cost adjusted in terms of the real value of the items that have been lost. Plainly, some of the items of equipment that were lost will now be regarded as obsolete and to replace them along the lines that the Services would wish will be much more expensive than simply adjusting for inflation.
Furthermore, the inflation factor in all weapons systems is an insidious feature of defence accounting and will

1079
cause the estimate of £16·4 billion for 1984–85 to appear much understated. The total figure for that year is more likely to be about £18 billion, so at the very least a further £1·6 billion will have to be found.
Dr. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend asking what the difference will be between the use of the contingency fund for replacement and the actual cost?
Mr. Clark: No, I have already accepted that the contingency fund will be used for the immediate day-to-day costing of the Falklands operation.
There is the further problem of replacing inventories—for example, ammunition and missiles that have been expended. Major assets will also have to be replaced, and I suspect that cost inflation will be even more acute than the allowances that have been made. These costs aggravate the continuing and basic dilemma of British defence planning, that our quadrangular commitment is outside the capacity of the resources that are planned to meet it.
Nor do I believe, although I would personally welcome it, that these resources will be greatly augmented. The House knows what this quadrangular commitment is and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State summarised it lucidly. It involves a credible strategic nuclear deterrent, the need to defend the home base of the United Kingdom—in particular its air space—the need to defend the North Atlantic sea lanes and blockade the outlets of the Arctic passage and a commitment to maintain a standing Army on the mainland of Europe.
The question that we have to decide is whether we continue to attempt to discharge all four of these roles, in my view, increasingly inadequately. However good our professional expertise, if that expertise is continually to be constrained by an erosion of the financial resources that are made available, all of the commitments will suffer.
The real problem for the United Kingdom is that it is still attempting to fulfil the role of a super-power in miniature. Within our quadrangular commitment—it largely arose accidentally—it is impossible for us to discard the obligation to our people, together with the role that we have undertaken to play in the Western Alliance to defend Western values. It is impossible for us to discard our commitment to a strategic nuclear deterrent.
The Trident system is probably the best of the successor systems, although there are detailed problems attaching to the real independence that it gives us, about which I am not entirely happy. Nor I think would anyone in the House deny the importance of defending the home base and of maintaining the air defence of Great Britain.
There are, then, only two competing areas in which we have to decide the allocation of priorities if both those areas are not to suffer from a depletion of resources and to be discharged inadequately. The first of these is the maritime role, which, as I understand it, means not only the defence of the North Atlantic sea lanes, the blockading of the Arctic passages and the convoying of resources and men to Europe from America, but the out-of-area capability, the capability to intervene in whatever guise. I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) say from the Opposition Front Bench that he, too, envisaged the possibility of the Royal Navy being used in future to support, for example, United Nations intervention forces.
If we are to retain the blue water capacity for the Royal Navy that has been so brilliantly illustrated around the
1080
Falkland Islands over the past two months, as well as close defence requirements in the Atlantic approaches, I do not see how we can possibly justify depleting their and our other roles by an allocation of what is at the very minimum one-third of our resources in men, equipment and money to the maintenance of a standing Army on the mainland of Europe.
I have heard my right hon. Friend respond to this argument on many occasions and I am very grateful to him for staying in his place and allowing me to develop it once again. My right hon. Friend's answers vary—sometimes, it seems, according to his mood. He answers under three headings and they are as follows: first, that the Rhine Army is already at an irreducible minimum; secondly, that its removal would open a gap of 65 miles on the central front that could not be filled; and thirdly—this is, as it were, his ultimate fall-back position—that such a course would not save any money. Indeed, he sometimes goes further and says that to alter the size and status of the Rhine Army would actually cost money.
I invite the House to look more closely at these assertions. My right hon. Friend's argument is that the Rhine Army is at an irreducible minimum. The most obvious rejoinder is "An irreducible minimum for what?" If in logic any mass can be reduced indefinitely, and if in mathematics any number can be reduced in size without limit, I do not see what purpose the Rhine Army serves in a military sense that is in the slightest commensurate with its cost in financial and resource terms.
Will two isolated armoured divisions without defence on their flanks, and without proper lines of communication, or with highly vulnerable lines of communication back to their home country, play a significant role for more than 72 hours in a conventional battle on that scale on the central front? In any case, is not that conventional battle by far the least probable of all the possible contingencies that defence planners have to consider? Is it not the case that these resources are being devoted to a purpose that is not only the least probable but the least cost-effective of all the roles with which my right hon. Friend is charged?
If we accept that the Rhine Army's presence on the central front is fundamentally necessary or that a presence of two armoured divisions is necessary to guard against certain contingencies which may be more likely than many of us in the House can assess, we move on to the compulsion of my right hon. Friend's second argument, which is that to remove the Rhine Army would open a gap of 65 miles on the central front that could not be filled. My response is "Of course the gap would be filled."
The gap would be filled in the same way as gaps that opened on the eastern front for three years during the Second World War were always filled—until the very end. When there is a need to fill a gap, when there is a perceived urgent danger, resources will be found and the gap will be filled. That those resources should not come from the United Kingdom is another matter. The notion that a gap will be left indefinitely by our allies in NATO is not credible.
The Secretary of State says that no money would be saved by reducing the Rhine Army. I cannot accept the logic of the argument that if one reduces the size of something that is absorbing one-third of one's resources there will be no saving as a result of so doing.
Mr. Nott: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that it should be disbanded?
Mr. Clark: I agree that I am talking about drastic measures—a smaller Army. We must face the fact that we cannot sustain the quadrangle of commitment. The least essential element in that quadrangle is the Rhine Army.
Mr. Churchill: Does my hon. Friend not recognise that for a nation of 55 million we already have a tiny Army and that to do what he advocates would pull the rug politically from under our European Allies and NATO? Is he aware that nothing could be a greater invitation to the United States to withdraw her 200,000-man army from Europe, without which, regrettably, we would be almost defenceless in Europe?
Mr. Clark: It may be true that we have a tiny Army, but it absorbs an enormous proportion of our resources that are available for defence. That it would pull the rug from under our allies in NATO is a shorthand way of saying that the existing structure of NATO is long overdue for reconstruction. That leads to the question of rationalisation and the specialisation of roles within NATO. My hon. Friend's final point, that what I advocate would lead to the United States withdrawing its army, is spurious. The United States' presence in Europe accords with its perception of where its interests lie.
Mr. Churchill: So does ours.
Mr. Clark: The only thing that keeps the United States in Europe is that Europe is an extremely effective forward area for its own defence.
Mr. Churchill: Is it not for others?
Sir Frederick Burden: Does my hon. Friend agree that it should also be borne in mind that not only are 55,000 British troops on the Rhine, but that we must pay for 30,000 German civilians to support those troops?
Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is true, the House knows it well. One is easily misrepresented in advancing a concept that has long been regarded as heretical. The House should remember that our original presence on the mainland of Europe and our present disposition arise out of the old pattern of the occupation forces that we sent there, first to hold down Germany and, secondly, when we decided to rearm Germany, to reassure the Russians, the French and our allies that the situation would be under control because we would have our own occupation force, however dressed, on the mainland of Europe.
Those arguments are now forgotten. We are told that we must keep the Army there because its absence will open a 65-mile gap that no one will fill. I see no rational transference of the argument between those two states.
Mr. John Morris rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is an extremely long list of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak, and interjections cause delay.
Mr. Clark: I am glad that I am stimulating the House, but I welcome your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A new look at the rationalisation of roles in NATO is long overdue. It is for my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues, whose function it is to examine diplomatic and foreign relations matters, to discuss the issue seriously with our allies and to persuade them that far higher level of specialisation of roles is the only way of keeping the Alliance effective.
1082
It is folly to ignore the truth of this proposition: there are certain roles for which some nations are uniquely competent; there are some for which countries have a traditional preference; and there are some which, in the jargon of economists, they have a comparative advantage. For the United Kingdom, the maritime role must be the one that we best discharge. I have argued that case before. I never expected to be able to do so in the aftermath of a victory so brilliant, and one so clearly demonstrative of the truth of that proposition.
6.16 pm
Mr. Richard Crawshaw: I beg to move to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'fully supports the United Kingdom's continued membership of NATO; recognises that this involves both a commitment to detente through negotiations for multilateral arms control and disarmament and to deterrence through conventional and nuclear forces; declines to approve Her Majesty's Government's decision to purchase Trident missiles but despite the present economic difficulties believes that the NATO commitment to an annual increase of 3 per cent. in defence expenditure should be maintained.'
There was much sense in what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) said. Those who know anything about NATO know that the disposition of our forces on the Rhine makes no sense. The same provision could be achieved with greater economy of effort and expense. That matter should be examined.
The Secretary of State for Defence is getting into hot water for sending certain documents to educational establishments. I understand that advice about the role of our forces has been arriving at some educational establishments. It is time that we put the other case. In many instances we are losing the argument by default.
There is a great fear about nuclear weapons. No hon. Member believes that a nuclear war will start by countries firing large-scale nuclear weapons at each other, but if one resorts to a hedge-hopping system of defence on the western front the nuclear threshold will be lowered. That western front would be overrun now, even with the positions that we hold, and even if additional forces went there. If a nuclear conflict takes place, it will occur in those circumstances.
The official Opposition should note that it is no good talking about defending Britain—that implies defence with NATO—unless people are prepared to spend money on conventional defence. It is all very well for the Russians to say, as they now do, that they will never fire nuclear weapons first. They do not need to. If they used conventional forces they would be through within a fortnight. Therefore, the Russians do not need to promise that they will not use nuclear weapons. That places us in a serious moral dilemma—we cannot follow suit.
It is important that we spend even more money on conventional defences than is now being spent if we are to guard against the very thing that everyone fears. People are closing their eyes to the issues if they ask for the withdrawal of nuclear defences without putting the money into conventional defences. I ask the official Opposition to consider that very seriously.
When I spoke on defence about three months ago, I made some harsh comments about the cuts in the conventional Navy. Had the Falklands crisis occurred before then, I should have been full of tribute for what happened. Unfortunately, it took place this year and I was

1083
proved wrong. If it had taken place in a year's time, however, I think that many who spoke in that debate would have been proved right, because we would not have had the resources to mount the operation that we managed to mount. I can see that that does not please the Secretary of State, to whom I intended to pay tribute, as he has much to be proud of in the way in which the forces were got together and sent. That could not have been done by overnight planning. There must have been intense planning on these aspects for a long time. I therefore pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman.
It is easy to start drawing all kinds of lessons from the recent conflict, but I think that that would be unwise, as there are many lessons that we do not yet know and which have still to be learnt. It brought out one thing, however. Although it is true that one cannot have one ship in two places at the same time, sometimes it is unwise to have two inadequately protected ships in one place. There is reason to believe that some of the vessels sent to the South Atlantic were deprived of defences as a result of economies in their construction. If the Falklands operation has taught us anything, it is that a scientific approach to all aspects of warfare must be carried to its extreme. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments about weapons on platforms. That lesson must be learnt.
All of this makes me wonder. The Argentine army had only 11,000 men operating on the Falklands. If they had had a large army and a large navy and 200 aircraft capable of dropping Exocet missiles on our fleet, what would have happened? They would not have needed an army or a navy. As I said in the last debate, the important thing is whether one can get one's weapons to their targets, not how many one has.
In its other aspect, the Falklands campaign showed that resolute men with a land-to-air blowpipe missile can easily and rapidly destroy a £10 million aircraft. Indeed, I read that even a NAAFI manager with a machine gun was capable of bringing one down. There are plenty of lessons to be learnt. In considering recent events, not only the present Government but previous Governments should be complimented on many aspects of our defence system, but we must not stop there.
Another aspect of our defences that has been touched on briefly today is our Merchant Navy. Over the past seven years the Merchant Navy has been depleted by about 40 per cent. In that time 12,000 officers and 13,000 ratings have gone. But for the Merchant Navy, the Falklands operation could not have been launched.
What thought has been given to ensuring that Merchant Navy ships that are likely to be used in time of war are constructed in the best possible manner for that dual role? That is how money will be saved. In the South Atlantic, Merchant Navy vessels fulfilled roles that could not have been imagined 10 years ago. Therefore, when the ships are constructed in our yards the Ministry of Defence should take full cognisance of how this is done and put forward proposals to ensure that the ships can easily be converted. On this occasion some of the ships were easily converted, but with more forethought more could have been done.
We might have been better served with other aircraft if the conveyors could have been converted into bigger aircraft carriers. Lifts could be fitted to allow aircraft to be lifted up on to the decks instead of having to be kept on the ships. In the event of a war against Russia, the Merchant Navy will survive by its ability to recognise a threat before it actually strikes. Unless it is protected by
1084
the Navy or, as in many cases it will have to be, by aircraft from the ships themselves, we shall suffer very sad losses indeed.
Tribute has been paid to the Service men, and I add my personal tribute. I do not think that any force has ever come out with more flying colours that that which went to the Falkland Islands. There were not only Service men there, however. There were also men from the Merchant Navy and we have heard how they volunteered for the task. Sir John Fieldhouse, Commander-in-Chief of the Fleet said:
"I cannot say too often or too clearly how important has been the Merchant Navy's contribution to our efforts. Without the ships taken up from trade, the operation could not have been undertaken and I hope this message is clearly understood by the British nation."
I hope that it is understood by the House as well.
In paying our tribute to those in the Merchant Navy who served, and especially those who lost their lives, it must be said that, at the end of the day, whether in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, the loyalty and spirits of the men are what really count, irrespective of the weapons that they are using. I hope that this country will only ever send its men into battles of which we can be proud and feel no sense of shame whatever.
6.28 pm
Mr. Julian Critchley: The victory in the Falklands was a marvellous feat of arms. I think that the whole House would agree with so obvious a proposition. We move on from that victory, however, to discuss the implications of that war and the lessons that we shall have to learn from it. As the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence wrestle with this problem and, one hopes, bring out their document by November or December, no doubt the rest of us in our own small way will contribute to the lessons to be learnt. Those lessons will be important, but I believe that they are on the margin. The Falklands Islands expedition was one off. It should not lead us to restate or rethink the fundamentals of our defence attitudes and policy, which I believe were more or less on the right lines before the Falklands crisis occurred.
The most interesting thing to come out of the Falkland Islands affair is the inquiry and the question of warning time and why warning was ignored or disregarded. Warning of surprise attack is invariably disregarded; historical examples are legion. We were in receipt of evidence that an Argentine attack was imminent. The extent of the evidence that exists is not important. What one does with the evidence one receives, looks at and makes recommendations upon is important.
There are many historical examples of people getting it wrong. The most obvious one perhaps is the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June, 1941, when Stalin believed, against all the evidence, that Hitler was not about to attack. As a good Marxist, Stalin believed that Hitler would not begin one war until he had finished the other. He deceived himself as to German intentions despite Soviet spies in occupied Europe and intelligence——which was extremely accurate—and the fact that Sir Winston Churchill sent Sir Stafford Cripps to Moscow with the information derived from ULTRA that the Germans were about to invade. We were in no position to reveal its source but, nonetheless, Stalin had plenty of information.
A second, and perhaps even better, example was 8 December 1941 when the Japanese attacked at Pearl

1085
Habour. The Americans could read the Japanese codes. They knew that an attack was imminent somewhere. They failed to alert the admiral in command of the fleet at Pearl Harbour and to instruct him to disperse the fleet. The Japanese sunk six out of eight of the American battleships. It was only by an act of God that the American aircraft carriers were away on routine exercises and that the aeroplanes failed to destroy the dry dock.
The third example took place in 1973 when the Egyptians crossed the canal and succeeded in surprising the Israelis—of all people—with their prayer books in their hands on the holiest of all days in the Jewish calendar. It was over-confidence in that case. Although the Egyptians had mobilised on three previous occasions and Sadat was always declaring war, the Israelis believed that it was bluff and could be disregarded.
In the same way, the statements of the Argentine junta that the British would not celebrate the 150th anniversary of the occupation of the Falkland Islands were disregarded by the people who were supposed to be listening to the information.
Join the club; it always happens. A surprise attack is successful nine times out of ten. Our failures in the past are not important but the implications for the defence of Europe are. If we cannot calculate what the Argentines will do with regard to the Falklands we have no guarantee that we shall get it right when the evidence comes from the Soviet Union about a possible attack in Central Europe. Does that keep the House awake at night?
Mr. James Callaghan: In the three illustrations that the hon. Gentleman has given, the aggressors knew that a response would be made. In the case of the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany, and in the case of Pearl Harbour, the aggressors knew that there would be a response. There is another question to be asked. It is not generally denied that the Government were extremely worried a few days before that there would be an invasion; but did they tell the Argentines that there would be a response if there were an invasion, and that we would re-take the island by force? If the Government did not, they were culpable of great negligence.
Mr. Critchley: It is not for me to anticipate the inquiry. It is hardly likely that I shall be a member. The point is a good one. One could argue that the removal of HMS "Endurance" was regarded by the Argentine junta as a signal—wrongly as it turns out, because most signals are wrongly regarded one way or another—that the British would not fight to defend the Falkland Islands. That inquiry will be the most fascinating thing in politics over the next six months.
The new editor of The Times, Charlie Douglas-Home, was for many years its defence correspondent. Charlie has written a great leader today in which he returns to his theme—shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark)—that we should withdraw from Europe and be a maritime power, concentrate on the blue water. I have never been a member of the Navy lobby. As Member for Aldershot it would have been difficult for me. I stand four-square behind our European commitment. We have to use warning in a sensible way and translate it into moving our soldiers forward in Central Europe. The important thing about a military presence in Central Europe is not the reserves but the forces in being.
1086
If the forces in being are ready and available to defend, they deter. It is no good relying on reserves, however effective, well-trained and equipped they are, because they will never be sufficiently well-trained and equipped. The decision to move soldiers in a crisis will always be a difficult one. Mobilisation will be continually postponed. It is forces in being that actually matter.
The Soviets will never make a nuclear first strike on the United States of America or Europe but I fear that war may occur through miscalculation, accident or inadvertence, in which case it will be the forces in being upon which Central Europe will have to depend.
It is not an argument so much on defence grounds as on foreign policy grounds and attitudes. Whenever the Ministry of Defence has held one of its five-yearly reviews it has always been the Foreign Office that has moved to protect the Rhine Army against those in the Ministry of Defence who wish to withdraw or reduce it. The Foreign Office will continue to fight for the British commitment in Central Europe. It is in our interest. NATO could not survive in its present form if Great Britain were to withdraw half its forces from the Rhine Army. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton suggest we replace it with the Spanish army? Who would be prepared to do that job?
The officers of the Conservative Party defence committee have put down what we believe to be a helpful early-day motion to encourage the Secretary of State to extract from the Treasury just a little bit more money. Despite all the argument from Conservative leaders, members of the Cabinet and Back-Benchers we are only fulfilling the commitment entered into in 1977 by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) for a 3 per cent. increase in real terms each year. There are those who might assert that we have not actually reached a 3 per cent. increase. That is hidden in the small print by the Ministry of Defence.
The Supreme Allied Commander, General Rogers, is asking for a 4 per cent. increase in real terms. When he suggested that last month at the NATO summit all our great leaders looked nervously at their shoes. No-one said a word. We should be bringing some pressure to bear on the Secretary of State so that he can argue our case with the Treasury. He will not find it easy, because the mandarins of the Treasury are extremely aggrieved because he has persuaded them against their will that the cost of the Falklands, past, present and future, will come out of the contingency fund. They will be fighting a rearguard action to get some of that money back in the autumn. That will make it extremely difficult for the Secretary of State to go from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. Unless we do that in real terms we shall never have sufficient money to spend on a variety of desirable objectives. The trouble is that my right hon. Friends cannot agree which of the desirable objectives should get the additional 1 per cent. of the gross national product. There are those who wish for a new fighter aircraft. There are others, like myself, who wish the emphasis to go on an improved conventional defence in Europe so that in the medium term we can be off the nuclear first-use hook. There are others, the Navy lobby, who want a 50-frigate Navy.
It is the 4 per cent. that we want. The 1977 commitment, honourably entered into by the right hon.

1087
Member for Cardiff, South-East, for its time was admirable. But if the Conservative Party is to be taken seriously it must go up to 4 per cent.
6.40 pm
Mr. Douglas Jay: Like everyone else today, I must start by paying a heartfelt tribute to the proficiency, skill and resolution of the members of the task force.
From a humble position I saw something of the organisation of the D-Day operation in 1944, which took months to organise. The dispatch of the task force in little more than a few days was a remarkable achievement. It reflects great credit on the defence planners as well as the members of the force. In the circumstances, the Minister can claim credit; he would have been blamed had the dispatch not been so efficiently achieved.
I am not so sure that the same wholehearted applause can be given to the Minister's White Paper, which appears almost completely to ignore—apart from a short foreword—the whole Falklands experience. There must, of course, be a thorough and expert review over a period of the lessons to be drawn; but some lessons can be drawn straight away.
I welcome the fact that the White Paper, rightly, if briefly, commits the Government to the objective of international control, and then reductions, of nuclear weapons by all the nuclear powers. Although we have said little about it today, that is far the most important issue facing the world. The only real hope for progress is agreement between the two super-powers, first, for a standstill and then for a reduction over time of their nuclear arms. The future peace of the world depends on that.
Negotiations on the intermediate range missiles were started between the Soviet Union and the United States in Geneva as long ago as November, and those on strategic weapons began this week. Mr. Reagan has proposed major reductions. It is behind those crucial efforts that the resources of the United Kingdom Government and the so-called peace movement should be concentrated in mobilising public opinion. We might perhaps have been given more information about the progress of the negotiations that began as long ago as November. No doubt they are formally confidential, but I wonder whether the Government could tell us a little of what is happening.
We should not be too pessimistic—people, I know, have become cynical—about United States-Soviet agreement. It is overwhelmingly in the interests of both superpowers to avoid an unlimited nuclear arms race. SALT I was signed and ratified. SALT II was signed and ratified by the Soviet Union; I believe that it would have been ratified by the United States had it not been for the invasion of Afghanistan.
Mr. James Lamond: My right hon. Friend is dealing with a subject that I had hoped to hear more about, so I am listening carefully. I cannot accept his last point. SALT II was withdrawn from Congress before the Russian intervention in Afghanistan.
Mr. Jay: There is a good deal of evidence from Washington—although it cannot, of course, be absolutely proved—that SALT II would have been ratified had it not been for the invasion.
I do not believe, however, that anything would be achieved by this country dismantling its small nuclear
1088
forces until real reductions by the super-powers were under way. It would merely weaken our ultimate defences. Those who believe that it would have an influence on the Soviet Union do not live in the real world.
The frailty of the unilateralist argument can be demonstrated b31 asking one question: how would Britain respond in the last resort to nuclear blackmail by the Soviet Union? Only three options would be open. The first would be to capitulate, the second to rely on the United States deterrent and the third to rely on a deterrent of our own. It would greatly enhance my respect for the clarity of thought of the unilateralists if they explained which of these they proposed to adopt.
In any probable or foreseeable circumstances Britain would in fact rely on the United States and NATO. But we cannot be absolutely certain that that will remain true throughout the next 25 or 30 years. As has been said today, there are still isolationist forces in the United States. I say to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) that we should not take the United States too much for granted. On balance, therefore, in order not to be wholly dependent on the United States we should in my view retain for a time an independent deterrent.
Here the lessons of the Falklands campaign are highly relevant. First and foremost, it proved yet again that in all probable circumstances the prime necessity for British defence and indeed for much of our foreign policy is close and practical relations with the United States, however much from time to time we may disagree with them. Without United States diplomatic and material help, we could not have succeeded so completely and quickly in the Falklands campaign.
There are other lessons. We are much more likely to avoid nuclear war if we possess credible conventional defences. And despite the White Paper's almost complete silence on the Falklands campaign, I am still not convinced that the Minister's threatened naval cuts would do other than excessively weaken our conventional naval forces. The task force could not have succeeded without "Fearless" and "Intrepid". Fortunately, the Minister reprieved them before the task force sailed. He then admitted that his original decision was wrong. Neither could the force have succeeded without "Invincible" and "Hermes". Those who 15 or 20 years ago wanted to scrap virtually all carriers have also been proved wrong. I thought that the Minister might really have announced today that "Invincible" would definitely be retained and not sold to Australia. Neither could success have been achieved without a number of frigates and destroyers. Had General Galtieri waited another two years, and the Minister's policies been continued, he would probably have won.
Last year's White Paper and defence debate revealed that the Minister proposed to reduce the total of destroyers and frigates declared to NATO from 56 to 42. Allowing for the loss of frigates and destroyers in the South Atlantic, and for some frigates brought out of reserve during the campaign, what is the present total corresponding to the proposed 42 escort vessels, and how many will he in service in the middle of the decade? I gathered today that a number of the lost Harriers are to be replaced, along with one type 22 frigate. But the Secretary of State did not make it clear whether other losses of surface vessels are to be restored.
The right hon. Gentleman is of course right to say that the main threat to this country comes from the Soviet

1089
Union and particularly from its navy—the first hostile navy more powerful than our own that we have faced for several centuries. But we cannot be effectively defended against the Soviet threat without Atlantic convoys. Some say that convoys may not be necessary in the next war because any future war would be over in a few days. I am not convinced of that, and it is certainly not the view of the White Paper which states:
"the NATO Allies are dependent on the free use of the sea"
and that the United Kingdom has to
"contain the initial Soviet threat to reinforcement and re-supply shipping."
Presumably that will involve convoys. How can we ensure that without sufficient escort vessels? The White Paper does not answer that question, which is also asked today by the General Council of British Shipping, which expresses concern about the lack of convoy protection that seems to be planned.
Convoys can be attacked from the air, and were so attacked in the Second World War, as well as from submarines. Submarines, even nuclear-powered submarines, cannot protect ships from air attack; nor, in most cases, can aircraft. Surely convoys, at least when they are outside the range of shore-based aircraft, can be reliably defended against air attack only if they are supported by properly equipped escort vessels.
Some argue after the Falklands campaign that nearly all surface vessels are too vulnerable to air attack, but could not the real lesson of the campaign be that escort vessels ought to be more effectively armed against air attack, particularly against Exocet missiles, instead of being reduced to a smaller number?
In a notable letter to The Times on 23 June, Lord Carver maintained that the task force was lucky not to have suffered greater damage and he implied that surface vessels were exceedingly vulnerable. No doubt that was true of some of our vessels, given the way in which they were armed, but I noted that on the same day that Lord Carver's letter appeared in The Times there was a report in the Financial Times that the Government are purchasing from the United States Defence Department a weapon known as the Phalanx gun, which, according to the Financial Times, United States naval officials believe would have protected our warships against Exocet missiles.
Is that report true? Are we making those purchases and do the Government believe that the Phalanx or indeed the Sea Wolf are an effective defence? If so, might it not be wiser to have more, if perhaps smaller, escort vessels effectively equipped against modern weapons?
Some will say that we cannot afford all that. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) appeared to be influenced by that argument. But I believe that it is less true than some may believe. Our resources of industrial capacity and manpower are at present not overstretched, but underused, particularly in the defence industries and notably in shipbuilding, aircraft production, engineering, steel and the dockyards.
As a matter of economic policy, a period of underused capacity should be an opportunity to strengthen our defences, just as much as an opportunity to invest more in, say, housing, railway electrification and many other projects. We can afford what we have the capacity to produce.
1090
To argue that the use of surplus productive capacity should be limited by an arbitrarily selected money figure is economic nonsense. And to apply that argument to defence is to risk sacrificing the future security of the nation to what is not much more than an economic superstition.
6.56 pm
Dr. Alan Glyn: It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I was formerly his parliamentary neighbour and I am delighted to reiterate his remarks about those who fought in the Falkland Islands campaign, both civilians and military, and to pay tribute to them.
Some of our forces have had heavy casualties. My regiment, the Blues and Royals, was lucky, but others, including the Welsh Guards and the Navy, had heavy casualties. All paid a heavy price for freedom, and I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about them.
I am also glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the necessity of retaining our nuclear deterrent. We are talking about strategy and not tactics, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to produce the White Paper and to add his statement to it.
The right course for us to pursue is to find out the faults and mistakes that occurred during the Falklands campaign and, in the light of that knowledge, to have a constructive debate on the issues involved and on future policy. It is also vital that a full investigation be made, not only of the recent events in the Falklands, but of what happened in previous years, so that we can get a comprehensive picture of what took place.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need an inquiry into the events of the past few months that led up to the blunders that were made before the invasion? It would be possible to have a long-term inquiry into out relationship with Argentina and the position of the Falkland Islands, but it is important to have an interim report to find out what went wrong with our intelligence and in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence before the invasion. No one in the Government seemed to know anything about it a week before the event.
Dr. Glyn: Surely it is no use looking at the past six weeks. If we wish to establish the facts, we need a longterm investigation to discover what led up to the final events. I am sure that the right way to proceed is for us to have a thorough investigation by Privy Councillors, who will have access to the secrets and be able to judge what happened and what mistakes were made, whether by Ministers, Foreign Office officials, intelligence sources or anyone else. That must take time, but it is the right way to get the full picture that we require.
I was impressed by what my right hon. Friend had to say about the security of the United Kingdom resting on the maintenance of a credible nuclear strategy and the retention of our conventional forces in the West. I believe, however, that a contribution should be made by other NATO countries in Europe. We are, after all, supplying defence for Europe.
Our most difficult task is perhaps to defend areas such as the Falkland Islands and various small possessions in other parts of the world. There is no question but that the Falklands campaign was a success. One of the reasons for that success was that our nuclear umbrella enabled us to

1091
take components of our Armed Forces from various parts of the world to mount what was a superb operation, in the knowledge that the Soviets could not mount an attack upon us.
The real danger is the Soviet Union. This makes Trident 5 and the maintenance of the Chevaline programme of considerable importance until some agreement can be reached between the Allies and the Soviet Union on strategic missiles. Whatever the amount taken from the Trident programme to be spent on our conventional forces, we would never be able to match the conventional forces of the Soviet Union and its allies. We should never allow ourselves to be put at a disadvantage in peace negotiations. The Siberian pipeline was mentioned earlier today. This is a worry. It means that Europe could find itself dependent upon Soviet energy.
It is clear that defence replacements, because of great advances in technology, will be extremely expensive. I am one of those who believe that the defence of our country is so important that cost should be a secondary consideration.
I turn to the future of the Warsaw Pact. While the Poles, the East Germans and the Afghans may not be prepared to fight on their own fronts, there is nothing to prevent their being moved, as we have seen with the Soviets, to other theatres of war. It must also be borne in mind that the ethnic minorities in the Soviet Union—Cossacks, Tartars and so on—who are increasing rapidly, are not so keen, I understand, about the Soviet plan for world domination. I should, however, warn the House that unless we have superiority or until we reach an agreement that is viable, we cannot rely on that fact to protect us.
Russia continues to increase its conventional forces, especially its navy. I am certain that if we can retain nuclear superiority for another 30 years there will not be another war. We have also to meet the expense of retaining our forces in NATO, although this does not prevent our allies from helping in the cost. If we can retain nuclear superiority until a proper arrangement on supervision can be reached between ourselves and the Soviet Union on such arms and all other forces, I am certain that this country can play a major part not only in defence of the West but in the preservation of peace in the world.
7.5 pm
Dr. John Gilbert: I should like to add my modest contribution to the applause accorded by both sides of the House to the performance of the Services in the Falkland Islands in the appalling conditions with which they had to contend. The men finally involved in the fighting had been at sea for many weeks in stormy seas living in cramped conditions. They can hardly have been at their best to undertake a fight on land. The conditions in which they had to fight—snow, hail, wind, rain, and the cold—would have made most of hesitate to go out for an afternoon stroll, let alone march for many days over mountains to fight what for all they knew would be a well-armed and determined enemy.
It is also fair to say that we had a great deal of good fortune. We were on the knife-edge of disaster. The Secretary of State told the Defence Committee only a few days ago that no fewer than six of our ships were hit by bombs or missiles—he was not sure which—that had failed to explode. When one considers the catastrophic
1092
results when ships were hit by missiles that exploded, we are very lucky that many more of our ships and their brave men did not go to the bottom.
As this is a debate, I should like to take up a couple of debating points before considering the White Paper. Unfortunately, neither Conservative protagonist is now in the Chamber, but I was interested to hear the exchanges between the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) and for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). I wish that I shared the optimism of the hon. Member for Sutton that any gap occurring in our defences would be filled automatically by some mysterious process of osmosis. If that was the case, we could, I suppose, disband all our Services. The same argument applies to gaps in the Navy, but, unfortunately, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's confidence.
In that mini-debate I take my stand four-square behind the hon. Member for Aldershot. The effect on NATO would be nothing short of catastrophic if we were drastically to reduce our armed presence in Western Europe. Our own security would also be affected. Our troops in NATO, like the American troops defending the United States' interests far to the east of the United States, are defending our security far to the east of our own shores.
I should like to correct some remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton in his absence. According to my understanding, the treaty that binds us to keep our Army at a certain level in Western Europe was necessary to mollify General de Gaulle. The Army was already there as part of our security. The treaty was superimposed on an existing situation in order to give the General the satisfaction that he sought.
At the risk of getting into great trouble with my own side of the House and also causing the Secretary of State considerable embarrassment, I should like to say that the general thrust of the White Paper and the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman on previous occasions have my support, with one major exception. The right hon. Gentleman is right to maintain the emphasis on the air defence of this country and on our Western European presence.
I know that in saying this I lose the support of many of my hon. Friends, but if the Secretary of State has to cut conventional forces, the cuts must be in our conventional surface fleet capability. As the Secretary of State said on a previous occasion, there will be no convoys in the next war. I know that my right hon. Friends, to whom I normally give way on these matters, dissent, but, given the attrition rates, the estimated ammunition consumption in Western Europe, and the level of war stocks in NATO, we cannot sustain a major conventional war in Western Europe for the period required for a convoy to be assembled and to make its way across the Atlantic.
Mr. Jay: My right hon. Friend will agree that that is not the view taken by the Minister in the While Paper.
Dr. Gilbert: It is the view taken by the Secretary of State in a previous speech from the Dispatch Box. Although I do not remember his exact words, I can clearly recall him saying that the days of convoys were over. I assume that the Minister was referring to transatlantic convoys.
Mr. Nott indicated assent.
Dr. Gilbert: I am glad to see the Minister nod his agreement.
Mr. Jay: That is one reason why the right hon. Gentleman should go.
Mr. Nott: It is a question of semantics. There may be protected lanes, but as regards convoys it depends how one defines the term. It can mean what anyone wants it to mean.
Dr. Gilbert: When I had responsibility for defence matters, in a junior capacity, one of the most extraordinary paradoxes I found at the Ministry of Defence was that the Navy was planning to fight a war about six times as long as the Army or the Air Force could possibly sustain it. I am glad to have the Secretary of State's confirmation of the position.
The fatal flaw in the White Paper is the Trident decision. I indict the Secretary of State for his refusal to disclose to the House the true opportunity cost of the Trident and the alternative weapons systems that he rejected in favour of Trident. His reason for refusing to give this information is that he would have Trident anyway. However, he has never put a ceiling on the price he is prepared to pay for Trident. There must be a ceiling because I am certain that that programme will escalate appreciably in cost, in real terms, before we are through.
Mr. Antony Buck: When the right hon. Gentleman was part of the decision to continue with Chevaline, did he put a financial ceiling on that?
Dr. Gilbert: I had far too modest a position at the Ministry of Defence to have any involvement in decisions on Chevaline. Those decisions were taken far above my level.
As the hon. Member for Aldershot said, the Falkland Islands were a one-off case. There are few strategic—I emphasise, strategic—lessons to be learned from that conflict that are relevant to the North Atlantic. There is a crucial difference arising from the presence of land-based air power in the areas of the North Atlantic with which we are concerned.
Nor are there any lessons to be learned on defence for our other imperial relics. I have scanned the globe and I see Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Belize, and a handful of islands in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. None of those places stands anything like on all fours with the Falklands.
The Chinese are due to have the sovereignty of Hong Kong returned in a few years. If they anticipate that date by mounting a massive invasion, does anyone seriously think that we will send a task force to throw 1,000 million Chinese back? Of course not. Would the Spanish Government seek to invade Gibraltar? There is not the slightest sign that they have any intention of doing that. They are a civilised Government who, as far as I can see, intend to resolve their difficulties by negotiation rather than by force. Spain has a land border with Gibraltar. With modern weapons Gibraltar would become totally untenable. However, I do not believe that such a situation would arise.
Mr. Peter Viggers rose—
Dr. Gilbert: I have already given way twice and although, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I am normally very generous in giving way, I shall not do so on this occasion.
1094
Belize is now a sovereign State. If Guatemala sought to invade Belize there would be considerable pressure from other Central and South American States. We would not be defending that territory alone.
I turn now to the arguments for having a naval ability to police other parts of the world and to deploy our ships far from home—I think it is referred to as "out-of-area capability". One need only look at the problems that might be involved in the rapid deployment force which is, I understand, supposed to protect our oil supplies from the Middle East to Western Europe.
If we safeguard the sea lanes around the Cape, we must protect the Strait of Hormuz. If we enforce a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, we must protect the refineries in the Gulf. If we protect the refineries in the Gulf, we must stop people blowing up the pipelines and pumping stations. If we are to protect them, we must also be able to secure the oil wells. Every link in the chain must be protected if oil supplies are to be safeguarded against a determined opponent. The inexorable logic of that is that we would be forced to try to occupy large areas of sovereign Middle Eastern States. That idea is clearly preposterous.
Mr. James Callaghan: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there have been two frigates in the Gulf, and two outside it, during the whole period of the Iraq-Iran war? Was that not an important symbol to the contestants in that war that any interference with British shipping and tankers moving through the Gulf would meet with reprisals? Why does my right hon. Friend think it necessary to go through the whole of his reductio ad absurdum when we can have a deterrent at much less cost?
Dr. Gilbert: I am attracting some heavyweight opposition this afternoon. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, because I was coming to that point. I am aware that we have a small force of frigates in the Gulf and that we have had Service men in Oman for many years. I am also aware of the value of a small-scale deterrent against, say, an unstable adventurous power such as Iraq, or possibly the Iranians. However, I am referring to a major conflict which might involve us with the Soviet Union in an adventurous phase under a new leadership. If the Soviet Union, with its considerable capability for stirring up political trouble in the Middle East, was determined—I do not think it is—to strangle the West by cutting off oil supplies, a couple of frigates outside the Strait of Hormuz would not amount to much of a deterrent. The frigates would be irrelevant if the pipelines or oil wells had been blown up. Russian forces would not need to act against the frigates in a hostile way.
Mr. James Callaghan: They would be relevant now.
Dr. Gilbert: I accept that they are relevant now, but I am talking about a major confrontation. All we have in the Gulf is a couple of frigates, but there is no suggestion of an intended attack, or even the threat of an attack, on the oil installations in order to deny the West its vital oil supplies.
I turn to a more cheerful matter—the start of the negotiations on arms reduction. What recommendations, if any, have the Government made to the American negotiators? We must be clear what we need from the negotiations. When one starts from the position that both NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries can destroy each other many times over with their existing warhead stocks,

1095
even a mutual reduction of 50 per cent. will not greatly enhance security, because each side will still be capable of destroying the other. However, at least a start will have been made.
I welcome the American Government's initiative and it is clear that a radically new approach is needed. After SALT I in the 1970s, the Soviet Union deployed three new ICBMs, three new submarines with ICBM systems and outspent the United States of America by about $100 billion on strategic systems during that decade. After SALT II, about which I was not enthusiastic, although it has been observed if not ratified by both parties, the emphasis changed to increases in the warheads that the sides could muster. SALT II did not prevent either side from increasing its nuclear capability in precisely the way that it wished. I hope that the new negotiations, which are a major attempt to reduce the warheads, will be successful.
Modest reductions in nuclear capability will produce useful savings in defence budgets, but to obtain appreciable increases in security we must have a dramatic reduction in warheads. For example, if the Soviet Union has just 100 SS20 missiles with 300 warheads, plus a reload capability of another 300, it could attack 600 high-value targets in Western Europe. I understand that the present American Administration carried out a study and discovered that we do not have 600 high-value targets in Europe. The number of targets, the survival of which is crucial to the West's capacity to continue to wage war in the event of a major exchange between East and West in Central Europe, is well below 600. We must reduce the number of SS20s to a very low level before there is an appreciable enhancement of security.
To have useful negotiations we must have incentives. That is why I support the continued intention of America to introduce improved Pershing 2s and cruise missile systems to Western Europe as an incentive to negotiations on the reduction of the intermediate nuclear force. I hope that we can achieve a zero option. However, we must recognise that our security should be founded not against but with our potential opponents.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Does my hon. Friend agree that one element of instability in the present position is the fact that NATO is prepared to respond to a conventional Soviet attack with nuclear weapons and that it is likely that NATO must use nuclear weapons fairly early during such an attack?
Dr. Gilbert: If my hon. Friend is asking me to subscribe to the "no first use" doctrine, I should find it difficult, but if the Soviet Union says that it will subscribe to such a doctrine, that statement is useless, unverifiable and unenforceable and has no significance in arms control negotiations.
We are in danger in Western Europe of becoming hypnotised by nuclear weapons and by attitudes across the European divide. The danger to all of us is far greater from conventional wars fought up to now outside the territories—
Mr. Strang: That is just the point.
Dr. Gilbert: We must attempt to reduce conventional as well as nuclear weapons.
I turn now to the influence of the arms salesmen of the West. The Alliance must think seriously about our international arms sales policies. I hope that we can try to
1096
obtain international agreement on reducing arms sales both area by area and weapon system by weapon system. Unfortunately, however, the problem is not being tackled in the major capitals in the Western Alliance. The trade is overwhelmingly concentrated in a few hands, and it should not be too difficult to obtain an agreement in principle. I hope that the Government will take the initiative on that, because conventional wars have caused millions of casualties and enormous suffering since 1945, added hugely to the poverty of less developed Western countries and reduced our security. I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will tell us that the Government will at least consider that proposal as a means of enhancing world security.
7.26 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: This defence debate, following the White Paper, comes at an especially opportune moment because it is the first time that the House is able, as was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening speech, to put the Falklands crisis into the perspective of the entire defence scene. During the weeks and months that it continued, it was traumatic and tragic for us, and people could consider nothing but the immediate consequences of what was happening and the immediate assessments of what our troops, performing magnificently as they did, and our other Services could achieve. Of course there was great sadness at the damage and loss of life.
However, history will consider the matter in the perspective in which we are beginning to consider it, in terms of the overall defence, not just of our posture but of that of the West, as a serious and tragic incident of which there have been many since the previous global conflict. It is tragic that we have suffered such losses, but again they must be put in perspective. The loss of ships was unique since the Second World War, and unique measures must and will be taken to put matters right.
If we try to put the loss of aircraft into perspective we must turn to page 53 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" where we find that, in 1981, 32 aircraft were lost or seriously damaged—22 being fixed wing aircraft and 10 helicopters—as opposed to the seven Harriers that were lost in the Falklands. The moral is that we must put the lessons that will be learned in the coming months about what happened in the Falklands into the perspective of what happens day in and day out, year in and year out, with our Services and the purpose of our strategic balance of forces. To over-concentrate our minds on what happened in the South Atlantic would be detrimental to the defence debate as a whole, just as it is detrimental for several hon. Members—doubtless there will be several more—to raise again, in the context of what has happened, the Trident argument.
There are those who are saying that now we have had the Falklands experience we are mad to proceed with Trident. That does not change the argument one iota. The arguments in favour of proceeding with a strategic deterrent were, to a certain extent, balanced. There were sound arguments against and there were, in my view, far sounder arguments in favour when that decision was taken. What happened in the South Atlantic in the past months has nothing to do with that argument. It was discussed fully in the House on several occasions last year. There was an overwhelming majority in support of the

1097
decision to proceed with Trident, and there is no point in raising that argument again and hanging it on the losses that have happened because of the Falklands operations.
The question of the contingency fund and the Defence Vote has been raised before. The Secretary of State came to the Select Committee last week straight after the publication of the White Paper, and we were grateful for that. I asked him about the reports that had appeared concerning the guarantees that all of the bill for the Falklands operation, actual and to come, would be picked up by the Treasury.
I put it to the Secretary of State that it is not just a question of the cost of replacing the ammunition that was expended, the fuel that was used, and all the other short-term operating costs that the Treasury have agreed to find. No doubt it will find them because they are the sort of costs that come up quickly, and that guarantee could not be wriggled out of. However, I put it to the Secretary of State that we are not talking about this year specifically, or next year but, to a great extent, about extra costs in which the operation will involve the Ministry of Defence for the next four, five, six, maybe even eight or nine years, until we have fully recovered and fully replaced in service those ships that were lost.
I asked the Secretary of State how copper-bottomed he thought the Treasury guarantee would be. He answered me, slightly wryly, "As copper bottomed as any promise ever is from the Treasury." There is one thing on which I am sure none of my hon. Friends will dissent. That is that we must all see that the Treasury is not allowed to wriggle out of any part of that guarantee which has been given and repeated in the House.
The Treasury will not do so this year. It will try next year and in the year after that it will say "Well now, could you not absorb some of the budget, it is really only a small percentage?"
Mr. Denzil Davies: It will wriggle out of it.
Mr. Mates: I know that the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury, and I am sure that he is very good at wriggling out of guarantees. If by any mischance he should ever return there I promise that I shall attack him just as hard, if he tries to wriggle his Department out of this guarantee, as I and many of my hon. Friends will attack about the guarantee that we have had, and which we must hang on to like grim death.
I wish to refer to the leader in The Times referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley). We do not know who writes these leaders, but if it was the gentleman whose name was mentioned, it was a peculiarly imperceptive effort on his part, with only half an argument, not very convincingly put. It is important when looking at defence priorities in the context of the White Paper and our overall defence effort, that we try to help our Ministers do their most difficult task—strike the right balance between the various needs and the various theatres of operation and with that go the various Services.
The Times heads the leader
"Too Much On The Rhine"
and goes on to argue that the Army there should be reduced. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) is not with us, but the proposition that we disband the British Army of the Rhine and send it back to civilian life, is too ludicrous to stand
1098
examination. Not only would there be the military effect of a gap that would be almost impossible to fill but the influence that we have in NATO because of our contribution in land forces in Central Europe would go.
We should no longer have the command of the Northern Army and probably would not be allowed to retain the command of Allied forces in the northern region. We should lose the post of deputy SACEUR. All of these key military appointments that we hold by virtue of the effort and the commitment that we make to NATO would be gone, and we should have no say in many of the crucial decisions that are taken year in and year out about the balance of forces in NATO and the priorities between various fronts. We are able to have our national interests safeguarded in the NATO context. Therefore, for that reason alone, it would be very difficult to think of any substantial reduction of the British Army of the Rhine.
The Times leader challenges my right hon. Friend to explain why he did not fully examine the financial consequences of a military alternative to his programme by saving on the cost of our peace-time commitment to maintain force levels in Germany. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend spelt out clearly in last year's defence debates. He said how carefully he had examined it, and that he thought there was money to be saved. There was quite an attractive option of making some reduction in the teeth of the British Army of the Rhine. He and his advisers, and I do not dissent from this in any way, having had a little experience in this matter, said that there would be very little, if any, savings and there might even be greater costs.
If one wishes to dissent from that, one only has to look at the parlous state in which we find ourselves as a nation in providing facilities and accommodation in this country for our forces. For some seven or eight years we have had to send our armoured units to Canada to train. There is nowhere in the British Isles where we can carry out the sort of training that is carried out, albeit with increasing difficulty, in West Germany.
If the proposition was that we should bring a division or part of a division back to this country we should simply be building up problem on problem, and the savings in finance would be hardly any, but the efficiency and the effectiveness of that regular force would be severely impaired and we should be far worse off in the end, with no financial advantage to be gained.
The one point on which I agree with The Times leader is where it says that the cost of education, health and housing for the Service families in Germany is at least £450 million a year and that that would not fall on the defence budget if those troops were stationed in Britain. This is an argument that has been rehearsed before, but it has not been pressed hard enough. If it would not fall on the defence budget if the families were stationed in the United Kingdom, why on earth does it fall on the defence budget when they are stationed in Germany? It is still the health, welfare and education of women and children citizens of this country. They should fall fairly and squarely on the health, education and welfare Departments of State in this country and not be put at a cost of a defence budget that is already overstretched in attempting to defend this country.
The last point that I wish to make about the Central European theme is to pick up what the Secretary of State said about the air forces in Europe and about the

1099
difficulties that hon. Members have often expressed about any sort of advance in standardisation on weapons and equipment.
There are 12 British squadrons in the Second Allied Tactical Air Force helping it to play its part in the defence of the central front. In addition, as I understand it, there are American and German air forces dedicated to protecting our part of the central front. We have three national air forces providing the protection and the forward attack capability of the Northern Army group and, roughly speaking, most of the British Army of the Rhine.
There are seven, eight or nine different types of aircraft and an integrated international headquarters and control system. It is here, since, for very sound reasons, we are struggling so hard to achieve some standardisation, that we could take a radical look at changes that would involve rationalisation of tasks rather than standardisation of the equipment.
If that one job, the protection of the British Army of the Rhine, could be done by one air force, with one or two types of aircraft, as opposed to seven or eight, the savings in research and development, production, and short runs, would be enormous. Of course, if we could work out among the NATO nations some way of rationalising the task, we would not be going through the agonies about the naval reductions.
Clearly, it would make much more sense for us to play a greater part in the naval contribution to NATO, and not take part in a NATO fleet which has 100 different types of ships, of frigate size and above. There are 100 different types of ships in the NATO sea chain of command from all the nations who are contributing to it. Here again, the waste in research and development, weapons of different types—non-standardised, not even harmonious with one another—is a fantastic waste of resources which could be rationalised, and the net result would be far greater efficiency.
So, having gone down the standardisation road for many years and got hardly anywhere at all, because of national defence reasons, we should look at a much more fundamental way of rationalising the different tasks that each nation performs as its contribution to NATO. Of course there will be difficulties. We would be putting our faith in the German air force, or perhaps the American air force, to defend our troops. On the other hand, we would be able to concentrate far more on the air defence of this country, which is lamentably weak.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend understand that part of the Royal Air Force's commitment in Western Europe is the air defence of the United Kingdom? It is not there just to defend the troops. It is part of the forward positioning of the Royal Air Force squadrons in the defence of the air space of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Mates: Yes. I am suggesting that, instead of having to split that responsibility because we have always done it on a national basis, we should look at doing it another way. It is a suggestion which, I believe, stands up to quite an amount of examination.
The last point that I want to make is perhaps the most important of all for our domestic debates. We have changed the structure of our home defence organisation over the years, painfully, to try to get away from the perpetual inter-Service rivalries. We have strengthened the
1100
central function of the staffs of the Ministry of Defence. My right hon. Friend has taken another step on this road in the last year or so, with the centralising of some of the power and authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff. Alas, as we are painfully moving that way within the defence organisation itself, it seems that somehow in this House of Commons we are moving the other way, and we are getting Navy lobbies, Army lobbies and Air Force lobbies. Certain right hon. and hon. Members are putting blinkers on and saying, "Whatever you do, you must not cut the surface fleet. I do not mind what happens to the Army. I do not mind what happens to the Air Force." As we are moving away from that thinking in the whole of the Government organisation—for example, by doing away with the Service Ministers, we are trying to concentrate functions so that we get a unity of purpose—I believe that it would be helpful if we could get a unity of purpose, in this House over the whole of the defence debate and the priorities that we have to work out so painfully.
7.43 pm
Mr. W. E. Garrett: It is a coincidence that this is 1 July, and 1 July 1916 was the first day of the Battle of the Somme, 67 years ago. It was a battle that lasted three months, and the carnage and horror of that battle resulted in the death of the flower of the European armies and some of the armies of the Commonwealth. Today, we are having another inquest—into what happened in the Falklands.
The horrors of the First World War have been reflected ever since in the command and thinking of the British Armed Forces and in the armed forces of Western Europe, with the possible exception of the armed forces of the Soviet Union, where men were regarded as cannon fodder. Since then the need to conserve life has been paramount, as we saw during the Second World War. We see here today the sons, and possibly grandsons, of those who died so that we could have the right to speak on this subject.
It is an indication of our domestic structure that we can speak on defence matters. I wonder whether the people of Argentina, if they had had a say in the policy and conduct of the men in their Services, would have become involved in the conflict with the same enthusiasm as they displayed in the early stages of the campaign. The answer is "No." They would have seen that their services, with the honourable exception of the Argentine air force, were ill-equipped to conduct the campaign in the Falklands. We are lucky that we live in a democracy and can debate these issues.
I pay tribute to the Armed Forces. I take no credit away from the Royal Marines, the Parachute Regiment or the Welsh Guards, but I am amazed that no one in the higher echelons of Government has mentioned the role of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, the Royal Corps of Transport, the Army Service Corps, the Royal Signals, and the whole logistic back-up that makes the success of the men at the front much more likely. I was amazed at the speed and efficiency with which the force was assembled and departed from our shores. I pay tribute to those who, although they did not necessarily carry the weapons that shoot to kill, are equipped to kill when it is necessary and did the work that made the success possible.
I was interested to hear what the Secretary of State said about replacing ships, because I represent a Wallsend constituency which has a long tradition of shipbuilding. When HMS "York" was launched last Monday, a berth

1101
became available for another ship to be built. Unfortunately, I heard nothing in the Minister's statement today about an early contract, and, being parochial, I should have preferred the Yarrow order to come to the Tyne. However, I wish the people well who are to build the ship on the Clyde.
I note that there are to be orders for T23s, on the basis of three per year. I am sure that the management of the Swan Hunter division of British Shipbuilders will have noted that statement and that the design teams will be assembled by the Admiralty when the work is ready.
Many of the ships will be in a bad state after their long voyage and will need major refits. I want the Minister to know that we on the Tyne have a remarkable record for refitting. We can refit ships more quickly and better and get them back into service much more efficiently than the naval dockyards. I know that I am now likely to receive some abusive letters from the men employed in the naval dockyards, but the records are there to be seen, and the record of the Tyne is superior to any.
I want to say a word about the role of the Territorial Army. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is supporting it. Much of the report is obsolete, because the new infantry brigade which is to be designated in the North-East has already formed in York. Its headquarters have been set up, and it has already been given its brigade crest. It will be a brigade composed principally of infantry units. It is a good area in which to place such a brigade, because, as the House will be aware, the North and the North-East are eminently suited to recruitment to the Armed Forces, particularly the Army.
I am always impressed by the dedication and efficiency of the men of the Territorial Army. The new recruits that are being obtained in ever-increasing numbers are often men who have already served in the Regular Army and who are therefore well-equipped and able to fulfil their part-time role. The TA is becoming more and more efficient and effective. If ever the taxpayer had value for money, it is in these units.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) developed a good argument for unilateralism. I was convinced by the logic of his argument and I support him. I should like it to be known that I have never been a unilateralist. I have always recognised the need to defend the nation. I am proud that most of our nation is prepared to recognise that freedom must be paid for.
Mr. Ioan Evans: There is a misconception about those who believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament. They are prepared to have armed forces for the defence of the country. However, they suggest that in the present nuclear situation Britain could do that by abandoning its independent nuclear programme. Like Canada, we would have a defence force but we would not be involved in the production of nuclear weapons and their use.
Mr. Garrett: There is no basic disagreement between us on that point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) emphasised that in his speech.
Our nation is lucky to have professional Armed Forces. The men who went to the Falkland Islands justified the faith that we had in them by doing their best so that we could enjoy the freedom of democracy which we value highly.
1102
The House has the honour to vote on the Defence Estimates. I hope that they will be accepted and that the money will be used in the nation's best interests.
7.52 pm
Mr. Keith Speed: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) has just said, particularly about the excellent work that was done on the Tyne on ship repair and construction. I shall not enter into the argument about whether the royal dockyards are better than Smith's Dock Co. Ltd. or Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd. That would be wrong and I would upset somebody, one way or another.
Much has happened in the past year. The Secretary of State's speech today was different both in tone and content from the speech that he made a year ago when he opened the defence debate.
I join all those who have paid tribute to the forces that went to the Falkland Islands. I was particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend mentioned the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service and Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It could be argued that they are technically part of the Merchant Navy, but they have been rather left out of the tributes that have been paid. They have done a fantastic job. It is not much fun taking thousands of gallons of kerosene or bombs in the ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary to keep the forces supplied. I pay special tribute to them.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that there are still many lessons to be learnt. My right hon. Friend is right to send a team to make a proper evaluation. However, with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, I believe that we can start to draw some conclusions.
First, we must have the closest possible co-operation with the British Merchant Navy in emergencies, whether in the Falkland Islands or elsewhere. We have already learnt that a great deal can be done in a hurry with the appropriate dockyard facilities.
Secondly, the Falklands dispute has shown that where submarine, surface ships, helicopter and fixed-wing aeroplanes work closely together, with good command and control, a great deal can be done, notwithstanding that we were outnumbered in the air by a ratio of up to 10 or 15 to one. That has not been mentioned today, but it is no mean achievement and it should be emphasised. A great deal of our excellent aircraft superiority in the interception of the Argentine air force was due to the good command and control by "Hermes", "Invincible" and the other surface ships.
Thirdly, we must learn—as the Israelis have learnt—that it is vital to keep bang up to date with electronic counter-measures. That is true at any time, but it is particularly true when one deals with missiles of the Exocet variety. I do not believe that Exocets or sea-skimming missiles are the last word and make surface ships obsolete. That is tendentious nonsense. However, one must have the appropriate kit in a ship to provide the appropriate information and it must be used at the right time.
As my right hon. Friend said, appropriate information means organic airborne early-warning radar so that an aircraft can be seen a long way away and be intercepted before a missile is launched. That is the best way to deal with the problem. However, if that cannot be done, at least one has more than a few seconds warning of the missile that is coming towards one. The reason why the fleet does

1103
not have airborne early warning radar goes back about 16 years to the 1966 defence review. However, I do not wish to be diverted to that at the moment.
With the best will in the world, one cannot rely on any other service or nation. The fleet must have its own airborne early warning organic capability in helicopters, along the lines described by my right hon. Friend, so that they can be carried down in quite small ships such as the Castle class corvette, which can operate Sea King helicopters.
There has been some fairly hysterical wild talk about the construction of ships. Let us get at the facts before people start talking, for example, about all the aluminium in the type 42 ships when, in fact, there is little. Many factors arise. We should remember that because of the discipline, the damage control and the modern construction of ships, the casualties were light, even in the ships that were sunk, though obviously every casualty was one too many.
By contrast, during the last war, if a destroyer went down one lost 80 to 100 people. A boiler explosion would kill 20 to 30 people in that area and a similar number in the engine room. The modern gas turbine ship has only two to three people in the engine room. That is one of the reasons why the casualties were remarkably small, even in the ships that were lost. One of the early lessons is that in future we must not have ships designed by the Treasury. That is extremely important and I say no more at this stage.
I agree with my right hon. Friend and the White Paper about the role of defence generally. The first threat is from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. However, I also put to my right hon. Friend and the House that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries can, and in different parts of the world do, operate through their surrogates. I am thinking of such countries as Cuba, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Socotra and Vietnam.
Why is it that over the last 27 years Gorshkov has not only built up the massive blue water fleet that we have heard about today, but has built up a world-wide string of naval bases, to which he has been adding at a fantastic rate each year? It is obviously not to provide some tropical Dacha for the privileged members of the Comintern. It is much more than that, because that is one way in which the Soviet miliary and political power can be used to probe in a flexible way.
The right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), unlike the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) does not understand the use and flexibility of maritime power. In the Gulf of Oman we have been using our maritime power, together with that of our friends the Americans, the French and, from time to time, the Australians, to provide a discreet but visible presence to protect our ships when leaving the Persian Gulf. In the recent war between Iraq and Iran we could have taken action, if required. That is a classic example of the flexibility of maritime power without any need to shift large numbers of troops or aircraft.
Where will the threat come from? There has been talk today of the threat coming from the central front. The threat may come from there, I do not know. The threat may come from Europe's southern flank, on the Mediterranean, from the Indian Ocean or from the Pacific. One area that has always worried me is the northern flank of Norway. Hon. Members need only consider the globe to see Norway's strategic importance and how easy it would be for the Soviets to mount an attack. What about
1104
the trade routes round the Cape, which are so important to Britain and Western Europe? Those routes are important because many of the large troop carriers and supertankers have to go that way, because they are too big for the Suez canal.
Wherever we may think the threat will come from, it is almost as sure as God made little green apples that it will come from somewhere else. We may not be able to match Gorshkov naval base for naval base or ship for ship but we should be able to provide the maritime flexible response that NATO has adopted as its own.
There is one factor that worries me, but that has not been given much prominence in our White Papers although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to it. I refer to merchant shipping. It is not fully appreciated that in the Soviet Union there is no more a commercial merchant ship than there is a commercial Trans-Siberian Railway. Such things are seen as an essential part of economic warfare. Their so-called commercial rates are sometimes deliberately designed to undercut Western rates. Their ships carry naval personnel, intelligence scanning equipment and communications equipment the like of which will never be seen on P & O, Sealink or any other ship in the merchant navies of the Western world.
Norway, the United States of America and all the Western merchant navies have been allowed to run down. That will have profound long-term economic and defence consequences. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union's merchant navy and the shipping fleets of the Warsaw Pact countries grow all the time. The Falkland Islands have demonstrated the lack of wisdom behind allowing our Merchant Fleet to drop below a certain minimum level.
If many of the areas in which the Soviet Union has naval bases are "out of area" and if they are beyond NATO limits—as they are geographically—we should take that into account and ask whether after 30 years, we should have a fresh look at NATO. Perhaps we should have a fresh look at the geographical limits and at the way in which we discharge our duties. What I am about to say has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) and by several other hon. Members. When the Foreign Secretary was Secretary of State for Defence at a meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in December 1980 he put forward the concept of burden sharing in NATO. He said that NATO should consider whether each country should concentrate on doing what it did best. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister echoed those sentiments at the recent NATO summit conference.
There are great problems in trying to spread the jam too thinly. None of the NATO countries is so wealthy as to have an abundance of resources. When I was a Minister, I was told in Norway that 80 per cent. of Norway's procurement budget was being spent on purchasing the F16 aircraft. That did not leave much for its army or navy. Norway had its problems, and other examples can be found. Burden sharing will take time. However, Britain has a maritime tradition and great naval expertise. The Germans may have expertise in armour and the Dutch certainly have expertise in amphibious warfare and forces, but that does not mean that we should scrap the British Army on the Rhine or the Royal Air Force. However, it

1105
does mean that it should be possible to organise NATO more flexibly in the years until the end of the century than we have done in the past few years.
NATO was created after the war to meet a certain crisis and situation, but it seems to be ossifying itself whether through the process of arms standardisation, geographical area or as a result of the tasks that it is trying to do. It is now time to take a new initiative. I hope that the Minister will tell us the Government's view of burden sharing. We should pursue that concept and persuade our friends to pursue it if NATO is to keep abreast of the threat.
I welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about the type 23 frigate. It would appear that it will not be a Treasury-designed frigate and will be much more capable than appeared possible at one time. We are making considerable progress towards the objectives that I regard as the absolute minimum. I am not giving any order of priority, but I believe that the retention of HMS "Invincible" and of three aircraft carriers at all times is essential. I take comfort and heart from my right hon. Friend's remarks and from what the Prime Minister said some weeks ago. I have done my little bit by doing the occasional Australian television broadcast, telling the Australians why they should not buy HMS "Invincible", and I make no apology for that.
I have mentioned the lessons to be drawn from the Falkland Islands and said that it is important to keep our radar, electronic counter-measures and weapons up to date. In the press there has been much mention of Sea Wolf, which is a point defence missile system which will be shown to have proved itself in the Falkland Islands. It should be fitted to more and more of our ships, just as it is fitted to the batch 3 Leander frigates. There is a case for enhancing Sea Dart.
As the burgeoning threat, particularly from Warsaw Pact ships, grows, we must ensure that our ships are capable of meeting it. In a recent parliamentary answer I was told that of our existing destroyers and frigates, nearly all the type 21s, type 22s, and type 42s would remain in service until the turn of the century and that some of them would be in service after 2000 AD. It would be unthinkable if the ships were not modernised and were incapable of meeting a threat, whether that came from the Argentine, the Soviet Union or anywhere else.
I turn to the subject of the destroyer-frigate force. Six ships—not, as has been said, from the reserve fleet, but from the disposal list—have been refitted in Chatham. As the Minister was kind enough to tell me in his written answer, they are to be commissioned within the next few weeks.
We also heard the welcome news today that the "Glamorgan", "Fife" and "Bristol" will remain. I believe that we must go further. The disposals planned for Leander frigates and some of the remaining type 12 frigates should be cancelled so that we can keep a frigate-destroyer force of about 50 ships in operation. That is the minimum that will be required. It is a reduction from a year ago, but it is an increase on what my right hon. Friend planned, which was 42 ships. If HMS "Invincible" is modernised and we can achieve that frigate-destroyer level, we will have gone a long way.
Mr. W. E. Garrett: The hon. Gentleman is much more of an expert than I am on naval matters. Will he give his views on the role of "Fearless" and "Intrepid" and their future?
Mr. Speed: I am coming to that point. It looks as though we shall save "Invincible". We have saved "Endurance". "Fearless" and "Intrepid" have been saved. They are crucial not only for warfare but for the future of the Royal Marines. Of course, those ships are not in the first flush of youth. We should be planning their replacement now. Within four to five years we should be building their replacements so that in the 1990s we have the latest thinking in amphibious warfare ships. We have already had an element of modernisation, and therefore when I look at the ships that have been saved and the discussions that are taking place I become much more optimistic than I was even a few months ago, certainly a year ago. The Navy in the rest of the 1980s will be able to discharge its task both in and out of area.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with our minesweeping capacity? The White Paper shows that an enormous number of mines are available to the Soviet Union. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that we could deal with mines if they were suddenly laid all around our coastline?
Mr. Speed: I am not. However, to be fair to my right hon. Friend, neither is he. I am satisfied that we cannot go on building expensive Hunt class mine counter-measure vessels. They are excellent, but I accept that the resources are not there for them. I guess that the current price is about £30 million per copy. My right hon. Friend will tell me if I am wrong.
I have always believed that there are three levels of vessel. First, there is the sophisticated ship, such as the Hunt class, which is currently being built. Secondly, there is the single role mine hunter, which is being developed. It is about half the price of the Hunt class vessels. Thirdly, there is the cheaper, trawler-type minesweeper, specifically built for the Royal Naval Reserve to deal with mines. My right hon. Friend announced that tenders were being sought for such vessels. They are overdue. I have been pressing for them. The sooner we can get them, the better both for the RNR and to meet the threat. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is correct.
At the moment it is perhaps forgotten that throughout NATO there are fewer minesweepers than in the Royal Navy in 1958, yet the threat from mines is appalling. I back 100 per cent. what my right hon. Friend is doing. The RNR sweepers are relatively cheap, yet the RNR will be well able to handle them. The sooner every division can be equipped with one, the better it will be.
With regard to the replacement of ships lost, I am sure that when my right hon. Friend announced that the ninth type 22 frigate was being ordered and that we were keeping on "Fife", "Glamorgan" and "Bristol", he did not in any way intend that as a replacement for the two type 21 and the two type 42 destroyers that were lost. I expect the two type 21 frigates and the two type 42 destroyers not to be replaced by two further type 21 and two further type 42 destroyers. There are no type 21 destroyers to replace them in any case. It would be crazy to do so. I do not believe that the type 42 destroyer is the right ship to replace them now. I appreciate that it is expensive, but there are strong industrial, commercial, military and

1107
defence reasons for going for four type 22 frigates to replace the two type 21 and two type 42 destroyers that we lost.
I accept what the right hon. Member for Battersea, North said, that it is not as though our shipyards and defence industry are overburdened. There is the capacity for work to be done. That will keep up the continuity for Yarrow and Vosper Thornycroft until the type 23 comes on stream at the end of the decade, I hope in good numbers. I believe that the first will not be fully operational until 1989–90. In the meantime, four type 22 destroyers to replace "Ardent", "Antelope", "Coventry" and "Sheffield" would make a significant contribution to the anti-submarine and frigate strength of the Royal Navy. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to make that announcement.
Everything that has been announced, and the general flavour and tenor of my right hon. Friend's remarks, do not lead me to believe that they have much to do with the White Paper that we are debating. The White Paper is out of date and does not contain many positive proposals. However, one proposal was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of which I am sharply critical. I have never suggested that dockyards exist merely to provide employment, agreeable though that might be to hon. Members who represent dockyard constituencies.
The yards exist to support the Fleet, to refit and to modernise. Refitting is necessary after the battle of the South Atlantic and we all insist upon the modernisation—whether with Sea Wolf or Sea Dart or whatever—of our existing ships. It is necessary to ensure that our new ships are kept up to date in the coming years to keep abreast of the threat.
All this cannot be done by Rosyth, Devonport and a small naval maintenance centre at Portsmouth. Even if Portsmouth is not to be brought back to its former glory, it must at least be restored to a significant dockyard level. Chatham is also needed. A significant quantity of surface work is still required, at which Chatham is particularly good.
In addition, I am profoundly worried about the SSN refitting programme if we lose the capability of the Chatham yard. Last year—this was not in the White Paper and it was not debated—a decision was made about "Dreadnought", the first of our nuclear submarines, which is now out of commission and being scrapped. The decision was taken because refitting capacity was not available.
As we are trying to cram many quarts into a pint pot, two SSNs will be unable to have their planned third major refit, and thereby their fourth commission. That is because we are now relying on Devonport for the SSN refittings, a yard which has yet to complete a major SSN refit. We are talking about high-risk technology. I believe that "Valiant" and "Conqueror" could well follow "Dreadnought". That would be a tragedy, because all that we are trying to do in building up the SSN fleet to 17 or 18 would be negated if we were forced prematurely to drop out the older nuclear submarines.
The nuclear refitting complex at Chatham is still working. It is efficient and it has delivered the goods. Both sides of the House agree that our hunter-killer submarines are excellent, and again they have proved themselves in the Falkland Islands. It would be silly to put all that at risk for the sake of closing down the Chatham complex and concentrating on one yard. With the greatest respect to my
1108
friends in Devonport, whom I know well, Devonport dockyard has yet to prove its capacity to refit nuclear submarines.
Our defence policy is now on the right lines, but we still have a long way to go. I continue to have reservations about our policy. With the retention of ships such as "Glamorgan", "Fife" and "Bristol" —I understand that "Bristol" is soon to follow—the heavy redundancies that have been announced, and indeed enacted, for the officers and men of the Royal Navy will be nothing like as high. Obviously I want still fewer redundancies, and I cannot pretend that I am yet happy but I am certainly happier than I was. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has drawn his full conclusions, and if the defence paper that will emerge at the end of the year goes further down this path, he may even get me into the Lobby to support him at the end of the year.
8.20 pm
Mr. Gavin Strang: As much of what I shall say will be at odds with the views of the majority of hon. Members, I shall start by agreeing with the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) in the tribute that he paid to our forces on the Falklands. The House will probably know that I think that the invasion of the Falklands was unnecessary and was an unjustified response to the aggression of the Argentines. However, that does not prevent me paying tribute to the tremendous courage and professionalism that was shown by our forces, who were successful in the operation.
I shall concentrate on a much more important issue. Mankind is entering a horrific period in its history. I say that because of the massive escalation that is taking place in nuclear weaponry. These developments are at the disposal of the super-powers and they will be at the Government's disposal. The central issue facing us is how we can lift the threat from our people and from future generations that will occupy these islands and other territories. This is important and germane to the debate, because no other country in Western Europe is making such an irresponsible contribution to the escalation of the nuclear arms race as the United Kingdom under the present Government.
The Government have taken the decision to acquire the Trident II D5 nuclear weapons system. I was present when the decision was announced in the House of Commons. The exchanges on the statement continued for about 35 minutes. Yet it was the most important decision ever taken by a British Cabinet. In opening the debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) focused rightly on the enormous cost of the system. Most of those who have referred to it have spoken of a cost of £10 billion at current prices. Much more important than the financial cost is the enormous destructive power of the system.
The existing Polaris system has the capacity to wipe out between 15 million and 30 million Russians. It is a counter-city weapon which was justified on the basis of a policy of deterrence. That is the policy of mutually assured destruction. One does not need to participate in the massive escalation that is implicit in Trident II to maintain a policy of mutually assured destruction.
It would be monstrous if the Government went ahead with the Trident II development on the Clyde without a public inquiry. The Government were right to have a public inquiry into the development of the airbase at Stornoway. I recognise that there is no statutory

1109
requirement to hold a public inquiry. I know that the Ministry of Defence does not need planning permission. It would be an affront, and there would be deep resentment throughout West Central Scotland, if there were not at least a limited public inquiry. Of course, we want as wide a public inquiry as possible so that the local people can express their views on this enormously important development.
The most important feature about the Trident II development is that it is not a counter-city weapon. The Trident II D5 is a counter-force weapon. It is designed to destroy Russian missiles in their silos. As any school child knows, its only chance of doing that is if it is fired first. That is what is so terrifying about the D5 decision. We are going down the road of counter-force weaponry and first-strike weapons. It is no good Conservative Members shaking their heads because that is what the D5 system is designed to do. It may be that the British Government do not intend to use it as a first-strike weapon, but we must consider the Soviet Union's attitude to the system. We must accept that it has been designed as a first-strike weapon. A counter-force first-strike weapon undermines the philosophy of mutually assured destruction and we are seeing the end of that policy. That is the most terrifying development.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the D5 can knock out SS20s?
Mr. Strang: The D5 has the accuracy to do so. That is what it is all about. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, I suggest that he reads the reports of some of the congressional hearings. The D5 is a counter-force weapon and Conservative Members have acknowledged that. That has not been denied by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State says that it is not the Government's intention to use it as a counter-force weapon, but I suggest that hon. Members read the debate on Trident in which I participated. I shall now deal with another important development—the intention to install cruise missiles and have them operational by the end of 1983. Cruise missiles are relatively inexpensive compared with Trident. A worrying aspect about them is that their size and the flexibility of their launchers makes it impossible to verify them under the current procedures. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point. It causes worry among many people, irrespective of their stance on disarmament. Under current arms control verification procedures it would be impracticable to verify the existence of weapons. That is a disturbing development for anyone who believes in arms control and nuclear disarmament.
Accuracy is another factor. Cruise is a highly accurate weapon. That is why it is a counter-force weapon. That fact represents another lurch towards instability. The development of Trident, MX and cruise has led to a massive upsurge in support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament throughout Europe and beyond. There was a massive demonstration in Britain last autumn. There was another in June. They were probably the largest demonstrations that have taken place in Britain since the Second World War. There have been huge demonstrations in West Germany, Holland, Rome and other parts of Europe. That is perhaps the most important recent political development in Europe. Certainly the most important development in political opinion in Europe, has been the
1110
upsurge of opposition to nuclear weapons and a growing recognition of the fact that mankind has no future if we continue in the present way. It is interesting to note that in the United States there have not merely been massive demonstrations such as the one in New York. The Democratic Party has decided to include a freeze policy as a plank in its campaign in the mid-term congressional elections. That is an important development.
Soviet society is such that it is not easy to understand what is going on there. Nevertheless, I would argue that there is increased anxiety on the Soviet side about the threat of nuclear war. There is evidence to support that view from what has happened recently in Warsaw Pact countries. As a result of the upsurge in anxiety throughout Europe and the United States about nuclear weapons, several initiatives have been advanced by the superpowers. There has been the zero option, for example. It is unrealistic. It is unlikely that the Soviet Union will dismantle weapons that are already in place in return for an agreement not to install new ones. The freeze option that has been advanced by the Democratic Party in the United States is also unsatisfactory. It is, however, more realistic. It would be an important advance towards sanity if it could be adopted as United States policy.
My right hon. Friend the member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) mentioned the Soviet offer not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. That is neither the most important development nor a basis for stability, but it accentuates the circumstances of NATO. We are much more dependent on the early use of nuclear weapons than is the Warsaw Pact. It is built into our strategy and all hon. Members know it. That is an important area of instability. Hon. Members should be worried about it. We should try to increase the gulf between conventional and nuclear war. There is a quantum leap between the damage that is inflicted by conventional and nuclear war. Nuclear war means the annihilation of civilisation as we know it. We should not forget that.
One of the challenges that the Government should take up is to increase that gulf between conventional war and nuclear war by battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons. The distinction is blurred. We have to recognise that there is a chance of NATO being drawn into an early use of nuclear weapons. Once one starts to use nuclear weapons in such conflicts the whole thing will escalate very quickly.
Mr. Robert Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I disagree. He apparently believes that Trident II is wrong and that there must be nuclear disarmament—presumably unilateral. If we took that course and the Russians did not follow, what would be our position? Would we rely entirely on America? Would it be honourable to rely on the American nuclear umbrella, having got rid of our own commitment to it?
Mr. Strang: I shall come to that point. The most important element of instability, which should be of real concern to us, is the change in the technology of these weapons, their increased sophistication and the increased risk of war by accident. The whole idea of deterrence is being downgraded and senior people are talking about the possibility of fighting and winning a nuclear war. That is patent nonsense. In a nuclear war, the survivors will envy the dead.
One of the most important documents to be published on this subject was a memorandum submitted by some

1111
very senior and distinguished retired NATO commanders to Foreign and Defence Ministers of the NATO Alliance at a press conference at The Hague last November. That document brings out in an important way the increased risk arising from these nuclear weapons. With particular reference to cruise missiles, it says:
"The development and installation of these new nuclear weapon systems is especially dangerous because it is coupled with a clear intention to use them in a first strike also against non-nuclear states. In the light of this policy, all nuclear threshold states would feel forced to produce nuclear weapons of their own, without mentioning the fact that the Soviet Union could be tempted to equip her allies with such weapons.
One should not overlook the dangers of intentional or unintentional misuse of nuclear weapons, tragic accidents or grave computer failures. The worst of it is the increasing madness of nuclear armament which must inevitably end in a disaster.
This behaviour is highly irrational. The decisions taken in the U. S. and the measures planned create dangers unacceptable for Europe."
I could continue to quote more in that vein.
I put it to Conservative Members that we cannot continue to go down this road. A start must be made towards nuclear disarmament, and all the arguments point to a start being made in Europe. Leaving aside the merits of the argument, it is unrealistic to expect the United States to disarm unilaterally. It is equally unrealistic to expect the Soviet Union to do so. One has only to think of the example of the Chinese threat.
I believe that the starting point must be in Europe. That is why I support the recent important policy statement of the Labour Party, which I have no doubt will be endorsed at the Labour Party conference. It commits us to cancel the Trident and cruise programmes, to return any of the cruise missiles which may have been installed and to remove all nuclear weapons and bases from British territory. It is important that we aim to achieve that within a few years, certainly within the lifetime of a Parliament. We must have the courage to give a real lead to the campaign for a nuclear-free zone in Europe.
I recognise, of course, that a nuclear-free zone in Europe will still be capable of being reached by Russian missiles sited beyond the Urals, but the road that we are now going down will mean the end of civilisation as we know it. The enormity of the danger is such that someone must have the courage to make a start somewhere.
Mr. Robert Atkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Strang: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I cannot give way again.
I belong to the first generation to spend its entire life under the threat of nuclear war. I believe that if we continue with this massive escalation there will be no chance for the generations that follow to outlive the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Mr. Robert Atkins: What about the French?
Mr. Strang: I therefore make no apology for quoting again from this important document, as the fact that it comes from distinguished retired ex-NATO commanders probably gives it greater authority in this House than anything that I could say. It says:
"The armament logic of former decades which said that a more extensive war potential implied an increase in national security is not valid any more however. Nowadays, more security can only be obtained through less armament. This reversal is not an easy process, but a feasible one. A decision like this demands as much political wisdom and statesmanship, courage and
1112
cultivated leadership qualities as did formerly the doctrine of the use of military force in order to maintain national independence, sovereignty, and freedom.
New circumstances require new solutions. We repeat: Our NATO bodies face two options: either to direct towards arms limitation with all its consequences in order to guarantee security for our people, or to maintain their present armament conception which inadmissibly curtails social development programs and increases the possibilities of conflict as well as dangers of war.
We recommend to choose the first option which we consider acceptable from a military point of view and politically reasonable."
8.35 pm
Mr. R. Bonner Pink: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) would hardly expect me to support him in his position on Trident. He made two points. One is the cost. Trident costs less than Tornado and only about five per cent. of our defence bill. If we spent that amount on conventional forces it would still leave the Warsaw Pact immeasurably stronger than ourselves and would provide no deterrent. What would the hon. Gentleman do without Trident or Polaris? It would be either surrender or complete dependence upon America.
As has been emphasised, the White Paper we are discussing was written before the Falklands campaign. While some of its contents have been overtaken by events, much still holds good. The Warsaw Pact remains the chief potential enemy. For that reason I am convinced Trident is still essential.
I should like to pay my tribute to all those who went to the Falkland Islands to fight that campaign. I send my sympathy to the relatives of those who did not return. I should also like to pay tribute to the men of the Portsmouth, Devonport and Chatham dockyards for the way in which they turned those ships round and got them to sea in a matter of days instead of weeks. I remind the Secretary of State that many of the men working on those ships and who went to sea took redundancy notices in their pockets.
In the Falkland campaign the Navy had the biggest burden and has the most to learn from its experiences. The Navy suffered grievous losses, and because of that it is argued that surface ships are too vulnerable and should be scrapped and replaced by nuclear submarines. Every item of defence has advantages and disadvantages—whether ships, aircraft or tanks—and is vulnerable to some extent. The argument that surface ships are too vulnerable and should be replaced by nuclear submarines does not stand up. It is noteworthy that not a single ship was sunk by the direct effect of a bomb, torpedo, shell or missile, but by the after-effects.
Missiles pose a new problem that has to be solved. Unlike other weapons—bombs, shells and torpedoes explode on impact and cause a fire—a missile explodes and causes a fire that continues burning because of the unused propellant which is self-generating. An ordinary fire can be controlled by damage control parties, but fires started by missiles require new techniques, know ledge and probably materials. This new element must be faced.
The only sure defence is to destroy the vehicle carrying the missile or the missile itself. If it is carried in a ship, a nuclear submarine can be used, but if it is carried in an aircraft, that is a different matter. The argument for replacing surface ships by nuclear submarines is unsound. The ships themselves were not at fault; they were largely unsuitable for the job in hand.

1113
The Navy is geared to NATO and Europe. The ships are designed and equipped accordingly. They rely on land-based air cover and long-range radar detection. In the Falklands those were lacking. "Invincible" and "Hermes" with their Harriers were not suitable for the job. Their role is principally anti-submarine. We needed a couple of "Ark Royals" with Phantoms and Gannets. But the Harriers, in spite of all the difficulties, performed magnificently and surprised everyone including those who had turned them down in the past.
It is clear from the Falklands affair that our foreign and defence policies are out of line. If we are to retain the Falklands, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Gibraltar and the other dependencies we must have the means to defend them. That means a strong surface Navy. The Falklands operation proved that. It showed that some ships lacked suitable equipment. I am sure that the Government's scrap and replace policy is right. The "Sheffield" could probably have been saved had it had a Sea Wolf, but there was no room for Sea Wolf and its equipment. Even if she had been refitted at vast expense, she would have been of little use.
The defence White Papers this and last year show an overall reduction in the Navy. Serious as that is, I do not believe that we shall reach the figures forecast in the White Papers. It is encouraging that "Endurance" is to be retained, and presumably "Invincible", too. It is encouraging, too, that the first type 23 frigates will be in service by 1988. But long refits are to stop in 1984, so there will be a gap. How will the Minister fill it? Should he not re-institute long refits in the short-term? They are unsatisfactory compared with building new, but would be appropriate in the circumstances.
Coming nearer to home and to Portsmouth dockyard, I am grateful to the Minister for his statement that redundancies are to be frozen. The Falklands operation has shown convincingly that two yards, even if they can cope with ordinary refits, could not possibly cope with an emergency. Damaged warships must be repaired urgently. A reasonable capacity must be maintained at all times. The carrier "Victorious" not so many years ago suffered a serious electrical fire. There were not enough electricians in Portsmouth dockyard to make good and repair the damage without taking them away from and disorganising the refitting programme. As a result, "Victorious" was scrapped. That could well happen again if we do not have reasonable excess capacity.
Only this week, a German destroyer went out of control and rammed a buoy off Portsmouth harbour. The mooring chain was wrapped round both propellers and, I think, the rudder. She was towed into Portsmouth for repair. How will ships involved in such accidents be repaired if there is no spare capacity?
If Portsmouth dockyard is reduced to the level that was planned last year it will be impossible to supply the backup repair facilities that the Navy requires. It is essential that Portsmouth's repair capacity is maintained at the present level. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) that it is equally essential that the nuclear submarine refitting facility at Chatham is retained.
Will the Under-Secretary assure me that Portsmouth dockyard's repair capability will not be reduced, that long refits will continue until the new ships are in service, that
1114
full consideration will be given to all our commitments overseas and that our forces will accordingly be maintained at an adequate level?
8.46 pm
Mr. James Lamond: I start by expressing my condolences to the relatives who lost loved ones in the action in the South Atlantic. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), I did not support the Prime Minister's action in sending the task force there, but as an hon. Member I accept responsibility for asking our men to carry out that action, and the casualties lie as heavily on my conscience as on anyone else's.
There is little in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" with which I agree. It is interesting to listen to defence debates, because defence seems to be the one subject which has no financial restrictions placed upon it. Almost every speech contains demands for even more defence expenditure.
I remind the House that last year we spent, according to my calculations based on the figures in the Estimates, £11,854 million on the arms budget. The proposal for 1982–83 is a real growth of 3 per cent. to a total of £14,091 million. That is an enormous sum and, if properly used, it could not only make a vast difference to the people in this country, but could give much more assistance to those in other countries and perhaps add to the esteem that hon. Members feel that we gained by the successful action in the Falkland Islands.
I should like our country to be held in high esteem not because we were efficient at carrying out military operations, but because we were renowned for our concern for worse-off countries that look to us for help and assistance in overcoming their difficulties, including starvation, the lack of proper medical facilities, illiteracy and so on. I have travelled extensively and I have noted that the countries held in high esteem are those, such as Sweden, that give such assistance.
Not only did we spend £11,854 million last year, but the statistics show that we were second only to the United States among the 13 NATO countries in terms of total defence expenditure and third in terms of defence spending as a percentage of gross national product. When these figures are borne out clearly in the Estimates, it is time for us to examine our position. The Labour Party's suggestion that we should reduce defence expenditure to at least the average of gross national product of other NATO countries, excluding the United States, is a reasonable proposition.
Disarmament has not so far received much attention in the debate. When hon. Members asked about the possibility of a debate on the United Nations special session now taking place in New York, we were assured by the Leader of the House that the two-day defence debate would be the occasion to discuss these matters. I believe that they are important. I accept that we want to spend money properly defending ourselves. I do not challenge that. There is, however, another side to the balance, and it is mentioned in the White Paper. We must try to do so at the least possible expense and with the least possible danger to the peace of the world.
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Mr. Lamond: I cannot give way. There is not sufficient time. The White Paper is pretty thick. It consists

1115
of two volumes costing £8·50 altogether. I grant the Secretary of State that there is a page and a small portion on the back of it devoted to arms control and security. A paragraph also appears on page 7. It is evident, however, that not much space is given to the other side of the picture, which all leaders apparently agree is essential—or at least they say so when they get to New York. It is stated on page 25:
"All Western Governments are united in a wish to preserve our security with fewer arms and at less cost."
One would never have thought that that was the case from today's debate. Hon. Members have been calling for more arms and more expenditure, yet it is presumably the Government's real policy that appears in the White Paper. I tried while in New York to obtain copies of speeches that I did not have the opportunity to hear. Ambassador Summerhayes, our ambassador, I suppose, for disarmament purposes, mentioned to the 50 or 60 of us in the delegation from Britain that the Government prided themselves on being among the best at supplying information to the public. I cannot support that. I have found information extremely difficult to obtain. The Secretary of State points to the document. That document costs £8·50. I am thinking of the Helsinki final act of which 7,000 copies were published for a population of 55 million in this country.
If the Secretary of State does not believe what I say I should like him to know that a copy of Mr. Gromyko's speech which I wanted was sent to me before I even asked for it from the Soviet embassy. I wanted a copy of President Reagan's speech. I did not have to ask the American embassy; it was in the post. The embassy, I presume, knows that I am interested in these matters.
Mr. Nott: Did the hon. Gentleman ask for the Soviet Union equivalent of our defence White Paper?
Mr. Lamond: I note the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes but I shall not be diverted. The Prime Minister, who had gone specially to the United Nations to make a speech, was asked if she would place the text in the Library. She said that she had done so. I went to the Library. The staff were very helpful. A copy of the speech was found in a box. I was given it. I was able to unpick the stapling, photocopy it, put it together again and give it back. If that is what the Prime Minister thinks of her own speech, can she be surprised if we do not take it seriously? If she wanted us to understand her anxiety about this part of the balance she would have made sure that her speech was available to Members of Parliament and that it was widely circulated.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, the greatest political phenomenon in the past 20 years is the growth of the peace movement. I know that the Secretary of State for Defence is worried about it because he tried to launch a spring offensive against it. But it is not only in Britain and Europe that this interest in peace has arisen. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and I attended the peace rally in New York. My hon. Friend had the honour of addressing the greatest political gathering ever known in the United States. The police estimated the attendance at 800,000, although I would say it was 1 million. Every section of the community was present at that demonstration. Of course the President of the United States has to respond to it. He realises that the demonstration was only the tip of the
1116
iceberg. There are millions of people in the United States and Europe who support the peace movement and who have never been on a demonstration.
The call for peace arises from the terror that people feel because of the change in policy in NATO, led by President Reagan. People say that these demonstrations are against the two great powers, but the demonstrations were not in such numbers until President Reagan took over in the United States and began his bellicose sabre-rattling and made it obvious that he had no interest in building bridges between East and West. The only hope for the future is to build confidence between the two great powers.
Of course some people think that the Soviet Union is waiting to pounce on us, although I do not. People in the Soviet Union think that we are waiting to pounce on them. Whenever I have the opportunity, I tell them that the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister of Britain would never dream of doing that. She has no aggressive intentions of that kind. Nor did my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when he was Prime Minister. We understand that, but the people of the Soviet Union do not. Nor do the Soviet leaders.
The Soviet Union is ringed by American bases. Five countries have nuclear weapons. Four of them are ranged against the Soviet Union, so naturally its people are afraid. We must overcome that fear of us by building bridges so that we can all benefit from a reduction in world tension and avoid the dreadful peril we face. We can also reduce the unnecessarily high world expenditure on arms—$600,000 million a year. The Soviet Union spends much of that money, but we spend our share—80 per cent. by Western Europe and the United States.
I have already referred the Prime Minister to the many proposals made by Mr. Brezhnev in his speech at the United Nations. For example, he suggested an agreement on chemical warfare. He strongly supported the arms freeze proposals put forward by the Democrats in the United States. According to an opinion poll, they were supported by more than 70 per cent. of the people in the United States. That has been done to try to elicit a response from us. We should realise that the whole world wishes for some response from the major leaders, such as the President of the United States of America.
I end by quoting President Reagan:
"Isn't it time for us to really represent the deepest, most heartfelt yearnings of all our people? Let no nation abuse this common longing to be free of fear. We must not manipulate our people by playing upon their nightmares; we must serve mankind through genuine disarmament. With God's help, we can secure life and freedom for generations to come".
I support that 100 per cent. It is not sabre-rattling but the response of the President to the tremendous demonstrations throughout the world. Unless our Government also respond we can expect a nuclear holocaust in the next five years.
9.1 pm
Miss Janet Fookes: I was very much encouraged by the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He got it right when he said that he did not wish to alter the general thrust of previous defence policy while being willing to make adjustments in the light of the Falklands conflict. However, I was not encouraged by many of the speeches of Labour Members. Starting with the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), it was a depressing experience. He seemed incapable of making a clear statement about his

1117
party's policy, apart from saying that he had no confidence in my right hon. Friend. I felt like saying at the time that the feeling is amply reciprocated by Conservative Members about the right hon. Gentleman. I would not trust him and his colleagues to launch a rubber duck in a bath, let alone to launch a task force. [Interruption.] I am not dealing with animals tonight.
I pay tribute to the part played by the city of Plymouth in the Falklands conflict effort. The Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the civilian back-up were all magnificent. I felt deeply for those who worried during the campaign and for those who now grieve for injured or dead relatives.
There are some lessons that I hope that we can learn from the crisis; I put four points to my right hon. Friend. I am glad that he is considering the possible retention of a third dockyard. I was relieved and thankful that Devonport was spared and I am delighted that the enhanced role that was intended for it is to be continued. It would be right to consider the retention of a third dockyard, although I realise that that is cold comfort to those who work in the fourth.
It is clear from the major effort produced at Devonport that the dockyard workers are fully capable of undertaking that enhanced role. I make the point because some of my hon. Friends have suggested otherwise.
Secondly, I want to say a word about the vulnerability of surface ships. We cannot conclude that we should not have surface ships or that we do not need more of them. The lesson that we must learn is the need for early warning of intending attacks and that, provided early warning is available, they are well capable of taking care of themselves. That is the major lesson that we should learn from this expedition to the Falkland Islands.
Thirdly—I am not sure that this matter has been mentioned at all in the debate—the Ministry of Defence should look carefully at the role of its information service and that of the media in a modern campaign. We realise that there were difficulties from time to time, and that there was ill-feeling. As bystanders it is difficult for us to judge, but it would appear that this matter should be looked at most carefully, to see whether the censorship was sufficient, or perhaps foolish in some respects, and how we might generally improve this aspect. The media will not go away. They are there, and they should be used wisely. Indeed, some of the reports that came from the Falklands were excellent, and they upheld the best traditions of journalism.
Finally, I wanted to speak about fire hazards on warships under modern conditions.
Mr. Buck: Aluminium versus steel.
Miss Fookes: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) murmurs, "Steel or aluminium." I had intended to raise the problem of aluminium. Whatever its virtues, aluminium must be studied carefully in the light of the undoubted fire hazard that exists. It is well known that in ships generally, merchant ships as well as warships, fire is the most dreaded hazard, and in warships which are likely to be attacked, the hazard must be increased ten, twenty, one hundredfold. There must be a complete rethink about fire hazards on ships in relation to the use of metals.
1118
There are also more mundane matters. My right hon. Friend may recall that I tabled a number of questions about simple things such as the use of foam mattresses rather than interior sprung mattresses. That sounds so homely and insignificant, until one realises the danger of fire and the possibility of dense and often noxious fumes. The matter arose a few years ago in the House, with the worry about polyurethane foam in domestic furniture. If it was rightly considered a fire hazard in that respect, how much greater a hazard is it when ships are likely to be under attack.
Then there is the coating for wiring and the use of PVC, which again has proved dangerous. I received what I shall call soothing answers from the Ministry of Defence, but they did not altogether soothe me. For example, on the subject of foam-filled mattresses, I was told by my hon. Friend that to give improved protection
"a programme has been initiated to replace them with sprung mattresses at the earliest opportunity."—[Official Report, 8 June 1982; Vol. 25, c. 59]
I should like to know what the words "at the earliest opportunity" mean. I hope that they mean what they say. If the programme is to be spread over, say, 10 years, that gives me great cause for alarm. More important, why were foam-filled mattresses allowed in the first place? Recently, I spoke to someone on board a ship that I visited about a fortnight ago. I shall give no details, because that would be unfair. One of the officers on board the ship said, of his own accord, "We have been pressing for years not to have foam-filled mattresses". Sadly, it takes a crisis like the Falklands to make us see sense. I earnestly entreat my right hon. Friend to take the fire hazards in warships seriously and to look at all the possibilities. I am sure that there are many other matters of concern in that area about which I know nothing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) was right when he said in his brilliant speech that the Falkland Islands campaign was one off and that we should not go overboard in that direction. However, there is a real sense in which it was not one off, and that is in a political sense. In the dangerous world in which we live, the resolve which a nation shows to defend its own interests is important. If potential adversaries think that we have gone soft or weak, or are not willing to defend those interests, there is a grave danger. One of the most vital lessons that will have been learnt by possible opponents is that there is the will to defend those interests with blood and lives if necessary. In that sense the Falklands campaign will have been seen to make the world a safer place.
9.11 pm
Dr. Oonagh McDonald: First, I should like to congratulate the task force on its brilliant job in defending the Falkland Islands and in freeing the people there from Fascist rule. I should also like to extend my sympathy to those who have lost relatives and to those who have been injured. I should like particularly to mention those in Thurrock, especially members of the merchant marine who, no doubt, left from Tilbury Docks and were involved in the task force.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has already set out the attitude of the official Opposition by stressing the determination of the Labour Party to ensure peace and security for Britain and to provide adequate conventional forces. He has also

1119
expressed our deep antipathy to the employment of nuclear weapons from Britain. It is from that standpoint that I want to comment on the White Paper.
We were all astonished, having listened to the rumours for several weeks, that the Secretary of State decided to publish the White Paper in this form. When we read it we asked ourselves why he had published it. It was obviously strange to publish a document that was produced before the Falklands crisis and which therefore could not take account of all the political, technical and military lessons which had to be learnt from it. Indeed, it referred to ships that had been lost or damaged during the Falklands operation.
The White Paper shows once again, even in the aftermath of the Falklands crisis, that as far as the Government are concerned the whole stress of their defence policy depends on the deployment of nuclear weapons. It is, perhaps, especially significant that as one goes through the chapters of the White Paper the first chapter is about the nuclear forces and, in particular, Trident. That forms the basis of the Government's defence for the future and it is that that distorts the Government's defence policy.
The Government refuse to acknowledge that their decision to take Trident makes it impossible to fulfil the other aims of defence, not perhaps in the immediate future but in the years to come. Expenditure on Trident will make it impossible for the Government to put the future defence of the United Kingdom on a sound basis. It means that the Government cannot carry out their other commitments as a major contributor to NATO's naval and maritime air capacity.
The crunch will not come this year, but the Government will go out of office—perhaps in 1983 or 1984—leaving the country's defences weak, and placing the burden of providing adequate conventional forces on the next Government. That is ironic, for a Tory Government like to be seen as the Government who alone offer a serious commitment to defend this country.
Yet people should learn from history. It took a long time to sort out the mistakes of the 1957 Tory White Paper on Defence and in future it may be our misfortune to spend a long time sorting out the Government's mistake in going for Trident. The Secretary of State has been offered several figures for the cost of Trident by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford, but I shall give him a few more. An interesting aspect of the White Paper is that almost without batting an eyelid, the cost of the Trident programme increased to £7·5 billion at 1981 prices. That means that at current prices, the bill is already £8 billion and that the probable estimate—which most commentators accept—is £10 billion.
In addition, we must consider the impact of Trident's purchase on the capital expenditure programme, which, strictly defined, excludes, for example, research and development. If that programme is taken into account the cost of Trident will amount to 15 to 20 per cent. of the capital expenditure budget in the peak years. That will be at about the end of the decade and at precisely the time when other parts of the conventional forces will need to be re-equipped and replaced. That is why the Government are shirking their responsibility to defend Britain properly. They are pushing the burdens on to the next Government. They will have to be responsible for sorting out the Trident
1120
error. The next Government will have to take the responsibility of re-equipping the Navy and of providing for that.
The Government repeatedly claim that the cost of Trident is only three per cent. of the defence budget over an 18-year programme. I understand why they pick that percentage; it is the best possible presentational figure for them. However, in the peak years the figure will double and will be six to eight per cent. of the overall defence budget. Once hon. Members see how the costs rise sharply at a crucial time in the development of the nation's defences, they will realise that the Government shuffled those problems to one side.
After all, what can be done with Trident? If the Government's claim that it is not a first-strike weapon is taken seriously we can only keep it in Britain and hope to God that we never have to threaten seriously to use it. If we threaten to use it, the other side will not take the threat seriously. Trident cannot be properly understood as a deterrent. No one will believe that we are prepared to risk serious destruction and the possible annihilation of our country by using that weapon. The Government have put their eggs in that basket and that is why it constitutes chapter 1 of the White Paper.
The Government have turned their attention away from the Navy. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), a former Minister, may be correct to suggest that the Government have begun to learn a little from what he has said in the past and from their mistakes. However, they have a long way to go. What should have been learnt, partly from the Falkland Islands episode, is the significance and importance of the Navy. We are an island and a trading nation and we must therefore defend it at sea. This episode should make us learn that the Navy is vital. After all, 96 per cent. of our imports of food, energy and raw materials and exports of manufactured goods are transported by sea.
The whole operation of the Falkland Islands was brought about by the Navy. The movement of defences, the landing and supply of 9,000 soldiers over 8,000 miles from their base, could have been carried out only by landing ships, frigates, destroyers and carriers. I hope that the Secretary of State will learn that lesson once and for all.
The Secretary of State should also realise not only that we make an important contribution to NATO through the Navy—after all, the Alliance is strung together by ships—but that it has an advantage for us, in our foreign policy and our defence. If we give the Navy priority, that gives us a certain independence in the planning and operation of our foreign policy and defence. That means that we can be free to operate outside NATO, if necessary, to defend our interests or to defend those who require defence. It means also that we are free to co-operate if a future United Nations force should come about.
I now turn to specific questions about the Navy that I hope the Minister will deal with either now or later. In the answer to the Select Committee questioning last week, the Secretary of State said that out of the task force—he declared the number of ships to be 23–16 destroyers and frigates were lost or damaged. That is two-thirds of the task force.
When I was trying to discern how many ships were in the task force, looking at reported sources, I saw the suggestion that there were about 50 ships. Is that figure correct? Which ships were involved in the task force, even

1121
if not continuously? How many were destroyed or damaged? In particular, how many of those ships are due to be scrapped or sold? The Minister has announced the reprieve of some of the ships. Some of the ships that have been reprieved were involved in the task force. It is now time that we got a clearer picture. Before the reprieve, the number that I calculated was 17 due to be sold out of 50. Others put the figure at 29 out of 50. We want to know the whole disposition of the task force. This is the time for such questions to be answered.
We have some information now about ships to be sold or scrapped up to 1984–85. However, we are not told what will happen to the fleet after 1986. That is a crucial area for a number of Leander ships and other classes such as the Rothesay class. We need to know what proportion will be scrapped or sold and therefore what the burden of replacement or refit will be after that stage. If one looks at the age of the ships involved one suspects that a substantial proportion will go and that the fleet might be reduced to some 32 ships by the end of the decade. That number may not be up to date, in view of what the Secretary of State said. If that is so, the number may be smaller. The costs for the next Government to bring that number up to proper strength would be great.
Mr. Anthony Buck: When?
Dr. McDonald: I am talking about the end of the decade. We already have 42 ships plus eight in reserve, according to last year's White Paper. It appears that the number will fall below that.
The Secretary of State has spoken of Portsmouth, but he has not given us the impression that he will seriously consider all the dockyards. The Opposition are horrified that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity to carry out a proper and careful examination of the dockyard closures, bearing in mind that hon. Members have suggested that the dockyards should be used for the support of the fleet. The review should be of all the threatened dockyards. Other hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) are not worried about all the dockyards. In a recent letter to the trade unions at the Devonport dockyard, the right hon. Member said:
"I am writing to you to warn you about the growing concern to retain the Chatham dockyard … if Chatham was to be reprieved, it would have extremely serious consequences for retaining the present workforce in Devonport … There is no escaping the reality that if Chatham is retained there will be cutbacks in Devonport."
The right hon. Member did everything in his power to discourage the trade unions in Devonport from involving themselves in a national campaign to save Chatham as well as the other dockyards.
Sir Frederick Burden: The last sentence of that letter from the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who hopes to be leader of the SDP and of the Alliance, and possibly to go to 10, Downing Street, stated:
"I hope very much that unions in the Devonport dockyard will let their national offices know that they do not support a campaign to retain Chatham."
Dr. McDonald: I am glad that the hon. Member added that last sentence. One wonders what the right hon. Gentleman's concern is. Clearly, as a Member of Parliament the right hon. Member for Devonport will be
1122
concerned for his own constituency, but perhaps he has other concerns. I am not familiar with the details of the carve-up between the Liberal Party and the SDP alliance, but the Liberal Party may take responsibility for fighting Chatham and surrounding seats for the alliance and not the SDP.
Mr. Crawshaw: I do not wish to enter into this argument, but would the hon. Lady fight for the retention of industries in her own constituency?
Dr. McDonald: Of course. I made it clear that any Member of Parliament fights for the retention of industries in his own constituency. Within the Labour Party, we take part in national campaigns to preserve industries as well. Our concerns seem to be wider than those of the SDP.
Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not think that the hon. Lady was present when a deputation from Chatham dockyard, as well as a deputation from Portsmouth, came to London. The deputations said that it was useless Labour Members being on the platform because they planned to cut defence expenditure anyway, so what hope would the deputations have had under a Labour Government? I gave an assurance that I should certainly fight for the dockyards.
Dr. McDonald: Hon. Members seem to be having great difficulty in listening to complete sentences. The complete sentence reads:
"Labour will reduce defence expenditure to the average proportion of gross domestic product spent by other European NATO countries, bearing in mind the need to avoid widespread and precipitate redundancies for whom no alternative work is being provided"—
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) laughs but there is not much alternative work in the Medway towns—
"and Britain's need to provide adequate conventional defence forces. The need to do that—
this is what the Opposition have been arguing tonight—
"will involve both the well-equipped conventional Navy and the necessary dockyard support for that."
I turn briefly to another aspect of defence policy to show that other areas of Britain's defence have been weakened by the Trident decision. Last Friday a major article appeared in the Financial Times and part of it stated that
"the air defence of Britain is so thin that it is better not to talk about it."
That is all right if one is the writer of an article that appears in the Financial Times but Opposition Members must talk about the defence of Britain, including its air defence.
The Secretary of State mentioned replacements for and additions to Sea Harriers and Harriers. I know that the replacement of the Jaguar is being considered and I ask for further details of the Government's thinking on the P110. The White Paper tells us that defence procurement accounts for almost half the output of the British aerospace industry. That means that it is sustaining about 40,000 jobs. There will be a need for a follow-on project from the Tornado project if the design team is to remain intact over the next two to three years. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about what he proposes for the P110 project and how far discussions with the aerospace industry have progressed. That will be important in future. I have heard the word "Tuesday" being mentioned. I look forward to hearing the answers then if not tonight.
The costs of sustaining the Allied command in Europe have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of

1123
the House. These costs amount to £5 billion. I find it interesting, for two reasons, that the issue has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is a readiness for Conservative and Labour Members to question the money that we spend on the Allied command in Europe, a readiness to argue that the costs should be more equally shared within the Community and a willingness to question the political underpinnings for the sum that we spend on the defences of Central Europe in the belief that the threat from Russia will involve an immediate and direct assault across the north-east plains of Germany.
I doubt whether that will happen. If we are unfortunate enough to find ourselves involved in a third world war, it is much more likely that that will arise by accident as a result, for example, of a conflict in the Third world in which both Russia and the West are indirectly involved. It is interesting that there is a recognition of that on both sides of the House, at least on the Back Benches on both sides of the House and on the Opposition Front Bench. It is a pity that it seems not to be recognised by the Government Front Bench. It would be useful if the occupants of the Government Front Bench could assure us that their thinking is likely to be brought up to date.
If questions are raised with out NATO Allies on the costs of sharing the burden of the Allied command in Europe, we must make it clear that we shoulder the burden of Trident and that we cannot contribute adequately to NATO, that we cannot adequately equip our forces as conventional forces and that we shall of necessity fall back on the nuclear role. That is what the Secretary of State has got wrong and his publication of the White Paper makes one doubt whether he is prepared to learn anything from the Falklands, or anything from the political, economic and military changes. For that reason we shall reject his White Paper and it is for that reason that we expect the Secretary of State shortly to depart and to be replaced by someone who can bring some fresh thinking to the subject.
9.34 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): Both the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) started their speeches by expressing sympathy for the bereaved and the wounded. May I say on behalf of all the Services that such expressions from all quarters are warmly appreciated? Anyone who has had contact with the wounded will be lost in admiration of their fortitude, bravery, and, above all, cheerfulness. They are a fine example of the best in British life. I am delighted to say that the care that they have received seems to have been first-class.
I occasionally receive queries about how the Services might treat widows. Childless widows receive their husband's pay for three months after his death. Those with children receive their husbands' pay for six months. Their index-linked pensions together give them 90 per cent. of the pension that the husband would have expected to receive at the end of his Service career. A death grant which is equal to twice the annual rate of pension that the husband would have received at the end of his career is usually paid within two weeks of bereavement. Widows are allowed to remain in their Service accommodation for at least six months after bereavement. If alternative civilian accommodation is not available they are not asked
1124
to leave. No widows are evicted on to the street. Any hon. Member who comes across a case of distress will please bring it immediately to my personal attention.
The right hon. Member for Deptford went through elaborate reasoning as to why there is no amendment from the Labour Party.
Sir Frederick Burden: We are all very grateful for the concern that is shown for the wives and children of those who have lost their lives. Is it made known to them without any doubt that the facilities that my hon. Friend has just outlined will be made available and that they will not lose their homes in any circumstances?
Mr. Wiggin: I believe that it is made known to them. My purpose today was to make that information known to an even wider audience so that there could be no difficulty in such matters.
Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Deptford cannot decide whether he wants more defence for less money or the other way round. That is why we have no amendment from the official Opposition.
Mr. John Silkin: I was merely following the precedent of the Conservative Party in 1978 and 1979 and of the Labour Party last year.
Mr. Wiggin: The right hon. Gentleman complains on the one hand when there is the remotest deficiency in anything—whether in troops, equipment, aeroplanes or ships—and propounds plans on the other hand that would hardly enable us to have an army let alone a navy or an air force as well.
I shall not go into nuclear matters, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will deal with them in his opening speech in the second half of the debate on Tuesday that will include Trident and other matters pertaining to nuclear disarmament and arms limitation.
The question of ship numbers and fleet size has been raised on many occasions. The right hon. Member for Deptford intimated that there was a desperate rundown in the Navy about which he did not know and as to which he did not trust the Government. He should note that in this financial year we are spending £½ billion more, in real terms, on the conventional Navy. I cannot repeat that too often. That fact seems to be completely ignored by the Government's critics. It is a fact and it is proven. We have put our money where our mouth is. This year, the Royal Navy's share of the defence budget will be 29 per cent. as compared with 28 per cent. in the last year of the Labour Government. On present plans it will be 30 per cent. by the end of the decade. Our long-term aim is to sustain a force level of about 50 destroyers and frigates. We shall make good our equipment losses from the South Atlantic with money that is additional to that required to meet the 3 per cent. a year real growth commitment to NATO, although we shall not necessarily replace on a like-for-like basis.
I believe that that makes our position abundantly clear. Those critics who constantly claim that there is collusion about numbers may care to bear in mind the fact that there is a permanent difficulty in counting ships. They may be in refit. We do not know what will be the condition of those returning from the South Atlantic and so on. That is why my right hon. Friend has very reasonably said that he does not wish to announce immediate plans on the subject of ships until we have had a little longer to assess the exact position.
Mr. Alan Clark: With regard to the percentage of the defence budget allocated to the Royal Navy, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that in the five years preceding the outbreak of the First World War, before we were involved in any Continental entanglements, the Royal Navy never received less than 75 per cent. of the defence budget.
Hon. Members: There was no Air Force then.
Mr. Wiggin: I remind my hon. Friend that my own regiment went to war on horses in the last war. It is time that we realised that things change and there must be an alteration in priorities.
Mr. Jay: Moving on from the First World War, we were told last year that after the changes proposed by the Government there would be 42 frigates and destroyers in service. After the losses that we have suffered this year and the replacements on which the Government have decided, and after the return of, I believe, six ships from the disposal list, what will be the number at the end of this year?
Mr. Wiggin: The only sensible proposition that I can make is that which I have already made. The Government have not yet made final decisions on these matters. The ships are now coming back in a roulement and we shall have a better opportunity to assess their condition. Far more importantly, however, the replacement issue will be dealt with in the next few months and announced in the White Paper that my right hon. Friend announced in his opening speech. It would be most unwise for me to be drawn into making statements about decisions that are by no means finalised.
One feature of the debate today may have been related to an article in The Times. My hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) and Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) raised two questions about the future of BAOR. The first was whether the Government gave proper consideration to a reduction in the size of the land forces in Germany when the matter was considered last year in the run-up to the White Paper "The Way Forward". It is clear from any study of that that the matter was given substantial consideration and the conclusion was perfectly clear. Despite the temptation to imagine that great economies would be effected, there was no way in which we could substitute the facilities now available to BAOR without greater cost to the defence budget.
The suggestion that if we removed our troops other NATO countries would fill the vacuum is highly questionable. There is no evidence that that would necessarily happen. There must be a grave danger of some kind of domino effect. There would certainly be a marked loss of faith by the Americans and then, perhaps, by smaller countries. Under the White Paper to which I have referred, our forces were reduced to the treaty limits. We do not intend to go below that minimum. Although the intellectual arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton strike considerable chords of sympathy, the practicalities are such that we cannot consider a move of that proportion at this time.
The position of the Royal Air Force in Germany has not been mentioned either in the debate or in the press. The RAF rightly looks upon this very much as its tactical front line. I do not think that we could envisage the placing of RAF airfields without the necessary support from BAOR.
1126
I come down heavily on the side of those who say that the matter has been properly considered and that we should make no changes.
It has been suggested that some of the support costs for BAOR should be carried elsewhere. It is an old subject that has been raised many times. There were one or two critics of the Treasury in the earlier part of the debate. Were those savings to be effected, there would be a transfer between Departments which would not mean a saving to the defence budget and the Treasury would see that we did not gain any benefit from that. The matter of detail was slightly wrong. The Times gave a figure that was the cost of all medical education and married quarters services throughout the whole of the Army and not just in Germany. I do not have the correct figure, but I can certainly obtain it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot made a military point about surprise. He is not here, but I shall deal with the fair point that he raised. He gave three historical examples of surprise being the initial element in a military context. He did not say what he thought we should do about that, except that we should strive to be vigilant and to be there. That is what we are in Germany. The fact that the three examples he gave lead ultimately—after long wars—to victory was not mentioned.
The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) mentioned the backroom boys, as he called them—the civilians and others who helped during the operation in the Falklands. I hope that the Government's gratitude has been expressed to all those people. Somebody mentioned to me that civil servants had been left out. That was not the case. Many civil servants have worked jolly hard, as have all the other people who have been mentioned. We are grateful to them.
The hon. Member for Wallsend also mentioned the Territorial Army. Reserves provide outstanding value for money. In the case of the Army they form about 30 per cent. of the mobilised strength of BAOR but only some 4 per cent. of the Army budget. They are a tangible demonstration of the British people's commitment to national security. They strengthen the link between the Services and the community. We have dealt with the minor problem of training days. We have instituted new works projects, increased unit establishments, set up new training teams for the TA, and our expansion plans are going well towards a target of 86,000. We have formed a number of new units.
In the case of the Royal Naval Reserve we are about to order four new fleet minesweepers. That covers the point also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). We are going for the cheaper versions, and I shall be happy to give him the details of the ships that we have in mind. We believe them to be good value. It is our objective to see that every division of the RNR has a ship. I have taken steps to see that where refits take place during the summer, as far as is possible, we can provide a substitute so that training can continue.
The Royal Auxiliary Air Force has been expanded from three to six squadrons for airfield defence. The House heard what the Secretary of State said about the possibility of establishing a flying part to that organisation. I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) has not had a chance to speak about Chatham. The House and the whole country have noted with pride and admiration the dedication and sheer hard work with which

1127
the work force of the naval bases and dockyards—I must single out the contribution made by Portsmouth and Devonport—rose to the massive challenge of preparing ships of the Navy, and the ships of the Merchant Navy that were requisitioned or chartered to sail with the task force.
Equally, the organisation now faces a considerable task in repairing battle and weather damage. Less obviously, but equally importantly, it must recover the normal programme of refits, dockings and maintenance disrupted by the Falklands crisis. Over 100 warships, RFAs and merchant vessels taken up from trade have so far been deployed on operations in the South Atlantic. I shall be happy to let the hon. Member for Thurrock have detailed answers.
Sir Frederick Burden: I am greatly surprised that the Minister singles out Portsmouth and Devonport. He should be generous and pay tribute to the four major dockyards. Chatham did its best and served well. My hon. Friend smiles and laughs at the Secretary of State, but this is an important matter.
Mr. Wiggin: I was hoping to be as generous as I could, but I believe that little, if any, task force work was carried out at Chatham.
Sir Frederick Burden: Work was carried out there.
Mr. Wiggin: I accept my hon. Friend's word, and I should have included Gibraltar, too.
The Secretary of State explained earlier that it is not yet possible to assess precisely the extent of the task. However, we know enough to say broadly how each yard is likely to be affected. As my right hon. Friend said, the planned expansion of Devonport and Rosyth will continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham chooses to leave before I make my comments about his dockyard. That is somewhat discourteous.
We have concluded that there is sufficient flexibility within the existing dockyard organisation to cope with the aftermath of the Falklands operation. In the longer term the capacity of our dockyard organisation must be dictated by the requirements of the Fleet and our refitting policy. We see no reason to alter the plans for Chatham and Gibraltar as announced last year.
However, the industrial staff who received redundancy notices at Chatham before the Falklands crisis will have them extended if they so wish, generally by the period for which notices were suspended. The decisions to which I have referred should remove much of the uncertainty which has caused anxiety to the dockyard staff affected. It will allow a number of matters affecting industrial and non-industrial staff to be resolved.
I have already referred to industrial staff. The steps that can now be taken for non-industrial staff include 200 to 300 individual transfers to other dockyards, to other establishments in the Department and to other Government Departments. We can also resume the process of giving notices where necessary to over-sixties in the dockyards, and where clear surpluses are foreseen some offers of voluntary premature retirement can be made.
The Government recognise the problems that North Kent faces over the closure of the naval base at Chatham. We are establishing a jobcentre in the dockyard in conjunction with the Department of Employment. That is alongside the dockyard's personnel centre which gives advice to members of the work force on the prospects for
1128
transfer within Government service. The dockyard personnel departments hold training courses for managers and other matters associated with redundancy, employment, removals and so on.
In view of the time and my hon. Friend's absence, I shall curtail what I plan to say and let him have details of the physical things that we hope to do to ease the problems as a result of closing that large employer in the area.
In particular, the apprentice training school that Kent county council has sought to use at Collingwood should be available at a pepercorn rent for up to four years so that skilled training can continue to be provided. I am pleased to say that, subject to the resolution of certain points, of detail, we expect soon to seek parliamentary approval of such an arrangement.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) might have left the Chamber but many people living in the area would like the information. Will the Minister give the information to the House and to members of my trade union?
Mr. Wiggin: I will certainly arrange to do that, but we have only about five minutes left in the debate.
Another subject of considerable importance which has perhaps been put out of people's minds by the Falklands crisis is our Army in Northern Ireland. It is important to stress that it is not a forgotten Army. The spotlight has been focused elsewhere recently, but our forces in Northern Ireland have continued to carry out their duties in support of the RUC. Those duties are often every bit as dangerous and difficult as those undertaken in the South Atlantic and they have been carried out with the Army's customary gallantry and dedication.
The general trend of an overall reduction in the level of violence in Northern Ireland has continued and we have been able to withdraw a further emergency tour battalion from the Province, bringing the total number of major units there to nine.
However, against that general background, the level of violence rose at the time of the Maze prison hunger strikes last year and again later in the year when a series of murderous attacks culminated in the assassination of a Member of the House, the Rev. Robert Bradford.
However, the security forces have achieved some notable successes and there have been a number of good finds of arms and ammunition on both sides of the border. A welcome development in the campaign to bring men of violence to justice through courts has been the successful prosecution in the Republic of Ireland of a number of terrorists who committed offences in Northern Ireland.
A series of bombing outrages and murders at the start of this year have provided a reminder, if any were needed, of the fact that there is no room for complacency in the struggle. The Government's resolve remains to bring the men of violence before the courts and to restore peace and stability to the Province. I assure the House that our troops will be prepared to support the RUC in that task for as long as they are needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) intervened to ask about Nimrod. I can tell him that Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft can operate away from their main bases. The airborne early warning version of the Nimrod will also have that capability. The aircraft could not normally expect to operate in ways that would run the risk

1129
of their engaging in air combat, although they have radar warning equipment. However, we are considering whether some maritime partol aircraft could be adapted to enable them to carry Sidewinder missiles for self-defence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) warned us to look ahead for the Jaguar replacement. We have made it clear that we will not go for a direct or early replacement of the Jaguar, but we will take full account of the needs of industry in our further studies on future combat aircraft, which will cover both the development of the Harrier concept and Tornado-related developments, among which the P110 could feature.
There are always difficulties in a two-day debate when many subjects are raised, but I have done my best to answer a handful of the points that were made. Time is against us on such occasions, but I have sought to deal with the major issues that have arisen.
We have rightly heard much about the future, but I look back to 1979 and the Government's inheritance of a defence machine which was starved of funds and equipment and manned by Service men whose dedication was tested to the extreme by low pay and by the fact that there was no clear path ahead.
It is easy for the Opposition to proclaim that the Labour Government ordered more naval vessels than we have, but I wonder how they imagine that those vessels could have been paid for, bearing in mind that the Labour Party is committed to further reductions in defence spending and the Labour Government had no clear plans on what was to be reduced. A declaration of intent is no substitute for a pledge fulfilled and I remind the House that this Government acted to bring to reality the fundamental, but ignored, necessities of a defence policy.
We increased Service men's pay to full comparability within months of taking office. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) does not want to know; because it is true. We increased defence spending by nearly 8 per cent. in real terms over three years. We expanded the reserves. The TA is now at record strength. We checked the outflow of disenchanted Service men and increased trained Service manpower by 20,000 from its 1979 level.
As to the future, we have not just promised a firm way forward for our defence policy. We have produced it. These are the firm decisions and the hard facts that we promised. It is they that characterise our defence policy—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Mr. Barry Prosser
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
10 pm
Mr. John G. Blackburn: I am pleased to have been granted the opportunity, under Standing Order No.1, to exercise the fundamental right of any Member of this honourable House to raise a matter in respect of one of his constituents. This opportunity, granted to me during this debate on the Adjournment of the House, also grants to me, for the second time, the opportunity to fulfil on behalf of my constituents the sacred pledge that I gave 22 months ago that I would raise this issue on the floor of the House of Commons. Tonight, I keep that promise by raising this matter on the Adjournment debate.
My constituent, Mr. Barry Prosser, was remanded in August 1980 to Her Majesty's prison, Birmingham for medical reports, having been charged with a very minor offence—that is, damage to a lock valued at £1.62. When on remand in prison he sustained injuries of such a serious nature that he died within hours. A major police investigation took place. With the permission of the House, I pay a warm and generous tribute in that connection to the chief constable of the West Midlands police, Sir Philip Knights, who led the inquiry into this tragic set of events. Charges were made against three prison officers, and the verdict of Her Majesty's coroner was that my constituent, Mr. Barry Prosser, had been unlawfully killed. During the many months that followed the case was sub judice, with three sets of criminal proceedings going through the courts.
Those proceedings have now been discharged. I must, as a matter of honour, place on record the excellence of the co-operation extended by the Home Secretary, which is personified in a letter to me dated 7 June 1982 in which he wrote that
"we would welcome a debate in the House about the wider issues raised by the tragic death of Barry Prosser."
He also conveyed, as he has done consistently, his sincere sympathy and condolences to the widow and family, who are my constituents.
This is the first opportunity that the Home Office has had to speak publicly on this issue. I welcome the appearance on the Treasury Bench this evening of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. My considered judgment in this case, for which I have fought in a vigorous, but, I trust, reasoned manner during the last 22 months, is as follows. We have a duty to ensure that never again in the history of the prison service do we have an incident of this nature. We must review the prison regulations relating to hospital wings to ensure the protection of prisoners and the protection of the fine men and women in our prison service. I stress that that is vital.
We must, as a society, ask ourselves the simple but paramount question that has dominated my work on this case for 22 months: should my constituent have been remanded to prison at all? Surely the secure facilities of the Department of Health and Social Security have a hospital with professional staff, fully qualified in nursing and psychiatric care, who could have undertaken the task of compiling the reports required by the magistrates. It is not good enough for society to ask the hard working

1131
members of the prison staff to undertake this additional task on behalf of society; nor do we have a mandate to demand it of them.
With humility, I pay tribute to the men and women of the prison service, particularly those at Her Majesty's prison, Birmingham. It is an overcrowded Victorian prison, with few facilities. The staff work many hours of overtime to do a task which we, corporately, ask them to do on our behalf.
I hope that this evening we shall receive an assurance that there will be closer liaison between the hospital and prison service on this issue, coupled with training for prison staff, which, in my judgment, is important and should be initiated. I refer specifically to paragraph 11.05 of the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons on the conditions at the Birmingham prison.
I also trust that the recommendation that any use of force by prison officers should be recorded will be acted upon. I stress that for two important reasons. I accept that there are occasions when emotional and, perhaps mentally disturbed, prisoners have to be forcibly restrained. That is part and parcel of prison life. Equally, we must consider the prison officers whose careers could be put in jeopardy if the occasions when force is used are not formally recorded. That will safeguard them in the conduct of their duties. I commend that suggestion to the House and to the prison officers.
We must accept and realise that there is wide public concern on this and allied cases. We have a solemn duty to restore the confidence of the public in our prison service. We must also restore the morale of the staff who work in the service.
On Monday 26 April 1982 I had the opportunity of presenting to the House a petition containing 4,624 signatures. The petition called for a public inquiry, and it was accepted by the House. As a Member of Parliament acting on behalf of the constituents whom I have the honour to serve, I invite my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to convene such an inquiry. It is imperative that the inquiry has a completely independent element and I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that the position should be taken by a High Court judge.
I invite my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to have constructive discussions about the plight of the widow, Mrs. Dorothy Prosser. Her quiet courage, resolve, dedication and serenity throughout this tragic episode is an example to us all. Her conduct has been above reproach. Week after week a lonely, sacred vigil is held each Saturday outside Winson Green prison by Mrs. Prosser and members of her family. I have met the family and I respect their sincerity and loyalty to a cause with which I have associated myself both as their friend and as their Member of Parliament. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the entire House when I place on record our united sympathy for Mrs. Prosser.
Equally, I trust that as a lasting and fitting tribute to Mr. Barry Prosser we shall have an assurance from my hon. and learned Friend this evening that the findings of the special internal report of the chief inspector of prisons, which contains firm, constructive and positive proposals and recommendations, will not only be accepted but, much more importantly, will be implemented. In the days ahead it will be a great source of comfort and inspiration to the widow and her family to know that out of this tragic episode the name of Barry Prosser will be held in the
1132
highest regard because of what we shall have achieved as a result of his death. I can pay no higher tribute to the memory of my constituent.
I now commit myself, as an act of dedication, to do all in my power to support the issues in a manner befitting a Member of the House. Therefore, I invite my hon. and learned Friend to respond to the matters which it was my solemn duty to outline.
10.13 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I begin by paying a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), which is the last thing that he seeks. Since the lamentable death of his former constituent, Mr. Barry Prosser, on 19 August 1980 in Birmingham prison, my hon. Friend has been tireless in the interests of his constituent's family and in the interests of justice. The protracted judicial proceedings, first before Her Majesty's coroner, then before two stipendary magistraties, and lastly in the Crown court, resulting from Mr. Prosser's death, made it impossible for many months for my hon. Friend to comment publicly upon the matter.
My hon. Friend has, by every proper means throughout that period, ensured that the Home Secretary was made aware of his anxieties and concern. Tonight he referred to the petition that he presented, which was signed by many thousands of his constituents. It was a petition which merited and received deep concern. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary greatly appreciated the scrupulous and diligent manner in which my hon. Friend dealt with what must be one of the most distressing and difficult constituency cases that can ever have befallen a Member of Parliament.
It was good of my hon. Friend to mention tonight the profound sympathy which the Home Secretary expressed to Mr. Prosser's widow, and with which I should like to be associated. I am glad that my hon. Friend has managed to secure a public discussion of the case tonight. He referred to the letter that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote, saying that he was anxious to have a debate and would welcome it, not least because it allows me, on behalf of the Home Secretary, the opportunity to say something about this event, which has understandably given rise to much public anxiety.
Mr. Prosser was found dead in his cell in the hospital wing of Birmingham prison in the early morning of 19 August 1980. He had been on remand in the prison for just over two weeks, and for the past week he had been in the hospital wing, because his behaviour had become disturbed. At the time he died, arrangements were being made for his admission to a psychiatric hospital.
The post mortem which was held that afternoon revealed the full and horrifying extent of Mr. Prosser's injuries. The pathologist's report was that Mr. Prosser had extensive bruising all over his body. His stomach, his oesophagus and one of his lungs had been ruptured, and the pathologist thought that the cause of death was a blow, probably by a heavy weight. The police conducted a full investigation, and in December 1980, on the instructions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a senior hospital officer, Mr. Jackson, was charged with Mr. Prosser's murder.
Tonight my hon. Friend has paid a generous tribute to the work of the police under their chief constable. Sir Philip Knights, in the West Midland constabulary, in

1133
assembling the evidence that formed the foundation for that prosecution. I am grateful for his tribute, and I know that it will be gratefully received.
The first stage after such charges are brought is always for a magistrates' court to decide whether the accused should be committed for trial. There was a hearing, at the conclusion of which the stipendiary magistrate decided that there was insufficient evidence and declined to commit the case to the Crown court.
The inquest into Mr. Prosser's death was held in April 1981. It lasted for seven days and heard the evidence of nearly 50 witnesses. Counsel representing Mrs. Prosser was able to question the witnesses. At the end of the proceedings, the jury returned a verdict that Mr. Prosser had been unlawfully killed.
New evidence had come forward at the inquest from a prisoner who had been working in the hospital as a cleaner on the evening of 18 August. A report of the inquest was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who decided to charge Mr. Jackson and two other hospital officers, Mr. Smith and Mr. Price, with Mr. Prosser's murder. Again, there were committal proceedings, and these were held in September 1981. At the conclusion of the evidence called by the prosecution, which was given in public and on oath, a different magistrate held that it was insufficient, and declined to commit the case for trial.
The Director of Public Prosecutions then sought and was granted a voluntary bill of indictment against the three officers. This is a little used legal procedure which effectively bypasses the necessity for committal proceedings by sending the case direct to the Crown court for trial. A full trial of the three officers took place in March this year. It lasted about three weeks. A pathologist who gave evidence for the defence said that some of Mr. Prosser's injuries could have been acquired accidentally and that the others could have been self-inflicted. Two other pathologists did not support that opinion. In the event, the jury returned verdicts that all three of the officers charged were not guilty.
At this stage it will be seen that the investigative and judicial processes were exhausted. It is of course lamentable that, a jury having decided that a prisoner was unlawfully killed, guilt has not been established against anyone. However, our criminal justice system is founded on the principle that he who accuses must prove, and we must all accept the outcome of the trial.
My hon. Friend has called for a public inquiry into the case—I well understand why—but my right hon. Friend does not believe that he would be justified in taking that course in the light of the extended history that I have already recounted. Unless new evidence were forthcoming the only possible procedure would be an ad hoc inquiry. This would have fewer powers than those available to the courts that have already scrutinised the evidence so often. It is, unfortunately, now improbable that we can ever know how Mr. Prosser sustained his injuries.
As my hon. Friend has said, we have a duty to try to prevent any future deaths in such circumstances. I should like to take this opportunity to reassure the House that we know of absolutely no evidence that this was other than an isolated incident. The Government are satisfied that it was not part of a pattern of maltreatment of prisoners.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his fair words of tribute to those who serve Britain in the prison service,
1134
and, as he expressly made clear, those at Her Majesty's prison at Birmingham. They and all their colleagues in the service have a difficult and often dangerous job to discharge on behalf of all of us. In the context in which it was delivered, that tribute will be most gratefully appreciated.
Nevertheless, the case has some general implications, and these have twice been carefully and independently reviewed. It became apparent from evidence given during the inquest that there were a number of shortcomings in administrative procedures in that prison hospital wing. Accordingly, the coroner made recommendations to my right hon. Friend, although he made it clear that he did not think that the matters were directly relevant to the death.
Secondly, in the light of this case my right hon. Friend asked Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons to pay particular attention to the hospital and medical services during the full routine inspection of Birmingham prison last autumn. The inspectorate's report and my right hon. Friend's response were published last week, and copies of both are available in the Library.
On all the recommendations of the coroner and of the inspectorate, my right hon. Friend has taken action. I need not detail them all. My hon. Friend has drawn attention specially to the fact that both the coroner and the inspectorate said that hospital officers should be given more training and those recommendations are relevant to the whole prison service. I am glad to report that we are in the course of setting up a prison service standing training review body which will look at the training needs of various grades of staff, including hospital officers. The views expressed by the coroner and the inspectorate will be considered during the review body's study.
We have to bear in mind the fact that most prison hospital wings are just sick bays for the prison and that if an inmate becomes seriously ill he is transferred to a NHS hospital. That is the practical role for those prison departments. Prison hospital officers are therefore only generally called upon to provide basic nursing care. We accept that hospital officers need more training in the care of mentally disordered patients, and we are exploring the possibility of establishing jointly with the Department of Health and Social Security a course on psychiatric nursing in secure environments.
We would also like hospital officers to broaden their experience by spending short-term attachments in psychiatric hospitals after their initial training, which already includes four weeks in NHS hospitals. Arrangements for such attachments have to be made locally between the establishment and the hospital concerned, but they are certainly encouraged by the headquarters of the prison service, although the difficulty of sparing staff from their normal duties in the establishment is inevitably a constraint.
The coroner also suggested that there should be more interchange of doctors between the prison medical service and the NHS. We agree that there is scope for development here; in particular, we intend to reintroduce a scheme which will give prison medical officers the opportunity to serve short attachments in the special hospitals such as Broadmoor and Rampton. There is already considerable interchange of medical staff between the NHS and the prison medical service. The prison medical service makes extensive use of the NHS's facilities and in all establishments at least some of the medical services are provided by doctors who are also employed by the NHS.

1135
The coroner's final recommendation was that hospital officers should submit a report if they had to use force on a prisoner. My hon. Friend has raised an important point about this and has properly placed emphasis on it. We recognise that when, in the proper execution of his duties, an officer has to use physical force, there is always the possibility that there will later be a complaint by a prisoner or an inquiry into the incident. Thus, we issued instructions last year reminding staff that, as a safeguard, each prison officer, including any hospital officer or nurse involved in such an incident, should write a brief factual report to the governor in addition to making any other record.
Some concern was expressed by the Prison Officers Association about this instruction and it advised its branches not to comply with it. I very much regret that it should have reached that decision, particularly as the reports provide—as my hon. Friend said—important protection of its members' interests. It was subsequently agreed that the prison department should prepare a common reporting form, and a draft was sent to the Prison Officers Association earlier this year for its comments. We recognise the importance that the Prison Officers Association attaches to this matter, and I am sure that we all hope that it can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion very soon, because it is most important.
My hon. Friend raised a most important point when he asked why Mr. Prosser was in prison at all. After all, he had not been convicted. He was on remand and in the eyes of the law he was innocent. Under the present law, if the court decides that a defendant cannot be remanded on bail the only other option is to remand him in custody to a prison. The Government entirely agree that in some cases where the defendant is seriously mentally disordered it is
1136
quite inappropriate that he should be in a prison if a psychiatric hospital can offer the necessary facilities. Therefore, I am glad that accordingly the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill now passing through Parliament contains provisions, which we thought it right to include, that will empower the courts to remand a defendant who is thought to be mentally disordered to a hospital. The intention is that this power will come into force two or three years after the Bill is enacted to give the NHS time to provide the necessary facilities.
My hon. Friend has spoken movingly of Mr. Prosser's widow and her plight. I should like to say that the Home Office, acting through the Treasury Solicitor, indicated on 14 April its willingness to entertain a claim for payment of compensation to Mrs. Prosser. Mrs. Prosser's solicitors are in the process of formulating a claim which is awaited by the Treasury Solicitor.
My hon. Friend spoke of the need to restore confidence. I have mentioned the inspection of Birmingham prison carried out by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. While not uncritical of the hospital at the prison, he stated that his criticisms should not be allowed to obscure the high standards of care shown to the patients. He was satisfied that, apart from the areas attracting criticism, the hospital gave a proper service to the prison. That is a most welcome conclusion. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary very much hopes that the tragedy of this death will not be allowed to overshadow the work done by hospital staff in the prison service as a whole, often in very difficult conditions, in providing first-rate care for the prisoners in their charge.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

TRADE
  Republic of Ireland (Exports)
  Republic of Ireland (Exports)
  Manchester Airport
  Manchester Airport
  Weights and Measures Act 1979
  Weights and Measures Act 1979
  British Caledonian Airways (Routes)
  British Caledonian Airways (Routes)
  British Midland Airways
  British Midland Airways
  Insolvency
  Insolvency
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Franked Envelopes
  Franked Envelopes
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Clinical Academic Staff (Salaries)
  Clinical Academic Staff (Salaries)
  University Grants Committee
  University Grants Committee
  Technology Courses
  Technology Courses
  Sixth Form Colleges
  Sixth Form Colleges
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Officers (Retirement)
  Prison Officers (Retirement)
  Prisoners (Treatment)
  Prisoners (Treatment)
  Amateur Radio Licences
  Amateur Radio Licences
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts
  Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts
  Police-Community Consultation Arrangements
  Police-Community Consultation Arrangements
  Prindus
  Prindus
  Video Cassettes
  Video Cassettes
  Railton Road, Brixton (Policing)
  Railton Road, Brixton (Policing)
  Cable Broadcasting
  Cable Broadcasting
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  West Yorkshire
  West Yorkshire
  Council of Europe (Family Ministers)
  Council of Europe (Family Ministers)
  Dependent Territories
  Dependent Territories
  European Community (Luxembourg Compromise)
  European Community (Luxembourg Compromise)
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  Public Bodies (Establishment)
  Public Bodies (Establishment)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Falklands Operation (Campaign Medal)
  Falklands Operation (Campaign Medal)
  Leonid Brezhnev (Meeting)
  Leonid Brezhnev (Meeting)
  Nuclear Arms
  Nuclear Arms
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
INDUSTRY
  Telex Teleprinters
  Telex Teleprinters
  Cannock Chase
  Cannock Chase
  Telephone Kiosks
  Telephone Kiosks
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Community Projects Scheme
  Community Projects Scheme
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Production and Consumption
  Food Production and Consumption
  Whirling Disease
  Whirling Disease
NATIONAL FINANCE
  National Loans Fund
  National Loans Fund
  National Health Service (Pay)
  National Health Service (Pay)
  Central Office of Information (Cash Limit)
  Central Office of Information (Cash Limit)
  Single Persons (Income Tax)
  Single Persons (Income Tax)
  Dependent Relative Allowance
  Dependent Relative Allowance
  Income Tax (Cost of Collection)
  Income Tax (Cost of Collection)
  Health Insurance Premiums
  Health Insurance Premiums
  European Community (Budgetary Procedure)
  European Community (Budgetary Procedure)
ENERGY
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Coal (Production and Sales Levy)
  Coal (Production and Sales Levy)
  "Coal and the Environment" (Flowers Report)
  "Coal and the Environment" (Flowers Report)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Coal Supplies)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Coal Supplies)
WALES
  Secretary of State (Responsibilities)
  Secretary of State (Responsibilities)
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Pregnant Women (Diet)
  Pregnant Women (Diet)
  Factory Space
  Factory Space
  Boundary Commission
  Boundary Commission
  England-Wales Boundary
  England-Wales Boundary
  Departmental Staff (Duties)
  Departmental Staff (Duties)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Argentine Railways (Pensions)
  Argentine Railways (Pensions)
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Republic of Ireland (Continental Shelf)
  Republic of Ireland (Continental Shelf)
  "Northern Ireland: A Framework for Devolution"
  "Northern Ireland: A Framework for Devolution"
  E1 Salvador
  E1 Salvador
SCOTLAND
  Ancient Monuments
  Ancient Monuments
  Alcohol Abuse
  Alcohol Abuse
  Geriatric Patients (Hospital Beds)
  Geriatric Patients (Hospital Beds)
  Greenock-Inverkip (Road Works)
  Greenock-Inverkip (Road Works)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Private Sector Investment
  Private Sector Investment
  Shipping Services
  Shipping Services
  Project Funding
  Project Funding
  Terrorist Murders
  Terrorist Murders
  Motor Trade
  Motor Trade
  New University of Ulster
  New University of Ulster
  Public Rights of Way
  Public Rights of Way
  National Health Service (Employees)
  National Health Service (Employees)
  Third Level Students
  Third Level Students
  University Scholarships
  University Scholarships
  Handicapped Pupils
  Handicapped Pupils
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Trade Scholarships
  Trade Scholarships
  Bursaries
  Bursaries
  Lost Working Days
  Lost Working Days
  Squatters
  Squatters
  Terrorist Activity (Detection)
  Terrorist Activity (Detection)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
  Falklands Operation (War Disability Pension)
  Falklands Operation (War Disability Pension)
  Fluoridation Society
  Fluoridation Society
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  British Asians (Rickets)
  British Asians (Rickets)
  National Health Service (Land Sales)
  National Health Service (Land Sales)
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Falklands Operation (Service Men's Families)
  Falklands Operation (Service Men's Families)
  "Low Income Families—1979"
  "Low Income Families—1979"
  Earnings-related Supplement
  Earnings-related Supplement
  Dentist (Payments)
  Dentist (Payments)
  School Dental Officers
  School Dental Officers
  Psychogeriatric Beds
  Psychogeriatric Beds
ENVIRONMENT
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
  House Building
  House Building
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Clayton Square, Liverpool
  Clayton Square, Liverpool
  Repair Grants
  Repair Grants
TRANSPORT
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
DEFENCE
  World Meteorological Organisation
  World Meteorological Organisation
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Meteorological Office
  Meteorological Office
  Defence Land (Clwyd)
  Defence Land (Clwyd)
  Service Rifle Ranges (Civilian Use)
  Service Rifle Ranges (Civilian Use)
  "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1982"
  "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1982"

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Southborough—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Works of Art on Public Display and VAT
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will direct Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to withdraw the leaflet recently issued in respect of the imposition of VAT on heirlooms and other works of art displayed in houses open to the public and to reconsider their apparent decision to subject such items to taxation by way of VAT.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the leaflet to which my noble friend refers concerns the VAT treatment of disposals of antiques, works of art and other contents of stately homes. The leaflet is issued for the guidance of those involved in such disposals who are not familiar with the rules on VAT. The guidance set out in the leaflet does not represent any change in the law, or any change in the interpretation of the law on the part of HM Customs and Excise. It does not indicate a new imposition of VAT. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to withdraw the leaflet. However, discussions on the detailed application of the law in this area are continuing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that, although the Customs and Excise may maintain that this leaflet does not involve an exposition of any change in the law, in fact VAT has not been levied over many years in this class of case? Is he aware, also, that there has been no statutory change in the law, and some of us are wondering a little why it is that the Customs and Excise, having been quite happy to leave this matter sensibly untouched for many years, should suddenly be taking this initiative?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend is not entirely correct when he says that VAT has not been charged. Certainly, consultations about whether VAT would be applicable in certain cases have taken place. The case arose initially because of an inquiry which concerned the Chatsworth House Trust, and, in fact, the case in point was not liable for VAT.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, are the Government aware that VAT is waived if an heirloom is sold to a foreign buyer and exported, as there is no VAT on exports? Are they further aware that this does not
324
help to retain works of art of historic importance in this country? Will they look into this and try to do something about it?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there is no reason to suppose that the charging of VAT on works of art or antiques in the United Kingdom necessarily encourages exports From the point of veiw of the vendor, he receives the same amount of money whether the work of art is exported or sold to a United Kingdom customer. Although he has to charge tax to the United Kingdom purchaser, this accrues to the Exchequer. From the point of view of the purchaser, if he is a registered taxable person he will be able to reclaim the VAT, anyway. An overseas purchaser will normally have to pay VAT, or some other form of taxation, in the country to which the goods are exported and will generally have to bear greater transport and insurance costs than a United Kingdom customer. It is not, therefore, the case that the overall cost of acquiring a work of art in this country is necessarily lower for an overseas buyer than for a United Kingdom resident.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I welcome the opportunity— rather a rare one—of agreeing entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on this case and hope that the Government will think about it very seriously? All of us who are concerned with the heritage and the arts have begged the Treasury, from all angles, to do things about VAT in different cases, and I hope that the noble Lord will pursue this with his colleagues.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am fully aware of the views that have been expressed in your Lordships' House about the matter. It is something that concerns many people. It is also something that very much concerns the Treasury and they are very much aware of it. To some extent, I think that what I said in my original Answer, that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is still continuing to discuss these matters, makes the point. I am absolutely certain that he will take very careful note of all the views that have been expressed this afternoon.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether VAT is charged specifically on those objects which are on view to the public? Do Her Majesty's Government not feel that this will cause people to hide away their best and most valuable objects and not give the public the benefit of seeing them?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is the case that VAT is chargeable only on works of art which are displayed. There will, of course, be cases in which people who have these works of art want to dispose of them, and there is discussion going on at the moment as to whether or not an appropriate way can be found by which those works of art can be removed from public view for a period of time and then be sold in the normal way, without attracting VAT liability. But, again, I can only tell my noble friend that this is still being reviewed by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether or not the Government were aware of this leaflet, before it was issued by the Customs and Excise? My noble friend has given lots of assurances, but if he is not aware that this is a bit of obvious arm twisting by the Customs and Excise, who are being even more rigid in that field, I do not know what else he would want to prove that.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the VAT leaflet to which my noble friend refers arose as a result of a specific inquiry about the Chatsworth House Trust, to which I referred just now. It was produced for guidance, because there was clearly a lot of doubt as to whether or not VAT was liable. Whether or not my right honourable friend was aware that the leaflet was about to be produced, I cannot myself say. But I am certain that he was fully aware of the implications of people not knowing what liability to VAT they might have.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, is it not obvious that, if you are in business as the owner of a historic house and are registered for VAT and sell objects through the shop in the historic house, you must pay VAT on them? The only way to get round that is either not to display the objects at all, or to sell them—if you wish to sell them—to the trade or send them to Christie's.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords. VAT is chargeable on assets to the business, and if a house is open to the public it can be rightly said that a picture is an asset to the business and is VAT-liable.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that his answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Airey, that the tax can be avoided by withdrawing the objects in question from public view, will merely mean that many members of the public who would have enjoyed the sight of these lovely things will be deprived of them, as a result of an action by the Customs and Excise which will produce remarkably little revenue in exchange?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as putting these things away is concerned, it is still a little early to say, because I do not think the rules have been fully examined, but, as I have said, they will be in due course. I do not necessarily think that all works of art will be liable for VAT, because they will probably be passed on to others who are VAT registered and who will be able to claim it back.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister tell me how much VAT brings in in currency to the country, and is it worth all the trouble that is taken over this?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am afraid that that is another question, which is rather wide of this one.
Lord Saint Oswald: My Lords, whether the leaflet signifies a new departure, or a new interpretation, or merely a new emphasis on the law, do not the Government agree that its results, as raised by my noble friend Lady Airey and reiterated by the noble
326
Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will have the effect of running counter to the Government's whole policy on the display of art works to as wide a public as possible?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it will not necessarily have any effect. There is a principle, which is that VAT—which is a fairly wide tax—is chargeable on business assets. It would be only sensible that assets such as pictures, which attract people to houses which are open to the public, should be liable for the tax in this way.

Miss Helen Smith
3.11 p.m.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will request the Attorney-General to reconsider his decision not to hold an inquiry into the death of Helen Smith in Jeddah in 1979.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I understand that my right honourable and learned friend has no power to direct that any such inquiry should be held.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his Answer, but I must confess that I did not hear it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Marquess should come closer. I understand that my right honourable and learned friend has no power to direct that any such inquiry should be held.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord once again for his Answer, which came through loud and clear. May I ask whether I am right in thinking that the Government, if not the Attorney-General himself, have the power to institute any inquiry that they wish, if the will is there? Further, may I ask whether the Government would agree that there is ample evidence that Miss Smith met a death which amounts to homicide? Further, may I ask whether the Government would agree that the results of the Foreign Office inquiries and those of the West Yorkshire police should be forthcoming?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that the answer to all three supplementaries is in the negative.

Argentine Aggression: Compensation to Britain
3.12 p.m.
The Duke of Portland: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to include in any agreement with the Argentine Government provision for repayment of the expenses incurred by Her Majesty's Government as a result of the Argentine aggression in the Falkland Islands.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, this question is being given careful consideration. There is no immediate prospect of any such agreement with the Argentine Government being concluded.
The Duke of Portland: My Lords, is it not possible to give any indication as to the views of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the first priority is to restore conditions on the islands to as near as normal. This we are most certainly doing at the present time. Whether there is any prospect of an agreement covering the Falklands depends primarily on the attitude of the Argentines. I am bound to say that the reports from Buenos Aires suggest that at present they do not wish to pursue the matter.
Lord Rennet: My Lords, has not the Prime Minister stated in the House of Commons that the Government are not going to ask for damages from Argentina?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, words to that effect were spoken by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in a debate some weeks ago. The context was a little different. I think it is reasonable and right that the answer to the question should be brought up to date. As best I can, I have now given the answer.
Lord Peart: My Lords, may I ask what is the totality of Argentine assets in this country and whether they are going to remain frozen?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I cannot give an answer as to the totality of the assets. The trade and arms embargo which this country has against the Argentine still continues.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Britain entered into this project with the support of the Security Council, of the EEC, of NATO, of the Commonwealth and of all parties, both in this House and down the road? Therefore, is it not prudent at least to leave our options open, in view of the difficulty of making a settlement with the Argentine, and to reserve the right to make a claim for compensation as a result of their aggression?
Lord Belstead: Certainly, my Lords.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall—though he could hardly do that; he was much too young—our experience after the First World War when we demanded reparations, only to discover that it worked to our disadvantage? Ought we not to be very careful about compensation? Perhaps it is far better to forget about it, though it is perhaps difficult
328
to do so, rather than to involve ourselves in financial difficulties and perhaps make our relations with another country even worse?
Lord Belstead: Yes, indeed. I know that what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said is correct. But we were wronged by the aggression of Argentina and we are entitled, if we wish to do so, to claim compensation. Nevertheless, I agree with the noble Lord that this is not to say we should find it easy to obtain compensation if Argentina contested our claim or simply did not pay.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind how much the islanders have suffered from this aggression, can my noble friend assure your Lordships that if it is decided to ask for payment of compensation it will be paid in sterling or another sound currency and not in Argentine paper money?
Lord Belstead: A very wise piece of advice, my Lords.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind the plight of pensioners of the Argentine Government? I refer particularly to those subjects of this country who were employed by, say, the Argentine Railways when they were nationalised. Is the noble Lord aware that the Argentine Government has ceased to pay them their pensions, and will he take the question of their pensions into account?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not wish to appear unsympathetic. I quite understand why the noble Lord asks the question, but it is rather different from the Question on the Order Paper.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that, even if an agreement were reached with Argentina that they should pay us reparations, they might be in the position of being unable to pay because they have very little money and that therefore it would be very nice if they owed us a debt and were in our debt, which would keep us in a slightly stronger position?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these are all good ideas which the Government will certainly take on board. At the end of this exchange it might be right to remind your Lordships that a very substantial quantity of Argentine military equipment has fallen into our hands, some of which is proving quite useful.

International Law and Economic Sanctions
3.18 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, after their experience with Argentina, they are satisfied that economic sanctions can play a part in opposing breaches of international law and

329
whether they will now consider using them to end South Africa's defiance of such law in Namibia and Angola.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government have always considered that, in the appropriate circumstances, economic measures can play a useful role in encouraging observance of international law. The situation which obtained in the Falklands is different from that in Namibia and Angola. We do not consider that sanctions against South Africa would be helpful.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord three related questions. First, does he consider that the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa—illegal under the United Nations and under the International Court of Justice—is as serious as the invasion by Argentina of the Falkland Islands, and that the invasion by South Africa of Angola comes into the same category? Secondly, would he agree that economic sanctions are one of the alternatives to warfare? And if the answer to these two questions is in the affirmative, would the noble Lord further agree that the application of economic sanctions to South Africa, so long as she resists the international community, could save the whole of southern Africa from a terrible racial war?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not agree with the last question, and may I say that the five states and indeed all the parties to the Namibia negotiations, negotiating from very different points of view, are all agreed that what is wanted are negotiations which, as I replied to the noble Lord only last week, are now beginning to accelerate. We really throw this into the melting pot if at this stage in the negotiations we start to talk about sanctions. With regard to the first two questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, as I said in my original Answer there is a clean difference between the Namibia situation and the Falklands situation.
The Security Council in its Resolution 502 made a determination that the Argentine invasion constituted a breach of the peace. The Security Council has made no comparable finding in the case of the South African presence in Namibia. As I said, South Africa is in fact negotiating on this important matter. So far as Angola is concerned, we have deplored South African incursions into southern Angola and called for the immediate withdrawal of South African troops. These incursions underline the need once again for a negotiated solution to the Namibia problem.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, may I ask the Minister if it is not a fact that some of our former colonies which are now members of the Commonwealth—that is, Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe—would have their very survival greatly threatened if any imports from South Africa to those countries were stopped by sanctions?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. His experience underlines the Answer I sought to give, which is that I believe that sanctions in this case would be disastrous.
Lord Soper: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Council of Churches and the Catholic Institute for Social Affairs have both made representations to the Government in general support of the nature of this Question? If he is so aware, what response have the Government made to these very strong recommendations?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the response remains the same as that which I made to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby—which is that we must negotiate ourselves through to a solution of the Namibia problem. This is what the Security Council Resolution 435 in essence adjures us to do. This is what this country, together with four other countries, SWAPO, the so-called front-line states and all the parties to the negotiations, are seeking to do.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that this form of Question, with its inbuilt comparison between Argentina and Angola, can serve no useful purpose, for two reasons: first, because the day must come when we must make accommodation with Argentina, and, secondly, that to talk of the use of sanctions against a friendly state is contrary to our concept of international law?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for asking this question, because, again, it underlines the answer I sought to give on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, which is that there is not a comparison between the two sets of circumstances set out in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that this situation has arisen very largely because of terrorists entering Namibia from Angola?
Lord Belstead: Here again, my Lords, Lord Bess-borough's question underlines the need to negotiate our way through to the situation where there will be a constituent assembly and a proper constitution—that is what Resolution 435 adjures us to do—and when terrorism in Namibia will be no more.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, has not the experience of the past 50 years conclusively shown that economic sanctions are never effective, unless it is the intention to reinforce them by military measures if necessary?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, once again I would not disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, says on that particular point.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree at least that there is something of which we must be cognisant: that after what happened to our kinsmen in the Falkland Islands we had the strength, the nerve and the determination to carry out the action required? Therefore, would he not agree that where such things happen in any part of the world, particularly with the way in which South Africa is behaving, we should not take any profit

331
or monetary factors into consideration but should maintain the principle that we are opposed to the debasement of human beings anywhere; and that we are against those who debase the standards of life and threaten people illegally anywhere in the world as well as on the Falkland Islands?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on the first part of his question about the Falkland Islands. On the second part, may I repeat to the noble Lord that we are in a situation where the negotiations are, we believe and hope, accelerating. It could be that the Security Council resolution so far as Namibia is concerned may be getting somewhere. Do not let us take any action now which would almost certainly cast that into the dark.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister agree that, in view of the Answer that he has given to me and the questions which came from behind him, all the countries of South Africa which have been mentioned are in favour of sanctions being used by the Western powers against South Africa until South Africa withdraws from both Angola and Namibia? Secondly, in the noble Lord's answer he referred to Resolution 435; is he aware that this matter was debated in 1966 at the United Nations General Assembly and the mandate was then ended, but that in 1971 the International Court of Justice declared that South Africa was illegally occupying Namibia? Is he now saying that South Africa is not in breach of international law?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can answer both questions with the same reply. Whether we are talking about the views of the countries of Southern Africa or whether we are talking about a view given by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, on whether or not South Africa is in breach of international law, the fact of the matter is that we are in a situation in which all the parties concerned with Namibia are negotiating in good faith in order to bring Resolution 435 to fruition. In answer to the noble Lord's question, I believe—and I repeat this for the umpteenth time— that if economic sanctions were to be imposed in this particular case, it would be disastrous.
Lord Brockway: My Lords —
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I believe it is the wish of the House that we should now move on to the next business.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council. It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available
332
at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period; during this adjournment the Report stage of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Feltham Station Area Redevelopment (Longford River) Bill
3.29 p.m.
Read a second time and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited (Merger) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
May I briefly draw attention to the first two items of the report. The first is the commissioning of a bust of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. This has been drawn to your Lordships' attention by a Special Notice which is also available in the Printed Paper Office. I would merely like to say how grateful I am to all those of your Lordships who have very generously subscribed.
The second item is the photograph of the House. Your Lordships will be by now aware that a rehearsal is taking place this afternoon. The photographs themselves will be taken on the 8th and 22nd July. This information has been circulated through the Whip and is also on the notice board. I think I should perhaps just mention that on those days photographs will be taken over a period of about two hours on each day, so that if your Lordships are not able to be here at the beginning of business you may still feature in one or other of the photographs.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report was as follows:
1. Work of Art
The Committee were informed of progress made towards the commissioning of a bust of Lord Home of the Hirsel.
2. Photograph of the House
The Committee were informed of progress made towards the photographing of the House while in Session.
3. Staff of the House
A report on the staffing of the House was received. The Committee authorised the Clerk of the Parliaments to recruit a Clerk to fill the post created in 1979.
4. Library
The Committee agreed arrangements for the future cleaning of books in the Library and authorised provision for the cost.
5. Television Video Facilities
The Committee agreed a recommendation from the Administration Sub-Committee that Television Video facilities should be provided and authorised provision for hire charges.
6. Hansard Reporting Staff
The Committee approved revised charges for the supply of typists and authorised the appointment of an additional reporter.
7. Revised Rates of Pay
The Committee approved a revision in the pay of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.
The Committee also confirmed the application to staff of the House of Lords of the following Civil Service Memoranda:—
CM/556 Revised Rates of Pay
CM/557 Pay of the Higher Civil Service
The Committee also authorised payment of fees and allowances to Hansard Reporters and Doorkeepers for attendance at weekends and public holidays.
8. Parliamentary Delegations
The Committee confirmed the special financial arrangements agreed for members of the Council of Europe to attend a meeting in Dublin between 29th June and 2nd July.
9. Nautical Assessors
The Committee authorised revised fees to Nautical Assessors for attendance at the hearing of an Appeal to the House of Lords in an Admiralty action.
10. Superannuation
The Committee were notified of the following awards:

(a) Pension and Lump Sum to Sir Charles Sopwith, Second Counsel to the Chairman of Committees who retired on 1st June 1982.

(b) Pension and Lump Sum to Mrs. J. L. Saxton, Cleaner, who formally retired on 15th April 1982.

(c) Pension and Lump Si.m to Mrs. H. Chester. Cashier, who retired on 1st May 1982.

(d) Pension and Lump Sum to Mrs. M. Talbot, Cleaner, who retired on 22nd May 1982.

(e) Short Service payment to Mrs. J. L. Sandling, Cleaner, who resigned on 15th May 1982.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Aviation Security Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Industrial Development Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Insurance Companies Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Reference of cases of prisoners serving life sentences to local review committee. S.I. 1967 No. 1462. Parole for prisoners serving life sentences.
.—(1) The Local Review Committee Rules 1967 shall have effect subject to the following amendments.
(2) In Rule 6, the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (3)—
" (3A) Subject to the provisions of this Rule, the local review committee shall review the case of a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for life at some time before the end of the period specified in paragraph (3B) below and subsequently at intervals of not less than 10 months or more than 14 months from the last review.
(3B) The period referred to in paragraph (3A) above is the period of ten years from the date on which the prisoner was sentenced, less any period by which, if he had been sentenced to a determinate sentence, the length of that sentence would have been treated as reduced under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.".
(3) In Rule 7—

(a) the words", other than a prisoner sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life," shall be omitted; and

(b) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (b}—

" (ba) for the reference in paragraph (3A) of that Rule to a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for life there shall be substituted a reference to a prisoner sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life;".")
The noble Earl said: I rise to move an amendment which would in effect provide that after no more than 10 years a prisoner would have access to the parole system. That of course does not mean that such a prisoner would be immediately granted parole. I am fortified in moving this amendment by the fact that it is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who did so much work with me when we belonged to the same party, by Lord Hunt, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who is leading for my party this afternoon.
Lord Hunt is unable to be here, but he has written to say this—I hope I shall not be in any trouble if I quote him:
"I do support your proposition that an application may be made when that period of nine years has passed without a review having been ordered by the Joint Committee. It is then that despair of ever being considered for eventual release or having been overlooked and forgotten is apt to begin. There is an unanswerable case on grounds of Christian compassion for keeping hope alive. The alternative is to impose a form of living death which equates with inhumanity."
That is what Lord Hunt says, and, as we know, he is a former chairman of the Parole Board. Although he has mentioned nine years, which is rather shorter than my 10 years, I think I can fairly say that he is supporting this proposition in his absence. In fact five years ago the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, a former Lord Chancellor, and the noble Lord, Lord Carr, a former Home Secretary, went along with me and argued a proposition of this kind with the Home Secretary for days. So I think that one cannot say that this is a sudden aberration on the part of any of us.
Everybody who has spoken so far—and many have spoken with great eloquence, particularly from the Back-Bench, Front Bench, however we describe the Bench of the SDP—and indeed everybody who has moved an amendment, has clearly thought his the most important amendment in the world. I am no exception. I regard this amendment as being one of the utmost importance.
The Bill before us describes itself as making various changes "in the sentencing and treatment of young and adult offenders". That is the phrasing of the title. But few would claim—I am sure the highly intelligent noble Lord, Lord Elton, if I may say that without patronising him, will not claim—that the Bill does much, if anything, to affect the lives of long-term prisoners, or anything at all to affect the lives of those life prisoners whose numbers have increased so dramatically several times over in recent years. If any of us had a friend or relative in prison, we would, of course, be aware of the degrading conditions under which he was probably living if he was doing, as our friend or relative might be doing, a really short sentence. But, in fact, if any of us had a friend who was doing a longer sentence, undergoing long-term imprisonment, we would know, though there is no particular overcrowding among long-term prisoners, that the whole fact of long-term imprisonment is much more degrading to the human spirit.
If we take the alleged reasons for inflicting very long sentences on our fellow humans, I will quote Prison Rule No.1:
" The purpose of the treatment and training of convicted prisoners shall be to encourage and assist them to lead a good and useful life."
That is Prison Rule No. 1, but I do not think anybody in the Committee, certainly none of the sophisticated noble Lords who speak on these matters, regard that as anything but a sick joke. And yet I would not wish that particular Rule No. 1 to be eliminated. I think as long as it is there it sets a kind of standard which devoted staffs try to live up to. The justification for really long sentences are surely only two: first, they deter potential criminals from committing similar offences; and, secondly, they prevent the earlier release of criminals who would constitute a danger to the public.
The notion that long sentences are more of a deterrent than short ones is now, as a result of Home Office research, about as discredited as the idea that prison is a reforming agency. So it comes down to this. The only justification for keeping one of our fellow human beings incarcerated for many years, for more that 10 years, for example, is that if released he would constitute a menace to society. I am not dealing with mental offenders, who I think should be discussed at great length here, but not on this occasion.
How do we deal with the release of long-sentence prisoners? We know that under our parole system— which I still applaud although I criticise its operation and have criticised it many times—prisoners who are serving a determinate sentence are eligible for parole and are considered for parole after a third. So if by some evil chance they find themselves—-as did the original train robbers—serving 30 years, they would be considered after 10 years. But prisoners who have no determinate sentence and who, nearly all of them, are life prisoners in the official sense, cannot look forward to any definite date when they will be considered for parole. They have no certainity, no hope to build on for the future. Life prisoners are denied any such certainty, any such genuine hope.
Life prisoners, who are the immediate subject for examination at the moment, are "at the mercy of the
336
executive"—to quote a phrase from an official publication. Their whole future depends on a group of individuals" wrapped in impenetrable mystery"—to quote a phrase from the rules of a well known club— who can decide their destiny. The gentlemen who decide their destiny are all quite inaccessible to the prisoners or to their representatives. The decision as to when, if at all, the prisoner will be allowed on to the croquet lawn, if I may use that expression, and allowed a shot at the first hoop, will depend entirely on the decision of the Home Secretary acting on the recommendations of this small internal committee. The committee consists of two Home Office officials and three members of the Parole Board.
As all the many experts in the Committee will be aware, but some others may not, when a prisoner comes before a local review committee, he will at least be interviewed by a member of that committee. If not adequate, it is at least something. But this hidden, tucked away committee which deals with life prisoners sees none of the prisoners at first hand. When the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was chairman of the Parole Board, he got to know many prisoners personally, but that desirable habit has long since been discontinued. I hope that under the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, it will be reactivated.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Earl will forgive me for interrupting, I hope that it will be too. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is now, as chairman of the Parole Board, not really capable of answering for himself, let me just say that what the noble Earl is saying here really has absolutely no basis in reality whatever. Members of the Parole Board regularly visit prisons and regularly talk to inmates.
The Earl of Longford: I cannot accept that as a general statement. I visited prisons for many years during the stewardship—I did not want to allude to this—-of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and I never met a prisoner who had had any interview with him alone. I am only telling your Lordships: the Committee must judge between us. But I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has the idea that visiting a prison means seeing a group of prisoners collectively. That is not what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, did. I am only saying that I prefer the methods of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to the methods of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I did not want to go into that matter, but, since I have been challenged, I must put it plainly on the record of the Committee.
Let us return to calmer topics. I am sorry to say that I think that this is a lamentable procedure. The Committee does not like strong language because it always assumes that whoever produces it is really thinking of the press, but I have talked about these matters too often and I am too old to mind whether that imputation is lodged against me. I am bound to say that the present procedure in my opinion stinks of natural injustice. Under my amendment, a prisoner after 10 years—I would prefer a shorter period, but I am trying to be moderate—would be allowed the right of access to the parole system. It would begin with the local review committee after not more than 10 years. That is not—to repeat what I said at the

337
beginning—by any manner of means saying that after 10 years all life prisoners will be released. They will still have to go through the three hoops: the local review committee; the central board; and the Secretary of State. Even when parole is granted, a further period is likely to elapse—sometimes it is a year or even more—before he is actually released.
I am ready to argue with a devil's advocate who might say that, under my plan, we should be releasing on the public certain dangerous criminals. I would reply by pointing once again to the three safeguards: the local review committee; the Parole Board; and the Secretary of State. If all those concerned cannot decide who is and who is not dangerous, then they are not the kind of people most of us believe them to be.
I must not take up more time. I believe that the parole system has great merits. I suppose that in a small indirect way I was connected with its original establishment. But what I personally value most of all about the parole system, although I believe on balance that it does help to reduce the numbers in prison, is the special motivation that it gives to prisoners. I still believe that it provides an inducement to prisoners to try to reform their characters with some hope of release. Therefore, I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—and after all he must know more about it than any of us here—when I say that if this amendment is carried we shall be doing something to diminish despair. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: I think that it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we now resume the House and take the Statement on the European Council. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Council Meeting: 28-29th June
3.47 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
" With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the meeting of the European Council which I attended in Brussels on 28th and 29th June with my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
"This meeting of the European Council was dominated by external problems of a political and economic kind. The texts of a number of conclusions were agreed and I have placed copies in the Library. They deal with the hostilities in the Middle East, economic relations with the United States, and the economic and social situation.
"As is customary, the meeting discussed current political questions, notably the Middle East. We shared the intense concern at the situation in Lebanon, where the present cease-fire must be preserved and used to secure first disengagement of the
338
forces in and around Beirut, and thereafter full implementation of the recent resolutions of the Security Council.
"In the broader Arab-Israel context we continued to see no alternative to negotiations between the parties, based on the two fundamental principles of the Venice Declaration: security for all states, including Israel, and justice for all peoples, including the Palestinian people.
"The European Council's discussion of economic relations with the United States reflected the concern that all of us felt about certain decisions taken by the United States Government. Their actions in respect of steel imports and the Siberian gas pipe-line could have serious consequences which everyone in the Community wants to avoid.
"The European Council agreed that representatives of the Community should immediately contact the responsible authorities in the United States to see if an acceptable solution could be found.
"The discussion of the economic and social situation was relatively brief. The European Council had already decided at its last meeting in March that industrial questions and unemployment should be a major theme at the meeting to be held in Copenhagen in December under Danish Presidency. During yesterday's discussion the Governments of the member states, the Commission and the Council of Ministers were asked to take certain specific steps between now and December so that the next European Council will be in a good position to review this whole area of policy.
"The question of the enlargement of the Community was discussed informally and we did not seek to reach precise conclusions. It is agreed that the negotiations with Spain and Portugal will continue and the Commission has been asked to make a list of the outstanding problems and to propose solutions to them. All member states recognise that there are problems that must be solved in these negotiations. The position of the United Kingdom is clear —we want these negotiations to succeed as soon as possible and we shall continue to work towards that objective.
"Finally, the Greek Prime Minister made a statement of his Government's reactions to a recent Commission paper about the position of Greece in the Community. This paper, together with the earlier memorandum on the subject by the Greek Government, are now to be studied by the Council of Ministers."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. The summit meeting seems to have been a fairly dismal and unproductive affair, and no doubt he would agree that it is difficult to derive very much comfort from it, although we welcome the initiatives that will be taken to discuss unemployment and other economic matters at Copenhagen.
Can the noble Lord say whether the Government regard a trade war between the EEC and the USA as an increasingly serious prospect in the light of what has been developing? We welcome what the noble Lord

339
said about the Siberian gas pipe-line and about steel. Is it not the case, for example, that steel imports to the USA from the EEC over the last two years amounted in all to only 5 per cent, of the total US steel consumption, and that this cannot surely make serious inroads into the US steelmakers' markets? Therefore, would he not agree that it is very much in the interests of the Western Alliance that this impost should be cancelled and that the ban on the pipe-line should also be raised?
The communiqué, of which this Statement is an extension, refers specifically to the urgent need to lower interest rates. We on this side of the House warmly support that. Can the Minister say what steps the Government will take to discuss this further with the United States? What immediate and urgent initiative do the Government have in mind on this? Further, can he say whether any progress was made in Paris to clarify the position following the breach of the Luxembourg Compromise on agricultural prices?
In view of the fact that urgent decisions will shortly have to be taken on matters of vital national interest— for example, a common fisheries policy, which will have a very considerable effect on British fishermen and on our economy—can the noble Lord say that it is clear that the veto still stands? Is that the impression of Her Majesty's Government?
Finally, I should like to ask two short questions about the tragic situation in the Lebanon. Can the noble Lord say whether Resolutions 511 and 512 are now being implemented to the satisfaction of the Government and of the Community? Is relief, including medical supplies, getting through to the affected areas? Finally, is there any response from the Israeli Government to the 10 points put to them by the Belgium Presidency on behalf of the Economic Community?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. On the situation in the Middle East, I think we all agree that it is clear that the Council could hardly have gone any further than it did unless, of course, it was the intention to take any measures against Israel as a result of its incursion into the Lebanon, and I imagine that there could not be any unanimity as regards any such proposal.
The passages in the Statement on economic prospects and on our relations with the United States are, of course, very serious. It is pretty obvious that, unless the huge American deficit is substantially reduced, there is little chance of our emerging from the present recession and, on the contrary, every likelihood that unemployment will probably increase. As we all know, the deficit is very largely due to the immensely increased expenditure by the Administration on armaments, and notably on nuclear armaments. We can only hope that talks with the Soviet Union will result in some kind of reduction in this respect.
As regards steel imports and the Siberian gas pipeline, we can also only hope that, unless the Alliance is to be endangered, the steps now taken will result in the United States' Administration seeing the light. Finally, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, mentioned the Luxembourg Compromise, which does not exactly arise in this context. It seems to me that the recent action of the Danish Government in vetoing
340
the long-drawn-out, and we hope successful, solution to the fisheries problem surely indicates that it cannot go on much longer running this concern under the unanimity rule.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn, and Lord Gladwyn, for their replies to the Statement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the European Council. Both noble Lords have referred to the United States' action as regards steel imports into the United States and the Siberian gas pipe-line. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me specifically whether the Government felt that there were serious prospects of what the noble Lord called a trade war. I think that there are three things that it is perhaps right to bear in mind. First, of course, as regards the pipe-line, the main contractors are the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy. We are in very close touch with them about this important matter. We are urging on the United States the seriousness of reconsidering this matter, both bilaterally, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister visited the United States last week, and also, as the Statement says, through the concerted approach from the European Community.
Thirdly, noble Lords may have noticed that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Trade laid an order from the Department of Trade yesterday, the effect of which is to say that the Siberian gas pipe-line action is objectionable. This is really a declaratory order. We very much hope that it will be possible to have our points accepted by the United States.
The Government accept from both noble Lords that these two matters are, indeed, very important matters. On the matter of interest rates and the budget deficit, to which both noble Lords again referred, we support the United States' counter-inflationary objectives and hope that a balance will be found between monetary and fiscal measures to achieve them. We hope that the United States' Administration and Congress will soon reach agreement on details for the budget for the next financial year, as uncertainty about the budget is probably an important factor adding to pressure on interest rates in the United States.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me specifically whether the Government felt that the veto in the European Community still stands. This was not, in fact, discussed at the European Council, but in the discussion on 20th June at the Foreign Ministers Council opinions were divided, as they have been ever since the issue first started in 1966. Five member states, including the United Kingdom, took the view that the practice of deferring decisions by majority voting, where a member state considers that its important national interests are at stake, should be continued, and five member states felt the other way. I think that we shall have to see how this works out in practice.
Fourthly, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the Lebanon. I am sorry, but I have nothing to add to what I sought to say to the House yesterday. Information is patchy on medical supplies and other humanitarian aid getting through. It is patchy partly because my latest news is that we have not received an answer from Israel to the 10 specific questions, to which the noble Lord referred, which

341
the Community had asked; and also we have now had to move the British Embassy from West to East Beirut. The ambassador and his staff have been extremely stalwart but the situation has become impossible and so our lines of communication are not as good as we might have hoped. I believe that that answers the questions which both noble Lords asked me.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Kennet of Avon: My Lords, we on this Bench agree with the formulations in the Statement about the affairs in Lebanon and, like the Government, we can see no alternative to negotiations between the two sides on the stated principles. The noble Lord was not perfectly clear in what he said about the 10 questions of November 14. Could he tell the House whether any answer has been received and, if so, in what way it is unsatisfactory; or whether, on the contrary, he was indicating that no answer at all has been received? It would be useful for the House to know that.
Turning to the pipe-line question, what strikes the eye here is the question of retrospectiveness in the American action. Since that action is retrospective in that the United States has imposed certain duties on American corporations by law which were not law at the time the contract was signed, is the action legal and binding in international law and in private company law? If not, why are we making such a fuss about it? In particular, it is the case, is it not? that the United States is restricting the use of American technology by British companies which is part of a Community consortium deal, and if this can happen at one time it can happen again. How does the noble Lord see the future if it is not rectified by the démarche made by the Community emissaries to the United States, to which we wish success?
The passage in the Statement about unemployment and the recession really says less than any Statement that has been made on any former Summit, at least on this matter. It is weak in itself and it seemed to me that in what the noble Lord was saying he was avoiding the obvious answer, which is that Mr. Heath got it right in his speech last night and that the Government intended to move a bit in that direction, and that this would help the Community to get through the recession and the unemployment quicker if they did so.
Lastly, on Greece, is the paper referred to in the Statement—the Greek Prime Minister's statement— among the papers which are being placed in the Library? Even if it is, could the Government be a little more informative? On reading it, it seems as though the Greeks are teetering on the brink of leaving the Community, but nothing is being said about it. Could the Government help to set the minds of the House at rest on that point?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, again, I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful about further news from Lebanon. We have not received any satisfactory answers to the 10 questions which were asked of the Israeli Government, although I must make it quite clear that of course there have been bilateral exchanges on certain points between the Governments and different ambassadors of the Ten, and the Government
342
of Israel. I am not saying that there has been no contact. What I am saying is that there have not been satisfactory replies to that clutch of questions.
The second question the noble Lord asked me was on the difficult subject of steel and the pipe-line. The noble Lord asked why we were making a fuss unless these matters were justiciable in international law. As we in the Ten see it, the action of the United States so far as companies using United States equipment is concerned—and this particularly affects the firm of John Brown in using US rotors—is retroactive action. As to what would happen if the matter were taken to law, I would be the first to say that I do not know the answer. On the difficult point of the pipeline, and the prevention of firms using US licences, we in the European Community feel that the question of extra territorial jurisdiction is coming into play, and that is the European objection. But once again, what would happen if one took it to law, and whether or not it is justiciable in the courts, is something to which I cannot give a reply.
In relation to the economic and social part of the Statement, I am sorry but I really must part company with the noble Lord's assessment. There are two important things to be found embedded in the communiqué which came out of the council which show that the policies of Her Majesty's Government at the present time are right. One is that the Ten agree that investment can be increased only if resources are shifted from other uses, which is one of the incredibly difficult decisions which the present Government had to take over three years, and to keep on taking; and we have stuck to our guns.
The other point is that the European Council stressed the need for productive investment, with productivity being the key word. This means not vast programmes of public expenditure which do not necessarily increase productivity, but always looking to see whether production is going to be increased; and again this has been a basis of the Government's policy. I am very pleased on behalf of the Government to see that the policies which we have been pursuing, not always with the support of Parliament, are now being reflected in what the Ten say.
Finally, on Greece, I apologise again if I appear unhelpful to the noble Lord, but the papers about Greece are not part of the papers which have been put into the Library. In general terms, Greece was putting forward a paper about the transitional arrangements for Greece as Greece joins the Community, and was putting forward certain proposals which Greece would like to see made.

Criminal Justice Bill
4.8 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 62.
Lord Avebury: The noble Earl had just said that the cases of life sentence prisoners are different in their nature from the cases of persons serving indeterminate sentences, in that they do not even come to the local review committee until a committee of the Parole Board and Home Office have decided to refer them. This may happen at any stage in a man's sentence

343
before or after 10 years. The noble Earl's proposal is a rather modest one, in that a good many cases come before the local review committee as early as six years into a life prisoner's sentence; so I feel that he is being wise in pitching the level of the first mandatory review as high as 10 years, because there therefore is less likelihood that there will be any opposition to the proposal.
If we are to have parole at all, then everybody should have a chance of being reviewed, because after 10 years there could have been many changes—changes in a man's character, in his personal circumstances and in the attitude of society to his offence—which will warrant the first stages of consideration. The noble Earl is only asking for that. He is not requesting the Committee to provide that everybody who serves for 10 years will automatically be released but only that he shall have the chance of being considered by the parole system.
I would ask the Minister in replying to consider a preliminary factor which is of importance in this regard—that Category A prisoners have no chance whatsoever of being favourably reviewed. Their chances of getting parole, as was shown in an article which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave me—or it may have been his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—are virtually nil, because the last occasion on which a Category A life sentence prisoner—or any Category A prisoner for that matter—was released on parole or licence was September 1980. The system of classifying prisoners in that way is a kind of preliminary test which does not form any part of the parole system but which obviously has a crucial bearing on the question whether or not a person gets released.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, proposes that reviews should take place at intervals of not less than 10 months and not more than 14. In the 12 months to the end of May this year, 31 prisoners were told, according to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when replying to me, that 18 months would have to elapse before their next consideration. I suggest that we need to know rather more about it than the Committee knows at present. We need to know, for example, what was the period between successive reviews prior to that consideration and whether we can see a pattern of a decreasing period between reviews so that all those to whom the noble Lord referred in his Answer to my parliamentary Question had been reviewed at 18-month intervals prior to that occasion. Or whether, as in a case which the Minister knows I have in mind, a prisoner who had previously been reviewed at 12-month intervals was suddenly told that he would not be reviewed until 18 months after he had agreed to move from one prison to another. I am pleased that the Minister agreed, on reflection, that that was unjust and that the period of review should be 12 months.
I am wondering whether the noble Earl, Lord Longford, would not agree that one could be rather more precise in the matter and say that review should automatically take place at 12-month intervals so that a prisoner would know exactly where he stood. I cannot see any reason why there should not be a fixed interval of 12 months between reviews, instead of leaving it to the discretion of the parole system. And, just as there is no explanation of why you do not get
344
paroled, similarly there is no explanation given to a prisoner as to why his period of review should be 12 or 18 months or in some cases, I believe, even longer than that.
Most of your Lordships may be surprised to learn that no fewer than 264 prisoners had been in prison for more than 10 years on 30th April, and apparently that figure has been increasing quite steadily. I say that because, in the report of the Advisory Council on the Penal System entitled Sentences of Imprisonment, figures are given which show that, as at the time of that report, there were only 65 prisoners who had served 10 years or more of a life sentence. Thus, over a period of four or five years, the number of long-serving life sentence prisoners quadrupled, and one would like to know a little more about the reasons for that. Is it because the criteria for granting release on licence to such prisoners have been tightened up, or are there some other factors in the consideration about which the Minister can tell us?
One realises that the Home Office and the Parole Board have the difficult responsibility of trying not to release on to the public prisoners who will be a risk and who might commit acts of violence which would cause everybody to criticise the parole system as well as the Home Office. But one can never have certainty in these matters, unless we keep all violent and potentially violent people in custody for their natural lives, and that would, I suppose, mean a prison population of perhaps half a million, if we were to eliminate all risk from the system. We accept, therefore, that there must be some element of risk which the public will tolerate—the risk that an offender will repeat crime which may even result in the death or serious injury of fellow human beings—just as we accept other and far worse risks. For example, we accept the prospects of being killed on the roads, which are far higher than the chance of being murdered by someone who has, as it turns out with the benefit of hindsight, been prematurely released from prison. Yet it is considered by those who formulate policy— maybe because too much notice is taken of the individual case where something goes wrong—that the public is highly sensitive to the risk of letting anybody free who has committed murder or certain other kinds of serious offence which are liable to indeterminate sentences.
It must be accepted that some men with serious personality disorders will have to remain in custody for a good many years, in some cases for the rest of their natural lives. I believe, however, that, where a man is serving an indeterminate sentence, he is not only entitled to periodic reviews at reasonable intervals in an attempt to decide how safe it would be to let him out, however difficult that might be, but that it should not be simply the private concern of officials, as it is at present. It should be a process similar to that of the mental health review tribunals which are provided for those detained in special hospitals. I was interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Longford, draw attention to that aspect, although it is not a subject for debate on this amendment.
We have the position now where those detained in special hospitals have enhanced rights, since the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill left your Lordships' House, to go to a tribunal and present a case as to

345
why they should be released. But, in respect of the parole system, as the noble Earl explained, the review is conducted by officials behind closed doors and the prisoner does not have the faintest idea who is involved in it. If a member of the Parole Board comes round the prison—as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, says they do, and I am sure they are conscientious in their jobs—he has no idea whether that particular member of the board has any part to play in the process of releasing him on licence.
Although this is a modest proposal, I hope it can be the first step in reforming the procedures for release on licence of very long-term life sentence prisoners, of whom there are more and more in the system and who, I believe, we are in danger of neglecting in the concentration which has rightly been focussed on short-term prisoners and the prospect of releasing them. In our correct attitude to the short-sentence prisoner and our attempts to try to secure a reduction in those who are not a threat to the general public, we should not ignore, as we have been, those who have been spending an extremely long time in prison, upwards of 20 years in some cases, and we should move towards a system of ameliorating their rights in the way the noble Earl described.
Baroness Madeod of Borve: We have been asked to speak as briefly as possible today, otherwise we can be sure of a late sitting tomorrow as well as tonight. I agree of course with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who has the interests of the inmates in our prisons very much at heart, as we all have. I have served for the last four years as a member of the Parole Board, and I wish to correct one point made by the noble Earl in regard to the composition of life panels. They are invariably presided over by a High Court judge. There are three other membres of the Parole Board sitting on those panels, with many members of the Home Office. I hope I have put that one right.
The Earl of Longford: It is simply a question of fact. My understanding—and I have pursued this matter for a good many years—is that there are five people; three members of the Parole Board and two Home Office officials. I believe that to be the position.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Having sat on life panels many times, I must correct the noble Earl, and I assure him that what I say is correct. I query his premise of putting time limits on anything because, as he knows, prisoners vary and their sentences vary, and even life sentences vary. I remember the four years during which I was a member of a panel that was instrumental in letting out within five years somebody who had been sentenced to life. With the greatest respect, I consider that if we stipulate 10 years, or even within a period of 10 years, that would not be a good thing to do. I would have nothing to do with putting any period of time on anything, including the 10 months or the 14 months. I say that because to do so would, perhaps wrongly, make the inmate aware that his case might be reviewed at either 10 months or 14 months. That would not give enough time for him to improve, or for his rehabilitation to be effective. Also—
Lord Avebury: If he has not improved during that
346
time, then when the local review committee considers the case after the period has elapsed, it will not recommend him.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I was moving on to a further point, which is as follows. Each time a prisoner's case is reviewed the whole processs has to be gone through again. There have to be all the probation officers' reports, the Home Office reports, the prisoner's personal reports, and the reports from the prison staff. If that is done every 10 months or 14 months, I do not think that any member of a panel, be it a LRC or the Parole Board, would glean much information. I would go along with what in my view is the very well-drafted clause in the Bill, and for the reasons that I hope I have adequately explained, I would not support the amendment.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to support this very simple amendment—-because of its simplicity. What it really says is that 10 years without hope is enough; and this is the point. Anybody who has met men sentenced to 10 years or even 15 years, and who has compared their state of mind with that of "lifers", will know the difference. The 10-year man knows that there is a moment to which he can look forward; the "lifer" knows that there is not, even though "lifers" are often let out after not only five years, as the noble Baroness said, but after several months in some cases. The point is that there must be a date to look forward to. We all had to cross off dates when we are waiting for term to end at school; we have all been through that.
It seems to me that if the period is indefinite and indeterminate, it presents an unnecessary cruelty. I believe that it is a real psychological cruelty. It helps nobody. Ten years is a very long time. I should say that half of the people in this Chamber will not be alive in 10 years' time; I certainly shall not. I am speaking absolutely seriously. I cannot remember what happened 10 years ago, in 1972. I think that I was here, but I might have been somewhere else. It is a very long time; let there be absolutely no doubt about it. There should be a period which the prisoner can look towards at the end of a very long time. He might then be refused—OK; there is no damage done to anybody.
The only thing that I would question is the period regarding renewed application. There is evidence that too many applications, made too frequently, do more harm than good, and I should like to consider not whether the period should be shorter, but whether it should be longer. But I do not want to stress that. I want to say simply that I support the amendment very warmly on the grounds of the psychological tension imposed by the prisoner having no date to look forward to.
Baroness Trumpington: Following what my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve said, and indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has just said, I believe that there are involved not only the personalities of the prisoners, but also the categories of the crimes. One should speak up for the families of victims, in particular victims of bestial murders. In the eyes of families who have suffered the loss of

347
loved ones—for example, there is the case of the man who recently killed 16 women—life should mean life. I do not see that it is simply a question of the rehabilitation of the person who has been found guilty. There should be a question of retribution as well. This is a factor which to many people has made palatable, or more palatable, the loss of the death penalty. I believe that life should mean a very long period, such as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has just spoken about.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to point out that under the present amendment it can mean that. Nobody would suggest that a person who commits the more savage kind of crime should automatically be given parole after 10 years. There is no suggestion of that at all. The only suggestion is that he should have the right for his case to be looked at.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I wish to speak in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Longford. I also wish to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, when he spoke about the lack of hope and the deterioration experienced by the prisoner after a period of 10 years. Some years ago when I was visiting Wormwood Scrubs a very tough (as he described himself) senior prison officer there told me, "After 10 years any human being starts to deteriorate". He said, "Look, don't think that I'm one of your' softies' or liberals. I'm speaking from my own personal experience as a prison officer— and from that moment the person starts to go downhill".
Therefore it seems to me absolutely essential that as a civilised society we should at least provide for a review of the cases, and give the prisoners the opportunity to make an application after 10 years; otherwise they are being sentenced to something much more horrific than was ever intended.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made the point that life should be life. If I understood her correctly, she said that life imprisonment should be for life—
Baroness Trumpington: For certain categories.
Baroness Birk: For certain categories. As I am sure she is aware, as indeed we are all aware, in this country it is in fact very unusual for a life sentence to mean life. When the Minister replies it would be interesting to hear the figures for people who are serving life other than for murder or manslaughter. Very often life sentences are given for example, in severe cases of arson, where even the judge implies that it is necessary for the prisoner's case to be kept under review because it is difficult to ascertain in advance whether he will be fit for release at any particular time. Therefore the importance of a review is very great.
It might be said by the Minister in reply, or by another noble Lord, that a judge often makes a recommendation that a person when convicted should serve not less than a certain term specified by the judge. That is
348
of course only a recommendation. There have been cases where the Parole Board has decided that certain prisoners should be released even before the time that the judge had originally recommended, simply because in the first place it was only a recommendation and much had happened since then. I believe it essential that this not very draconian, nor at all extremely radical, amendment moved by my noble friend should be accepted.
There are two sets of figures that I find difficult to understand, and I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten us on them. They are rather shocking. In 1978, 65 "lifers" had served more than 10 years, but by 1982 the number had risen to 264. That, it seems, ties up with the increased overcrowding in prisons and the number of people who in this country are serving longer sentences than they were before; and, altogether, it seems to me to add up to the need for the amendment moved by my noble friend to be included in this Bill.
It is reasonable, it is merciful and it is quite realistic, because it is taking into account what happens to people, and it is also giving people at least some form of hope, which at the present moment so many of them have not got. It does not go any further than that. There is no compulsion on the Parole Board to release people; and it does not say that it is right that at the end of any particular time a prisoner must be released. In my view it is an extremely mild amendment, which I hope will be supported.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I say that the Parole Board do not release people; they make recommendations to the Home Secretary.
Baroness Birk: I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. They recommend release, yes.
The Earl of Onslow: There has been a lot of criticism in the newspapers that "lifers" get out after nine years, and I believe that the average time before the release of life sentence prisoners is nine years. If that is the case, this seems an unnecessary amendment.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Speaking, as has been pointed out already, on the first day for some little time that I have not been chairman of the Parole Board, perhaps I can say a few words about this amendment and explain why I propose to vote against it. I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Donaldson and with my absent noble friend Lord Hunt. But, nevertheless, I am firmly opposed to this amendment, and I will try to explain to the Committee why that is so.
First of all, I speak as an abolitionist. I speak as a firm opponent of capital punishment. I think it is necessary, as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, reminded us, to realise that on this extremely difficult issue we have had many debates over many years in both Houses of Parliament. There is not the slightest doubt that the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens are in favour of a restoration of capital punishment. It is also, in my view, absolutely right that

349
Members of both Houses should vote on this matter according to their consciences, and they have done so. There is, I believe, a situation which has now arisen whereby for some time at least this issue has been put on one side, because even in a Parliament with a very substantial Conservative majority it is quite clear that by an overwhelming majority the present House of Commons is opposed to a restoration of capital punishment. They have taken that position notwithstanding very strong constituency and other pressures, which many Members of Parliament have stood out against with some considerable courage.
I think we have to bear that in mind when we direct our attention to the range of issues which are covered in this amendment. What the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said a few moments ago is of course entirely true. What is being suggested in this amendment is not that people should be let out after 10 years when they have been sentenced to life imprisonment— not at all. What the noble Earl and his friends are suggesting to the Committee is that there should be an automatic injection of their case into the life review system.
It is said by my noble friend, with his very substantial personal experience as chairman of the board of visitors for many years at Grendon Underwood and with a lifetime's interest and involvement in the criminal justice system, that it is only humane to inject those cases into the life review system after 10 years. With great respect, I take exactly the contrary view. I do not believe there is anything humane about putting a case to a local review committee when it is manifestly clear that there is not the remotest prospect of release of that individual. There is nothing humane about that.
In my view, there is something very cruel about that; and, if I may say so, that is a view which not only I, and undoubtedly some of my former colleagues on the Parole Board, have, but when the then vice-chairman of the Parole Board and I went to a meeting and discussed this matter with governors of prisons within whose walls there were significant numbers of life sentence prisoners, it was the overwhelming view of the governers of those establishments that this was so. They welcomed the existence of this organisation referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as (a phrase which I am happy I had not heard before) an organisation wrapped in impenetrable mystery. That was an allusion, apparently, to some club—not, I am glad to say, my own, so far as I am aware. Let me just explain what this organisation which has been referred to today is all about.
Before doing that, perhaps I should just make this point. We are not here talking about parole; we are talking about life sentence licences. Of course, life sentence licences existed before there was a parole scheme. They were administered directly by officials at the Home Office, who reported directly to the Home Secretary. As a result of the introduction of the parole system, the Parole Board was asked to take on this responsibility and, of course, it has done so ever since.
The joint committee, as it is referred to, is in fact known. There is nothing mysterious about it at all. It is known that the chairman of the Parole Board is ex officio a member of that committee, so there is no
350
mystery about who is on it. Everybody knows that the chairman of the Parole Board is the chairman of the joint committee. It is also known that there are, of course, two Home Office officials; and it is also known that the vice-chairman of the Parole Board, who is always a High Court Judge, is also a member of the joint Committee. His name appears in the Parole Board annual report, and there is no mystery about it at all. There is a fifth member, a senior consultant psychiatrist, who is a member of the Parole Board.
What they do is this. Three or four years after a prisoner has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, the joint committee reviews the case and decides upon what recommendation to make. Should it recommend that the case be referred to a local review committee after, say, another two or three years—if it is quite obvious that the person concerned is going to serve a sentence at the lower end of the range—or, as is often the case, if it is quite clear that there is not the remotest prospect of his early release, they may decide to refer the matter back to themselves in another three, four or five years.
I think that that system, which was introduced by either Mr. Maudling or Mr. Carr when they were Home Secretary, has in fact stood the test of time extremely well. I did not have a firm view about it when I was a Home Office Minister because I did not actually deal with life sentence cases; but having seen it operate (I know it always sounds desperately complacent in this country ever to say that anything works particularly well, but I think that basically it does work rather well) T think it is a fair and sensible system. The reason for it, the reason why it was introduced, is quite obvious. If you constantly suggest to a man serving a life sentence that there is an imminent likelihood of him being released, you are in fact damaging him grievously. That is the reason why the joint committee was established: because it was recognised that by raising a man's hopes it was an extremely cruel process; and it was as a result of that that the joint committee was established.
What the noble Earl is saying in this amendment is that automatically after 10 years these cases should go to the local review committee. In the majority of cases, of course, the case v/ill have gone to the local review committee at or before 10 years, but we are talking about a number of other cases where clearly, even at that stage, there is no chance at all of the person concerned coming out.
Let me remind the Committee of what is involved if cases are sent to the local review committee prematurely. The local review committee, which exist at every prison, have to work on the assumption that there is a reasonable possibility of that man being released on licence, and they are asked to study a series of reports from various members of the prison service in their particular establishment. These are reports from the medical staff, from the consultant psychiatrists, and from the prison probation officer, about where the man would live if he were to be released. It is also necessary in such cases for the home probation officer to interview the wife, or the common law wife or the girl friend or, in some cases, the parent, to see what sort of arrangements there should be if that man is to be released. Thereupon the local review committee make up their mind and make recommendations to the Home Office and to the Parole Board.

351
What happens if, as everybody recognises there is no chance at all of that man coming out in that particular period? The home probation officer calls on the relatives to discuss the possibility of the imminent return of that man. Is there anything more cruel in such cases than to raise expectations of that kind? There are at the moment a number of people who are serving life sentences with a minimum recommendation of 30 years' imprisonment. As a matter of fact, I personally do not like that provision in the 1965 Act which gives a trial judge the opportunity to make such a recommendation, particularly since it is non-appeal-able. The fact is that we work on the basis of the existing law. The minimum recommendation in a number of such cases is for 30 years and in some cases less than that. In such cases, if we pass this amendment, after 10 years, we are going to start seriously discussing the likelihood that the man is coming out.
Let us consider—and I do not want to discuss any particular case, for it would be inappropriate to do so —that a number of people serving such sentences have been responsible for the death of not one, two or three people but many people. I must say to the Committee that I would find it a difficult proposition to say that in such cases automatically we would work on the assumption that there was to be a serious suggestion that after 10 years, the whole parole process starts to operate on the basis of the likelihood of the return of that individual to the community.
Lord Avebury: The prisoner does not think there is an imminent likelihood of his being released if he is in Category "A". No Category "A" prisoner has been released on licence or given parole since September 1980. Therefore, the prisoner may be aware that reference to the local review committee will not lead to his release for a long time.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord is right in general, or partially right; for a very small number of cases Category "A" prisoners have been released. But there is a great deal of pressure on the prison administration to reduce the classification in such cases so that their cases can be looked at more advantageously as far as the individual inmate is concerned. The point is that you start looking after 10 years and getting the wheels turning. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, cannot have it both ways. If it is wrong to deny all hope (which I understand is the purpose behind this amendment) what the noble Lord is saying is that people in this category have no hope, have no expectation, that they will be released, then the point that I must put is this. The relatives of that man, the wife, and the other members of the family, will have their expectations raised and there is no point, I think, with the greatest of respect, in trying to pretend the reverse because one finds cases constantly, cases to which one's attention is drawn, where expectations have been raised and there is a deep anguish in the family when they discover that the man is not to be released and, in some cases, may not be released for many years. That is the problem.
I do not pretend that these are easy questions, to answer, but I believe that the present arrangements probably work as well as anything can. I think that
352
on this point the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I are in agreement. I think that we have to recogninse that as a result of the abolition of capital punishment and as a result of the acts which a number of people have committed and which lead to their receiving life sentences, many of them will serve very much longer sentences than people have normally experienced in our penal system. There is a price that we must pay as a result of the abolition of capital punishment. This is a painful and distressing one, and no doubt the process and the damage done by long-term imprisonment is considerable. But one also must bear in mind that our society expects to be protected by its parliamentary representatives and that we must take that responsibility equally seriously.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: May I ask the noble Lord to clarify a point? He referred to the joint committee, of which he was until yesterday, chairman. I was referring in my few words to the "lifer" panels. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was referring also to the joint committee, but I presumed—-and perhaps I was wrong—that he was referring to the "lifer" panels which take the case further along the road. If I am wrong in thinking he was referring to the "lifer" panel, I apologise to the noble Earl.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I must intervene having heard what my noble friend Lord Harris said about long-serving prisoners having their imprisonment reviewed. I am absolutely astonished that anybody could have held the office that he held and be completely blind to the psychology of these people who are locked up for 10, 20 or 30 years. One must ask oneself, with great respect, whether he has ever spoken either to these people or to their families. The whole of my experience, all those people that I have appeared for and who, unfortunately, on rare occasions, have been convicted and have served sentences of long periods of imprisonment, with whom I have kept in touch and visited on many occasions, shows that the one overwhelming thing to keep those people sane, whatever they have done, is, as has already been mentioned, some form of hope.
The fact that their parole will be turned down they know. Of course, they know in their hearts that it will be turned down. The same thing applies to prisoners who are sentenced to only 7, 8 or 9 years. The first time they will say, "My parole is coming up next year. What chance do you think there is?" You say, "Well, it was an incredibly serious offence and, really, there is no chance". "Well, I know there isn't, but, still, there might be". And the wife comes up and they talk about it. It is the constant hope inside that man's heart.
It is ludicrous to talk about this beautifully arranged system where all the right people look at the papers. And ludicrous to say, how cruel it would be to suggest to a man serving 30 years that he might get out in 20 years or in 16 years. How cruel, when all these experts'know perfectly well that he will not get out!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My noble friend may recall that he rose to ask a question and I rose to answer the question. I have met dozens of life-sentence prisoners and have spoken to them often.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I accept that. Perhaps then it is amazing that my noble friend does not appreciate that the knowledge that their sentence will be reviewed, come what may, come what the governor may think of it, come what the professional experts may think, come what the judges may think gives them the hope that, possibly, as a result of their behaviour, their example or what they have done, a change will be made.
That is what makes their lives possible over a long-term sentence, As one noble Lord said, after 7, 8 or 9 years, it is accepted that anybody who is incarcerated in the circumstances of our prisons at this time deteriorates in an alarming way. If you lock up a man without sight of daylight, he deteriorates. If you give him daylight, he has hope that one day he will get out. Without daylight, there is no hope. That is why you give him a window to see the daylight. He knows he will not get out next year, but it gives him hope. I hope that your Lordships will dismiss from your minds the expert view so succinctly and clearly given by my noble friend and go back to your own feelings of humanity and your own understanding of the circum stances in our prisons of today.
Baroness Phillips: I should like to intervene. I had intended to keep silent until the last noble Lord had spoken. He has made the plea that he has interviewed the prisoner, the wife of the prisoner. He has certainly not had the opportunity of interviewing the victim. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made the point that 264 people were serving life sentences.
Lord Avebury: No. I said that 264 people had served 10 years or more of life sentences.
Baroness Phillips: That is already a long sentence. Over 10 years is a long sentence, particularly nowadays. This week, three horrific murders have been perpetrated. There are 52 weeks in a year, so that 156 murders could be perpetrated in any one year. I think it is difficult to sit and listen to the constant reiteration of the words "the prisoners". The prisoners are in prison because they have committed offences. Presumably these are very serious offences or they would not receive that kind of sentence. I feel that, while we are appealing so sentimentally for kindness and humanity—and I hate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Longford, for I know, that like me, he cares for the victims— we should remember that they are there for a reason. If they have not got any hope, I am afraid that, in many cases, neither have the victims.
When you think of that poor old lady who died as a result of torture by three boys, what do we feel about those three? They did not receive that length of sentence. I feel that this clause is really a very vast step forward. Surely, there is no need to go to such lengths when, outside, the general public will feel once again that there is a necessity to have capital punishment. We have to exercise some kind of justice for other ordinary people. I know this Bill has been rightly called criminal justice—it is certainly justice for criminals we are considering. Let us also consider that the ordinary citizen who never commits a crime is entitled to consideration by us. We will be interfering with a very serious matter. I certainly support the clause.
Viscount lngleby: Hope is a very precious thing, and I would only ask the Committee whether we are entitled in respect of any of our fellow human beings to take all hope away from them?
Lord Elton: The proposal which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, makes in this amendment is not a new one. He has brought it to the House before, as he said. I give great weight to his transparent compassion and the forthrightness with which he addresses himself to this clause, and to the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who regrettably is not here to speak for himself. I must also weigh very carefully the enormously authoritative opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who has said more ably than I could, and with more direct experience than I have, a great deal that I had intended to say. May I take this opportunity of thanking him not for that contribution, though I would do so also, but for his service as chairman of the Parole Board for the past several years for which the Government would like to give recognition. I must say what he said makes me think that they made a very wise choice.
Perhaps I may welcome the noble Lord's successor, Lord Windlesham, who is sitting in his place, perhaps muted by his newly-gained office to rather a greater extent than the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was muted earlier this week when he occupied it.
The circumstances in which life sentences are given to prisoners vary enormously. As well as being the sole penalty for murder, it is the maximum penalty for a number of other serious offences—for example, manslaughter, armed robbery, rape, violence and kidnapping. In those cases, judges often give life sentences in the expectation that the offender will be detained for a very long time, for the protection of the public, but very often they do so also because at the time it is not clear when he will be fit to return to society and the judge considers it more humane to impose an indeterminate sentence with the result that, if all goes well, the offender may be released sooner than he would have been had he been given the shortest safe determinate sentence for the offence. The life sentence population is therefore made up of very different sorts of people who have been given their sentences under very different circumstances.
That population has risen—and both the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to this—to a considerable increase in the number of that population, and particularly of those who have served over 10 years, partly because of the increase in crime generally but partly also because of the end of the death penalty. Before 1963, all those people who had committed capital murder would have been executed. They would not be in prison because they would be under the ground.
Baroness Birk: Would the noble Lord give way for a moment? The figures I quoted were between 1978 and 1982. The abolition of the death penalty could play no part in those years.
Lord Elton: The effect of this is cumulative—is it not? —and it will go on increasing until the natural life span of those who are kept in prison for the term of their natural life expires. Ten per cent, of "lifers" are not

355
in prison for murder or manslaughter. The noble Baroness also inquired about that.
Lord Avebury: I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Lord so soon. Recently I asked him how many of the life sentence prisoners at present in our prisons were serving sentences for which capital punishment was provided under the old legislation and he said that he could not tell me. That rather destroys the argument that he has put that many of the people now serving long sentences in prison would have been executed. He cannot tell me what the figure is.
Lord Elton: I cannot give the noble Lord an objective answer; but the subjective answer, I would have thought, was sufficiently obvious to be convincing.
If the Home Secretary is to be able to treat each case suitably, the arrangements for considering the cases of individual prisoners must also be as adaptable as possible. That is what the present procedure achieves. It has evolved in the light of experience. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has contributed in absentia, as it were, to this debate, has had a hand in this. He was chairman of the board when it requested a change of the system as the system was in 1973 and which also rejected the Home Office proposals for that change. What resulted, and what I think then had his agreement, was the system we now have. Under that system, the first review is carried out by a joint committee of which the chairman of the Parole Board is the presiding member on which senior Parole Board members, including a psychiatrist and a High Court judge, are in a majority, and to which two officials of the Home Office also belong. We are not talking about a faceless bureaucracy. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, these are known people.
The first review of a life sentence prisoner is given by this Committee not within 10 years, as proposed in the amendment, but within three or four; and if the interval before the first review is to be the measure of the civilisation of our society, it follows that society is now marginally more civilised than the amendment would have it be.
That committee then either recommend a date for the case to be referred to the local review committee to begin with or, in cases where it is clear the prisoner could not be released for several years, where it is not clear when he may be released, they ask for the case to be referred back to them after a specified interval. I shall not expatiate on this because the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has been through the procedure.
This makes it possible to identify cases in which unusually early reviews are justified and it also avoids abortive reviews where there are no realistic prospects of release. The committee will have to take a view on whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is right in saying that hope deferred is immensely destructive of the morale not merely of prisoners but of their families, or whether the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, who holds exactly the contrary view, is right. 1 think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has the closer personal experience of these cases and is in a critical position to review them. His view coincides with that of those whom I have consulted.
356
What I have said shows that it is not the case, as the noble Earl has argued in the past, that life-sentence prisoners are left in a kind of limbo for many years without their cases ever being considered. Under the present procedure, all life-sentence prisoners are considered by a body on which senior representatives of the Parole Board are in a majority, after they have been detained for only 3–4 years, and in some cases earlier, and without the paraphernalia of anxiety which results from the full procedure. At all stages in the procedure which between us we have described, if reports suggest that there might be grounds for advancing the date fixed for the next stage when a review is to be given, that evidence is considered. The prisoner and all those interested in him can make representations at any time, and these are also considered.
Rather than detain your Lordships longer, I will say that I regard the factor of "hope deferred" as being of very great importance. I regard the factor of nugatory work by a great many people within the prison system and without it as being of less importance but not worth not considering. I also think that the factor which has been raised by one or two noble Lords about public confidence is of the greatest importance. We are looking at these provisions at a point in history when Parliament has made it unreservedly clear to the country that they are not reverting to capital punishment. That support was given by many people to the idea of removing capital punishment—and, I may add, by myself—on the understanding that the public would be protected from the inevitable consequence of not disposing of people who are lethal to society, by keeping society protected from them by their confinement in prison.
If this amendment went through—and, as I say, we already have reviews in the first 3 to 4 years in any case by a committee—what would happen would be that a judge would sentence a notorious and dreadful villain to a life sentence which society would expect to be served. The judge may have said for 30 years, but in not more than 10 years—and the amendment permits it to be less, because the noble Earl asks for "not more than 10 years"—at some point the whole case is reviewed. It hits the press again, the name of the person in question comes into the newspapers and —it is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Avebury to sit down and say "nonsense". If he wants to interrupt me, he must stand up, but before he does so I would like to conclude my remarks.
What I am saying is that the effect of this amendment will be to do precisely the opposite—I beg the the noble Earl to realise that—of what he wants, by making the climate of public opinion hostile to the release of these people. It will make release more difficult, more infrequent and more often deferred. I ask your Lordships not to support the amendment.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord sits down, he knows perfectly well that cases fererred to the local review committee do not hit the press, as he put it. Also, before the noble Lord sits down, would he care to deal with the point about the successive interval between reviews? It is, after all, an integral part of the amendment and one which I spent a few minutes talking about—particularly the lengthening of intervals

357
from 12 months to 18 months between successive reviews.
Lord Elton: The intervals—and I regret if I appeared discourteous to the noble Lord, but it is very frustrating to be interrupted in a peroration, but it is possible that my perorations cannot be detected as such until they finish—between reviews are not set to a pattern. They are set to the nature of the individual case; and the noble Lord was good enough to bring a particular case to my attention and I felt that the pattern was wrong. If there is a change in the pattern overall, it is coincidental; it is made up of individual cases and not of policy.
The Earl of Longford: I sympathise with the noble Lord who did not wish to be interrupted in his peroration. He slapped me down the other day on the same ground, so I think your Lordships will probably agree that the introduction of "Elton's Law"—that no Minister should ever be interrupted in a peroration— is one that will be widely acceptable.
I feel I should rest my case particularly on something that was said at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. This is a moderate amendment. There is no doubt that, on something like this, very strong emotions are aroused. Some people including a dear friend of mine, if I am allowed to call her that without embarrassment, the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, would like to keep these people in prison in certain circumstances for ever. I regard that as utterly wicked—not that she is wicked, but it is a wicked idea. That is how I feel about it and the noble Baroness feels the opposite.
A lot of people will agree with me on this matter and a lot of people, I dare say, agree with her. So, really, I am coming before your Lordships today in a spirit explained by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, although we have not been in collusion. I hope I did not say anything which upset the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on his first day of liberation. However, he will have plenty of opportunities later for speaking about me in whatever fashion appeals to him. Earlier this afternoon, as a matter of fact, I was going to have paid a tribute to him for his great abilities, even though he and I seldom agree on penal matters. He made that impossible at the time by interrupting me, but I pay him that qualified tribute now.
There is just one thing that I feel may have created a little bit of misunderstanding, though it was perfectly legitimate, on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He talked of review after three or four years, and your Lordships may wonder what sort of review that is. As I understand it, the file is brought out and some officials sit round and decide not to look at that particular file again for quite some time. That is not what we are talking about when it is said that someone should go before the local review committee. If this proposal were defeated, which I certainly hope it will not be, I should be very much inclined to put down a still more qualified amendment saying that the committee in question—this mysterious committee—should make sure that at least one of their members saw one of the persons concerned in the last parole report. He explained that the Parole Board last year actually saw two prisoners, and that is not their usual practice.
358
My argument would not fall to the ground, but, on another occasion, if this procedure were to continue, I would certainly suggest that this committee ought at least to make sure that one of its members saw the prisoner they were discussing.
This is a moderate amendment. I know there are a lot of people in the general public who hate prisoners and I understand their feelings, particularly if their relatives have been robbed. 1 can honestly say that there have been only four debates started in this Chamber about victims in the last twenty years—all started by me, as my noble friend Lady Phillips said, so I cannot be accused of neglecting victims. However, let us leave out personalities. I very much hope this amendment will be carried.
5.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Con-tents, 107.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kagan L.

Avebury, L.

Kaldor, L.

Balogh, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Banks, L.

Listowel, E.

Bernstein, L.

Longford, E.

Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Mais, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

Mayhew, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Melchett, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Milford, L.

Byers, L.

Mischon, L.

Collison, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Oram, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Peart, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridpe, L

Roberthall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Ross of Marnock, L..

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Shinwell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

George-Brown, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gregson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ingleby, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacobson, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jacques, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jeger, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Chelwood, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Coleraine, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Alport, L.

Crathorne, V.

Ampthill, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Auckland, L.

Daventry, V.

Avon, E.

Davidson, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Bellwin, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Beloff, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Derwent, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Diamond, L.

Caithness, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Cathcart, E.

Eccles, V.

359

Ellenborough, L.

Phillips, B.

Elton, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Ferrers, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Gainford, L.

Porritt, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Portland, D.

Glanusk, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Reay, L.

Gormanston, V.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Hailsham of Sint Marylebone, L.

Reigate, L.

Renton, L.

Harmer-Nicholls, L.

Renwick, L.

Harris of Greenwhich, L.

Robbins, L.

Harvington, L.

Rochdale, V.

Hawke, L.

Romney, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rugby, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Ironside, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Kilearn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Kinnaird, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Kintore, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Soames, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Spens, L.

Long, V.

Stamp, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Terrington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Marley, L.

Thornevcroft, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tranmire, L.

Mersey, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mottistone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Newall, L.

Vaizey, L.

Northchurch, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Onslow, E.

Vivian, L.

Orkney, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Young, B.

Pender, L.

5.16 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Reasons to be given for refusal of parole by Parole Board.
. After paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of section 59 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 there shall be inserted—
" (c) if in any particular case the Board refuses parole the reasons for this shall be communicated to the person to whom the case relates;".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment would compel the parole authorities to give reasons when they feel it impossible to grant parole. It has been pointed out to me, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the drafting of my amendment is technically not quite correct, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said earlier, it is the Home Secretary who grants parole. But that is a verbal technicality which can easily be put right if the amendment is carried.
Noble Lords of much wisdom and experience have supported a proposal of this kind in various previous debates, and I understand that my own party, and maybe others, supported it in another place. I suppose that most people coming fresh to this subject would consider it inherently right and proper that reasons were given. Certainly, it would be compatible with any suggestion that the Parole Board is some kind of judicial body; but, of course, it does not claim to be that.
The Parole Board is, in fact, a curious kind of quango. It belongs neither to the judiciary nor to the
360
Executive, and it makes up its own rules, subject to legislation and any guidance that Ministers may give it. The Parole Board is quite remarkably non-accountable; that is so, whether it be under the auspices of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, before him or the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to whom I wish everything good in his new role. The board is much less accountable than the judges, who operate in the full light of day, and much less accountable than the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers, like the noble Lord opposite. The Parole Board does its work behind locked doors. It is totally inaccessible to prisoners and their representatives, though I note in its last report that the board saw two prisoners in exceptional circumstances. The Parole Board reaches its conclusions on the strength of vast accumulations of paper. All I can say about it is that, in many ways, it is a law unto itself.
It would be natural justice that it should give reasons for these otherwise inscrutable decisions. It would certainly be of much benefit to prisoners if it gave reasons. The prisoners would, indubitably, be assisted in improving their conduct if they were given some guidance. Here, I am speaking from first-hand contact with many prisoners. We all claim to have met more prisoners than anyone else, but I have met a great many in the last 40 years, and it would be of great value to prisoners, if they were told why they had failed and how they could improve themselves on future occasions. That happens in other walks of life, including school. The case for giving reasons is so obvious, in a way, that one has to look for an explanation as to why the reasons are not conceded. The Home Office—for reasons again known to them— will always be very reluctant to be forthcoming.
What do the arguments against giving reasons amount to? For the most part—there may be one or two more subtle versions—they amount to saying that in quite a number of cases it would discourage prisoners if reasons were given. It was argued that circumstances would have to be pointed to—home circumstances or other circumstances which the prisoner could not change—or that something in his character would have to be pointed to, which again he could not change. Those points must be clearly considered by anybody like myself who puts forward a case for giving reasons, but in my opinion they amount to nothing whatsoever. To take home circumstances, I do not think, for example, that the fact that a man's wife would not welcome him home is a reason for not giving him parole. But if it is considered, under our existing arrangements, that that is so, then he should be told the reason, which would be a much more honest way than concealing it from him. It is very unlikely that he would be unaware of the situation.
Where a prisoner has a personality problem, I concede that people will say there is not much that the poor chap can do about it. If it is a medical matter, he ought not to be in prison but in a special hospital. If, however, because of the shortage of special hospitals he has to remain in prison, I think he should be given a general indication that medical grounds are standing in his way. To take so-called personality disorders, the prisoner should be told what the trouble is. The problem should be gone into with him. One should discuss with him, informally at least, what are the

361
manifestations of those personality disorders—which, in nine cases out of ten, one can almost certainly improve.
In my experience, the refusal to grant reasons is due, as often as not, to the fact that the authorities are not ready to give the reasons. The argument that they are thinking just of the prisoner is not the whole truth. It may be part of the truth, sometimes, but it is not the whole truth. The main part of the truth, very often, is that the reasons which the authorities wish to give are not reasons of the kind which they feel would make a very good impression, or which they would wish to stand over either in public or in Parliament. It may be that the prisoner is notorious or is connected with an organisation such as the IRA. Or it may be that in some other way it is considered that it is inimical to the public interest. If that is the reason, it should be told. It is thoroughly dishonest to hide behind the smoke-screen of the procedure of not giving reasons. I beg to move.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I rise to support my noble friend. My name is attached to the amendment. May I first refer to the report of the Parole Board for 1973 which acknowledged that:
" The policy of not giving reasons for refusing parole has added to a sense of grievance on being turned down".
As my noble friend has said, many reasons are adduced for not giving reasons and, no doubt, further reasons will be put before us: that it is more unfair to the prisoner to know than not to know the reasons. To that I would reply that one of the most cruel things which one can inflict on anybody is a complete lack of knowledge—not knowing why—because the imagination can range far beyond the practical reasons upon which his refusal is based. To deny the reasons to a prisoner who has been waiting anxiously for three months for a decision—which is on top of the time he has already been waiting to see whether he is going to be reviewed for parole—and then to give no formal explanation is likely to induce cynicism and bitterness about the whole procedure. Somebody who might have started out with some confidence in the justice which he might get from this procedure will feel completely bitter about it and without any further hope. It is bound to give rise to the suspicion in a prisoner's mind that in his case the decision has been arbitrarily arrived at. If reasons are not given he will invent his own reasons. One can argue quite clearly and quite rightly that the consequences of such speculation may be far more damaging than the truth. It is difficult for a prisoner to be helped to work constructively for his own release if he does not know why he is being turned down. The report of the Parole Board for 1975 accepted that
" There will certainly be cases where a man can improve his future prospects of parole if he knows why he has failed in the past".
In 1978, Mr. Peter Warr, who was then chairman of the Prison Officers' Association, said in evidence to the House of Commons Expenditure Committee:
" One of the problems of parole is not just the disappointment at not getting it. It is not knowing the reasons why they do not get parole. This is a question that people like me face every day. A man comes to me and says, 'I did not get parole' and I say, 'I know, I'm sorry, lad'. Then he says, 'What did I do wrong?' and I say,' I do not know. We have submitted reports
362
and everybody has submitted reports'. So then he says, 'Can you tell me how to put myself right so that I will be more favourably considered?' and I say, 'No, because I do not know, either '. These are the factors which create the problems, not the fact that a man is disappointed".
This applies as much to a man's own actions as to whether there are domestic or family reasons. I agree with my noble friend that matrimonial or other problems awaiting him at home should not be a reason for keeping a man in prison.
It is clear that the giving of reasons for refusal of parole would be feasible. The board's report for 1977 stated that steps had been taken within the board to assess the feasibility of selecting reasons for parole refusal by the use of standardised causes for concern and that the members of the board had satisfied themselves that it would be possible for the board to do this. This was one step forward. However, I would argue that this is far too wide and too vague a reason to give to an individual. He has got to be faced with the truth. It is significant that mental health review tribunals, which often deal with cases at least as sensitive as those dealt with by the Parole Board—although they are not criminal cases—make provision for the giving of reasons if a case is turned down as well as for allowing a patient to appear before them and to be represented. None of the consequences has resulted which are feared from giving reasons for the turning down of parole. Moreover, it is not noticeable that punches are pulled in probation officers' reports and psychiatric reports which are before the court. I have personal experience of this. Defendants are shown these reports, and often they are very tough. They explain quite clearly why, in the probation officer's view, probation is not suitable for a person. They contain phrases like, "This is an inadequate personality" or "It has been impossible to deal with 'X' by other non-custodial means". The defendant himself, or herself, sees these reports. Again I stress that it is at least arguable that greater ill-feeling results from the present position, which generates suspicions and fantasies in a prisoner's mind about the reasons.
I should like to make a final point, which I do not think was touched on by my noble friend. I believe there is no doubt that one of the reasons in many cases is the effect on public opinion. I believe this is one of the reasons why Myra Hindley's case will not come forward for consideration for parole. If it is felt, rightly or wrongly, that public opinion would be so appalled in any particular case that parole should not be considered, then it seems to me right that the person should know. Public opinion is a factor in very exceptional circumstances, but that is not a reason for keeping the person in ignorance.
I believe the person should be told if in his case it is thought the crime was so heinous that the public just will not accept a release in those circumstances. One would hope that such occasions were kept to the minimum. But as the effect on public opinion is one of the reasons underlining the argument for not giving reasons, I think it is something that should be aired and about which we should express a view. There is nothing wrong in giving this explanation to a prisoner whose application has been turned down. Nothing I have read by way of a reply in either House, or in any of the discussions which have gone on over the years, has ever convinced me that it is not better

363
to take the frank, honest and straightforward line and tell a person the reasons why he or she is not being given liberty and will continue to be confined to prison.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords —
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I would like to support this amendment, and first pay tribute—
Lord Sandys: I think we should hear Lord Ingleby.
Viscount Ingleby: I would like to support this amendment, having put my name to it. After a prisoner has been inside for several years it will not do him any good to keep him inside longer, although it may be necessary for the protection of the public. I suggest the onus ought to be on the Parole Board to show why the prisoner should not be released and that the prisoner ought to have a right to see a member of the local committee. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept this amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I must apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. Before saying my very few words, I would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who has led what I am quite certain he does not think of as a quango.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Quite right.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: If only a quango had worked as hard as we have worked and as hard as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich has worked for the past four years. The noble Lord worked considerably longer hours than I did. Each panel, before I sat on it, worked for at least 36 hours. That is not a quango. I doubt also whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would agree that we sat behind locked doors.
The Earl of Longford: I have nothing against quangos. Some of them work harder than others, and that of the noble Baroness may be the most hardworking of all.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: In theory but only in theory this amendment might be a good idea; to give prisoners reasons for the decisions of the Parole Board. But I doubt whether in practice it would help the inmates concerned, because the inmates would be able to query the decisions.
Viscount Ingleby: Quite right.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Once that is allowed then one has to set up an appeal procedure. Under an appeal procedure, it is quite possible that the appeal would not be heard until after the next possible release date of the inmate concerned. When querying the reasons on appealing, information about that inmate might be given which could be prejudicial to him. If reasons were given, either by the LRCs or by the Parole Board, the effect might be to lengthen the inmate's term in prison rather than shorten it,
364
and could quite likely militate against him. For those reasons I must oppose this amendment.
Lord Avebury: Of course the Parole Board is a quango and of course it is very hardworking, as any body which contains the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would be. I, too, would like to pay tribute to the enormous amount of hard work the noble Lord has done as chairman of that body over the years and also to the noble Baroness. I am quite certain that they do work long hours and that they consider these cases extremely carefully. Nevertheless, and I am sorry to have to say this to the noble Baroness, it is true that they work behind locked doors; no member of the Press or public can hear the deliberations of the Parole Board or indeed of the local review committee.
When I asked to sit in on the deliberations of locally-based review committees on the basis of total confidentiality the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—who then occupied the position at the Home Office of the noble Lord, Lord Elton—refused to permit this. I was not allowed to view the operations of the local review committees in order to get some idea of how they work. The noble Baroness says that they are all open; but how is it then that neither a Member of your Lordships' House nor of the other place can sit in as an observer on the proceedings of local review committees or of the Parole Board? If there is nothing to hide, I cannot understand why there should be this resistance and why they do meet behind locked doors, contrary to the assertion made by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I was not a member of a local review committee, but practically every time I sat on a panel, a member of the local review committee, at his behest, was invited to sit in on a parole panel.
Lord Avebury: That only reinforces the point I was making; that the whole system is a closed shop. Members of local review committees can sit in on the proceedings of the Parole Board but no outsider can. Somebody who wants to understand the system— such as a journalist or a Member of your Lordships' House, seeking probably to support the work of the Parole Board and of local review committees and to explain them to the public who probably do find them to be cloaked in an unintelligible mystery, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, put it—are disbarred from being able to do this and from interpreting the work which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, do. That is one of the reasons why one gets these criticisms and why there is the demand, reiterated by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for some explanation to be given for the decisions of the Parole Board and the local review committees.
This matter has come before the courts in the case of Payne v. Lord Harris of Greenwich and Others, which was reported in The Weekly Law Reports of 29th May, 1981. I believe that was the first occasion when the sort of reasons which the noble Baroness outlined were adumbrated, as to why it is so difficult for reasons to be given. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said in that case, if the reasons

365
"…were full and informative, they would give the prisoner an opening with which he could challenge the refusal. He could lodge an application for judicial review complaining that the board took things into account which they should not have done—or that their decision was unreasonable."
The noble Baroness and the Home Office itself in the review of parole in England and Wales published in May 1981 gave this as one of the main reasons why we cannot have the proposal which has been advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I believe that this is the reason; that they do not want judicial review of the decisions of local review committees or of the Parole Board. As has been said, if the Mental Health Review Tribunal—which deals with similar matters and can continue detention of a person in one of these special hospitals under the Mental Health Act—can be subject to judicial review then why should not the decisions of the Parole Board be similarly liable to judicial review?
If one takes the case of Mr. Payne—which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, knows I am particularly interested in—he was convicted of murder in 1968 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The introduction in The Weekly Law Reports goes on:
" He was well-behaved in prison, being described as a 'model prisoner,' and was in the lowest security category."
For years, Mr. Payne sought, by petition and by bringing this action, to discover the reasons why he had been unsuccessful in his applications for release on licence.
Only the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was good enough to explain to me why this man has been detained for 14 years. We discover that the reason is a totally spurious one, as the noble Lord is aware; we are in correspondence about this. The man contests it, and I believe quite rightly so, and when the noble Lord with his usual fairness comes to consider the arguments I am sure he will direct that the case should be reconsidered by the Parole Board, and I hope very much that Mr. Payne will be released forthwith. That illustrates the difficulty we have. As long as Mr. Payne was totally unaware of the reasons why he kept being turned down, he was unable to contest it. But, as soon as he found out, through the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Elton—and I shall always be extremely grateful to him—what the reason was, and there was only one given in his letter, for the continued unsuccessful application of Mr. Payne, he was able to point out certain facts which completely destroy the case for keeping him in prison as long as this.
If we discover in one instance that the Home Office has been working on a completely false assumption over many years, cannot there be other similar instances where injustice is done to prisoners through not being allowed to contest false allegations registered against them on their records? For that reason alone, I believe it is essential that we pass this amendment, and I think it would be an excellent thing if, contrary to the noble Baroness's opinion, we had judicial review as a result.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If I may begin by making two observations, first on my rather well publicised departure as chairman of the Parole Board, I would like to thank those noble Lords who made observations on this, and my old parliamentary colleague Lord
366
Longford; he and I have periodically had slight differences of opinion; we always do the best we can to be as amiable as possible in our day-to-day relations and normally succeed. But there are, of course, risks in ceasing to be chairman of the Parole Board, one of which has become obvious this afternoon, when even such splendid men as members of the Social Democratic Party do not necessarily form the same view on propositions of the kind we are discussing. We did not on the last occasion and I have a nasty suspicion that we are not going to agree on this one either.
The second thing I would like to say is to make something of an apology, because I want to deal with this matter in some detail. I hope the House will bear with me, because in my view, this amendment lies right at the heart of the argument about parole and I think it is necessary to deal with it with care, to deal with, in my view, some very powerful arguments, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in particular. Perhaps I can just say this to the noble Lord. He and I have corresponded regularly, and I suspect my noble friend Lord Windlesham—if I may so describe him, although he sits opposite—will have an equally valuable correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He is, if I may say so—and I say this in no patronising sense—a most admirable advocate for anyone who is in one of Her Majesty's prisons. He does deploy powerful arguments, and in my view he is a most admirable Member of your Lordship's House for the care and attention that he devotes to friendless men who are in custody.
I begin by saying this. When I first became involved in this issue I was a Minister at the Home Office and I did favour in principle the giving of reasons. I should say why I did so and what I meant by giving reasons, and explain why I have now come to precisely the opposite conclusion. At that time I believed, and to some extent I think I still believe, that there is indeed something paternalistic in not giving reasons. I think that is a powerful argument and I concede it at once. What I favoured, however, and I must make this clear, was giving what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to as the standardised causes of concern, the phrase used in a past annual report of the Parole Board as part of an experiment carried out by the board in order to test out the feasibility of moving in the direction of giving reasons.
They were basically pro forma reasons, 18, 19, 20 of them, dealing with such issues as that the panel at the end of their review of the case would decide which of the standardised causes of concern was the reason why they turned somebody down. It might be that they came to the conclusion that the person concerned would not respond to supervision in the community, or that he had some very serious psychiatric problem which meant that he was a very substantial danger to the community. They were the standardised causes of concern, touched on by the noble Baroness, and indeed what I meant by giving reasons.
However, shortly after becoming chairman of the Parole Board, I had the opportunity of visiting Australia and spending some time with the Parole Board for New South Wales. The Parole Board for New South Wales is much smaller than the board in this country—I think, seven or eight members—and

367
presided over by a judge of the New South Wales State Bench. They did indeed do just this; they gave inmates the standardised causes of concern, the things referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and what I meant by giving reasons. I discussed the matter with them and I was told, at a full meeting of the Parole Board for New South Wales, that far from ending the argument about reasons, it had in fact had exactly the reverse effect. It had, if anything, made inmates less satisfied, because they were not interested in a standardised reason for concern; what they wanted was a full and detailed explanation as to why they had not got parole. That is what they meant by it. Therefore, in my view, I do not believe any form of half-way house is a feasible possibility.
If anything, my view on that was strengthened when I was in the United States and had the opportunity of meeting the panel of the Parole Board for the state of Wisconsin, where again precisely the same thing was done, except that the standardised cause of concern was given to the inmate after he had been interviewed. I came away a fairly strong opponent of interviews with inmates, for reasons which we may be able to discuss at some time in the future. But certainly I saw nothing in New South Wales, and I saw nothing in Wisconsin, which led me to believe that the half-way house approach, the standardised cause of concern, was a feasible possibility.
Therefore, one was driven to this conclusion, that if we were going to give reasons, it would have to be done on the basis of a case stated, a substantial document summing up a panel's view. That I did not support at any stage when I was a Minister, and I do not do so now. I believe that is the only real issue worth discussing. What would this involve? It would involve giving a carefully argued case, in around 5,000 cases a year of people who get turned down, either by the Parole Board, or by the individual local review committee. I think there are arguments, both practical and in principle, why that is not acceptable.
First, I use an argument which I know will be regarded by some as, I hope, not offensive, but not, in their view, using the most neutral language possible, particularly persuasive. But I think if we are talking about serious issues, and this is a very serious issue, it deserves to be recognised. What in fact this would involve would be expensive and it would be labour-intensive. High quality staff would have to be employed to deal with the processing of the work, coming of course, both from the local review committee and from the Parole Board itself. In view of the fact that many of these decisions might be challenged in the courts, the work would have to be supervised by civil servants of considerable ability. The costs would be substantial, and resources would have to be found from elsewhere in the Home Office Vote.
There is another difficulty. I am well aware of course that giving reasons may sound easy when involved in a debate of this kind. But, when a panel of the Parole Board decides against parole, the members often do so for a variety of entirely different reasons In an individual case, I may well agree with a colleague's conclusion but not necessarily accept all the arguments that led him to that conclusion. Therefore, the "reason-giving" discussion following a decision to
368
reject a parole application, would be in some cases prolonged and in some cases quite difficult.
Secondly, it is an illusion to imagine that this process would necessarily lead to more prisoners getting parole or a greater degree of satisfaction among inmates about the parole system. We have to recognise the rather fundamental point that what the individual inmate wants is a favourable parole decision. That is what he really cares about, and perfectly naturally. It is self-deception to imagine that an inmate, handed an impeccably argued statement explaining why he is not going to be given parole, will have his attitude about the fairness of the parole system transformed overnight.
The third argument is in some respects the most vital argument of all. It is something which the noble Earl touched upon and which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, dealt with at greater length, quoting, if I may say so, from a statement by the Master of the Rolls which is entirely in accordance with what I now propose to say. It is that what is, in fact, being asked for in this amendment is a totally different parole system. I do not believe that what is being suggested in the amendment can simply be grafted on to the existing parole system. That, indeed, was the view of my colleagues when on, curiously enough, the day before I became a member of the board —28th February, 1979—the Parole Board almost unanimously (I would not suggest that there is total unanimity in a board of nearly 50 members) supported this statement which appears as an appendix to the annual report explaining why they did not on that occasion support the giving of reasons. The reason that they did so can be stated, I hope, fairly simply.
Our present system is based on the board advising the executive whether an inmate should or should not be granted parole. In a handful of cases every year the Secretary of State does not accept the board's recommendation and his decision is of course final. But what would be the position if the noble Earl's amendment were to be accepted? By giving reasons— and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has of course, by his quotation from the judgment of the Master of the Rolls, confirmed it—the board becomes vulnerable to challenges in the courts. So we could have a situation where we were moving from an executive system of parole to something on the judicial model. I must say at once that there is no evidence that the moving to a system of this character will be extraordinarily popular with inmates denied parole. They have just such a system within the federal system in the United States. There is a great deal more argument about parole in the United States than there is in the United Kingdom and we must recognise that.
Quite apart from that argument, let me tell the Committee of some of the other formidable difficulties that would arise were this amendment to be carried. An inmate who challenged the board in the courts would, in the course of the proceedings, be able to secure copies of the reports that go to make up his parole dossier: the initial police report; the comments by members of the prison staff on his progress or lack of it; the reports of the prison and home probation officers on his release plan; possibly some comments by the prison medical officer; and possibly some by a consultant psychiatrist. Of course, if those preparing

369
reports discover that these documents may find their way into the hands of the inmate in the course of legal proceedings, they may be infinitely less prepared to give a frank opinion in their reports.
Let me give examples of what I mean, and these are not highly imaginary. What I propose to do is to deal with the type of cases on which one has adjudicated oneself. The case being considered is that of a man with a long record of violence: grievous bodily harm, sometimes several convictions of grievous bodily harm, and possibly one or two previous convictions of assult occasioning actually bodily harm and unlawful wounding. His problem, as unhappily is often the case, is drink. Sober, he can be a reasonable man; drunk, he is viciously violent.
In such a case—I repeat that there are many of them —the board obviously pays close attention to his drinking habits, but as of course he is in prison, one hopes that he is not getting access to a great deal of alcohol and so he cannot be tested so far as that is concerned within the normal regime of the prison.
Therefore, we clearly have to look particularly carefully at the home circumstances. Will his wife have him home? What are her true feelings and the true feelings of the children in that home to having him back? The woman when interviewed by the home probation officer is inevitably often ambivalent. She has an affection for her husband. The marriage may have lasted a substantial period of time, but she fears a renewal of his drunken violence which has often in the past been used against both her and her children. The probation officer calling on that woman—if that probation officer is doing his or her job well—tries to clarify her attitude. Is there a chance that, despite the husband's violence in the past, she will have him home and provide that degree of stability that the Parole Board may regard as absolutely vital if they are going to recommend to the Secretary of State that he should be released on licence?
If the probation officer is a person of quality and sensitivity, the woman may confide to that probation officer all her fears and uncertainties. Sometimes she may say quite bluntly that she is undecided as to whether or not she really wants the husband to return, and indicate that she remains fearful that he will resort again to drunken violence. Later, a panel of the Parole Board will meet and consider that man's dossier including the home circumstances report from the probation officer. They may come down against parole and not necessarily by any means exclusively because of the wife's disclosures to the home probation officer. The man may then—as provided, of course, in this amendment—get his statement of reasons from the Parole Board as to why they did not recommend his release. The man decides to challenge the matter in the court and he goes there.
His solicitors, as part of those proceedings, obtain the various reports that went to making up that dossier including the report from the home probation officer disclosing that his wife is at best uncertain as to whether or not she wants him home. She may, of course, have said exactly the reverse to him when she visited him in prison. The man concerned is furious. He believes that he has been betrayed, and this episode may lead to the final breakdown of that relationship and, worse, it may endanger the very safety of that woman
370
when he is eventually released from custody. There is no point in trying to dodge the issue. The Parole Board deal with dozens of cases of this kind every month.
6 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I am very interested in this point because I think that the effect of alcohol on crime has not been properly examined, although I pay tribute to the work of the Parole Board in this regard. In the report of the Parole Board for 1980, one of the factors mentioned in offences of violence which have to be looked at is the degree of addiction to drink, which the noble Lord has said was a factor in this particular case. But surely you would not ask the wife for a professional opinion on whether or not the offender was likely to turn back to alcohol after his release. This is a matter on which you would get the opinion of a trained psychiatrist.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I take the noble Lord's point, of course, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not she wants him home and whether or not she is prepared to have him home. The real difficulty in cases this sort—and I must repeat it because it lies at the centre of this argument—is that it is often the case that there is a long history of battery by the husband against that woman and often against the children in the house as well. The central issue facing us is whether or not he has a stable home to go to and, if not, whether there are any alternative arrangements that can be made for him.
I am saying that, if the law is changed in the manner provided in this amendment, the home probation officer will, in cases of this kind, be presented with a painful choice when he produces a report which is to go to the Parole Board. Does he give a frank assessment of the attitude of that wife—or, of course, in some cases, the parents—of the man in custody even if by doing so he or she may be endangering the very safety of the person concerned, or does he refuse to take the risk and, in fact, give an inadequate or, in some respects, incomplete report? I believe that in many such cases the probation officer would be tempted to take the second course of action. There would, therefore, be a real deterioration in the standard of the reports which are made available to the Parole Board.
I think that that is a very serious matter and a serious risk, which I do not think can be minimised. We must remember that we are dealing with people who have long records of violence—just the kind of people whose release causes the gravest public concern. I also think that, if the quality of the reports deteriorates in the way that I fear in some cases it might, a panel of the board might well decide that the risk of releasing that man might be too great. So, far from increasing the prospects of parole, this amendment could— although, of course, it is not its intention in any way at all—have precisely the reverse effect. Of course, one could go on and develop the argument that there would be similar problems in relation to reports of consultant psychiatrists, and so on.
I would make this final point. I know that those who favour this change in the law believe that, if a man is given the reasons for not being given parole he will be able to apply himself to the task of removing

371
that area of anxiety from the minds of the members of the Parole Board before his next review. Of course, in the case of the man who persistently infringes the rules of the prison, that may well be so. If he is constantly sloshing members of the prison staff, I suspect that he does not have to be given very detailed explanations as to why he will not get parole; the reasons are self-evident: if he wants to get parole, he should stop hitting prison officers.
But there are other cases which raise much greater difficulties as regards a prisoner changing his lifestyle within the prison environment. Let us consider another case; for instance, the case of a life-sentence prisoner. Of course, if we do this for determinate cases, clearly, we shall have to do it for life-sentence prisoners as well. Let us suppose that the man concerned is serving a life sentence for a series of sexual assaults on children, culminating in the murder of a child. Unhappily, there is a significant minority of people whose cases—tragic cases of this kind—are regularly reviewed both by the joint committee and by panels of the Parole Board itself. The prognosis in a case of this kind may be truly appalling. Even after 15 or 16 years in custody the board may consider that he is so grossly unstable that it will be impossible to contemplate his release for many years or, indeed, in the case of a man of some substantial age, that he may never leave prison custody at all.
In such a case, a statement from the board as to the reasons for denying him a life licence cannot possibly help him. He cannot change his conduct in some way so as to change the attitude of the board when it next reviews his case. In such cases, his mental condition is often wholly outside his own control. All that is done by giving him a statement of reasons— and this was touched on in the last amendment—will be to expunge the last flicker of hope from that man. I certainly see the force of that argument; you have to be remarkably insensitive not to do so. But that is the risk in a case of this kind—that you will remove from that man any prospect within his own mind that he will ever come out of prison.
I think that in cases of this kind there is a real risk not only to the man himself—and that is important enough—but also, when you have men in this category and there are disturbances in prisons (as there have been in a number of dispersal prisons), to the safety of members of the staff, which is a factor which should not be wholly absent from our minds.
I concede, of course, that those who favour this change in the law believe that by doing so it will create a fairer and a far more humane parole system. For the reasons that I have stated, I disagree with them. I have given my reasons for believing that the reverse could well be true. A new system of the kind set out in this amendment I believe would be a great deal more costly and, in many cases, cases of a high degree of sensitivity—the board would receive reports from reporting officers a great deal less frank, open and honest than they are at the moment. I am by no means convinced that the new system would carry greater public confidence. Indeed, there is some risk that that could be diminished. For these reasons, I hope that this amendment will not be added to the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Not long ago, I received a letter from the parents of a prisoner who had been turned down by the Parole Board. They did want their son home; they, as parents, believed that their son was reformed. Being elderly, they had great problems in visiting the prison. They felt very strongly that they should know why parole had been turned down. I sent a copy of the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich; I shall send the Hansard of this debate to this couple, who seem to have a very good case for knowing why their son was turned down. I support the amendment.
I do not think that the argument advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, that there should be an appeal straight away is valid. It could be made known; the Parole Board's decision would still be final. The prisoners and their relatives should still have the right to know the reason why they have been turned down. If they have a mental problem, they should be in a special hospital being treated, not getting worse in a prison. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that there are difficult problems, but there must still be ways of overcoming them.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Quite shortly, I should like to support this amendment. Having listened again to my noble friend Lord Harris, he may have divested himself of his office, but he is still, if I may say so with the greatest respect, wrapped in the stifling cotton wool of the Home Office official brief. It is remarkable that I am entitled to say that, if my noble friend Lord Hunt was here, he would be supporting this amendment.
So one has the situation, which was the whole of the argument of my noble friend Lord Harris, of the impeccably argued case, of the careful and highly qualified staff, the cost of writing out these reasons, the vast number of the civil servants who would be required. It is—is it not?—what has been heard by all those of us who for years have been dealing with people who suffer in prison from never knowing why they are refused parole. Those are the arguments which have issued from the Home Office day after day and month after month, and that is what we all have to deal with.
The truth of the matter is, as all your Lordships will know, that it is perfectly simple to look at the reasons and then to make a short precis of them. The reasons have to be negative reasons. They have to be written down in a file for the purposes of administration and for the purposes of those who come after, who have to see what happened before. The reasons are written down and any ordinary intelligent person who deals with prisoners can take from those reasons the essence of what they amount to. It is absolute rubbish, and it is civil servants' talk, to go on about how frightfully complicated it all is and how these experts, these wonderful people, will have to use computers to do this kind of thing. It is a perfectly simple proposition and in my submission it would be perfectly easy to write down the essence.
Over and over again I have asked persons I have known on the parole boards to try to explain to me any reason which could not in honesty be given to a person. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, gave an

373
example of the life sentence prisoner who had interfered with children on numerous occasions and the view taken was the view he expressed. Why on earth cannot that man be seen and have explained to him the extreme seriousness of this kind of offence; that there are, alas!, people in society who have this proclivity and that it is extremely difficult to deal with; that for people who have it, in the considered view at the moment of those who deal with it, including doctors, there is no real cure, no real guarantee that such a person will not do the same thing again?
We can explain this to somebody and give him hope by saying that there are treatments and by asking whether he is prepared to undergo those treatments. We all know that with the years passing and age coming on, people are not going to be locked up for ever. They are going to be let out. Why not talk to that person in a civilised way and give him the reasons in that typical case, where that man's life is a misery, having no idea why he is never given parole? That could be explained to him. I know that the noble Minister will have been to Wormwood Scrubs, or, if he has not yet, will do so, to see the special unit there which we have discussed in this House. One of the things that happens in that special unit is that these discussions go on experimentally with those persons. The result is that the people there are perfectly able to talk about the reasons for refusal of their parole. They are far more relaxed than the other inhabitants of Wormwood Scrubs, for more relaxed than those who are shut up in the wing where the lifers are held.
In the special unit there is a totally different atmosphere. Why?—because these things are being talked about in a perfectly normal, straightforward way. I really would urge upon your Lordships that there is no reason in the world, if it can be done with the mental health tribunal, why it should not be done with prsioners serving in prison. It would make a profound difference to these people. I would submit to your Lordships that truth is always better than having endless fantasies, endless suspicions entering into people's minds, appreciating what that means. People have only one thing to think about in prison—" When am I going to get out?" If they are told the truth they can take it and understand it. If they are not told the truth, they have fantasies, dreams and obsessions and their life becomes equally miserable. I strongly support the amendment.
6.15p.m.
Lord Elton: If I may start at the end of these exchanges, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that I have not found the cotton-wool of Home Office briefs at all stifling. I find it translucent. One can see through it and, having done so and discovered what it is all about, one finds that the briefs are extremely helpful; and I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is any less perceptive than I am. I would not say that what he has said was absolute rubbish at all, but, then, that is because I do not think that that is a phrase that one should address to one's noble friend in the same party in the course of debate; but it is interesting to hear the different points of view of the noble Lord's party expressed in this way.
In his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson
374
of Lullington, picked up what I regard as the least important of the whole range of very important points which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, of his own party, brought forward and put before your Lordships. That was the question of the complications of administration and the expense of doing so. That is an important, but perhaps not the most important, point. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, will forgive me if I concentrate my critique upon him, but he rather usefully focussed for me the points that preceded him. He said that this difficulty could be overcome by using a formalised system of answers which would be quite simple and drawn from files. He probably knows—or, if he does not, I will tell him—that in 1978 there was an experiment done on exactly these lines for exactly that reason; because the last Administration, to which some Members of his party were themselves contributors—and I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I got the dates wrong— regarded the question of reasons being given as a sensible one.
After all, if somebody asks: "Can I go home now, please"? It is very unpleasant to be told, "No', even if it is at the end of a children's party. If it is at the end of 5, 7 or 15 years of imprisonment it seems a not unreasonable question to ask: why this is being done? The experiment was run and one of the hopes was that it would enable prisoners to recognise those areas of their conditions for which they were responsible, which made them unsuitable for release, and to amend them. But the experience, which was testified to by the prison governors themselves, was that it was not useful for that purpose in this form, and the experiment was abandoned.
I do not want to delay your Lordships longer because you have heard a great panoply of expertise on this. I want only to say that it seems to me that the crux of the matter is that parole is not a right, it is a privilege. Prisoners are not unjustly imprisoned. To say that is to decry the whole of our judicial system. It is right that they should be in prison; they are put there after trial. They may, as a privilege, be released, and early release is something which they have to earn. If the reasons are exposed for discussion they will be challenged. Noble Lords have said that that is a healthy and democratic thing, but we would get an absolute torrent of litigation. We would get the review commissions. I must give way to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on this occasion.
Lord Avebury: I do not know why the noble Lord says that we would get a torrent of litigation because there is nowhere in the world where, as has been said in the debate, comprehensive reasons for refusal are given. We only have the menus, such as they have in New South Wales. If we had comprehensive reasons, how does the noble Lord know, since there is no comparable experience, that that would result in a torrent of litigation?
Lord Elton: T believe there would be comprehensive litigation because there would be more things to challenge in every report, and they would be challenged. I cannot conceive that any of your Lordships who were in prison and had been for some time who went up for parole and got comprehensive reasons for not being

375
released, would be so resigned to their fate as not to challenge them. The effect of that is to expose the people who have given the reasons, whether they are those on the board or the social worker of whom Lord Harris spoke. Nobody has mentioned what is to happen to the unfortunate wife who said:" Of course I would not trust him, but I am not going to tell him so". She would never sleep throughout another night of her life. The public are to be protected, and this, I think, would militate against that, and, if it did not, would militate against the earlier release of prisoners. The answers would either be stereotyped and rarely favourable or they would be complex and frequently challenged. It would impose an unnecessary burden on the administration, anyway, and it would do so to no good end whatever for the prisoners. I regret to have to return the same dusty answer to this proposal as has been given in the past, and I hope that your Lordships will not support it.
The Earl of Longford: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, was brief and the least I can do is be brief also. The noble Baroness set the matter out strongly at the beginning, backed up by the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Hutchinson, who should always be lined up to speak immediately following the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as an antidote to the official line. That is an admirable feature of the new party, and I think we in the Labour Party would agree with that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: We in the Labour Party are always agreed.
The Earl of Longford: The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, dealt with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and there is no doubt that the last point made by the Minister was not the strongest he has been making in the last few hours, when he said that the amendment would not lead to more releases. The truth is that either one wants to see more people released on parole or one does not. The Minister is trying to have it both ways; while he wants to see more people released, I gather, he is arguing that, in some mysterious way, giving reasons would mean fewer being released. That was a very feeble point he was making.
Lord Elton: Would the noble Earl give way?
The Earl of Longford: Certainly, but I was in the midst of my peroration.
Lord Elton: The noble Earl is more than courteous. I rise simply to point out that the whole purpose of the Bill is to have fewer people going into prison and, wherever possible, more coming out sooner. But in order to do that, we must preserve the confidence of the public, and it would not be preserved if people were improperly let out. On the other hand, if the effect were as I have described it, and as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, also described it—namely, to fossilise the process so as to protect people from litigation—that would mean fewer people coming out, so in neither way would we win.
The Earl of Longford: I must not use the word "nonsense" because I should be reprimanded for
376
doing so, but if it were not forbidden, that is the word I would apply to that comment. I suggest we now put the matter to the vote.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: May I, before that is done, put one point to the noble Earl? Let me reassure him about the unity of the Labour Party on this issue. The last three Labour Home Secretaries have always resisted precisely the amendment he has tabled this evening.
6.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 81.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.31 p.m.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Power to alter minimum period for eligibility for release on licence]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Amendment No. 65. I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 65 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 66.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 32, line 31, leave out from ("words") to end of line 6 on page 33 and insert (""six months thereof"").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment. This is an amendment that is so moderate and so reasonable that my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and I are both in favour of it. It aims at reducing the parole threshold. What is meant by the proposition I shall describe briefly because I do not in any way want to limit the length of the Ministers speech, since a number of us are extremely concerned about this matter and we should like to hear a fairly detailed explanation of the Government's position, for the following reason.
At the moment an inmate has to serve 12 months in prison before he can be considered for release. As a result of that the parole system begins to operate with sentences of around 20 months and more. With sentences shorter than that, prisoners do not obtain parole. For some time it has been the view of a number of us that the threshold should be lowered, and the amendment lowers the threshold from 12 months to six months, so that a person would have to serve at least six months before he became eligible for parole. Broadly speaking, that means that the parole system would start at about 11 months.
It is the view of many of us that the result of such an amendment would be that the numbers on parole could be increased by as many as 2,000, or more. At the moment the parole population (as it were) is running at just over 3,000. If the amendment were accepted, the number of people on parole would rise to rather more than 5,000. The effect on the prison population would be considerable and, even more important, the places within the prison system that at the moment are experiencing the most serious over-crowding—the local prisons—would be significantly affected, were the amendment to be accepted.
If I may say so, the Government have moved half way towards meeting us. When this matter was raised in another place, I think in Standing Committee, this particular proposal was put forward. The Government came forward with the clause that I am now seeking to amend. That provides that the Secretary of State would have an order-making power to reduce the threshold from the present period of 12 months to a shorter period at his discretion.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is aware, this is by way of being a probing amendment, and today we want to hear what are the Government's intentions on the matter. Bluntly speaking, we want urgent action to deal with an increasingly grave situation in our prisons. If the Minister can give an indication that the Govern-
378
ment are proposing to take some form of early action under this provision, many of us would be content. I do not wish to speak any more on the matter today, save to repeat what a number of us argued on Monday; namely, that, unless some action is taken soon to deal with the grossly overcrowded conditions in our prisons, the situation will get wholly out of hand. It is for the Government now to come forward with proposals.
I believe that this is a sensible and moderate amendment, which would have the effect of extending the parole system to people who are serving shorter sentences. These are precisely the category of offenders about whose early release from prison there would be the least public anxiety about, all the more so as they would be supervised by the probation and after-care service.
In brief, I believe that by extending the system in the way set out in the amendment we could significantly lower the size of the prison population and give a number of people now serving sentences of imprisonment below 20 months or so the opportunity of having the parole scheme extended to them, so that they could continue to serve their sentences in the community. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: We on these Benches support the amendment, since we believe that, if it is carried, it will at any rate achieve one of the main purposes of this piece of legislation. I quote the words of the noble Lord the Minister uttered but a quarter of an hour ago. He said that the whole purpose of the Bill is to see to it that fewer people go into prison and to guarantee that more people will come out of prison sooner. That second limb of the Government's laudable purpose will be achieved if the amendment is carried. But it is our submission that, if the amendment is not carried, nothing else either already dealt with in the Bill or yet to come can possibly achieve the purpose. That being so, the Bill would contain a massive vacuum in regard to the central purpose of reducing the menacing level at which the prison population now stands.
Your Lordships have considered in very great detail, and most urgently, the alternative proposals. Already there is the Government's proposition that, by implementing Section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, the prison population might be reduced. That matter was dealt with in very great detail by your Lordships' Committee three days ago. I believe that the most fervent supporter of Section 47—and we all wish it well—would accept that at best it is a gamble, at worst it could be a very considerable disaster.
Then Amendment No. 59 was dealt with in very great detail. That concerned the whole question of supervised release after serving one-third of the sentence. By a firm majority the Committee rejected that amendment, as indeed it rejected Amendment No. 61, which proposed that remission should run at not one-third, but one-half. So this is the last chance that the Committee has to put forward a plan that has the certainty of reducing the prison population. To put it another way, if the amendment is not passed, there will be in the Bill no provision which could be said to contain a plan that has a real, ascertained prospect of achieving the purpose of reducing the prison population.
I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if I remind

379
them yet again—indeed, the Committee has heard a very great deal of this over the last few months, and I apprehend will hear much more over the next few months—of the acuteness of the problem we now face. Rather than use my own words, I would respectfully quote the words of Mr. John McCarthy, the governor of Wormwood Scrubs Prison, in that memorable and historic letter that he wrote to The Times on 19th November 1981. May I quote two extracts from that. The first is where he says:
" From my personal point of view I did not join the Prison Service to manage overcrowded cattle pens, nor did I join to run a prison where the interests of the individuals have to be sacrificed continually to the interests of the institution, nor did I join to be a member of a service where staff that I admire are forced to run a society that debases".
The second quotation from the same letter is:
" As it is evident that the present uncivilised conditions in prison seem likely to continue and as I find this incompatible with any moral ethic, I wish to give notice that I, as the governor of the major prison in the United Kingdom, cannot for much longer tolerate, either as a professional or as an individual, the inhumanity of the system within which I work".
It is against that background canvas that we have to consider this last chance of changing the situation before it is too late. In my submission, this is the most practical of all the alternatives that the Government have. It has, as I say, the virtue of certainty. With the threshold of parole at 12 months, as it is at the moment, there were last year over 10,000 people who were eligible. By moving that down to six months, it would mean that over 19,000 persons would be eligible.
Again, there is the element of safety to be considered. The Parole Board, in its operation over the last 15 or 16 years under the leadership of many distinguished persons, and with the services of people representing a vast range of experiences and skills, has built up very considerable trust. It has, in my submission, achieved a splendid balance between, on the one hand, catering for the needs of the individual and giving that individual the best possible chance of rehabilitation when he eventually returns to society, and, on the other, protecting society from possible mistakes if that person is released too early. The mistakes are very few. About 5 per cent, of persons released, and no more, commit criminal offences during the currency of their parole.
Lastly, there is again a very strong case in equity. Examples have already been given in another place in relation to this, but may I give this very simple example. Take two men, one of whom is the ringleader and is sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The other, who is a person on the periphery of that offence, is given a term of 21 months' imprisonment. The first will be eligible for parole after 12 months, and that person will be released very soon thereafter. The person given 21 months would in fact, in all probability, serve 14 monthss—two months longer than the ringleader. Men have a deep sense of injustice in relation to such a situation, and even if there were no massive problem, as there is, of prison overcrowding there would still be a very strong and in my submission overwhelming case for the acceptance of this amendment. This is a course that can save at least 2,000 prison places—very probably more. They will come from the ranks of people who are serving shorter terms than those who are now given parole; in other
380
words, they will be safer prospects so far as society is concerned. It is on that basis that I commend this amendment to the Committee.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Perhaps I should say that we all of us on this Bench support the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in this amendment.
Lord Elton: That is a refreshing revelation, but the views of the—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Elton: I am very sorry.
Lord Gardiner: I venture to say a word on this amendment because, first, while I have attended all the hearings at Committee stage I think I have spoken only once, and that for about two minutes on one amendment; and, secondly, because this is the last amendment which proposes something effective to reduce the size of the prison population. We have had the Wormwood Scrubs riot, and we know the numbers of prisoners and officers injured; we have had riots on prison roofs, and we have had cell fires. We may have a long hot summer; and I am sorry to have to say this, but I do not think it unlikely that before that summer is out, if the present size of our prison population in relation to resources is maintained, some will be burned to death in the prisons.
Perhaps I may briefly remind your Lordships what the inspector said about this in his recent report on those prisons which he had visited during the year. He said:
" At 14 of the 17 establishments we felt it necessary to include one or more formal recommendations on this topic. We are concerned about fire precautions because of the particularly grave consequences of a fire in a prison. If a fire does break out, there is a chance that considerable numbers of inmates may be trapped either in their cells, or on the wrong side of locked security gates, and may be unable to escape from the fire itself or from the fumes from burning material. In prisons that are overcrowded, the potential loss of life among inmates is that much greater. There is, of course, a duty upon staff to do all they can to ensure that prisoners reach safety, and it is pleasing to be able to record the high reputation of prison officers in these circumstances.
" As to the possibility of fire, there are the normal household risks from accidental fires caused by cooking equipment, from electrical faults, or from inmates smoking in their cells. In addition, however, fires may be started deliberately, either by a prisoner who is mentally disturbed or who wishes to make a protest or, occasionally, by a prisoner seeking to commit suicide by inhaling the toxic fumes from his burning mattress. The significant risk of fire, combined with the tragic consequences, lays a heavy burden upon the department to protect its employees and the inmates in its custody. …
" In practice, it seemed that each of the key aspects of sound fire precautions were missing at one establishment or another. In one prison the alarm bell system did not function properly; in a second the fire and evacuation orders were inadequate. Here, the fire fighting equipment was poorly mounted and maintained; there, the appointed fire officer was allocated no time in which to carry out his duties. In several prisons, few staff had been trained in the immediate action to take in the event of a fire. In several more, the evacuation instructions were not posted and fire drills had not been practised, so that if fire occurred an orderly response could not be guaranteed.
" On the whole, we felt that the standard of fire precautions was extremely disappointing and left inmates and staff at unnecessary risk".
We know that since then three prisoners have been burned to death in Strangeways Prison, Manchester— a prison with which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham,

381
I know, is very familiar, and which she thinks is unsuitable for 15-year-old boys on remand. I am sure that it has never occurred to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, or to any justice, that if you refuse somebody bail it may end in his being burned to death. This is a very real risk that we really must face, and I am very disappointed indeed that every single proposal that has been made which could make any substantial reduction in the numbers—and this, after all, is the key to the whole problem—has throughout been opposed by the Government.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, have between them demonstrated the very cogent reasons that there are behind the wish of everybody on all sides of your Lordships' Committee to reduce the prison population. Your Lordships will also be aware from the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the clause which this amendment seeks to alter is itself an earnest of the Government's intentions, and was put down in response to similar pressure in another place in order to give the Secretary of State the power to do what he is not yet able to do because the machinery does not exist. I think that the assurance that your Lordships wish to hear is that this is our intention and that we have set our hands to the plough in order to get it done.
We recognised in the review of parole published last year that the fact that parole was not available for prisoners serving shorter sentences created obvious anomalies—and they have been attested to by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan—and there is an impressive body of opinion in favour of some reduction. We would wish to bring about that reduction and have already put it in hand the detailed investigatory work on the issues necessary to be resolved. These issues are connected with the need to secure that parole is not an automatic process but is selective. Obviously, there must be some minimum time during which prisoners can be observed and assessed, and the question of how long it should be is one which must be carefully gone into.
We are doing that work with the intention that the noble Lord seeks with this amendment. He will realise that when it is complete it will be necessary also to consult the prison, the police and the probation service as well as the Parole Board and our own officials to see how this can best be done. I cannot therefore tell the noble Lord what the outcome would be, but I can say what are our intentions. There was a question about numbers. If the parole threshold is reduced from 12 months to 6 months, up to 7,000 more prisoners will qualify for parole review each year and a fairly high proportion may be released on licence. The detailed investigations to which I referred are aimed at quantifying the resource implications for the prison service and the probation service of such an increase in the case load and work load. The principal objective will be to find out whether it is possible to construct adequate procedures for selecting from those prisoners in the shorter period of time available, those who may be suitable for parole. When those investigations are complete and the questions answered, we shall be able to take the matter further; but we
382
shall do so in whatever way the results may show to be appropriate.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I concede at once that the Government have moved to some extent as a result of the amendment put down in another place. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the Government must consider the resource implications, which is a significant issue so far as the probation service is concerned, and I also recognise the fact that he must have his consultations. I have no disposition to introduce unfair arguments, but I think he will be aware of the sense of disappointment in the Committee that the Government have in this Bill so far taken no clear steps to reduce the appaling numbers in prison.
I propose with the leave of your Lordships to table precisely the same amendment, to ask leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage and to reintroduce the same amendment at a later stage in the Bill so that Lord Elton will be enabled to give us a report on what action the Government have taken between today and that date, recognising, as I am sure he does, that a large element of the Committee including many of his noble friends, will be expecting on that occasion a clearly defined statement of the progress that the Government have made. We cannot put off infinitely this problem otherwise the situation in the prisons will get out of hand. There are significant problems, and the noble Lord referred to them. I hope that these consultations, which can go on for many weary months, are going to be carried out speedily. With great respect, I cannot see why they are not already underway. Seeking the views of the police on this issue and of the probation service and so on is proper, but I cannot see why it has not been done already.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I fail to make myself clear on what I intend to do. What we wish to discuss with the services who will have to administer what emerges from this will be some quantified estimate of what would be the result of the legislation he proposes, or the implementation of the order now in the Bill. I have told your Lordships that that investigation has already begun and on this day fortnight, or whenever we discuss it again, I shall be able to tell the noble Lord that we have done another 10 or 12 days' work on that. As soon as that is available, we shall be able to discuss the matter with those who will have to administer it, and I think the noble Lord will accept that you cannot launch the product of 7,000 extra parole reviews onto the parole services of the country without discussing it with them and with the police. I can say that we shall be finding out as soon as possible what are the implications, and then we shall discuss this as swiftly as we can. I do not want to give the noble Lord an exaggerated expectation of what I shall be able to say next week or the next fortnight. It may take the matter a little further but not necessarily much further.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I take note of what the noble Lord has said, and I am sure that he will take note of what I have said and what others have said. I do not propose to put down this amendment at the Report stage but at the Third Reading, so that he will

383
have more opportunity of considering this matter. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: May I ask my noble friend Lord Elton when he does the resource implication— and it is important—to consider that presumably, if 4,000 or 5,000 people are let out earlier, this will, in food alone, cost the prison service less. Could what you are saving on the one hand, not be pushed over to the probation service, on the other hand, which would have a more healthy effect? What people say about overcrowding is in the prisons is obvious.
Lord Melchett: Before the noble Lord sits down, I would say that I should have thought that, if the Home Office showed more sense of urgency than the noble Lord seemed to display, it would be possible to come to the House at the Report stage, let alone at Third Reading, with a great deal more information than the noble Lord gave us today. The Home Office has many resources. They must have been thinking about this in detail for some time. I suspect that they have a great deal of this information already and, if the noble Lord were so minded as to instruct his officials to have an urgent meeting with the police and the probation service, then the Government, if they set their mind to it, would be able to come back at the next stage with a definitive answer. To suggest that that is not possible is to exaggerate the difficulty.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I invite the Minister to bear in mind that, whatever burden of strain will be imposed on the probation services by what is proposed, it is far less significant than that the dangerous situation which my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner indicated about the present conditions in prison be allowed to continue.
Lord Elton: My noble friend, the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords are all seeking to persuade me of something of which I am already persuaded: the desirability of doing this if it is possible. I have also said that we are discovering this with the greatest expedition possible. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, can find more rhetorical ways of expressing that sense of urgency which would convince him more rapidly than I can that we are doing what we can as quickly as we can. I am not going to come with a cut-and-dried solution, dates and numbers, at Report stage or Third Reading. It will not be possible. If I can find anything else which convinces the Committee of the real sense of urgency which we give to this matter, I shall do so. What I said to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, stands. I am grateful to him for giving me to Third Reading at least to be able to report that much more work.
Lord Wigoder: Is there any difficulty in the Government accepting this amendment in principle and then simply fixing a suitable commencement date?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that idea had been hovering at the back of my mind, but I had not taken advice on it; and, as this issue is going to be raised again at a later stage, perhaps we may address ourselves to it then.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am attracted by the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Speaking for myself, I want to consult a number of my noble friends. That is the approach which we may actually consider adopting if we decided to put down an amendment on Third Reading. I repeat to the Minister —and I do not think it has to be said again, but let it be done for the record—that he is aware of the sense of urgency regarding this matter in the Committee. He has communicated his own concern. What we shall definitely want on Third Reading is some clear indication of substantial progress in this matter.
Having already offered to withdraw this amendment about seven or eight minutes ago, I now do so for the second time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: This is probably an appropriate moment to have the dinner adjournment, I shall be moving that the House do resume; but before I do so, for the convenience of your Lordships who are interested in this Bill, I say can that the House will not resume this particular Committee stage before a quarter to eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill
7.2 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Exclusion of exhibitions promoted for private gain from certain exemptions under the 1909 and 1952 Acts}:
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No 1:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
("(1A) An exhibition is promoted for private gain if, and only if,—

(a) any proceeds of the exhibition, that is to say, any sums paid for admission to the exhibition; or

(b) any other sums (whenever paid) which, having regard to all the circumstances, can reasonably be regarded as paid wholly or partly for admission to the exhibition,

are applied wholly or partly for purposes of private gain.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think that the House may find it convenient if we had a fairly general discussion about the amendments that stand in my name, all of which are interlinked and part of a complete scheme. At the same time we may consider Amendment No. 4 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins and Lord Birkett. As I understand it, that is intended to be an alternative method of achieving something of the same end as my amendment seeks to achieve. Perhaps I may paint in for a moment the

385
background for those of your Lordships who may not have followed the whole of this Bill.
What we are seeking to deal with in Clause 2 is the cinema club which, by virtue of a certain exemption in earlier legislation, has by a pretext been able to set itself up in effect as a public exhibition of pornographic and violent films but without either safety or censorship licensing provisions at all. The first part that I must paint in is the common ground that I fancy I shall find all round the House, that we want at all costs to stop that, and this Bill effectively does so. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was perfectly clear about it at all earlier stages of the Bill. I doubt whether he has changed his mind now, and I feel that it would be a completely common cause throughout the House that we want this legislation soon in order to deal with this loophole that has been found.
The way that the Bill has been drawn and the matter we discussed on this point at Committee stage, was whether in so describing the type of exhibition that needed to be licensed under the cinematograph legislation we had gone rather too wide. Again I think— and I hope that this is right—that it is common ground all round the House that we do not wish to catch the perfectly ordinary high street retail shop which is demonstrating for the purposes of its customers what its video tape machines, if they buy or hire them, will do in the way of providing home entertainment, or indeed is giving a demonstration of what the tapes that it has on hire or for sale contain, these being, by hypothesis, respectable and wholly acceptable material that anybody would wish to see.
The point is that although no doubt all of these shops would readily be licensed, there are really a very great number of them and the local authorities concerned, primarily the district councils, would have a perfectly enormous and quite unnecessary burden put upon them if they were required, as it were, by a side wind to license this kind of exhibition of films, particularly video tape.
]n the process of considering this matter—and the purpose of my amendment is to exempt exhibitions of that sort—it is necessary to consider what else would be exempted as well. What I imagine is exercising—and I believe this to be right because 1 have had considerable discussions about this following upon the Committee stage—the minds of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and his colleagues in this is that there are, for the sake of argument, ordinary public houses which show for their customers, either behind the bar or—to take a more sophisticated version—in a separate room in the course of the evening as a completely separate exhibition, a whole film either on film or video tape. It may very well be that there are hotels which have a channel on a television in all the guests' rooms where one pushes a button which says "Movie"— and I was in one the day before yesterday where it said just that—and there are a succession of films shown on different nights of the week. It so happens that the hotel 1 was in gave the British Board of Film Censor's rating for each film. They were all either A or A-A. It does not necessarily follow that they always are in that category.
When there is an amendment, which is my series of amendments, which lets off the high street shops, inevitably in the process—and I do not attempt to deny
386
this—one also lets out of the cinematograph system of licensing a certain number of other things as well. The question is, how do you succeed in drawing a line between what is desirable and what is, frankly, impossible?
My honourable friends and myself have considered this matter, and we have come to the conclusion— and I have had advice on this in terms of drafting—that the amendments that I have put down will exempt the high street shops. It is perfectly true that they will very probably also exempt a number of other things. One alternative to preventing that happening was to look at a list of things that were not to be exempted under this new subsection, the difficulty there being that the more you looked at the list, the more things there were that were not on it and, imagining further into the future, the more things there would be that would still not be on it and there was no power to deal with the possibilities that lay in the minds of people.
Now we have Amendment No. 4 which, if I may respectfully say so, is a valiant attempt to curtail the extent to which one does not need to have cinematograph licensing. If I may come back to that in one moment, I should like to make this point: if one does not have licensing under the Cinematograph Acts— and this legislation will become part of the Cinematograph Acts code—it does not mean to say that you do not have any other licensing. I should like to rehearse for a moment the other licensing material which there is on the statute book.
I do not think there has remained a great deal of worry about the question of safety, but of course it is, as safety always is, an important matter. I mentioned this to your Lordships' Committee earlier. The licensing justices under the licensing Acts have certain powers. They have most powers when they are granting a new licence, and they have less powers— I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is very familiar with this—when they are dealing with the renewal of a licence. But if the whole style of the public house has changed at the time of coming to the licensing justices' sessions, and it has become known that the way in which this public house is being run is that it is being made over on one or two nights a week substantially to the showing of a major film or a video of some sort, then the licensing justices are entitled to be addressed, and would be likely to be addressed, by the fire authority—because although the fire authority are not going to insist on rows and rows of fixed seats and the standard number of staff who would attend in the case of an ordinary cinema, nevertheless, they will take account of the actual use of this public house and they will be prepared, if the publican does not agree, to make the necessary representations to the justices that the licence should not be renewed unless steps are taken to improve the safety precautions. That would deal with the question of darkness, emergency lighting and so on. In the ultimate, although the fire authority advises, it is the police who are the custodians of the conditions imposed by the licensing justices; and the police, as your Lordships will know, have the power to object in the case of the renewal of a licence. So there is that ultimate precaution.
Then there is a wholly different code under the Fire Precautions Act, and if this became a major menace

387
there are regulatory powers which could be used by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and which could deal specifically with this, as they can with any other fire danger. In addition, there are also the provisions of the Offices, Shops and Railways Premises Act and orders made under it, which have the same effect. I really would suggest to your Lordships that when it comes to safety, even if you do not do it under the regulations with which the cinema operators are familiar—that is to say, the 1955 regulations— there are copious powers on the statute book to make sure that people who are exempted from cinematograph licensing under this provision are nevertheless caught to a perfectly adequate state by a number of other provisions with which people are very familiar and which are widely used.
Then we have the further point that these exhibitions are going to be dealt with by means of the censorship sanction. At the moment, that is almost entirely run by the British Board of Film Censors. It is plain that somebody who wishes to run an exhibition of this sort does not necessarily have to show a film or a video which has been properly examined and, if necessary, excised and censored by the British Board of Film Censors and which therefore does not carry their coding that we all know about. But, if for the sake of argument, a publican were to show a film that had not been so dealt with, sanitised, or whatever the right word is, by the board, there is other legislation which can deal with this.
It is not the Cinematograph Acts again. I went through this at the Committee stage. There is the broad power under the Obscene Publications Act, and people know full well that there are difficulties of definition and difficulties in trials under this Act. Nevertheless, it is there. There is the Indecent Displays (Controls) Act 1981, under which the test is very much less difficult to establish for the purposes of getting a conviction, and which leads to an individual prosecution for an individual offence in the case of any display of this sort which is considered to be obscene— and a public house and many other things that fall into your Lordships' imaginations in this connection would be caught by that.
Finally, there is, of course, the third schedule to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which has been discussed in this section of Parliament. If a publican wished to show blue films, films with a major sexual content—and I would invite your Lordships to consider the fairly nauseating description of a sex cinema in Schedule 3 to that Bill; a pretty broad description—he would be able to apply for a specific licence for that purpose to the district council. I just wonder how many publicans are going out of their way to apply to be licensed to be a sex cinema as well as a public house. I would have thought that even if they got the licence, it might not necessarily be of advantage to them. It is completely within the powers of the local authority to say that there shall be none in their district or, if there is to be one, under what conditions it is to be controlled.
My Lords, that is the background. I concede that the amendments I have put down will leave a number of operations to be dealt with under different legislation and not under the cinematograph licensing
388
system, which is so well known and so well tried. For one moment then, may I, in a preliminary way, look at the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, because I entirely understand that it has been put down out of good will and in order to be helpful. I do not wish to look any gift horse in the mouth, and I hope he will not take anything that I say by way of criticism as an imputation of any sort against him for being difficult about it.
But I would suggest to him that the problem is this. Take the two ends of the scale—and let us concentrate for the moment on the public house which shows films or videos behind the bar. If it has simply a little television set up behind the public bar and it shows films on it, and it is not a main feature of the place but simply happens to be there; and if the films are not necessarily shown every night, and people may or may not be able to see the set, that is one end of the scale. At the other end, there is the public house which advertises that every Tuesday or Thursday, or indeed every night of the week, it is going to show a full feature film in comfortable accommodation, with drinks being brought round, or whatever it may be. I would have thought it was the latter operation that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was primarily trying to catch.
But if you look at the wording of his amendment-there are technical difficulties about it that I will not go into—and at the essence of what he is saying, the more a publican advertises the style of his public house as being one of beer and films—regular feature films, together with good entertainment in the bar— the more it is going to be possible for him to say that that is an essential or integral part of the promotion, presentation or marketing of the services of that pub. Therefore, under the wording of this amendment, the more likely he is to be able to persuade somebody that he does not need to be licensed under the cinematograph legislation. The more insignificant the thing is, the less essential and integral it becomes and the more likely, therefore, he is to fall outside the exemption and to need a licence. I think that is the opposite of what the noble Lord intends to achieve.
I am fully aware that there will be people who will try to get round this legislation. They will use the same sort of ruses that have been used to circumvent the previous Act, and Parliament may have to come back to this again. I shall finish with this. I have always said that, in order to succeed, a Private Member's Bill must be comparatively modest. It must not try to be over-ambitious and to deal with every possible criterion, every possible contingency, that anybody can think of. This Bill—I concede it—does not deal under the cinematograph legislation with every possible contingency. What I believe it does, and, with the aid of this amendment, does quite safely and satisfactorily, is to deal with the major abuse that has been shown up. I hope that I have demonstrated that there is a substantial amount of other legislation available to local authorities and to the police, to deal with fringe and further sophisticated developments of the sort of things that we have been complaining about for quite a long time.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will accept this amendment, even if it is not necessarily, in itself, complete in all respects, because this is the way forward,

389
this is the way in which we shall get this Bill on to the statute book and this is the way by which, come the Royal Assent, when I hope that it becomes law, we shall be able to deal with cinema clubs. If we do not do that, we shall have missed this Session, we shall have got ourselves into arguments about grave technicalities which have proved terribly difficult to deal with in terms of drafting, and we shall not really have achieved what this House was, in principle, trying to cope with on Second Reading, as approved all the way through. Therefore, I hope, although there may be defects in it, that on the sort of arguments that I have put forward, and with the safeguards that I have described, this group of amendments that I have put down will take away the danger of laying a tremendous and unnecessary burden on the district councils, but, at the same time, will leave a proper protection for those who wish to control other improper and abusive methods of exhibiting either film or video. My Lords, I beg to move.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as I understand the position, we are to have a general debate on the two amendments. I shall be prohibited from formally moving my amendment, and am not only entitled but encouraged to speak on both of the amendments—the one in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and the one which has been so persuasively moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. In the Committee stage of this Bill, which I attended though I did not speak, because I felt that everything that needed to be said at that stage had been said most adequately by those already taking part in the debate the noble Viscount—if he will forgive me for saying so —displayed rather less certainty in moving his amendment than he displayed this evening. It seems to me that his faith in his own amendment has firmed up a little during the interim period—
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I have done some more homework.
Lord Jenkins of Putney:—and one wonders why that is, because the contrary has happened so far as everybody else is concerned. He said in the Committee stage that he wanted to see what he could do to come up with a formula. He was dissatisfied with what he was proposing and he thought that we could see whether we could do something better. My noble friend Lord Mishcon said that we should have consultation with the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association and other experts in the trade, to see whether at Report stage we could come forward with something more definite and comprehensive. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, who spoke from the Government Front Bench on that occasion, suggested to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville:
" But if my noble friend sees fit to delay putting this amendment into the Bill, I for my part will welcome it as an opportunity to clarify my own mind and that of the trade on this issue".— [Official Report, 21/6/82; col. 874.]
The mind of the trade has been clarified, in the sense that they do not want, or like, the amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has so persuasively put before us this evening. Therefore, we need to ask ourselves why it is that an amendment, which has been
390
put before us this evening in a way which, if I were not reinforced by people whose lives are spent in the trade, I would have found great difficulty in countering, or would have lacked the courage to stand up and disagree with the noble Viscount about, is disliked so much, although the noble Viscount believes it to be the right way of dealing with the Bill.
One can understand the trade's opposition, because they are in business and are commercial exhibitors of films, and if a measure is to be taken which will place them all, as it were, on the same line, they do now want to see any holes left whereby somebody will squeeze in round the corner. From their point of view, that is understandable. But what confirmed me in thinking that there is something not quite right about the present amendment is the conviction not only of the trade but of the British Board of Film Censors and of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. When they came down on the side of the trade, I began to think for the first time that there must be something wrong with this, so I read very carefully what it was that the British Board of Film Censors had to say, which was:
' It is the view of the British Board of Film Censors and also of the trade associations of the film industry that this amendment"—
and this is the noble Viscount's amendment, not the one in the names of myself and my noble friend—
" would create a loophole which would come to be as significant as a means of escaping control by licensing as the bogus sex cinema clubs are today. Video clubs, video restaurants and video lounges in hotels, which would never even need to let the shabby bedrooms which they maintain upstairs, would be able to show unlicensed films to their patrons without even the benefit of classification to restrict the audience by age, since there is no law barring children from seeing X films but only the licensing conditions imposed on the cinema by the local authority. We believe that the catering trade would begin to provide an easy excuse for the operation of covert video cinemas with charges made for food and drink with the excuse of showing video films for which no admission charge is made, and it would be up to the law to prove that the profit margin allowed on food and drink was more than could be justified in the circumstances".
That is what the British Board of Film Censors thought and their view was endorsed by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
In those circumstances, I began to worry a little about the amendment in the noble Viscount's name, and I was a little more worried when I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who takes an interest in these matters and has long done so, was also a little concerned about it. Now the noble Viscount says that if our amendment were substituted for his the consequences would be worse than with his. If that is the case, why is it that, between us, we have been unable to come up with something which will do what we all want to do; that is, to draw a line which will admit that which is admissible, and which will exclude that which is not admissible?
It is surely not beyond human ingenuity to devise a form of words which would allow that which ought to be allowed, and would not allow that which ought not to be allowed. It seems as if we are both saying to each other: "The consequence of the form of words that you are introducing will be that things which ought not to be permitted will be permitted."I suppose the consequence of that will be to forget both of the amendments and to say"Let us have the Bill as it originally was. Why are we worrying about

391
this? Why don't we let the Bill stand as it originally was?" Unfortunately, there is a general consensus of opinion in that sense, which there is not in the other sense. The general consensus of opinion about the Bill as it was originally drafted is that it is over-restrictive: that things would be prevented which ought reasonably to be allowed to occur.
So we have a dilemma. Here is a Bill which is over-restrictive and here are two amendments which both sides say have the consequence of wrecking the reasonable protections which were laid down in the original Bill. I am not sufficiently expert in the matter to come up with a form of words. I come into it rather late in the day and apologise for being so late. I should not have intervened at this stage but for the fact that it seemed to me that those who had been with the Bill for so long had not found the right formula and I wondered whether or not, even at this stage, we might succeed in finding a form of words that would give us the answer which we want but which seems to me so far to have failed to produce the right result which everybody wants to get. I may have something further to say later, but at this point I think it would be of great benefit to me, and it might be of benefit to the House generally, to hear from my noble friend and from the noble Lords on the Front Bench before we reach a conclusion on this perhaps small but not unimportant and rather difficult matter.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, the noble Viscount has been so enormously persuasive and so very clear that I find it rather difficult to oppose him as strongly as I actually do. Not only was he very clear about the purpose of the Bill, which I am sure is absolutely shared by every Member of your Lordships' House; he was exceedingly clear about the purpose behind his own amendments. And he was even clearer about the purpose behind the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and myself. He has put the matter so very clearly that it only remains for me to dispute with him the confidence he has in the effect of his own amendment and the doubts he has about the effect of ours.
If ours is a wee bit too wide in any direction and might let somebody through, as the noble Viscount suggests, the truth is that if ours is too wide by a centimetre his is too wide by a mile. I have no confidence at all that the other legislation to which he refers will cope with the abuses which I am absolutely confident will follow upon the passing of the Bill if the noble Viscount's amendment is included.
I have a particular worry about it. The noble Viscount has spoken, again with admirable clarity, about the nature of the pub and possibly the separate room. The separate room where the video can be shown in a pub has a particular significance. It means that children under the age of 14 can be admitted. So long as they are not in the bar they can be there. They could be subject to films which not merely have not been censored but which are well outside what the censor would give a certificate of any sort to. I happen to be the chairman of the Children's Film Foundation, which has a small relevance this evening. We aim to make entirely suitable—indeed, exciting films for
392
children and to distribute them. We have never regarded it as part of our function to protect children from unsuitable films. Nevertheless, I have a particular stake in the matter, because it seems to me that children are a very important element, and they have not been mentioned.
The reason I am not confident that the noble Viscount's amendment will not be subject to instant abuse is because he has put into the amendment the words "for admission to the exhibition". For a moment, I must weary your Lordships with a reference to another place. During the Third Reading debate in another place the proposer of the Bill was congratulated by the entire House for the timeliness and importance of the reforms which it would bring about. In the course of the debate he had given his assurance that the Bill would deal with all manifestations of moving pictures exhibited for gain, including the showing of a video film in a club or a pub. He went on to explain that in his view the question for consideration was whether any charges are made. If so, even if they are purported to be for other services or for drinks, it will be up to the courts to decide whether the total enterprise, including the video display, is for gain. The passing of money will be a prima facie suggestion that it is for gain and it will be up to those charged with an offence to rebut that evidence.
With this amendment before your Lordships I do not believe that they will need to do so. They will need merely to say that the money which passed was not for admission. You have only to look at the difference in the price of a drink between an ordinary pub and a very expensive hotel to know that if a man charges a fiver for sandwiches and a drink and happens to throw in a video it will be appallingly difficult for a court to say, "The video was an integral part of it, and we assess it at £ 2 out of the £ 5". It will be almost impossible.
So far as licensing is concerned—the mere safety aspect—I wish I could be reassured on that score also. Of course there is other legislation, but will it be used? In a cinematograph amendment Bill surely it is the cinematograph licensing which should be invoked. The noble Viscount has seen quite clearly that the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and myself in putting down our amendment was to say that we believe the noble Viscount's amendment is far too wide and should not go through, but that if it does not go through there are still two elements which should be protected: the ordinary shopkeeper and the training film.
The noble Viscount believes that we have gone too far and allowed a loophole, though I am sure he shares our view that the normal shopkeeper and the training film should be allowed through. So our worry is not the protection of the ordinary shopkeeper and the training film, a worry which I am sure would be shared by every member of your Lordships' House. Our worry is that this goes far too far in allowing other things through. The noble Viscount himself admitted that things might get through, but he relies upon other forms of legislation to stop the tide when it is flowing through that gap. I simply do not believe that they will. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, said, we are all so much at one upon the matter that it seems a shame that we cannot, somehow, agree upon it. I firmly believe that to reject the noble Viscount's

393
amendment and to accept ours, embattled though that sounds, is the sensible thing for the Bill, for the cinema industry, and, above all, for the protection of the public. That, therefore, is the course which I suggest we should take.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: My Lords, may I apply myself to the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which I feel I must oppose. On the face of it, his amendment seeks to permit the reasonable and legitimate use of film for promotion, or training, or genuine leisure facilities, with which we all firmly agree. But the traffic in pornographic films, often in unlicensed and sleazy premises and, unhappily, often in very unsuitable, uncontrolled and unsafe premises, has been a highly profitable exercise for the exploiters. These gentlemen are not going to give up these easy pickings without a fight.
The opinion—here I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has said—of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which I am proud to be a vice-president, is that it will be so easy for these gentlemen to drive a coach and horses through the Bill, if we accept the amendment, by the simple method of turning their film club into a source of food and drink for which charges are made and by providing, as an allegedly free additional service or amenity, the video film.
I know that, very fairly, the noble Viscount mentioned the pub which might have a free showing once every week. Any intelligent publican who wished to have one night a week with a film show would very obviously keep within the law by choosing his two dullest and least patronised nights, Monday and Tuesday. On Friday and Saturday he does not have to worry. The film would draw in sufficient of his clients to give him the bar takings which he requires to pay for the film. While I have the profoundest respect for the legal expertise of my noble friend, I should dearly like to see him in court trying to charge a publican who had not increased the charges on a Monday night with the charges he made with no film show on a Saturday night.
A further problem is likely to arise in the near future. The ease of exhibiting video films is going to be a matter of the greatest concern to the commercial distribution of moving pictures. It will soon be possible to receive through a dish aerial a satellite transmission from the mid-Atlantic of the type of film which has only been recently referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and to transmit this through projection video on a big screen to an audience to which the film, through its membership, may well have been advertised. The film would not have to come through customs, nor would the police be able to seize any tangible evidence. Once police step in the door, one flick of a switch, and the evidence vanishes into the ether.
I make this point because of the very real and genuine concern felt by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, who have a great deal to do with the licensing and amenities of their districts, and who are deeply concerned about this. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, who knows far more about the commercial side of the film industry and
394
those involved in it that than I do, the metropolitan authorities are deeply disturbed also by the latitude which this amendment would give to devious gentlemen to get around it by whatever means.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, unfortunately I was unable to be present at the Committee stage of the Bill, but I do feel constrained to say a few brief words on this subject at Report stage, and to say those words in support of the view which has been put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Putney and Lord Birkett. Having had quite a considerable association with the film industry over many years—I hasten to say that my interest there has been a public one and not a financial one—I can remember few occasions, if any, when all the various interests of that industry have come together in a unanimous conclusion. It does seem a little unfortunate, since I understand that the Government have at earlier stages consulted with the industry in relation to this Bill, that is this instance when it comes to this seemingly comparatively small but nevertheless crucial amendment, the matter has been dealt with without fully taking into account the views of the industry.
There is no doubt that the industry and every branch of it is extremely perturbed about the effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Of course, the noble Viscount, with his customary candour and eloquence, has put the case for his amendment with great lucidity and persuasiveness. But the fact remains—as the noble Viscount himself concedes—that there is a substantial and, the trade feels dangerous loophole, which will nullify the whole effect of this Bill.
It is perfectly true that, if one scrutinises the amendment suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkins of Putney and Lord Birkett, it, too, is subject to some valid criticism. This is no criticism of those two noble Lords, who have obviously done their best in a very difficult field. But, surely, however great the pre-sure of time may be, there is still time for the industry to be further consulted on this matter and for adequate drafting resources to be placed at the disposal of those who consult with the industry in order that there may be achieved what everyone, on all sides of the House wish to achieve; namely, that this excellent Bill, which has been moved with such eloquence by the noble Viscount, will achieve its objective.
In view of the fact that there is serious doubt as to whether it will do so, and that this view is so strongly entertained by all branches of the industry, I would make a plea to the Government to take the opportunity in the interval between the present stage of the Bill and Third Reading to make one further effort at close consultation, with the benefit of the admirable legal draftsmanship that they have at their disposal, in an endeavour to make this valuable Bill really effective— and not to let it become simply a piece of machinery through which the very skilful operators in this dubious and sordid trade will find a way of driving a coach and four in a way such as has been discovered on so many occasions in the past.
I hope that the Government will take account of the views which have been expressed from all sides of the House this evening. As things stand at present, this Bill, with the amendments proposed by the noble

395
Viscount, is just not good enough to achieve its purpose, and one final effort should be made to close this crucial gap.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I intervene to try to help. There is no doubt at all that the House is unanimous in its view, as the noble Viscount has said, that it wants this Private Member's Bill to go on the statute book as soon as possible. As the noble Viscount has said, it deals with something that befouls—and I do not in any way shrink from that word—many of our streets, especially in the metropolis and many areas other than the metropolis; cinema clubs which have, to repeat a phrase which has been used already, driven a coach and horses through existing legislation. This Bill attempts to bring them within the net and to see that this sort of horrible trade no longer continues.
I wish I could say that there is likely to be a formula which is going to satisfy the House; that those people who should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill are so excluded and that those people who should be caught by it are in fact to be caught. I say that as someone who has tried very hard to concentrate on the wording of the two amendments. For example, Amendment No. 4 unfortunately excludes those whom we would not wish to exclude. I remember that at Committee stage, there was a discussion about organisations perfectly innocently holding film exhibitions, and not doing it for the purpose of retail trade or anything of that kind. One had to give consideration to those people because obviously there was never any intention to catch them in the net.
The noble Viscount has said that his amendment most likely allows into the showing of films and videos people who we would not wish to be given permission without being subject to cinematograph legislation. He has pointed out that they would be subject to other legislation. I too wonder not whether there would be a solution to this problem which will satisfy everyone, but, with others who have spoken, whether it would not be possible to have further discussions between Report stage and Third Reading. I say this in addition to what has already been said. If it is not possible to reach a compromise solution by that time, I personally make a plea to the House not to continue argument which may mean that this Bill may never reach another place in time in order to become law.
So I concede, if I may—for I am not allowed to do it on behalf of the noble Viscount or anybody else— that there should be an opportunity for one more meeting, conference, be it called what it may, in order to see whether some compromise cannot be reached. But, if it cannot be, and the noble Viscount says so, those advising him say so and those from the Government Front Bench say so at Third Reading, I would beg of the House, please let this Bill become an Act. We need it badly.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, speaking on behalf of the Government on this occasion, we are extremely grateful for those few words from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, In my previous employment the letters DDT stood for something rather different from their meaning in my mind now; DDT now
396
stands for doing the decent thing, which was exemplified by my noble friend Lord Colville when he agreed in Committee to withdraw this amendment for further discussion. As your Lordships will have noted, we have it back.
There is general agreement that an amendment is needed. My noble friend has proposed that it should take the form of a definition of what is meant by the expression "promoted for private gain" so that one could be confident that other exhibitions would not be caught inadvertently. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, on the other hand, in an amendment to which he has spoken but has not yet moved, has suggested a somewhat different approach, that of a definition of the circumstances in which an exhibition is not to be regarded as being promoted for private gain. For all the reasons my noble friend Lord Colville has put forward, the Government do not accept that Lord Jenkins's amendment is the correct approach. The wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, are very much in my mind at the moment, as indeed backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. But when my noble friend agreed to withdraw his amendment last time round he said that this would be for the purpose of future discussions with the industry. This discussion has been held, and try as we might we could think of no satisfactory way of modifying my noble friend's amendment in a manner which would be consistent with its objective.
There is no call, in the Government's view, to require premises, be they public houses or other establishments, to apply for cinematograph licences and to comply with safety and censorship arrangements drawn up specifically for cinemas simply as a result of the incidental use of a video cassette. We have been asked whether there is time for further consultations. The consultations have been long and hard, and the suggestions have been put to the draftsmen on numerous occasions. So, although there would be a very limited time for further discussions, I cannot see that we would have any different result than we have at this moment.
I should say a little about the respective advantages and disadvantages of my noble friend's amendment. The advantage, which I must tell your Lordships should most certainly not be under-estimated, is that it would achieve its objective in ensuring that a wide range of commercial premises is not caught inadvertently by the Bill, and this is important. How real though are the disadvantages. What would be the practical effect if free exhibitions in pubs and other premises were not brought within the ambit of the cinematograph licensing system?
In respect of safety, I confirm the advice which my noble friend Lord Colville has already given. I understand that, in the light of discussions with the Fire Service Inspectorate (which has also made enquiries of some fire authorities), the considered view is that safety matters in public houses can be controlled perfectly satisfactorily through the powers of the licensing justices and the general requirements of the Fire Precautions Act 1971. The licensing justices, prompted if necessary by the fire authority, are able to take into account whether premises are used for the giving of exhibitions and the circumstances in which such exhibitions are given. The latter would include

397
the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, last time concerning exhibitions which may be given in darkness (although these must, I think, be very rare indeed). If—and I emphasise that we have no reason at all to think that this will be the case—it appeared that exhibitions in public houses gave rise to particular safety problems, provision exists in the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to make specific regulations.
Turning to censorship, around which has evolved most of tonight's discussion, I should like to stress that unlicensed cinematograph exhibitions are precisely for the reason that they are unlicensed subject to much stricter control under other provisions of the criminal law than exhibitions given in ordinary licensed cinemas.
An ordinary cinema may, for example, show an indecent film without fear of prosecution under the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981. But a public house without a cinematograph licence is subject to the 1981 Act. Similarly,premises with a cinematograph licence will be exempt automatically from the provisions concerning sex cinemas in Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. This will not be true of the public house without a cinematograph licence. If such a public house attempted to put on, with any regularity, pornographic films, it would face prosecution and a fine of up to £ 10,000 on summary conviction for unlawful use of the premises as a sex cinema.
I think this is the point to which my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith was referring. These controls would, of course, be in addition to the general prohibition in the Obscene Publications Acts on the showing of obscene material.
I entirely appreciate that these controls are not as refined as those which apply to ordinary cinemas under the cinematograph licensing system, but they are clearly pretty substantial. What we have to ask ourselves in the end is whether—when one weighs these possible deficiencies (if they are deficiencies) against the clear need for amendments on these lines and against the real gains which will accrue from this Bill—these possible deficiencies are such as should force us to reject the provisions proposed by my noble friend Lord Colville, and to place the whole future of the Bill in considerable difficulty.
I think it was President Truman who had on his desk in the Oval Office a plaque which read "The buck stops here". I think it would be suitable to have it on the left shoulder of my noble friend tonight. The Government have decided that this Bill would be far better with the amendment than without it. Our sincere hope is that in all the circumstances your Lordships will support my noble friend.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am led to believe that I have two-and-a-half minutes to deal with this and that does not give me much opportunity to answer a very substantial debate. May I start by saying that, having heard all those who have spoken, I recognise that everybody has been trying to improve this legislation, and so may I express my gratitude to them for the constructive way in which they have approached this.
Secondly, may I say that whether we like it or not we are up against the parliamentary timetable, not only of this evening but of the whole Session, which means
398
that unless this is dealt with on Friday week in another place we do not get this Bill at all this Session, and goodness knows when it will come up again.
I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships who have spoken that you may not have done as much of a study—I say this very humbly—of the other legislation that is available to deal with these things as I have. I withdrew my amendments on the Committee stage not because I was dissatisfied with them but because I was asked to do so to see if there were some better way of doing it. I have looked at this; I have been advised on this; I have taken account of the points that have been made. If I may say so to my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, the satellite film is never going to be caught by the censorship provisions of the cinematograph legislation, not under this Bill or any other Bill, because, as she rightly said, the thing is not susceptible. It may have to be dealt with by some other means. But there are all sorts of aspects that may have to be dealt with by other means.
I put the following proposition to your Lordships. If your Lordships will accept my amendments as being the very best that I have been able to devise so far, I will gladly listen to all those interests who have made their views known to my noble friend and to those noble Lords who have spoken this evening. If they can come up with a better version, nobody will be more ready than I to put it into the Bill. But for the sake of the timetable I must ask your Lordships to accept these amendments tonight. I promise that I will change them, if we can get something better. But in order to make progress and on account of the timetable, I must insist upon moving Amendment No. 1, not because I am obstinate, pig-headed and will not listen, but simply because I want to get this Bill on to the statute book for the reasons that everyone has agreed with this evening.
8 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alport): My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 1 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content"? I think that the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the "Not-Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division cannot, therefore, take place and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 14, after ("that") insert ("the proceeds of").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("provided for") and insert ("applied wholly or partly for purposes of").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendments Nos. 5,6 and 7:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("the proceeds of an exhibition") and insert ("an exhibition is").
Page 2, line 26, after ("undertaking") insert ("and sums falling within subsection (1A) above").
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("the proceeds") and insert ("those sums").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 en bloc. They are all consequential.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
8.5 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 29.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 32, line 43, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 33, line 6, at end insert (";and
(c) in section 106(2) (provisions extending to Scotland) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (e)— "(ee) section 100;".").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 67. Clause 29 amends Section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to give the Secretary of State a power to reduce, by order, the minimum period of imprisonment which must be served before a prisoner is eligible for parole. Section 60 of the 1967 Act extends to Scotland and it is intended that the amendment made to it by Clause 29 should also extend to Scotland. I shall be tabling an appropriate amendment to the extent clause in due course. Section 100 of the 1967 Act, which is amended by Clause 29 of the Bill to provide that orders made under the amended Section 60 are subject to affirmative resolution procedure, does not, however, currently extend to Scotland, and this amendment amends the extent section in the 1967 Act by adding Section 100 to the list of sections in the 1967 Act which apply to Scotland. We recently discussed similar provisions in the Bill in Clause 29 as they touch England, and I hope that the extension of the same principle to Scotland will commend itself to your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 67A:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:
(" Minimum standards for penal establishments.
.—(1) No person detained in a prison, remand centre, detention centre or youth custody centre shall be required to share a cell with another person.
(2) Dormitories in prisons, remand centres, detention centres and youth custody centres shall provide a minimum of 60 square feet per person if inmates are confined in them for 10 hours or less per day, and a minimum of 80 square feet per person if inmates are confined in them for more than 10 hours per day.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing standards with respect to air volume, ventilation, heating, floor space and window space in cells and dormitories, bathing facilities and sanitary facilities, to which prisons, remand centres, detention centres and youth custody centres shall conform.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 67A. There was a long and interesting debate on Amendment No. 21 on Tuesday of last week—only 20 amendments ago, but I have the feeling rather more hours than amendments ago. I do not want to repeat what was said then. That amendment covered the question of the laying down of minimum standards in penal establishments for juveniles. My amendment goes considerably further than that and would require the laying down of minimum standards for all penal establishments, whether for juveniles or adults.
I was not able to be here on Tuesday when this matter was discussed, but I read the debate in Hansard with great interest and in particular what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had to say at column 1006 about the Government's intentions. To remind the Committee, he said that the Government did intend to produce some guidelines, but he stressed not by statute. He thought that they would take about 18 months to produce with a period after that for consultations to be held, and then presumably an even longer period in which the prison establishments would be brought up to those guidelines. Quite honestly, I do not think that anyone who took part in the debate, having considered the matter, would really feel that that proposal was an adequate response to the very widespread concern expressed by a number of noble Lords about the standards in our prisons. But, as I say, I do not want to go over that ground again in Committee, although I hope that we shall return to it at the next stage of the Bill.
However, I should like to ask the noble Lord a couple of questions arising out of that debate. First, most directly on my own amendment can he give the Committee an assurance that what he said at column 1006 on 22nd June applied not just to establishments for juveniles but to all penal establishments, as my amendment would? The second question is a little more complicated and it may be one about which the noble Lord would like to think and write to me; I do not necessarily expect an answer now. However, he said that he was thinking of something like the standard minimum rules to act as a target, but that this would be done by guidelines, presumably from the Home Office, and not by statute.
It seems to me that there are very strong arguments for having in this Bill a provision which would oblige the Government to produce these guidelines. This does not seem to me to be totally desirable, but perhaps there would not be a majority in this Committee for going further, as I would like to. The Government should publish them by statutory instrument; they would then be subject to debate in both Houses of Parliament, if they were statutory instruments subject to an affirmative resolution, as I believe they should be. Instead of the Home Office in 18 months' time simply promulgating some document which goes to prison governors—and which no doubt none of them will be given the resources actually to meet, as has been the unfortunate history in penal establishment up to now—we could at least have a debate in Parliament, see what the Government propose and whether

401
the guidelines come up to the European standards which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spent some time in discussing on the previous amendment.
So my second question is: would it be reasonable for the Government to meet the very widespread concern in the Committee by agreeing to a clause in the Bill which would oblige them to produce the guidelines as a statutory instrument which was subject to debate in both Houses, even if they remain simply guidelines? As I say, I do not think that this is a satisfactory answer, but it may be that at the next stage of the Bill the House will want to go further. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: There are many people outside your Lordships' Committee who feel that this is one of the most important amendments in the Bill. On Second Reading I spoke of the need for minimum standards. I have one reservation on subsection (1) of this amendment. Because of the internal problems within prisons, sometimes prisoners are locked up for as long as 23 hours a day. The lesser of the two evils might be to have companions should this be the case. In subsection (3) of the amendment I would have liked to add something about non-toxic mattresses and covers—should they burn? I, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, have a horror of fires in prisons. However, I know that the Home Office is researching into this problem, as I was told in reply to my last Starred Question. We must strive for better facilities in our penal institutions. I strongly support the principles of this amendment.
Lord Avebury: I should like to take up one point that arises out of the debate we had last week, which I think is equally important in relation to prisons, and so on, as it was to establishments where juveniles are detained. It is the question of minimum space, air volume, ventilation, heating and so on, such as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this amendment. What the noble Lord told the Committee last time was that we could not lay down any general standards because the fabric of the existing prisons varied enormously between one establishment and another and between one region and another. He said that this was why for the time being it was better to let the regions specify what minimum standards had to be adhered to within those regions, knowing the nature of the buildings with which they had to deal. I can very well understand that. I have to concede to the noble Lord that he was putting an insuperable objection to the Committee in the way of laying down any general guidelines such as we had in mind at that time.
What I would suggest is something far less onerous as regards the prison department; it is that as an aid towards the discussion of what the guidelines should ultimately be, the prison department should publish the regional standards, which the noble Lord says have to be observed by the principal medical officers when they are going round the prison certifying accommodation as fit, as they have to do under the Prison Rules.
In this way one would be able to see whether the prisons in a particular region conformed with objective standards, such as the European Minimum Rules, and whether they conform with the standards of ventilation, space, and so on that apply to people who are not in
402
prison. I have in mind legislation such as the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. We would then see much more clearly the difficulties in arriving at a common set of standards throughout the prison system, which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has probably quite reasonably emphasised during the previous discussion.
So in order that outside professional expertise can be brought to bear on this, and in order that we can see the size of the formidable task, which I have no doubt the prison system has to undertake, I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as a result of this debate, might agree to publish the regional guidelines which he says exist.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: Obviously this amendment represents the ideal which everybody would like to see happen, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not press this to a Division, because to vote against it would be voting against the ideal, and to vote for it would be voting for something which simply cannot take place. The other day I asked a question on slopping-out and I was told that it would be many years before that very unattractive practice would cease. So the noble Lord will put us in a very difficult position if he presses the amendment to a vote, because I for one do not believe in voting for things which are not practical.
Lord Auckland: I think that we are in somewhat of a difficulty here because I believe that a very important matter has been omitted from subsection (3), and that is prison workshops, where mattresses, postbags and all kinds of things are being made where one gets sacks and other materials. The ventilation in these places, particularly in the summer, can be quite appalling. I take the point of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. It will obviously take a great deal of time and rebuilding to bring these older establishments up to the standards which the amendment, I believe quite reasonably, requires. But I wonder whether my noble friend can say that in our newer prisons, such as Long Lartin—
Baroness Trumpington: And the six to be built.
Lord Auckland: And, as my noble friend says, the six to be built—every facility will be given for standards of the kind envisaged in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. This applies not only to the prisoners themselves, but to the prison officers and others who have the custody and the training of prisoners.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: I should like to say a few words on the principle enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. She does not believe in voting for things that are not practical. All my life, which has been pretty long, I have lived on the presumption that politics is not the art of the possible; it is the art of making the impossible possible. On that basis I have seen an enormous number of reforms which were laughed out of court as Utopian when I was young.
Lord Elton: Arising out of the last reply, I must

403
congratulate the noble Baroness on the success of her idealism. I was brought up to understand that: "I want" does not get. I think that my noble friend was probably brought up in the same tradition. Perhaps we have not made enough fuss from time to time.
If I may now turn to the issues before us, I am glad to take this opportunity to re-emphasise that the Government fully recognise the attractions of the arguments for setting standards for the prison system. That is why we decided that we should try to draw up a code of standards as a basis for discussion. This initiative, which I announced in the course of our previous debate, is a significant step forward; and I am glad to take this opportunity to assure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that what we propose will cover the whole of the prison system. I believe he was afraid that it might be partial in its application.
The setting of standards is not in itself a panacea for the problems of the prison system, as your Lordships will appreciate, and I have already pointed out some of the practical difficulties. Of course, the setting of standards does not in itself produce the money to meet the standards. The efforts of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to allocate additional expenditure to the programme of prison building and redevelopment have rightly been widely recognised; but there will be continuing competition for resources, and commitments to additional public expenditure can in any case take a long time to turn into bricks and mortar, staff and facilities. But we do believe that it is important to make progress in this. Our first priority is to draw up a code of standards as a basis for discussion both inside and outside the prison system. Work on this sizeable task has already begun and it is our intention to make a draft available for comment early next year.
That being so, I would ask your Lordships not now to try to pre-empt the outcome of discussions which lie ahead by carrying into the Bill the detailed requirements which are embodied in the draft of the new clause. Indeed, I do not think that it is the noble Lord's intention to do so at this stage; but I can assure your Lordships that when the code of standards has been refined in the light of discussion my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will certainly wish to invite Parliament to give it full consideration and to express a view of how the work put into it should be carried out. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, will feel it right to withdraw his amendment in the light of these assurances.
If I may mention one other matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, she referred to the very distressing occurrence of cell fires and the de-sirablity of non-toxic mattresses. I did resasure her at the last stage that we were carrying out really surprisingly difficult tests in this surprisingly difficult task of finding suitable material. There was mention of the fire risk generally by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, at the last exchange and I regret not having then drawn your Lordships' attention to the very gallant conduct of the prison staff on a number of occasions when cell fires had been started by prisoners who had barricaded themselves in their cells.
404
It has been very difficult to get in and by the time the doors are open the place is full of these highly toxic fumes and the result is that very often the prison officers themselves finish up in hospital. That, however, does not allay anybody's anxiety. It is merely a tribute that should be paid. It am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his acceptance of the difficulties, which are real, about a general publication. I hope that he will be reassured by our proposal that the standards when they are arrived at shall be put before Parliament, and of course they will be national. The noble Lord shakes his head. I resume my seat regretfully.
Lord Avebury: I was really hoping that there could be some input from the professional expertise outside Parliament while the guidelines were still in the process of being formed, and that for this purpose if the regional guidelines which are now operative were published it would enable people to see how the prison system is coping with the task at present and to make more intelligent and constructive proposals about what should be in the final version.
Lord Elton: I do not think I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord at this stage, but I will consider carefully what he has put before me.
Lord Melchett: That certainly is a useful assurance but it seems to me that there are two approaches which can be adopted to this problem. The first is that of successive Governments and which the Home Office has adopted over the years, which is to try to keep what is going on in prisons as secret as possible and not, for example, to publish the rules by which prison medical officers work, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, drew attention in previous debates; and he has done so again tonight. That is to keep the lid on things, to keep the public in the dark and to wait until, as inevitably must happen, there are riots, deaths and fires and senior prison governors are driven to write letters to the newspapers, as the governor of Brixton Prison did recently which was quoted in an earlier debate. There is an alternative approach.
That first approach seems to me to guarantee that there will never be sufficient resources made available because the Home Office and Home Office Ministers never give themselves a public case on which to argue for extra resources, because they are keeping things secret and pretending that everything is all right. The alternative course is to be much more open about the problem and to say quite clearly the standards to which prison medical officers are required to work and to be quite clear about the extent to which the prisons are failing to meet those standards.
My preference at that stage would be to lay down clear guidelines, to refuse to allow prison staff to take people into prisons if they were in danger of breaking those guidelines and to restrict the power of the courts in sentencing people to prison to that extent. If prisons were unable to take any more people then they should not go. It seems to me that we are not justified in incarcerating people in conditions which everyone accepts are completely intolerable and inhuman and are certain to lead—there is no question about it—to the deaths, fires, riots and other things

405
which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and others have mentioned.
If we were to take that approach it would then be not for Government but for society to decide whether we were spending enough money on the penal system. Society would see the consequences of the sentencing policy of the courts and society could say to Government, "That is not good enough. Many people whom we think should be sent to prison are not being sent to prison by the courts. We want more money spent on the prisons." I suggest that it is more likely that society would say "You are still sending to prison many people who really need not go to prison and many people who were previously sent to prison are no longer going to prison but they never really needed to go anyway."
We all know from talking to any prison governor or governors of any other penal establishments that they will always admit that there are a certain percentage, in my experience varying between 10 and 60 per cent, of their inmates who should not be there and do not need to be there at all. I suspect that if minimum standards were set and the courts powers to send people to prison were curtailed everyone would end up a great deal happier than they are now, except perhaps the judges and that would cause me no great distress. Although I accept that the noble Lord has gone some way I really do not think the Government have gone nearly far enough to meet the very widespread disquiet on all sides of the House. It would be useful to study what the noble Lord has said both this evening and in previous debates and if he wants to add something more I will be happy to give way.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He referred to the governor of Brixton but I believe he meant the governor of Wormwood Scrubbs. If he looks in the record he might like to put that right. I feel that it is right to remind the noble Lord that it was my right honourable friend who appointed the inspectorate of prisons as an independent sector of the Home Office with the chief inspector publishing all these things; and the damaging criticisms which the noble Lord is frequently quoting are actually generated and publicised as a result of this. This is open government; so are the reports by the inspectorate on individual prisons which again cause cries of alarm. It is perfectly deliberate. We wish society to realise the problem. We wish to support society in spending more money but if one puts that into specific machinery, as the noble Lord says, the experience is that every pressure group wants 100 per cent, increase in money but no group is actually in charge of the total budget. That is not an easy way to finance Government because one finishes up with a very large minus quantity at the end of every year. Perhaps I am assisting to broaden the debate on this amendment, for which I apologise. I merely wanted to put the record straight on these two facts.
Lord Melchett: I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out the inadvertent slip I made in referring to the wrong prison governor who wrote to the press. It seems to me that there must be still a great deal of dissatisfaction about these issues. As was said in an earlier debate on this part of the Bill, on every amend-
406
ment which might have led to an immediate and significant reduction in the prison population the Government have failed to meet the wishes expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House, and when we come to discuss the question of conditions in prison very much the same has been the case.
My noble friend Lady Wootton suggested that if I lived to be 85 I might see some of the minimum standards that the Government intend to publish some time next year actually met. I feel she is being, as she always has been throughout her life, a great deal too optimistic. I very much hope, having considered what the Government have said on this aspect of the problem of prisons and on the question of reducing the prison population, we can come back and actually carry some amendments at the next stage. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Abolition of enhanced penalties on subsequent conviction of summary offences under Acts of Parliament]:
8.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne) moved Amendments Nos. 67B, 67C, 67D, and 67E:
Page 33, line 17, leave out ("of Parliament").
Page 33, line 19, after ("a") insert f" fine or").
Page 33, line 28, after ("a") insert ("fine or, as the case may be, a").
Page 33, line 34, after ("fine") insert ("or maximum fine").
The noble Lord said: These are essentially drafting or technical amendments. I should be happy to explain them in detail should the Committee wish, but in the meantime I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Abolition of enhanced penalties under subordinate instruments]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 67F, 67G, 67H, 67J and 67K:
Page 34, line 1, leave out ("of Parliament").
Page 34, line 5, after first ("a") insert ("fine or").
Page 34, line 12, leave out ("of Parliament").
Page 34, line 15, after ("a") insert ("fine or, as the case may be. a").
Page 34, line 21, after ("fine") insert ("or maximum fine").
The noble Lord said: As before, these are essentially drafting or technical amendments. Again, I shall be happy to explain them in detail if required.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 [The standard scale of fines for summary offences]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 67L and 67M:
Page 34, line 37, leave out ("at") and insert ("or maximum fine by reference to").
Page 34, line 41, leave out ("at") and insert ("or maximum fine by reference to").
The noble Lord said: I move these on the same basis as the previous amendments.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 33, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Trumpington: This clause, which introduces a standard scale of fines for summary offences, provides a convenient opportunity to raise a number of points on fines and fine enforcement. The fine is by far the most frequently used sentence in British courts; 50 per cent, of those convicted of indictable offences and 94 per cent, of those committing non-indictable offences are fined, and over £80 million is received from offenders in fines each year. However, one worrying development in recent years has been the growing proportion of those fined who end up in prison for default. Although it is still a small proportion of those fined, it now represents one quarter of all receptions of sentenced prisoners. I have the figures with me but, for the sake of speed, I will not give them.
The most comprehensive study of fines and fine enforcement in recent years was that recently carried out by the NACRO Working Party on Fine Default under the chairmanship of Lady Howe, which published a major report last year. This clause is in line with one proposal of the NACRO working party, which recommended a rationalisation of maximun fines, including a simple formula for summary offences. Other clauses of the Bill give effect to two further recommendations of the working party. First, Clause 42 makes it clear that, when a court orders a fine to be paid by instalments, it may fix a date for the offender's reappearance if payment has not been forthcoming. Secondly, Clause 52 was introduced into the Bill in another place when the Government accepted a new clause tabled by the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group which reduces the periods of imprisonment which Crown courts can lay down to the same level as those which magistrates' courts can impose for failing to pay fines of similar amounts. In response to another new clause proposed by the group in another place, the Government agreed to implement another of the working party's recommendations—a pilot scheme to assess the value of using forms containing information about offenders' means at the time a fine is imposed. The Government therefore deserve much credit for their positive response to these recommendations. However, I wish to ask my noble friend Lord Elton about—
Lord Trefgarne: I shall be answering my noble friend.
Baroness Trumpington: A rose by any other name! I wish to ask my noble friend about the Government's attitude to two more of the NACRO working party's recommendations. First, the working party was concerned that fines should be more closely related to offenders' means, while taking into account the gravity of the offence. In particular, it is very important to try to ensure that unfair and unrealistic fines are not imposed on those with low incomes, because the best way of avoiding the imprisonment of fine defaulters is
408
to ensure that the fine is paid—and an essential first step in achieving this is ensuring that the fine is within the offenders' means to pay. Courts do, of course, make allowance for offenders' financial circumstances in fixing the amount of a fine; but some other countries go to much greater lengths to relate fines to an offender's income. Again, I have examples but, for the sake of speed, will omit them.
The House of Commons Expenditure Committee, the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group and the NACRO working party have all recommended that the Government should review the system of fines, including an examination of the possibility of introducing a day fine system. In 1980, in the White Paper, The Reduction of Pressure on the Prison System, the Government agreed to carry out such a review once they had rationalised maximum fines for summary offences. Since they have now done that by means of Clause 33, can the Minister announce a timetable for this review?
Secondly, the NACRO working party argued that, although committal to prison must remain as the sanction of last resort for fine default, all other means of enforcement should be fully considered first. It found that there were marked variations between courts in enforcement practice and that some methods of securing payment—-such as money payment supervision orders, distraint, attachment of earnings and civil process—are used very little. It therefore recommended that the present form which magistrates have to complete stating the reason for committal to prison should be changed to require the court to specify that it has considered every other enforcement option, each of which has either been tried or is not suitable, giving reasons in respect of each enforcement option. The working party recommended this because it was convinced from its own observations in court that on many occasions certain methods of enforcement are not even considered by courts. As a magistrate, I have a natural resistance to even a marginal increase in paperwork in the courts, but it would be well worth it if it helped to reduce the burden on local prisons by keeping out some of those unnecessarily imprisoned for fine default. I should welcome the Minister's comments on the points I have made, either now or by letter before Report.
Lord Trefgarne: As my noble friend said, the Bill incorporates some of the NACRO points she raised. I hope she will forgive me if I say that it might unduly detain the Committee if I gave a long disposition on the views of the Government on other NACRO recommendations. I am certainly willing to write to my noble friend and will see that that happens before the next stage of the Bill.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [General increase of maximum fines for summary offences under Acts of Parliament]:
8.38 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 67N, 67P, 67Q, 67R, 67S, 67T, 67U, 67V, 67W, 67X, 67Y, 67Z, 67ZA and 67ZB:
Page 35, line 11, after second ("a") insert ("fine or").
Page 35, line 12, leave out ("of a specified amount").
Page 35, line 16, leave out ("by any enactment passed").
Page 35, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 21 and insert ("on conviction of a summary offence for a fine or maximum fine").
Page 35, line 22, after ("that") insert ("fine or").
Page 35, line 23, leave out ("specified amount") and insert ("fine or maximum fine for the offence").
Page 35, line 25, leave out ("specifies different amounts") and insert ("provides for different fines or maximum fines").
Page 35, line 31, leave out ("maximum fine not exceeding a specified amount") and insert ("fine or maximum fine").
Page 35, line 34, leave out ("specified amount less than £1,000 mentioned in") and insert ("fine or maximum fine for an offence under").
Page 35, line 36, leave out first ("on") and insert ("at").
Page 35, line 41, after ("amount") insert ("of the fine or maximum fine").
Page 35, line 43, after ("amount") insert ("of the fine or maximum fine").
Page 36, line 1, leave out ("specified amount") and insert ("amount of the fine or maximum fine").
Page 36, line 2, after ("the") insert ("fine or").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are straightforward. They are essentially drafting and technical, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Special cases]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 36, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to delete Schedule 4 from the Bill. At present, Schedule 4 lists penalities which would be unaffected by the general uprating provisions of this part of the Bill, because, for example they were increased in the Criminal Law Act 1977 but they are nevertheless considered to merit special increases.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 35, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Will the noble Lord give an explanation of the rationale of the enormous increases proposed? Obviously it is more than inflationary. Is it a case of a second look? I am glancing, for instance, at page 59 and the reference to the Town Police Clauses Act. For offences of demanding as a fare more than the prescribed amount it is proposed to increase the fine from £10 to £200. There is also a reference to offences of obstruction, et cetera. There are tremendous increases in the fines. I am not questioning the need for them at the moment, but is the rationale inflation, plus? What does the plus represent?
Lord Trefgarne: So far as I know, in the main, the rationale is inflation only. Perhaps I can inquire into the question of whether there is any further rationale and let the noble and learned Lord know.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Maximum fines to remain at their present level]:
8.41 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 57, line 24, leave out ("(as amended by clause 36 of the Bill)").
The noble Lord said: This, too, is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Maximum fines to be increased by more than the general increase.]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 74:
Page 59, leave out lines 9 to 11.
Page 59, line 13, at end inset—

("Offences under section 45 (plying for hire without a licence).

Section 45

£20 (or £ 50 for further offence).

£ 500.")

Page 59, line 14, leave out ("£200") and insert ("£50")
Page 59, line 15, at end insert—

("Offences under section 55 (demanding more than the legal fare).

Section 55

£25

£200.")

Page 59, line 17, at end insert—

("LONDON HACKNEY CARRIAGE ACT 1853 (c.33) Offences under section 17 (demanding or taking more than the legal fare etc.).

Section 17

£10

£200

METROPOLITAN PUBLIC CARRIAGE ACT 1869 (c.115) Offences under section 7 (use of unlicensed carriage).

Section 7

£20 (or £50 for further offence).

£500.")

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 70 to 74 en bloc. These amendments are correcting drafting or technical errors. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Melchett Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 59, line 22, at end insert—

("PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT 1977 (c. 27) Offences under section 8 (selling poisoned grain or placing on any land any matter rendered poisonous)").

Section 8

£25

£500

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 75, and, if I may, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 137A, which makes a similar change to the Protection of Animals Act 1912, which is the Act which applies to Scotland, although if the noble Lord would prefer it, since I think that another Minister is dealing with the Scottish schedule, I should be quite happy for someone else to reply to the latter amendment when we come to it. But the same arguments apply to both amendments.
The fines referred to in the amendments apply when somebody is prosecuted for placing poisonous matter on ground with a view to killing normally highly protected and very rare, birds of prey and on occasions protected mammals. This is a very serious problem and one that has increased at an enormous rate. Between 1966 and 1973 the average number of occurrences known to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was about 10 a year. In the period from 1974 to 1978 that had risen to an average of 51 a year, and since then, in 1979 the figure was 83, in 1980, 103, and in 1981, 128 instances. It looks as though the current spring season will prove to have been worse still.
A number of very rare and highly protected birds of prey are affected, and prosecutions can be taken under a number of Acts, in particular the Protection of Birds Act, which will be amended by the Wildlife and

411
Countryside Act to provide a maximum fine of £1,000. Prosecutions can also be taken under two Protection of Animals Acts, where the maximum fine is £25, and it is felt by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the RSPB that the very low average fines that are usually imposed for these offences—an average of £48 in the last three years— is due to the very low minimum fines available under the Protection of Animal Acts, despite the substantial increases that there have been in fines in the Protection of Birds Acts and the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
The RSPB has advised me that the deliberate poisoning of birds of prey is one of the most serious problems that it is facing, and it has drawn attention to it in its excellent publication Silent Spring, which makes a number of recommendations to which the Government recently responded. Therefore, I hope that given the very great concern expressed by the two royal societies, the Government will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As an ex-president of the RSPB I should like to support the amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: Against such an onslaught what can I do, other than accept the amendment? I am happy to do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75A not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 59, line 25, at end insert—

("CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1933 (c. 12) Offences under section 39(2) (newspaper reports identifying juveniles in court proceedings).

Section 39(2)

£500

£1,000.

Offences under section 49(2) (newspaper reports identifying juveniles in juvenile courts).

Section 49(2)

£500

£1,000.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 1936 (c.49) Offences under section 143(5) (offences against ewgulations concerning prevention, etc. of infectious diseases).

Section 143(5)

£100

£1,000.")

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, or, conceivably, my noble friend Lord Elton has. In any case, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 60, line 7, at end insert—

("FIRE SERVICES ACT 1947 (c.41) Offences under section 14(5) (improper use of fire hydrant).

Section 14(5)

£25

£50.

Offences under section 30(2) (obstructing a member of a fire brigade).

Section 30(2)

£ 50

£200.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 60, line 15, at end insert—

("Offences under section 52(4) (demanding stallage, etc. in excess of that for the time being authorized).

Section 52(4)

£25

£50.

Offences under section 57(1) (refusing to weigh articles sold at markets).

Section 57(1)

£25

£50."

The noble Lord said: As in previous cases, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B:
Page 60, line 25, at end insert—

("HOUSING ACT 1957 (c.56) Offences under section 16(6) (using or permitting the use of premises in contravention of an undertaking).

Section 16(1)

£50

£1,000").

Page 60, line 25, at end insert—

("HOUSING ACT 1957 (c.56) Offences under section 22(4) (occupying or permitting occupation of premises in contravention of a demolition order).

Section 22(4)

£50

£1,000").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B en bloc. Since I think that the Government will be in sympathy with the amendments, I shall not speak in detail on them.
Lord Elton: The effect of the first amendment is to increase the maximum fine that can be imposed for a breach of an undertaking that a house which is unfit for human habitation will not be used for specified purposes—usually that it will not be lived in. The effect of the second amendment is to increase the maximum fine for entering into occupation of an unfit house subject to a demolition, order or permitting such occupation.
The original maximum fine of £20 and £5 a day for these offences was increased by the Criminal Law Act 1977 to £50 and £5 a day. While we should prefer to see a full review of housing penalties, including this one, rather than single out individual fines for special treatment, in the light—I was going to say of the arguments put forward in the Committee, but that would be slightly misleading, since they were not advanced. But in the light of the arguments that we anticipated would be put forward here, and which were put forward in another place—which l think absolves me from apology—we are prepared to accept that the maximum substantive fine for these oflences should be increased. I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether it includes squatting? Is it about squatting?
Lord Elton: That is another issue.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 60, line 25, at end insert—

("HOUSING ACT 1957 (c. 56) Offences under section 27(1) (Permitting unfit premises to be used in contravention of a Closing Order).

Section 27(1)

£100 and £20 per day following conviction.

£l,000and£50 per day following conviction.")

The noble Baroness said: I shall here give the reasons for the amendment which I would have given in respect of the last two amendments, had I not thought that they were so apparent. Strangely enough, I considered that the other two amendments that have already been accepted were consequential on this amendment. For that reason, I put them forward as Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 to Schedule 4. But because it is proposed that Schedule 4 should be deleted, the amendments were resubmitted and have since been accepted by the Government as Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B.
Amendment No. 79 is very important, I consider, because it covers premises in respect of which there is a closing order. In particular, it is important in relation to fire certificates, arising from which is one of the main reasons why closing orders are imposed on houses in multiple occupation. In recent years, there have been a number of deaths, in particular in Inner London where houses in multiple occupation have been in use when they should have not been in use, since adequate means of escape could not be provided. Therefore, I think it particularly important that in such instances the penalty should be such as really to deter people from using the premises.
At present the penalty is low. A noble Lord opposite asked about the question of penalties. At present the penalty is so low that a landlord can very rapidly recover in rent a sum far in excess of the penalty. The new penalty proposed might appear to be very great, but it is after all a maximum penalty, rather than a compulsory penalty to be imposed on all occasions. It would make quite a difference and good landlords would be very pleased to see the last two amendments that were accepted by the Government as well as this amendment. It is only the bad landlords who are trying to exploit people and who have people living in dangerous conditions.
Under Amendment No. 79, if there is a closing order on a property, an initial fine can be imposed followed by another fine each day. If there is merely a single fine, that is the end of the matter and the landlord can continue to re-let the property. In extremely unscrupulous cases a closing order can be sought to gain vacant possession and then the property can be re-let because up until now the penalty was slight. Under the amendment, the penalty would be quite a deterrent and would be effective. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: We on these Benches would very much like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. The effect of what she explained to us so clearly when she moved the amendment has been a source of great concern, and this point was raised several times during the discussions on the various Housing Bills that have been before us during this period. With her, I hope that the Government will accept something in the nature of a fine which is very much more realistic than what is in existence at present.
Lord Elton: I think I ought perhaps, under these circumstances, to try to explain the background to Section 27 of the Housing Act 1957. If the owner of a house which is unfit for human habitation, and which the local authority are satisfied cannot be made
414
fit at reasonable cost, is not prepared to carry out the necessary renovation works, then the local authority can make an order under Part II of the Housing Act 1957 requiring him to demolish the property or, in certain circumstances, make a closing order. A closing order can approve the use of the property for some purpose other than as a dwelling, and it is an offence knowingly to use the house in contravention of the order, or knowingly to permit such use.
Furthermore, under Schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980 local authorities can deal with houses in multiple occupation which do not possess adequate means of escape from fire, which is a matter which closely concerns my noble friend. Where the means of escape would be adequate if part of the house was not used for human habitation, the authority can make a closing order in respect of that part. The enforcement and other consequential provisions in Part II of the 1957 Act are applied to such closing orders for part of a house in multiple occupation. The fines for contravention of a closing order referred to in the amendment therefore also apply here.
A closing order is only one of several provisions in successive Housing Acts which may be used where houses in multiple occupation lack adequate means of escape from fire. Under Schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980, the maximum initial penalty for breach of an undertaking not to use part of a house in multiple occupation if means of escape are inadequate is currently £ 50. Under Section 65(1) of the Housing Act 1964, as amended by Schedule 23 to the Housing Act 1980, the maximum penalty for failure to comply with a local authority notice to execute works (which can include means of escape from fire) is £ 500. Under Section 61(2) of the Housing Act 1969, as amended by Schedule 23 to the Housing Act 1980, there is also a £ 500 maximum penalty for failure to comply with a continuing obligation to execute works.
The Government are not persuaded that the present evidence warrants a special increase in these other penalties, and to single out the closing order offence for a disproportionate increase would lead to a serious inconsistency. Nonetheless, the Government recognise that the present maximum penalty under Section 27(1) dates back to the Criminal Justice Act 1972, when it was increased as a special measure. The Bill therefore puts the penalty on the scale used for the Criminal Law Act 1977, and the effect is to double the initial penalty to £200. In view of this, I hope my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press this amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am really not at all convinced that the amount that my noble friend the Minister has quoted is sufficient. I appreciate that in my amendment I am perhaps asking too much when I ask for so much per day, as I have noticed that the Government do not seem to like these "per day" amounts. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would look at this matter again, and perhaps I could bring forward a further amendment at Report stage. If he is willing to look at this again, I would withdraw my amendment at this stage.
Lord Elton: I think it will require my noble friend to look at it again as well, and I do not encourage her too much to expect a meeting of minds; but I shall

415
certainly be prepared to consider what she has said before the next stage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendments Nos. 80and 80A:
Page 60, line 25, at end insert—

("LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1962 (c. 50) Offences under section 4 (failure to provide a Rent Book or prescribed information in a Rent Book).

Section 4(3)

£50 on first conviction £100 subsequent conviction.

£500.")

Page 60, line 25, line 25, at end insert—

("LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1962 (c. 50) Offences under section 4 (failure to provide a rent book or prescribed information in a rent book).

Section 4(3)

£50 (or £100 for further offence).

£ 500").

The noble Baroness said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 80, and at the same time the almost identical Amendment No. 80A.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that it would be better if she moved Amendment No. 80A and did not move No. 80. I think that was the plan.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: So far as I can see, the only difference is that one uses capital letters for "rent book" and the other uses small, but perhaps I am missing some other subtlety that exists. I am quite happy not to move Amendment No. 80 but to move Amendment No. 80A. I think No. 80A is quite self-explanatory, and really should not require my going into it at this stage. I believe that everyone would support this amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): Then Amendment No. 80 is not moved.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I hope the Committee has noted this remarkable proposal, which I agree with, which will cause a sensation in my old constituency of West Ham. Hereafter, if this is approved, failure to provide a rent book runs the risk of a fine of £500. Jolly good!
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for explaining the effects of the Bill. If I may, I will explain to the noble Baroness the effects of the difference between Amendment No. 80 and Amendment No. 80A in joined-up writing, because I cannot do it "off the cuff". But we are happy, nonetheless, to accept Amendment No. 80A, with its capital letters.
On Question, Amendment No. 80A agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 84:
Page 60, line 32, at end insert—

("AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE ACT 1964 (c. 28) Offences under section 15(1) (obstruction)

Section 20(1)

£40

£200.

Offences under Part III (other than section15(1)) (offences relating to grading of produce).

Section 20(2)

£100 (or £250 for further offence).

£1,000.")

Page 61, line 10, column 3, leave out ("£10") and insert ("£20")
Page 61, line 36, at end insert—

("TRANSPORT ACT 1968 (c. 73) Offences under section 97(1) (tachograph offences).

Section 97(1)

£200

£500.

Offences under section 97A(1) (tachograph offences relating to record sheets and notices).

Section97A(1)

£200

£500.

Offences under section 97A(2) (employers' failure to secure return of record sheet).

Section 97A(2)>

£200

£500.")

Page 62, line 27, at end insert—

("RENT ACT 1977 (c. 42) Offences under section 151(4) (failure of agent to comply with notice requiring information about landlord).

Section 151(4)

£25

£500.")

The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 en bloc. They are consequential on Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Special Increases of maximum fines]:
The Chairman of Committees: The Question is that Schedule 4 be the fourth schedule to the Bill? Do you want Schedule 4?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes.
The Chairman of Committees: I thought you wanted to leave out Schedule 4, but never mind. Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 36 [General increase of maximum fines under subordinate instruments]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 86A, 86B. 86C, 86D, 86E, 86F, 86G, 86H, 86J, 86K and 86L:
Page 37, line 1, leave out ("maximum fine of a specified amount") and insert ("fine or maximum fine")
Page 37, line 6, leave out ("amount specified in") and insert ("fine or maximum fine to which a person may be made liable by virtue of")
Page 37, line 7, leave out ("by any enactment passed")
Page 37, line 11, leave out ("maximum fine of a specified amount") and insert ("fine or maximum fine")
Page 37, line 13, after ("that") insert ("fine or")
Page 37, line 14, leave out ("specified amount") and insert ("fine or maximum fine to which a person may be made liable by virtue of the enactment")
Page 37, line 16, after ("different") insert ("fines or")
Page 37, line 18, after ("those") insert ("fines or")
Page 37, line 22, leave out ("not exceeding a specified amount") and insert ("or maximum fine")
Page 37,line 25 leave out from ("below") to first ("the") in line 28 and insert ("the fine or maximum fine to which a person may be made liable by virtue of an enactment to which this section applies shall be increased to the amount at").
Page 38, line 2, leave out ("to be taken to be the") and insert ("the fine or").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, may I move Amendments Nos. 86A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K and L en bloc. They are essentially technical or drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 87:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Orders relating to spread of pests.
.The following subsections shall be substituted for section 3(4) of the Plant Health Act 1967 control of spread of pests in Great Britain)—
"(4) An order made by a competent authority under this section may provide that a person guilty of an offence against the order shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £ 1,000.
(4A) An order so made for preventing the spread in Great Britain of the Colorado beetle (Leptinotarsa decem-lineata (Say)) may provide that a person guilty of an offence against the order relating to the keeping of living specimens of the beetle (in any stage of existence), or to the distribution in any manner of such specimens, shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than three months, as well as, or as an alternative to, a fine.".").
The noble Lord said: Again on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 87. Your Lordships will scarcely need to be reminded of the trouble that can be caused for horticultural growers by the spread of pests. Section 3 of the Plant Health Act 1967 enables orders by certain authorities, including the Secretary of State for Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, to be made to help prevent the spread of pests. These orders can, for example, direct the destruction of infected crops. The penalty for offences against such orders is at present £ 100, and £ 200 on a second or subsequent summary conviction. These would rise to a single penalty of £ 500 with the abolition of enhanced penalties provided by Clause 32 of the Bill, and the general up-rating of fines in enabling legislation in Clause 36.
A fine of £ 500 is regarded as insufficient. It is sometimes difficult to persuade horticultural growers that they should meet the statutory requirements of plant health legislation when to do so would involve them in losses of many thousands of pounds and not to do so would incur comparatively mild penalties; and the neglect of plant health requirements can lead to very heavy losses indeed to their fellow growers. We regard £ 1,000 as a more adequate deterrent, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will accept this amendment—which, in effect, is death to the Colorado beetle, I am told. I beg to move.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: We on these Benches are deeply disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to describe the Colorado beetle according to its Latin classification term. Having said that, we are too deeply committed to the campaign to eradicate the Colorado beetle and to take a realistic account of the roar of inflation. We commend this amendment totally.
Baroness Phillips: I am in favour of the amendment, but I am a little confused because it speaks of the keeping of specimens, which seems to imply that one keeps the beetle as a pet. Perhaps that is a slip of phraseology. It is oddly phrased. It refers to the keeping of a living specimen of this beetle. What one sought to do, I thought, was to destroy it rather than keep a living specimen.
Lord Trefgarne: At the risk of incurring the displeasure of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whose interests in this matter are well known, I would say
418
that, in this particular context, keeping of these objectionable pests is the thing that we object to.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In fairness to my noble friend Lord Melchett, I do not think his enthusiasm extends to keeping Colorado beetles.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Byelaws relating to the burning of straw or rubble]:
9.2 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 38, line 18, leave out ("to (c)") and insert ("and (b)").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No. 88 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 89, 90, 91 and 92 in general. I hope that the great majority of noble Lords, if not all, will support the intention behind these amendments. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench may have different views on how to achieve the same objective, which is sensible straw burning. These amendments deal with the control of straw and stubble burning. I must declare an interest. I burn about 800 acres of straw each year on my Oxford farm while crying out for straw for my stock on my Welsh one. Sadly, I have to admit to committing in the past some of the crimes that my amendment is intended to punish. I am therefore in the fortunate position of being a sinner who has repented.
I hope your Lordships will accept that, despite our sometimes apparent isolation from our urban cousins, we care and worry about and respect the views and problems of those who do not farm or own land— and not just in respect of straw burning. I also appreciate only too well the view that straw should not be burned when the livestock Industry want it in the West. The answer to it is a combination of cost or carriage and husbandry techniques.
It may be that a few, (I am sure it is a few) noble Lords will not appreciate the vital importance of straw burning to the cereal grower. I will try to sum up a technique which has taken years to perfect and is essential to the cereal grower particularly on heavy soils in the South and East of England—as essential to them as the horse was to agriculture in past centuries. First, there is the crop husbandry reason for a good burn. Straw is cellulose rather than humus and is of no use, and it is a hindrance from the point of view of fertility and disease, particularly on the heavy, and difficult soils of the South-East where most cereals are grown. It has a detrimental effect on these soils if ploughed in. It requires more fossil fuel and fossil fertilisers if such a process is adopted.
Burning straw drastically cuts down the work of the preparation of soil for another crop, not only in time (and time is the essence of good husbandry) but in fuel. Who wants agriculture to use more fuel? Vitally important, too, is a good burn tied with minimal cultivation for these difficult soils—soils classified as 4 and 5 and not even cultivated in the 1930s and which, because of this technique, now yields up to three tonnes to the acre of wheat. This is a success story that I am proud to be associated with.
Secondly, and more important perhaps, there is a surplus of between 3 million and 6 million tonnes of straw each year. The great majority is concentrated in the South and East, furthest from the livestock-rearing West. Even though new outlets are being found for this straw, there will always be a surplus; and if it is not burned, I do not know what will be done with it. I am sure that your Lordships are quite capable of imagining some of the Machiavellian ideas of disposing of surplus straw. I have thought of a few myself. I will not bore your Lordships any longer for fear of the Chief Whip. I hope that I have convinced your Lordships at the moment that there is no alternative to a good burn on many of our southern and eastern cereal farms.
I return to the purpose of my amendment. I believe that for many reasons, safety and conservation being two of them, burning should be done carefully. Over a period of years, the NFU have produced a code of practice for straw burning which has been regularly improved and updated. This code of practice, a copy of which I have placed in the Library, has been used as a by-law by many local authorities. The maximum fine was increased from £20 to £200 in 1977 and now, in this Bill, is raised to £500. Unfortunately, the way the amendment was drafted in another place means that this increase in fines will have to be applied for by each local authority and in order to standardise the fine throughout the country and ease the burden on local authorities, my amendment will mean that every local authority with a by-law will have its maximum fine automatically increased to £ 500.
This amendment repeats, and is precedented by, the way in which the fines in the Criminal Law Act 1977 were increased from £20 to £200. I think this was introduced by noble Lords opposite, including no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I can see no reason whatsoever why, because a farm straddles two or more local authorities, the maximum fine for breaking the law should be different. My Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 92 deal with this. I believe that the Association of County Councils support this amendment. I hope that the Committee will give these modest amendments support and approval. If the Committee does so, I shall try to encourage it a little later to support a rather more hawkish punishment as suggested in my Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may preface my brief remarks by making it clear to your Lordships that Clause 37 as it now stands in the Bill resulted from an exception we agreed in another place to make to the Bill's general provisions on fines in the light of representations made to Ministers by the National Farmers' Union and the Association of County Councils. We are now asked to go even further and I make no complaint about that. I merely wish the Committee to know that Clause 37 was inserted in the Bill in response to the anxieties of those concerned who wish to see more effective control exercised in the burning of straw and stubble. The burning of straw and stubble is a necessary and indeed desirable activity in the interests of good husbandry but we must encourage more effective control. As regards the proposal that the maxi-
420
mum fine provided by Clause 37 should be applied directly to the by-laws themselves, perhaps I may explain the policy of the Bill as regards penalties in subordinate legislation generally.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide the means whereby maximum penalties in Acts of Parliament may regularly be up-dated. Until this Bill, it was necessary to await a place in the parliamentary programme in order to achieve increases in maxima and then on a piecemeal basis. As a result, given that parliamentary time is at a premium, the substantial majority of maxima in our Acts are lamentably out of true with current values. This Bill concentrates on putting that right. But it does not attempt to apply its provisions to penalties in subordinate legislation, which of course includes by-laws. There are three reasons for that approach. First, the methods by which penalties are provided in subordinate legislation are so varied that any broad measure which attempted to affect them would need to be extremely complex and would be uncertain in its effect. Secondly, subordinate legislation is often subject to statutory procedures for consultation, et cetera, and overriding those procedures would not be welcomed in all quarters. Finally, although the re-making of subordinate legislation may be a tiresome task, it makes much less significant calls on the legislative programme and it is therefore considerably easier to revise the relevant penalty and other provisions from time to time than it is to amend primary legislation.
It is for those reasons that none of the Bill's provisions affect penalties specified in subordinate instruments. I am however mindful of the observations which I have heard in the past and I think again earlier on this evening that it would be a great help to local authorities if we were able to concede an exception in this instance. I am conscious too that an exception was made in the Criminal Law Act 1977 and that it should therefore be relatively simple to adopt the same approach here. I should therefore like to have the opportunity to consider the wider implications further and in particular in the light of what my noble friend has said. If my noble friend will therefore agree to withdraw his amendment, I shall see what can be done to apply a new maximum of £500 directed to the by-laws themselves at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: As one who had the privilege for some years of representing a country constituency, and as a countryman and who revels in his agricultural forebears, it gives me great pleasure to support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and to do so not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of all my noble friends on these Benches behind me.
I am intrigued somewhat by what the Minister says about the difficulties in relation to subordinate legislation. It seems to me on the face of it that Clause 36 of the Bill, which deals with increasing the maximum fines under subordinate legislation, most certainly has endorsed the generality of that principle. The question of whether the maximum should be £500 or £1,000 is really a matter of principle; but I understand from the National Farmers' Union—which are greatly to be commended for the pioneering initiative that they have shown in this matter in putting their own

421
agricultural house in order—that since 1978 the maximum penalty by statute for the pollution of a water course is £ 1,000. It would seem broadly, comparing one with the other, that there is a very strong case why the same maxima should apply to the two offences.
Lord Monson: I should like to support this amendment warmly and at the same time to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 88A and to 89A, 90A (which are consequential upon Amendment No. 88A) and which we think go some way towards improving it. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for supporting us in advance, as it were. The sum of £500 is a great improvement on the existing maximum but the National Farmers' Union believe that the proposed maximum of £500 is inadequate, and others including, let it be noted, the Association of County Councils, have arrived independently at the same conclusion. The reasons are that con-tiavening the bye-laws can be very profitable to a very small minority of unscrupulous farmers. Secondly, of course, the fines which are actually imposed by magistrates are nearly always a great deal less than the maximum. Therefore if the maximum were £500, the average fine imposed might be £100 and if the maximum were £1,000 one would be more likely to see a fine imposed in normal circumstances of £200 or so.
I think it is right to emphasise that this is not the usual business of a pressure group urging favourable treatment for its own members. On the contrary, the National Farmers' Union is urging stricter discipline on its members for the good of the community as a whole. When I asked a Starred Question on this subject on 5th May, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, replied that £1,000 was the maximum fine that magistrates could impose and that one must be careful not to lessen the deterrent effects of a maximum sentence. Initially, I found that argument not perhaps totally convincing but at any rate reasonable. However, in this Bill we notice that on no less than 28 occasions the maximum fine for various offences is raised to £1,000. In the amendments we have just dealt with, on another three occasions the maximum fines are raised to £1,000. If amendment 139 is accepted in due course, that will bring the number of occasions on which the maximum fine is raised to £1000 to 32.
Earlier this evening we dealt with the Report Stage of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, containing provision for a maximum fine payable on summary conviction of £10,000. It could be argued, and I believe it has been argued, that generally speaking where the maximum is £1,000 criminal intent is involved. But I notice that one occasion where a maximum fine of £1,000 is now permissible is where a dealer sells a car with inadequate reflectors. This is, of course, a serious offence which can lead to a traffic accident, but so can irresponsible stubble burning. Serious traffic accidents have been caused by that. Again, in one clause the maximum fine for offences under the Forestry Act 1967 is now raised to £1000. No criminal intent is involved, and I do not think anyone would seriously think that failure to comply with an order to fell trees, or felling trees illegally, is a more heinous crime than irresponsible and possibly dangerous stubble burning.
422
This is one of the very few occasions which deals with a totally non-party matter. I believe very few people can seriously object to this amendment; there are only two lots of people who would be glad if it were rejected. The first group are a small minority of "black sheep" among farmers, for whom greed comes before their duty to their neighbours or to the community at large. The second group of people are those one might call romantic fanatics—mainly townspeople—who would dearly like farming practices to revert to the state they were in 50 years ago, for aesthetic reasons. They would dearly love public disquiet and anger about stubble burning to mount, so that they could eventually abolish the practice altogether. 1 believe that the amendment we propose really conforms to the path of moderation, and I urge your Lordships to accept it.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: As a long-time member of the National Farmers' Union, I can do no less than support this amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I support this amendment. For a big grain farmer, it is very difficult to know what to do with surplus straw. I am all against burning because it destroys the insect life and so on. I have often thought that with oat and barley straw, particularly, if the Government would offer a subsidy for transport from the east to the west, to the hills where all the cattle are, it would be a great help to the big grain farmers. That may not be strictly relevant to the matter of fines, but I have often thought that the Government ought really to help the big grain farmers regarding transport, and it would also help the cattle farmers on the hills in the west.
Lord Melchett: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, whether he plans to have a separate discussion on Amendment No. 90?—because if he does, and he is nodding, I will restrict myself now to saying that I very strongly agree with the proposal that the fine should be £1,000 rather than £500. Given the general agreement among those who have spoken on this point, I hope that the Government will be able to take that on board in moving amendments at the next stage.
Lord Chelwood: I shall be very brief indeed. I just want to apologise to my noble friend Lord Stanley because I was not in my place when he began his speech. This is a subject in which I take a great interest. I, too, greatly appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said, that he will look at this between now and Report stage. I do not want to duplicate anything that has been said, but I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, from the nature conservation point of view, this is a very serious problem indeed, with something between one-third and one-half of the straw and stubble in this country which is not wanted being burned every year. The scale is a very big one indeed, and the damage to trees, hedgerows and wildlife habitats is very large.
Every year nature reserves, SSSIs and areas of outstanding natural beauty are burned through wantonness, carelessness, or thoughtlessness, and that is why

423
the National Farmers' Union and the CLA are so anxious that the penalty should fit the crime; certainly, at the moment it does not. I feel that £500 is not enough and I hope if we cannot go beyond that at Report stage, that when the penalties that magistrates can impose are put up right across the board the fine will go up to £1,000, which I would not at all regard as too high. To prove my first point, last year four important nature reserves were badly damaged by straw and stubble burning at Martin Down on Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire, Pewsey Down in Wiltshire, Aston Rowant in Oxfordshire and Old Winchester Hill in Hampshire. I think that I have said enough to show that this is a very serious problem, and I look forward to Report stage when I hope that my point will be largely met.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: I wonder whether I may address myself to the question of the penalties, which is the thrust of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and his colleagues. I would remind your Lordships that we are dealing here with offences made under by-laws for good rule and government, which local authorities are empowered to make under Section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972. Such by-laws are, of course, intended generally to deal with relatively minor local regulatory matters and the general maximum fine for the offences they contain is accordingly £50. An exception was made in relation to certain by-laws by the Criminal Law Act 1977, and the maximum fine for straw and stubble burning was thereby increased to £200. That was to reflect the particular problems created by uncontrolled burning. We have agreed to make a further exception, by increasing the maximum available to £ 500, which is the next step on the standard scale of fines established by Clause 33 of the Bill. Amendment 88A and its consequential 89A now seek to double that figure by taking it to the top step of the scale.
As your Lordships will know, £1,000 is the maximum fine that is normally available to magistrates for the most serious offences dealt with summarily. Offences connected with straw and stubble burning are surely not so serious that they require the heaviest financial penalty generally applicable in the magistrates' courts. It is important that we should preserve a sense of proportion in fixing maxima—an objective which this Bill serves by securing a consistent approach to fines for the vast range of summary offences—and we should not give this one undue prominence which will distort the structure.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press his amendment to the extent that he proposes. I have accepted that we should, exceptionally, increase the penalty to £500 through the medium of this Bill, which I shall seek to do at the next stage. But I hope that my noble friend will feel that that is adequate and that that, indeed, will satisfy other Lords as well.
Lord Melchett: I hope that the Government will have another look at this and will not close their minds to the possibility of increasing the fine to £1,000, because it seems to me that what the noble Lord has just said may be a little out of date, if I may say so with respect. To give one example, in the Wildlife
424
and Countryside Act, admittedly against the Government's initial instincts, the fines which were available on summary conviction for the destruction of a single rare bird or a single rare bird's egg were increased to £1,000. An uncontrolled stubble fire might well have the effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said, of destroying the habitat and the birds or eggs of a large number of rare species. It does not seem that it would be getting the scale of things out of proportion, or distorting the balance and all the other fine sounding things which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, to put this fine up to £1,000. Of course, the noble Lord is not able to commit himself this evening, but I hope that he will look at this in the light of fines for very similar, if not, on occasion, less serious, problems which occur in the countryside and which have been agreed by Parliament very recently indeed.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I was driving along the A.1 last Autumn. A very bad farmer had lit his stubble on a wind which was obviously travelling very fast. It came right across the A.I and caused a 15 car pile-up, because nobody could see through the smoke which was caused by the stubble. On that occasion, I felt that £1,000 was not enough.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask my noble friend the Minister what the objection to this amendment is?
Lord Trefgarne: With respect to my noble friend, I did recite some of the difficulties over the amendment which had occurred to me. I am not sure whether my noble friend was in his place at that time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I was.
Lord Trefgarne: Having said that, I do not want to appear to be inflexible. I have given an undertaking that we shall introduce amendments at the next stage with a view to increasing the penalty to £500. In the light of the views which have been expressed this evening, I shall consider the matter further to see whether there is any more that we can do. However, I do not wish to give to your Lordships a categoric undertaking that we can do so.
Lord Monson: I am delighted to have support from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble, Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. To reinforce that, may I put it again to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who rightly says that we should keep a sense of proportion, that he must be aware that in the Bill a maximum fine of £1,000 is imposed for felling trees which should not be felled or for not felling trees which should be felled. I do not think that this is a worse crime than burning stubble irresponsibly and causing a serious traffic pile-up such as the one which the noble Baroness has just described.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: May I thank all noble Lords for their tremendous support for the amendment. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for his very helpful and very kind remarks about farmers trying to regulate their own matters. But he would say that, because he has the great

425
privilege of being connected with the most beautiful island in this country, bar none. I should like to thank him seriously for his help. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his help. As I understand it, he will try to table amendments to this Amendment, No. 88, at Report. If not, I shall try again. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 88.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 88A:
Page 38, line 25, leave out ("£500") and insert ("£1,000").
The noble Lord said: In view of the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 88A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 89A not moved.]
9.28 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 38, line 25, at end insert—
("(4AA) Byelaws to which this subsection applies may further provide that where persons contravening the byelaws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 in the case of a first offence, then in the case of a person convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this section the court shall have power to disqualify that person from causing, permitting or suffering to be burned on land in his occupation or under his control any straw or stubble for a period not exceeding 3 years, and if any person who is so disqualified, by an order under this section without reasonable excuse causes, permits or suffers to be burned on land in his occupation or under his control any straw or stubble he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £1,000.").
The noble Lord said: This was the amendment I referred to in my original speech. It is slightly more hawkish in its approach. Its effect would be that should a farmer continue to contravene the by-law regarding straw burning it would be open to the Bench to ban him from burning straw for a period of up to three years. There may be some technical reason why the Government do not wish to accept the amendment, but if, as I hope, your Lordships believe that this is a punishment to fit the crime, as recommended by my noble friend Lord Elton at Second Reading, it must be possible for such technical matters to be subject to your Lordships' will. I can assure your Lordships that, as a dedicated burner of straw, the threat of such a ban really would put the fear of God into me. To support my view, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that it was he who said at Second Reading that courts must have available to them a wide range of non-custodial sentences. This view was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, at Second Reading, as well as the penalty having a deterrent effect. With such distinguished members of your Lordships' House from opposite sides supporting me, how can my amendment be wrong? I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees: As an amendment to this amendment, I call Amendment No. 90A.
[Amendment No. 90A not moved.]
Lord Melchett: If I may say a word about Amendment No. 90, I would like to support strongly the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I should declare an interest—and perhaps I should have done this sooner—because I myself am a farmer who also burns some straw, although not quite the same quantity as the noble Lord opposite because we try to bale and chop as much straw as possible.
The first thing I want to say in general terms is that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, considerably overstated the case for straw burning. Indeed, I feel it is something of an insult to the horse to suggest that straw burning is as vital to agriculture as the horse was some years ago. I think that the National Farmers' Union and others who are concerned need to look not only at the question of irresponsible burning but also at the quantity of straw now being burned and whether there really is a need—a serious agricultural need—to burn as much straw as happened last summer.
I was out on the Wash in a boat last summer and when I looked back across the coast of Norfolk the haze of smoke during August which hovered over the county continually for at least 30 days was certainly as bad as the clouds of smog which one used to see from an airplane hanging over the west of London in the days before we had the air cleaned up. The pollution that has been caused to the countryside by the quantity of straw being burned—let alone the problems which a number of noble Lords have mentioned involving the misuse of burning, road accidents, hedges and wild life being destroyed—is a very serious problem.
My noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan suggested that these amendments represented the National Farmers' Union putting its house in order. It would be fairer to say it is an attempt to put the union's house in order because there is no doubt that the problems last summer caused by straw burning were a great deal worse than they have been in previous years. We have yet to see an improvement in the scale and nature of the problem, despite the commendable efforts which I agree have been made by a number of people, including the NFU with its straw burning code. It seems to me that the problem is sufficiently serious to justify the sort of penalty which the noble Lord is proposing in this amendment.
I also agree with the noble Lord that even if the fine was raised to £1,000 it would still be in the economic interests of a fairly large number of farmers—certainly large cereal farmers in East Anglia—to burn straw and risk penalties being imposed on them year after year, because the cost of using alternative measures might seem to them to be higher than the risk of being fined. It is an unfortunate but generally accepted fact that magistrates' courts in the countryside are not that willing to impose high fines (certainly not fines anywhere near the maximum) on people such as farmers who appear before them for doing something about which many magistrates may feel that there but for the grace of God go they, if not one of their neighbours or a friend who is a farmer. I believe this would be a very useful addition to the penalties which are available in respect of something which is becoming a serious public problem and one which is arousing almost as much feeling as the many other issues which concerned not only the general public but also your

427
Lordships' House for much of last year. I hope that the Government will be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and will see that this amendment is in the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne: While the Government have a certain amount of sympathy for the arguments put forward in connection with this amendment, I fear that we cannot accept it. It is important to remember that we are dealing with a penalty for a breach of a by-law. As your Lordships will know, by-law offences are at the bottom of the scale of offences and the simple penalties for their contravention are correspondingly low. The great majority attract a maximum fine of £50 or less. In some cases where public health or safety are involved—and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to these earlier— a fine of up to £1,000 may be imposed, and the Government accept that the straw and stubble burning by-law which may be made under Section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972, requires a relatively high penalty. But I know of no by-law which carries a penalty of disqualification. 1 must say that I am not persuaded of the need in this case.
In the first place, as I have said, it would be out of step with other by-law penalties, and in particular with other by-laws made under Section 235, for which a fine is the only available penalty. Secondly, as drafted, the clause would enable, not require, local authorities, to add this penalty clause to the existing one. The effect of this might be an unacceptable variation in penalties for the same offence in different parts of the country. Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, to prevent someone from burning straw and stubble altogether would conflict with the aim of the by-law, which is not to prohibit burning by particular classes of people but to ensure that it may be carried out safely by anyone. Burning straw and stubble is not against the general law of the land. It is not a nuisance or a danger everywhere. That is why it is controlled on a local basis by means of by-laws.
Lord Melchett: If the noble Lord will not mind giving way for a moment, driving is in exactly the same category, but that does not prevent the law prohibiting people from driving for periods if they repeatedly break the law.
Lord Trefgarne: That is, if I may say so, rather a different matter, but if the noble Lord will allow me to finish perhaps he will take a different view. As I said, that is why it is controlled on a local basis by means of by-laws. But by-laws are a peculiar form of instrument; they are normally valid only if, among other things, they are impartial and treat everyone equally. So the current by-law creates a general ban on straw and stubble burning except where certain conditions are met. Turning this about, the effect is that anyone may burn so long as they meet those conditions. The effect of the amendment would be to disqualify certain people from burning straw and stubble even if in future they were to meet every single condition imposed.
I admit that the people concerned may not be very deserving of our sympathy, but to introduce a power to disqualify farmers who after the chastening experience of a second conviction are fully prepared to
428
abide by the rules for burning would be a very serious step. I do not believe we should be justified in taking that step, at least until we can assess the effect of the considerably higher maximum fine the Bill will make available, and of the other measures which my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the National Farmers' Union and the Association of County Councils are instituting to counter the problem.
In the light of what I have said, I hope the Committee will feel that the right way to proceed is as we charted, in accordance with the amendments proposed by my noble friend earlier, and that these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I think I am going to agree with no one. First of all, there is the noble Lord, Lord Melchett; I knew our friendship would not last very long, and it has not. I have not overstated my case, and the reason I have not overstated my case is that he does not know what it is like to farm on grade 4 or 5 land; he farms in the land of Goshen and he can do what he likes and get away with it.
I cannot entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne over banning. In fact there is a precedent, as he may know, in the Protection of Animals Act 1954, where, if you are consistently cruel to an animal, you can be banned from keeping an animal, after the second conviction, I am told by my noble friend. However, I do take the point of my noble friend that the Government intend to see what effect the present regulations are going to have, and they have not ruled out forever if this is necessary taking steps to implement it. With that, I feel I shall have to withdraw this amendment, disagreeing with practically everybody. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 93:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
("By-laws for British Airports Authority aerodromes.
.The following subsections shall be substituted for section 9(3) of the Airports Authority Act 1975 (by virtue of which the maximum fine that byelaws made by the British Airports Authority in respect of aerodromes owned or managed by it may specify for a contravention of the byelaws is £ 100)—
" (3) Any person contravening any byelaws made under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding such amount as, subject to subsection (3A) below, may be specified by the byelaws in relation to the contravention.
(3A) The maximum fines that byelaws may specify by virtue of subsection (3) above are fines of an amount at level 4 on the standard scale or of a lower amount.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment gives effect to an undertaking which my honourable friend gave after debate on the Bill in another place. Its effect is to increase from £100 to £500 the maximum penalty generally available for offences created by civil airport by-laws. I understand that one of the important effects of this particular increase will relate to the so-called "taxi touts" one finds around our airports. I hope your Lordships will consider this to be appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 94:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
(" Byelaws for other aerodromes.
. In section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982—

(a) the following subsections shall be substituted for sub section (1) (fines for contravention of byelaws relating to areodromes of Secretary of State, Civil Aviation Authority, local authorities and other persons)—

"(1) Any person contravening any byelaws made under sections 27, 29, 32 or 33 above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding such amonut as, subject to subsection (1A) below, may be specified by the byelaws in question in relation to the contravention.

(1A) The maximum fines that byelaws may specify by virtue of subsection (1) above are fines of an amount at level 4 on the standard scale or of a lower amount."; and

(b) the following subsection shall be added after subsection (2)—

" (3) For the purposes of subsection (1 A) above, in its application to byelaws made under section 29 above—

(a) section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (the standard scale of fines for summary offences); and

(b) an order under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which alters the sum specified in section 33(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982,

shall extend to Northern Ireland.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon the previous one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Conversion of references to amounts to references to level on scale]:
Lord Trefgarne moved Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 94A, 94B, 94C, 94D and 94E:
Page 38, line 34, leave out from ("liable") to ("or") in line 36 and insert ("to a fine or maximum fine on conviction of a summary offence")
Page 38, line 38, leave out from ("liable") to ("and") in line 41 and insert ("to a fine or maximum fine on conviction of a summary offence (whether or not created by the instrument)")
Page 38, line 42, leave out ("specified amount is equal to") and insert ("amount of the fine or maximum fine for the offence is, whether by virtue of this Part of this Act or not,")
Page 39, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert ("a reference to the level in the first column of the standard scale corresponding to that amount shall be substituted for the reference in the enactment to the amount of the fine or maximum fine.")
Page 39, line 3, at end insert—
("(1A) Where a relevant enactment confers a power such as is mentioned in subsection (l)(a)(ii) above, the power shall be construed as a power to make a person liable to a fine or, as the case may be, a maximum fine not exceeding the amount corresponding to the level on the standard scale to which the enactment refers by virtue of subsection (1) above or not exceeding a lesser amount.").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 94A, 94B, 94C, 94D and 94E en bloc. They are technical and consequential amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Fines for certain offences under Merchant Shipping Acts and Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 95, 96 and 97:
Page 40, line 33, after ("1971") insert—

("(a)")

Page 40, line 36, after first ("£1,000") insert ("or

(b) confers power by subordinate instrument to make a person liable to a fine not exceeding £1,000 on summary conviction of an offence triable either summarily or on indictment,")

Page 40, line 37, at end insert—
("(2) In section 20 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 (prevention of pollution from ships etc.)—

(a) the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraph(f) of subsection (3)—

"(f) that a contravention of a provision made by or under the Order shall be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine;

(fa) that any such contravention shall be an offence punishable only on summary conviction by a maximum fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such less amount as is prescribed by the Order;"

(b) in the words following paragraph (g), "neither paragraph (f) nor paragraph (fa)"shall be substituted for" paragraph (f)";

(c) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—

"(3A) Section 55 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (construction of references to "statutory maximum") shall have effect for the purposes of paragraph (f) of the preceding subsection as if that paragraph were contained in that Act."; an

(d) the following subsection shall be added after sub section (6)—

"(7) For the purposes of subsection (3)(fa) of this section—

(a) section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (the standard scale of fines for summary offences); and

(b) an order under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which alters the sums specified in section 33(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, shall extend to Northern Ireland.".

(3) In section 21 of that Act (safety and health on ships)— (a) in subsection (6)—

(i) the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraph (b)—

"(b) that a contravention of the regulations shall be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine;

(ba) that any such contravention shall be an offence punishable only on summary conviction by a maximum fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such less amount as is prescribed by the regulations,"; and

(ii) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c)—

"(c) (hat, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (b) or (ba) of this section, a person convicted summarily of an offence under the regulations of a kind which is stated by the regulations to correspond to an offence which is triable cither summarily or on indictment under an enactment specified in the regulations which authorises or authorised a fine on summary conviction of a maximum amount

431
exceeding the statutory maximum shall be liable to a fine not exceeding that maximum amount."; and

(b) the following subsections shall be added after that subsection—

"(7) Section 55 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (construction of references to "statutory maximum") shall have effect for the purposes of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the preceding subsection as if those paragraphs were contained in that Act.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (6)(ba) above—

(a) section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (the standard scale of fines for summary offences); and

(b) an order under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which alters the sums specified in section 33(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982,

shall extend to Northern Ireland.".
(4) The paragraphs substituted for section 20(3)(f) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 by subsection (2) above, together with the words substituted by paragraph (b) of that subsection, and the paragraphs substituted for section 21(6)(b) and (c) of that Act by subsection (3) above shall be deemed always to have had effect.
(5) The substituted paragraphs mentioned in subsection (4) above shall be deemed to have had effect in relation to the period before the commencement of this section—

(a) with a reference to"£1,000" in place of each reference to "the statutory maximum"; and

(b) with "fine not exceeding £1,000" in place of "maximum fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale" in each place where that phrase occurs.").

The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments 95, 96 and 97 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 97 may look a little daunting but its effect is, in fact, quite simple. Two of the powers to prescribe penalties in the subordinate legislation to which I earlier referred do not clearly permit different maxima to be applied to offences according to their relative gravity. A recent interpretation of the provisions of Sections 20 and 21, which are concerned respectively with the control of oil pollution and regulations on health and safety on ships, is that all offences must be made triable either way with two years' imprisonment on indictment. Many of the offences concerned will not be of the more
432
serious kind—they may, for example, consist simply of failing to maintain correct records. We therefore need to ensure that the flexibility commonly conveyed in powers to prescribe maxima in subordinate instruments is available in these powers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 98:
After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:
(" Fines for offences against regulations relating to wireless telegraphy apparatus on foreign ships and aircraft.
. In section 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words from "such", in the second place where it occurs, to "regulations", in the fourth place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words" a maximum fine for each offence of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or of a lesser amount"; and

(b) the following subsection shall be added after subsection (3)—

"(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section—

(a) section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982(the standard scale of fines for summary offences); and

(b) an order under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which alters the sums specified in section 33(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982,

shall extend to Northern Ireland.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment increases from £100 to level 5 on the standard scale, now standing at £1,000, the maximum fine available for the summary offences against regulations made under Section 6(2) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. These regulations enable control to be exercised over the use of apparatus on foreign ships and aircraft within the United Kingdom's territorial jurisdiction. The present maximum has remained at £100 since 1949 and would be increased to only £200 by Clause 36 of the Bill. A more appropriate reflection of the potential gravity of the offences concerned would be £1,000, and I hope therefore, that your Lordships will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.[99 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 100:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
("Courts to be able to make an attachment of earnings order at the time a fine is imposed with the consent of the offender.
.In section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967—

(a) in subsection (1) the words "that the offender has defaulted in the payment of that sum and" shall be omitted; and

(b) after subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) A court shall not make an attachment o earnings order under subsection (1) above unless the offender has defaulted in payment of the sum or consents to the making of the order.".").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 100. We come back to the delinquency side of the Bill having been dealing with agriculture and oil and other things. This is a question of what to do about people who are fined, with the knowledge that the use of the fine is increasingly being used and, on the whole, is something like 50 per cent, effective as opposed to all other forms of sanction which are about 70 per cent, to 80 per cent, effective. Many of us for many years have had a strong wish to see the attachment of earnings order added to the system of fines. We have failed to get this established so far over maintenance orders. It is the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group which is making this new proposition and I speak for the noble Baroness who is not present. As things are now, a court cannot impose an attachment of earnings order until the offender has defaulted in payment. We are simply suggesting that the court, with the offender's agreement, can attach his earnings without waiting for him to default. It is rather an obvious situation. It means that a man who is fined and is prepared to pay his fine but is short of money to pay it as a whole, can accept an attachment of earnings of one-tenth of the fine for 10 weeks, or whatever it may be, when the fine is imposed. The fine will then be paid without any difficulties.
It seems to me very foolish that the court should have to wait until the man has defaulted before it can impose an attachment of earnings order. The situation seems to me to be as simple as that. I do not think that I need add anything to it. I beg to move.
Baroness Birk: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and standing in my name. It seems to me to be a very sensible and practical way of dealing with this very often difficult situation of fining people and getting them to pay the fines. In 1978 the House of Commons Expenditure Committee in its report, The Reduction of Pressure on the Prison System, said:
" One of the main ways of reducing the pressure on prisoners would be to fine more offenders, especially young adult offenders, who are in regular employment."
When you sit as a magistrate and have it in mind to fine an offender, one of the difficulties that arises is when the person cannot pay immediately. Very often they offer to pay a very low and unacceptable amount weekly. You then have to try to find some
434
means of increasing it so that it will not go on for years, and of setting down an amount that he is able to pay. An attachment of earnings order seems to be the most sensible way of doing it.
As I think the noble Lord has said, in the other place the Minister argued that because we do not immediately do it on maintenance orders—at least only when a person has defaulted—it therefore should not be done in this way. In reply to that, I would say that by making it necessary to get the consent of the offender, the point is covered where an offender is concerned that his employer will react against this and that he may be in danger of losing his job. In fact, it is a way in which life can be made much easier for the offender, because it is all worked out for him. The money is taken away and paid regularly. He may be given one month or two months in which to pay; the total mounts up and up, and when he comes back to court very often nothing has been paid at all.
As we know, the stage is sometimes reached when fine defaulters end up in prison, which, again, is something we are trying to avoid. I think that there is a very strong case for this because of the effect on the courts—it would make their action very much more effective—and also because it is very much more helpful to offenders. There are many people who find it extraordinarily difficult to manage their income and monetary affairs, and this would take care of that. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he could perhaps think about this amendment. I speak on this occasion in practical terms as a recorder. Is the problem that this could contravene the Truck Acts? Is there some legal problem that has inhibited my noble friend from giving free consideration to this?—because if there is not, then it seems to me there is much to be said for it.
Lord Avebury: To me, too, there is much to be said for it, and I am glad to have the powerful reinforcement of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I believe that if there had been any technical objection following publication of the group's report, we would have heard about it from the Ministers in the Home Office, and many others who would have the opportunity of studying the proposals. The evidence is fairly conclusive—and some of it comes from the Home Office itself—that we need to increase the effectiveness of fines enforcement; and it has to be done in the early stages, if possible before default has occurred. The Home Office in its research pamphlet No. 46 on fines in magistrates' courts, published in 1978, shows that action to enforce payment had to be taken in nearly half of the sample of over 3,000 offenders who had been fined or ordered to pay other sums, such as compensation or costs.
It seems to me to be a very big problem that the courts in imposing fines have to come back to an offender again because he does not keep up the payments. Therefore, one of the conclusions which we

435
drew is that there must be scope for a much wider use of attachment of earnings orders. In the study I am talking about, the courts made an attachment of earnings order in only 25 cases, and in those cases they had a success rate of over 90 per cent, in getting some payment out of offenders. That was a far higher proportion than under any other method of enforcement used, so I feel that the arguments in favour of an amendment such as this are absolutely conclusive and I hope, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the Minister will accept it as it stands.
Lord Elton: There is one reason why I find the universal support for this amendment a little puzzling. That is that it purports to amend the Criminal Justice Act, 1967. As I understand it, that Act was repealed in 1970, so to that extent the amendment is seeking to alter something that does not exist.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The amendment is wrongly drafted, but what the amendment is trying to do is as clear as a bell and I hope that the noble Lord will take the point.
Lord Elton: I have no intention of shrugging off the principle to which the noble Lord's amendment addresses itself, but he must allow me to smack my lips a little when I detect my skilled adversaries in the position of having made an error—I agree without malice and perhaps a little self-congratulation. The amendment of my noble friend or, in her absence, of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, should be addressed to the Attachment of Earnings Order 1971. If one examines that, one sees that the courts have powers which are very close to the power which this clause seeks to give to them. Where default has occurred in payment of a fine it is open to the person to whom the payment has to be made— in this instance it would be the clerk to the justices— to apply to the court for the making of an attachment of earnings order and in addition, whether or not default has occurred, the person ordered to make a payment by the court may at any time apply for an attachment of earnings order to be made in his case.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May we get this absolutely clear? I am fully aware that if the offender applies he can get it. Is the noble Lord saying that the clerk to whom he would have to pay it can demand it without the offender applying? That is the point I am not clear about.
Lord Elton: I am sorry if I am slower than the noble Lord would wish. I am almost there in meeting this point. There would appear to be no reason at all why a person who has been fined should not make such an application at the time of conviction, if he wishes to do so. The slight difference which the present new clause would introduce would be to give the court the power to make such an order without the application on the offender's behalf, but only still with his consent.
There is a very narrow difference of approach here. It must be very small because if a court at the time of
436
conviction wishes to suggest to an offender—who can always refuse, even under the amendment—that an attachment of earnings order might be made in his case, there is no reason why it should not do so and thus invite an application from him. It seems, therefore, that the position is already very much what the noble Lord wants it to be; the court can invite the defendant to apply for an attachment of earnings order at the time of conviction, and it is open to him to consent or not to consent. That is exactly the position the amendment wishes to bring about.
Baroness Birk: If that is so—and it appears to be unknown to many of us, including even those who sit in court and practice the law, and therefore it is obscure —it seems important that it should be written into the legislation. It is late and we are probably all rather tired, but I want to be clear about this. Is the Minister saying that the court can do what the amendment suggests? In other words, can a court say, "We should like to make an attachment of earnings order in your case, We think that would be the most satisfactory course. We just need your consent"? Is that what the Minister is saying can now be done? Is it as clear as that?
Lord Elton: The court would not say, "We need your consent", but, "Would you please ask us to do it': Then we will do it". There is a difference of semantics.
Baroness Birk: With respect, that is ridiculous.
Lord Elton: Does the noble Baroness wish to intervene?
Baroness Birk: That puts the court in an unnecessarily silly position. It means that the court must say," If you will ask us, we will do it". If the position is as the Minister has described, why can it not be the other way round—it is important for the sake of the authority of the court—for the court to have the power to make the decision? I should find it most embarrassing to sit as chairman of my court and say, "If you ask us to do it, we will", especially as so many defendants are un-represented, anyway.
Lord Elton: I hope we shall not get embarrassed by semantics, and of course I am always ready to be corrected by my noble and learned friend—
Baroness Birk: It is not just semantics.
Lord Elton: —who has demonstrated that this is not a procedure which is often either known about or practised.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The problem is that not all lawyers, judges and recorders know the law. Off and on, as a deputy recorder or recorder, I have sat for 18 years, and until I heard the Committee debate this matter I did not realise that the substance of the amendment was something that happened. It has never happened in my court. I go along with the

437
noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in saying that if it is the law, let somebody tell us and we can get on with it.
Lord Elton: I am advised that the court can say, "We are going to make an order for you. You will have to pay a fine. It is probably beyond your means. Do you want, or do you not want, an attachment of earnings order"? What noble Lords opposite would say is, "We are now in a position to offer you an attachment of earnings order. Will you take it"? I cannot actually see the difference, but I absolutely accept that it is not satisfactory if it is not known. I am, therefore, prepared to take advice about the best way of getting it made known, whether by an amendment along these lines or by some other means, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will be satisfied with that.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am very satisfied with that. There is a subtle difference between the two and I think our way, from the point of view of what we are all trying to achieve, would be more effective. I hope the Minister will conclude that an amendment in this direction would be correct and, if he does not, we will move an amendment on Report. In the meantime, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank my noble friend for his open-mindedness on the matter.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 agreed to.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 101:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:
("Right to compensation.

PART

  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION
  .—(1) Where a loss is incurred by a person (hereinafter in this Part referred to as the "victim") and where that loss is occasioned in the circumstances described in subsection (2) below, compensation for that loss shall be payable by the Secretary of State to the victim or, in the event of the victim's death in a case where his death is caused by or is substantially due to those injuries, to any dependant of the victim.
  (2) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) above are those in which a victim has, after the passing of this Act, sustained in Great Britain or on a British vessel, aircraft or hovercraft an injury which is directly attributable to the actions of another (hereinafter in this Part referred to as the "male factor") where those actions constitute an act of violence.
  (3) No compensation shall be paid by the Secretary of State unless a claim to that effect has been made and determined in accordance with the provisions of this Part.
  (4) In this section—

  (a) in subsection (1) above, the expression "loss" means any one or more of the following losses, that is to say, a pecuniary loss or a personal loss caused by bodily or mental injuries.

  (b) in subsection (2) above, the expression "an act of violence" means any unlawful act committed by a malefactor in circumstances in which a reasonable man would have expected that the victim would or might suffer death or sustain personal injuries and that expression includes
  438
  an act committed by a malefactor when he or another was resisting lawful arrest or attempted arrest by the victim or attempted arrest by a constable who was being assisted by the victim but does not include an act committed by a person while driving or using a vehicle unless he thereby intended to inflict death or personal injury on his victim.").

  The noble Earl said. Your Lordships' Committee may be a little apprehensive, particularly at 10 o'clock, when it observes that I have my name attached to 17 amendments. However, I can assure the Committee that I shall be able to dispose of them for the evening quite briefly, but I am bound to come back to the subject in question at the next stage of the Bill, if only because an impressive speech on victims of violence was made by a Member of another place in introducing a Bill on this very subject last night. However, sufficient unto the day.
  In a major Bill concerned with criminal justice, with 61 clauses and 16 schedules, it would be lamentable, would it not? if the victims of violence who by common consent have been so shamefully neglected hitherto were totally ignored. There is admittedly one clause, Clause 50, which should be of help to victims, but that by itself is an altogether insufficient degree of attention.
  Three years ago I introduced into your Lordships' House a Bill which received a Second Reading and passed through its Committee stage. Later I withdrew it, with the accompanying promise that, like General MacArthur, I would be returning in due course. At that time I felt able to use words which perhaps were more significant coming from someone who had served for well over 30 years on the Labour Benches than they would have been had they come from a Government spokesman, in which case they might have been thought to be just flannel. At that time, I said that we had a Government who, whatever their merits or demerits—I am bound to say that it has all become more obvious since; but that was three years ago— had actually shown interest in victims. Well, that was true then, but I have been disappointed that this major Bill on criminal justice should ignore the victims almost totally
  However, there is one defence which the Minister might bring forward to some purpose. The Home Office Minister in 1979, the late, lamented Lord Belstead—
  Baroness Birk: He is still alive.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: He is very much alive.
  Lord Elton: He is not "late".
  The Earl of Longford: I meant that he was lamented in regard to that particular capacity. Of course I applaud him in his new role. At any rate, we all know our revered friend Lord Belstead; we all know whom I am talking about. At that time the Home Office Minister generously assured me that our Bill had accelerated the Government's initiative. Well, that was a rare compliment from a Minister, at any rate in my experience. In his closing speech at that time, when I withdrew my Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that there was a great deal in my draft which would be of assistance to the Government when the

  439
  proposed Bill on the subject was presented. I draw attention to his words about the proposed Bill on the subject being presented.
  The first question that I put to the Minister—I have given him some slight notice of it—is, obviously, when, if at all, are the Government to introduce a comprehensive Bill to deal with victims? Obviously our attitude to my amendment, or any amendment that we might move at the next stage, is considerably dependent on the answer to that question.
  The amendments which are down in my name are a recapitulation of my Bill of 1979. I do not intend to press the amendments to a Division this evening; nor am I suggesting that my 1979 Bill could not have been improved then and could not be improved, or expanded, still more today. After discussions with the Table, I put forward my amendments in such a way as to enable us to have a general discussion this evening. In the event, the lateness of the hour perhaps makes that not very appropriate. But this way of doing things should leave it open to myself and to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—who has been kind enough to attach his name to the amendment, and who is very expert on the subject—or any other noble Lord, at the next stage to table suitable amendments on the subject of victims.
  I am not going into detail this evening. No one in 1979 questioned the appalling neglect of victims up to that point. It cannot seriously be claimed that the position is substantially different in 1982, in spite of a few administrative improvements and some creditable progress in the voluntary sector.
  I said in 1979 that my Bill was in no possible sense a full charter for victims. I am anxious to obtain the the full attention of the noble Lord, although I know he can listen to two speakers at once. However, I venture to repeat myself—unless there is going to be a further intervention from behind him. I said in 1979 that my Bill was in no possible sense a full charter for victims. I mentioned a whole range of matters on which we would certainly press the Government as opportunity offered. We demanded and we do demand far-reaching improvements in the compensation scheme. It must be made more generous, more comprehensive and more accessible, and it should be much better publicised.
  We shall continue to urge—this is a new point that I want to press on the noble Lord; he may have something to say about it tonight—that the present criminal injuries compensation scheme should be placed on a statutory basis. As noble Lords are aware, at present it is called an ex gratia scheme. Also, we may well make suggestions at the next stage for greatly improving the machinery in the Law Courts, and also for extending assistance to victim-support schemes. Some of those points, incidentally, are dealt with in the important Bill which was introduced yesterday in another place.
  I hope the Committee will feel that I have tonight adopted a procedure—speaking, I notice, for seven minutes, which may not be absurdly long—which facilitates the widest possible debate, which is not likely to take place this evening, but I cannot believe that there is anybody here who is happy about the way we have treated victims, and continue to treat them. I hope that before we reach the next stage the Minister
  440
  will be able to give us some encouragement this evening.
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am very happy to support the noble Earl in the shortest possible way, by saying that if there are any objections to what he has moved I shall assist him in refuting them.
  Lord Elton: Under those terms, I advance upon the field with trepidation. Before I comment on the noble Earl's amendment, I think I should outline what is the system we have at present and what the noble Earl seeks to change. Since 1964 Great Britain has had a non-statutory scheme—the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, which he referred to and suggested should be in statutory form—which provides compensation by the state for those who suffer personal injury as a result of crimes of violence or in attempting to apprehend offenders. Where the victim dies, the scheme provides for the compensation to go to the dependants. The scheme applies to both England and Wales and to Scotland; Northern Ireland has its own.
  The scheme has on the whole worked very well, and other countries have used it as a model for their own. Since it was introduced, about 200,000 awards have been made and well over £100 million has been paid out in compensation. Those are large figures. In the late 1970s the scheme was the subject of a thorough review. It was undertaken by an inter-departmental working party whose remit was to frame proposals for placing the scheme on a statutory footing with such modifications as might appear desirable. This working party reported, as the noble Earl will well recall, in 1978.
  In July 1979, the Government published the terms of a revised criminal injuries compensation scheme based on the working party's recommendations, and announced that this would come into operation from 1st October 1979. At the same time the Government announced that they accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury—that is, the Pearson Commission—that the scheme should be made statutory, but that they did not intend to introduce the relevant legislation until there had been sufficient experience of the revised scheme to enable any problems to be identified and solved.
  No very major problems have arisen in the operation of the revised scheme over the past 2½ years although there are inevitably a number of points of detail which need looking into. It remains the Government's intention to prepare legislation to place the scheme on a statutory footing, but it is absolutely clear that legislation is not going to be an easy exercise. I might remind the noble Earl that he did table substantially the same material earlier in the Session, in July 1980, and it was the subject of fairly close criticism then. He referred only to the conclusion, but he will recall that it did become apparent that almost every clause needed adjustment of one kind or another. Doubtless between this stage and Report he will take on board the analysis then made, because it does not actually appear to be reflected in what he has now put forward, and that is another reason why we are taking this as an occasion to debate the main issues rather than the technicalities.

  441
  The subject revolves around difficult issues of civil law. It does not have bearing on the matters otherwise addressed in this Bill which relate broadly to the powers available to criminal courts. The scheme is a complex document which reflects—I am now referring to the Criminal Injuries Scheme which exists —civil law principles, some of which if made statutory would require very careful drafting. The preparation of the necessary legislation would therefore have to be undertaken with the greatest care. It will need to take account of our experience with the 1979 scheme and legislation currently in the pipeline. There would need to be close consultation with members of the board and other interested bodies. We do not in any case regard the need for legislation on this subject as a matter of immediate, overriding urgency. That is the phrase which the noble Lord might not like to hear but it is the phrase that he was hoping to elicit. He might have hoped it was elicited in different terms. This legislation would no doubt formalise the arrangements that have been developed since 1964 and put them on a permanent footing but it really cannot be argued that it would make much difference in practice to the victims concerned. That must be the acid test.
  The scheme is administered by an independent board of very experienced barristers and eminent solicitors whose duty is to consider applications and award compensation in accordance with the terms of the scheme and the practice of the civil courts. The board reach their decisions and award compensation on their own authority, and their directions are not subject to ministerial review. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have responsibility for general oversight of the scheme and the board's operations but they play no part in the resolution of individual applications. The board's functions under the terms of the scheme require them to award appropriate compensation to all who are eligible under the provisions of the scheme. In practice, therefore, a right to compensation already exists, as compensation cannot be refused by the board outside the terms of the scheme.
  In the Government's view, the main argument for placing the scheme on a statutory footing is not to provide victims with a formal statutory right but to provide explicit statutory authority for the existence and operations of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in view of the considerable amount of public money for which the board are responsible. In 1980 to 1981 they paid out nearly £21½ billion in compensation and incurred administration costs amounting to nearly £3 million. It is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider in detail general composition functions and procedures of the board in which it places so much trust and responsibility and then to approve them in formal legislation.
  The Government intend to give Parliament that opportunity as soon as practicable in the light of other demands on parliamentary time and the work that will be needed to prepare this legislation; but your Lordships will see that this is a very wide scheme deploying very large resources, in which there can be no political intervention or discrimination and, therefore, although the noble Lord is not promised the legislation in the sort of time scale that I dare say he is pressing for,
  442
  he can remain confident that it is not our intention to do anything contrary to his own intention.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: I should like to compliment my noble friend Lord Longford on raising this important matter. It is in keeping with his own attitude to penal policy that not only is he the constant protector of those who are subjected to the sanctions of the penal law within the proper limits of such protection and care but, as he has indicated—and not for the first time tonight—he is concerned for the welfare, protection and provision for the victims of crime.
  I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Mishcon is temporarily absent from the Chamber, as I was looking forward to his considerable expert knowledge upon this subject. It is gratifying to learn from my noble friend that this is a ballon d'essai, a trial run, tonight of this issue, and that he proposes to return to it again at the later stages of this Bill. The statement of the Minister is an indication of the importance that the Government attach to this whole problem. The more the Minister was developing the magnitude of what is now being done by this non-statutory body operating purely in terms of ex gratia payments, the clearer it seemed the need for the scheme to be put on a statutory basis. I detected that that was broadly the view of the Government as well. Indeed, previous Administrations have been thinking of this ever since the happy day when a previous Labour Administration set the scheme up in 1969.
  We have had now 13 years' experience of the operation of the scheme. I agree that it has come to the rescue in this enormous number of cases and has helped people who would otherwise face the disaster of death to a parent or person upon whom they were dependent or grievous injuries to those who suffer from the negligence of others.
  In view of the lateness of the hour, I think that it may be appropriate to deal with this, so to speak, as a warning shot across the bows which my noble friend has directed in the direction of the Government, and we look forward to detailed and profound discussion of this very important problem at a later stage.
  Lord Elton: I should like to add something at this stage rather than intervene in the noble Earl's reply, because no doubt I should be in danger of trespassing upon his peroration. The Government do not consider that a Criminal Justice Bill such as the one now before the Committee should deal with the question of state compensation for criminal injuries. The noble Earl's proposals are not directly concerned with the powers and procedures of the criminal courts nor with the treatment of offenders. They are much more closely related to matters of civil law. The state compensation arrangements are a substitute for civil court proceedings, and they follow civil law practice. I am afraid that I have to say that, in the view of the Government, this block of amendments is out of place in the present Bill and their tabling at this relatively late stage leaves in any case not a lot of time to give adequate parliamentary scrutiny to them.
  Perhaps the noble Earl will consider taking some

  443
  other parliamentary opportunity to give this matter the close scrutiny that it needs, without inserting it into the time available for the rest of the stages of this Bill. This would have to be discussed through the usual channels, and I am not a usual channel. It seems to me appropriate that this should be done at a rather more leisurely pace; but, since we are under the strictures of time between now and the end of the Session, it might be for the noble Earl's own convenience and advantage if it were pursued in some other way. I throw that idea out as a friendly one which he may want to consider between now and Report stage. I thought it appropriate to say what is our attitude to these amendments and that we should feel rather reluctant to devote a great deal of time to considering them at a later stage in this Bill.
  The Earl of Longford: I am very grateful to those who have supported me—the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and my own acting leader, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. I am profoundly disappointed with the reply of the Minister, because he has given us no indication that in the lifetime of some of us who are older Members, this Bill will ever come forward. We were told in 1979 that my Bill would be helpful to the Government's proposals. There is really no indication tonight that that Bill is any nearer than it was in 1979. Therefore, my attitude is one of great disappointment. Naturally I will consider, with the help of my leaders, what our attitude should be at the next stage, but I shall be surprised if he does not have more trouble at that time than he has had tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 102 to 116 not moved.]
  Clause 44 agreed to.
  Clause 45 [Revision of penalties for summary offences and of certain other sums]:
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 119:
  Page 44, line 9, leave out ("(2),") and insert ("(1 A) to").
  Page 44, line 22, at end insert—
  ("(1A) Where the penalty or maximum penalty for an offence to which section 457A(1)(b) of this Act applies has not been altered by any enactment passed or made after 29th July 1977 (the date of the passing of the Criminal Law Act 1977), this section applies as if the amount referred to in subsection (4)(a) below were the greatest amount to which a person would have been liable on any conviction immediately before that date.").
  Page 45, line 20, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1 A)")
  The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 117 to 119 inclusive, and to speak at the same time to Amendments 123, 124, 136, 180, 181, 184 and 189. These amendments are designed to clarify the effect of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and the current Bill on the penalties for offences in respect of which there is no express provision regarding mode of trial. They do this primarily by making express provision as
  444
  to the mode of trial for all offences under primary legislation. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 120 and 121:
  Page 45, line 25, leave out from (''fine") to end of line 26 and insert ("or a maximum fine which is").
  Page 45, line 32, leave out from ("fine") to ("amount") in line 34 and insert ("which is less than £1,000, or a fine, or a maximum fine which shall not exceed an").
  The noble Lord said: Again, on behalf of my noble and learned friend, I beg to move Amendments 120 and 121 together. I should like to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 and 135. I think I have covered Amendments 125 to 135 en bloc. I now formally move Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 together, with the same points that I put on the previous ones.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 122:
  Page 46, line 1, leave out ("in any Act passed") and insert ("passed or made").
  The noble Lord said: Subsection (l)(iv) of the proposed new Section 289F is designed to exclude from the scope of the general up-rating of fines provided for in Section 289F, fines which have been altered between the passing of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the passing of this Bill. The reason for this exclusion is that any such alternation should have been designed to put the fine in question on to the appropriate point on the 5-point scale and it would be wrong to further increase such fines.
  As drafted, however, subsection (l)(iv) only excludes from the general uprating fines which have been altered since 1977 by an enactment contained in an Act. This amendment extends that exclusion to cover fines which have been altered since 1977 by enactments contained in subordinate legislation. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 123:
  Page 46, line 3, at end insert—
  ("(1A) In the case of an offence to which section 457A(1)(6) of this Act applies, paragraphs (i) to (iii) of subsection (1) above do not apply and the fine or the maximum fine referred to in subsection (7) below is the fine or the maximum fine for the offence immediately before 29th July 1977 as amended, where applicable, by section 289E of this Act.").
  The noble Lord said: This is consequential and I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 124:
  Page 46, line 11, after ("above") insert ("as amended by subsection (1A) above where it applies").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 125 to 135:
  Page 46, line 17, leave out from second ("fine") to ("in") inline 19.
  Page 46, line 20, leave out from ("things,") to end of line 23 and insert ("that fine or maximum fine is the fine, or as the case may be, the maximum fine for the purposes of this section.")
  Page 46, line 25, leave out ("specifies") and insert ("provides").
  Page 46, line 35, leave out from ("case") to ("is") in line 36 and insert ("the fine or the maximum fine referred to in subsection (7) below').
  Page 46, line 43, leave out from ("fine") to ("for") in line 1 on page 47.
  Page 47, line 19, leave out ("specified amount") and insert ("fine or the maximum fine").
  Page 47, line 22, column 1, leave out ("The specified amount") and insert ("Fine or maximum fine").
  Page 48, leave out lines 9 to 25 and insert—
  ("(4) Subject to subsection (7) below, where—

  (a) an enactment to which subsection (5) below applies either—

  (i) makes a person liable on conviction of an offence triable only summarily (whether created by that enactment or otherwise) to a fine or a maximum fine; or

  (ii) confers a power by subordinate instrument to make a person liable on conviction of an offence triable only summarily (whether or not created by the instrument) to a fine or a maximum fine; and

  (b) the amount of the fine or the maximum fine is, whether by virtue of that enactment or otherwise, an amount shown in the second column of the standard scale,

  for the reference in the enactment to the amount of the fine or maximum fine there shall be substituted a reference to the level on the standard scale shown in the first column thereof as corresponding to the amount in the second column thereof referred to in paragraph (b) above.

  (5) This subsection applies to an enactment in any Act (including this Act) passed before or in the same Session as the Criminal Justice Act 1982.").
  Page 48, line 28, leave out from second ("fine") to ("in") in line 30.
  Page 48, line 31, leave out from ("things") to end of line 34 and insert ("that fine or maximum fine is the fine or, as the case may be, the maximum fine for the purposes of this section.").
  Page 48, line 42, leave out from ("fine") to ("for") in line 44.
  The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 125 to 135 en bloc. They are consequential on an earlier amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 136:
  After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
  (" Mode of trial of, and penalties for, certain offences.)
  .—(1) In Part III of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, before section 458 there shall be inserted the following new section—
  " Mode of trial of certain offences.
  457A.—(1) An offence created by statute shall be triable only summarily if —

  (a) the enactment creating the offence or any other enactment expressly so provides (in whatever words); or

  (b) subject to subsections (2) and (3)(a) below, the offence was created by an Act passed on or before 29th July 1977 (the date of passing of the Criminal Law Act 1977) and the penalty or maximum penalty in force immediately before that date, on any conviction of that offence, did not include any of the following—

  (i) a fine exceeding £ 400;

  (ii) imprisonment for a period exceeding 3 months;

  446

  (iii) a fine exceeding £ 50 in respect of a specified quantity or number of things, or in respect of a specified period during which a continuing offence is committed:

  Provided that, in the application of paragraph (b)(ii) above, no regard shall be paid to the fact that section 290 of this Act permits the imposition of imprisonment for a period exceeding 3 months in certain circumstances.
  (2) An offence created by statute which is triable only on indictment shall continue only to be so triable.
  (3) An offence created by statute shall be triable either on indictment or summarily if—

  (a) the enactment creating the offence or any other enactment expressly so provides (in whatever words); or

  (b) it is an offence to which neither subsection (1) nor subsection (2) above applies.

  (4) An offence which may under any enactment (including an enactment in this Act or passed after this Act) be tried only summarily, being an offence which, if it had been triable on indictment, could competently have been libelled as an additional or alternative charge in the indictment, may (the pro visions of this or any other enactment notwith standing) be so libelled, and tried accordingly: Pro vided that the penalty which may be imposed for that offence in that case shall not exceed that which is competent on summary conviction.".
  (2) For section 289B of the said Act of 1975 there shall be substituted the following section—
  "Penalties on summary conviction for offences triable either summarily or on indictment.
  289B.—(1) Where an offence created by a relevant enactment may be tried either on indictment or summarily, the penalty or maximum penalty on summary conviction shall, to the extent that it included, immediately before the passing of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, a penalty or maximum penalty mentioned in column 1 of the Table below, be amended so as to substitute as a maximum penalty the corresponding penalty set forth in column 2 thereof (unless provision is expressly made by any enactment for a larger penalty or maximum penalty on summary conviction)—

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Penalty or maximum penalty at passing of Criminal Justice Act 1982

  New maximum penalty

  1.Fine (other than a fine specified in paragraph 3 below, or a fine in respect of each period of a specified length during which a continuing offence is committed).

  1.Fine not exceeding the prescribed sum.

  2. Imprisonment for a period exceeding 3 months.

  2. Imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 months.

  3. Fine in respect of a specified quantity or number of things.

  3. Fine not exceeding the pre-scribed sum in respect of each such quantity or number.

  4. Fine exceeding £ 100 in respect of each period of a specified length during a continuing offence is committed.

  4. Fine not exceeding £ 100 in respect of each period of each such period,

  (2) Where, by virtue of a relevant enactment, a person summarily convicted of any offence to which subsection (1) above relates would, apart from this section, be liable to a fine or a maximum fine of one amount in the case of a first conviction and of a different amount in the case of a second or sub sequent conviction, subsection (1) above shall apply irrespective of whether the conviction is a first, second or subsequent one.
  (3) Where, as regards any offence to which sub section (1) above relates, there is under any enactment (in whatever words) a power by subordinate

  447
  istrument to restrict the amount of the fine or maximum fine which on summary conviction can be imposed in respect of that offence—

  (a) subsection (1) above shall not affect that power or override any restriction imposed in exercise of that power; and

  (b) the amount to which that fine or maximum fine may be restricted in exercise of that power shall be any amount less than the fine or maximum fine which could be imposed on summary conviction in respect of the offence apart from any restriction so imposed.

  (4) Where there is under a relevant enactment (in whatever words) a power by subordinate instrument to create a criminal offence, the maximum fine which may in the exercise of that power be authorized on summary conviction in respect of such an offence, when that offence may be tried either on indictment or summarily, shall by virtue of this subsection be the prescribed sum unless some larger maximum fine can be authorised on summary conviction in respect of such an offence by virtue of an enactment other than this subsection.
  (5) Subsection (1) above is without prejudice to section 290 of this Act (6 months' imprisonment competent for certain offences).
  (6) In this section—

  ' the prescribed sum' means £ 1,000 or such sum as is for the time being substituted in this definition by an order in force under section 289D(l)of this Act;

  ' relevant enactment' means an enactment contained in the Criminal Law Act 1977 or in any Act (including this Act) passed before, or in the same session as, that Act.

  (7) Subsection (4) above shall not affect so much of any enactment as (in whatever words) provides for a person to be made liable, on summary conviction, to a fine or a maximum fine for each period of a specified length during which a continuing offence is committed.
  (8) Where an enactment to which subsection (4) above applies provides for a person to be made liable to a penalty or maximum penalty on summary conviction of an offence triable either on indictment or summarily which includes a fine or a maximum fine in respect of a specified quantity or a specified number of things, that subsection shall apply to that fine or maximum fine.
  (9) Schedule 7B to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of altering the penalties or maximum penalties available on summary conviction of the offences therein mentioned; and subsection (1) above shall not apply on summary conviction of any of the offences mentioned in paragraph 1(2) of the said Schedule 7B.".
  (3) Section 289C of the said Act of 1975 (increase of fines for certain summary offences) shall be amended as follows—
  (a) for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

  "(4) This subsection applies to any pre-1949 enactment (however framed or worded) which—

  (a) as regards any summary offence makes a person liable on conviction thereof to a fine of, or not exceeding, a specified amount less than £ 50 which has not been altered since the end of 1948 (and is not altered by this Act); or

  (b) confers power by subordinate instrument to make a person as regards any summary offence (whether or not created by the instrument), liable on conviction thereof to a fine of, or a maximum fine of, less than £ 50 which has not been altered since the end of 1948 (and is not altered by this Act):

  Provided that this subsection does not apply to any offence to which section 457A(1)(b) of this Act applies (offences triable only summarily other than by virtue of express provision).";

  448
  (b) for subsection (7) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

  " (7) Subsection (4) above does not apply to so much of any enactment as (in whatever words) makes a person liable or provides for a person to be made liable, on summary conviction, to a fine or a maximum fine for each period of a specified length during which a continuing offence is committed.

  (7A) Where an enactment to which subsection (4) above applies provides or confers a power to provide for, on conviction of an offence triable only summarily, a fine or a maximum fine in respect of a specified quantity or a specified number of things, 'the specified amount' for the purposes of subsection (5) above is the fine or maximum fine so provided or for which provision may be made.".

  (4) In section 289D of the said Act of 1975 (power to alter sums specified in certain provisions), after the word "the" at the beginning of each of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) there shall be inserted the words "fine or".
  (5) Subsections (2) to (4) above do not apply in relation to any offence committed before they come into force.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on No. 117. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 46 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
  Schedule 7 [Schedule to be inserted as Schedule 7D to Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975]:
  Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 137A:
  Page 66, line 32, at end insert—

  ("PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1912 (c. 14)

  . Section 7 selling poison-ed grain or placing on any land matter rendered poisonous).

  For "ten pounds" substitute "level 4 scale".

  £25

  £500.")

  The noble Baroness said: I speak for my noble friend Lord Melchett. He told me that he spoke to this amendment earlier and I understand that it was expected to be accepted. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 138:
  Page 68, leave out lines 6 to 22.
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. This amendment deletes certain unnecessary provisions in Schedule 7. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 139:
  Page 68, line 32, at end insert—

  " AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE ACT 1964(c,28)

  . Section 20(1) (obstruction, etc. of authorized officer).

  For "twenty pounds" substitute "level 3 on the standard scale".

  £20.

  £200.

  . Section 20(2) (offences under Part III)

  For the words from "one hundred pounds" to "two hundred and fifty pounds)" substitute "level 5 on the standard scale".

  (a) for a first offence, £100 or 3 months or both: (b) for a second or subsequent offence, £250 or 3 months or both.

  £1,000 or 3 months or both.

  The noble Lord said: As well as amending penalties in purely Scottish legislation, Schedule 7 effects for Scotland amendments to penalties in Great Britain or

  449
  United Kingdom Acts which are effected for England and Wales by Schedule 3. As a result of Amendment No. 81, Schedule 3 effects for England and Wales increases in the penalties for certain offences under the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964. This amendment is designed to effect similar increases for Scotland. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 8 agreed to.
  10.30 p.m.
  Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 140:
  Before Clause 47, insert the following new clause:
  ("Courts not to pass first custodial sentence on an offender without first considering a social enquiry report.
  First custodial sentences
  .A court shall not

  (a) pass a sentence of imprisonment, or

  (b) make a detention centre order, or

  (c) pass a youth custody sentence

  on a person who has not previously been sentenced to imprisonment or youth custody or detained in a detention centre, unless the court has considered a social inquiry report, that is to say a report about him and his circumstances made by a probation officer or by a social worker of a local authority social services department, unless it appears to the court that there are special circumstances which make this unnecessary.").
  The noble Baroness said: This is an all-party Penal Affairs Group amendment, and all it is asking for is that the good practice which is followed in most courts should be made an essential part by making it law in this Bill. The Government have gone a good way towards accepting the principle, because in their amendment after Clause 1 they have made it necessary for a social inquiry report to be presented for defendants under the age of 21, before they are given a custodial sentence, except in certain special circumstances.
  Although Section 57 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 empowered the Home Secretary to make rules requiring courts to consider a social inquiry report before imposing a prison sentence on an offender who has not served a previous custodial sentence, no such rules have ever been made. The Home Office has chosen to recommend this practice to the courts, rather than incorporate it in statutory rules. The Home Office has recommended courts as normal practice to consider a social inquiry report before imposing a borstal or detention centre sentence, and before imposing a prison sentence on an offender who has not received a previous prison or borstal sentence.
  However, information collected on a sample of offenders sentenced in 1971 shows that magistrates neglected to obtain a social inquiry report on the majority of men receiving their first prison sentence. This suggests that at that time the Home Secretary's advice on this point had gone unheeded. If this amendment were followed, it might be that a good many people would avoid a custodial sentence. Ministers in the present Government have repeatedly stated their wish to reverse the recent decline in the use of the probation order and to see probation used to the full as an alternative to custody. The consideration of social inquiry reports in all cases where the offender is at risk of custody for the first time would be one important way to ensure that the suitability
  450
  or otherwise of offenders for probation orders is brought to the court's attention on every such occasion. I could say a great deal more, but I think I have said enough to justify the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Trefgarne: I find myself in an unusual position for a Government spokesman in this Parliament; namely, in agreement with an amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has attached his name. As the noble Lord suggests, there may not have been many previous occasions upon which that was so. The Government accept this amendment in principle. I therefore propose that the Government should bring forward an amendment on Report to deal specifically with the provision of social inquiry reports in the case of adult offenders who have not previously served a sentence of imprisonment. Like this amendment, it will retain discretion for the court to dispense with a report where one is manifestly unnecessary. On that understanding, I hope the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
  Baroness David: I thank the Minister very much. I am absolutely delighted, though not altogether surprised, and of course will withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 140A not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 47 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Ehvyn-Jones: I thought that the noble Lord was going to make a rather important announcement.
  Lord Denham: If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, wishes to speak on clause stand part, I shall of course make my important announcement now.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: My understanding was that the Chair had called clause stand part. I propose, at the appropriate time, to move to leave out Clause 47. I do not know how the matter is best put.
  Lord Denham: I stand corrected.
  The Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That Clause 47 stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Denham: I think we do not address ourselves to this question tonight because it might provoke a certain amount of comment, of the friendliest possible kind, tomorrow. We have now reached the stage where I, as a reformed rabbit, would suggest that we might adjourn the proceedings until tomorrow. Therefore I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

  HOMICIDE CASES: DISCOVERY
  HOMICIDE CASES: DISCOVERY
  PARKHURST PRISON: SPANISH-SPEAKING OFFICER
  PARKHURST PRISON: SPANISH-SPEAKING OFFICER
  THE CASE OF MR. R. J. PAYNE
  THE CASE OF MR. R. J. PAYNE
  DRIVING DISQUALIFICATIONS DUE TO DRINKING
  DRIVING DISQUALIFICATIONS DUE TO DRINKING