Sitting of 22 June 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Liverpool
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science,, if the will ensure that the schools closures he is urging on the city of Liverpool do not deprive communities of essential community facilities.
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on education standards in Liverpool following his meeting with Liverpool city council leaders.
    Mr. John Browneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science following Her Majesty's inspec-torate's recent report, what measures he proposes to take to improve the educational provision in Liverpool.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): When they met me on 26 May, the leaders of Liverpool city council agreed to produce plans by this September for the city-wide reorganisation of its schools. Subsequently I wrote to the leader of the council on 7 June setting out the compelling educational case for such reorganisation if standards and quality are to be maintained and improved, and noting a school's role in its community as one of the factors to be weighed when making judgments about the future. I intend to visit Liverpool next month to review progress.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister agree that when a school closes the community loses a community facility and a focus, as well as a school? Will he therefore consider adapting every building that is released by a school closure on Merseyside or in Liverpool for youth and community facilities and, perhaps, for resources centres for the young unemployed? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister with responsibility for Merseyside, to make funds available for that purpose so that Merseyside can benefit from the closures, although it will suffer in community terms initially?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The short answer is "Yes". I am encouraged to find that both the local education authority and the local authority are well aware of the case for using released buildings for the maximum local benefit.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State agree that procrastination during the past 20 years, during which time
    138
    five schemes have been offered to the Department of Education and Science, all of which have either been turned down or only partially implemented, is one of the reasons why schools in Liverpool are in a constant state of turmoil or in the melting pot? Does he agree that the £3 million reduction in Liverpool's education budget is a direct result of the Department's failure to reimburse Liverpool for its further and advanced education facilities and that it is endangering the quality of service offered by the Liverpool education authority?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Although I accept that Liverpool advanced to my predecessors several proposals for reorganisation, it is not beneficial to try to allocate responsibility for the need of successive Governments, having judged the merits, to turn down some of the schemes. Moreover, HMI report on the Liverpool problem did not identify lack of resources as the main problem.
    Mr. Parry: When the Secretary of State visits Liverpool, will he spend some time on the problem of three small primary schools in my constituency? Is he aware that they were to be closed and that a new primary school was to be built in the cathedral precinct? Is he aware also that the Liberal-controlled council has done a U-turn on the issue and that there is grave concern among parents and teachers about that? Will he visit the site and meet some of the parents and teachers when he comes to Liverpool?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I cannot undertake to visit, in the limited time available, all the areas where there are problems. Under statute, I am allowed to respond only to proposals that have been made by the local education authority. The hon. Gentleman should make his case to the local education authority.
    Mr. Browne rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) did not hear the Secretary of State's main answer, but if he is not satisfied with it I shall call him to put a supplementary question.
    Mr. Browne: I apologise for not having been present for the main answer, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that children have not been taken into account politically in education? Does he agree also that that happens throughout the country, but that Liverpool offers an easily isolated example? Will he take nation-wide action to alleviate the problem and take tougher action against local authorities in order to benefit children?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Understandably, in Liverpool, as no doubt in other areas, the view is that the interests of the children are best served by the fierce protection of local schools as they are. That is not always in the best interests of the children, as I tried to explain in my letter to Sir Trevor Jones a couple of weeks ago.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that at least some of Liverpool's education problems spring from the incapacity of the alliance, in apparently breaking the mould of politics in Liverpool, to do anything about the city's education problems? Secondly, will he ensure that no proposals go through for the closure of schools in Croxteth—as opposed to Toxteth—until he has considered proposals covering the whole Liverpool area?
    Sir Keith Joseph: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have today written to one of the Liverpool councillors about Croxteth. The letter is being released to local Members of Parliament and to the press.
    As for the alliance, I do not wish to enter into local political issues, but I found the attitude of the local authority representatives who came to see me a few weeks ago very constructive, and I welcome that.
    Mr. Thornton: While my right hon. Friend is considering the overall problems of education in Liverpool, will he bear in mind the urgent problems of secondary allocation this year? Is he aware that, because of delays in the appeals procedure, many parents will not know before the end of this term to which schools their children have been allocated?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I have no power in this matter. It is one for the local education authority. I very much hope that it will make rapid progress with the appeals.

    Mixed Age Teaching
    Mr. Dobsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the increase in mixed age teaching in maintained and voluntary-aided schools in England since 1979.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Figures are not available, but Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools has noted an increase in the incidence of mixed age teaching as a direct consequence of the fall in school rolls.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister acknowledge that Her Majesty's inspectorate also points out that mixed age teaching in primary schools almost automatically leads to a reduction in the ability of children to learn to read and to use mathematics? Will he therefore ensure that the cuts that have led to this state of affairs are restored so that educational standards are at least maintained under the Conservative Government, who were elected on a promise to improve standards?
    Dr. Boyson: The move to mixed age teaching arises not from any cuts but fom a decline in the number of children in the schools. There are now half a million fewer children in the schools than there were a few years ago. That being so, either schools must close or amalgamate or there must be more mixed age teaching. The hon. Gentleman is right. All the evidence shows that when 25 or more children from two or more age groups are taught together, scores in English and mathematics are lower than for those of children taught in single age groups.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for many years there has been mixed age teaching, which I deplore, in primary schools controlled by Labour authorities, and that this system of teaching has been advocated by a number of Labour educationists for many years?
    Dr. Boyson: As my hon. Friend knows, there have been various fashions in education in the past 10 or 20 years. Vertical or family grouping was one. Fortunately, it is now passing. There are two reasons for mixed age teaching. Either the school is too small to have separate classes, as in village schools, or the philosophy is that if children are brought together they will integrate socially, even at the expense of academic standards.
    Mr. McNally: Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's inspectorate forecast that about 70 per cent. of primary schools would have some mixed age teaching by the mid-1970s? Are not some local authorities using that as a soft option to make cuts? Does he agree that mixed age teaching is bound to fail unless it is backed up by specialists in special subjects and by good use of part-time teaching, which he is not encouraging?
    Dr. Boyson: The pupil-teacher ratio in our schools is now the lowest ever, so that mixed age teaching has nothing to do with cuts. The ratio is lower than it was when the Labour Government were in power. There are fewer children in the schools. Therefore, unless schools are closed or amalgamated so that single age teaching may be carried out, there will be more mixed age teaching. There are 10 per cent. more primary schools than before with between 100 and 200 children. This shows the importance of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the need to consider teaching and schools overall to ensure that children have the best deal.
    Mr. John Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who represent rural constituencies would rather have mixed age teaching than see village schools closed? Does he agree that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) made a very good point on this in his supplementary question to question No. 1?
    Dr. Boyson: I take my hon. Friend's point. The decision is made because there is no other way to keep schools close to parents and children. That is very different from mixed age teaching in schools in cities where alternatives can be arranged.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Minister either withdraw his statement that mixed age teaching has nothing to do with cuts, or write to Her Majesty's inspectorate telling it that in his considered judgment it was absolutely wrong to report in paragraph 59:
    "Further general restraints in spending and falling school roles have, together, continued to affect primary schools in similar ways to those described in last year's report"?
    Is he aware that the report also states:
    "The number of mixed age classes have increased"?.
    This is very important, as the Minister has either inadvertently or deliberately misled the House and the record must be put straight. The report continues:
    "Where such classes are larger than about 25 in number the children's performance can suffer".
    What is the Minister's response to that?
    Dr. Boyson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is reading the HMI report. One can make quotations on both sides. I actually said to his hon. Friend that cuts have nothing to do with the increase in mixed age teaching. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will listen to my reply, he may learn something. I said quite clearly that cuts have nothing to do with the increase in mixed age teaching, because if the authorities in whose areas the number of children has declined decide how to reorganise their schools to have economic numbers, single age teaching can continue. That is what I said. If the hon. Gentleman did not understand it the first time, I am delighted that he does now.

    Bio-engineering
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with current provision for training technicians for bio-engineering and other advanced subjects.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Shelton): My right hon. Friend attaches great importance to the education and training of technicians and is satisfied that current arrangements are adequate to ensure proper provision.
    Mr. Miller: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not a universal opinion that there is an adequate supply of technicians for some of the so-called sunrise industries? Will he give particular attention to the desirability of some communication with the University Grants Committee so that in future grant is related to the training needs of these technicians, especially in view of the cuts in the technical departments of universities such as Aston, which were once colleges of advanced technology?
    Mr. Shelton: Mr. Teacher—I apologise, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time that I have said that. I shall pay attention and not do it again.
    I understand the concern of my hon. Friend. I said that the education and training are sufficient and that the problem is not in the provision of sufficient training places, because there are enough of them, but in getting sufficient applicants to be educated and trained as technicians. I refer my hon. Friend to the Royal Society's report on "Biotechnology and Education" in 1981, which stated that there was little cause for concern about the availability of places, but considerable cause for concern about getting enough good applicants.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: If the Minister accepts the value of bio-engineering, why does he support cuts in the training of bioengineers? Is he aware that rehabilitation for the elderly and disabled is very important, yet he has cut back such training at Aston, Salford and Bradford?
    Mr. Shelton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman also considers the position in polytechnics, which also undertake such training. I repeat that there is no shortage of training and education places, but we want more good applicants to apply to be educated and trained.
    Mr. Whitehead: Why are people being trained as bio-engineering technicians when such technician posts are being frozen or phased out in universities that are acknowledged to be at the forefront of research in this sphere? What incentive is there for them when the Government's policy is to phase out the posts to which they might aspire?
    Mr. Shelton: There is competition from industry, which is also looking for technicians to train. That is why insufficient people are coming forward to fill the available places in the colleges and universities.

    Education Standards (Cockcroft Report)
    Mr. Iain Millsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in implementing those recommendations of the Cockcroft report for which he is responsible.
    Sir Keith Joseph: The Department will be taking early action on the recommendation that a study should be
    142
    commissioned into ways of providing evidence of achievement for lower-attaining pupils, perhaps by means of graduated tests. We are considering the other recommendations directed to us.
    Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for the reply, which is overdue as it was the subject of a question for written answer in March. Will my right hon. Friend further consider the need to implement the proposals for better arithemitical standards for younger people in the primary schools? I am sure that he is aware that higher standards have been called for by engineering employers in Coventry, Birmingham and, indeed, throughout the nation.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. The recommendations of the Cockcroft committee are all of great value and we consider the report to be singularly constructive. I am hoping to consider what can be done in the near future about the other recommendations directed to us. Rather to the surprise of many people, the Cockcroft committee found, after unprecedented research, that on the whole employers are not too disatisfied with mathematical skills.
    Mr. McNally: Is it not a fact that Cockcroft said that in service training was the key to the success of his recommendations? Is the Secretary of State willing to put his weight behind an expansion of in-service training in mathematics?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The Cockcroft report did emphasise in-service training. The decision on the amount of resources to devote to in-service training is for local education authorities; my weight is behind an increase in such training.
    Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is up to the local education authorities to remind mathematics teachers of the need to attend these excellent in-service training courses so that standards are constantly improved?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes. I commend the action of the members of the Cockcroft committee in taking their recommendations and their analysis widely round the country.

    Open University (Retraining Courses)
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what subjects will be covered under the proposed Open University PICKUP scheme of special courses for the retraining of people in mid-career.
    Mr. William Shelton: The Department has asked the Open University to earmark £1 million of its 1982 recurrent funds for the development of suitable courses for PICKUP—the new professional industrial and commercial updating initiative. The details are currently being worked out, according to need and likely demand.
    Mr. Durant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us welcome that innovation? Is he further aware that, whatever the state of the economy, many people will have to change their careers many times in future? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Open University to bring in new technologies—microcircuitry, and so on—because they are important to the country's future?
    Mr. Shelton: I welcome my hon. Friend's support. He is right. It is unrealistic to expect education to last someone for 50 years of working life with current technological change. I shall convey his views to the Open University.
    Mr. Greenway: My hen. Friend will know that I am a member of the council of the Open University. Will my hon. Friend underline the excellence of that university in this sphere, as in so many others.
    Mr. Shelton: I do so with great pleasure.

    Teachers (Unemployment)
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the present number of qualified teachers registered as unemployed.
    Dr. Boyson: The total number of people in England registered with the Department of Employment as unemployed and seeking work as teachers in schools in March 1982 was 15,893.
    Mr. Marks: When there was a shortage of teachers the Ministry organised a quota system to stop the best authorities from getting more than their fair share. In view of the obvious disquiet in the Minister's Department about the cuts made by some authorities, will he use his powers to enforce proper staffing ratios on the worst authorities?
    Dr. Boyson: I am not convinced that local authorities will welcome the statement made by the hon. Member. Local authorities, whether Labour or Conservative controlled, welcome their freedom to run local schools in their own way. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier. The pupil-teacher ratio this year is the lowest that we have ever had.
    Mr. Marks: On average.
    Dr. Boyson: Yes, on average, but that is what these figures usually are. Local authorities are not being penalised and there would have been more unemployment had we increased the pupil-teacher ratio.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that not all teachers who have qualified are necessarily making the best contribution to society by continuing in teaching? Does he further agree that falling rolls give us the opportunity to weed out weak teachers?
    Dr. Boyson: My right hon. Friend and I have said that now that we have a surplus of teachers, authorities can be much more selective in recruitment. The Economist said last week:
    "Britain's teaching stock is burdened by a generation of underachievers who rode into the schools in the flood-tide of the great expansion of the 1960s."
    It is up to local authorities when making appointments to make sure that the teachers are of high quality.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since we have this vast number of unemployed trained teachers, and in the wake of the welcome, but reluctantly made, statement of the Secretary of State for Employment yesterday on the youth training scheme, is the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State consulting the Department of Employment or the Manpower Services Commission to ensure that the educational content of the youth training scheme is enriched? Will the Minister ensure that jobs are given to these skilled teachers in the training and education of the youngsters who will now be provided for more adequately, thanks to the pressure of the trade unions?
    Dr. Boyson: There is continued discussion between the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Employment, and others, regarding the 16 to 18-year-olds and on retraining. The subject of teacher surplus has often occurred, because it is a numbers game. Teachers were recruited irrespective of their subject. We must ensure in the future that teachers' subjects are matched to the requirement of the schools.

    International Youth Exchanges
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions have been held by his Department concerning the rationalisation of the administration of international youth exchanges; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Shelton: The Department is in close touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this. I understand that consideration is being given to commissioning an independent study of the bodies concerned. A final decision will be taken very shortly.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that although some advantage may be gained from adminis-trative rationalisation, that something would most certainly be lost if organisations such as the Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council were wholly swallowed up? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have a separate organisation to promote Commonwealth youth exchange, just as it is important that there should be a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association as distinct from the IPU.
    Mr. Shelton: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the Commonwealth Youth Exchange Council. He was for a while chairman of that organisation. It has done valuable work, and I am aware of its importance. I cannot believe that rationalisation will end its independence.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the level of student grants for the coming year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William Waldegrave): I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the academic year 1983–84. My right hon. Friend would normally expect to announce the level of student grants around the turn of the year.
    Mr. Whitehead: Did the Minister have the opportunity to meet the deputation from the National Union of Students that lobbied the House and met many of his hon. Friends last month? Has he had an opportunity to study its contention that students are now much worse off and are experiencing serious financial hardship because of the reduction in their grants, the phasing out of many discretionary awards and the increase in hall charges? Will the Minister give his Department's calculation of the extent to which, under the 1982–83 figures, students will be worse off in real terms? What can be done to rectify that in the following year?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We are in no doubt that the grant settlement for 1982–83 puts students under pressure. The

    145
    rate of award for London students is rather better, compared with the past, than for other students, but we are well aware of the pressures.
    Mr. David Steel: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, for example, it has been necessary for the University of Edinburgh to increase its accommodation charges by 10 per cent., whereas the student grant is to be increased by only 4 per cent? To what extent will that leeway be made up in the following year?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot give any commitments for future years. Many universities have managed to keep their increases in hall fees to within 4 per cent. I know that some, like Edinburgh, have had to go higher.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is there any reason why the Department cannot announce in advance the principles on which it will base the increase in student grants each year?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The fundamental principle is how much money is available.

    Secondary Education (Liverpool)
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is satisfied with the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in Liverpool which has been submitted to him.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I have before me proposals for the reorganisation of Roman Catholic secondary education in the city of Liverpool and for the closure of Fairfield, Lawrence and Edge Hill county secondary schools. I am considering them carefully in the light of all relevant factors and will announce my decisions as quickly as I can.
    Mr. Parry: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the grave concern over the possible closure of the St. Martin's Roman Catholic secondary school in the Toxteth area and also of the grave and massive concern over the proposed closure of the Croxteth comprehensive school. Will he look carefully at both those cases before he makes a final decision?
    Sir Keith Joseph: In all cases my colleagues and I look carefully at the reasons for the proposals and at the objections, as well as the education and social conditions. I undertake that that will be done in future, as it has been done in the past. As to Croxteth, I have already told the House that today I have written to a councillor concerned, and I am releasing the letter to Members of Parliament in the area and to the press.
    Mr. Alton: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that all three single-sex schools in Edge Hill constituency will close if the present proposals go through? It is particularly important that a single-sex alternative is available somewhere in the inner city, particularly in view of the needs of the Asian community, which particularly likes its young girls to attend single-sex schools.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, and I am also aware that, along with one of our honourable colleagues, the hon. Gentleman led a deputation to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

    School Curriculum (Politics)
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if any consideration has been given to including the study of politics within the framework for the school curriculum; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Boyson: Political facts and values cannot and should not be excluded from parts of the school curriculum, such as history, geography or indeed English literature. But in this area of the curriculum, as in all others, what is offered must be education, not indoctrination.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, indicating that it is inevitable that there will be political education in schools. Does he agree that the teaching profession has the integrity to achieve a balance in this area on most occasions? However, is he aware of a new subject that is creeping in under the guise of political education called "peace studies", which is causing immense concern to parents because in some areas it is unadulterated unilateralism and pacifism? Will he do something about it?
    Dr. Boyson: I share my hon. Friend's belief that the vast majority of teachers are professionals who go into the classroom to teach as fairly as possible without any doctrine. At the same time, I share his concern about the growth of peace—or, rather, appeasement—studies, because that is basically what they are. Purely by accident I have with me the syllabus from Avon, which suggests that "violent systems" include:
    "capitalism, Communism, Fascism, imperialism, totalitarian-ism, institutional injustice".
    There is no mention of Socialism and the problems that that causes, or even of nationalism.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Notwithstanding the Minister's reply, does he not agree that as young people are able to vote, many of them before they leave school, it is high time that we had a properly structured course in politics? I am not talking about party political indoctrination. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that young people need to know how the country is governed, how the Government works, what Parliament's responsibilities are and what their duties as citizens are?
    Dr. Boyson: The hon. Lady obviously feels strongly about this matter. I always thought that in the teaching of history one indicated the growth of democracy in Britain, both nationally and locally. That was part of the history syllabus that was taught in schools with which I was connected. Similarly, there are subjects, such as British constitution and economics. However, there should not be a separate subject concerned simply with advocating unilateral disarmament in Britain.
    Mr. Beith: Is it not the case that for years teachers have, with various subjects, sought to give children an understanding of how our political system works? Should we not in a democracy be at least as concerned as authoritarian countries to pass on the values upon which our system depends?
    Dr. Boyson: It was because of the Government's belief in a genuine participatory democracy that we passed the Education Act 1980, which gave parents a choice of schools. That is what real participation means. The Act also introduced an appeals system. I welcome the fact that I have the hon. Gentleman's support in this regard.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is there not a danger of the development of a wholly bizarre approach to political education, including such things as peace studies, unless there is a proper, thoughtful approach to political education with the help of such bodies as the Hansard Society?
    Dr. Boyson: I welcome my hon. Friend's sound and fair comments. I again quote from the Avon syllabus, which in the section headed "Bookstalls and relevant literature" states:
    "Books, leaflets, posters and any available teaching materials related to the field of peace education will be on sale. In addition, it is hoped to stock appropriate badges, car stickers, postcards, envelope labels and the like".
    That would make schools look like a Labour Party rally in Trafalgar Square on a wet Sunday afternoon.
    Mr. Kinnock: When the hon. Gentleman taught the history of democracy in Britain I hope that he was vigilant in his accuracy and described it as a series of historic defeats for Toryism. If the hon. Gentleman has so much confidence in the teaching profession, why does he incessantly go up and down the country seeking to convey the impression that there is a large number of irresponsible teachers seeking to indoctrinate our children—a practice which we would strongly deplore? Why does the hon. Gentleman seem to give the impression that he thinks politics, like sex, is best learnt on street corners?
    Dr. Boyson: I take only one of the variety of points raised by the hon. Gentleman—the teaching profession. Earlier, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), I said that the vast majority of teachers were professionals. This question has been raised not just by the members of the Conservative Party but by others, because of parental and teacher concern about what is going on in many of our schools, so that we do not have indoctrination but rather the proper teaching of democracy, which both the hon. Gentleman and I want.

    Student Unions
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he is monitoring the new arrangements for the financing of student unions.
    Mr. Waldegrave: After the new arrangements have been in force for some time my right hon. Friend will, of course, wish to consider whether they have worked sensibly.
    Mr. Brown: I acknowledge the progress that has been made by my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science. Does he not accept that many students object violently to the fact that vast sums of money are paid on their behalf by the ratepayers, over which they have absolutely no control? Following the question by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), does my hon. Friend not accept that students would be much better off if they were allowed to spend the money that is now spent for them by irresponsible student unions?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend may not be aware that student union subscriptions have been abolished and that the ratepayer is no longer directly involved. The funds are part and parcel of the recurrent funds of the institutions concerned. It is up to the responsible students involved,
    148
    who are in the majority, to see that the funds entrusted to student unions are properly spent. If they are not, there is legal recourse.

    University Grants Committee
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next expects to meet the University Grants Committee to discuss the financing of universities.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I last met the University Grants Committee on 29 April. I have at present no plans for a further meeting, but have frequent meetings with the committee's chairman.
    Mr. Canavan: Although we are grateful for small mercies in that the UGC recently allocated an additional 40 student places to Stirling university, will the Secretary of State tell the UGC, before it visits Stirling in October, that it can have an additional allocation of Government grant specifically to help universities, such as Stirling, that are most critically threatened? If the Government can find £1,000 million to send a task force to the Falkland Islands, why cannot they spend that amount on a task force to educate the thousands of young people who are queuing up for university places?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman deliberately misunderstands the function of the UGC. It is not for Ministers to tell the UGC how to allocate the taxpayers' money given to it. It is for the UGC precisely to distribute the funds between the universities and departments, without political interference.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman or representatives of the University Grants Committee, will he discuss the needs of industry and indicate to them that it is probably better to maintain schools and courses in textile technology, serving the second largest employer in this country, than to have at universities and other institutes of higher education dozens of lecturers who are specialists in peace studies?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I hope my hon. Friend is aware that there is also polytechnic provision, which is quite large in this area, to be taken into account. I am sure that the chairman of the UGC and his colleagues will read my hon. Friend's observations.
    Mr. Whitehead: When the Secretary of State gets around to seeing the University Grants Committee, will he take with him in his back pocket the Merrison and Rothschild reports? The Merrison report says that university research has been seriously impaired by cuts in Government spending while the Rothschild report, in language more elegant than I can muster, says that the Government's witch hunt against the social sciences is nonsense. Will the right hon. Gentleman believe his own reports when he looks again at Government spending on universities?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I need no persuasion to take the dual funding of science in universities extremely seriously, as, I know, do the research councils and the UGC.

    Pupils (Job Guidance)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will sponsor a scheme in

    149
    schools to give additional guidance to pupils in their final year of secondary education in preparation for job-seeking and careers.
    Mr. William Shelton: The Government recognise and have already drawn to the attention of schools in a number of ways the need for more and better careers guidance. However, this must be a matter for local education authorities and I would urge them to give it the importance that it deserves.
    Mr. Dykes: With the reinforcement and expansion of the youth training scheme announced yesterday, is it not essential to make sure that the balance is right by providing for careers and training advisers and masters in all secondary schools? Will my hon. Friend look into this matter carefully?
    Mr. Shelton: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. I can reassure him by saying that the MSC has already increased funding for careers officers. Although the careers teacher service is a matter, as I have said, for local education authorities, we made it a central theme in our school curriculum document published last year.
    Mr. Cryer: Is it not a hollow mockery to talk about careers guidance for schoolchildren when almost a quarter of a million of them are facing the dole queue? The real cause is the savage economic policy of the Government. When will the Government abandon their plethora of tinsel policies for job creation and actually try to encourage people to stay on at school by providing an educational maintenance allowance such as has been pressed on them for a number of years?
    Mr. Shelton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. He is suggesting, if I understand him rightly, that youngsters should not be educated and guided at this time because there might not be a job waiting for them. That is nonsense. When the upturn comes, which will happen shortly, it is always in the skill areas that there are bottlenecks.
    Mr. Thornton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just in the final year of secondary education but in earlier years that pupils need guidance? Should not every encouragement be given to schools to start encouraging the expansion of careers guidance from 12-plus onwards?
    Mr. Shelton: My hon. Friend is right. I had a meeting with the National Association of Careers and Guidance Teachers the other day, when the same point was made. I think it is generally agreed that we are talking about the fourth and fifth years onwards.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister endeavour to persuade his colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Security to review their recent mean-minded decision that young people going on pre-vocational courses starting in September will be deprived of supplementary benefit for three months, and so enable them to go on those courses and honour the sort of undertakings that he talks about?
    Mr. Shelton: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the recent revision in the 21-hours rule, I would say that this is generally welcomed. If he is referring to the vocational courses whereby one cannot get supplementary benefit for three months, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

    Overseas Students
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has studied the proposals of the Overseas Students Trust about future policy on overseas students, a copy of which has been sent to him.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister accept the assertion in the report that the line between home and overseas students is drawn in the wrong place, particularly in the light of the fact that students from British dependencies, including the Falkland Islands, must pay many times more than students from overseas dependencies of other countries in Europe?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome the report as a practical and hard-headed document with a number of good ideas in it. Ministers are now looking at it. They will have to look, in particular, at the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. There are large expenditure implications involved with all dependent territories.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of overseas student places must be rationed by price or by number? Are the Government willing to examine the possibility of some flexibility in moving the boundaries of both?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Ministers are looking at all the subject matter covered by the Overseas Students Trust report. I do not think that we want to experiment with quotas as the Labour Government did. This was shown to be inequitable and impractical.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. Later this afternoon I shall depart for New York to attend the United Nations second special session on disarmament.
    Mr. Lawrence: Since I have had the good fortune to draw Question No. 1 today, may I take this happy opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend if she will convey to Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince and Princess of Wales our feeling of joy and the warm congratulations of the whole House on the birth of the heir apparent?
    Mr. William Hamilton: No.
    Mr. Cryer: You grovelling sycophant.
    The Prime Minister: With great pleasure. I believe that the whole nation shares in the happiness of the Prince and Princess of Wales, the happiness of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and also of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. I understand that we shall have an opportunity to say so, possibly on Thursday.
    Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister, in view of the serious fighting between Syria and Israel that is reported today, seek the opportunity when she sees President

    151
    Reagan to make the offer that Britain will play a part in any United Nations peacekeeping role in the Lebanon, particularly if the United States could also be persuaded to play a part?
    The Prime Minister: I shall hope and expect to discuss this subject with the President when I see him tomorrow. I do not think, at the moment, that I could make the offer that Britain would play a part in a peacekeeping role in the Lebanon. We are already playing a part in the multinational force in Sinai. It would be unwise to make further promises in view of our already extended commitment.
    Mr. Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when this country has regained its pride and confidence, it is sad that certain unions are calling out their members on crippling strikes that can only undermine the national recovery?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have never supported any strikes and I hope that even at this late hour —
    Mr. Lofthouse: Poland?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I do not believe that people who go on strike in this country have a legitimate cause. Throughout the period of the Labour Government and this one, I have never supported any strikes in this country. I hope that, even at this late hour, those who are contemplating going on strike will realise that those they are harming are their fellow citizens.
    Mr. Foot: May I join in offering the good wishes which the right hon. Lady offered on behalf, I am sure, of the whole House to the Royal Family on the news yesterday? I am glad that the House will have the opportunity to discuss the matter.
    May I ask the right hon. Lady whether she has had a chance to study the extremely serious unemployment figures that are published today? They are the most serious domestic news for the nation. Is it not a fact that these seasonally adjusted figures show that we are back to the worst trend of last year— [Interruption.] No, it is not only school leavers. It is the seasonally adjusted figure. Can the right hon. Lady tell us what is the prospect for the future that she sees with these figures?
    The Prime Minister: The unemployment figures are unwelcome. We have a number of school leavers in this month's figures. If the right hon. Gentleman studies the international figures on a quarterly basis he will see that a number of countries in Europe, quarter by quarter, also experienced an unusually greater increase in unemploy-ment. We believe that in this country this was probably due to the increase in interest rates that occurred, partly because of the exchange rate, at the end of last autumn. The forward indicators are now giving hope for better things and for a continuing of economic recovery.
    Mr. Foot: Does not the right hon. Lady think that part of the reason for these extremely serious unemployment figures, and the increase, is the fall in industrial production and the fall in house building and in other forms of activity? I know that the right hon. Lady always refuses to make prophecies on this matter, but can she tell us on what assumptions the Government are acting in deciding how long unemployment will continue at this rate?
    The Prime Minister: Any assumptions that we have made have already been published, not so much as assumptions, but as working practices for those who have to calculate any benefits that are due. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures he will find that economic activity is above the levels of last spring. Industrial and manufacturing output is up 2 per cent. from spring 1981 and the prospect is for resumed and continued recovery. This is supported by almost all independent assessment. The cyclical indicators have, for a while, suggested—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked me, and I naturally expect to do him the courtesy of answering his question. The cyclical indicators have for a while suggested that there would be a plateau in the first half of 1982. They have also implied a subsequent continuation in the recovery.

    Disarmament
    Mr. Rentonasked the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the United Nations special session on disarmament.
    The Prime Minister: A number of Heads of Governments and Foreign Ministers have already addressed the special session. Because of developments in the Falklands, I postponed my own address and shall now be speaking tomorrow. I shall reaffirm the importance that we in Britain attach to maintaining international security and our determination to press ahead with the search for realistic, balanced and verifiable arms control agreements.
    Mr. Renton: The House will wish my right hon. Friend well on her important visit. Does she agree that many thousands of Britons who would never accept unilateral disarmament would dearly love to see Britain taking an initiative in suggesting a practical programme for multilateral disarmament that is, as my right hon. Friend has just said, verifiable and has agreed dates for implementation? Will the Prime Minister, with her usual courage, make that message plain at the United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: I shall endeavour to do so, and also to point out that the purpose of disarmament is not to undermine security but to enable it to take place at a lower cost to all of the nations that at the moment have considerable armouries. I agree with my hon. Friend that unilateral disarmament would open one up to attack from strong nations. Therefore, we must have multilateral disarmament, which must be verifiable.
    I confess that I am a little suspicious about timetables. The Vienna talks on mutual and balanced force reductions have already taken nine years, but there are fresh proposals now being made in those talks. I hope that that will give them an impetus towards success, which they have so far lacked.
    Mr. David Steel: While welcoming the Prime Minister's decision to address this important conference, may I ask her whether she will have anything to say on conventional disarmament as well as nuclear disarma-ment? Is she aware that yesterday's opening of the defence equipment exhibition at Aldershot should remind us that among our previous good customers there was Argentina?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, conventional disarmament is every bit as important as nuclear disarmament, particularly in view of the imbalance of conventional weapons across the NATO line, which is in favour of the

    153
    Warsaw Pact. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have pursued a policy, as have successive Governments, of selling arms to countries abroad, but each order is viewed on its merits. The right hon. Gentleman could say that we did not always make the right decisions. However, if we pulled out of selling armaments, nations would go to the Soviet Union for their arms.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Following that question, is it right for the Prime Minister in the same week to address the disarmament conference and to invite to this exhibition and sale of our latest and most sophisticated weapons representatives of nearly every Fascist dictatorship in Latin America, the Middle East and the Far East? Is not that hypocrisy?
    The Prime Minister: No. Weakness has been the cause of as many wars as military strength. If one looks at history, one sees that arms races have not necessarily led to wars—
    Mr. Allaun: Yes, always.
    The Prime Minister: Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman is wrong historically. What tends to lead to war is rapid rearmament on the part of a tyrant and unilateral disarmament on the part of a victim.
    Mr. Churchill: Can my right hon. Friend reaffirm Britain's, and her, firm commitment to the concept of multilateral disarmament, and will she further make it clear that unilateral disarmament represents the principal threat to achieving a negotiated multilateral settlement, as well as potentially paving the way to war?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Our object is to secure peace with freedom and justice. Unilateral disarmament would mean that we were not prepared to defend freedom and justice. Multilateral disarmament means that we are prepared to secure them and that we hope, through verifiable measures, to secure them at less cost than at present.
    Mr. Foot: Does the appalling answer that the right hon. Lady gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) mean that she does not mind how many deadly weapons she sells to the Galtieris of the future?
    The Prime Minister: No, and that is a ridiculous question from a right hon. Gentleman who was a member of the Government who signed the contracts to sell the destroyers to Argentina.
    Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Lady says that it is a ridiculous question to ask how many arms she sells to the Galtieris, will she publish the details of how many other Fascist countries she is selling arms to?
    The Prime Minister: Why will the right hon. Gentleman not plead guilty? It was his Government who signed the contracts to sell the destroyers to Argentina, those very destroyers that have been used against us. Why will he not plead guilty when he knows that his Government pursued exactly the same policy as ours? We look at each order on its merits.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady look up the facts before she tries to tell such tales to the country? We stopped the sale of arms to El Salvador, to Chile, to South Africa and to Argentina. The right hon. Lady's Government have started the sale of arms to all those countries. When will she stop this appalling traffic, in arms?
    The Prime Minister: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that it was a Labour Government who signed the contracts for the sale of those destroyers? Does he?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Warren: Will my right hon. Friend further pursue this point in any inquiry made into the Falklands operation and ensure that evidence is obtained of the political decisions taken by the Labour Government which affected the capability of our defence forces in the Falklands operation?
    The Prime Minister: I have already written to the Leader of the Opposition and to the leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic Parties—
    Mr. Foulkes: Cover-up.
    Mr. Skinner: Whitewash.
    The Prime Minister: —about possible terms of reference for an inquiry. May I make it perfectly clear that I think that the evidence running up to the invasion of the Falklands must be judged against the decisions previously taken both on defence and on previous assessments of intelligence. I think that we owe it—
    Mr. Winnick: Whitewash.
    The Prime Minister: —to those Ministers who have resigned and to those who have served the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence to have a thorough inquiry, and I am quite certain that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor hon. Gentlemen would wish to hide anything.

Foreign Ministers Meeting (Luxembourg)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the visit which I paid to Luxembourg on 20 and 21 June, during which I attended a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Ten and the first part of the Foreign Affairs Council, which continues today, and on which there will be a report to the House.
At my request there was, first, a discussion of the Community's decision-making procedures. I left our partners in no doubt about the British Government's position that where a member State considers that very important interests are at stake discussions must be continued until unanimous agreement is reached, and that Community business should continue to be governed by this principle, in accordance with the Luxembourg compromise. This position was supported unreservedly by two member States and by two others with minor qualifications.
The position is, therefore, that five member States support the principle that decisions must be deferred where a member State considers that its major national interests are at stake. It was not to be expected that the five members which declined to endorse this principle in 1966 would do so now, but they made it clear that they were not seeking to reopen the Luxembourg compromise. The Community's practice since 1966 was based on an agreement to disagree, and this remains the position.
In view of what happened at the Agriculture Council on 18 May, I would obviously have preferred a clear-cut result. Although there is now a better understanding in the Community of our position and of the principles involved, we may have to return to the subject. The crucial point is what will happen in practice when our very important national interests are at stake. We shall continue to defend them on the basis we have made clear to our partners.
In addition to the discussion on majority voting, we also had a brief discussion on the Genscher-Colombo proposals. No conclusions were reached, but it was agreed that work on the proposals would continue.
The Foreign Ministers agreed that the arms embargoes on Argentina, imposed nationally by member States, would remain in force for the time being. They decided that the European Community's ban on Argentine imports should be lifted as from 22 June in the expectation that there would be no further acts of force in the South Atlantic. They also agreed that, should this not be the case, a new situation would arise to which the Ten would be obliged to react immediately. Normal commercial relations between Argentina and the member States of the European Community depend, therefore, on a lasting cessation of hostilities in the south Atlantic.
Foreign Ministers also discussed the increasingly serious situation in the Lebanon. They expressed their determination to continue humanitarian aid, both nationally and in the Community framework. The Community decided not to proceed at this stage with the signature of the second Financial Protocol with Israel.
On 21 June, I had a meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister. Sr. Perez-Llorca informed me that the Spanish
156
Government wished to postpone the arrangements by which the Lisbon statement of 10 April 1980 would have been implemented on 25 June 1982 with a meeting between us in Portugal and the opening that day of the Gibraltar border.
Her Majesty's Government were fully prepared to go ahead, and I much regret this further postponement. Nevertheless, I agreed with the Spanish Foreign Minister that we were both determined to keep alive the process envisaged in the Lisbon agreement; that we would remain in touch on the matter personally and through diplomatic channels; and that the date for a new meeting would be fixed in due course. The governor of Gibraltar will be returning to London for consultations tomorrow, and I hope to have talks with Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Isola in the near future.
Mr. Eric S. Hefter: Is it not clear that the Foreign Secretary has come back from Luxembourg with little to offer the country, and that his statement today cannot satisfy anyone? Is he aware that his understanding concerning the Luxembourg compromise veto offers no real guarantees, and that we cannot guarantee that in future our EEC partners will not carry out majority voting as they did on 18 May? All that we have is a continuation of the agreement to disagree, instead of the clear commitment to the Luxembourg compromise that we asked for.
On sanctions against Argentina, have not our EEC partners acted—in my view—with indecent haste? Is it not clear that the lifting of the sanctions will make a final ceasefire and settlement more difficult? Also, what guarantees are there that no more Exocets, Mirages or other weapons will find their way to Argentina, especially as, I understand, the final statement agreed said nothing about arms sales? In fact, the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that the ban will continue for the time being. What does that mean in practice?
On the Lebanon, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the provisions of United Nations resolution 512 are being carried out? What truth is there in the allegation that medical and other supplies for United Nations agencies are not being allowed through by the Israelis?
On Gibraltar, does this make any difference whatever to the Government's attitude to Spain joining the EEC partnership? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clarify that matter.
I am sure that the whole House is glad—certainly the official Opposition are—that the Genscher-Colombo so-called European Act got nowhere, and that it has been put on ice. May we have an assurance that it will remain on ice, because I did not like the reference suggesting that it would be opened again?
Lastly, is it not clear that our partners in the EEC are not to be completely relied upon? Can we, therefore, be assured that when the Prime Minister meets the Heads of State of the EEC later this month she will press for a real commitment on the Luxembourg compromise that it should be in the form of a written agreement, and that if Britain's interests are not secured the Government will stop merely using words and will proceed to positive action?
Mr. Pym: As I made clear in my statement, obviously I would have preferred a clear-cut outcome. However, that is not to be had at the moment. In 1966, five of the partners

157
did not want to go along with the arrangement of protecting important national interests. France was in that position at that time. The position today, after the talks that I had this weekend, is that five countries support that view. That gives one ground for hope and expectation that the member States will continue to take their decisions as they did up to 18 May. There cannot be any certainty about that, and I accept that, but, as I said in my statement, if it is necessary we shall have to return to the matter. Our position has been made quite clear, and we shall protect our national interests on the basis that I made quite clear.
It will be some time before agreement on the Genscher-Colombo proposals is achieved, if, indeed, it is. That remains an open question.
There was a long discussion about sanctions against Argentina. Two views were argued. First, it was argued that sanctions should remain. The alternative, which was eventually agreed, was that sanctions should be lifted subject to the cessation of hostilities continuing. Some member countries believed that such a measure would deter Argentina from taking any military action. That is a legitimate point of view. The decision to react immediately if force was used again by Argentina is acceptable and right.
I regret that progress cannot be made on the question of Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar would have liked the frontier to be opened and the whole Lisbon process to have been started. As that would be almost certain to end in failure, and in view of the request made by the Spanish Government, it was right not to go ahead.
Spain is still keen to join the European Community. It was present in Luxembourg for that purpose. The Foreign Minister realises that if Spain were to join it would be inconceivable that the frontier should remain closed. I am pretty confident that the frontier will be opened before Spain joins. I hope that we can work towards the attainment of that objective.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In order to be fair to those hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate on the Middle East, questions on this matter will not go beyond 4 o'clock.
Mr. J. Grimond: Am I right in thinking that the Community will automatically reimpose sanctions on Argentina if hostilities continue? If that is so, is that not a perfectly satisfactory outcome of the discussions?
Was anything more said about Lebanon? Was the American request that Israel should withdraw from Lebanon discussed? If so, was it supported? Were there any suggestions as to what should happen in the Lebanon, which has clearly been reduced to an appalling state by the war? What help can Europe give to that country?
Mr. Pym: The Ten considered whether sanctions should be automatically reimposed. It was decided to meet immediately when and if force was used again by Argentina in the South Atlantic to consider what to do, with the clear and positive intention to take action.
We spent a long time discussing circumstances in the Middle East. We discussed the whole matter of withdrawal and the future of the Palestinians. We shall have a debate later this evening on that important topic. A lot of time was spent on the matter and withdrawal was urged.
On 9 June the Ten made a strong statement about the war. On 14 June a message was sent to Israel asking it to
158
clarify its position. The President of the Community made that public yesterday. We have not yet had a satisfactory reply to those questions. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that more time was spent on that subject than on any other during the weekend.
Mr. Julian Amery: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of repeating that there can be no question of any change in the status of Gibraltar without the full agreement of its people.
Will my right hon. Friend also give an assurance that now that Spain is a member of NATO there can be no question of Spanish ships, aircraft or men using Gibraltar's NATO facilities until the blockade has been lifted?
Mr. Pym: I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. The Lisbon agreement states:
"For its part the British Government will fully maintain its commitment to honour the freely and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution."
I should not like to give a definitive answer to my right hon. Friend's second question. The effect of the postponement on NATO will be minimal. However, I am well aware of my right hon. Friend's points.
Mr. David Stoddart: In the light of recent happenings, has it not yet been borne in on the Foreign Secretary and the Euro-maniacs in the Foreign Office that the EEC is based not on partnership, but on self-interest, taking advantage of other countries in difficulties and gutless expediency? Is this not the time for the Foreign Secretary and the Government to start withdrawing from the institutions of the EEC and to rebuild bridges with the Commonwealth?
Mr. Pym: No, Sir.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speed with which he has asked the governor of Gibraltar to come to Britain for discussions.
May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that when Sir Joshua Hassan and his colleagues come to Britain tomorrow he will arrange for them to see the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss the closure of the Gibraltar dockyard, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain additional aid for the serious economic problems that will now arise as a result of the border's failure to reopen on 25 June?
Mr. Pym: I look forward to seeing Sir Joshua Hassan and his colleagues myself and I shall convey my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. John Roper: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we share his disappointment about the postponement of the meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister and the continued closure of the frontier? We were particularly disappointed that his statement referred to the meeting being arranged "in due course". That suggests that it may be some time before it is possible to arrange such a meeting. Is it not important that it should be arranged at an early date as the matter is important not only for NATO but for Spanish entry into the European Community?
Mr. Pym: It is important that the meeting should be arranged at a propitious date when progress can be made.

159
It was decided yesterday that to name a day now would be difficult. The wise course would be to wait until the circumstances seem more propitious and then to come to a conclusion. As I said in my statement, we shall keep in close touch with each other.
Mr. Ron Leighton: As the Foreign Secretary has failed to obtain a clear agreement on the national veto, does he accept that the assurances given in the Government's statement issued at the time of the referendum that there should be a national veto and that no decision or tax could be imposed without the agreement of the British Minister have now been abrogated?
Mr. Pym: As I have told the House before, it was an agreement to disagree. A clear-cut commitment cannot be obtained at the moment. However, there certainly is a strong desire to continue with the procedures and practices that were used until 18 May when an event took place that some members of the Community may regret. We must see what progress can be made and how to continue from here. If necessary, I shall return to this matter and raise the subject again with our partners.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems associated with the Luxembourg compromise is that what national interest would justify a veto has not been clearly defined?
Does he also agree that the veto has been used on occasions in circumstances which clearly do not constitute a serious national interest? What does he propose to do about it?
Mr. Pym: It has always been up to each member State to judge whether its important national interest is at stake. It would be extremely difficult to try to define the circumstances in which that might apply. It would be a difficult road to take, and I do not recommend it. Each country should be left to decide for itself.
Will my hon. Friend remind me of his second question?
Mr. Hogg: Has the veto been used on occasions which do not constitute a serious national interest?
Mr. Pym: There have been controversies on a number of occasions about the use of the Luxembourg compromise. We have never challenged its use by anyone because we respect the right of other member States to claim that their important national interests are at stake. Certainly we expected that our claim would be respected, although it was not on 18 May. There has been some controversy, but I hope that, after the experience of last month and the long discussions that we had this weekend, we shall now be able to proceed on the basis that operated before and which worked satisfactorily whatever its demerits on paper.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is it not clear that since 18 May we have had one rebuff after another and the continuous defeat of vital British interests in our relationship with our Community partners?
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how we can welcome a new member of NATO only to have a frontier closed against it? How shall we take into and involve in NATO Spanish armed forces when the frontier with Gibraltar is closed and military secrets are supposedly to be shared?
Mr. Pym: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about events since 18 May.
NATO will be strengthened by Spain and it is entirely right to welcome that country to it. The hon. Gentleman knows the history to the closure of the frontier and also knows of the desire to reopen it. In addition, he knows the steps that the Government have taken to achieve that. Perhaps he will be wise enough to understand the circumstances immediately applying that make it extremely difficult for the Spaniards to proceed. I am confident that the frontier will be opened in due course and I look forward to that day just as much as he does.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In my right hon. Friend's discussions on the Genscher-Colombo proposals about European union, was there any mention of the evolution of European security policy? My right hon. Friend will be aware that at the General Assembly of the Western European Union the French Foreign Secretary, M. Cheysson, last week reaffirmed his Government's view that Western European Union was the appropriate body for concerting European security policy.
Mr. Pym: Not much progress was made in discussing the plan and it will be proceeded with later.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: What pressures did the right hon. Gentleman and his European colleagues consider could be applied to Israel to make it abandon its inhumane obstructionism over the availability of international medical and relief supplies which could alleviate the desperate need in Southern Lebanon? When does the EEC intend to consider imposing a sanction against Israel because of its genocidal policies in the Lebanon—
Mr. Neville Sandelson: Do not talk rubbish.
Mr. Faulds: —by the introduction of the abrogation of its financial and trade agreements with Israel?
Mr. Sandelson: Stop play acting.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What comment can be made about some silly loon in the House who on such a serious issue, makes that sort of lunatic, juvenile comment?
Mr. Sandelson: The hon. Gentleman is not a serious person.
Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman never had a principle to abandon.
Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been more than one juvenile exhibition this afternoon.
Mr. Pym: Perhaps I should answer the question. Humanitarian aid is being brought to bear both nationally and on a collective Community basis. We have applied direct pressure to Israel. Pressure has been applied both individually and collectively, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). In addition, we have been in close touch with the United States of America, because its influence is infinitely greater than that of any other country. Many countries, including some member States of the Community, have been in touch with the United States of America.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had it not been for the fact that both sides

161
of the House expected the Gibraltar blockade to be terminated this year, it would have been very difficult, to say the least, for Spain's entry into NATO to have been ratified? Since uncertainty has proved over and over again to be the worst enemy of foreign policy, will my right hon. Friend reiterate that it is not only politically inconceivable but legally impossible for a country to join the EEC when it has closed frontiers with another member State?
Mr. Pym: I have publicly said and believe it to be the case that it is inconceivable that a country could join the Community with a frontier with another member State closed. However, Spain's membership of NATO will undoubtedly strengthen the collective defence of the West, and that is one of our major interests.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has it been brought to the right hon. Gentleman's attention that in response yesterday to question No. 16 the Minister for Trade promised that the Government would look at the whole system of end user certificates? Does he realise that, whatever he may have said about arms embargoes in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), they are a sham if the system of end user certificates is not carried out to the letter? Do his colleagues, particularly his French colleagues, understand that Aerospatiale Dassault is still boasting about the sale of its wares to Venezuela, Peru and Ecuador, as well as to other countries? Unless we are sure that end user certificates are honoured, it is tanamount to supplying the most sophisticated weapons to the Argentine.
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. There is no way in which we can be certain about the matter. In recent weeks we have been particularly concerned about the ultimate destination of certain weapons and the Community — which certainly includes France—could not have been more helpful, taken more trouble, or made more effort to ensure that a despatch of arms did not go beyond its destination. Many steps were taken to try to ensure that that was so—
Mr. Dalyell: Try, but not succeed.
Mr. Pym: There is no certainty, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Many steps were taken. In some cases the nature of those steps was shared with us and we were grateful for the efforts made to achieve the objective that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On the subject of the Luxembourg compromise, although it is gratifying to know that five members of the Community are agreed that the supreme national interest veto must apply, what are those five doing to ensure that their view will stick? Since the Argentine still threatens—if necessary, by force—to take the territory of a member country of the EEC, what arrangements are the other countries making to prolong the arms embargo until the Argentine has given up its intentions and what arrangements are being made in the meantime to enforce the embargo on arms sales to the Argentine?
Mr. Pym: In 1966, only one country out of the Six wanted that safeguard for major national interests. That situation endured until last month. Today, five countries wish to ensure that that procedure is adhered to. That shows that there is a general desire—after lengthy discussion—to continue with the procedures and practices that existed before.
162
The arms embargo is being continued by member countries without any time limit at present. That matter may be raised by member States at later meetings. That is a matter for them to decide and we shall consider it at the time. The condition of the import ban is that the ceasefire should continue in the South Atlantic. At present, there is a de facto ceasefire, which is not enough as far as we are concerned. If a shot was fired, or if there was any aggression or military activity the member States would immediately reconvene and take further measures. They have therefore reached a clear and pretty decisive conclusion.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: As the Camp David accords sadly appear to have died in blood-drenched Lebanon, what discussions have taken place about the possibility of reviving the European initiative pioneered by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Lord Carrington, which sought to find, through the European Community, a lasting solution to the Palestinian problem?
Mr. Pym: We have much discussion on that subject and we shall debate it later today. To give my hon. Friend a preliminary answer, my view is that the events in recent weeks in Lebanon have made it infinitely more difficult even than before to achieve that lasting settlement. We must give much more thought to it and work much harder at it.
Mr. John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when the Gibraltar Minister comes tomorrow discussions will be confined to how the Government can help the dockyard and that there is nothing outstanding to discuss with Spain, apart from the reopening of the frontier?
Mr. Pym: I am prepared to discuss any matter that is raised. I support the Lisbon process, which represents a sensible way forward. However, I am ready to discuss any matter with the governor of Gibraltar.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, despite what he said about the EEC decision immediately to lift sanctions against Argentina and about the Luxembourg compromise, there is a growing feeling in Britain, which I hope that he will take on board, that the United Kingdom's interests are not the interests of the rest of the EEC? Unless we mend some bridges, our future in the Community is undoubtedly in jeopardy.
Mr. Pym: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. It is easy to get into a mode of thought where one believes that everything done by the Community may not be in our interests. The combined interest of the Ten is infinitely greater than it would be if we were not joined in the Community.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend find it odd that hon. Members who have argued that the Treaty of Rome and the common agricultural policy are poisoning our relations with our European allies a:7e doing their best to inject their own venom because, although the Community gave us loyal support at the worst moment of the Falklands crisis, they now take a different view of tactics on sanctions?
Mr. Pym: I note what my hon. Friend says. There is certainly some truth in it.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend knows, this House and this country agreed to join the European Community on the basis of the Luxembourg compromise. Will he give a commitment to the nation now that he will take whatever action is necessary to restore the Luxembourg compromise, otherwise we shall have what has recently happened: as Europe has voted, we have paid?
With regard to the Middle East, as we had European sanctions against Argentina because it committed aggression, will we likewise have sanctions against Israel until it withdraws?
Mr. Pym: The Luxembourg compromise was an agreement to disagree, but at the discussions this weekend no one wished to rearrange the compromise. They wished to proceed on the basis of it. We must see whether that works out. If it does not, we shall have a new position and I shall certainly raise the matter again. Now that five member countries wish to protect their vital national interests when they judge that there is a risk to those interests, it seems to give grounds for good hope.
As for the Middle East, we are discussing the possibility of economic measures as suggested by my hon. Friend, but there has been no decision yet.
Mr. Heller: The Foreign Secretary must be aware that his answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is disappointing, to say the least. Surely we cannot rely upon hopes. Will he return to my question which he did not answer? Will the Prime Minister be prepared to raise the matter at the meeting of Heads of State to try to obtain a clear commitment and agreement from the rest of the Community?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman says that we cannot rely on expectations. The basis of the so-called Luxembourg agreement was a curious arrangement with which five member countries originally disagreed. They do not wish to reopen or to alter the matter. They will not come to a clear commitment such as the hon. Gentleman and I would prefer. That is not available. We must make the best use that we can of the procedures and practices that are available to us. I acknowledged in my statement that I would much rather have had a clear-cut outcome, but we must carry on as we were before. It worked perfectly well under Governments of both parties. If anything similar were done in the future, that would be a serious matter, and I should raise the question again.

Falkland Islands (British Citizenship)
4.3 pm
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable citizens of the Falkland Islands to acquire British citizenship.
I do not propose to use the time allotted, because the merits of this Bill are self-evident and will command considerable support both inside and outside the House, as did the principle of the matter when it was discussed during debates on the Bill that became the British Nationality Act 1981. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of allowing citizens of the Falkland Islands to acquire British citizenship if they so desired was debated both in this Chamber and in another place. On both occasions it obtained considerable support but was denied by the Government.
The British Nationality Act gave British citizenship to 1,400 Falkland Islanders who have a grandparent or parent born in Britain. They now have the right of entry, abode and employment in the United Kingdom. However, the Act denied British citizenship to 400 islanders who to all intents and purposes are British but who are not fortunate enough to have a parent or grandparent, but instead a great-grandparent, born in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, they are as British as their more fortunate compatriots who have been designated British citizens.
Every one, not least the Falkland Islanders, is aware that when the British Nationality Act was debated the Home Secretary gave a clear and specific assurance that in desperate times the Islanders would be allowed to enter Britain. He used a phrase that was reiterated many times during the debates and more recently by Foreign Office spokesmen and said that they would be given "every sympathetic consideration".
That may well be the case, but it is not right that Falkland Islanders who are now citizens of British dependent territories and who have no right of entry or abode or to work here, but only the right to leave and enter the Falkland Islands, must rely upon the compassion, good will and the good nature of the Home Secretary or the Government. If it is right to say that to all intents and purposes they have British citizenship and that they will always be allowed to settle or to work here, it is equally right to put that on a regular basis and to enshrine it in law by giving them British citizenship.
We have accepted that. We assembled a massive task force and sent it half way round the world—the much publicised 8,000 miles—at great expense and with considerable loss of life. I endorsed and supported that expedition then, as I do now. As the Prime Minister said, we were fighting for a principle, to demonstrate that aggression does not pay and that no country, be it a dictatorship or a democracy, can take over the territory or subjugate the citizens of another country. However, we were fighting for something more than that, or at least the Prime Minister said that we were. She said constantly that we were fighting to protect British citizens and the British way of life. That is correct, but the British way of life that we fought successfully to protect applies to all 1,800 islanders, not just to the 1,400 who were fortunate to qualify for British citizenship.
It was absurd to deny citizenship to the 400 when the Act was debated. It would be indefensible to deny them today. They are British in their language, heritage,

165
descent, traditions, way of life and, above all, by choice. It would be churlish now, after all that Britain has experienced on their behalf, to deny them British citizenship in practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. J. W. Rooker, Miss Sheila Wright, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Ioan Evans, and Mr. David Stoddart.

Falkland Islands (British Citizenship)
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (BRITISH CITIZENSHIP)
  Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk accordingly presented a Bill to enable citizens of the Falkland Islands to acquire British citizenship: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 July and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

Northern Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)
4.9 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Northern Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Committee, Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following Table:—

  TABLE

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  Clause 3 (remaining proceedings); Clause 4

  6.30 pm

  Clause 5

  9 pm

  Remaining proceedings

  One hour after midnight

  (2) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and on that day—

  (a) the proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and

  (b) the proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight.

  (3) Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall riot apply to this Order.

  Proceedings on going into Committee
  2. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Order of consideration
  4. No Motion shall be moved to change the order in which the Bill is to be considered in Committee or on Consideration.
  Dilatory Motions
  5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  6.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.
  (3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

  Private business
  7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the, conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

  167

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  10. Nothing in this Order shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  12. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Northern Ireland Bill.
  The debate is concerned with the allocation of time to the Northern Ireland Bill. Recently, however, interest has been expressed in the wider aspects of timetabling. I refer particularly to the speeches in support of a general timetable for all contentious Bills by my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice), by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) and by other hon. Members during the timetable debate on the Employment Bill on 20 April. In addition, this matter has received the attention of an Early-Day Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale and others, which has attracted the support of 23 right hon. and hon. Members.
  This is not, of course, the occasion for debating the merits of general timetabling. However, the Northern Ireland Bill reveals an element and direction of opposition which makes pre-ordained timetabling through the Government and the conventional Opposition generally inappropriate. I do not need to argue that point. The Northern Ireland Bill will therefore add a new dimension and a new experience to such discussions on general timetabling as might take place at a later date.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is there a difference between Bills, however contentious, such as the Employment Bill, and constitutional issues, such as the Northern Ireland Bill and the Scotland and Wales Bills?
  Mr. Biffen: It is precisely on that point that future debate will be focussed, in the light of the experience that we have had on the Northern Ireland Bill. That was my point. I was not seeking to lay down deductions of my own, but merely to point out to the House that this was a new factor in our deliberations.
  I do not believe that anyone can reasonably contend that the time allocated to the Northern Ireland Bill has either been ungenerous or has not given due weight to its importance. So far, no fewer than six parliamentary days have been allocated to it, and the Committee has sat through the night on three occasions, and into the early hours on another.
  We had a whole day's debate devoted to Second Reading, which concluded with an endorsement of the principles of the Bill by a majority of 291 to 29—a ratio of 10:1. That debate itself had followed a full debate on the White Paper which set out the principles of the Bill.
  Since those debates, the House has spent over 24 hours in its consideration of clause 1; over 20 hours on clause 2 and schedule 1; and, finally, more than 9 hours on clause 3, which we have not yet finished considering. After five days and three nights spent in considering two and a half clauses and a schedule, four clauses remain untouched as well as two schedules, one of which is almost as long as all the clauses taken together, and 25 new clauses have been proposed for our consideration.
  Thus, if the rate of progress so far is an indication of how matters will proceed in future, there can be no expectation that the Bill would be secured this Session. I make that assertion assuming the attainment of the Government's other legislative commitments, fulfilling the remaining number of Supply days and the rising of the House at a conventional time for the Summer Recess—important because both recent recesses have been affected by the Falklands situation.
  During the course, therefore, of about 60 hours all told there has already been extensive discussion of the principles of the Bill. Nor can it be demonstrated that the

  169
  Government are seeking to curtail further discussion because they are determined to force the Bill through unchanged. For example, amendments have already been tabled to clause 3 to enable the Assembly to discuss "reserved" matters of its own volition.
  The eventide activities of the House in recent days have not centred on tactics to improve the Bill, or tactics to secure more time for the measured consideration of the Bill. The activities have centred on tactics designed to kill the Bill and effectively to reverse the Second Reading vote of 10 May.
  About 30 hon. Members have conducted a persistent and skilful opposition to the Bill throughout the debate in Committee. I say again that the nature of the opposition to the Bill is not to secure its passage after proper and detailed debate. It seeks to force the Government to drop the Bill. The debate has not been about the time appropriate to the Bill; there is no will to secure agreement. On the contrary, the opposition has been based on an assessment of what is necessary to compel the Government to have second thoughts and to extinguish the Bill.
  Mr. John Gorst: What discussions have taken place about a voluntary timetable for the conduct of discussions on the rest of the Bill?
  Mr. Biffen: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has undertaken discussions with various groups within the House, but that no formulated attempt has been made to secure a voluntary timetable.
  It is a collision of will between the Government and a dedicated group of my right hon. and hon. Friends that has brought about this clash and this timetable motion. The Bill itself, and not its prudent consideration, is at stake. My right hon. Friend secured a clear majority on Second Reading. The interest of the House now turns on the strategy of those who wish to succeed by other means to compensate for their failure on Second Reading. For those reasons, the Government have sought to introduce the timetable motion.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: What will happen to those important amendments which have been tabled by representatives from Northern Ireland and which are all-important to them and their constituents? Will there be the possibility of voting on those amendments, if not of discussing them?
  Mr. Biffen: The timetable motion sets out the broad divisions of time for consideration of the Bill, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have that point in mind when he replies to the debate.
  Mr. Nick Budgen: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, I hope that he will explain to the House how much time will be allocated to each of the 17 debates that have been selected by Mr. Speaker and to, perhaps, half of the new clauses that might be selected for discussion? It appears that there might be between a quarter of an hour and half an hour for each of the debates.
  Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that as yet there has been no selection of the new clauses, but his point will be well taken by my right hon. Friend when he replies to the debate.
  The motion requires that the Committee stage be brought to a conclusion at 1 am on the Wednesday sitting
  170
  and that the Report stage and Third Reading be concluded also by 1 am on the second allotted day. I do not claim that that amount of time is generous. However, I believe that it strikes an equitable balance, given all the other demands on parliamentary time. There has, as I have stated, already been extensive discussion of the main principles and, indeed, on the detail of the Bill.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Biffen: The discussion has been wide as well as long. It has weighed the merits of legislative and executive devolution. It has considered groups of amendments dealing with the formation of an Administration and has examined in the most minute detail the test to be applied to proposals for devolution submitted by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  Mr. Budgen: Instead of dealing with the general oratory, will my right hon. Friend tell the House how much time will be allocated to each of the clauses at present in the Bill, and how much time to the new clauses that may be selected?
  Mr. Biffen: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that his contributions to the debates will, to some extent, be a determining factor in how long they last. His questions about the detailed working of the timetable motion will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill and will reply to the debate.
  We have considered the merits of referendums, the contents of devolution orders and the progress from partial to full devolution. The list is not exhaustive. However, even leaving out of account the six and a half hours taken up on the first day of Committee by points of order and procedure motions, over 40 hours have been devoted to clauses 1 and 2, which, with schedule 1, form the heart of the Bill. In the Government's view, therefore, the time allocated for discussion of the rest of the Bill should allow for constructive and useful discussion of the remaining provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The basis of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that hon. Members who wish to kill the Bill are seeking to prolong the proceedings. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept, there are other hon. Members who are achieving, and seeking to achieve, improvements in the Bill. Under the timetable motion they will not be permitted to have their amendments voted upon. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that is the correct procedure for the House?
  Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that the Government's belief is that the opponents of the Bill are trying to secure its death and not its material improvement. Any timetable motion is disagreeable for minority parties such as the hon. Gentleman's.
  I have set out the Government's intentions for handling the Bill. They constitute a response to the facts that the Bill has secured a clear Second Reading majority, but that, as things now stand, there is no prospect of the Bill receiving subsequent parliamentary examination and approval. The motion is essentially a towline for a Bill that has become becalmed by resourceful and determined opposition. Without the motion, there is no future for the Bill.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: It is right that I should respond immediately to the proposal for a

  171
  timetable. If at the end of the debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) feels that it is necessary to reply, he will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Opposition could adopt the usual stance on guillotine motions. They could do the usual thing and shout "gag", they could be tempted to snarl up the Government's legislative machinery, but everyone knows that at this late stage of the Session there is nothing left to snarl up in the Government's machinery. It has either already been passed or is guillotined and is likely to be passed. There is one overriding reason why we are debating a motion to guillotine discussion of the Northern Ireland Bill. I can probably use stronger language than the Leader of the House. That reason is to prevent the Right-wing junta of the Conservative Party from destroying the legislation.
  Over the past few days and nights when the House has been considering the Northern Ireland Bill in Committee some Right-wing Conservatives have made a mockery of the people of Northern Ireland, in using serious debate to conduct a personal vendetta against the Secretary of State. We now face a guillotine motion because of the orchestrated filibuster from the Government Back Benches. This is not a usual timetable motion. It is not directed against Her Majesty's Opposition, but against the Government's Members.
  At every stage of the Bill the Opposition have taken a positive attitude. We have made no secret of our dissatisfaction with certain parts of the legislation. We have declared our intention to improve the Bill so that it matches some of the fine words in the Government's White Paper, entitled "Northern Ireland: A Framework for Devolution". One has only to read paragraph 13 of the White Paper to see how close it is to the Opposition's view. It reads:
  "The Government adheres to the view that in any administration in Northern Ireland there must be reasonable and appropriate arrangements to take account of the interests of the minority which are acceptable to both sides of the community."
  In our discussion document on page 3 it is stated:
  "The success of devolved government depends upon it receiving the confidence and support of a substantial cross-section of both communities."
  When the White Paper was debated on 28 April, the Opposition agreed to take note of it. Much of the White Paper was in line with the Labour Party's policy document on Northern Ireland. We especially welcomed the Government's recognition of the unique problems of Northern Ireland and of the existence of two distinct national identities. On Second Reading the Opposition stuck to their line of not seeking to divide the House.
  Mr. John Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he keeps referring to the Opposition's point of view? In all the debates, and even today, the Opposition have been noted for the way in which they have boycotted the Bill. Most of our serious debates have taken place in the absence of members of the Opposition other than the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley).
  Mr. Concannon: That is typical of what has happened over the past five days and five nights. The only time when we felt we were in Committee was when amendments to improve the Bill were discussed seriously. I take the point
  172
  that has been made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Some Members are trying to do the right thing. They are trying to ensure that the Committee does a proper job. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) must take pride in the fact that he has been involved in a filibuster that has led to the timetable motion today.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman has been springing up and down like a jackrabbit. If he wants to have a go, I ask him to make a good intervention.
  Mr. Budgen: As the right hon. Gentleman is attacking the nature of the opposition to the Bill, might I remind him that every debate has been terminated by the use of a closure? If the discussion had been either irrelevant or repetitious, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Chair would have allowed the closure motion to be considered earlier?
  Mr. Concannon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have had to sit here for five days and five nights and have probably been wooed more than my good lady wooed me when we were courting. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I shall miss a trick on my speech on the guillotine motion. In our opinion there is nothing in the Bill that will prevent Labour's policy from being furthered but, as I said on 10 May, there are a number of shortcomings in the Government's proposals that we should like to see amended. That is why the Bill has had the Opposition's tacit support.
  Such was the attitude that we brought to the Committee stage. Our aim all along has been to ensure that the Bill achieves maximum support in Northern Ireland by offering something to members of each community. The two groups of amendments and the two new clauses tabled by the official Opposition were intended to work towards that end. In our view the Bill did not fully live up to many of the statements in the White Paper, particularly on the nationalist community and the Irish dimension. Therefore, we sought to strengthen and change the Bill. That is what Committees are usually for.
  The intentions of the Secretary of State with regard to devolving powers to Northern Ireland are fair and honest. Our role over the past few weeks has been to point out the weaknesses in the Bill that detract from those good intentions.
  Two groups of amendments tabled by the official Opposition have received a good hearing. The first was to delete the subsection allowing all devolution reports with at least 70 per cent. support in the Assembly to be automatically debated in the House. It was tabled because we believed that it could allow for devolution without the support of both communities in Northern Ireland. In response, the Secretary of State has said that he will reconsider the Bill with a view to introducing a Government amendment on Report. Again, that is what Committees are for.
  It has become obvious in Committee that cross-community support is paramount and that the Government and Opposition can see no political progress without cross-community support in Northern Ireland. When our second amendment, which was designed to improve parliamentary control of devolution, was considered, we were given sufficient assurances to persuade us not to press it.
  The official Opposition have no quarrel with the way in which the Bill has been handled. We have had ample

  173
  time to put our points, and they have received considered responses from Ministers. The blame for the introduction of the timetable motion does not lie with the Opposition. The Leader of the House did not try to make that point against us. There have been attempts by the Conservative Party junta to obstruct and delay the passage of the Bill. We have no complaint about that. It is the affair of the Conservative Party.
  Mr. Barry Porter: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Right-wing junta. Does he accept that there are hon. Members who are part of that Right wing who dislike the Bill? They believe that it is ill-conceived and will not lead to what the Secretary of State wants. Equally, there are those on the Right wing of the Conservative Party who take the view that it is right and proper that consideration of the Bill in Committee should be on a proper and curtailed basis. It does no good to kill the Bill by a filibuster.
  Mr. Concannon: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He is a fully paid-up member of the Irish brigade. I exonerate him from what has happened. The Leader of the House has given the statistics regarding the Committee stage. It is obvious from those figures that members of the Conservative Back Benches—with the help of a few other hon. Members—have engaged in a filibuster. I have no quarrel with filibusters and other similar activities. After six years in the Whip's Office I well understand such activities. However, I do not remember ever having done it against my own party, which is what has happened in this case.
  There have been a variety of reasons for the filibuster. If any one of the major Northern Ireland parties had not wanted the Bill, or part of it, it could have killed it stone dead. That has always been my opinion. If the position in Northern Ireland is as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) maintains, why have we been here for five days and nights? If they have the support of members of their parties—the majority of Unionist parties will achieve about 66 per cent. of the seats in the Assembly—they can say that they will take in their bat and ball and that they will not play.
  Almost all the Northern Ireland parties will fight the Assembly elections. We do not know what will happen, but we should give the people of Northern Ireland a chance to have their say. Most Northern Ireland parties—with a few exceptions—have demonstrated little enthusiasm for the Bill, but none of the party leaders wants to be responsible for killing it off. Most are prepared to go ahead with the Bill, for one reason or another, but no one party wants to carry the can for killing the Bill off.
  There are those on the Government Benches who appear to have taken great exception to the Bill. The junta consists of those who, from the beginning, refused to recognise the Government's belief—as outlined in the White Paper—that Northern Ireland is politically and socially different from other parts of the United Kingdom. Within that opposition there was a mystifying sub-group consisting of some members who had never shown any interest in Northern Ireland matters. It confounded some of us for a short time, but their intentions soon became clear. They had not come to speak on behalf of the one and a half million people of Northern Ireland, who have put up with so much suffering and hardship; they were interested only the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  174
  This sub-group could be called the "get Prior brigade". They have used the Bill to mock the people of Northern Ireland in a pathetic attempt to fight personal battles. Those battles are irrelevant to the real issues. Sitting on these Benches night after night watching such antics and such disgraceful treatment of the people of Northern Ireland has not been a pretty sight. One could not see the knives but the blood was running freely.
  There was another diversion during the Committee stage. It was a shadowy, crouching figure who flitted across and around the Back Benches. Some might have thought that the term "supergrass" could properly be applied to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr Gow). What his role has been remains one of the great unsolved mysteries. If there is any truth in the stories circulating in the corridors he has a great deal to answer for. I am sorry that he is not here to answer. I followed the usual courtesies of writing to and seeing the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I understand what he is doing this afternoon. The Opposition Benches have probably been able to see more of what has been going on than the Government Front Bench. It has been a nod here and a wink there, a tug at the elbow and a whisper in the corridors. The Committee ought to know at whose instigation the hon. Member has been doing it. Is it at his own or that of the Prime Minister? Those are the rumours that are circulating through the corridors.
  The Northern Ireland Bill is presented by the Secretary of State and supported by the Prime Minister. I wish that she had shown her support for the Secretary of State in a material way. The behaviour of the Government Back Benchers has resulted in a position never before witnessed by me or many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government Benches have been so divided that almost every amendment has had to have a closure motion moved by the Government Chief Whip against his own party. If it had not been for the effects of the Falklands issue that would have received the media cover it deserved. If it had happened in the Labour Party screaming headlines would have resulted even above the Falklands. It is my bad luck that today I have contend with a royal baby.
  If the Government are to achieve this legislation they will need the timetable motion against their own members. It is a unique position and one that Her Majesty's Opposition could have exploited. We have resisted that temptation over the long days and nights. We do not envisage that this measure will bring the dire results to the people of Northern Ireland that many of its critics anticipate. The Labour Party has no wish to do the dirty work of those who want the Bill defeated. We believe—as our policy document states—that the people of Northern Ireland should be given the chance to set up an Assembly and move towards devolution. We have no intention of being blamed for denying them those rights. The best advice that I can give my right hon. and hon. Friends is to regard the timetable motion as part of a quarrel within the Tory Party. The motion is not directed against Her Majesty's Opposition. The opponents of the Bill—for whatever reasons—have tried to move the Labour Party into a position where its votes can be used to defeat the Bill. We should not assist them to do the dirty work. If the motion is defeated there will be only one outcome, as the Leader of the House said, and that will be the killing of the Bill.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that support for a timetable motion in these circumstances is dirty work and that is why he is advising his right hon. and hon. Friends to abstain, or does he believe that the guillotine is a necessary measure to assist the Bill's passage? If he believes that it is a necessary measure, why does he not support it?
  Mr. Concannon: One has to make a decision. The Opposition had to decide what their attitude was on Wednesday or Thursday of last week. I had to make certain recommendations to my party. My recommendation was that the Opposition should not divide the House. If other hon. Members seek to divide it, that is entirely up to them.
  Mr. Robert Atkins: A very good answer.
  Mr. Concannon: I understand and appreciate why some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have consistently opposed timetable motions over the years. My advice to them is that we are faced with a unique situation. On the other hand, others of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to support the Government if a Division takes place. There is a third group of hon. Members who favour the introduction of timetable motions before Bills start their passage through the House.
  The Opposition have not been gagged. If I could have obstructed the "Tebbit Bill" or any of the other obstreperous and monstrous pieces of legislation that have now virtually completed their passage through the House, I should have had second thoughts about the advice that I gave to my party. However, I continue to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to let this issue remain a fight on the Government Benches. I ask them not to help to camouflage a split on the Government Benches. In my view the Opposition should not divide the House. Let the junta have that privilege.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. John Peyton: In my experience guillotine debates are occasions for anger and opportunism. Of late years, the anger has become more and more synthetic and the opportunism more obvious. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, is to be congratulated on having resisted the claims of opportunism. He suggested that knives had been flashing, but confessed that no blood had been seen. I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his almost miraculous survival. He does not appear, on the surface at least, to be suffering from the acutest form of anaemia, and I am sure that we are all pleased about that.
  Mr. Budgen: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Peyton: It is just possible to question—a thing that I would never ordinarily do—the wisdom of the Government's timing in introducing a measure such as the Bill so late in the Session.
  Mr. Budgen: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but I do not know whether he will support what I am about to say. The Government should have learnt from long experience that the House is not at its best in mid-summer. I have sometimes been tempted into the belief that what is alleged
  176
  to happen to hares in March happens to politicians in June. It seemed rather strange to entrust a rather delicate measure to the House at such a time.
  I accept—I do not doubt that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be repeating this argument—that, on the whole, guillotines are devices designed for the convenience of Governments and, therefore, are to be looked at askance by the rest of us. That view applies especially when constitutional measures are involved. However, experience teaches that the quality of debate and discussion is infinitely improved after a timetable motion.
  Mr. Budgen: No.
  Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend will allow me to have my opinion. I am bound to say that what he has been saying over the weeks has done nothing to dislodge that opinion.
  As I understand it, the Bill is offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office not as a cure-all, but as a measure from which it is hoped some progress will be made against the background of a state of affairs that has endured too long, that is sombre in the extreme and that has manifested itself in cruelty, violence and bloodshed.
  My right hon. Friend has one of the most unenviable tasks in the Government. After considerable reflection and some anxiety I find it difficult to deny him my support. I do not think that it is for me as an English Member of Parliament, who has never ventured to take part in a discussion on Northern Ireland affairs, to criticise the conduct of those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. I feel that they must answer to their constituencies. They are not obliged to face my criticism. However, I think it unwise and dangerous for a handful of English Members to set out not to amend the Bill but to destroy it, and with it whatever chance the Bill may contain of making some progress for Northern Ireland. It is with considerable reluctance and, I must confess, with some surprise that I have decided to vote for the guillotine motion. I shall do so in the belief that the Government have been patient and are now justified, in the face of the opposition that they have met, in introducing it.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I take up directly the challenge which was issued by the Leader of the House. I accept that this motion represents a new dimension on the well-trodden ground of guillotine motions. The motion is unique because, unlike any other guillotine motion that I can recall, it involves in its fortunes the life and death of men, women and children; the predictable and certain death of more persons than would otherwise have suffered that fate in the coming months and years. In the light of that new dimension, I assert that it was not merely right but the duty of those who perceived that to be so to use all the powers available to Members of Parliament—I use the words of the right hon. Gentleman again—to force the House to think again. The House needs to think again about what it is doing in forcing through this legislation.
  I understand that the Liberal Party will assist the guillotine. There is no particular surprise or significance in that. The Liberal Party is a great lover of guillotines. Indeed, if one scratches a Liberal, one will commonly find a dictator. They have voted for most of the best guillotines

  177
  during the past 30 years. Nor is there much significance in the behaviour of the Labour Party in exile known as the Social Democratic Party.
  There is great significance in what was said not just this afternoon, but consistently during the debates on the Bill by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) on behalf of the official Opposition. He and his colleague the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) made no secret of the reason why they did not oppose the Bill and why consequently they will not oppose the measure which is necessary to its passage which is before the House today. It is because, in their opinion, the Bill will forward their policy for Northern Ireland, which is to achieve—achieve, indeed, by persuasion, although it is not persuasion in which they intend to take part—the detachment of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and its embodiment in an all-Ireland State. There is no secret about this. They have made no secret about the fact that they regard the Bill as tending in that direction. That is the reason for the position that they are taking up today, as they have taken it up consistently since the White Paper was produced. They cannot have expected, as the duration of the debates enabled them, to obtain the confirmation of that belief which has been vouchsafed to us.
  I make no apology for putting on the record again the remarkable document whose existence was, if not disclosed, at any rate brought to the recollection of many hon. Members by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). He referred to the notes for Conservative candidates issued on 25 April, a week before the general election at which the Conservative Party won a majority. After a statement of the policy as it stood in the manifesto of the Conservative Party, the document ran as follows:
  "The next Government will come under considerable pressure to launch a new high-powered political initiative on Northern Ireland with the object of establishing another 'power-sharing' government in the Province which could pave the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic."
  It went on to indicate the elements which would lie behind that considerable pressure. They not only would be from within the United Kingdom but would include pressure from the Irish Republic and from the United States. The hon. Member for Epping Forest described it as prescient. That was over-generous. Whoever wrote those words knew perfectly well what was in preparation, for no more accurate a description of what was to follow in the subsequent three years could have been penned and certainly would not have been inserted where it was inserted except upon the basis of reliable knowledge, which has since been verified.
  From the moment that the Government came into office in May 1979 the prediction contained in that document was fulfilled step by step. Step by step, efforts were made to establish in the Province an Assembly. Whatever initiatives failed, they were immediately succeeded by others, and at the heart of those initiatives was the intention to have a separate representative body in that part of the United Kingdom. I have quoted before in the House, with his assent, the revelation which was made to me at the earliest of these initiatives by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that there would be an Assembly. That had been decided upon, not by Ministers but by those who intended to bring it about. The Secretary of State can take the sneer off his face as it is his own fault if he is unable to perceive what goes on under his nose.
  178
  Step by step there was to be set up a representative body in the Assembly which could, in the words of that document, "pave the way" to what was the intention forshadowed.
  Step by step also the federal—a word which has not been very popular during the last three years, but it is a fair constitutional description—arrangement was set up, first by the meeting between Premier Lynch and the Prime Minister, carried on with the meeting between the Prime Minister and Haughey on 8 December 1980 and then by the meeting with FitzGerald in November 1981.
  The documents which followed from those meetings, all of them drafted before the meetings took place and all of them signed without a full understanding of the meaning and the intention which lay behind them, were steps towards the completion of the other element, for there were two elements which were necessary, as the Conservative Party was informed in its own notes for candidates by those who had been following these matters inside the party before the general election. One was a representative body in Northern Ireland and the other was an Anglo-Irish matrix into which that could fit.
  I do not think, however, that those who laboured unsuccessfully for two and a half years up to last autumn could have believed their good fortune when the right hon. Gentleman arrived in the Department, for he put behind the high-powered political initiative his very considerable determination and standing in the Government. That is why what had not happened during the previous two and a half years is being forced upon Northern Ireland and upon the House now.
  Mr. Porter: I have tried during the Committee stage to elicit some information from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. It appears that the future of the Assembly, in the terms of the proposal, is in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends and his quasi-friends. If they will not put forward proposals, the Assembly will fall. I asked in Committee what the right hon. Gentleman and his friends intended to do. I said at that time that the Committee was entitled to know. I think that the House is now entitled to know.
  Mr. Powell: It is a pity that we are not to have the opportunity of examining the remaining clauses of the Bill when some of the answers to the question which the hon. Gentleman has posed could be more adequately explained. Let me content myself with pointing to the fact that after the third of the Anglo-Irish meetings to which I have referred the regret that was expressed by the Irish Prime Minister was that the parliamentary tier of the federal arrangement could not yet be set up because there was not an Assembly in Northern Ireland. He at any rate felt sure—and he is not innocent of the political composition of the population of Northern Ireland—that if once one could get that tertial quid, that separate Assembly, separate spokesmen of what is an integral part of the United Kingdom, the remainder would follow.
  I am in difficulty at this point because I have no wish to say anything which would qualify my desire to accept entirely the integrity of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions. The right hon. Gentleman has more than once asserted that he believes that the effect of the Bill will be to strengthen the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. Not only is that impossible to assert or to believe, and not only does it run contrary to all the

  179
  evidence; it runs contrary to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps by inadvertence—from time to time. We were prepared for it by remarks that were made in a considered interview by the Irish peer who accompanied the right hon. Gentleman to his present office. He said:
  "Greater devolved government is not the solution. It is an essential contribution to a new set of attitudes. It is one part of the strategy—co-operation with the Irish Republic is another. Whatever the pressures on us to drop it, we have to set our faces against that—like flint."
  That fits neatly like a hand into the glove that was displayed three years ago.
  As recently as the end of last week, the right hon. Gentleman said on the radio in the Province that integration is not compatible with meaningful relations with the Irish Republic. Only a devolved structure could supply the necessary basis. It could not be put more tersely or more correctly. The purpose of the Bill, the purpose of the constitution that the Bill will enact, is to found one of the necessary pillars of a federal arrangement into which Northern Ireland will be moved, out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland.
  However impenetrable those facts appear to be on this side of the water and in this House, they are plainly visible in the Province. There is no difficulty for the IRA to understand the purpose and tendency of this legislation. They say to themselves "Now we know and understand where Her Majesty's Government stand. They are engaged on an operation with the United States and the Irish Republic to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and to put it where we want it to be—in a united Ireland. What is more, they will win. Just look at the forces that are assembled on their side. Here is the evidence of it."
  Everyone in Northern Ireland who is opposed to the Union must draw comfort, satisfaction and assurance for the future from this legislation and the Government's determination to force it through. Conversely, those in Northern Ireland—they are the majority—who desire beyond anything else to retain their membership of the United Kingdom and their British status are discouraged and antagonised by the sight of their own Parliament and Government who, they believe, pledged themselves to that cause, enacting legislation whose purpose and intended outcome is only too clear not only to themselves but to their opponents.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): The right hon. Gentleman started by making a serious allegation about the level of violence. He is now arguing that the Bill hands to the IRA and the Republican nationalist cause all that it wants. If he believes that, why does he say that there will be more violence in Northern Ireland? Surely the logical conclusion of his argument is that, if the IRA believes that it has what it wants, there is no need for it to resort to violence.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I remind the House that we are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing the allocation of time motion.
  Mr. Powell: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are discussing a motion that was moved to prevent the House from being forced to think again and the
  180
  Government to drop the Bill at this stage. It is precisely to that contention of the Leader of the House that I am directing my arguments.
  With regard to the Secretary of State's point, the legislation is a standing encouragement to the IRA. It is a standing encouragement to those who believe that by violence they can anticipate or ensure that the foreseen fate of Northern Ireland is in their hands. It is a standing encouragement to those who are sufficiently light-headed or unwise to believe that terror and the escalation of terror can be met with the escalation of terror. The right hon. Gentleman has taken my point and understood my argument.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: Did my right hon. Friend see the front page of yesterday's Belfast News Letter? It read:
  "A senior police source last night linked the build-up in bomb and gun attacks on members and former members of the security forces with the Commons debate on the Devolution Bill."
  Mr. Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not surprised.
  For 10 years or more I have been saying that it is uncertainty that takes lives in Northern Ireland—uncertainty about the purpose, intention and determination of the United Kingdom. The Bill will undermine that determination. That is my demonstration of the assertion with which I began. It is not only by those who come here from Northern Ireland constituencies, it is not only by those whose bounden duty it is to understand and speak for all those whom they represent that these matters can be perceived from a distance.
  I shall conclude by quoting from a leading article in the The Daily Telegraphof last week. It said:
  "In the view of all considerable sections of Irish opinion and of most people in Britain who have any pretence to knowledge of the subject, the Bill could produce irretrievable disaster. On the most favourable estimate, it has no urgency. For all Mr. Prior says, it has nothing to do with economic recovery in Ulster or with the defeat of the IRA. It could not matter if it did not reach the statute book for another year; it would be far better if it never reached it at all."
  It would be far better for those whose lives the Bill will cost if the Bill were allowed to be killed in the place where it ought to die.
  5.7 pm
  Sir Nigel Fisher: In more than 32 years in the House I have never before tried to speak in a timetable debate. They are usually unproductive and repetitive. I do so today because the Government are well justified in tabling the motion and because the circumstances with which we are faced are unusual. The Bill has already kept the Committee sitting for four days and four long and weary nights. I understand that 63 hours have been taken and very little progress has been made.
  I know that many Northern Ireland Members and some of my hon. Friends are genuinely convinced that this is a bad Bill and that it will do more harm than good. I should not wish to accuse them of filibustering. They have usually made legitimate points, although sometimes at great length and in rather unnecessary detail. But they have kept the Conservative Party in the House night after night to support the Government against a small number of my hon. Friends who oppose the Bill.
  At the present rate of progress, we could all become completely exhausted through all-night sittings, or the

  181
  House would have to sit well into August, or the Bill would have to be dropped. It is not reasonable to expect the Government to drop the Bill simply because about 20 of my hon. Friends dislike it. They are perfectly entitled to dislike it and to oppose it, but the Government and the rest of us are equally entitled to support it without the complete disruption of parliamentary business.
  It has been suggested that the Government should not guillotine a constitutional Bill, but the European Communities Bill was guillotined 10 years ago, as were earlier Government of Ireland measures which were considerably more far-reaching than the present Bill, so I do not think that that argument has any validity. If the Northern Ireland political parties do not wish to work the Bill or to take the opportunities it offers, we can continue thereafter with direct rule and no great damage will have been done. Meanwhile, the maxim that the minority must have its say but the majority must have its way should apply.
  The minority has certainly had its say so far. It is now time for the majority to have its way and I therefore support the timetable motion.
  5.11 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said, the line-up of Republicanism in Ireland is against the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that Mr. Haughey somehow sees in the Bill the attainment of his objective of bringing Northern Ireland into the Republic. In fact, Mr. Haughey is dead set against the measure. Indeed, he opposed it before it even saw the light of day.
  The Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Carron), who has not taken his seat in the House, has also made it plain—and no one speaks for the IRA better than he—that he is utterly opposed to the Bill. The SDLP has declared itself opposed to the Bill, and the IRA has also declared that it opposes the Bill. So it is not right to say that the Bill is such a good measure from the Republican point of view that Republicans are welcoming it with open arms.
  I take up the thesis of the right hon. Member for Down, South. He says that Her Majesty's Opposition have it as their objective to put the people of Northern Ireland into a united Ireland not by force but by persuasion. We know that. He also says that, according to the notes that he has read, the Conservative Party is secretly working for the same objective. Yet he then tells the people of Ireland not to put their trust in their elected representatives but to keep their trust in Westminster. It is because I have faith in the elected representatives of Northern Ireland that I want an elected Assembly, because the greatest hindrance to Mr. Haughey, the IRA and anyone in this House who wishes to destroy Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom will be that Assembly, which will have a Unionist majority. For that reason, I believe that we can trust the people of Northern Ireland.
  I have often said in the House, and I repeat today, that the destiny of the people of Northern Ireland will be decided not by the House, with all due respect to the House, or by Mr. Haughey, with all due respect to him, but by the people of Northern Ireland themselves. So long as the Unionist people are firmly resolved to abide by and defend their Province within the United Kingdom, they can attain that. That is my message to the people of Northern Ireland today.
  182
  The House should trust the people of Northern Ireland to elect their own representatives and to have their own Assembly. If it never brings devolved government to Northern Ireland, it will at least be a forum of elected representatives to which the House, whether it likes it or not, will have to pay heed—for how could the House turn its back on decisions made by an elected body set up in the way that the House intends to set up the Assembly?
  Mr. Budgen: It is a recipe for conflict.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: There is no conflict. There was a Parliament in Northern Ireland for 50 years and there was no conflict between it and this House. Indeed, it was Mr. Churchill who said that the people of Northern Ireland had the right to act under the 1920 Act because those powers were given to them by this sovereign Parliament.
  Another vital point must be answered. When the Prime Minister met Prime Ministers of the Irish Republic, there was no opposition to the sell-out from the right hon. Member for Down, South or his leader and hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). Indeed, they lambasted me and said that I was the bogy man. They said that I was wrong about what was taking place and in the actions that I took at that time. The leader of the Official Unionists in the House even sent an agenda to the Prime Minister for her talks with the Irish Prime Minister—I have a copy of it—setting out the points that they wished her to discuss with Mr. Haughey. The right hon. Member for Down, South now says that those talks were the beginning of a betrayal. If that is so, as I believe that it is, the Official Unionists should have had no part in or truck with the talks, let alone help to draw up an agenda for them.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman says that he has a copy of the items that my hon. Friend said should be the subject of the joint study if it took place. If he will read them out, the House will see that they were inconsistent with any political arrangement between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic and consistent with the union of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the hon. Gentleman read them out?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On this, I completely deviate from the right hon. Gentleman's position.
  Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman read them out?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Ulster Unionists have never believed that the Taoiseach should have any say whatever in or discuss the future of the people of Northern Ireland. I make it clear to the House today that I do not believe that any Dublin Prime Minister should discuss these matters. If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) believes that the Dublin Prime Minister should discuss the intimate affairs of Northern Ireland and its relationship with the Republic, let him believe that, and if the Unionists believe that, let them say so, but I make it perfectly clear that I do not believe that there should he any discussions between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the the Prime Minister of the Republic.
  Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I shall not give way. I want to finish this.
  Mr. Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman read the agenda?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman should not get so excited. He should contain himself and listen.

  183
  As a Unionist, I have never believed, and neither have the majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland, that there should be discussions with the Dublin Government about internal matters that concern the future of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Powell rose—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I was completely opposed to the discussions. I go further. I met the leader of the Official Unionists, the hon. Member for Antrim, South, and pointed out to him the seriousness of these meetings between London and Dublin. I asked him to join other Unionists in opposing them. He said that he would not, because he was proposing an agenda for such meetings. Those are the facts and there is no doubt about them.
  Mr. Powell rose—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: There is no doubt that the thesis put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South does not stand up to scrutiny. On behalf of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland I maintain, as they have always maintained, that they are entitled to remain within the United Kingdom and that they are the best defence of their own future.
  Mr. Powell: If the hon. Member does not have the points on the agenda handy, perhaps I might give them. The first was the deletion from the constitution of the Republic its claim to part of the territory of the United Kingdom. That was the first point that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South said should be dealt with by any joint studies.
  The second was a demarcation of the international frontier between the two countries. The Republic has persistently refused to do that. The third was the removal of citizenship privileges enjoyed in the United Kingdom by citizens of the Irish Republic.
  Those were three of the items on the agenda which the hon. Gentleman did not dare to quote. [Interruption]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that these matters evoke strong emotions, but the debate is getting fairly wide of the motion.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Member said in the House today that these talks were the beginning of a conspiracy to sell out Northern Ireland. If they were, why should his hon. Friend draw up an agenda for the talks, no matter what was on the agenda? There should be no talks with the Taoiseach on matters concerning Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Powell rose—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Matters relating to Northern Ireland should be the concern of the people of Northern Ireland and this House. It is clear that the House has decreed that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland will have the final say in their destiny. The House has said that the House will not have the final say. No matter what the right hon. Member for Down, South said about the agenda, if he maintains that the meeting was the beginning of a conspiracy he should have opposed it and not consulted about the agenda.
  Mr. Powell rose—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall not give way again. It does not matter what was on the agenda, and it does not matter
  184
  what the Official Unionists said. Although they now say that it was a conspiracy, they were prepared to tell the Prime Minister that she should raise these matters at the talks.
  Mr. James A. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is with regret and reluctance that I bring to your attention the fact that the debate is straying far from the motion. If that is to continue, it will be a further misuse of the time of the House. I hope that you will bring this discussion to an end now.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to address his remarks to the motion.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: With due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if an hon. Member is permitted to make certain remarks in the House I have the right to reply to them. If you do not want me to do so, I shall be happy to withdraw from the House today. I reserve the right to reply in the House to hon. Members who are held to be in order and to say what those whom I represent expect me to say.
  The hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) said that the minority should have a say but the majority should have its way. That is exactly what we are asking for in Northern Ireland. If this House were tied to a 70 per cent. majority, this motion would not be carried.
  I now refer to the amendments. By no stretch of the imagination can the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State claim that the amendments tabled by myself and my hon. Friends are wrecking amendments. They were tabled in good faith, to improve the Bill. Will we have an opportunity to vote on those amendments? From page 3025 of the Order Paper it would appear that any motion or amendment moved by a member of the Government can be voted upon. Will the Government give the House an opportunity to vote on amendments tabled by Northern Ireland hon. Members? If there is to be only limited discussion on the amendments, surely an opportunity should be given for the House to vote on them. I hope that the Secretary of State will give the House that assurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down".] Hon. Members should not say "Sit down", because it will only encourage me to continue.
  Whatever the procedures in the House, the Bill is important to Northern Ireland and should be fully discussed, particularly the amendments to which I refer, although I disagree with many of them. Some hon. Members have not sat through all our debates. They have come to the House only for this debate. Many interesting matters have been debated, and even the Secretary of State admitted that matters of the utmost importance had been raised and that he was glad to reply to them.
  The debate should not be curtailed, but if it is I hope that the Secretary of State will give the House an opportunity to vote on amendments which we believe will strengthen the Bill.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) concluded on an important point to which I shall refer later.
  There are two internal arguments taking place in the House today—one within Unionism and the other within the Conservative Party. However, I do not want to become

  185
  preoccupied with those. I want to put it on record that the Liberal Party is in favour of the Bill and wants it enacted. Nobody claims, not even the Government, that the Bill provides a certain solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. However, it is supported by many people in Northern Ireland. For example, in a poll in The Irish Times it received strong support in Protestant and Roman Catholic communities. The Bill gives people in Northern Ireland the opportunity to elect representatives to discuss and, if they so choose, to deal with a wide range of their own affairs. As such, both I and my party welcome it.
  The passing of the Bill to achieve those objects is being prevented by a small group, primarily in the Conservative Party, that is determined to oppose them. They are quite entitled to do so, but the House is equally entitled to seek means of ensuring that in the end the majority will prevail. No credit will reflect on this House if it is seen to be unable to take a decision on the matter. People in Northern Ireland would disapprove of, and regret, the fact that the House of Commons was incapable of arriving at a decision, especially when hon. Members by a ratio of about 10 to 1 support a particular point of view.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the SDP forum in Northern Ireland of which, presumably, he approves is opposed to the Bill and to the Assembly that it proposes?
  Mr. Beith: I do not approve of the view taken by the SDP forum in Northern Ireland, nor do I believe that view to be represented in the SDP in Great Britain. The view of that small group has, I believe, been influenced by the incursion of a small number of people of determined Unionist integrationist views who are not representative of the SDP in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  The House of Commons must be seen to be capable of taking a decision on this matter. I acknowledge that hon. Members are entitled to oppose the Bill if they so wish, but before the end of the debate we ought to know whether they enjoy the tacit approval of the Prime Minster. That has been widely rumoured. There has been suspiciously little attempt to dispel that rumour, and I would hate Conservative Members to be confused about where their promotion prospects lie. The House should have a clear indication whether the Prime Minister supports the Bill. There has been no attempt, certainly by those who oppose the Bill, to dispel the suggestion that in some way she is lukewarm towards it.
  The Bill seeks to achieve an essentially Liberal object of enabling people to elect representatives to deal with their own affairs within their own community. It is something on which the House of Commons is entitled to reach a judgment.
  We must be clear that there is no principle that constitutional Bills cannot be timetabled. There has never been such a principle, and had there been it would have been honoured far more in the breach than in the observance. The principle that does exist is that constitutional Bills should be taken on the Floor of the House. That is a perfectly proper principle which has been observed in this case.
  However, the operation of that principle puts even greater pressure on the achievement of sensible periods for the discussion of Bills. A constitutional Bill is not sent to a Committee that can sit for months on end before the Bill comes back on Report. Such a Bill occupies the time of
  186
  the entire House and precludes other business until it is dealt with. That places an even greater obligation on us to ensure that there is orderly discussion within a reasonable time. There is certainly no principle that a timetable motion cannot be applied to a constitutional Bill, and I should reject such a principle if anyone sought to advance it today.
  There are, however, problems about all timetable motions, and there are reasonable grounds of objection to the way in which many of them are framed. Indeed, some of those objections have not been noticed as much by some Conservative Members on previous occasions as they have been today. I take the case cited by the hon. Member for Antrim, North—that of amendments moved by parties other than the Government. Such amendments, once the guillotine has expired, can be put to the vote only if they are moved by a Minister of the Crown. I should be very surprised if the Secretary of State or the Leader of the House offered to move amendments on behalf of Opposition parties. They have never done so in the past, and I doubt whether they would be prepared to do so now.
  It ought to be within the recollection of many hon. Members that in the past the Liberal Party has divided the House on the principle that amendments selected by Mr. Speaker ought to be the subject of a vote. A failing in successive guillotine motions has been that no provision has been made to vote on amendments, other than Government amendments, that Mr. Speaker has seen tit to select. The House has repeated that failing on many occasions, and it should be put right in all guillotine motions, not just this one.
  We give Mr. Speaker and the Chairmen of Committees the responsibility for selecting which amendments need to be debated. Having allowed that discretion, it is surely sufficient to assume that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman will not select amendments that ought not to be the subject of a vote. In the past, I have tabled amendments to timetable motions to enshrine that principle in our procedures, but these amendments have never gained the support of a majority in the House. I hope that some day the House recognise that principle, and perhaps the experience of this guillotine motion will teach a larger group of hon. Members that it is an important principle.
  We cannot claim that the timetable motion now before us is over-generous. However, that in part is a consequence of having spent so much time on the clauses so far. It calls into question the practice of moving a guillotine motion at a relatively late stage in the discussion of the Bill.
  Mr. Budgen: Bearing in mind that 17 different debates have been selected by Mr. Speaker, that there are 25 new clauses and one new schedule, and that we do not yet know how many of those new clauses will be selected for debate should the timetable motion fail, what would the hon. Gentleman describe as a reasonable time for 17 debates and perhaps another 10 on the new clauses?
  Mr. Beith: The proper question to ask is: what is a reasonable time for discussion of the whole Bill? Much time has been expended to an unreasonable extent on that part of the Bill that has been debated so far. We could, of course, discuss the Bill for ever, but I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that it should not have taken many more days than have so far elapsed to discuss the Bill as a whole. Had the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends

  187
  rationed themselves a little more carefully in the earlier debates, the allocation of time would have been rather better.
  Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman's argument is reasonable. However, had he attended the debates on the amendments he would know that in nearly every case there were on average only six or seven speeches, including the speech of the Minister. On the whole, most speeches lasted about 25 minutes. However, as the Patronage Secretary had to move a closure motion in each case, there was no opportunity for us to succeed in doing what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
  Mr. Beith: On at least one occasion the hon. Gentleman exceeded the 25-minute average by a considerable margin. The only conclusion that can be reached by an outside observer is that an enormous amount of time has already been spent on the Bill. Had that time been better allocated over the Bill as a whole, reasonable discussion would have been achieved on every clause.
  I do not claim that this is the best-framed timetable motion that I have ever seen. We could manage to produce better timetable motions which also gave proper opportunities to Opposition parties to have their amendments voted upon. As the issue that now confronts us is whether the vast majority of hon. Members shall have effect given to their desire for the Bill to pass or whether that desire should be prevented by a small minority of hon. Members, I am bound to advise my hon. Friends that remaining discussions on the Bill should be subject to a timetable, and that they should therefore vote for the motion.
  5.40 pm
  Sir William Clark: The House has heard a condescending speech from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I do not know how he has the nerve to lecture my hon. Friends over the allocation of time and how long they speak. The arrogance and the impertinence of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the promotion prospects of some 20 or 30 hon. Members is perhaps an eye-opener into the workings of the Liberal Party.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) did himself a disservice and certainly confused me. The hon. Gentleman said that the Official Unionist Party had given an agenda for the talks but, having made the accusation, refused point blank to say what the Official Unionist Members had stated. If the three points about which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) reminded the House had been taken into account, those talks would never have occurred. It was wrong for that accusation to be made.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir William Clark: I shall be a little more courteous than the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The point I made was that, after the talks took place, a statement was issued that all relations between the islands would be discussed. That was repugnant to the Ulster Unionists who therefore should not take part in such talks.
  Mr. James A. Dunn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appeal to you again. There might have been some justification for two Northern Ireland Members to introduce this issue into the debate. There is no excuse for it now being introduced. We are talking about a timetable motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help, but I have heard nothing that is out of order.
  Sir William Clark: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your protection. If an hon. Member is trying to make up his or her mind about how to vote, and an accusation passes backwards and forwards, an hon. Member is surely entitled to try to get to the bottom of the accusation.
  I think certainly that my hon. Friends will agree that I am not a natural rebel. I do not normally vote against my party. I have voted against my party twice. On both occasions I stood up in the House and gave my reasons. Having acted in that manner only twice during my 20 years here, surely it can clearly be seen to be a matter of extreme importance to me to rebel against my Government.
  I voted for the Second Reading of the Bill in the forlorn hope that it could probably be altered in Committee and become a much better Bill. I am sure that I speak for many people in my party when I say that very few Conservative Members like the Bill. They are reluctantly voting in the Lobby for the Government out of sheer loyalty.
  I should like to tell my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that two points justify opposition to the Bill among Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to what had happened before the general election. I should like to remind my right hon. Friend of what was contained in our manifesto. For the sake of brevity, I shall not read out the words, which are probably imprinted on his mind. It does not look, however, as if we have followed them.
  We said that we would seek to establish regional local authorities. This proposal was expanded in daily notes to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has referred, pointing out clearly that the interpretation of the manifesto was that we would resist any devolution and aim for local authorities in Northern Ireland as they exist in this country. If Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, it should enjoy the same privileges and the same institutions as any other part.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend is arguing the case for integration. If so, he has to tell the House why he voted for the Bill on Second Reading.
  Sir William Clark: I should like to say how I view the whole Bill. I am prepared to take the opinion of people who know something about Northern Ireland. I think that I go along with what the Official Unionists say. No one seems to like the Bill. I remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest was at one time, with the late Airey Neave, a Front Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland. It was on the basis of their advice, the daily notes and the manifesto that I fought the election, as did all my hon. Friends.
  During debates on the Bill, alternatives have been proposed for the introduction of local government and complete integration with the mainland. I cannot see why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided

  189
  upon the change. I would think, as an observer, that the first priority for action in Northern Ireland is security. I agree partially with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that the guillotine motion has been introduced at a very late stage during examination of the Bill. After 60 hours of debate, with more clauses, new clauses and schedules still to be discussed, it makes a mockery of the Bill to allocate one day on the Floor of the House for debating them and a further day for Report and Third Reading. Some hon. Members have tabled amendments that they will be unable to discuss or, probably, vote upon. Yet this is an important Bill for Northern Ireland. I cannot see why the Government have been so ungenerous in giving only two more days for the passage of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have second thoughts.
  It is not my habit to rebel or to vote against my party. In these circumstances, however, I am doing so. I assure my right hon. Friend that I am not doing so out of personal animosity—
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The gaffer has told the hon. Gentleman what to do.
  Sir William Clark: What never surprises the House is the lack of information of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Most times, in his interventions, he gets it absolutely wrong.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I was staying up all through the night on this matter—I did not see hide or hair of the hon. Gentleman—I came across a conversation involving the Prime Minister's parliamentary private secretary who was placating the rebels to the extent of saying—I paraphrase slightly—"It is all right if you carry on rebelling because the gaffer says so."
  Sir William Clark: It would not be a bad idea if the hon. Gentleman occasionally did his homework with more thoroughness. One of the reasons why I have not been able to be present—I am leaving again shortly—is that I am taking part in the Finance Bill Standing Committee upstairs. As hon. Members who have the pleasure or misfortune to serve on the Committee know, it sits until 1 am or 2 am. I am sure that the sittings would probably be improved by the attendance of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
  My right hon. Friend must think again about this matter. It is nonsense to allow only two more days for this very important Bill. It should be radically altered so that we can go forward, united. Let us not have a half-baked Bill with Conservative Members reluctantly voting for it. I shall vote against the timetable motion.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: Some of the earlier exchanges today gave us a glimpse of the debates to come in the proposed Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not accept that it is wrong to timetable a constitutional measure. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) gave us examples of constitutional Bills that were timetabled, such as the EEC Bill, so principle is not involved.
  Mr. Budgen: As the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords, would he expect the Tory Party to be in favour of some form of timetable motion in the event of such a measure being brought forward by his Government?
  Mr. Winnick: That is an interesting question, but I shall not speculate on what is likely to happen about Labour Government proposals, which I hope will come in the next Parliament.
  I can understand the pressure of the majority of Government Members to see a motion such as this. Those Conservative Members who have no strong feelings about the Bill can hardly have been happy to be here night after night, spending most or all of the night here because of the attitude of about 25 or 30 of their colleagues. It is understandable that there has been great pressure on the Leader of the House from his party to bring in a guillotine.
  I wish to explain my attitude to the motion and my disagreement with those who have been opposing the Bill, but I should like to pay tribute to the parliamentary skills and talents, and the staying powers, of those hon. Members who have been opposing the Bill. They have used all the machinery of the House, and they were entitled to do so, because one reason why we have a House of Commons is so that some hon. Members can try to oppose and obstruct a Bill which they believe will do damage.
  One could argue that a guillotine motion is always a tribute to the persistence of the opponents of a Bill. In this case the opponents come in the main from the Government side of the House. When the Leader of the House introduced the motion, he rightly said that if there was no guillotine there would be no Bill. It is no great secret that the Government intended, almost from the beginning, to introduce a guillotine.
  I hope that any praise from me will not cause any harm to those opposing the Bill, but I must say that it is never easy to oppose one's Government. There have been occasions when I have had to do so, with some of my hon. Friends, but to oppose a Bill in the way that Conservative Members have done shows their independence of mind. I have no criticism to make of what they have done.
  However, I must say that had there been similar Back-Bench opposition when a Labour Government were in office, there would perhaps have been a few, more headlines than there have been in the past few weeks. When Conservative Members rebel, and do so in the way that we have been witnessing, there seems not to be as much desire on the part of the newspapers and the media generally to publicise it as there is when Labour Members of Parliament rebel against their Government.
  I come now to what I should do this evening. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said that he was in favour of an Assembly in Northern Ireland. I am not. I do not consider that the Bill has any relevance to the prevailing conditions in Northern Ireland. When we consider the tragedy and the devastation that occur in Northern Ireland, we must inevitably ask ourselves whether the Bill will do anything to help ease the problems. I do not believe that it will.
  Northern Ireland Members should not take the view, as on occasions they may do, that those of us who represent mainland constituencies do not understand or appreciate what is happening, day in and day out, in Northern Ireland. It is sometimes said that when the terrorists bomb the mainland in London, Birmingham and elsewhere we are alerted in some sense, but that we still do not understand the conditions in the Province and what happens there every day, or virtually every day. We understand only too well what citizens of both communities have to endure from terrorism and

  191
  intimidation in Northern Ireland. We have no illusions. Understandably, however, we come to different points of view on how the problems can and should be resolved.
  Therefore, as I am not in favour of the Bill, I have to ask myself whether I should join the opposition to the motion. Would it not be logical to do so? It would certainly be easy to do so.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has indulged in a long preamble, but now we are on to the gist of the thing. As Members of Parliament, our job in Opposition is to make sure that we harass the Government in all ways. For example, the House of Lords now has the hated Employment—Tebbitt—Bill. Our job in Opposition is to ensure that we keep that Employment Bill and other obnoxious Bills that attack our working-class constituents as far away from the Government as possible.
  One way in which to achieve that is to use the Tory rebels who are against the Bill. By getting all our votes together in the Lobby we can defeat the Government and, keeep the Bill going here. We hope that it will then carry on and the Employment Bill can be kept out for another week or fortnight. In that way, we shall be serving our class.
  Mr. Winnick: As I attend various meetings with my hon. Friend, I am familiar with his point of view, which I respect and understand. However, on occasions we must disagree, although I do so with great reluctance. I am not convinced that it would be possible to defeat the guillotine motion, but that is not the issue. The issue is that each of us, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, should make up his own mind. I find that it is impossible to join hon. Members in the Lobby today to oppose the motion.
  My explanation is simple, and my hon. Friend may or may not agree with me. It is that the views of hon. Members opposing the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill are so diametrically opposed to mine about the future of Northern Ireland that I should find it impossible, in all honesty, to go into the same Lobby.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has done it before, on the Common Market.
  Mr. Winnick: There are occasions, such as the Common Market, and, prior to the Common Market, the House of Lords measure, when different points of view are united against a Bill. They believed that it was right and proper to act jointly, because, although they had different reasons for so doing, they were united in believing that that legislation was unnecessary. I do not believe that the same is true of the Northern Ireland Bill.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman not be convinced that many of us who want integration want it primarily—or if not primarily at least as one of the reasons—because we want to safeguard the minority community in Northern Ireland, which I believe is what the hon. Gentleman wants?
  Mr. Winnick: I hope that what I am about to say will satisfy the hon. Gentleman that that is one of the reasons why I cannot vote with him tonight.
  Those who oppose the Bill are divided largely into two groups. There are those who want Stormont back, and their only regret is that Stormont was abolished. When the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)
  192
  described what happened during the past 50 years in Northern Ireland, while Stormont existed, he did not give all the reasons that led to Stormont being so discredited that a Conservative Government introduced direct rule.
  Then there are those, such as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who do not necessarily argue for Stormont or for devolution as such, but for integration. That view is opposed to my own. I take the view that integration is no more an answer to the problems of Northern Ireland than the revival and restoration of Stormont. Both views are so different from mine that I cannot bring myself to vote with them.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that although he does not agree with the Bill—and I think he is saying that he does not agree with the guillotine—what will influence his decision in the Lobby is not his view on the rightness of the issue, but the company that he may keep there? Is that not a rather strange view to take?
  Mr. Winnick: I am coming to the answer to the hon. Lady's question.
  The view that has been taken for so long—indeed, for more than 100 years—by the opponents of the Bill has caused much damage and bloodshed. It is not difficult to imagine some of the same hon. Gentlemen 100 years ago staunchly opposing any form of home rule for Ireland, and refusing to recognise that Ireland needed solutions quite different from those on the mainland. It would not be too difficult to imagine the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), long before he opposed votes for women, or payment for Members of Parliament, or any move to alleviate the lot of the working class in this country, getting up 80 or 100 years ago and opposing any concept of home rule, saying that if home rule were granted to Ireland it would be the end of the world.
  That view, which is illustrated by those who oppose the Bill, has been responsible in many ways for the situation in Northern Ireland, which I deplore. It has been responsible for helping terrorism and, before that, for causing bloodshed, when people gave up any hope of the House of Commons resolving the problems of Ireland in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people who live there in both the North and the South.
  It is for those reasons that I make a distinction—even if some of my hon. Friends, with whom I normally agree, do not—between the House of Lords and Common Market legislation and this Bill. That type of view, which is so much opposed to this modest measure—which, as I said earlier, will do no good—has been responsible for what I have described in Northern Ireland. Of course I respect the sincerity of right hon. and hon. Members who hold that view, because they are acting in what they believe are the best interests of the United Kingdom. In many respects they want to roll back all that has happened in Ireland during the past 50 or 60 years. They imagine that, somehow, home rule can be thrown away as if we were debating the situation 100 years ago.
  I have given the matter a great deal of thought. One does not normally give a great deal of thought to timetable motions. It depends on which side one sits. When one is in Opposition, it is quite simple. Three-line Whip or no three-line Whip, one opposes for obvious reasons. If one is on the Government side, one supports the Government.

  193
  However, I have reached my conclusion. I may be wrong, but, having reached that conclusion, I shall abstain tonight.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I shall be brief and speak entirely about the guillotine motion.
  Perhaps I might suggest to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that his concept of duty as a member of the Opposition is a mistaken one—not according to my view, but according to that of the late Aneurin Bevan. When I was a very new Member, I congratulated him on the speech that he made opposing a Conservative guillotine. He said "I hope that you will speak as strongly against a guillotine when my party brings one in, regardless of the content of the motion concerned, because it is extremely important that every Opposition should oppose every Government timetable motion. Otherwise they will start to seek them too often, if they feel they are getting them too easily". If my words will not persuade the hon. Gentleman, perhaps he will be convinced by the example and words of the late Mr. Bevan.
  I had not intended to speak in this debate, still less to urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion. However, although I have always opposed the Bill, and therefore the guillotine, I perceived quite clearly the Government's reasons for it, and why it might be not altogether unreasonable for them to seek to curtail debate on future amendments and new clauses. However, I am appalled by the way in which the Government have set about it. They are not merely curtailing debate; they are killing it. The cynicism shown by the Government in both the content of the motion and the arguments that have so far been put in its favour are quite deplorable.
  We are told that the previous debates over many hours have been obstructive, that people have spoken for a long time, and that they have been filibustering. Assuming that that is true, was it not apparent a little earlier? Could that not have been deduced from the nature of the speeches after fewer hours, and this motion brought forward at an earlier stage, so that more time could be given to the remaining clauses? It might also have been possible for the closure to be moved and accepted at an earlier stage in each debate. Now, after what the Government consider an unduly long period on the earlier part of the Bill, we are to have one day only for the remainder of the Committee stage—with all the amendments, some of which have already been accepted, and new clauses—and one day only for the remaining stages.
  What the Government propose does not curtail debate; it effectively destroys it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) pointed out in an intervention, there are a number of serious amendments, and in the course of the debates many differing points of view have been put forward both by representatives of Northern Ireland and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides. The only people who have been wholly absent and shown no interest are members of the Labour Party. In these circumstances it seems that if the Government are punishing the Tory opponents of the Bill by trying to gag them, secure in the knowledge that in this enterprise they have the support of the Opposition.
  As the Bill was brought forward late in the Session for such an important Bill and the closures were moved
  194
  relatively late, for if there were filibustering, the closures could have been moved and would have been accepted earlier. The fact that the closure could not thus be moved is, in itself, evidence that the debates were real. Therefore, the fact that the Government did not seek to move a closure earlier is evidence that they regarded the debates as realistic.
  The pattern of behaviour suggests to me that the Government are determined to get the Bill through regardless. Their tactic seems to be to give the rebels a run and then kill the debate on the rest of the Bill by a deplorable conspiracy between the two front Benches.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Since the downfall of the Sunningdale Executive in 1974, successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, have tried to find a way to restore self-government to Northern Ireland. They have failed to do so.
  The Secretary of State's attempt is worthy of support. There is no guarantee that it will be successful. That is one reason why I have not taken part in the debates so far. Had I and my hon. Friends taken part in those debates we would have succeeded in implementing the wishes of those hon. Members who are trying to kill the Bill. The argument that we have not taken part because we were uninterested is not valid. I am interested in the Bill.
  If you, Mr. Speaker, had been in the House and listened to the cross-talk between the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) you would have been wholly convinced that the one has just as vivid an imagination as the other. The hon. Member for Antrim, North sees his bogy men in Dublin. The right hon. Member for Down, South sees his bogy men in the Foreign Office. They hold the belief that there are men in the Republic and in the Foreign Office who are intent on dragging Northern Ireland into the Republic. I do not believe that that is valid.
  You were a Member of the House at the time, Mr. Speaker, although you may not have been in your august position, and I have read the reports of the debates and I have re-read the constitutional report from Northern Ireland. The arguments that were used at the constitutional Convention in Stormont were almost word for word those used subsequently by Opposition Members. Those Conservatives who were opposed to the Secretary of Stale for Northern Ireland when he was the Secretary of State for Employment are the same Conservatives who are opposing the Bill tooth and nail today. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has been consistent. He was opposed to the Sunningdale agreement and to the abolition of Stormont. He has always put forward the argument for full integration. Although I disagree with his arguments, I accept his sincerity
  As has been said before, the Bill is perhaps the last chance for Northern Ireland. There have been so many last chances for Northern Ireland. However, the Bill should at least be given the opportunity to see whether it can make political progress in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North has shortened my speech considerably. He said that the passing of the Bill will not be welcomed by extreme Republicans in Ireland. It will not be welcomed by the Provisional IRA which has already voiced its bitter opposition. It will certainly not be welcomed by the present Taoiseach of the Republic. The fear that the passing of the Bill will break the links that

  195
  bind Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom and bring about a Republic has been deliberately built up, particularly by the right hon. Member for Down, South and his parliamentary colleagues, and it is not true.
  I am the only hon. Member who was a member of the power-sharing Sunningdale Executive in 1974. I can honestly say that it is only that type of Government that has any hope of succeeding in Northern Ireland. That is why I support the Bill. I should like to see Sunningdale mark II. I should like to see a Bill that has all the guarantees of Sunningdale written into it. The Bill is much weaker than I want it to be. However, it is a step. It will create a forum in Northern Ireland where elected representatives of the Northern Irish people will be able to meet and discuss their differences. After a long period without the opportunity to govern themselves, the people of Northern Ireland will be able to find the ways, means and accommodation to do so.
  The passing of the Bill will not lead to a cessation of violence. I am only too well aware that during the conflict in the Falkland Islands in the past few weeks the tragedy in Northern Ireland has continued. To be burnt to death by an Exocet missile in the Falklands is just as bad as being burnt to death by a petrol bomb thrown by a child on the streets of Derry.
  The people of Northern Ireland are desperately hoping that concrete steps will be taken to set up an Assembly in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland people will then decide whether devolved power will be transferred to the Assembly of Stormont.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a valid point when he said that if the predictions of the election results are accurate the Unionist parties of various shades should comprise the majority in Northern Ireland. We have already seen how, in 1974, when hysteria was built up, the Sunningdale executive was tragically defeated. No doubt the same thing can be done in this election. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that, because of the imposition of the guillotine, he would not be able to tell the hon. Member for Birkenhead why that could not be so. They can meet in the Corridor or elsewhere in the House or he can write a letter to say why that argument is not valid.
  I have in the past, both in Northern Ireland and in the House, taken decisions that were not wholly popular with everyone. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that the Bill goes some way to support the Labour Party's policy statement, with which I am in full accord.
  I should have hoped that the Opposition could have supported in the Lobby the Bill and the guillotine motion. I have never before voted for a guillotine in the House. I am open to correction, but I cannot remember doing so. I find such motions distasteful. However, I find even more distasteful the people who are creating such opposition to the Bill.
  I should like to reinforce what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and others. There seems to be an undercurrent among Conservative Members, who are concerned not so much about the Bill as with their animosity and hostility towards the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] I notice the immediate reaction
  196
  that that remark brings. I am inclined to say that if the cap fits, wear it. Why are Conservative Members getting so excited if there is not a grain of truth in what I say?
  Last Sunday I received a telephone call from a reporter of some distinction in Ireland. He does not believe every story that he is told, but he told me that he had had a tip that he suspected came from Downing Street to the effect that the Secretary of State was being removed from office in a reshuffle. All those rumours are designed to cause unease and confusion and to give support to those who have shown such venomous opposition to the Bill.
  Mr. Porter: I am not one of those who bears animosity towards anyone, least of all towards the hon. Gentleman. However, perhaps he will address his mind to the evidence that we have heard from the various factions in the Unionist Party, from extreme Republicans and from the Provisional IRA. On the evidence, if representatives of those bodies are elected to the Assembly there is no possibility that they will agree among themselves—particularly on a 70 per cent. basis—so that they can put forward proposals to the Secretary of State. We fear not the passing of the Bill—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a very long intervention. Many hon. Members hope to catch my eye and the debate will finish shortly after 7.5 pm.
  Mr. Porter: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) agree with me?
  Mr. Fitt: I wish to limit my remarks. The hon. Gentleman is saying that if we create an Assembly and if agreement cannot be found it will lead to a continuation of the conflict. That is the gospel of despair. People say that they do not know when the right time will come to take positive steps to create the political structures that will lead to a cessation of violence. However, it is our duty to create the conditions that will bring the political impasse to an end and thus lead to a cessation of violence. That is what the Secretary of State is trying to do.
  Although it is against my political instincts to support guillotine motions, I shall happily go into the Lobby tonight, together with any hon. Member who wishes to accompany me, to support the Secretary of State.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. John Roper: I do not intend to detain the House for long. I must admit that, like the Leader of the House, I have not attended all the Committee's sittings. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) have attended almost all of them. In c. 989 of Hansard of 16 June, my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby explained her attitude towards the protracted debate on the Bill's early clauses. She said that the filibuster had been "long and elegant" and she was right to use those words.
  We have said that we should like to see the Bill on the statute book, and we voted for it on Second Reading. We recognise that those who represent Northern Ireland have a particular interest in the Bill's details and that that also applies to some of those Conservative Members who have taken part in the debates. However, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said, it would

  197
  appear that opposition to the Bill has sometimes been mixed with opposition to the Secretary of State's general political stance.
  Mr. Budgen: Nonsense.
  Mr. Roper: I attended the debate two weeks ago and listened to the venom expressed by Conservative Members. That venom made the nature of the opposition to the Secretary of State and his colleagues quite clear.
  Obviously, we would have preferred a more generous timetable motion. We agree with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) about the introduction of the motion. It would almost certainly have been better to have introduced it a week ago and for three days to have been allocated for debate on the Bill's remaining clauses. For example, clause 5 is particularly important but, as a result of the timetable motion, it will not receive the attention that it deserves.
  Representations have been made to the Leader of the House about the relatively limited time allotted in the motion.
  Viscount Cranbourne: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that during our debates on schedule 1, frequent reference was made to the importance of clause 5, and that various points that could have been discussed in the context of that schedule were deliberately avoided by hon. Members on both sides of the argument because they were waiting to raise them on clause 5? It now seems as though we shall not have the opportunity to debate that clause fully.
  Mr. Roper: I just referred to the importance of clause 5. However, in rather less than an hour we shall have to make a choice. A genuine complaint can be made about the meanness of the motion, but given what has been said and the fact that the Bill will not reach the statute book unless a timetable motion is introduced, I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends should support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The House listened with considerable interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). He must be among the convincing and powerful of the spokesmen for the minority community in Northern Ireland, and he gave a powerful argument for supporting the motion.
  Of course I appreciate that there are many disadvantages to a timetable motion. Many of them have been referred to. Perhaps the most notable disadvantage is that the House will not discuss several clauses and amendments at any length. I say to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends with whom I disagree that it is particularly distressing for those of us who support the motion that they will be directly affected by its consequences. However, I am absolutely certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to introduce it. We have a choice: we can lose the Bill, save it at a disproportionate cost, or accept a timetable motion. Faced with that choice I am certain that we should accept a timetable motion. It is desirable to recognise what has been happening. Those who have attended the debates or who have read the Official Report will immediately understand that we face an orchestrated, concerted and deliberate attempt to frustrate the Bill's passage. The instrument that has been chosen is the prolongation of
  198
  discussion in the hope that the passage of time will destroy the Government's resolve. I do not complain about that. I fully concede that a filibuster is a proper parliamentary tactic. It is equally proper, however, for a Government who are determined to bring forward a measure to impose a timetable. One cannot allow one without the other.
  The Opposition often use such filibustering tactics, and I must concede to my hon. and right hon. Friends a similar right. I do not grumble because the tactics employed against the Bill have come from behind me rather than in front, but I grumble when hon. Members complain that they are not being fairly treated.
  There are disadvantages associated with any timetable motion. Clauses and amendments will go undiscussed, but who is responsible for that? Surely those who have used the process of scrutiny to delay the Bill and deliberately to kill it are responsible. Among the most assidious of my hon. Friends who have tried to kill the Bill by the prolongation of discussion is my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). Normally he is noted for the conciseness of his speeches, but not this time. An analysis of the Official Report revealed that in Committee he made no fewer than 16 major speeches and 97 interventions. We must be realistic about these matters. Hon. Members who make 97 interventions are in no position to grumble when a timetable motion is imposed. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has been the most talkative of my hon. Friends, his example has been matched by many of his colleagues. It is extraordinary that, on the first day in Committee, we spent more than 6½ hours on points of order before we even reached clause 1. Not one Division has been unmoved. Dilatory motions have succeeded one another, and the result was a filibuster. Those who are opposed to the proposed curtailment of discussion have no one to blame but themselves.
  The other major argument that is advanced against the motion is that this is a constitutional Bill. But that in no way excludes it from the operation of a timetable motion. I leave aside the issue of precedent—there are many good precedents—and advance the much more powerful argument that on 10 May on Second Reading the House supported the Bill with a massive majority of 262. In so doing the House declared its approval of the principle of the Bill. The House must now decide whether a small group of 20 or 30 hon. Members has any right to veto and frustrate the freely declared wishes of the majority of hon. Members. That is the constitutional principle that is at stake. When one realises the true constitutional position, one realises the desirability of supporting this motion.
  We have three choices. We can let the Bill die, we can save it at disproportionate cost by sacrificing Government legislation or—does my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West wish to intervene?
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be grossly unfair other hon. Members who are waiting to be called, if the hon. Gentleman were to intervene.
  Mr. Hogg: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. That would have been my hon. Friend's ninety-ninth or one hundredth intervention, which is five or six too many.

  199
  The choice is either to support the timetable motion or to let the Bill die. If we do the latter we shall allow a small group of Members to veto the declared will of the House, which would not be right.
  6.35 pm
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: May I assure the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the House that we who oppose the Bill, and therefore this motion, have done so on public and not private grounds? Instead of listening to rumours and reading newspaper accounts, the right hon. Gentleman should consider those hon. Members who have taken a stand against the Bill. He will find that they are not likely to be indulging in a vendetta against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as he alleged. Indeed, some of us supported my right hon. Friend on earlier legislation that was intensely controversial within the Conservative Party.
  On Second Reading I said:
  "My right hon. Friend should not, by his understandable eagerness for his measure, divide his party and, what matters more, the country, on both sides of the sea."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 492.]
  I begged my right hon. Friend to emulate the statesmanship of his predecessors in a home rule measure in 1914. There is, however, more resemblance between the Bill that this motion seeks to expedite and the second home rule Bill of 1893, because it too provided for extensive but partial legislative devolution with continued representation at Westminster. In reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who gave us the ritual statistics, on that measure 459 speeches were delivered in favour of it and 938 were delivered against. It occupied 210 hours in the House of Commons. Have we really imposed an excessive delay upon this Bill?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is correct. There is ample precedent for guillotining a constitutional Bill. One such precedent—a bad one—was the guillotine imposed by the present Leader of the Opposition on the Scotland and Wales Bill. The right hon. Member for Mansfield said that he did not rebel against his own party and that he finds the spectacle surprising. I do not know why it should be surprising for such an experienced member of the Labour Party—
  Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman must not degrade me. I did not say that I have never voted against my party. If that gets back to my constituency, I shall be in trouble.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should express such astonishment. I recall that a Labour Member, Mr. Lomas, who is no longer with us and whom I miss, partly because of our regimental association, said that he would not vote for the Labour Government on the guillotine motion proposed by the present Leader of the Opposition. He said that his loyalty was to the United Kingdom. So there is a conflict of loyalty in the House today. Right hon. and hon. Members must decide in conscience where lies the higher loyalty.
  There are precedents for the timetable motion, but what seems to me without precedent—I would agree with the adjective "unique" that was applied by the right hon. Member for Mansfield—is for the guillotine to fall upon the necks of Government supporters whose opposition to
  200
  the Bill is firmly based on the Northern Ireland policy that was declared at the general election in the manifesto of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
  I know that my right hon. Friend will say that before the words in the manifesto about
  "one or more elected regional councils"
  there are the magic words
  "in the absence of devolved government",
  but my right hon. Friend cannot really say that there is a chance of devolution when we hear, every time there is a debate in the House, the opinions expressed by Unionist Members of different types of Unionism and contrast those views with the form of devolution upon which not only my right hon. Friend but also the House would insist. That was apparent at the time the House spurned the majority report of the Northern Ireland constitutional Convention. It is even clearer today.
  The Assembly will come into existence. Politicians are people who observe the French maxim that the absent are wrong. They do not want to be left out to leave the field to their opponents. If I may be so offensive, the Assembly will be a locomotive which will haul a considerable gravy train. The Assembly may come into existence, but it will not do what my right hon. Friends hope. Even if it refrains from the bitterness and even the physical violence that disfigured the first Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland constitutional Convention, it will not do anything for the security and stability of the Province or the employment and prosperity of its people. It will be more likely to give the impression that conditions are not such as to attract investment and foreign capital.
  Sunningdale was mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). It was after Sunningdale that violence markedly increased. Why do we hurry the Bill? [Interruption.] A message has been given to me which says "Can you sit down?" I am not sure that I can sit down just yet. Why hurry a Bill which perpetuates sectarian politics? Why hurry a Bill which gives no encouragement to the many Roman Catholics who favour the Union to favour it more openly?
  The debate on the appropriate amendments and new clauses should be longer so that the Secretary of State may rethink his position. It was alleged that we were not open to reason and that we have sought no agreement or accommodation. I suggested humbly to my right hon. Friend that if his Assembly could be turned in the direction of the regional council mentioned in our general election manifesto that would be very helpful to his hon. Friends. But he told us in Committee that he had made his private inquiries and that the result of those inquiries justified his virtual tearing up of the relevant part of our general election pledge.
  I shall draw my speech to a close and considerably truncate my remarks. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would have been better able to justify shortening the proceedings had he not earlier in Committee ruled out the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) about a referendum. That would really have tested whether it be true that the people of Northern Ireland would welcome the proposals contained in the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend's impetuosity is endearing but dangerous. Stability is not to be achieved by hyperkinetic Ministers insisting that something must be done, however futile or fantastic. The loyal and law-abiding people of Northern Ireland will be perturbed and flagging terrorist hopes revived by the recurring spectacle of political

  201
  initiative. The impression given by the itch for initiatives and solutions is of a lack of confidence, a weakness of will, a lukewarmness towards the Union, an unwillingness to govern as though in fact as well as in law Northern Ireland were an integral part of the United Kingdom, and the appeasement of foreign powers.
  The terrorists must say "With Brits like these and Bills like these, they may yet be blasted out of Ireland." So the terrorism goes on taking its toll of life, limb and hope.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is hoped that the concluding speeches will begin at 6.50 pm.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The Leader of the House, in opening the debate, said that the guillotine was necessary. I dispute that because, as the Government were able to move the closure whenever they needed it, no guillotine is necessary.
  I find equally unconvincing the Labour Party attitude expressed by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). Since the purpose of the official Opposition is to restrict Government business I find much more to my liking the views put forward by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who set out the true position with brevity and clarity.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), whom I consider to be the cleverest, most devious and most dangerous Republican of all, welcomed the Bill. That for me is sufficient reason to be against what the Bill contains.I draw that to the attention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who was so anxious to attack the view taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me over the talks between the sovereign Governments.
  I should like, for the record, to read what we proposed to the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister at that time. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said:
  "We would respectfully remind you of your repeated assertions that the internal affairs of the United Kingdom and all its parts are exclusively a matter for this country and for its Parliament and Government, and we regret that the Dublin meeting and the communiqué will be widely misinterpreted as conflicting with those assertions."
  I find nothing there that conflicts with my attitude as an Unionist, nor do I find anything with which I would disagree in the list of subjects that we put before the Prime Minister:
  "1. Arrangements for extradition from the Republic of persons charged with serious offences in the United Kingdom."
  I should have thought that any Unionist would have been in favour of extradition and of seeking it by all means. It appears now that one of the larger Unionist parties is no longer of that view.
  "2. The removal from the constitution of the Republic of the claim to include in its territory a part of the United Kingdom.
  3. A review of the citizenship laws of the two countries with a view to eliminating (A) the anomalous position whereby nationals of the Republic possess the franchise in the United Kingdom … and (B) those provisions of the Republic's citizenship law which afford dual citizenship to unduly extended categories of persons.
  4. Delimitation of the international frontier in the Foyle estuary and Carlingford Lough and outwards to the two hundred mile or median limits."
  I note that the owners of the vessels that were sunk still have not got it right.
  The document continues:
  202
  "5. Modification of the 'Common Travel Area' with a view to

  (A) The enforcement of U.K. and E.E.C. law on movement and immigration and

  (B) Better identification and verification of persons moving between the two states.

  6. Improved co-operation in the maintenance of customs and security surveillance on the common frontier."
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ross: I have no time to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have promised that I would finish soon.
  I should have thought that the views that we put forward at that time could be supported by any Unionist. If there must be discussions between the two sovereign Governments, let them deal with the problems that really affect us, above all the problem of extradition.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. John Silkin: It is unusual for the shadow Leader of the House to wind up on a timetable motion rather than to introduce it. However, this is also an unusual, and perhaps unique, occasion. I cannot remember an occasion in the nearly 20 years that I have been in the House when a Government have introduced a guillotine purely against their followers. That is a little unusual, or possibly unique.
  I make no complaint about that. Governments are entitled to get their business. Why should I complain? I am neutral in this affair, compared to those who have used their powers of eloquence and arguments in some 97 interventions to try to stop their Government from getting legislation of which they disapprove. That is respectable, responsible and well within parliamentary precedent. It is one of the things that makes Parliament interesting and exciting.
  In my present position I have opposed four guillotine motions. The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) recalled the late Aneurin Bevan's fine words. If I take slight exception to what is happening it is that the guillotine was introduced later in the proceedings than the four other guillotine motions that I had the honour to oppose. In other words, the Government introduced the guillotine a little too early in those four cases. I know that with few, or perhaps no, exceptions, only my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench intervened from the Opposition side during the long debates on the Bill. It seems that the guillotine has come later rather than earlier.
  The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said that the Government had three choices. The first was to let the Bill disappear and accept defeat. The second was to see that the Bill got precedence over other legislation that the Government thought was important. The third was to introduce a timetable motion. With respect, the hon. Gentleman's second choice does not work. There is no other legislation that would be displaced. The Leader of the House and I see eye to eye on that.
  That is the argument that I put to my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I agree that we must strongly oppose the Employment Bill, as we did on the guillotine motion and throughout the other proceedings. However, because the Employment Bill has been timetabled, there is no hope of our being able to hold it up. It is cut and dried. I cannot believe that this Government, of all Governments, would scrap the Employment Bill in order to let the Northern Ireland Bill go through.

  203
  That is why I say to the hon. Member for Grantham that that choice is not on. Therefore, there are only two possibilities. One is that the guillotine should be allowed to lapse, in which case, as the Leader of the House properly and honestly told us, the Bill would disappear. The other possibility is that the Bill should be guillotined, in which case the legislation would come back to the Floor of the House after it had gone to the other place. If the Opposition opposed the Bill, we would not prevent the progress of the Employment Bill.
  I cannot believe that it is the duty of the Opposition to support the Government. We cannot support the guillotine. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield made an important and convincing case why we should not oppose the progress of the guillotine motion. It is unusual and unique. Our attitude to the Bill is not one of wild enthusiasm, but we are prepared to see that it has a run. It is in that context that I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the best course for the Opposition at this stage is neither to support the motion nor to oppose it, but to abstain.
  6.57 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I am certain that my hon. Friend the Leader of the House will agree when I say that no Minister likes to stand at the Dispatch Box and impose a guillotine. That is always one of the more uncomfortable processes in the House, no more so than when one is proposing a guillotine that has the effect of curtailing the time for debate for one's hon. Friends. Therefore, it was an enormous disappointment to me when I had to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in Government and in my party to allow a guillotine motion on the Bill.
  I thought that I had tried to meet a number of points early in the Bill. On the first evening when we had spent a great deal of time on points of order and on what at other times would have been purely a procedural motion on the order of the clauses and schedules, I thought that I helped by conceding that we would make the notes on clauses readily available to my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members so that we could try to expedite the proceedings.
  I also recognise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has said only too forcefully that to introduce such a Bill at this time of the year is asking for trouble. I accept that. I shall try to explain why I had to be prepared to take that risk.
  I have had to recognise throughout the long discussions on the Bill that the purpose of my hon. Friends, about which I make no complaint, was to seek to kill the Bill. They are perfectly entitled to take that view. In many respects they have been successful in that they have taken up much time.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) suggested that we could have brought the guillotine in sooner. I do not know where he can have been during those late nights to believe that that option was open to us. If we had moved the guillotine motion earlier, we would have met just as many objections. However, that was a matter of judgment. We had hoped against hope that we would not need a guillotine. That was why, night after
  204
  night, we asked many Conservative Members to stay in the Chamber until dawn so that we might seek to get the Bill through in any way without a guillotine.
  I recognise also that Northern Irish Bills, or Irish Bills, as they used to be, are always controversial matters. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the original concept of the guillotine and the closure came during the last century because of Irish legislation. We are repeating some of that today.
  I should not have advised my Cabinet colleagues or the Government to go ahead with the Bill at this stage in the Session without an enormous amount of thought and an equal degree of belief that the Bill was necessary. I could not do it earlier. I arrived in the Province in September when the hunger strike was coming to an end and when feelings were running extremely high. I had a whole range of discussions with the political parties there. I recognised that there was no easy solution or answer to the problems of Northern Ireland. We have had a suggestion of that in the debate this afternoon where the differences between the Democratic Unionists, the Official Unionists, the SDLP and so on have been exposed. There is also a degree of difference within each of those parties. When people say to me "Nearly everyone is against your measures," that conceals an enormous difference in the range of opinions within the political parties.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has opposed the Bill as hard as anyone. I congratulate him on his ability. He opposes it on completely different grounds from those of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The hon. Member for Antrim, North and his party are in favour of devolution, but they want their own type of devolution. The right hon. Member for Down, South is an integrationist. They have joined together for the purpose of defeating the Bill.
  There is no one better aware than I that violence, the economy and political stability are the pressing problems of the Province. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that the Bill would cause predictable and certain death. What is certain is that there have been more than 2,000 deaths from terrorism during the past years of violence. It is my duty—I cannot think of any way in which I should want to upset my own colleagues on the Back Benches unless I believed this implicitly—as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to do more than allow that toll to continue.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that the Bill is no certain curb. It can only make a modest attempt to put politics in the place of violence or the vacuum in Northern Ireland. I cannot conceive why anyone in the House should be against that. The right hon. Member for Down, South is entitled to his view that the Bill will make things worse rather than better. That can only be his opinion. The Government's view is that the Bill offers a hope—perhaps an uncertain or qualified hope—by which Northern Ireland may move from its present miseries.
  The Bill puts firmly and squarely on the people of Northern Ireland the responsibility for filling the political vacuum that direct rule caused and allowed to continue. It provides an opportunity for an elected Assembly to be set up where Members can test their opinions one against another. There is no way at the moment by which the opinions of one section of the community can be tested

  205
  against those of another section in an Assembly or any democratic institution. I believe that that is an essential prerequisite before moving towards greater devolution.
  Northern Ireland is not like other parts of the United Kingdom. There are the two traditions and the two identities. There are those who identify with the united Ireland approach and the majority who identify equally strongly with the United Kingdom. If we do not recognise that those two identities create differences that are not present in the rest of the United Kingdom, I do not believe that we have any right to suggest that Northern Ireland can and should only be governed in line with that which is possible in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The debates have concentrated on some of the hazards and problems of the Bill. I suggest to those hon. Members who have complained that there may not be time for their amendments to be discussed—that includes the hon. Member for Antrim, North—that, if we concentrate on those amendments which are constructive rather than on those which are destructive we may find that we can have proper and useful debates until 1 am Thursday morning and that that will provide ample time.
  I wish that we could have had an agreement to timetable the debates without the need for a guillotine motion, but I do not believe that that has ever been a feasible proposition. When I talked to right hon. and hon. Members and suggested that six or seven days would have been a fair allocation of time, they suggested, rather jokingly, that they needed 15, 16 or 20 days. I have never believed that there was a manner in which that problem could be resolved. Not to have gone ahead with the Bill would have done less than justice to the continuing consequences of the present position in Northern Ireland.
  I believe that the time has come for the Government to show their resolve to get the Bill on the statute book. That is an important factor in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, South says that there is reference in the White Paper to the effect of the Bill on security and other matters. The uncertainty that prevails in Northern Ireland about whether we shall proceed with the Bill is a factor which must be taken into account. I cannot promise that the measures the Government are putting forward will be crowned with success. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—to all those who have died as a result of terrorism, to those who suffer, to those who wish to see the unity of the United Kingdom—to push the Bill through and give Northern Ireland the chance of political stability and responsibility that it has not had for a number of years.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 44.

  Division No 231]

  [7.8 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Alton, David

  Blackburn, John

  Arnold, Tom

  Blaker, Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bonsor, Slr Nicholas

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Bradley, Tom

  Banks, Robert

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Bright, Graham

  Beith, A. J.

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Best, Keith

  Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

  206

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hooson, Tom

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

  Horam, John

  Buck, Antony

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Howell, RtHonD. (G'ldf'd)

  Butcher, John

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Howells, Geraint

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Cartwright, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Irvine, Bryant Godman

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Churchill, W. S.

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jessel, Toby

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Cope, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Corrie, John

  Kimball, Sir Marcus

  Costain, Sir Albert

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Critchley, Julian

  Knox, David

  Crouch, David

  Lamont, Norman

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Lang, Ian

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Dover, Denshore

  Lee, John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Dunn, James A.

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Durant, Tony

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Luce, Richard

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Eggar, Tim

  Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

  Elliott, Sir William

  Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacGregor, John

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

  Fitt, Gerard

  McNally, Thomas

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Madel, David

  Fox, Marcus

  Magee, Bryan

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Major, John

  Freud, Clement

  Marland, Paul

  Fry, Peter

  Marlow, Antony

  Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Ginsburg, David

  Mates, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Goodhew, Sir Victor

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Greenway, Harry

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Grist, Ian

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Grylls, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moore, John

  Hannam, John

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Hawkins, Sir Paul

  Mudd, David

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Myles, David

  Heddle, John

  Neale, Gerrard

  Henderson, Barry

  Needham, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hicks, Robert

  Newton, Tony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Normanton, Tom

  Hill, James

  Nott, Rt Hon John

  207

  Ogden, Eric

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Sproat, Iain

  Onslow, Cranley

  Squire, Robin

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Stainton, Keith

  Osborn, John

  Stanley, John

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Steen, Anthony

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Stevens, Martin

  Parris, Matthew

  Stewart,A (E Renfrewshire)

  Patten,Christopher (Bath)

  Stradling Thomas,J.

  Patten,John (Oxford)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Pattie,Geoffrey

  Taylor, Teddy (S'.end E)

  Pawsey, James

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Penhaligon, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Percival,Sir Ian

  Thomas,Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

  Pink, R.Bonner

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Pitt, William Henry

  Thompson, Donald

  Pollock,Alexander

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Porter,Barry

  Townend, John(Bridlington)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Trippier, David

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Trotter, Neville

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Viggers,Peter

  Renton, Tim

  Wainwright, R.Colne V)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wakeham, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Ridley,Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)

  Ridsdale,Sir Julian

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Waller, Gary

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Walters, Dennis

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roper, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Rossi, Hugh

  Wells, Bowen

  Rost, Peter

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Royle, Sir Anthony

  Wheeler, John

  Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Whitney, Raymond

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Wickenden, Keith

  Sandelson, Neville

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Williams,D.(Montgomery)

  Shelton, William(Streatham)

  Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

  Shersby, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Silvester, Fred

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Sims, Roger

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Smith, Dudley

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Speed, Keith

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Speller, Tony

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  NOES

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Moate, Roger

  Budgen, Nick

  Molyneaux, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Parry, Robert

  Cryer, Bob

  Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Dixon, Donald

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Dunlop, John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Farr, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gorst, John

  Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Kerr, Russell

  Stoddart, David

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Stokes, John

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Latham, Michael

  Tilley, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  208

  White, Frank R.

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Mr. Christopher Murphy and

  Mr. William Ross.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

  Committee, Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following Table:—

  TABLE

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  Clause 3 (remaining proceedings); Clause 4

  6.30 pm

  Clause 5

  9 pm

  Remaining proceedings

  One hour after midnight

  (2) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and on that day—

  (a) the proceedings on Consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and

  (b) the proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight.

  (3) Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

  Proceedings on going into Committee
  2. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Order of consideration
  4. No Motion shall be moved to change the order in which the Bill is to be considered in Committee or on Consideration.
  Dilatory Motions
  5. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  6.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.
  (3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

  Private business
  7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  209

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  10. Nothing in this Order shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  12. In this Order—
  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
  "the Bill" means the Northern Ireland Bill.

The Middle East
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
7.22 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): I welcome this opportunity to open a debate on the Middle East, an area of the world which always demands close attention and which has in recent weeks been an arena for yet further large-scale conflict.
War is always a matter for the gravest regret. It is more particularly so in this area, where there is an ever-present risk of escalation into a wider conflict into which much of the rest of the world, including the superpowers, could be dragged.
Although we are not the nearest of our European partners to the Middle East in geographical terms, none has enjoyed closer links to the countries in the area than we have. These are links which we continue to value, and which give added reason for our deep and legitimate anxiety about the problems of the Middle East. All British Governments have taken the view that peace and stability in the Middle East are important national and international interests, as well as being essential for the peoples of that troubled region.
Two major conflicts are currently in full swing: the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the Iran-Iraq war. I propose to look at these in turn, and to consider the implications of what has happened for progress towards peace in the long term.
Everyone has been shocked by the scale and intensity of the fighting in Lebanon, and the terrible casualties, particularly among the civilian population. There has been a severity about this war which many have felt very alarming. To me, the Israeli invasion represents a major setback to prospects for a lasting peace in the region.
Lebanon was torn apart in a bloody civil war six years ago, and has now been further battered by the present invasion. The news today is that serious fighting has again broken out between Israeli and Syrian forces east of Beirut, near the main Beirut-Damascus highway. I am not aware of any renewed fighting today in West Beirut.
What has Israel's action been designed to achieve? It is argued in justification of the Israeli invasion that it was a legitimate measure of self-defence. It is also suggested that a major Israeli objective has been to secure the establishment of a strengthened Lebanese Government capable of maintaining their authority throughout their territory. In addition, it appears that the destruction of the Palestine Liberation Organisation may be regarded as an objective in itself, and as a means of reducing the Palestinian problem and making it easier to deal with. I want to comment on each of these points in turn.
First, the Israelis have justified their invasion on the grounds of self-defence. Our attitude is clear, both on the legal right to self-defence and on the importance of the security of Israel. On the first, every State has the legal right to self-defence, and it must obviously be allowed to exercise it in practice where this proves necessary.
On the second, we are not and cannot be indifferent to the future of Israel, a democratic State with which we are closely linked by many ties of history and culture. Israel has the same unchallengeable right to exist in peace and in security, within recognised and guaranteed borders, as

211
every other State. In the Venice declaration, our European partners joined us in reaffirming this right and expressed their readiness to take part in concrete and binding international guarantees, including on the ground. But the fact remains that a State's exercise of the right to self-defence must be justified against the established legal criteria. It is a right to self-defence, and whatever action is taken must be in proportion to the threat.
Let us look for a moment at the background. After Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978, the United Nations set up a peacekeeping force, UNIFIL. This force was prevented by the Israelis from fully entering the area covered by its mandate, an area without which it could not possibly do its job. Nevertheless, after further border incidents for which all parties share the blame, President Reagan's representative, Mr. Habib, succeeded in the summer of 1981 in negotiating an effective ceasefire. For nine months this border was quiet, somewhat precariously, but nevertheless quiet. Then the quiet was broken by Israeli air raids. Only after these air raids was there artillery bombardment from the Lebanese side of the border. And it was this bombardment which was taken to serve as a pretext for the invasion.
I cannot accept that this background justifies a full-scale armed invasion. Nor does it justify the claim to cleanse an area of 25 miles or so of Lebanese territory. And even if it did, this professed objective would seem to bear little relation to the course that the Israeli armed forces have followed since, which has led them to the outskirts of Beirut.
Turning to the justification relating to the Government on the Lebanon, we certainly want to see Lebanon united under a strengthened central Government and at peace. If this were to be one result of the present conflict it would be a lasting benefit, albeit one that will have to be set against the extremely high costs in human lives and human suffering which have been incurred by the people of Lebanon. But a political settlement in the Lebanon, however desirable it may be, cannot justify an invasion by a neighbouring country. Nor is military action likely to produce a reliable answer to problems which require essentially a solution by political means.
It would be quite wrong for Israel to impose her own preferred political solution on Lebanon by armed force. And what is more, it would not work. Any settlement which was achieved under the shadow of the Israeli army could not last, because it would be seen by the Muslims in Lebanon, and by the Arab world generally, as imposed under duress.
If Israel is really interested in permitting the emergence of a more stable Lebanese political structure, she should withdraw her forces in accordance with Security Council resolution 509 and help to create the conditions that will make the free expression of the wishes of the Lebanese people possible.
There is also the justification that is related to the PLO. We recognise Israel's longing for security and understand her unwillingness to deal with the PLO while that organisation refuses to accept her existence and to renounce terrorism as a weapon in its armoury. But the scale of the Israeli invasion has been quite disproportionate to the objective of achieving security from terrorist attack. What is more, the destruction of the PLO's organisation in Beirut will not, in my view, enhance Israel's security.
212
Clearly Israel cannot destroy the entire Palestinian people. The PLO, whether we like it or not, enjoys widespread support among Palestinians throughout the Middle East. The destruction of the PLO's political structure will lead to frustration and despair—the very conditions in which extremists have always flourished.
The PLO leadership in Beirut are men who have tried to lead a disparate movement towards a diplomatic solution to their grievances. They may not always have done so consistently, but that has been their purpose. If they are routed, the diplomatic path will be discredited in the eyes of many young Palestinians, and I believe, even discarded by some. The destruction of the PLO in Beirut may provoke precisely what the Israelis and all of us most seek to avoid—which is a return to the extremism that produced the international terrorism of the early 1970s.
I have explained the Government's view that the Israeli invasion cannot be justified as a legitimate exercise of the inherent right of self-defence that Israel shares with all other States. It can be regarded only as a setback to the cause of peace in the Middle East. The problems of the Lebanon, and those which underlie the wider conflict between the Arabs and Israel, are made more rather than less complicated by the resort to arms. That makes it all the more necessary that we should add our weight to the search for an acceptable alternative. I assure the House that we shall do so. We do not delude ourselves that there are short cuts through the difficult terrain which I should now like to describe.
I shall deal first with the Palestinians. The crucial problem remains that of the Palestinians. Lebanon can bear witness to the fact that the Palestinian people will remain a factor for instability in the Middle East until their political aspirations can be met. The autonomy talks represent one approach to the problem of the political future of the Palestinians, but they have been dogged from the outset by disagreement both on what should be the ultimate objective of the autonomy process and on practical aspects of the powers to be granted to the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
We and our partners in Europe have always made it clear that we would not wish to undermine the efforts of the Camp David signatories to find a solution to the wider Palestinian problem. But we recognise that the autonomy process suffers from a further serious defect. It offers nothing to Palestinians outside the West Bank and Gaza. It cannot therefore be a long-term solution to the Palestinian question, unless it leads on to negotiations involving authentic Palestinian representatives.
The Government's view, which is shared by the other members of the Community remains that the Palestinian problem can be settled only by an overall peace settlement which takes account of the Palestinians' right to determine their future. However difficult it may seem—it seems more difficult now than before—it is as true now as before the Israeli invasion of Lebanon that this will have to be worked out in negotiations among all the interested parties, including Israel. The only territory in which an act of Palestinian self-determination could realistically be carried out is the territory of the West Bank and Gaza, which was occupied by Israel in the 1967 war. What would emerge on this territory would be for the Palestinians themselves to determine.
The options that are available to the Palestinians logically include that of a State, but the logic of self-determination points equally to the fact that other options

213
are also open. The important point would be that it should be an act of free choice, taken in the knowledge of the political realities of the region. The interests of the Palestinian people, once their legitimate rights had been recognised, would surely be for co-operation with their powerful neighbour Israel.
Several Israeli leaders have spoken of Jordan as providing a solution to the dispossession of the Palestinian people. The trouble with that idea is that neither the Palestinians nor the Jordanians are prepared to accept it.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Do the political realities of the region include, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, any existing Israeli settlements or any future settlements that might be put on the West Bank?
Mr. Pym: Yes, of course.
The Palestinians see their home as being on the West Bank of Jordan. Any negotiated settlement will have to take that into account, just as it will have to provide adequate guarantees for the security of Israel. A negotiated settlement that meets the aspirations of the Palestinian people—if it can ever be achieved—would provide a much sounder basis for a just and, therefore, lasting peace between Israel and Palestinians than the peace which Israel is attempting to impose by force of arms in the Lebanon and by its settlements policy on the West Bank. Those two principles—Palestinian rights and the Israeli right to security—remain as fundamental today as in June 1980 when they were affirmed in the Venice declaration. My main anxiety today is that we are further away now from the implementation of those principles than we were then.
I shall now deal with the Lebanon. The international community must now find effective means to ensure that a more secure future can be established for the people of the Lebanon. In my view, a strengthened peacekeeping presence is likely to be essential. Several possibilities are being considered, including a strengthened role for UNIFIL and a new multinational force outside the United Nations system.
UNIFIL's mandate, as the House knows, was renewed by the Security Council for two months on 18 June to leave all options open for the moment. The present situation is too fluid for final decisions to be made, and Mr. Habib continues his discussions. Meanwhile, there is an urgent need for humanitarian assistance. We have played our part in this and will continue to do so.
We have already made available about £55,000 to the Red Cross, mainly for medical supplies. We are also giving a further £200,000 to other relief agencies, mainly for tents and blankets and are contributing to the aid offered through the Community. We have told the Lebanese Government that we stand ready to do our best to meet any specific requests that they have. We look to the Israeli Government to do everything possible to speed up the flow of humanitarian supplies from international relief agencies. There have been disquieting reports of delay and hindrance. Events in the Lebanon have inevitably taken the headlines recently. I thought it right to speak about them at some length.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, as I believe he will, to deal with the Iran-Iraq problem, will he be kind enough to say a little about the American attitude towards the invasion of the
214
Lebanon and whether the almost tacit support that the American Administration seem to have given the Israelis deserves to be passed over?
Mr. Pym: Yes, of course. President Reagan's visit to Europe, with two summits, and more particularly his visit to the United Kingdom, gave us a good opportunity to share our views with him and Secretary of State Haig, and we were able to do that continuously. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister goes to New York tomorrow and will have a further opportunity to meet President Reagan, when they will once again share their views. There is no doubt that the United States has a greater influence on Israel than any other country or group of countries. We have therefore thought it right to keep in very close touch, and as well as representing our views to Israel we have taken the opportunity to represent them strongly to the United States Government. That process continues.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am sure that the House is anxious to learn how aid is to reach the troubled people in the Lebanon. My right hon. Friend mentioned "disquieting reports". I hope that he does not intend to leave it there. What has he heard about obstructions being put in the path of the international organisations? Why does he think the Israeli authorities are so loth to have aid moved into that area? Could it be that the fighting has not ceased, despite their claim that it has? Could it be that the Israelis do not wish the world to know what is really happening in Southern Lebanon tonight?
Mr. Pym: It is clear that the fighting has not ceased. I do not have absolute confirmation of this, but reports indicate that there have been delays. I say to my hon. Friend and to the House, therefore, that we are doing everything that we can, as a nation and with our Community partners, with Israel to bring the maximum possible relief, and we are ready to respond in the best way that we can to any requests that we receive from the Lebanese Government.
Mr. John Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend restate the Government's attitude to the PLO? First, will he make it clear that the Government will not negotiate or encourage anyone to negotiate with a terrorist organisation? Secondly, will he make clear his condemnation of the techniques that the PLO has employed?
Mr. Pym: I think that I have made clear the Government's position and my own in relation to the PLO and the Palestinian people. I have also described the relationship between the Palestinian people and the PLO. Certainly the attitude towards the PLO is not shared by all Palestinians. Nevertheless, it represents a major focus of the aspirations of the Palestinian people, as I sought earlier to make clear.
Mr. Robert AdleyI am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, as he has been very generous with his time, but will he state the Government's position on what appears to be the Israeli Government's principle of reserving the right to dictate who their neighbours should be? Will he confirm that it is no part of the Government's policy to tolerate that kind of behaviour, whether by Israel in the Middle East or by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?
Mr. Pym: I think that I would agree with what my hon. Friend says. I think that what I have said so far is broadly in sympathy with his view.
Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Pym: I have given way four times already, and I gave way to my hon. Friend earlier. As others will wish to speak in the limited time available, I think that I should continue my remarks.
If I deal more briefly with the conflict between Iran and Iraq, it is certainly not because I regard it as less important. Indeed, its implications for stability in the region could be equally serious or even more serious than the invasion of Lebanon. The conflict remains a very real threat to the stability of all countries in an area of supreme importance to the West, quite apart from the ghastly waste of human and material resources. It is a situation which also contains the practical and real potential danger of escalation to a wider conflict.
Our alarm about the situation is widely shared. In a declaration on 24 May, Foreign Ministers of the Community expressed their deep concern at the continuation of the conflict, not least because of the potential implications if it continues and the grave suffering of the civilian populations. They repeated their call for an end to the fighting and for a negotiated settlement, and paid tribute to the persistent efforts at mediation made by the representatives of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement Foreign Ministers Committee and the Good Offices Committee of the Islamic Conference.
We believe that a peaceful solution should accord with the principles recognised by the international community and defined in Security Council resolution 479 of 28 September 1980, which calls on the parties to refrain from the use of force and to settle their dispute by peaceful means.
The Security Council may have a further useful role to play here, but we must be careful to get the timing right and to see that the necessary preparatory work has been done. In my view, a debate which did no more than record differences between the parties would not help. It might even make progress towards a settlement more difficult than it is already.
The international community should work for a resolution acceptable to both parties. The Secretary-General and his predecessor have been involved in mediation efforts from the very beginning of this conflict and it is right that all members of the Security Council should continue to support his efforts. We ourselves will certainly continue to play as constructive a part as we can.
There are still far too many unknowns and uncertainties in this war for my liking. Iranian intentions are not clear. We hope that there will soon be a complete end to hostilities and that the recent announcement by President Saddam Hussein that he intends to withdraw Iraqi troops from those parts of Iran which they still occupy may prove to be a wise step in the right direction.
These are, then, difficult days for peace in the Middle East. Indeed, I would say that the whole period and sequence of events are difficult and are making the objective for which we are searching more difficult to attain. Some of the consequences of the conflict are already all too apparent, while others will appear only in the course of time. Therefore, I do not find it easy to be
216
optimistic about the prospects for a negotiated and comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israel conflict, but it would be a disaster if the Arab States were to conclude from the invasion of Lebanon that such a settlement was now beyond reach. We must make it our business to find the way.
With that in mind, I make a plea to the House not to look at this subject in black and white or in stereotypes. It is all too easy to fall into that trap. With some speeches on the Middle East, and with some letters to the press, it is enough to read the first few words to know what the conclusion will be. I suggest that it is both wrong and unprofitable—indeed, it is positively unhelpful—to see events in that region as a contest between good and evil, however those roles may be allotted. It is equally unhelpful to be mesmerised by words and names, whether they be "Venice", "Camp David" or anything else.
Mr. James Callaghan: Camp David provided for a period of autonomy before the Palestinians, whom the right hon. Gentleman correctly identified as the central problem there, made up their minds finally. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman might be giving the impression that although he used the term "autonomy", he was placing more weight on self-determination as the immediate issue. That will clearly not be attained by the Palestinians, except at the price of bloody war long continued. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not ruling out the prospect of a period of autonomy, if it could be successfully negotiated, during which Israelis and Palestinians could learn from each other how to secure their own security with each other prior to self-determination?
Mr. Pym: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his information. I was not ruling out autonomy, but earlier in my remarks I referred to the support that we gave to the Camp David process and also to some of the disadvantages and problems arising from the autonomy proposed. I thought that that was the thing to do. The events of the past few weeks have made it more difficult than before, but I certainly do not rule it out.
It is easy to be mesmerised by words or names. What matters is the peace of the Middle East and the security and well-being of the people who live there. This is an objective to which all can subscribe and all can contribute. It certainly includes Britain, with her long historical links and her deep experience. We have a positive contribution to make in the search for peace in that region.
Next week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will be in Brussels, attending the European Council. The Middle East is on the agenda and, just as at the Foreign Affairs Council last weekend this subject occupied as much time as any other, so I believe it will occupy a great deal of time at the Council next week. I look forward to hearing the views of the House in this debate and I hope that it will give me a constructive message to carry to that meeting.
7.50 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: The immediate occasion of this debate is the war in the Lebanon, but the Foreign Secretary rightly drew attention to the larger implications of what is now happening in other parts of the Middle East. He made a forceful and impressive speech.

217
I only wish that he had persuaded the Prime Minister to act on some of the principles that he has just enunciated when dealing with the Falklands dispute over the past few months.
The war in the Lebanon is one of the great human tragedies of our time. In two weeks 14,000 people have been killed, up to 20,000 wounded and 500,000 rendered homeless. The vast majority of those are civilians—men, women and children—who had nothing to do with, and no responsibility for, the issues at stake.
The Foreign Secretary described the recent damage as grotesquely disproportionate to the cause. He repeated that view this afternoon. The Israeli Government's action has been condemned by the United Nations, the European Community and members of the United States Government such as Mr. Weinberger.
The Israeli action has also been condemned by a growing number of Israelis. The war in the Lebanon is the first time since the foundation of the State of Israel that that nation has been divided by a war. Three members of the Israeli Cabinet protested at being bamboozled by Prime Minister Begin and Defence Minister Sharon. The Labour alignment, which is a grouping of the main opposition parties, issued a statement last week in which it called on the Government not to go beyond its declared objective of establishing a security zone 40 kilometres from the frontier. The Israeli troops are now fighting 110 kilometres from the frontier. It asked the Government not to occupy Beirut, but fighting is now going on in west and east Beirut. It asked the Israeli Government not to bomb cities or non-combatant populations, but 2,500 people have been killed in Beirut alone. It asked the Israeli Government not to fight the Syrians, but I understand that heavy fighting is going on between Israeli and Syrian forces east of Beirut today.
Mr. Ernie Ross rose—
Mr. Healey: I shall give way in a moment.
Many distinguished Israelis from many walks of life have expressed their concern about what has been happening in the last two weeks. Professor Leibowitz, a distinguished scientist and religious philosopher, said that he warned his people that this fifth Arab-Israeli war could only be the prelude to a sixth. The Jerusalem Post described itself as being shocked by the sheer scale of ferocity and carnage involved. Mr. Gideon Rafael, who is known to many right hon. and hon. Members, including myself, and who was a predecessor of Mr. Evron as the Israeli ambassador in this country, warned his people that he awaits the time when they will measure their own dead and the massive death and destruction on the other side against the meagre political results. That should underline the importance of the Foreign Secretary's warning that we should not treat this issue in stereotypes, with all the good on one side and all the evil on the other.
Mr. Ernie Ross rose—
Mr. Healey: I shall give way in a moment.
I must also say to some of my Israeli friends and their sympathisers in Britain that if some of us in the House or outside echo the criticisms made by distinguished Israelis, particularly those with similar views to those that I quoted, we must not be accused of being anti-Israel, anti-Zionist or, still more, of being anti-Semitic. It is perfectly possible
218
for a friend of Israel, as I count myself, to express the gravest concern and dismay at what the Israeli Government have been doing in the past two weeks.
There is also deep concern inside and outside Israel about the failure of the Israeli Government, until now, to allow private relief agencies to alleviate the appalling suffering of the civilians in the Lebanon, although I welcome today's news of an agreement that, at any rate, agencies other than United Nation agencies may now operate. The scale of the suffering in the Lebanon is such that we now require a massive international rescue operation in order to cope with the problem.
I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will deal with the treatment of prisoners taken by Israeli forces and claimed to be members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Many of us are disturbed that they have not been offered the protection that international law should afford to prisoners of war. Again, there have been complaints in Israel about the treatment of so-called PLO captives.
We must not confine ourselves to expressions of indignation at Mr. Begin's action or to humanitarian concern at its consequences. What has happened in the Lebanon in the past two weeks is part of a general crisis in the Middle East that the Foreign Secretary rightly warned us today, and on television last week, could escalate out of control into a super-power confrontation.
I believe that I am right in saying that the casualties in the war between Iran and Iraq—they received very little publicity in the Western press compared with the events of the past two weeks—are many times greater than have occurred in the Lebanon. Iraq alone has 30,000 dead and 60,000 wounded. Recent reports state that Syrian armed forces massacred 25,000 of their own nationals in the ancient city of Hama last February because they belonged to a different religious sect. Violence is not confined to the coast of Israel and the Lebanon.
The House must recognise that the Middle East is an area where violence is regularly used to pursue political ends, both domestic and international, and where the familiar conflicts of national interest and feeling are enormously aggravated by a growing spread of religious fundamentalism—Jewish and Muslim.
The area is of enormous strategic and economic importance to the great powers. It is an area where one power at least already possesses nuclear weapons and others may do so by the time this decade is out.
We must look beyond the immediate issues behind the Lebanese war—the need for a ceasefire; the withdrawal of Israeli forces; the re-establishment of a United Nations peacekeeping force—to some of the underlying problems. Having had some involvement in these problems in many capacities over the last 37 years, I confess that they are immensely complex and I offer my thoughts on them with some humility but without apology.
I think that Mr. Haig, in that ill-timed speech he made two days before the Israeli forces crossed the Lebanese frontier, rightly said:
"No region is less forgiving of political passivity."
He also said that this was America's moment in the Middle East. He was right to say that, although I doubt whether he then realised the context in which his statement would prove so apposite.
Rightly or wrongly, America is blamed throughout the Arab world for what is now happening in the Middle East. The present Administration have claimed the right to

219
intervene at will in the Middle East wherever they feel their interests threatened and are building a rapid deployment force to acquire the capacity so to intervene. Above all, as the State of Israel wholly depends on economic and military aid from the United States, Washington is inevitably regarded as responsible for whatever the Israeli Government do, even when that Government act in flat defiance of American advice, as they did when the Israelis crossed the Lebanese frontier a fortnight ago.
In comparison with the United States, Britain, even in concert with the whole of the European Community, can play only a minor role directly, but Britain and Europe—particularly Britain and Europe acting together—can still exert a major influence on American policy in the Middle East, especially when Washington is uncertain or divided on what to do, as it certainly is at present. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) was right to raise that issue when he intervened earlier.
There have been significant differences at least of emphasis in the statements made by various American Secretaries and officials in the last few weeks, but it is not possible for someone in Opposition in Britain to be quite sure who believes what.
Mr. James Callaghan: Or in Government.
Mr. Healey: We always found it difficult when we were in office. For the purposes of this discussion, we can take Dr. Henry Kissinger as representing one strand of thought in the American Administration and Mr. George Ball as representing another. Both have served with distinction at the State Department in recent years.
In the absence of the fuller information that we would like, I should like to discuss Dr. Kissinger's views as expressed in the Washington Post last week. He asked for three things—a stable, independent Lebanon with all foreign forces removed, the fulfilment of attainable Arab aspirations on the West Bank, and the protection by the United States of the existing balance of power and institutions in the Arabian peninsula. Whether or not those objectives are desirable, I just do not believe that they are all capable of realisation simultaneously in the situation created by the invasion of the Lebanon. Let me suggest why that may be so.
Some Americans and Israelis obviously dream of creating a Christian Maronite Lebanon as a stable and permanent factor in the Middle East. However, I believe that history teaches us that that is a hollow reed on which to base a policy. When such a Lebanon existed briefly after the end of the French mandate, it was destroyed by internal tensions that were far weaker than they are now. We need only read the account in The Times today of yesterday's meeting of the National Salvation Council of the Lebanon to see that. In the current situation, it is easy to forget that when the Syrian forces first entered Lebanon, it was to protect the Christians and not the Muslims. There is absolutely no reason to believe that in the absence of foreign forces any policy based on the Maronite Christian communities in the Lebanon would have much chance of survival.
Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the factor that upset the admittedly delicate balance of peace in Lebanon was the
220
presence there of the Palestinians, particularly the PLO, acting as an army entirely outside the authority of the State of Lebanon?
Mr. Healey: No. The balance in the Lebanon collapsed long before the Palestinians were expelled from Jordan into the State of Lebanon. It is perfectly true that since the Jordanian Government expelled the Palestinians into Lebanon, tensions have increased for various reasons. The Israeli Government deliberately exploited them to set up a Phalangist-Christian security zone on their northern frontier. The instability of the Lebanese polity as people wish it to be now was exposed long before those events, in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
To attempt to create a Christian banana republic, kept alive by wealthy European tourists as an Israeli satellite, is doomed to failure. That is basically what Dr. Kissinger was asking for as his first objective.
His second objective was to fulfil the attainable aspirations of the Arabs on the West Bank. The extent of Arab aspirations that are currently attainable on the West Bank falls hopelessly short of what is needed to satisfy either the Palestinian people or the rest of the Arab world. Just the other day, Mr. Sharon, the Israeli Defence Minister, claimed to see new signs as a result of the fighting in Lebanon of a readiness to co-operate between the Arabs on the West Bank and the Israeli authorities. But I remind the House that the only remaining elected mayor on the West Bank, Mr. Elias Freij, the Mayor of Bethlehem, described the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as "catastrophic". The Sunday Telegraph said:
"Looking forlorn and utterly depressed, Mr. Elias Freij said 'Palestinians everywhere were dumbfounded'. He went on: 'Is Israel so really afraid of us that it expects our people to commit mass suicide? Surely we Palestinians are human beings? Surely we have the right to live?"
Those are the views of the one remaining elected representative of the Palestinian people on the West Bank, and in giving that interview the mayor of Bethlehem announced his intention of resigning in the next two or three weeks.
On the contrary, I fear that there is growing evidence that at least Mr. Sharon wants to integrate the West Bank completely into Israel, and that would rule out self-determination for the Palestinian people for ever. At present, we must accept—I hope that we can change the situation—that the Camp David process is dead, and with it we see the death of what remains of American policy in the area. President Mubarak of Egypt has made that crystal clear by his statements in the last week or two.
I turn to Dr. Kissinger's third objective—that America should guarantee the security of the Arabian peninsula and its existing institutions. The United States is no longer in a position to protect or sustain the balance of power in the Arabian peninsula. Its failure to restrain Israel just after its decision to send another 75 F16s to Israel has pushed the traditional monarchies surrounding the Gulf already towards the Soviet Union. There is mounting evidence that, in the absence of the sort of support on which they thought they could count from the United States, they are now looking elsewhere for help. These regimes are now threatened not only by popular opposition fanned by the Palestinians, who play a key role in all their administrations, but also by Muslim fundamentalism in their Shi'ite communities. As the House knows, the Shi'ites are in the majority in Iraq and Bahrain and are an important minority in many of the other countries in the

221
Arabian peninsula. I think probably that one of the biggest mistakes that the Western world has made in approaching these problems in the last few years has been to underestimate the importance of the new theocratic movement in the Muslim world.
The Muslim world stretches from Morocco and Nigeria in Africa to Indonesia in the Far East. This new type of Muslim fundamentalism is now as powerful on the Indian sub-continent as it is in the Middle East itself. It is a fundamentalism that has sent men riding bicycles into mine fields shouting "God is great". None of us can remember except from history books, the power of this type of Muslim fundamentalism when it last conquered the Middle East, much of India and half of Europe. But that power is a reality today. Dealing with it is one of the most difficult problems that will face all other Governments in the world, Western or Communist.
If Iraq, which has a very large majority of Shi'ites in its population, were to join Iran—that is a possibility almost any day as we speak—they would form a block of 55 million people producing 8 million barrels of oil a day with effective control of the movement of all oil from the Gulf to the outside world. Forty per cent. of the industrial world's oil resources come from the Gulf. They have large, well equipped and battle-hardened armies. The problems created by this possibility dwarf enormously even the terrifying and worrying problems which we have been discussing as arising out of the Arab-Israeli problem and conflict.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Does my right hon. Friend not agree, in these circumstances, that it is in the interests of all the people he is talking about to keep the State of Israel in being? The only cementing factor among them is hatred of the State of Israel.
Mr. Healey: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he says that we should keep the State of Israel in being because it cements all these other countries. That does not seem to me a very good argument for keeping the State of Israel in being. The plain fact—I say this sincerely to my hon. Friend—is that Mr. Begin has done more in the last fortnight to speed this process, which is the greatest single threat to the survival of Israel, than anything that anyone has done since the Shah was overthrown.
The risk of a Shi'ite bloc in the Middle East is now compounded by the possibility of an alliance between the Shi'ite fundamentalists in the Gulf region and the radical Left-wing regimes of Syria, Algeria, Libya and South Yemen, all of which, in the last week or two, have asserted their interest in establishing good relations with the Ayatollah Khomeini. One of the Ayatollah's extraordinary achievements was to bring the PLO and Israel into alliance to support Iran. General Sharon told us the other day that Israel had been supplying Iran with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. The PLO has been doing its best in recent months also to support the Iran Government. There are, at this moment, I understand, between 1,000 and 2,000 Iranian troops in Syria, a country that has no desire to follow the Shi'ite road or the Muslim fundamentalist road. But necessity makes strange bedfellows. I would only say again that if Israel's role in the Middle East is to cement that sort of alliance, the less we have of it the better, and the better for Israel.
What worries me is that if this process is allowed to continue America's moment in the Middle East, of which
222
Mr. Haig spoke, will be a moment indeed, ended almost as soon as it begins. The threat to Israel will be infinitely greater than ever before. By accelerating and enlarging this process, Prime Minister Begin has done immense damage to the real interests of his country. How are we to influence this appallingly difficult and dangerous situation? The only way of slowing and, one hopes, reversing this process is for the United States to use all its influence now to undo the damage done in the last few weeks, to ensure that Israel does not carry out a full-scale assault in Beirut, as Mr. Sharon has demanded it should, to persuade Israel to accept the United Nations Security Council resolution and withdraw its forces from the Lebanon and to re-establish a stronger United Nations peacekeeping force, although this is bound to involve, like it or not, the argeement of the Soviet Union. I believe that the European Community must be prepared to use economic measures to achieve these objectives. I understand that it has said that it is prepared to do so. I have no doubt that the timing and modalities of such a decision will be one of the matters for discussion at the summit meeting next week.
I do not believe, however, that, in the present situation, this is enough. There has always been much discussion in this House about the role of the PLO. We know that it is an extremely incoherent body with many groups, some of them wedded to violence and others wishing to achieve a peaceful settlement. We all deeply regret the commitment of the PLO, by its own covenant, to the destruction of the State of Israel. We have all asked it to change this commitment if it is to be accepted as a valid negotiating partner. But the destruction of the PLO as a military force in the Lebanon has not killed and cannot kill the desire of the Palestine people for self-determination. What self-determination means, as the Foreign Secretary said on television last week, is land where they can have a state. It is idle to deceive ourselves that anything else will satisfy the Palestinians as an objective. The only land available is land on the West Bank of the Jordan, as I think the Foreign Secretary also made clear was his opinion. That is where the luckless refugees in the Lebanon must now be allowed to return. They cannot forever be shunted from one foreign country to another in a macabre game of pass the parcel. That has been their fate for the last few years.
Israel must be persuaded to move rapidly to self-determination for the Palestinians on the West Bank through autonomy. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that recent events have inevitably telescoped the time scale in which these events must take place if they are to help to avoid the process that I described earlier. I do not think that anything less will suffice to restore good relations between the West and moderate Arab States, particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I suspect that the Foreign Secretary got some such message when he was in Riyadh the other day, and perhaps that message was partly responsible for the vehemence with which he spoke on television on his return, but I do not seek to inquire into these dreadful secrets.
We are lucky at the moment that there is a new ruler in Saudi Arabia—King Fahd. He has immense experience of these problems and has shown an unusual flexibility in pursuing these objectives. He failed to achieve his objectives at the summit in Fez, but I do not think that we are likely to find a wiser, more farsighted leader in this immensely important country in the Middle East than we have at the moment in King Fahd.

223
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that if there is to be negotiation for autonomy and self-determination on the West Bank, it must involve authentic representation of the Palestine people. I doubt whether it would be possible even to find "Uncle Toms" after the past fortnight. The words of the mayor of Bethlehem that I quoted a moment ago bear witness to that.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Why use the term?
Mr. Healey: The term "Uncle Tom" has real meaning among the black people of the world. I use it because it represents the relationship between colonial people, people of colour and white people which I hope that this House detests and will have nothing of. I do not believe that it is possible to build a viable stability in any part of the modern world by relying on people who can be so described. That is why I use the phrase, which is well understood.
Unless this prospect opens rapidly, the PLO is soon likely to revive as a purely terrorist movement. Nobody will understand better than Mr. Begin why this is likely to be so, because he went through precisely this experience in his early lifetime.
Mr. Lawrence: Has the PLO ever stopped being a purely terrorist organisation?
Mr. Healey: Of course it has. The PLO stopped being a purely terrorist organisation many years ago. Any hon. Member with some knowledge of its leaders will recognise that whether or not Yasser Arafat is a terrorist, he is not purely a terrorist. He has made enormous attempts, at risk to his life from the extremists in the PLO, to develop a political alternative to terrorism as a way of achieving Palestine rights.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not correct that neither the previous Government nor this one have succeeded in getting Mr. Arafat to agree in private or in public to recognise even the right of the State of Israel to exist?
Mr. Healey: That is so, and anybody with knowledge of the way in which resistance movements develop will know how difficult it is for them to make this type of acceptance except in the final stage of negotiation. It is difficult, although not impossible. We have an enormous amount of experience of this problem from our imperial history. It might be argued by an Arab that Mr. Begin's claims to the biblical lands of Samaria and Judea are equally incompatible with progress towards a solution along the lines of the Camp David agreement.
I know how deeply feelings are roused in the House by almost any remark made in any direction on these matters, but we have a duty to say what we think at this dangerous moment.
The PLO is likely to revive as a purely terrorist organisation, and is likely to start using terrorism in Europe and the United States as well as in the Middle East, as other terrorist movements have done in the past. There is some sign that the United States Administration is at last beginning to recognise the dimensions of the problem.
I was fascinated to read in this morning's newspapers the descriptions of the talks between Mr. Begin and President Reagan. Those of us who have some experience of this matter will know that when two countries fail to
224
reach agreement on anything, their talks are described as "full and frank", but the word "friendly" is not added. On this occasion, the talks were described by the Americans as "direct" and even "blunt". By that, I would suggest that there was a flaming row. Up to a point, that is a good sign.
A shift of American policy in this direction should be the main objective of Britain and the European Community and for all who want peace in the Middle East. Otherwise, I fear, the terrible prophecy of William Butler Yeats may come true all too soon, and we shall soon be asking ourselves
"What rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
8.25 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: If time had allowed, I should rather have enjoyed ranging, like the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), far and wide over the field, although on many points I should have found myself in disagreement with him and critical of him. Let me try to bring the debate down to earth.
I listened with great attention to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said but, while I fully appreciate the tragedy and the drama of what has taken place in the Lebanon, I thought that my right hon. Friend underestimated a little the immense progress towards peace that has been made in the Middle East in the past 14 or 15 years, largely as a result of military operations.
Before the 1967 war all the Arab countries were united against Israel. After 1967 Jordan adopted a position of what might be called non-belligerence, exemplified by the open bridges policy, under which Jordanians have traded freely not only with the West Bank but with Israel. After 1973 President Sadat moved fairly rapidly towards the Camp David process, which brought peace between Egypt and Israel.
It is true that Syria remained rejectionist, but, having lost the Golan Heights, it was in no position militarily to attack Israel from Syrian ground. Thus, at least three of the territories contiguous with Israel were more or less in a state of either peace or non-belligerency with Israel.
There remained the Lebanon, which had originally been entirely non-belligerent, but whose attitude was changed not by the will of the Lebanese people, but by the creation of a State within a State by the PLO. It had tried to create that kind of State in Jordan. King Hussein cracked down on it to prevent it from doing so, but in the much weaker state of Lebanon it managed to create a political and military organisation that was highly subsidised from outside and armed by the Soviet Union. This enabled it to play a very important part not only in the Middle East but in the Third world and beyond. Moreover, they were backed by Syria. We should not forget that Syria is an ally of the Soviet Union, linked to it by definite agreements.
Clearly, for the Israelis, this was an area of great disturbance. Everyone had known for a long time that the Israelis were likely to crack down on the situation. In every Arab capital that I visited it was regarded as inevitable that the Israelis would crack down, and, in private, the hope was sometimes expressed that they would.
It is too early to assess what will happen in the Lebanon. Will the situation lead to a withdrawal of the Syrians from Lebanon? Will it lead to the disarming of the PLO and the disperal of its ruling group? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke almost kindly of the

225
PLO, as did the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. Frankly, there was an almost audible sigh of relief in many Arab capitals at the discomfiture of the PLO and the knowledge that it will be some time before it can again threaten the rulers in the moderate countries, extorting money from them.
Of course, it is not the end of the PLO. But what is happening in the battle of Beirut puts in question whether that organisation will be able to act independently in the future. President Mubarak, with his customary statesman-ship, offered it the possiblility of setting up a Government in exile in Cairo. That would be splendid. It would mean that the PLO would have to accept Camp David, at least by inplication. The Jordanians, with their previous experience, are unlikely to offer hospitality, except under strict controls. Were the PLO to go into Syria, it would be under iron control. If the PLO went to Riyadh—which is possible—it would be expected to work for the Fahd plan. It is also possible that it might go to the Soviet Union, although throughout the crisis the Soviet Union has shown itself to be rather a paper bear in its attitude to the Lebanon.
It may be that the eradication of the PLO as an independent force, as a State within a State, will provide an opportunity to set up an independent Lebanon and one which, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's doubt's might be pro-Western, as it was, by and large, up to 1976. My right hon. Friend was right when he said that the Israelis should withdraw from the Lebanon, but surely we want the Israelis to withdraw, the Syrians to withdraw, and the PLO to be disarmed, ceasing to be a State within a State.
Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Syrians were invited into the Lebanon by the Lebanese Government? They are on a six-monthly mandate, which has been renewed regularly. Is that not correct?
Mr. Lawrence: Like Afghanistan.
Mr. Adley: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) says "Like Afghanistan". It is not like Afghanistan, unless one believes, for instance, that the present Lebanese ambassador in London does not know what he is talking about. Does my hon. Friend accept that the position of the Syrians in Lebanon is not the same as that of the invading Israelis?
Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend is quite right. They were invited, and they are there at the invitation of the Government who invited them, but surely we have no interest in seeing a pro-Soviet Syrian force in Lebanon. For us, it is even worse than seeing the Israelis there. Surely we want both to withdraw. I am pretty certain that we shall not get the Israelis out unless we get the Syrians most of the way out as well.
If the new Lebanese Government, under whatever aegis, wanted us to provide an international force, I hope that we would be ready to serve in it. In my opinion, the United Nations would not be a suitable instrument, partly because of the influence that the Soviet Union must have over it, but also because, having seen the UNIFIL forces in the Lebanon, I frankly believe that they are quite useless, and proved to be so the other day.
If it were possible to have an independent Lebanon again, we should be moving towards the plan that Mr. Haig developed at the beginning of his tenure of office and
226
on which the right hon. Gentleman poured so much scorn. It would mean that the Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Oman and the Gulf States would all virtually work with the West.
Of course, the Palestinian problem would remain. The problem has three aspects: the West Bank and Gaza, Jerusalem, and the problem of the refugees.
As far as the West Bank and Gaza are concerned, I have never been able to understand how the Israelis can believe that they can incorporate 1·5 million Arabs in their State and maintain its Jewish character to which they attach so much importance. In their own interests, they must make some concessions.
The old city of Jerusalem within the walls is so distinct from the rest of the city that I should have thought that one could invent a special regime where the three faiths—Muslim, Jewish and Christian—could exercise authority, perhaps on an analogy with the relationship that the Vatican has to the municipality of Rome.
There is enough money in the Middle East now, whether on the West Bank or elsewhere, to develop facilities to enable the refugees to be resettled. The important question is where the title will go if the PLO ceases to be able to operate independently and, as a result, ceases to be the sole representative of the Palestinian people. My right hon. Friend said that neither the Palestinians nor the Jordanians want it. However, it might revert to the King of Jordan in the absence of an effective PLO. In a few days we may well find that the PLO has either disintegrated or worse.
We should not be too pessimistic. The Rabat and Venice declarations seem to have gone with the wind. We should try to find something new. There would still be an argument about the Palestinian problem—an argument between the Arabs and the Israelis—but it would be between broadly pro-Western Arabs and pro-Western Israelis. There would be no East-West overtones of the kind that obscure and afflict any attempt to have discussions with the PLO.
Let me turn to the immeasurably more important—
Mr. David Crouch: Is not my right hon. Friend being a little condescending about the Palestinians in saying that they might be able to settle somewhere in the State of Israel? As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) rightly said, the Palestinians' problem is that they want a State and land. It is not a question of whether the PLO leads their interests. It is a question of dispossessed people, the sort of cause that the House has been fighting for for hundreds of years. I am amazed that my right hon. Friend should be condescending about people who have no State, land or rights.
Mr. Amery: I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not condescend to listen carefully. I said that there were three problems. The people in the West Bank and Gaza, by and large, have land. There is the problem of Jerusalem and the problem of about 600,000 refugees in the Lebanon who must be looked after in one way or another. I said that there is enough money in the Middle East to develop facilities for them either on the West Bank or elsewhere. There is quite a lot of empty land in the West Bank that could be developed—indeed, a good deal of it is. I was not being condescending in the least. I was only saying that, of the three problems, that of the refugees is the smallest. The 600,000 refugees still living in camps in the Lebanon could be catered for.

227
I turn to the much more serious problem of the Gulf. Although the Soviet Union may have taken a beating in the battle for Beirut—or may be about to take one—a far graver battle is blazing at the head of the Gulf.
Iran has recovered from the shambles into which it fell after the expulsion of the Shah. Under the impact of foreign aggression it has made an amazing, perhaps regrettable, recovery. It has forged a military machine and the rule of the saints—the ayatollahs—is supported by the Communist Tudeh party and by pro-Soviet Syria. They are advancing in a war which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East rightly said recalls the advances of early Islam in Africa and in the Middle East.
A statement from Ayatollah Khomeini was published today saying that he has no intention of calling a halt to the war. He says that he will go on until his other objectives—apart from the withdrawal from Iranian soil—have been achieved. I do not suppose that the ayatollah is keen for his victorious army to return to Tehran. The Prime Minister need not worry about Admiral Woodward and General Moore when they return home. But things are different in the Middle East and there could be trouble. If the army is not to come home it must go on to liberate Najat and Kerbela and to the establishment of an Islamic republic of Basra, with Baghdad going to the Syrians.
With Iran to the north and east of the Gulf and Aden and Ethiopia to the south, the great treasure house of the oil-producing Middle East is already encircled and could be put at immediate risk. This situation could develop within weeks or months. The stage may be set for a major disaster. In 1961 I was at the Air Ministry and we thought that Kuwait was threatened by General Kassim. We moved forces in at the invitation of the ruler and averted a disaster. Could anyone do that today? Perhaps the United States of America could do that with its rapid deployment force. It has the means to do that, but has it got the will to put a cork into the neck of the bottle in time? Have the Arab rulers the wisdom to invite it to do so in time? If our help were needed, I trust that it would be forthcoming. Let us be under no illusion. The knife is at the throat of the whole of the civilised world.
8.41 pm
Mr. David Steel: The House has been fortunate in being able to listen to two opening speeches of such quality, objectivity and depth. I join the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who went out of his way to quote many sources in Israel, from the press, in politics and in the academic world, all of whom oppose the recent Israeli action. I hope that a strong message will go out from the House after the debate; a message of encouragement to those who are opposed to the policies being conducted in their name.
We all have reports on which we rely. I simply wish to draw the attention of the House to the lead story on the front page of The Scotsman on Saturday. It was written by Robert Fisk, in Sidon. He wrote:
"Medical authorities in the city said that at least four young men had died there after being beaten up by Israeli troops. We spoke to one young man, a Red Cross worker who had been among the prisoners.
'They held us for four days, almost all the time out in the open. They gave us water but no food and ten men died near me. I saw one man—I think he was a Palestinian—and he asked for food. A soldier hit him in the stomach with his rifle and the man
228
collapsed and died. I do not know why the Israelis do this. Many of us hated the Palestinians and are pleased the Israelis have come.'"
In his report, Robert Fisk included a description of a basement building that had been destroyed by a bombardment. He said:
"The bodies lay on top of each other to a depth of perhaps six feet, their arms and legs wrapped around each other, well over 100 of them, congealed in death into a strangely unnatural mass."
Many of us are distressed that a people who have themselves suffered so much in the past should find that they are now represented by a Government who are prepared to act in this way. It is horrifying. We know that the Israelis were looking for a pretext for the invasion. The invasion of the Lebanon was clearly planned and, unfortunately, the pretext for that incursion was given by the dastardly attack on the Israeli ambassador in London, Mr. Shlomo Argov. No words are strong enough to condemn that assassination attempt. He is a distinguished representative of his nation and a personal friend of many of us. We wish him a speedy recovery from his terrible wounds.
That attack gave the Israeli Government an excuse for their so-called retaliation. Even if they were pursuing Mosaic law, it is an eye for an eye, not 10 eyes or 100 eyes for an eye. The retribution has been out of all proportion to the provocation that we all know Israel has suffered for many years from PLO bases in the Lebanon. We should make it as clear as possible that Israeli interests are ill served by the Israeli Government's action. Nothing could have been more calculated to lose friends and influence in the world than their actions in the past few days.
Other speakers have dealt with the problems of the Lebanon itself. Over many years the Lebanon has suffered from what the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) described as an invitation to the Syrian forces to occupy it. Whether or not it was originally an invitation, the fact is that Syrian troops have been acting as a governing authority in the Lebanon, along with the PLO. The only prospect for peace in the Lebanon is for those troops to be withdrawn.
If the Lebanon requires assistance to maintain law and order and the integrity of the State, that should be provided by the international community, through a strengthened United Nations force. It is unfair for the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) to say sweepingly that UNIFIL has been useless in keeping the peace. He and I have both seen UNIFIL in operation there. Anyone who examines UNIFIL's United Nations mandate will know how inadequate it is. At some time, the civilised world, and, more specifically, the permanent members of the Security Council, must grapple with the problem of how to establish a sufficiently effective mandate for the provision of an international peacekeeping force that is capable of maintaining law and order in the trouble spots of the world. It simply is not fair to blame the military, when the mandate under which they operate is so weak. That is the tragedy of the UNIFIL operation.
We can learn other lessons from the events of recent days. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us that we, as well as the other permanent members of the Security Council, will do whatever we can to create a more effective United Nations mandate. We also need a permanent international peacekeeping force rather than the cobbled together forces that we must have in the Lebanon and elsewhere under the present limited arrangements.

229
The second lesson is one that many of us learned a long time ago. It is that there can never be security for the State of Israel based on military force and the annexation of neighbouring territories. Lasting security for Israel can be achieved only through a general peace settlement in the Middle East that is guaranteed by the major powers. Without the search for that settlement there can be no long-term security for Israel. That is why I believe that its present policy is so profoundly mistaken.
The third lesson, as has been mentioned, is that the Camp David process is dead. We should pay tribute to what was achieved under that process, especially by President Sadat and Mr. Begin, in reaching a bilateral agreement between Egypt and Israel.
Camp David failed on two counts. The first was that President Sadat believed that he could act as an Arab Head of State on behalf of the Palestinians. He could not. Secondly, he hoped, as did the Americans originally, that the Camp David process was intended to involve not just Egypt, but Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other powers. Again, that proved to be impossible. But we should accept that Camp David has achieved a great deal in bilateral terms between Egypt and Israel, but we should now look for a wider means than Camp David to advance a Middle East settlement.
Towards the end of his life, President Sadat had doubts whether that part of the Camp David process dealing with Palestinian autonomy had much more life in it. Certainly events in recent months suggest to me that the autonomy route to a long-term settlement in the West Bank cannot be made to work. The Israeli authorities have even interfered with the processes of local government there. There can be little confidence among the people of the West Bank that a wider and more authoritative form of autonomy could lead to self-determination.
I agree with the tone of what both the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said. The key issue is whether we accept the right of the Palestinians to self-determination and to territory on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We must use our influence with the Americans and the Israelis to persuade them that self-determination must come.
Then there is the vexed question whether it means that we must deal with the PLO. We must be blunt about this. Parts of the PLO make up a terrorist organisation. When I met Yasser Arafat at the end of 1980 I suffered much opprobrium for talking to a terrorist leader, but the time will come when Foreign Secretaries, British or others, must talk face to face with the PLO, not because I believe that the PLO is representative of the Palestinian people, but because the more that one travels round the Middle East the more one finds that Palestinians believe that the PLO must act as their voice, even if they are not members of it. I found that the PLO was a representative voice of professional people, business men and local government officials, not just on the West Bank but among Palestinians elsewhere.
The Palestinian people are not talking about a gathering together of all the Palestinians spread throughout the Middle East and the rest of the world to return to a Palestinian State. They wish to have the integrity and the dignity of a State to call their own, so that, wherever they are in the world, where many of them may wish to remain, they can have a passport that entitles them to a homeland.
Mr. Adley: The word "terrorist", as with so many words in such debates, means different things to different people. If we consider people such as Kenyatta, Makarios and Mugabe, what one person calls a "terrorist" is often a "freedom fighter" in another person's mind.
Mr. Steel: That is true, and one could add Mr. Begin to that list. Is not one of the lessons of world politics that, where common justice is denied to a people, some elements will resort to violence to pursue their ends where politicians have failed? Unhappily, that has been the case with the PLO. We do not condone or excuse it, but we must face the reality.
In return, we are entitled to demand that the PLO recognises the right of the State of Israel to exist. We must look with hope at the declaration from Saudi Arabia, because it was a signal that an Arab country other than Egypt, recognised the right of all States—Israel was rot named individually—to exist. That was a step forward. We should grasp and build on the Saudi Arabian plan, together with the Venice declaration. If Israel is to have real security, its integrity must not only be recognised by the Palestinians but must be guaranteed by international protection.
What should Britain do now? First, we must talk equally bluntly to our American allies. They, more than anyone, can influence what is happening in the Middle East. We must try to persuade them that the endless flow of arms and cash to Israel, without strings attached, is a mistaken policy that will continue to cause trouble in that area. We must also face the fact that Syria and other countries are in the Soviet camp. The Soviet Union cannot be left out of discussions leading to a guaranteed peace settlment.
We must try to turn the European declaration of Venice—that was all it was—into a European initiative. We in the European countries are in a unique position, because of our ties with the Middle East, to exert great influence on both the Americans and the Soviet Union. If we are to turn the declaration into an initiative, we must do more than simply have the chairman-in-office touring the Middle East, as happened with Gaston Thorn, Lord Carrington and Mr. Tindemans.
We must recognise the limitations of the EEC mechanism and the six months Presidency. We must also try to find a permanent European emissary who is acceptable to the European powers and who can carry on the search for a Middle East settlement. That would be a significant contribution to make. Particularly with the development of nuclear power, we should recognise that if we regard the world as a powder keg, the place where the fuse could be lit is the Middle East. We should therefore devote our earnest efforts to finding a long-term settlement to the problems there.
8.56 pm
Mr. Dennis Walters: On 4 June that sinister terrorist Mr. Begin unleashed a merciless and unprovoked invasion of the Lebanon which he and Mr. Sharon had been preparing for more than a year. Eighteen days later, more than 10,000 Lebanese civilian dead, hundreds of thousands homeless, 16,000 dying or maimed and thousands of Palestinians killed stand testimony to the ruthless brutality of the Israeli armed forces. The perpretrators of this massive crime against humanity have been over the past few days hampering the dispatch of medical aid and harassing its suppliers.

231
It has been suggested that one should be moderate about the issues in the Middle East but surely this is a time to speak out firmly because the Israelis and their supporters for too long have cashed in on excessive moderation. In the early days of 1967 and 1970 any criticism of Israel was labelled anti-Semitic. That was a conventional form of blackmail to which we were subjected. A long time has passed, and as the civilised world looks on, shocked and aghast at events in Lebanon, but apparently incapable of doing anything, it is time that the Israelis and their supporters in this country began to feel some sense of shame about what is happening. Although people have spoken out in Israel, and Israeli supporters have spoken out in France, the reaction by the Zionist lobby in Britain is still very muted.
Britain and the EEC have spoken out clearly but lack of leverage has weakened our position. Now that Israel has apparently rebuffed the request for certain assurances asked for by the EEC, economic sanctions should be applied. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, the United States has spoken with many voices. Certainly, Mr. Haig has fitted the epithet "duplicitous" effectively. Western influence in the Arab world has been dealt a blow, the full effects of which will not be felt for a considerable time. In the long run, the Soviet Union will profit.
There had been no provocation, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said a few days ago and the Foreign Secretary confirmed this afternoon. The ceasefire in the border had not been violated for 10 months.
The principal lesson to be learnt, and lessons should be learnt, from the latest horror and carnage in the Lebanon is that there are some problems—the Middle East is a supreme example—that get worse, not better, if neglected and left to resolve themselves with the passage of time. All along that has been the mistake in the Middle East. We have only to cast back our minds to the missed opportunities after the fighting of 1948, 1967 and 1973.
As for the high hopes mistakenly engendered four years ago at Camp David, they have now finally been snuffed out. True, a peace treaty has been signed between Israel and Egypt, and Israel has at last withdrawn from Egyptian territory. However, with regard to the central issue, which is the resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and the conclusion of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, those four years have not been merely squandered. They have actually set back the search for peace.
The state of affairs today is far worse than it was in September 1978. The annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the frenzied proliferation of illegal Israeli settlements, the bare-faced robbery on a vast scale of land and water belonging to the Palestinians, the air attack on Baghdad and the bloody air attacks on Lebanon, which preceded the invasion, have eroded enormously the grounds of a real negotiated peace. On past form, the situation will become worse, not better, if more time is lost without coming to grips with the core of the problem. This is not, as some would have us believe, Israel's security. Certainly, in any truly lasting peace settlement, the security of both Israel and its Arab neighbours must be effectively safeguarded. However, that is not what has prevented and frustrated the realisation of peace for all these years. Effective security safeguards could have been
232
negotiated. Arab hostility and Israeli insecurity are the symptoms and consequences, not the roots, of the problem. The real roots are Israel's appetite for other people's land and contempt for other people's rights.
Mr. Lawrence: Did my hon. Friend speak out thus firmly when the Syrians invaded Lebanon and with the PLO destroyed over 25,000 lives?
Mr. Walters: As has been stated on about three occasions, the Syrians did not invade Lebanon. They were called in.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Like the Russians being called into Afghanistan.
Mr. Walters: The hon. Gentleman is a great Zionist shouter. He has got it wrong. It would be desirable if the Syrians left. I am in favour of all military forces leaving Lebanon, the Israelis first of all.
The main reason why peace has eluded the international community for over 30 years is that it has funked the task of compelling Israel to respect and discharge the obligations of a peace-loving State, which it accepted when it was admitted to the United Nations in 1949. Every time it has been allowed to get away with defying international censure, its arrogance has increased and its defiance has multiplied.
This is the context in which we should look at Israel's latest adventure in invading and terrorising its Arab neighbours. Mr. Begin has said that his Government have no designs on even one inch of Lebanese territory. That, of course, is a lie. The intention may be that Israeli usurpation of Lebanese territory should be flimsily disguised by turning over nominal control of its conquests to Lebanese puppets supported by and acting in Israel's interest.
That was the device that Mr. Begin cooked up four years ago when he set up Major Haddad as a mini-Quisling of Israel in South Lebanon. The other day Mr. Begin told that rather unattractive puppet: "Beaufort is yours". That was after the castle was captured. So much for the sincerity of his assurances about respecting the territorial integrity of Lebanon.
The idea of turning the Lebanon into a dependency of Israel and governing it by proxy through a puppet regime is nothing new in the history of Israel's territorial ambitions. As long ago as May 1948 David Ben Gurion spelt it out clearly in his diaries. He said:
"The Achilles heel of the Arab coalition is the Lebanon. Muslim supremacy in this country is artificial and can easily be overthrown. A Christian State ought to be set up there, with its southern frontier on the river Litani. We would sign a treaty of alliance with this state. Thus when we have broken the strength of the Arab Legion and bombed Amman, we could wipe out Trans-Jordan: after that Syria would fall. And if Egypt still dared to make war on us, we would bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. We should thus end the war and would have put paid to Egypt, Assyria and Chaldea on behalf of our ancestors".
That horrifying and fanatical nonsense—as it seemed at the time—in an attempt to identify Israel's Arab neighbours of today with the enemies of the ancient Israelites 2,000 years ago was not a passing aberration of one fanatic; it reflects a continuing theme in the political planning of Israel's leaders. In this country we have long since seen through the myth of Israel as a little David bravely standing up to the Goliath of the Arab world.
Mr. Michael Latham: My hon. Friend has been listened to with courtesy as is right and proper. Should there be a State of Israel and, if so, what should its borders be?
Mr. Walters: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has listened to me with courtesy. I always listen to him with courtesy. There should be a State of Israel behind guaranteed and recognised borders. Those borders should be the 1967 borders. We could perfectly well organise demilitarised zones. That has been discussed. I am in favour of the maximum security for Israel and for its neighbours. With such security Israel could live in peace for much longer than it will if it continues to believe that it can only survive by fighting and destroying its neighbours.
Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman is a Zionist.
Mr. Walters: But different, I hope, from the hon. Gentleman who has just shouted. There has been much Israeli-inspired speculation about the possibility of using the position created by the invasion of Lebanon as an opportunity to restructure the Lebanese State on more durable lines. Even if that were to be the outcome it is certainly no ground for condoning the bloodbath that Israel's action has just been creating in the Lebanon.
A genuine solution of Lebanese problems needs to be worked out by the Lebanese and cannot be negotiated under the shadow of Israeli occupation. The essential prerequisite is a complete, prompt and real withdrawal by Israel of its invading forces. There may be a case for that to be accompanied by the arrangement of temporary international protection for the Lebanon while negotiations are proceeding, but any such protection must be genuinely independent and impartial. Above all, the pursuit of this idea must not be allowed to serve as a pretext for Israel to delay withdrawing its forces.
After the Suez war President Eisenhower insisted on the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai. He asked:
"Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose the conditions of its withdrawal? If we agree, then I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order."
That was true and apt then, and it is now. We did not let the Argentines get away with their aggression on the Falkland Islands and for the sake of international morality we should not let the Israelis get away with their infinitely bloodier aggression in the Lebanon.
In the end, discussion of the present tragedy turns inescapably to the core of the whole problem in the Middle East to which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Liberal Party have referred—namely, what to do about the Palestinians. Whatever may be contrived for restoring Lebanon's integrity and independence, there will be no real stable peace there or anywhere else in the region so long as the festering sore of Israel's cruelty and injustice to the Palestinians continues to poison relations between Israel and the Arab world. Whatever happens to the Lebanon, the Palestinian problem will not go away. The Palestinians and their leaders, who basically are the PLO, will not disappear from the scene in the Middle East.
Where are the Palestinians to go? The only safe place for them and for others is in a State of their own on Palestinian soil. The key to peace is to let the Palestinians
234
establish their own State on the West Bank and Gaza. That is the best hope of securing their future and that of others as well, including Israel.
The proper answer to the horror and tragedy of what has happened in the Lebanon is not to shut our eyes to the underlying causes and not to pretend that the Lebanese crisis can be solved or isolated from the general problem of peace in the Middle East. The answer should be for the international community, especially the Western powers, to make a fresh start towards a comprehensive settlement and to pursue it with the determination and firmness of purpose which have been so lamentably lacking in the past.
If we are seriously to consider external action to restore peace in the Lebanon, let us also consider the need for such intervention in the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan heights. An effective and impartial peacekeeping force is needed there, no less than in the Lebanon, if we are to make serious progress towards peace.
9.8 pm
Mr. Reginald Freeson: The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) began by calling on the friends of Israel outside Israel to echo the dissident voices quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in criticising the conduct of the Israeli Government. The hon. Gentleman said that this was important, and I do not deny that I shall return to it but I say to him and to those like him in the House and elsewhere that they do not serve the cause of peace by phrasing their evaluation of the Arab-Israeli dispute and conducting their political campaigns in the wholly anti-Israeli terms that we have experienced from the hon. Gentleman on many occasions in the past and as we have heard once more from him this evening.
As a Zionist, I am not by any means uncritical of Israeli Governments, past or present. I have a great love not only of Israel but of the Middle East, of which I still have fine memories, having spent some time there many years ago. Above all, like all hon. Members, I am concerned primarily with establishing wherever possible in this difficult world more civilised relationships within and between States, whether it be Israel and her neighbours or other States. We have reached such a pass in international and human affairs as not to treat lightly and contemptuously the conduct of ourselves or anyone else who puts at risk human lives, whether it be conduct of an Israeli Government, a British Government, an Arab Government, the PLO or anyone else.
Mr. Walters: The hon. Gentleman complains about the speeches that I have made. If only more attention had been paid to the matter and the Israeli lobby had not been so cocooned by lack of criticism, we would not be facing this situation today.
Mr. Freeson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman repeats his error. It is no use pretending, or deluding ourselves, here or anywhere else, that the sole responsibility for what has been going on for the past 30 years in the Middle East between the Arabs and the Israelis lies with one State, Israel. It would be inappropriate, and time would forbid if I were to try, to rehearse the history over many years. There have been faults on all sides. One could take several starting points, be it 1948 or one of the years before that.

235
For Heaven's sake, without going into the history, let us all adopt a sense of humility in taking up political positions over Middle Eastern affairs or other affairs elsewhere in the world. Unless and until all the political leaders in the Middle East get at least to the stage that the hon. Gentleman did, so far as I recall for the first time, of accepting fundamentally the right of the State of Israel to exist—
Mr. Ernie Ross: My right hon. Friend has said that.
Mr. Freeson—there cannot be any basis for negotiation.
The constant theme of political extremism, wherever and in whatever form it has been expressed, on the Arab-Israeli dispute is anti-Israel. There has been an unwillingness to accept that Israel has a right, and will continue, to exist. There must be an acceptance that it will continue to exist, whatever else is done in the political or military scene of the Middle East.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Why does my right hon. Friend not sit down?
Mr. Freeson: Coming to the present situation, I wish to express a dissenting voice, if I may put it that way, from within the Zionist and Jewish position. I am a Jew, a British Socialist and a Zionist. The remnants of my family are on record in Yad Vashem in Jerusalem as having been destroyed by the Nazis. I do not need to be told by any Zionist in the lobby or outside that to criticise the recent conduct of the Israeli Government in the Lebanon is anti-Israeli and weakens the position of Israel, because I do not accept that. Dissenting voices must be raised and dissenting views must be clearly expressed.
It is an understatement to say that there has been tremendous provocation—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) would listen to what I say instead of to the noises in his head, he might eventually be able to discuss this intelligently instead of merely speaking and thinking in rhetorical slogans. There has been tremendous provocation over a very long period from the military positions held by the PLO on the northern borders of Israel. There is no doubt about that, but it does not justify the various act ions that have been taken.
Mr. Ernie Ross: When?
Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend will no doubt be able to make his own speech if he is called. Perhaps in the meantime he will allow me to get on with mine.
There has been tremendous military provocation. I have seen it. I am not inventing it. I have seen the bombardments and the destruction that they have caused on a number of occasions in recent years. I did not have to go to Israel to be persuaded that this was taking place, but it so happened that I was there and saw it. The provocation exists. I know of families who have suffered as a result of it. I know children who have been wounded in the bombardments. Let it therefore be stated as fact that the provocation exists.
It may be argued that action must be taken to stop the constant military harassment, killing and wounding of innocent people south of the border, but in my view that does not justify the vile and horrific invasion of the Lebanon. What is more, I believe that conduct of that kind
236
by the Government of Israel puts at risk the very character of the State of Israel and the dreams that some of us have held and shared with others for its future as a progressive democratic State in the Middle East.
I believe in that dream, and I believe that the political initiatives and the social and Socialist innovations that Israel has achieved over many years—not in rhetoric, but on the ground in the creation of communities, industrial ventures and political institutions—have been achieved largely through the evolution of one of the most dynamic democratic Socialist movements in the world. I also believe, however, that that kind of society is put at risk by conduct such as that recently undertaken, and I fear for the future of the State of Israel if politics of this kind continue there. That is essentially what I wished to say today.
On the more specific political position, I repeat what has been said by others. Whatever has happened in the Lebanon, which is far in excess of a response to the evil provocation of the PLO on the northern borders, it does not provide a solution to what is broadly described as the Palestinian problem of the West Bank. Sooner or later, and I say sooner—now—there must be a genuine move by Israel as well as by others to get genuine autonomy talks going, as part of a dynamic, evolutionary political situation and not because the achievement of a particular form of autonomy means the end of change in the Middle East.
I believe, though it is scorned by many, that sooner or later—probably later—if there is to be peace in the Middle East between the Arabs and the Israelis there will have to be a form of federalism between the Jordanian State and the Israeli State. The genuine development of autonomy on the West Bank for the Palestinian people living there, and the refugees whom my right hon. Friend said could rightly be encouraged with economic aid to come from the Lebanon to settle on the West Bank could be a major step in that direction. It would give people an entitlement to an identity and to land, and establish a broader link between Jordan and Israel.
I do not believe that there is an indefinite possibility of a viable West Bank State as we understand political States. I believe that there is the possibility of a relationship building up between Jordan and Israel by way of a genuine move towards national autonomy on the West Bank in the months and years ahead that will eventually point in that direction. It is up to this country to contribute to that end.
I do not believe that all the Israeli leaders are committed to that approach, never mind the details, and that is my grave fear. They are divided and have their different emphases. They have a coalition Government, with different generations, as do all other political movements. There is an element—I put it no stronger—within the Likud Alliance that is obsessed with territory and with maintaining Israeli responsibility for Judea and Samaria, irrespective of the democratic fact of life that these are essentially Arab territories, with Arabs living in them. Some of them believe that they can create and hold on to what they would describe as a Bantustan.
Do not let the criticism of any such belief be treated as though that belief represents the views of Israel as a whole, or even of the Israeli Government as a whole. It is an aspect to be brought out openly and criticised, as Israelis criticise it. It should not be criticised in a spirit of anti-Israeli politics, sometimes with veiled anti-Semitism—I say this bluntly—in this place as elsewhere. It should not be treated as another weapon with which to beat the

237
Israelis, as a State or as a society. It should be treated as a valid criticsm of certain views that are advocated or believed by people in Government in Israel and outside Israel.
My sincere hope is that as a starting point, in the House and in the country, a genuine debate and argument will emerge that will point in the direction of genuine comradeship—I use that term in the non-party sense—between peoples and in the direction of support for peace and friendship, but not in the direction of continued division and warfare.
We have a role here. We know that this country and the House are focal points for pressure groups—Arab, Israeli and others. We are seen as an important political focal point. If for no other reason than that, we have a responsibility to take this broader approach, in a genuine spirit of seeking friendship and peace in the Middle East because we wish to see an end to the carnage that has been experienced in Lebanon recently, was experienced in Syria not long ago, was experienced a few years ago in Jordan, and is being experienced in so many places in the Middle East.
Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost. What we have seen recently with the Israeli invasion of the Lebanon, in which thousands of people, most of them innocent, have been unjustifiably killed, is just the latest event in a series of horrors that have occurred in that part of the world.
Our role, even if it is only to a small extent, is to try to contribute to the ending of that situation. We must seek genuine peace and friendship, not constant political and military warring, between the Israeli and Arab peoples.
9.30 pm
Sir Hugh Fraser: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) on the warmth and depth of his feelings on these immensely complicated matters. I should also like to respond to the two Front Bench speeches which, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) pointed out, did not show a full appreciation of the fact that the process of reconciliation inside the State of Israel must be measured. To jump straight from a non-automonous process to the establishment of a Palestinian State could be extremely dangerous and would contribute nothing to peace in the Middle East. I was surprised to hear both the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) touch on that subject. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is no longer present.
I can best describe the situation regarding the State of Israel and the invasion of the Lebanon by quoting Dr. Kissinger, who said:
"No sovereign State can tolerate indefinitely the build up along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction".
That is what has happened in the Middle East, and that is why the fate of the Lebanon is central to what we are discussing.
It is worth recalling why this situation has arisen over the past 30 years. The first accusation must be made against the West as a whole. Benign and, as it proved, malignant neglect was shown by the Western powers of a situation that started to deteriorate in the 1960s. The Western powers simply said that so long as the Lebanon had secure external boundaries it was a situation with which we should not concern ourselves. Yet at the same
238
time, as hon. Members have pointed out, the Lebanon was ceasing to exist as a sovereign or effective State. That is what we have seen.
The Melkart declaration of 1975 gave the PLO areas in which it could operate as a State within a State. The Syrians intervened and there was civil war. Now the situation is run by about 130 or 140 militant militias that try to control the State outside the area controlled by the Syrians or the PLO, or the Haddad forces in the south or the Phalangists in the north.
The next thing that must be remarked upon is the folly of the EEC to regard, against all American advice, the PLO as a suitable instrument for the carrying out of peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. This gave the PLO a far greater importance than it ever deserved or should be credited with. As the PLO is being attacked today by the Israelis in its fortresses, not one Arab voice and not one Arab arm is pushed to the help of Mr. Arafat. His most bitter complaint is "Where are my friends?" There has been no stir in his favour.
Next, one should note the folly of the PLO in allowing itself to carry out the gamble of building up an immense quantity of weapons during the ceasefire period. Thousands of tons of weapons from Libya, Syria and the Soviet Union were used to build up a military force that was bound to be regarded as a threat by the State of Israel. It was a gamble that not a single Arab State has supported. This is the background against which this extremely serious and dangerous situation must be viewed.
There is now a chance to fill the vacuum of the unviable, unsovereign State of Lebanon. I do not rate that chance very high, but it is a far more important chance than the Venice initiative or any initiative so far taken by the EEC. If there could be achieved a free Lebanon for the Lebanese, this would be a real and great achievement out of the bloodshed and horror that has been seen. Some say that this is wishful thinking. I believe, however, that an effective constitution could, with luck, be rebuilt there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), who does not like listening to my speeches and has left the Chamber, suggests that the EEC approach should be to force the unilateral withdrawal of Israel. That would be a major disaster and would merely hand over the whole of the Lebanon to Syria which would be entirely against our interests. On the contrary there are legitimate objects. Those objects, which should be pursued by the Government, are the withdrawal of Israel, because Israel is making no territorial claims, after the disarming of the PLO, the withdrawal of Syria except for strategic points and the re-establishment of a viable and sovereign Lebanese State.
This is undoubtedly the wish of the great bulk of the Lebanese people, whether they are Jews, Christian or Muslim, or even those of the much abused area called Hadabland. It has been seen that people of all religions can work effectively together. This could be made to work. Even in the days of the Ottoman Empire between 1861 and 1914 there was a State, Mount Lebanon, an enclave that was independent of the Ottoman Empire and that was run by a Christian, admittedly from outside, appointed by the Sultan and imposed on the Sultan of Turkey by the Western powers of the day.
Those who knew Lebanon between 1943 and 1960 saw how well it could function as a State. As hon. Members have said, there may have to be support, in the sense of a peacekeeping force. That is something that we should

239
seriously consider, especially if the United States was prepared to provide such a force. If it was asked to do so by a free Lebanese Government, we should seriously consider sending a contingent. The Prime Minister was asked about the matter this afternoon, and she said that she was not considering it at the moment. However, the time could come when that was necessary and worth while, provided that a Government could be set up in the Lebanon who were truly independent of Israel, Syria and the PLO. That is not an impossible dream. I believe that it could happen.
I turn now to the effect on the negotiations—what is called the Camp David initiative. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said, the peace process has been exhausted. It could be set up in the same way one could set up a State which, to use his phrase, is not a banana Christian State in the Lebanon. In my view, a proper State could be set up there. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on that matter.
I also disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about the negotiations which could be restarted on the autonomy process. There is no doubt that the destruction of the PLO, with its considerable military machine and its terrorist organisation used by many countries, not only Arab but European, will lead to the emergence of a new leadership among the Palestinians. That is a real possibility. As a result of the change of power in the Middle East which Israel has effected, there will be a greater chance of Jordan becoming involved. The first principle of the Camp David declaration is that there should be negotiation on the broad issues between the Governments of Israel, Egypt and Jordan, and an involvement of the Palestinian people to that end. I believe that that is still a possibility. It is a possibility which one sincerely hopes will evolve from the present horrors which face the Middle East.
Of course there are difficulties, and a lot of negotiation is necessary, but just to indulge in mindless attacks on the people and State of Israel, and just to suggest that what is needed is a new initiative such as took place in Venice, with all its danger, is not a contribution to peace, but a contribution to continuing discord and destruction in the Middle East.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak, and that the number who are called will depend on the length of speeches.
9.43 pm
Mr. Frank Hooley: My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) said that the nature of Israeli society was changing, and he is right. Israel now has a racist, militarist and neo-Fascist Government, and the country itself is rapidly developing into a racist society.
In March 1978 the first major invasion of the Lebanon took place—what the Israelis now call by the code word Litani I. In that process, about 1,000 people were killed, thousands were maimed and injured, and 250,000 were driven out of their homes and became refugees. The PLO fought a successful engagement on that occasion, and disengaged with its organisation more or less intact.
240
There were two results from the 1978 Lebanese war. First, there was the creation of UNIFIL, the United Nations peacekeeping force, largely on the initiative of President Carter. Subsequently, there was the initiation of the Camp David negotiations, into which President Carter threw the whole of his energy and prestige.
I should like to quote a couple of significant phrases from the Camp David agreement. First, it was said that
"the parties are determined to reach a just, comprehensive, and durable settlement of the Middle East conflict".
It went on to say:
"Their purpose is to achieve peace and good neighbourly relations. They recognise that, for peace to endure, it must involve all those who have been most deeply affected by the conflict."
That is a sound statement, but it does not seem to have been observed, either in the spirit or the letter, on one side at least. Broadly speaking, Egypt has observed its commitment at Camp David. The Israelis certainly evacuated Sinai, although the Israeli army had to be brought in to drag some fanatics screaming and kicking out of Yamit.
However, on the other parts of the Camp David agreement, far from there being any progress on the Palestinians' position on the West Bank, there has been savage repression, which has attracted international condemnation, involving, on one unfortunate occasion, the shooting of schoolchildren in cities on the West Bank. There has been the expansion of settlements, both on the West Bank and in the Golan area. About 35 per cent. of the land area of the West Bank has been expropriated from Arab ownership and taken, under one pretext or another, into Israeli ownership.
The Knesset has purported to annex the Golan area, which is part of the sovereign territory of Syria and recognised as such by the entire international community. The bombing of Beirut attracted international condemnation, because of the scale of the casualties among the civilian population. Last year there was the ceasefire agreement between Israel and the PLO, which was subsequently broken by the Israelis. Is that Israel's idea, in the words of the Camp David agreement, of
"peace and good neighbourly relations"?
Now we have the exercise known as Litani II. As has been said by several hon. Members, about 10,000 people, probably more—I expect that we shall never know the true number—have been killed. Thousands more have been wounded and, according to the Lebanese Government, about 600,000 people have been driven out of their homes and turned again into refugees.
What are the objectives of the Israeli Government in this exercise? Do they seriously believe that they will be able to dictate the political map of the Lebanon? Do they intend to carry out a major military thrust at Syria along the line of the Bekaa Valley, which is an important highway for Syrian security? It poses serious military problems for the Syrian Government if Israel continues to pursue, as would appear to be the case from the news today, military objectives in that direction.
Does Israel want to destroy the PLO or massacre the Palestinian population? What precisely does Israel think it is trying to do in this bestial, savage attack that has been launched into the Lebanon, and, notionally at any rate, against the PLO? We should remind ourselves that most of the victims of the war so far have probably been the Lebanese civil population. Many Palestinians have been

241
killed and injured, but a great many more Lebanese, who, as has been pointed out, have no quarrel at all with the Israelis, have also been injured.
What has happened to the PLO since Camp David? It has gained greater and greater international recognition. It has consolidated the concept of a Palestinian State. It is now becoming widely accepted in international circles that that must come about if there is to be a realistic settlement in the Middle East.
It is reasonable to quote the Venice declaration, although it has been much criticised. Section 7 discusses the need for Palestinian self-determination and states:
"The achievement of these objectives requires the involvement and support of all the parties concerned in the peace settlement which the Nine are endeavouring to promote in keeping with the principles formulated in the declaration referred to above. These principles apply to all the parties concerned, and thus the Palestinian people, and to the PLO, which will have to be associated with the negotiations."
Last year Israel was forced, for the first time, to enter into negotiations on a ceasefire with the PLO, although it did so at one remove.
No one can destroy a genuine national liberation movement by war. That was tried by the French in Algeria against the FLN, by the Americans in Vietnam against the Vietcong, by Smith and company against ZANU in Rhodesia, by the Portuguese against Frelimo, by the Portuguese in Angola against the MPLA, it is being tried by the South Africans against SWAPO and it is being tried by the Moroccans in the Sahara against the Polisario. Since the Second World War, every time that massive force has been used—even by a country as rich and powerful as the United States of America—it has failed to destroy the genuine national aspirations of a people who have felt themselves to be subjugated or unjustly treated.
The PLO was written off in 1970 after black September and after the quarrel with the Syrians. It will no doubt be written off again by the Israelis when the present exercise is over. However, no matter how brutal and savage the assault against the Palestinians, they will continue to fight for their national existence. Indeed, some of us wonder what is happening to the Palestinian captives who are now in the hands of Israeli soldiers. It is sometimes assumed that the problem exists outside Palestine's boundaries—in Lebanon, Jordan and so on. However, there are 2 million Palestinians in Palestine. What is their future? They will not tolerate being put into a Bantustan or being treated as second-rate citizens in their own country. Until their national position as a people, with their own State, passports, Government and leaders, is fully internationally recognised there will not be any semblance of peace in the Middle East.
President Carter's achievement in setting up UNIFIL with the co-operation of the Western world and other countries was important and was another stage in the peacekeeping process carried out by the United Nations. It should be of grave concern to the West that it has been treated with absolute contempt by Israel. If Israel is allowed to treat it in this way, the authority of the United Nations will be undermined, together with the whole process of developing peacekeeping efforts and gaining experience in peacekeeping exercises in the dangerous world of nuclear weapons.
Whatever peacekeeping arrangements are organised after Israel has been compelled to evacuate southern Lebanon, they should come under the authority of the United Nations, should be in its name and should be
242
controlled direct by the Security Council. We should not accept the notion of an American cordon sanitaire round Palestine, with an American force in Sinai, another in the Lebanon and perhaps one along the border with Jordan. Whatever its shortcomings, we must restore the prestige and authority of the United Nations, to ensure that it is at the centre of peacekeeping efforts wherever trouble occurs.
Many hon. Members have stressed the necessity for immediate international relief. Humanitarian aid is of overwhelming importance in this tragic disaster that has struck a civilian population of about half a million people. Those relief measures must include access by the International Red Cross to the prisoners in the hands of the Israeli forces.
Secondly, Western Europe must exert all its diplomatic and economic strength to compel Israeli withdrawal. This is not just a matter for the United States. If the countries of Europe act in concert, they have sufficient power and influence to exert strong pressure. We must also ensure that we have an effective United Nations force, and the Western world must demonstrate its determination to support it this time. Lastly, we must recognise the legitimacy of the PLO and press for the self-determination of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Venice declaration.
In 1967 the Israelis were triumphant in their war against the armies of Egypt and Syria. They believed that they could sit on the Golan heights and Sinai and remain secure in their military triumph for a long time. Six years later they were back at war, and their military triumph on that occasion was much more precarious. They are wrong to suppose that from this invasion—whatever the military outcome—they will assure themselves of the security that they seek. The Israelis will achieve security only if they sit down at the same table as the PLO, as the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people, and negotiate a permanent peace.
9.58 pm
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) when he spoke about the Middle East but I disagreed with him when his horizons lifted.
Having sought this overdue debate, I welcome the common approach that has been highlighted on the two Front Benches and the Liberal Bench. I also welcome the House's recognition of the need for urgent and massive international relief to the Lebanon and for the immediate removal of all barriers in the way of that relief.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary why on earth must injured children die tonight in the Lebanon while fully trained and equipped medical teams remain in enforced idleness, forbidden to enter the area?
Fears were voiced in many quarters that Israel, under its present extraordinary leadership, would use the crisis in the South Atlantic to cover further military measures against its Arab neighbours. Following the colonisation and repression on the West Bank, the outrageous bombing of the Iraqi reactor—as if one can deny Arab people the peaceful use of nuclear energy—and the virtual annexation of the Golan heights, the world waited to see what the new measures might be. Where next for the world's rogue elephant?
The exiled Palestinians in the Lebanon always seemed to be in danger once Egypt had been neutralised by Camp

243
David, and the peacekeeping force of which we form a part. Now Mr. Begin and Mr. Sharon, who many of us saw on television last night, are working on the supposition that the PLO's political influence in the occupied territories can be eliminated once its military capability is destroyed. The plan that we all now perceive is to move any surviving Palestinians in the Lebanon to Syria or further afield. The Palestinians will once again be designated refugees and will become dispersed, gipsy-like communities for ever on the move, as were the Jews for generations.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

The Middle East

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  Mr. Townsend: Is there no hope? Are the bloodshed and destruction bound to continue for decades? I say a hundred times "No". What has happened was not inevitable. It flowed from a lack of international understanding of the issues at the heart of the Middle East dispute and a lack of statesmanship by the world's leaders.
  Great responsibility rests on America. For too long it has allowed Middle East policy to be a mere extension of domestic policy. Its professional diplomats understand that they have made a basic error of judgment where American interests are concerned. The United States of America had wished to accelerate the autonomy talks, but it must now recognise that Camp David is permanently under the recently blown sand. It would be a major mistake for the Reagan Administration to return to the carcases of old policies. What is needed is a complete rethinking of America's approach to the Middle East before Western influence in the Arab world is also buried.
  Having made Israel the predominant power in that part of the world, America must now explain to Israel—it is no more than the truth—that conquering one's neighbours, far from bringing peace, will bring only ever more ferocious fighting, if not this year or the next, within a decade. I cannot believe that it is a good time to bring up small children in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Israel's future security depends on its having more friends than enemies in the Middle East, and on learning to live with its proud but divided Arab neigbours and with a Palestinian State. The indiscriminate bombing and blasting by Israeli soldiers and airmen in the Lebanon will not and cannot alter the basic fact that peace can be achieved only when the Palestinians have their own land in Palestine.
  Britain and the European Community must show that not only do we recognise that the Middle East remains unfinished business but that we can put together and see through a long-term initiative in conjunction with America. To obtain the prompt withdrawal of the Israeli forces from the Lebanon, all members of the European Community should be prepared immediately to cut off supplies of arms and spares to Israel and, if necessary, to impose economic sanctions. I ask the Government one direct question: do they agree with that suggestion?
  244
  What has happened in the Lebanon during the past three weeks has been a cruel, savage and unnecessary disaster resulting from actions that fall far below acceptable standards of civilised conduct. Let us all hope and pray that out of the suffering of the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples, out of the scarred streets of Sidon and out of the blackened debris of Beirut will come a new international comprehension and will to obtain a comprehensive, honourable and lasting peace. Or do we have to wait until nuclear weapons extend the limits of death and destruction beyond the confines of the Middle East?
  10.5 pm
  Mr. James Callaghan: I have listened to the debate, but I had no intention of intervening. It is a most important debate, and one or two of the contributions have compelled me to rise. I say at once that I agree with the last sentiment in the speech of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend).
  The moving speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) touched the spirit of many Members; and his approach, if carried through, could command a great deal of support.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) referred to the statements made in the Camp David agreement. He said that the sentiments that were included were extremely laudable. I agree, but they were not only laudable but were accepted by both sides.
  Mr. Hooley: And signed by both sides.
  Mr. Callaghan: Immediately after concluding the Camp David agreement I saw, or spoke on the telephone to, both Mr. Sadat and Mr. Begin. Mr. Begin came to Chequers. There is no doubt that at that time Mr. Begin, as the Prime Minister, had committed himself to a degree of autonomy which, I regret to say, he has not subsequently carried out. Much of the responsibility for the failure to proceed arises from Mr. Begin's failure in that matter.
  What troubles me at the moment is the enthusiasm—I do not wish to range over the whole ground—with which some people are now proclaiming immediate self-determination for the Palestinians. That is not practicable. The command structure of the PLO has been destroyed. It is in no position to enforce self-determination, whether it be right or wrong. It cannot do so, because the might of Israel is too great. What is the point, therefore, except in stating a principle, in calling for immediate self-determination? Similarly, it is of no advantage to Britain or to the securing of peace in the Middle East for those who support Mr. Begin—I have not heard many of them tonight—to encourage continuing Israeli intransigence.
  The virtue of Camp David, even though the term is abused now—never let it be forgotten that Camp David has provided for the first time a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, and is a profound historical document—
  Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I shall not give way now because I do not wish to take up other hon. Members' time. I am intervening in a debate in which I know others have prepared their speeches. I have not. I want simply to make a brief intervention and then sit down.
  I wish that the Foreign Secretary would be more than lukewarm about the process of autonomy. We cannot support Mr. Begin's Government in their complete

  245
  intransigence, nor is it possible for peace in the Middle East to support the idea of immediate self-determination. That was what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley appeared to be moving towards.
  The wisdom of the agreement by Sadat, Begin and Carter was that there was to be an interim period in which the Palestinians should gain more powers, which I believed at that time, and which Begin almost conceded at that time, should include legislative powers as well as mere administrative powers. Mr. Begin has gone back on that, but it was the intention that the Palestinians should have those powers. If that could be conceded so that each side could learn to live together and grow together and if, at the end of a fixed period—I do not know whether it is four or five years—there were a determination as to what should be the future of the Palestinians, is not that the path of wisdom? Is not that the best path for British interests to pursue? It is better than saying that we support self-determination for the Palestinians tomorrow. I know that the Foreign Secretary did not say that, but some people imply it. We shall not get peace that way but a bloody war, which may be extended.
  246
  Although the term "Camp David" may be blighted and forgotten because the other Arab States do not like it, although Mr. Begin may approve of much more intransigence and has gone back on some of the statements that he made to me and although the Palestinians feel, as they undoubtedly do at the moment, that they are a minority that has been beset, abused and grossly ill-treated, surely the path for Britain to take is to say that we want to go on with the process of encouraging those people who live together and saying to Israelis and Palestinians "You cannot have your full objectives now. If you want peace above all and if you want to avoid nuclear war above all, you cannot have your total objectives at this stage, but both of you can have something that will give security to one and will move towards the aspirations of the other, with the hope that in due course they can come together."
  I agree with those who want to see a larger arrangement in the Middle East. I have had conversations with these people over many years. There is no reason why the Israelis, the Jordanians and the Palestinians cannot come to an intergovernmental arrangement to develop that area.
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Peter Thomas: I have noted your remarks, Mr. Speaker. I assure the House that my speech will be short.
  I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and that he intervened in the debate, because his speech was wise and born of experience. I am happy to say that I should like to be associated with the remarks that he made.
  I shall confine my remarks to the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. That has been the main topic of debate tonight. The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) talked about provocation that he had witnessed in Israel. In view of the undoubted mounting acts of aggression against Israel by PLO forces and terrorists, it came as no surprise that Israeli forces advanced into South Lebanon. The surprise, if any, was the extent of their advance and their stern determination to destroy the PLO as a military force.
  The appalling loss of civilian life and widespread destruction of property that that determination occasioned, perhaps to some extent inevitably, produced understand-able reactions of protest and horror expressed not just abroad but in Israel itself, where concern and criticism have been freely expressed, as one would expect in a democracy.
  Of course, the Israeli Government see that as a sad but just fight for the protection of their citizens and for the security of their territory. There can be, and will continue to be, I have no doubt, arguments as to whether the cost outweighed the cause. There can be no argument as to the Israelis' military successes in pursuing their main objectives. I see no value in engaging in crimination. We serve our interests better if we consider whether anything positive can emerge from the grave position that now obtains. It is clear that Israeli forces must withdraw from the Lebanon. Israel accepts that, but pressure should now be brought to demand not just the withdrawal of those forces but the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Lebanon.
  We in the West should be prepared to give all the assistance that we can towards the reconstruction of a truly independent Lebanon. That will be no easy task, but the chance of the emergence of a stable and effective government in the Lebanon is probably greater now than it has been for years. If such a government were to emerge, it could well be a solution to many of the problems recently faced in the Middle East and would certainly be a source of encouragement to those moderate Arab States whose friendships are so important to us in the West. I hope that that is something that the Government will not reject. It is the course advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser). I hope that the Government will consider that and will work closely in co-operation with the United States of America.
  The attitude that the key to Middle East peace lies in negotiations between Israel and the PLO must clearly be abandoned. That is and always has been an illusion. There can never be a sufficient meeting of minds between Israel and the PLO. Arab aspirations on the West Bank can only be attained if Israel is confident of her security. A major contribution to that confidence would be a stable, independent and friendly Lebanon. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone that there
  248
  is now a chance—I put it no higher—that recent events have made that possible. If that happens, the Israeli Government, freed from the PLO military menace, can concentrate on the autonomy talks regarding the West Bank and Gaza and the difficult and important issue of finding a lasting solution to the Palestine problem. It is on that that peace in the Middle East depends.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Greville Janner: I have listened to all the speeches tonight with great interest. I wonder whether there is one element which could unite us all even though we take such differing points of view. Surely that must be our anxiety for the suffering of innocent people on both sides of the Lebanese-Israel border; throughout the Middle East; in Iraq and Iran; the 98,000 Lebanese who died before the outbreak of the present fighting, as well as the Lebanese who have been recently killed, whether they were taking part in the war, or were in hospitals or schools used as bases for artillery. Innocent people have died and are suffering.
  We are right also to debate this subject because it affects some of us very personally. From the spillover of suffering in the Middle East comes bloodshed here. I add my tribute to Ambassador Argov, who we all hope will recover his health speedily and fully.
  Unfortunately, it is not only Ambassador Argov who has fallen to the terrorist bullet. In another capacity I went to Vienna to visit the Jewish community after two men shouting "PLO, PLO" sprayed bullets at people coming out of prayer and killed two of them. I have been to Antwerp where a bomb outside a synagogue on a holy day killed non-Jewish people, completely innocent. There is a wave of terror which unfortunately spreads out from the Middle East and involves the lives of too many innocent people throughout the world.
  One area of common ground that should be shared with the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, is his concern about this terror. I received a letter from him not so long ago in which he wrote:
  "The unreserved condemnation by this government and the Nine of terrorism in all its forms is a matter of record. You may be sure also that every opportunity is taken, in the contacts which officials have with the PLO, to stress to them that the PLO must renounce its involvement with terrorism and that such terrorism is a major impediment to a Middle East peace settlement. We shall continue to make our views forcibly known."
  I much regret that neither of the Front Bench spokesmen today saw fit to express that view.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. and learned Gentleman has catalogued a series of terrorist crimes. Will he include and add to the list of terrorist crimes that he has been talking about the murder, mutilation and killing of 14,000 people in the Lebanon by the Israelis in the past two weeks?
  Mr. Janner: No. Unfortunately, those of us who have been soldiers know that there is little horror that war does not bring with it. No crime can be worse than that committed by those who claim to be freedom fighters or soldiers and who bury their headquarters, their armaments, their missiles and their artillery in refugee camps, hospitals, schools, and in other places where they have ensured that unfortunate civilians are held before them as shields. They do so in the hope that people such as the hon. Gentleman will make precisely the point that he has. If we wish to make any contribution towards a civilised debate, it is necessary to recognise another side of the issue that

  249
  neither Front Bench spokesman—[Interruption.] Those who wish to take part in a civilised debate will no doubt ask themselves why it is that the nation of Israel, which treasures every one of its own people—
  Mr. Faulds: You can say that again.
  Mr. Janner: Yes. Israel is a tiny country in which every life is treasured, and its people do not go to war because they enjoy it. The Israelis wish to bring their soldiers home.
  Mention has already been made of an alleged lack of provocation. There have been about 290 attacks on Israelis, on Jewish people and on other innocents, gunned down by the PLO and its affiliates since 24 July 1981.
  Mr. Faulds: Who told you that?
  Mr. Janner: The last person to talk to Ambassador Argov before he was shot down was Archbishop Bruno Heim, the Pope's Ambassador to the Court of St. James's. The archbishop was beside Ambassador Argov when he was shot. He was later informed by the police that he survived only because the gun jammed when it was swung round at him after having been aimed at the ambassador.
  Mr. Faulds: Zionist make-believe.
  Mr. Janner: I think that the House will draw its own conclusion from the buffoon obscenity which emerges when a man like Archbishop Heim is insulted.
  Mr. Faulds: It is strange that we have not had reports of that.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair for the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) to make a running commentary when another point of view has been advanced at considerable length in the House. The House has been anxious to hear both points of view with care.
  Mr. Janner: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
  We have one great joy in this country and especially in the House: even a point of view which is unpopular is heard. I have listened while hon. Friends on the whole have quoted Israelis attacking the Israeli Government. They have that privilege because that is the only democracy in the Middle East. Anyone in an Arab country who dared attack the Government would be shot dead. That is why I disagree totally with those who maintain that there is no greater possibility now than there was before of an emergence of some form of communication between Arabs and Israelis. Anyone who has been to Israel will know that the fear of PLO shooting is not confined to the relatives of the Imam of the Gaza mosque who was shot dead by them, or to the dozens of others who have suffered because of the actions of an organisation which is, alas, terrorist.
  If one wants to know the nature of the organisation, one might do no better than look at the lead letter in today's Yorkshire Post which was handed to me a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall), who is unfortunately unlikely to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I should like to read only a couple of paragraphs to give a clear indication of the views of this English lady, who is married to an Arab who lived in the Lebanon, Mrs. Frances Atib:
  "I can honestly say that I do not support the PLO. They are an evil group of people. The Lebanese people hate them and so do most of the civilised decent Arab people. During the last month we watched the PLO turn our apartment block into a
  250
  military fortress. The forecourt where our children used to play was filled by four large artillery guns. Further arms trucks and a huge pile of ammunition were placed right under the flats, like many homes in the Middle East built on stilts. It was a horrific sight. As my husband sadly forecast at the time, many civilians would be killed if the PLO were to be engaged in battle. I wished I had been there when the Israeli army finally freed my beloved village from the PLO. They must have been welcomed with open arms by the people".
  I am not a supporter of the right hon. Lady and her Government, but that does not mean that actions taken by that Government are necessarily wrong. If I lived in Israel I certainly would not support Mr. Begin or his Government, but that does not mean that that democratically elected Government are wrong in the view they take about the actions necessary to defend their people from an attack by an organisation such as the PLO.
  When the Israelis crossed the border they found a build-up of war supplies which was to be aimed at them. They found far more than they had expected. There were over 100 tanks of the most modern and sophisticated kind supplied by the Soviet Union and over 1,000 missiles of the most dangerous variety also supplied by the Soviet Union. They discovered a total arsenal which was there not to defend anyone against anything but to carry out the PLO's job, which is, was and, so far as I know, will be likely to remain the total destruction of the State of Israel and, if necessary, to do so by methods of terror.
  Mr. John Dunlop: Would the hon. and learned Member agree that they found there also many elements of the IRA being trained and equipped for their war against the people in Ulster, their so-called gallant fight for freedom, which the stupid Americans and other people talk about sometimes? Would he agree that that is where these people have been trained and equipped for their war against Britain in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Janner: I cannot confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have it on the excellent authority of an Israeli Cabinet Minister, who came here, alas, to attend a memorial service for my father on Sunday, that the Israelis uncovered many tons of documents showing the international nature of terrorism, and that they also captured nationals from many countries who were being trained for the terrorist organisations of those countries. I have no information whatever about the IRA, but evidence of the international nature of terrorism has certainly been unearthed during this operation.
  More than 50 per cent. of the population of Israel are themselves refugees from Arab countries. They have settled in a land where they wish to live in peace and where they have made peace with Egypt. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) so forcefully said, it takes two sides to achieve an agreement like the Camp David agreement. I was therefore shocked when a Conservative Member, referring to the grief in the United States at the assassination of President Sadat, criticised the Americans for taking it as a personal matter. We should all have taken it as a personal grief because he was one of the greatest men that some of us have ever been privileged to meet. He was the architect of a miraculous peace settlement—not on his own, but with the much-maligned Mr. Begin, who leads a very Right-wing Government that many of us would never support but who nevertheless helped to bring that about. I was also shocked at the criticism of Mr. Begin for the way in which he moved people out of Sinai in order to honour the

  251
  agreement that he had made. We must disagree very much with him, but he honoured that agreement in a way that caused great problems in his own country.
  If the British Government wish to play any role in the future, they must be regarded as a Government who take a fair and balanced view and are not protagonists of any one side in this sad dispute. I was saddened by the speeches of both Front Bench spokesmen, as I believe that anyone hearing them would now regard both sides as protagonists of one party in the conflict, thus putting this country out of the role of helping in the peacemaking process.
  Finally, I add as a postscript a paragraph from one of the remarkable articles by Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, headed
  "Israel's Alternative: The peace of death",
  in which he says:
  "When all of Israel's neighbours follow Egypt's example, in accepting Israel's right to existence, and when none of these states any longer harbours armed terrorists pledged to Israel's destruction, then the idea of a Palestinian state will begin to become compatible with Israel's right to existence. It may be that the week's events"—
  the events in Lebanon—
  "will have the effect of bringing Israel and it neighbours nearer to that point."
  We must all pray that that will come about, and we must each in our own way do what we can to achieve that end and, in particular, an end to suffering throughout that tortured region.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. Michael Latham: I am pleased to follow the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). In the first minute of my speech I wish to make a personal point and say why I am, and always have been, a fervent supporter of the State of Israel. I am not a Jew and I have no personal or constituency interest in the matter. I support the State of Israel, as I am sure that other hon. Members support the PLO, out of a sense of personal conviction and emotion.
  I believe that the creation of the State of Israel and its courageous defence by its citizens ever since has been an inspiring cause. Whenever I have had doubts, I have gone to Yad Vashem or looked at pictures of it—the memorial in Jerusalem to the holocaust, to the millions of Jews butchered by the Nazi beasts and to the determination of the children of those who survived the gas chambers to have a State of their own in which Jews could live in freedom in the land with which their people had identified since Titus sacked the Second Temple in AD70.
  If there is one political aim and political fact that means everything to me, it is that throughout the 20 centuries of diaspora, pogrom, persecution and horror, some of the Jewish people have remained in the land of Israel, clinging to the soil from which so many have tried to expel them. Conquerors have come and gone since the birth of Christ—Romans, Persians, Omayyads, Mamelukes, Saracens, Franks, Turks and British. But the Jews have remained. All over the world other Jews have prayed and dreamt of their return. No other nation has had Jerusalem as its capital except the Jews. I am proud that it was three Great Britons and Members of the House—David Lloyd George, Arthur Balfour and Sir Winston Churchill—who did much to establish the modern State for the Jewish people.
  252
  There is one objective fact that should never be forgotten or ignored when we discuss modern Israel. The Jew is not going to leave the Middle East. There will be no settlement in the region that is not acceptable to Israel. If the Jewish people had listened to the diplomats, the compromisers and timid anti-Zionists, there would have been no Jewish State today.
  The Jews accepted the British mandatory Government's offer to set up a Jewish agency in 1923. The Arabs refused. The Jews accepted the Peel Commission report in 1937, which recommended partition. The Arabs refused. The Jews supported the United Nations in setting up the Unscop inquiry. The Arabs boycotted it. The General Assembly on 29 November 1947 gave a two-thirds majority to the Unscop plan. The outcome was brutal war. Through the oceans of Jewish blood that has been spilt over the centuries, the link between the people and their land has endured.
  Why do the Israeli people not negotiate with the PLO? Why are they not content with their pre-1967 borders? I do not favour a Zionist Greater Israel annexing the West Bank, any more than I agree with an Arab Greater Syria swallowing up the Lebanon. But Syria, which has never properly recognised the Lebanon, has always thought in those terms ever since the French mandatory power deposed the Emir Faisal from the throne of Syria in 1920 and set up Lebanon as a separate entity especially created from previous Turkish sub-provinces, with a French governor.
  I do not believe that the area that is described in United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 of 29 November 1947 as "Judaea and Samaria" belongs automatically to Israel or to Jordan. I consider that its status is undetermined. The last legal owner was the British mandatory power, which itself acted with dubious legality when Sir Winston Churchill, after the Cairo conference of 1921, put the Emir Faisal on the throne of Iraq and made his brother the Emir Abdullah the independent ruler of a newly invented country of Transjordan, contrary to the decisions of the San Remo conference.
  This was also wholly contrary to the spirit of the MacMahon correspondence with Sherif Husain and was in accordance with the cynical diplomacy of the secret Sykes-Picot agreement. Only two countries have ever recognised the Jordanian annexation between 1950 and 1967, one of which was Britain. That annexation was no more legal in terms of treaties than would Mr. Begin's annexation of the same territories be now. It was based solely on the rights of conquest by a belligerent Power. It is not even clear whether Jordan still maintains a territorial claim over what it calls the West Bank or whether this claim was vacated in favour of the PLO at the Rabat conference of 1974.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said in a letter to me on 4 May:
  "Our contacts with the Jordanian Government leave us in no doubt that she maintains that claim. We understand that the Jordanians regard the decision at Rabat as one about who should speak politically for the Palestinians, and that this decision does not, in the Jordanian view, affect the question of Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank."
  Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd: With regard to the sovereignty of the West Bank, does my hon. Friend agree that the people who live there have a strong interest in its status? That is the right way to look at it, not to pursue some legalistic argument, which we

  253
  have heard over a number of years, about the authority of the British mandate and the authority of the Jordanian Government to incorporate it into Jordan.
  Mr. Latham: I shall deal precisely with that point in a moment when I talk about autonomy, because that is what it is all about.
  If Jordan still claims the West Bank, why does it not take immediate steps to assert its claim through diplomacy, just as it took steps to protect its territorial integrity when it expelled the PLO in 1970 after the PLO had tried to assassinate King Hussein? If there is no longer a Jordanian claim, but only a recognition of the PLO, the Israeli settlements on the West Bank cannot be illegal in international law, as there is no undisputed sovereign owner of that territory. The PLO is not, of course, a sovereign power.
  Whatever the legal ownership, I see no reason why the West Bank as a whole should be regarded as Judenrein. The whole of Transjordan was deliberately kept free of Jews by the British, and has been so ever since.
  If Jews wish to live in the historic areas of Judea and Samaria from which so much of their civilisation sprang, I see no reason why they should not do so. But that is not to determine the eventual status of the area. That remains to be settled in the context of an overall peace settlement in accordance with Security Council resolution 242.
  What, then, should be the steps for progress on the West Bank? I now deal directly with my hon. Friend's intervention. The defeat of the PLO in Lebanon may allow for some more progress than has been possible since that organisation was set up in 1964—before the 1967 war—to eliminate Israel from all its borders. The PLO's aims have not changed. Farouk Khadoumi told the German magazine Stern on 30 July 1981:
  "We shall never allow Israel to live in peace … I shall make it perfectly clear to you. We shall never recognise Israel".
  Only one solution remains on the table. It is not the Venice declaration, which has been rejected by both Israel and the PLO, or the Fahd plan, which collapsed like a house of cards when even the PLO, which was supposed to have drafted it, turned against it. Only the Camp David agreements remain, from which have flowed peace between Egypt and Israel. Negotiating 'with Israel has produced for Egypt the return of the whole of Sinai.
  It is instructive to read directly from those sections of the Camp David accords which deal with the West Bank and Gaza. There are to be five years of transitional arrangements, during which a freely elected local administration is to emerge. The Government of Jordan will be involved in those discussions, which specifically refer to
  "the principle of self-government by the inhabitants of those territories".
  The Palestinians are to be directly represented in the Egyptian and Jordanian delegations. There is to be a withdrawal of Israeli armed forces. Within three years of the establishment of the self-governing authority there are to be negotiations to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza and to conclude an Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty. Those negotiations are to include elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. The negotiations are to recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and their just requirements. Their agreement is to be submitted to a vote by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza.
  254
  As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, President Sadat and President Carter both saw that here was a tremendous opportunity for the West Bank Arabs. It could ultimately have led to a Palestinian autonomous State. Nothing in the Camp David accords ruled out such a solution, if only the PLO had not prevented the local Arabs from seizing the best opportunity they ever had to achieve something that there has never been—an autonomous Palestinian State with recognised borders. But the PLO rejected it, just as the Arabs rejected Peel, Unscop and so much else as well.
  The reason is very clear. The PLO is not really interested in a mini-State on the West Bank, except as a preliminary to the ultimate extinction of what it calls the "Zionist entity" itself. It means what it says. There is no reason to disbelieve it. That is why Israel will never countenance handing over the West Bank to them, no matter how many resolutions are passed at the United Nations or at Venice.
  I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that until this evening we had heard a good deal about Lebanon but rather less about the tremendous slaughter in Iraq and Iran. Syria, with which our relations are supposed to be "good", according to an answer by the Minister of State last week, went uncondemned when 12,000 of its troops with heavy artillery and Soviet tanks shelled and shot up Hama in February. At least 5,000 Hama Syrians were killed, and the death toll may be as high as 25,000, according to local diplomats there. What happened to the voice of the Security Council or the General Assembly over that?
  If Israel shells the PLO that is called genocide, but if President Assad shells his own people it is ignored. Only yesterday, in answer to me, the Minister of State was repeating the Foreign Office line that the Syrian army is in Lebanon by virtue of a mandate from the Arab League and that UNIFIL remains in place. Surely, the key to peace in Lebanon must involve the removal of all external armed forces, including the PLO, and the establishment of a demilitarised zone in the southern part of the country. Why not say so now?
  With that there should go a fresh diplomatic drive by the Government to get the autonomy talks back on the road. They have never had much support from Europe. But the changed situation in the Middle East may give fresh momentum to the only peace plan that has support from Israel, Egypt and the Americans. No Middle Eastern country has lifted a finger to help the PLO over the past two weeks. No Arab nation really wants the PLO. Out of the terrible carnage and wreckage of Lebanon, the Western Powers should now try to support their American allies.
  Israel has shown over Sinai that it is prepared to cede territory in exchange for real peace between sovereign nations. That must the best road to follow.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before calling the next speaker, may I remind the House that the debate ends at midnight. The winding-up speeches, I understand, will begin at 11.20 pm. It will be helpful if contributions are short.
  10.47 pm
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I was hoping that the debate would concentrate on Lebanon. It is, goodness knows, a big enough problem. However, hon. Members have gone over a great deal of history, and I should like

  255
  to comment on some of the statements that have been made. I believe, for example, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) misinterpreted a point that I made about the build-up of Muslim fundamentalism in the Middle East, which he looked upon as a danger to the West. I tried to point out that, in that case, there should be a strengthening or cementing of these relations with each other, with the Arab countries, and with the Muslim countries because we should be concentrating on Israel. It is the fact that Israel is there that is the focal point for them. If Israel was not there, they would be free to engage in other activities that might be injurious to us. I shudder to think of the kind of choice that we, in this country, the United States and the other people of Europe would have to make if there was no State of Israel.
  At the moment, we and those in other Western countries can make friendly overtures to any Arab country that we wish merely by evincing some kind of criticism of the State of Israel. That keeps things sweet for a little while. If, however, there were no State of Israel, we should have to start clarifying with whom we wished to be friends in the Middle East. None of us here is unaware that the strife in the area stems from all kinds of internecine difficulties and troubles. We would experience a considerable degree of difficulty if we had to try to sort out one possible friend from another. By making a friend of one, we would be making an enemy of all the others. That would be a recipe for disaster—or, at any rate, a possibility of disaster.
  However, I do not want to comment on too many matters which do not relate directly to the Lebanon problem. The Foreign Secretary said that the scale of the Israeli attack was not justified. Who decided the scale of attack when we went to the Falkland Islands? No one but ourselves. In my opinion, the decision should be left to the people who think that they are to be attacked—not to other people.
  Mr. Crouch: Fourteen thousand dead.
  Dr. Miller: I shall come to that in a moment.
  The Foreign Secretary said also that the invasion was a setback to the diplomatic process. What diplomatic process? Does he mean the constant reiteration of the desire to annihilate the State of Israel, backed by 20,000 guerrillas, armed to the teeth, in the Lebanon? What were they doing there? It was not a holiday camp. They were there to try to implement the desire that they had, ever since their founding in 1964, to obliterate the State of Israel.
  In debating the Lebanon question, I find myself very much in agreement with my right hon. Friends the Members for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) and for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), both of whom made valuable contributions to our debate. I, too, feel that it is difficult to justify the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. I do not deny that. It is difficult to justify any invasion, not just the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is not easy to justify any invasion, but some invasions are worse than others. It is a matter of regret—but none the less true—that the kind of world that we should like to live in does not exist. The world is still a jungle, and we are still a long way from
  256
  resolving our differences by peaceful means. It is unfortunate but true. Armed conflict is the option which, all too frequently, is chosen.
  It has often been said that war does not solve problems. I agree with that statement, but, if I told a patient whose illness was incurable that I did not intend to give him anything for it, he would surely be entitled to ask for some palliative, or even something to relieve his pain. It is not enough to say to Israel "What you are doing will not solve your problems". Israel knows that, and we all know that, but at least it is a palliative in the absence of any other concrete plans. Anyone can put forward ideas, and no idea is better than another merely because of the person who puts it forward.
  I deplore the violent upheaval in the Lebanon. I deplore the loss of life, especially among innocent civilians. I also deplore the callous indifference to human life of those who deliberately position their headquarters, operation rooms, and gun emplacements in the midst of civilian populations.
  Mr. Crouch: When did they last fire a shell on Israel?
  Dr. Miller: There have been many infringements of the ceasefire during the past year.
  For a number of years, Lebanon has not been a sovereign and independent State. Its territorial integrity has completely disintegrated under the twin impact of the PLO's terrorism and Syrian military occupation. Israel has reacted to the escalating threats coming from those who wish to destroy her. I am not an admirer of Mr. Begin, but I have similar reservations about joining the fan club of the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister, although I believe that she was right to protect the British citizens of the Falkland Islands. We despatched an armada of 100 ships and a force of between 10,000 and 12,000 men to defend the liberty of people 8,000 miles away. How can that right be denied to the Israelis whose enemies are on their borders?
  James Cameron expressed that view in The Guardian last Tuesday. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is here, because I wish to quote from the article:
  "One of the stirring sights of the last few days was that of Mr. Francis Pym on television reproving the Israelis for resorting to armed violence in the Middle East. That is what I so deeply respect in politicians: their quality of detachment, of selective morality, of open hypocrisy openly expressed.
  To be sure he was right: the Israelis were at that very moment shooting people some 40 miles outside their own frontier. Clearly it had slipped Mr. Pym's honest mind, in his righteous indignation, that HMG's own concerns were at that same moment even more remote, shooting people 8,000 miles away from the homeland. I wonder: did Mr. Pym feel an imminent threat of Argentine aggression on his back garden, as the Israelis, have had from the PLO for some 30 years?"
  I must admit that I do the Foreign Secretary some little injustice. He made a better speech than did my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. James Cameron was exaggerating a little in his criticism of the right hon. Gentleman.
  One must consider the scale of carnage that occurs during wars. I am not justifying it, merely stating that it occurs. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) must remember that in the Second World War the British pulverised Hamburg, Berlin, the Ruhr and Dresden. Dresden was a pulverisation of civilians; there were no military installations there. That was done because there was a war and because we were in imminent danger of being swallowed by the Nazis. Therefore, we should avoid hypocrisy in what we say.
  Mr. Crouch: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of palliatives. I know that he speaks sincerely of what he believes in. We still speak sincerely, even in the Middle East debates, when we could have had a holy war between the two views on the problem. Does he remember that his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that there had been casualties in Lebanon—up to 14,000 women, children and civilians dead? Apart from those casualties, does he not agree that the greatest casualty of the war resulting from the invasion of Lebanon has been the views held of the State of Israel in the rest of the world?
  Dr. Miller: It has been said that the greatest casualty in war is truth. That is the first casualty. I have no better way of knowing than does the hon. Gentleman what the exact casualties are. All I know is that there has been an enormous number of casualties. There are no independent sources. One must not pretend that one side has all the truth when it comes to reporting.
  Whether one likes it or not, and I do not, the trouble is that Israel has assumed the role of a militant peacemaker. The Israelis are acting as a police force because there is no effective international force that can do that work, although there should be.
  As has been said before, there is hardly a country that is not at least secretly pleased at the hammering that the PLO has received. That is especially true of Israel's Arab neighbours.
  It has also been said that the Israeli Labour Party issued a statement last week. Among its 11 points were the following.
  The first point was that Israel must adhere scrupulously to the declared objectives of the "Peace for Galilee" operation. Point five was that an overall ceasefire based on reciprocity must be adhered to. Point eight was that there should be support for the establishment of an independent Lebanese Government with international assistance which does not depend upon the Israeli defence forces. Point nine stipulates that all foreign troops must be withdrawn from the Lebanon, leaving Lebanon to the Lebanese. The tenth point is that there should be negotiations with Jordan and participation of Palestinian representatives with the aim of coming closer to reaching peace and a political solution to problems which cannot be solved militarily.
  Many references have been made to the criticisms voiced by Israelis and by the Israeli Parliament. In a democracy, criticisms are voiced. It is salutary to note that few similar criticisms have been made in those countries dedicated to Israel's destruction. Most wars result from disputes about sovereignty over a territory or stem from injured pride and from the need to protect one's nationals. Some wars have even been fought for economic reasons. However, the Arab-Israeli conflict is unique. It is the only conflict in which one side wants to eliminate the other. The Arabs have never recognised Israel's right to exist and for 34 years they have tried to annihilate it.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) quoted Conor Cruise O'Brien in The Observer of 13 June. The article's heading was
  "Israel's alternative: The peace of death".
  Suicide is too high a price to be asked to pay, even for peace.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: In his excellent speech at the outset of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary appealed to hon Members not to make too many stereotype speeches which would merely mirror the prevailing passions of factions within the Middle East. However, the last few speeches have fallen into that trap.
  In a conflict with such global implications, we should remember first and foremost that we are British Members of Parliament, who are here to look to the British and Western interests. One of the more worrying aspects of the present crisis is that a great divide may be opening up between the European and American perspectives on Western interests in the Middle East today. That great divide is caused not only by America's special relationship with Israel—a relationship so special that some American politicians seem to say "My Israel, right or wrong"—but by America's failure to realise the implications of the tidal wave of Islamic fundamentalism which is having a great effect, particularly on the conservative Arab Gulf States and on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has natural pro-American instincts, but in the long term such countries will be grieviously undermined in their pro-American, pro-Western stance unless there is a shift in American policy. I concurred with the distinguished speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). He pointed out that perhaps the greatest service that the House could do was to give some clear guidelines to our allies, the Americans, about the direction of their Middle Eastern policy.
  In my brief speech I shall try to identify the long-term Western interests in the Middle East and suggest how best those interests can be supported. Perhaps the best way of doing that is to turn to the immediate theatres of conflict in Lebanon and elsewhere. Behind the horrors of the civilian dead in Lebanon lies a complex political situation. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) that many of the Lebanese have no great love for the Palestinians. It is a little-reported fact that as the Israeli troops went in they were cheered as liberators by many Muslim and Christian Lebanese. That background has led many people, including some hon. Members in the debate—notably my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser)—to echo the cry "Let us have a Lebanon for the Lebanese". It is a seductive cry at first glance for Western as well as Lebanese interests.
  But who are the Lebanese? It is a country of contradictory discontents that is built on successive generations of refugees. For that reason, the Lebanese know deep down that the Palestinians cannot be driven out, much less exterminated, by Israeli aggression. Surely the old maxim that the guerrilla wins if he does not lose will continue to be true in Lebanon as in other countries. The PLO guerrillas will regroup in the hills, bloody but unbowed, or there will be the more sinister development that the extemists in the terrorist movement will come to the fore and carry their terrorist warfare perhaps even to Europe and America.
  However successful the present Israeli military operation is, the PLO will be back in business in months rather than years. Although some Lebanese may long for a Syrian withdrawal and a weakening of the PLO, "Lebanon for the Lebanese" is an unrealistic idea until a

  259
  Palestinian solution is found. Whatever the short-term military attractions of the Israeli invasion, the best that can be said is that it is buying time for Israel at the price of enormously increasing bitterness. The Israelis are sowing a wind to reap a whirlwind. Western policy makers should not be diverted by the short-term advantages of the position in Lebanon into believing that there is any substitute for a serious move towards the creation of a land for the Palestinians.
  All calculations about the delays or about a Palestinian phoenix rising from the ashes of West Beirut today could be accelerated by the activities of the revolutionary Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and elsewhere. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that we have all gravely underestimated the force of that movement. It is by far the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. Western interests in the area are threatened by the followers of Ayatollah Khomeini. That revolutionary force for change is dedicated to the overthrow of more conservative Governments and regimes that are neither revolutionary nor fundamentalist. As a sixteenth century verse said of European religious warriors, the present Islamic fundamentalists are determined
  "to prove their doctrine orthodox by apostolic blows and knocks."
  The Iranian Shi'ites and their followers are determined to create havoc in that area. They have already won a war against Iraq, formed dramatic alliances with Libya and Syria, narrowly missed pulling off a major coup in Bahrein and given huge support to the PLO. They will stir up massive trouble in the Arab world in years to come unless the moderates in that world are seen to aid and abet progress towards a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.
  Let us consider Saudi Arabia, which internally has never been more stable. The recent tranquil accession to the throne by King Fahd only emphasises the good record of the Saudi Royal Family, which has ruled that country peacefully and popularly for nearly 50 years. However, externally, Saudi Arabia is threatened by the storm clouds that are gathering beyond its borders. Khomeini and Begin represent problems that cannot be solved by the traditional Saudi weapon—the cheque book.
  The new king must show great international statesmanship. Fortunately, while crown prince he showed a flair for diplomacy and statesmanship unequalled by any previous Saudi monarch. The Fahd plan, about which we heard so much last year, was a very hopeful and imaginative proposal for peace in the Middle East. Despite its demise at the Fez summit at the hands principally of the Syrians, the Fahd plan would almost certainly have been resuscitated during the next few months had it not been so sadly overtaken by events in Lebanon in the past few weeks.
  Now King Fahd, as leader of the Arab moderates, will have to try again. As he is a pro-United States Arab leader he will seek Western and particularly United States support in his efforts. Yet, without the backing of Washington, peacemaking in the Middle East is like trying to clap hands with one hand.
  The key to the situation in the Middle East is the future of the United States—Israel relationship. At present Washington is letting Israel get away with murder and has been doing so for a considerable time. Whether it is Israel annexing the Golan Heights, whether it is Israel bombing
  260
  the Iraqi reactors in Baghdad, whether it is Israel expanding its illegal settlements or whether it is Israel embarking on the present totally disproportionate wave of bloody aggression in which some 14,000 eyes are being taken for one eye, what has been the American reaction? It has been the diplomatic equivalent of giving Mr. Begin a weak slap on the wrist.
  There has to come a moment when the United States Administration stop their present policy towards Israel of talking softly and carrying a big floppy handkerchief in the face of such disgraceful Israeli outrages. There is a cynical reason—not in the interests of justice or humanity—that one might appeal to, a cynical reason why America should change her policy.
  The interests of the United States and her Western allies depend on stopping the present trend of Israeli policy. That policy stems from the belief that her Arab neighbours are out to destroy Israel. In fact, what those Arab neighbours really want is exactly what the Israelis themselves wanted before 1948, a homeland for a dispossessed people. That is the direction in which American policy should now go.
  11.12 pm
  Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: I am sure that the House will agree that the continuing conflicts in the Middle East remain the most potent threat to world peace. A solution to the complex and ever-changing problems has evaded statesmen, Governments and the United Nations for more than 30 years. Although we can be forgiven for thinking on occasions, not least after such debate as this, that the problems are insoluble, no effort must be spared by the international community to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable, under the lengthening shadow of more widespread threats to peace throughout the region and as nuclear weapons become more widely available.
  The latest outbreak of fighting in Southern Lebanon is a flagrant breach by Israel of the United Nations charter, involving a crossing of a territorial boundary and the violation of Lebanon by Israeli forces with such ferocity and with such a deployment of military might as to cause wholly unacceptable damage to the civilian population of that country. Indeed, it is clear that, unlike previous Israeli military operations, this one has caused substantial dissent within Israel itself once the operation ceased to be directed solely to re-establishing a security belt and became an all-out attempt to destroy the PLO, militarily and politically.
  All of us acknowledge the right of the Israelis to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries, free from threats and acts of force. There can be doubt that the continuing armed harassment of the Galilean population by the PLO and the activities in Southern Lebanon generally have been extremely unhelpful to the already slow progress towards achieving a peaceful settlement, though scarcely sufficient to justify the invasion of Lebanon on the scale that we have witnessed in recent weeks.
  This attempt to resolve the Palestinian problem by eliminating the PLO by military means cannot succeed. The Palestinian people espouse self-determination in their homeland in exactly the same way as the Israelis did after the Second World War. The PLO is a symbol of a widespread feeling among Palestinians about the need for a national identity and is the principal instrument for achieving it. The defeat of the PLO in Lebanon will not destroy that purpose. It can only delay its fulfilment, and

  261
  then possibly only until such time as Arab fundamentalists ensure that relationships between the Arab world and Israel are so soured that the security of Israel is once again seriously threatened.
  The question that remains, and will remain after the conflict in Lebanon has ceased, is: how can that Palestinian aspiration be achieved and Israel be guaranteed the security of her State to which she is equally entitled? Similarly, Lebanon is entitled to relief from the conflicts of the last few years, which have destroyed that once prosperous and relatively stable country. How can her security be guaranteed by the international community? What assistance will she require in the difficult task of reconstruction and rehabilitation with which she is faced? I welcomed the Foreign Secretary's assurances that Britain would play a part in that process.
  A ceasefire, withdrawal of all foreign forces and the establishment of a secure boundary between Lebanon and Israel must be accepted by all the parties. It would be preferable if that could be guaranteed by the United Nations, if necessary with more adequate forces and additional powers to ensure that a demilitarised zone straddling the border between the two countries is properly enforced. In the absence of Soviet agreement to that course of action, or if there is lack of resolve among other members of the Security Council, some other mutually acceptable multinational force with European elements must be negotiated.
  Any British contribution to such a force should be contingent upon progress being made towards some resolution of the West Bank problem which proffers the real hope of self-determination for the Palestinians. In that connection we are bound to ask, not with any sense of hostility towards her, whether Israel is prepared to cease the establishment of further Israeli settlements on the West Bank and to allow the resettlement there of as many Palestinian refugees from Lebanon as are willing to live there in peace.
  If that policy were to be pursued as a transitional arrangement for an interim period of five years, there could be the prospect of genuine self-government at the end of that period, which could accommodate the Palestinian aspirations for a national identity within the foreseeable future.
  In view of her history and that of Jews throughout the world, Israel should be the first to recognise those aspirations. Israel is now sufficiently strong and established within the region to cast off the understandable insecurities of her past and to look ahead with enthusiasm to the prospects of playing a leading part in the industrial and agricultural development of the Middle East, which would develop naturally if Israel was prepared to accept international guarantees of her sovereignty in return for a homeland for the Palestinian peoples.
  Surely, after 33 years of existence, it is time for Israel to show magnanimity and courage, and to face a new future. Britain's interest is undoubtedly to see that all the peoples of the Middle East achieve economic and social development in an environment of freedom, stability and peace Our friendship with Israel and acceptance of her right to secure boundaries, as well as our recognition of the rights of the Palestinians, requires us to play as constructive a part as possible in persuading our American allies and our European partners to work towards the objectives that I have outlined.
  11.19 pm
  Mr. Roland Moyle: We have had an interesting debate. I listened to most of the speeches. The important factor was that it was a good-tempered debate, although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was subjected to some harassment, which he was well able to handle himself.
  The debate has been notable for a large number of condemnations of the Israeli invasion of South Lebanon and the disproportionate nature of the action taken by the Israeli military and defence forces. At this late stage in the evening there is little that my oratory could add to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others have said on that subject. I compliment the Foreign Secretary on his speech.
  I should like to stress two points. First, Israel has been placed under an obligation by the Security Council to withdraw from the Lebanon. I believe that she ought to do so. Secondly, although we may criticise the Israeli Government, we are not necessarily criticising the Israeli State. There are many voices within Israel urging restraint upon the Israeli Government. The united support for military action which was so obvious in previous campaigns is not present today.
  It is a source of some satisfaction on the Opposition Benches that our sister party, the Labour Alliance, which is one of the parties in the Socialist International, has been a leading voice in urging restraint upon the Israeli Government. The Labour Alliance has urged the Israeli Government not to authorise the bombing of citizens and non-combatants, and it has pointed out that the original aims of the operation which was called "Peace in Galilee" had been grossly exceeded and ought not to have been so exceeded. By taking that line the Israeli Labour Alliance has helped to maintain Israeli credibility as a leading democratic State.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: I have listened to what my right hon. Friend has just said. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made the same claim. I have read every news item and watched every broadcast, and I am still waiting to see the Israeli Labour Party dissociate itself from the national consensus in Israel over the invasion of the Lebanon. It just does not exist.
  Mr. Moyle: I shall provide my hon. Friend with the appropriate documentation at a later stage. The immense amount of good will that Israel earned by the evacuation of Sinai has been recklessly squandered. It is natural that we should concentrate on the vast human tragedy in Southern Lebanon; and most speeches have done that.
  I am uneasy about the way in which international law has been treated as a result of the crisis in Southern Lebanon. It is easy to sneer at the United Nations. It is obvious that it has little power to affect the position in the face of determined opposition by well-armed forces in any part of the world. The United Nations represents one of humanity's best hopes of building a system of international procedure and law that might lead to the avoidance of war as a method of settling disputes. In any crisis, nations should consider what they might do to build up the authority of the United Nations. We were right to go immediately to the Security Council about the Falkland Islands and obtain a Security Council resolution that authorised any subsequent action that we might take.
  I understand Israel's reservations about the United Nations peace keeping force in view of its bitter

  263
  experience in 1967, when, as soon as the Egyptian forces approached, the United Nations forces pulled up their sticks and disappeared, leaving Israel to be attacked by the Egyptians. The Israelis have gone far beyond those reservations by the action they have taken. They have flouted Security Council resolutions 508 and 509. They rolled over the United Nations interim force in the Lebanon without paying lip-service to the moral authority to which I should have thought a United Nations peacekeeping force was entitled. The Israelis have not served the United Nations well, and it may be that, long after the dead have been buried and regrettably forgotten, that is the casualty that will remain.
  Let us hope that the ultimate, gruesome fatuity of a military assault on Beirut will not take place. The Israeli Labour Party is urging that that should not happen as part of its campaign to try to restrain the Israeli Government from bombarding non-combatant populations and concentrations in cities. The Israelis could bombard West Beirut: they have the artillery and jet planes to do so. Bombardments assist conquests, but they will never conquer a territory. They might, however, inflict further gross casualties on the civilian population of Beirut, and that would add to the criticism of the Israeli Government that is expressed in much of the world outside Israel.
  If Israel is to acquire West Beirut, it will have to move troops into the Palestinian area. That will mean street fighting. If the Palestinians have any fighting spirit left, the casualties inflicted on the Israeli defence forces in that fighting will exceed those that they have suffered in any of their previous wars in the Middle East. I hope that wiser counsels will prevail.
  It is not possible to destroy the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in whatever form it has existed or may exist in future as a result of what has happened in South Lebanon. There is not the divergence of interests between the Palestinians and the PLO which many Israelis sometimes say that they see. That is what the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said.
  The Palestinians have been disrupted socially and politically and probably they have been destroyed militarily as a result of the activities of the past two weeks. I can understand that the possession of a large number of weapons must have made the Palestinians stand tall in their own sight. However, in the outside world the real importance of the PLO depended not on its weaponry but on its power to speak for Palestinians in the Lebanon, on the West Bank, Gaza, along the Gulf and wherever they happen to be. I agree with the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) that there are considerable advantages from the Palestinian point of view in the PLO being deprived of its weapons. The possession of a large number of weapons by the Palestinians led them to adopt military postures that attracted a fate that they could not ward off from an army that they could never hurt, no matter how many weapons they acquired, because they would never be in the same league as the Israeli defence forces.
  Mr. Lawrence: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one feature of Conor Cruise O'Brien's article? He observed that if Israel loses just once it will go. Is that not the essential difference between the criticisms
  264
  that can be made about situations that apply elsewhere in the world and the criticism that is made against the State of Israel, which is terrified of losing one major war?
  Mr. Moyle: There is something to be said for that. Of course, it is no longer as valid as it was now that there is a peace treaty with Egypt which gives Israel a secure frontier with the largest Arab State.
  Despite what has happened, within a relatively short time the Palestinians will cobble together a social and political organisation, and before long they will again be speaking for the Palestinians in Gaza, on the West Bank, in South Lebanon and along the Gulf.
  Obviously the road to a solution of the Lebanese problem depends ultimately on a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But a step along that road and towards immediate peace could well be the restoration of a respected Government in Lebanon. It is important to note that the Lebanese want to try to do this. There is a theory that the Lebanese problem is insoluble so long as the Palestinians remain among them. Palestinian power has been broken, at least temporarily.
  Prior to the incursion of the Palestine Liberation Organisation the Lebanese got together a polity and made it work with what can be seen in retrospect to be political genius of a high order. That does not mean that the previous order can be restored now that Palestinian power has gone temporarily. There is a bitterness between many of the factions which has bitten deep in the Lebanon as a result of the events of the last six or seven years. In many cases there is a vested interest in fragmentation which is encrusted. One cannot be optimistic, therefore, about the forming of a respected and authoritative Lebanese Government.
  If the operation is to succeed, the international community must help. It is good to know that Israel is doing much to help the civilian relief operation, but the whole of South Lebanon should be treated as a civil disaster area and an international disaster relief operation ought to be mounted. The best way of doing that is to make sure that the relief flows directly into Southern Lebanon through Lebanese ports and is maintained wherever possible by international organisations such as UNRRA and others.
  The Israelis, the Lebanese and many others, including the Americans, also want an international peace keeping force. This might be done by the United Nations through an expansion of its existing operation, but the handling of UNIFIL in the last couple of weeks cannot have improved the authority of any peace keeping force of that sort. Therefore, the suggestion has been made that there should be a multinational peacekeeping force outside the control of the United Nations.
  There are considerable problems. In an area where fighting is endemic—that distinguishes it from Sinai—which country will be keen to put its young men at risk in the cause of other nations' quarrels? How will the necessary political control and accountability be achieved? If an authoritative Lebanese Government were eventually formed, they might deal with the diplomatic and political control of such a force. For it to emerge from discussions between Israel and America or even from countries in Western Europe would not be easy.
  Elsewhere the ripples of the damage are spreading. For instance, President Mubarak, who is the linchpin of the Camp David agreements, does not seem any longer to be

  265
  so confident that an alliance with the Americans provides him with the strength that he once thought it did, and he is beginning to say so. He is no longer even so confident of his home position. Like many other Arab conservative leaders, he has traded very much on the concluding stages of the Camp David agreement. Many Arabs have been prepared to tolerate what he has been doing because he inherited the situation and could not be expected to turn his hack on the opportunity of re-acquiring Egyptian territory. But now he has been quiet while his brother Arabs in some ways have been attacked by the ally of the United States. His position at home is no longer as secure as it once was as a result.
  It has been mentioned in the debate that there may be a general tendency for Arabs in the Middle East to turn to what is happening in Iran. After all, they can say that these shias in Iran can certainly win their battles. What is more, they can tell the United States of America where it gets off and have done so successfully.
  The Arab attitude to these situations is very complex indeed. Admittedly, many Arabs were privately quite happy to see the damage that has been done to the PLO. Nobody likes refugees, particularly those who live among them. On the other hand, they have been severely disillusioned at the non-activity of the Americans in failing to act more vigorously to restrain the Israelis.
  Arabs tend to reflect considerably on these matters before taking action, but in the long run the shias of Iran may well form a very dangerous force in the Middle East—which, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) pointed out, could be a great danger to our interests in the Middle East.
  Whatever happens in Lebanon, I think that the Israelis will eventually wish to return to negotiation on the Camp David process with a view to achieving autonomy. I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), for whose speech I was unfortunately absent, that the Camp David process should be encouraged. It is all very well to say in Europe that that process is dead, but in the end it will die only when the Egyptians and the Americans become exhausted by attempts to put it into operation—and they are a long way short of that yet. When that happens, as I believe that some day it must—and here I return to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East—I believe that the principles of the Venice declaration and of the Fahd plan must be honed and kept against the day when the Americans, the Egyptians and by then, one hopes, the Israelis want an alternative to the Camp David peace process.
  I believe that the events of the past two weeks must be left in the main to the judgment of Israel's neighbours rather than to that of Western Europeans. The Israelis say that they earnestly desire peace with their neighbours, and I see no reason to doubt their sincerity. Most States desire to live in pace if they can, and this must be particularly true in the long term for Israel, which is a tiny State in human terms despite its current military might relative to its neighbours. Indeed, the Israelis have shown in relation to Egypt that once they have a peace treaty they are prepared to go to considerable lengths to see that it is implemented.
  Despite appearances, therefore, it is conceivable that "Operation Peace in Galilee" and its extension was meant as a contribution to peace. The judgment as to whether it was such a contribution will be made by Israel's Arab
  266
  neighbours—not just the Arab world in general, but more specifically by Egyptians and Jordanians, by Lebanese of various factions, by Syrians and by Saudis. The fact that few of those countries have what we would recognise as democratic constitutions should not blind us to the fact that there is such a thing as Arab public opinion and that in the end few Arab leaders can ignore it. Its reaction to the events of the past two or three weeks will therefore be crucial. We can only hope that in the long run, despite expectations, the judgment passed will be charitable.
  Meanwhile, the chess board has in effect been thrown from the table on to the floor and the pieces have been scattered. The pieces must now be picked up and rearranged, hopefully, in a better pattern. Arab pride, which has been hammered between Israeli armour and Iranian fanaticism, must be soothed and supported—but how is certainly not clear. Arab moderation must be encouraged, although I do not believe that this has been made any easier than it was before the invasion. Perhaps a new Lebanese Government of authority can be encouraged to grow where the old one withered away, although massive social problems of disruption have now been added to the complex political problems of Southern Lebanon which all the predecessors of such a potential Lebanese Government failed to solve, so one cannot be optimistic on that score either.
  The PLO must be encouraged to recognise Israel's right to exist, but, although it has every national reason to do so in self-interest, it has probably not been put into the proper frame of mind by the Israeli attack.
  New peacekeeping arrangements must be cobbled together. The suggestion may even be made that British and other Western forces might take part. That road bristles with difficulties, given that it would be unwise to be seen to be colluding with an Israeli invasion and against a background of the rough handling of the existing United Nations peacekeeping force.
  Israeli forces must withdraw. It is not easy to foresee their doing this if they remain determined never to allow the PLO or the Palestinians to get anywhere near to Northern Israel. The danger is that Israel will easily end up adding the role of an occupying Power in South Lebanon to that of an occupying Power on the West Bank and Gaza. Many Israelis would be appalled by that prospect, including the Labour alignment in Israel. Above all, the United States must be encouraged to exert its influence on the side of wisdom.
  It will not be easy to put these pieces together again in a new pattern, but we must try, because the Middle East is the flashpoint of the world. We cannot be happy while so many people are willing to play with explosives too near oil. If we do not exert ourselves, the situation could be the ruin of us all. Europe cannot act directly on the Middle East. It can only act, as my right hon. Friend said, by acting on the Americans. That is why the risk that the Americans are running to their standing in the Middle East is so worrying to us all.
  12.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Most of the debate has, naturally enough, been about the situation in the Lebanon, but there have been references, including a powerful speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), to the anxious situation in the Gulf. I shall start by saying something about that.

  267
  Since the Conservative Government were elected in 1979, we have made a big effort to reassure the rulers and the peoples in the Gulf. They are now in no doubt that Britain's friendship for them is lively and energetic and that we are willing to give them help when they need it. We are in close touch with all of them and know at first hand of their anxieties. They know that we are willing to respond in any way that they may require.
  They are not anxious to call for American help, partly because of the United States support for Israel, which weighs heavily with some of them, and partly because they do not want to transform their problem into what they do not believe it to be at present—a confrontation between East and West. One can understand that.
  The Iranian regime is not at present pro-Soviet. It has been hostile to the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan. We have no desire to influence who governs in Tehran. We should like to build, if possible, a reasonable relationship with that Government. Because of that, we hope very much that the Iraq-Iran war can be brought to an end as soon as possible without an Iranian invasion of Iraq. We hope that the Iranians will accept the independence and the crucial importance to the West of our friends in the Gulf.
  On the Middle East in general, all those now present have been familiar over the years with the traditional arguments. Tonight's debate has been different. It has been made different by the scale of the suffering now taking place. We have all been conscious of the dramatic events in the Falklands, which have led to the loss of several hundred British and Argentine lives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reminded the House earlier today of the 2,000 victims of terrorism in the Province.
  I agree that all figures must be speculative, but from our information I confirm the figures given by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Our information from the Red Cross and the Lebanese authorities is that so far up to 14,000 people have died in the fighting in Lebanon and up to 20,000 have been wounded.
  Suffering on that scale transcends ordinary arguments, and we have all felt that. The House has shown the strong and deep feelings that events such as these arouse in many of us. The speeches of the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) illustrated that eloquently.
  The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), in attempting to explain the Israeli attack, referred to the attack on Ambassador Argov. Many of us know, like and respect Mr. Argov. We were all horrified by the brutal attack on him and wish him full recovery. I expect that the attack will be a matter of legal proceedings, and obviously I cannot say more about it. I am a little surprised that others in this country, knowing our legal procedures, should have been so quick to publish their verdicts.
  The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West correctly told us that there is a web of international terrorism, and Israel has been one of the chief sufferers, although not the only one. Eleven PLO officials have been assassinated in five different places since 1979 and seven others have been seriously injured in assassination attempts, including the mayor of Nablus, whom many of us know.
  268
  The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) made a compelling speech, but gave some credence to the notion that the settlements in North Galilee were under constant rocket attack in recent times. They were in earlier times and have been occasionally very recently. However, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, according to our information there was no shelling of these settlements from 24 July 1981—the date of the ceasefire—until 9 May 1982, when for the second time the Israelis bombed Beirut and the PLO responded.
  I think that I have said enough about that to suggest that the measured comments that we and our partners in the Ten have made about these events are abundantly justified.
  The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), who is usually fair in debate, was driven a bit hard tonight. His criticisms of my right hon. Friend and the comparison that he drew between the Israeli action and our own in the Falklands was well wide of the mark. There are some small differences. We were repossessing our own territory, whereas they are invading the territory of others. We were asserting the right of self-determination, whereas they are denying it.
  I should like to make several detailed points which may be of interest to the House, some of which have been raised. We are very much concerned about the safety of the British community in the Lebanon. We have arranged for a British merchant ship now in Cyprus to arrive in the Lebanese port of Jounié early on 24 June to pick up United Kingdom and Commonwealth nationals who wish to leave the Lebanon. The BBC is broadcasting to that effect, and I hope that those concerned who wish to leave the Lebanon at this time will take advantage of the opportunity that we are providing. The Ambassador, Mr. Roberts, and his staff remain in West Beirut for the time being.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East, during his excellent speech, asked a specific question about the treatment of prisoners. The Belgian Presidency, on behalf of the Ten, asked the Israelis on 14 June for a number of assurances. One was that the relevant Geneva conventions would be applied in Israeli-occupied Lebanon, especially with regard to prisoners. We have not yet received a reply to those representations.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and a number of other hon. Members asked about measures against Israel following our criticism of what it had done. He knows that the signing of the second financial protocol has been postponed and that the postponement decision has been confirmed. The Government have withdrawn an invitation that had been issued to the Israelis to attend the British Army equipment exhibition which began yesterday. Other measures have been, and are being, considered, but decisions have not yet been taken. I cannot say more about that now.
  I come to the central issue and to the pertinent remarks of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), based on his experience, and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). They reminded us, correctly, of the advantages of the autonomy process. There can be nothing wrong with the principle involved or with the actual ideas in the agreement. My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) gave the details. There is the idea of an interim period of self-government, followed by determination of the future of the occupied territories. The negotiations between the three States are bogged down, not least because the Israeli interpretation of autonomy is now

  269
  substantially different from that put forward at the time of the agreement and that put forward by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and understood by President Carter and by both Egyptian Presidents who have been involved. That is one of the main reasons why the talks have not made progress recently.
  One of the underlying difficulties is that autonomy, by definition, and self-government, by definition, require the participation of the Palestinians who live in the areas concerned. For one reason or another—different people have different analyses—that has not been forthcoming. It is a matter of judgment whether that participation will be easier or less easy after what has happened. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East quoted a speech by the mayor of Bethlehem. Many of us have met the mayor and know him to be a passionate moderate. It did not seem to be the mayor's view that things would be easier in that regard after what has happened in the Lebanon. Time will show whether he spoke truly.
  It seems to the Government that there are three problems that can to some extent be separated. There is the immediate problem of Beirut. I agree with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) about bringing the killing to an end and preventing fresh killing. We support what the United States and Mr. Habib are attempting in that regard. There is the problem of Lebanon itself. I noted particularly the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South. There is the need to rebuild houses, hospitals and schools, in which we shall all, rightly, be involved.
  There is also the need, if we can, to help the Lebanese to rebuild the consensus by which Lebanon alone can survive, free of illegitimate foreign pressure, from wherever it comes. It is right, as a matter of history, to say that the consensus was badly cracked before the PLO came to Lebanon. Nevertheless, I believe that it is only through such consensus that Lebanon can be governed. I also believe, from what I hear and read, that this is the overpowering wish of almost everyone who is Lebanese. Perhaps, indirectly, we can help in that regard.
  The problem that has occupied the House for most of the time is that of the Palestinians. It is, of course, possible to kill a lot of Palestinians. But no one in the House believes in the idea that one can thus remove the Palestinian question from the agenda. I should have thought that any such idea would be deeply repulsive, because it is deeply familiar to the Jewish people.
  We have no illusions about the PLO. It has not taken the advice which we, and previous Governments no doubt, have given. It has not clearly abandoned talk of an armed struggle. It has missed some chances to show unequivocally and in public that it is willing to accept Israel once Israel accepts Palestinian rights. It had an opportunity at the time of discussion of the Fahd plan, which started well but did not materialize. There are quotations one way and quotations the other way, and the total effect is muffled and unclear.
  We all accept—even, I think, the Palestinians would accept—that it would be better if the Palestinians were not in Lebanon. But where would they go? Are they to wander for ever round the Middle East, carrying their burden of bitterness, and tempted more and more to violence as they find that political doors are closed? They will not forget the towns and villages from which they sprang and which
  270
  are now occupied. That is human nature. They have rights, and the denial of those rights is one—though not the only—cause of instability in the Middle East.
  We cannot and do not wish to impose a settlement. How can we? All that we can do is to set out principles—as we tried to do at Venice, and in my view they have worn well—which we believe are a necessary part of a settlement. All that we can do is to edge those concerned to the extent that we can towards the negotiating table, to encourage those in the area who wish to talk, and to discourage those who wish to kill.
  The basis on which peace could be—and I still hope will be—found is fairly clear. It is the basis which my hon. Friend the Member for Melton set out in his own words. They are not the words which I would choose, but the basis is clear. It is a basis of territories for peace. That is the basis of resolution 242, which is still the key Security Council text in this regard. It was the basis of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, to which tribute has been paid, under which the Israelis evacuated Sinai at some sacrifice and in return secured peace with Egypt.
  Of course, it is more difficult for Israel to apply that principle of territories for peace as one gets closer to the heartland of Israel. It is more difficult to apply that principle on the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. There is a choice for Israel. It is a remarkably difficult choice for her, and one with which we must sympathise. Is she to base her security on buffer zones and occupied territories, whose inhabitants are oppressed and denied their rights, accompanied perhaps by punitive expeditions to chase the Palestinians yet further from her borders? Or is she to respect the values on which I understand the State of Israel is based and grant to others the rights which Israelis quite properly claim for themselves?
  If the Israelis take the second choice and accept that Palestinians have political rights and that those rights can be exercised only on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, and if she were ready to take that giant leap—let no one here in the security of this House underestimate the difficulty of making that leap—she would be entitled to turn to the international community and require arrangements to be made to provide for security, demilitarisation, international guarantees, international forces, and perhaps special status for Jerusalem.
  I give those simply as illustrations. There has been no shortage of ideas on all these matters over the years. They gather dust in the cupboards of every major Foreign Office in the world. Ingenious ideas are not lacking to deal with those important practical matters. What is missing is the hard decision of principle. Once the principle is decided, the arrangements can follow. That acceptance of the principle is a long way off this evening, but I am sure that it is in that direction that those concerned must go.
  We must not be patronising or overestimate our influence. We have an influence and we have found during the past three years that that influence is greater when it is exerted with our partners in the Ten.
  The United States has a much greater influence and we have a responsibility to expound our ideas to it and to keep in close touch. It is not always a question of saying the same thing and making the same proposals at the same time, but of avoiding any contradictions and trying to work in harmony with it.

  271
  So we take the practical but also, I believe, principled approach that was started at Venice, although it was misunderstood and, to a large extent, rejected in Israel, and which I believe is valid—
  It being Twelve o' clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Petition

  National Health Service Pay
  12.1 am
  Dr. Edmund Marshall: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present to the House a petition signed by 466 of my constituents relating to National Health Service pay. The signatures on the petition were collected from members of the general public during recent days of protest action by National Health Service employees in the town of Goole.
  The petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble Petition of the undersigned residents of the Goole Parliamentary constituency sheweth:—
  That present rates of pay of National Health Service staff are totally inadequate in view of the present cost of living.
  Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will do all in its power to urge the Government to make an increased offer or to refer the matter to arbitration.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Fishing Industry (Cornwall)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]
  12.2 am
  Mr. David Penhaligon: I welcome the opportunity of the Adjournment debate because, once again, I wish to raise in the House the plight of the Cornish mackerel fishermen. The Minister will be aware that it is not the first time that I have used the various opportunities available to hon. Members in the House to present local fears.
  The current concern of the mackerel fishermen in Cornwall is a recommendation by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which has recommended that a regulation should be made and enforced that the catching of mackerel of less than 30 cm. in length shall stop. I am not sure whether that means catching or landing the mackerel of less than 30 cm. However, in reality I understand that the regulation is to ban the landing of mackerel below that size.
  As the Minister will know, concern has long been felt by the fishermen in my part of the world about conservation of stocks, and they have chided successive Ministers for not doing more. It is disappointing that I am forced to point out to the Minister that this particular regulation could make the matter worse.
  The belief locally is that, if the regulation were enforced, hand-lining——the traditional form of catching mackerel in Cornwall—would become uneconomic and cease, Secondly, and ironically, there is a fear that it could result in more mackerel being caught than hitherto.
  Hand-lining, or feathering, as I used to know it, is the backbone of Cornish fishing. In essence, the method consists of a man on a fairly unsophisticated boat holding a line over the side of the boat on which there are about 20 or 30 hooks, slightly disguised by feathers. The mackerel, not being desperately bright, try to eat the feathers and are thus caught.
  Mackerel are caught in that way in fairly large quantities. The hand-liners sell their catch to the better end of the market for processing into smoked fish and some of the rest of their supply—this is by no means unimportant—are sold to the long-liners, the other half of the Cornish fishing industry, for bait. That process has existed for some time and been quite satisfactory.
  The problem is that over 70 per cent. of the fish now caught by hand-lining are less than 30 cm in length. Presumably, that means that, if the regulation is enforced, all those mackerel will have to be thrown away. Hand-lining will become uneconomic. All the vessels designed to operate in that way will cease to function. The long-lining people will be short of bait and during the peak of the mackerel season, when the long-liners join the feather fisherman in chasing the mackerel off Cornwall, they will find themselves in the same difficulty.
  For six months of the year—in winter—the fishermen have nothing other than unemployment to look forward to. If the Minister checks the statistics he will see that male unemployment is now higher than 20 per cent. In addition, the hand-liners may be tempted to compete for shellfish. Some people believe that the only shellfish remaining in Cornwall are those that are stuffed and sit in a museum. The stocks of shellfish are under severe pressure and will not stand more. Several thousand jobs are at stake. Newlyn
  274
  is not in my constituency, but it is affected to the greatest extent. Looe, which is not in my constituency, and Mevagissey, which is, will also be affected. Shore jobs such as boat repairs, fuel supplies, radio services, ships' stores, chandlery and other supply companies will be squeezed to a greater or lesser extent. If the regulation were enforced it would make hand-lining or feathering uneconomic and a large slab of the Cornish fishing industry as we know it would disappear.
  I am sure that the Minister is aware that mackerel is the keystone of Cornish fishing. Pull out that key and the whole industry will begin to crumble. I am asking the Minister to say that, if the regulation is presented to the Commission, he will argue for an exemption for the hand-liners. It cannot be seriously argued that such an exemption would affect conservation programmes. The percentage of mackerel caught by this method is small. If mackerel had been caught only by hand-lining, there would not be any conservation problem in my part of the world.
  If the hand-liners had had the monopoly rights to local mackerel, there would have been no problem. They produce a high-quality, hand-sorted fish. They use very little fuel. The industry is light on capital requirements, and that is unusual for the fishing industry. It is a whole way of life for those in the small coves and little villages that sneak in and out of the valleys that make up the Cornish coast that so many find magnificent during their summer visits. A whole way of life is at stake because of a regulation. An exemption would cost very little in terms of conservation.
  The second fear is that the change in regulations could result in more mackerel being caught. That sounds ironic and silly, but it is feared that the amount of fish that can be landed by the armada that arrives in January from the North-East to supply the Soviet factory boats will be similar to that allowed in recent years. However, if they have to throw 70 per cent. of their catch away because the fish are less than 30 cm, the amount of fish caught—if not landed—will increase substantially. Indeed, if 70 per cent. is the right figure, it will treble.
  We all know what happens. The net is pulled in and the men inspect the fish. If the size is not right they slip it, or slip the net and let the mackerel return to the sea. It is now accepted that that process kills virtually all the mackerel in the net. It is crazy to have a process which, in the aim of conservation, ends up with keeping one fish and throwing two away. There is a real fear that if the regulations are fully enforced this could result in more immature mackerel being caught. I am sure that the Minister does not wish that. I know that the Cornish fishermen do not wish it.
  Some fishermen believe that one way of overcoming the dilemma is for the Ministry to take a sample in the shoals—it has the equipment to do so—and if at least 80 per cent. of the fish are more than 30 cm long the use of a net to catch mackerel should be banned. That is put forward as a serious proposition and I ask for the Minister's view on it.
  My view on the method of conserving fish is no secret to the Minister. I could be described as a Luddite about fishing. The only way in which we can conserve mackerel stocks is to ban technique. Tons per man, tons landed at the quay or the other measures tried by successive Governments will not succeed. The fishermen will find ways around them by forgetting how many pounds there

  275
  are in a ton or how often they came to the quay. If we cannot ban technique, perhaps the Minister will consider my suggestion about sampling the mackerel.
  The Minister and I are not in the same party, and we represent different parts of Britain and, in some ways, different interests in this argument. However, the Minister has a reputation in Cornwall for having done more than most of his predecessors to preserve the Cornish mackerel fishing industry. Great damage has already been done. Mackerel hand-liners say that a decade ago they could catch 40 stones of mackerel and that they would be unlucky if the fish in one tray were less than 30 cm long. They do not argue that conservation is unnecessary. Their argument is that hand-lining catches so few fish that to exempt them from the regulation cannot seriously affect the conservation that the Minister wishes to succeed in Cornwall.
  Will the Minister guarantee tonight that he will promote the exemption for hand-line fishermen, as he has promoted exemption from some other regulations on size and length, each time on the basis that the number of mackerel caught is so small that it makes little difference to the total stock?
  12.13 am
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I thank the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) for raising this matter on an Adjournment debate. I know that it is of considerable importance to him and to his colleagues with constituencies in the South-West, and I freely acknowledge that it is vital to the hand-liners, whose livelihood depends on fishing.
  The hon. Gentleman said that I represent a constituency at almost the opposite end of the country to his. I know that some of my fellow countrymen are not always welcome when they fish off Cornwall, but my constituents are not among them. When I first represented my constituency, hand-lining for white fish was a main activity of fishermen there. My constituency contains one of the few remaining hand-lining ports. I have been out with the hand-liners and have seen how they do it. I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said about the quality of the fish that are caught. I acknowledge, too, the conservation aspects of what he said and his genuine concern on that matter. Therefore, I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some assurances before I conclude my remarks.
  We do not have any firm proposal from the Commission at this stage. There can be confusion, and people are rightly alert—they are alert because we have informed them. We have consulted the fishing organisations, but, at the moment, we do not have firm proposals. Certain proposals have been put forward by various advisory organisations, but we are still awaiting firm proposals from the Commission.
  The reason for a 30 cm. minimum landing size for mackerel is to try to make more effective the existing measures for conserving the mackerel stock. The suggestion for a 30 cm. minimum landing size came from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES. It is a scientific organisation that endeavours to give advice to Governments and to organisations such as the European Economic Community on fisheries conservation and management in the waters of the North
  276
  Atlantic. Its function, in making recommendations, is purely advisory. In its 1981 report, ICES drew attention to the decrease that had taken place in the North Sea and Western mackerel stocks in recent years as a result of over-exploitation. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging some of the measures that I and my Department have sought to promote not only domestically but in discussions in Europe.
  On this occasion, ICES pointed to the importance of ensuring that spawning stocks are maintained at an appropriate level. If all the young mackerel are killed, there is no recruitment into the older age groups, which are more economic to exploit, and so the seed corn is destroyed. We wanted to try to restrict fishing on young mackerel below the age of three years. The 30 cm. size was arrived at to preserve the seed corn and to ensure that the stocks would recover, thereby improving the commercial fishing of larger size mackerel for the future. ICES accordingly recommended a minimum size of 30 cm. in all areas. The recommendation was subsequently endorsed by the European Community's scientific and technical committee for fisheries, subject to an allowance of up to 10 per cent. of undersized mackerel in any landing of mackerel.
  The revised conservation regulation that was discussed at the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers last week did not include any provision for a minimum size for Western mackerel. Therefore, we have no formal proposal as such before us.
  The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise this subject in the House at present. Once the Council of Ministers has adopted a regulation for conservation, the European Commission could introduce proposals. We are alert to that. I am grateful for the support and interest which has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
  Before such a proposal could come into effect, it would be discussed in the Fisheries Council, so that there would be an opportunity for discussion. Once we have adopted the main regulation and the Commission bring forward further detailed proposals, we will have the opportunity for discussion. I shall welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposal first in the House of Commons, which is proper and right.
  We are at a stage where, although proposals are made, there is no regulation. We took the initiative in my Department. We wrote to all the fishing interests alerting them to the possibility of the proposal of the 30 cm minimum size. We invited views from them. We are well aware of the impact that such a measure would have on both fishermen and processors. As the hon. Gentleman fairly said, we are talking not only of the fishermen who go to sea but of the many on the shore, particularly processors, who would feel a severe impact if the proposal were put into effect.
  We are conscious of the serious effects that the proposal would have on the hand-line fishermen, about whom the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned. We have received a number of representations from them seeking a derogation from any minimum size measures for hand-liners. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in discussing any further legislative measures in the South-West mackerel fishery, we shall take full account of the special problems that face the fishermen and the processors.
  However, I must also make if clear to the hon. Gentleman that in doing so we must strike a balance with the legitimate and correct objective of those who have

  277
  made the proposal, who are trying more effectively to conserve the mackerel stocks and therefore improve the fisheries for the future. Thereby we should take into account properly the scientific advice and at the same time the special needs that the hon. Gentleman has fairly and properly described.
  As we do not have any proposals from the Commission at this stage, it is premature to say precisely what the reaction will be or how we should attempt to assess the outcome. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is our concern to ensure that we take into account the social and economic effects of some of the measures, also given the fact that the quantity of the fish taken by that method is not great in relation to what is taken by other methods of fishing. We shall take that into account. I accept that those fishermen cannot move from place to place like others and exploit other fisheries in other areas. If they are stopped from using this method of fishing, they may divert to other stocks, such as shellfish, and create problems for other fishermen.
  We have already alerted the Commission to our intention. When the discussions take place, we will have to look at the special case of the hand-liners. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that in any negotiations, either with the Commission or in the Fisheries Council, we shall bear in mind the needs of the hand-liners and do what we can to ensure that their livelihood is not affected by the proposal.
  In the past we have not been deaf to the needs of that section of the industry. We have excluded smaller vessels, which included those of the hand-liners, from the licensing system for mackerel. We did that because we did not think that those smaller vessels were so dangerous to stocks as some of the larger vessels. When we negotiated the South-West mackerel box, which closes the season for mackerel fishing with certain types of nets, we excluded the hand-liners from that restriction. We have demonstrated in a practical way that we are aware of their problem and needs.
  278
  If the regulation came in and was applied—because of the discards—one could finish up with a measure that would not be as effective as those who originally proposed it or we would like it to be.
  Mr. Penhaligon: The Minister is encouraging, but my good Cornish folk are blunt-speaking people. Will the Minister argue for an exemption for hand-liners?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall certainly argue for that. I cannot say what the outcome will be. We shall argue the position of the Cornish hand-liners both in the Commission and in the Council of Ministers. I cannot tell whether it might be a derogation of something else that could be negotiated. I should not like to pre-empt my negotiating position by saying that if I do not get one thing that will be a disaster. I give an undertaking that I shall explore every avenue, although I cannot give an undertaking as to what the outcome of the discussion will be. The case of the Cornish hand-liners will be put forward and the hon. Gentleman can give that assurance to the fishermen in his area.
  There will be those who will argue strongly and purely from a scientific point of view, and others who will say that the regulation should be applied to everybody and that exceptions cannot be made for one area. The hon. Gentleman knows that I tend to be fairly blunt in fishery matters, as I have had to deal with fishermen for a long time. I believe that it is better to be blunt with them. They are often blunt and outspoken to me. I never look forward to an optimistic outcome. I make a realistic assessment of the position. There will be others who will argue contrary to us, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall argue the case as strongly as we can to ensure the best possible outcome. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Gentleman may go to bed and sleep slightly better.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Worker Co-operatives (Taxation)
  Worker Co-operatives (Taxation)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Customs Co-operation Council
  Customs Co-operation Council
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  European Court of Human Rights
  European Court of Human Rights
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  River Trent (Navigable Waters)
  River Trent (Navigable Waters)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Illegal Fishing
  Illegal Fishing
INDUSTRY
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Airbus A320
  Airbus A320
EMPLOYMENT
  16 to 19-Year-Old Girls
  16 to 19-Year-Old Girls
  Leek
  Leek
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Agencies
  Employment Agencies
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
  Keighley
  Keighley
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Job Release Act 1977
  Job Release Act 1977
  Job Losses
  Job Losses
  Ethnic Minority Unemployment
  Ethnic Minority Unemployment
WALES
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
ENERGY
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
  International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Rape
  Rape
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Citizenship (Women)
  Citizenship (Women)
  Local Authorities (Departmental Assistance)
  Local Authorities (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
  International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
  Inquests
  Inquests
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Transport
  School Transport
  School Premises
  School Premises
  Nursery School Places
  Nursery School Places
  University Staff (Redundancies)
  University Staff (Redundancies)
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools
  Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools
  Student Funding
  Student Funding
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Tertiary Education
  Tertiary Education
  Rossendale
  Rossendale
  Universities (Women Entrants)
  Universities (Women Entrants)
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Vocational Training
  Vocational Training
  Higher Education (Access Courses)
  Higher Education (Access Courses)
  Records of Achievement
  Records of Achievement
  Sports Facilities (Community Use)
  Sports Facilities (Community Use)
  School Curriculum Development Council
  School Curriculum Development Council
  Educational Deficiencies
  Educational Deficiencies
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Sixth Forms
  Sixth Forms
  Science Teaching
  Science Teaching
  Voluntary Schools
  Voluntary Schools
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
  Engineering and Technology Courses
  Engineering and Technology Courses
  17-Plus Examination
  17-Plus Examination
  Adult Literacy Scheme
  Adult Literacy Scheme
  Mentally and Physically Handicapped Children
  Mentally and Physically Handicapped Children
  School Leaving Dates
  School Leaving Dates
  Cytomegalovirus
  Cytomegalovirus
  Teachers' Pension Fund (Independent Schools)
  Teachers' Pension Fund (Independent Schools)
  Handicapped and Disabled Students
  Handicapped and Disabled Students
  CNAA (Degree Courses)
  CNAA (Degree Courses)
  17-Year-Olds (Qualification)
  17-Year-Olds (Qualification)
  Education Act 1981
  Education Act 1981
SCOTLAND
  Senile Dementia
  Senile Dementia
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Private Patients (Unpaid Bills)
  Private Patients (Unpaid Bills)
  Homes (Insulation)
  Homes (Insulation)
  Travelling People
  Travelling People
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  School Fires
  School Fires
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  CNAA Surveying Degrees
  CNAA Surveying Degrees
  Census
  Census
TRADE
  European Community and Argentina
  European Community and Argentina
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
  International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
  Fan Heaters
  Fan Heaters
  Bibs (Safety Standards)
  Bibs (Safety Standards)
  Steel Exports
  Steel Exports
  Corporate Management Planning Ltd.
  Corporate Management Planning Ltd.
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Legislative Programme
  Legislative Programme
  European Community (Decision-making Procedures)
  European Community (Decision-making Procedures)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Trades Union Congress
  Trades Union Congress
  Comptroller and Auditor General
  Comptroller and Auditor General
  Middle East
  Middle East
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Research Assistants
  Research Assistants
  Members' Secretaries
  Members' Secretaries
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Departmental Assistance
  Departmental Assistance
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Lomé Countries (Aid)
  Lomé Countries (Aid)
DEFENCE
  Falkland Islands (Chinese Sailors)
  Falkland Islands (Chinese Sailors)
  Royal Air Force (Strength)
  Royal Air Force (Strength)
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Fast Patrol Boats
  Fast Patrol Boats
  "Atlantic Conveyor"
  "Atlantic Conveyor"
  Tomahawk Cruise Missile
  Tomahawk Cruise Missile
  War Pensions
  War Pensions
  Commander Alfredo Astiz
  Commander Alfredo Astiz
  White Paper
  White Paper
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Defence Budget
  Defence Budget
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Argentina (Sanctions)
  Argentina (Sanctions)
  Arms Reductions
  Arms Reductions
  Argentine Prisoners
  Argentine Prisoners
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  South Thule
  South Thule
  Public Bodies and International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies and International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
  World Disarmament
  World Disarmament
  Israel (Military Equipment Sales)
  Israel (Military Equipment Sales)
  Sinai Force
  Sinai Force
  Passport Application Forms
  Passport Application Forms
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Luxembourg Compromise
  Luxembourg Compromise
  Political Parties (Payments)
  Political Parties (Payments)
  Parliamentary Elections (Percentage Polls)
  Parliamentary Elections (Percentage Polls)
  Greenland
  Greenland
  European Assembly (Cost)
  European Assembly (Cost)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Maternity Services (Ealing)
  Maternity Services (Ealing)
  Medical Staff (Training Cost Recoupment)
  Medical Staff (Training Cost Recoupment)
  Measles
  Measles
  Rubella
  Rubella
  National Health Service (Audit)
  National Health Service (Audit)
  Health Checks
  Health Checks
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Local Authorities (Departmental Assistance)
  Local Authorities (Departmental Assistance)
  International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
  International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
  Cytomegalovirus
  Cytomegalovirus
  Newborn Infants (Screening)
  Newborn Infants (Screening)
  "Who Cares for the Carers"
  "Who Cares for the Carers"
  Disabled Persons (Services)
  Disabled Persons (Services)
  Local Authorities (Holiday Provision)
  Local Authorities (Holiday Provision)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Medicines Commission (Report)
  Medicines Commission (Report)
TRANSPORT
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Driving Test
  Driving Test
  Staffordshire Moorlands District (Road Fatalities)
  Staffordshire Moorlands District (Road Fatalities)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
  International Organisations (Departmental Assistance)
  Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Extension) Order 1981
  Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Extension) Order 1981
  Council of Transport Ministers (Meeting)
  Council of Transport Ministers (Meeting)
ENVIRONMENT
  Regional Water Authorities
  Regional Water Authorities
  Public and International Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public and International Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  British Waterways Board
  British Waterways Board
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Development Grants
  Urban Development Grants
  Sheffield
  Sheffield

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

The Prince and Princess of Wales: Birth of a Son
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to say a very brief word, on behalf of the House, about the very happy news which we heard last night and which the nation has been celebrating this morning. The whole House will have a proper opportunity in a few days' time to express its congratulations to Her Majesty The Queen when, as Leader of the House, I shall move a Motion for an humble Address. But I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me today in congratulating their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales and in sending the young Prince our very warmest wishes for a long and happy life.

The Markham Case: Legal Implications
2.37 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: 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 what advice or instructions they will now give to trading standards officers in the light of the judgment in the case brought by the West Yorkshire Trading Standards Office against Mr. Dennis Markham which appears to cast doubt on the legal definition of a pint of beer.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to give advice or instructions on such matters to trading standards officers, who, as the noble Lord is aware, are employed by local authorities. It is for the courts to decide what is the legal definition of a pint of draught beer and for local weights and measures authorities to enforce that law.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that somewhat grudging reply, may I ask him whether, as he is apparently unmoved by the consumer argument against serving beer in short measure, he would bear in mind that whenever a barman serves beer in short measure, he defrauds not only the customer but also—because of the way by which duty is levied on beer—the Customs and Excise? Does the Minister find that argument sufficiently compelling to require beer to be served in an oversized marked glass instead of by the brimful measure from which it pours over the sides, which is not really an entirely appropriate vessel from which
908
noble Lords could drink a toast to the new Royal baby?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord first asked me about short measure. I would draw to his attention the fact that duty on beer is paid at the brewery on the volume of the beer brewed; and if the publican, barkeeper or employee were to give short measure, the publican pays more VAT on the same volume of beer simply because the amount of VAT is determined by his income from sales. I hope therefore, even at this time, that the noble Lord will see that the Revenue is not defrauded in that respect.
The noble Lord then mentioned the question of differing sizes of glass, be they with a line or a brim measure. Perhaps the House should not be reminded that when the noble Lord last mentioned this subject, in December 1976, he said:
" Beer can also be served in a plant pot, flower vase or such ".
The noble Lord is a doctor, so I wonder whether he has also considered other receptacles which are used in hospitals, but I do not know whether they have measurements for liquids.
Lord Winstanley: Perhaps I might clarify the supplementary I asked in relation to duty, my Lords. I was referring to duty and not to VAT, and the duty is levied on the barrel at so much per percentage point of specific gravity. If a landlord is able to extract more pints of beer from a barrel than there are actually in the barrel—which he can do by serving short measure—he then collects more duty than he pays and he pockets it.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think the noble Lord and I are on the same line in that I do not believe the landlord is able to pocket the difference because he will pay more VAT, as I pointed out. Secondly—I am sure noble Lords are aware of this—a pint of beer varies from one part of the country to another according to custom. I understand that in the region where there is at present a law case outstanding, the custom is that a pint of beer should have a certain collar or head on it, whereas in other parts of the country that is not necessarily the custom. I am sure noble Lords do not need me to tell them that a pint of beer contains the liquid together with the head or collar or whatever else goes with the beer.

Diplomatic Service: Personnel
2.41 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 how many members of the ethnic minorities and how many women are being trained for the Diplomatic Service.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is not our practice nor has it been that of previous Governments, to keep records of ethnic minorities within the Diplomatic Service. There are 1,251 women currently working

909
in the Diplomatic Service, rather less than one-third of the total staff.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him two supplementaries. First, would he agree that it would be of great benefit to the reputation of this country as a multi-racial nation to be seen to appoint members of the ethnic minorities, black or brown, as ambassadors and high commissioners to represent Britain in the world? Secondly, would it not reinforce the nation's anti-sexist development if there were women in similar positions? Can the Minister say how many women, for example, are either high commissioners or ambassadors representing this country?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to take the noble Lord's supplementary questions in order, I would say, first, that I think that the House will accept that diplomats must be seen to represent Britain, and because of that fact in some countries neither women nor the ethnic minorities would be acceptable as ambassadors or high commissioners; the Moslem world, for example, readily springs to mind. With regard to women in senior positions in the Diplomatic Service, to the best of my knowledge there are no women high commissioners, and currently there are three women ambassadors in post, in Oslo, Copenhagen, and Montevideo.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that some of the best diplomats in our service have in fact come from the ethnic minority represented by the nation of Scotland?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government believe in integration of all sorts, and I would not accept that the Scottish nation is an ethnic minority.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that while we should all like to see more women in higher positions, those of us who have worked in the Foreign Service would not have wanted our appointments on the basis of statutory women, on grounds of sex. We look forward to many more opportunities. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that that is the most constructive approach.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I quite agree. I do not approve of statutory women in any activity.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the promotion and career prospects of a female member of a Diplomatic Service are affected by her marriage?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, recently the position in the Diplomatic Service has changed and there is now no restriction at all on married women. So I would say, no, her prospects are not now affected.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, for the purpose of answering this Question what definition do Her Majesty's Government use of the term "ethnic minority"?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it would include any member of society who is of a creed and a racial origin different from that of the general population.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the first part of the answer that he gave to my supplementary question is quite unsatisfactory? I appreciate that he has a point in suggesting that women ambassadors might not be acceptable in all parts of the Moslem world, but it is certainly not the case that any part of the Moslem world would refuse an ambassador or a high commissioner from the ethnic minorities. May I ask the noble Lord whether he will bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the importance for the reputation of this country over the years of bringing forward members of the ethnic minorities as representatives in our Diplomatic Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord took my point. Perhaps I may give him a further illustration in that it would not, at any rate in my view, be appropriate to have a senior diplomat of the Jewish faith in a Moslem country, or indeed perhaps vice versa—in Israel a diplomat of the Moslem faith, whether the diplomat be a man or woman; and that I would include, as I told my noble friend, among the ethnic minorities. Further to that, I can say with authority that there is absolutely no discrimination of any kind within the Diplomatic Service.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people would be very sad if the criteria for these appointments were anything other than ability and experience?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; I agree entirely with my noble friend.

UN Covenant: Compensation and Ex Gratia Payments
2.48 p.m.
Lord Gardiner: 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 on what basis they contend that our obligations to comply with the requirements in Article 14(6) of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to provide "compensation according to law" in the cases there specified is met by providing ex gratia payments in some cases.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the present Government, like their predecessors, take the view that the existing procedure, coupled with the right that an aggrieved person may have to bring a civil action, constitutes an adequate compliance with our obligations.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware

911
that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the meanings of the words ex gratia are:
" of, or by favour, done as a favour and not under compulsion".
Then the dictionary states:
" especially implying the absence of any legal right ".
Does the noble Lord agree that those are the meanings of the words?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would not seek to join issue with the noble and learned Lord in the pages of the dictionary. But the point that I wish to make is that the effect of the existence of the ex gratia system of payments gives the necessary flexibility for dealing with a very wide range of circumstances which could give rise to a miscarriage of justice and that in practice no really meritorious case is rejected.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, is it not really very difficult to contend that we satisfied our obligations under this convenant of the United Nations, which we have ratified, to provide compensation according to law, by making ex gratia payments when the latter are not only inconsistent with the former but are their direct opposite?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would not accept that they were the direct opposite, and I feel that they discharge what the United Nations wished to achieve. My argument would be more difficult to sustain had not a senior Government official given evidence before the United Nations Committee on Human Rights in 1978 and 1979 on this and other matters, and had it not been the case that the committee has not reported unfavourably on the matter.

Information Technology Year
2.50 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 what has been achieved so far in Information Technology Year.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, the acceleration of Government encouragement for information technology continues; but the main purpose of the Year is to increase awareness of information technology, and that is not easily measured. Many events and exhibitions have been organised nationally and regionally, and these have attracted large numbers of visitors. Her Majesty's Government believe that most visitors gain a clearer understanding of the nature and importance of information technology from their visits, which should lead to an increasing determination to seek the benefits of information technology.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that useful reply, may I ask him whether it is not very encouraging that the Government, the
912
Manpower Services Commission and the industry are all co-operating to train the young of age and the young of heart in these new technologies; and could he tell me how the money spent is shared as between industry and the taxpayer? Secondly, can he tell me what progress has been made in providing microcomputers in every secondary school in this country?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, as far as Information Technology Year 1982 is concerned, there is a joint committee of the private sector of industry and Government that has funded a budget of £3¾
million for the awareness part of Information Technology Year. The expenditure of the Government in this financial year on schemes, some of which started some time ago but many of which have started very recently, will be £134 million. As far as the accent on youth is concerned, yes, indeed, I would say to my noble friend, this is certainly a primary objective of my honourable friend the Minister of Information Technology, and during the Year there is an exhibition at the Science Museum from April to August to which we hope a million people, possibly many of them children, will go. The scheme to provide micro-computers in schools has reached nearly two-thirds of schools, and by the end of 1982 my honourable friend hopes that every secondary school will have a micro-computer. Training at the new information technology centres is another plank of the youth scheme, together with a scheme that he is now developing for summer camps.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Minister for what he has said. I believe it is an important statement, and could well provide the basis for a White Paper. Is he aware that we have always agreed on the importance of micro-technology? I remember that I brought into being ACARD, which was very successful. I should like to know if ACARD is still progressing, and I hope the noble Viscount will be able to give me a positive answer. May I say to the noble Lord who asked the Question—
A noble Lord: Order! "Ask", not "say".
Lord Peart: My Lords, I was going to refer to the noble Lord who asked the Question, and say that for the first time I agreed with him.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I deliberately mentioned that many of the schemes had been started before but my honourable friend has accelerated them, as I mentioned in the Answer, and has started many new ones as well. ACARD is in existence, and the continued response to the last ACARD report in this area goes on.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether, before 1982 disappears as Information Technology Year, the Government will perhaps consider producing a Green Paper on technology and all that is associated with it, with particular reference to the National Health Service?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, that is a wider question, but as far as the National Health Service is concerned it gives me the opportunity to say that one

913
of the new applications of my honourable friend is to encourage the use of micro-computers in surgeries throughout the health service, and that this, too, is showing an encouraging start.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, would the Minister confirm that a course is already running for Members of both Houses of Parliament, and is advertised in the House Magazine?
Viscount Trenchard: I am terribly sorry, my Lords, but I was trying to listen to two questions at the same time. Will the noble Baroness repeat what she said, please?
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, would the noble Viscount the Minister confirm that a course is now running, or is just about to be opened, for 15 Members only at present, but Members of either House of Parliament; and that an advertisement is appearing in the House Magazine and, I believe, is being circulated with the Whips? There is also a notice on the all-party notice board.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am told that this is correct information but, personally, I have no information on the subject.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, as British technology is an important export earner for this country, may I ask my noble friend what is being done to promote British technology overseas in this important endeavour?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, mainly this is of course left to our industry, whose efforts are being supported to a very considerable degree. For instance, some of the new schemes following the need for the development of fibre optics are deliberately designed to put our industry in a stronger position. I think another area where the Government are strengthening the base of industry is in the teletext and viewdata area, where progress is being made and where the Government are making essential co-ordinating and promotion effort and are endeavouring to help exports.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, will the noble Viscount the Minister not agree with me that his honourable friend in the other place, the Minister in charge of technology, should be congratulated on the initiative he has taken and his enthusiasm in bringing to the notice of British industry the great importance of information technology? In asking this question I should declare an interest in that I am a founder member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Information Technology.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I will convey that sentiment to my honourable friend, and it is all the more important for the fact that it is expressed by a Member who has studied the subject.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether in every other respect our achievements in the recent Falklands affair, and the efforts of our forces, backed by the Ministry of Defence, are worthy
914
of the highest praise, but would the Minister not agree that as regards technological skill we did not seem to reach complete perfection?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think the noble Lord tempts me to go wider than the Question, but certainly one of the most important fields for the application of electronics is the defence field, and I think I would say to him that when we are able to give a full report, after a post-mortem of the campaign, it will be seen that while perfection is perhaps an elusive objective, nevertheless the vast majority of our equipment and our weapons systems performed extremely well.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is aware that the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee is arranging an exhibition for the Telecommunication Engineering and Manufacturing Association in the Upper Waiting Hall of the Palace of Westminster between 12th and 16th July?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I know the House will be pleased to have had that announcement.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that one of the most useful by-products of the Information Technology Year has been the great increase in industrial studies in secondary schools? By that I mean studies aimed at enabling pupils to understand industry, its methods, its structure and so on. But there is a great need to train teachers for this work. The Oxford Delegacy have instituted an 0-level in industrial studies, I understand, but there are very few teachers who have such training. The College of Preceptors is leading the way by instituting a diploma in industrial studies, but would the noble Viscount encourage colleges of education and university departments of education to institute diplomas for teachers, taken after they have completed their normal training, in industrial studies?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I know that under previous Administrations and under this one much encouragement has been given to the objective which the noble Lord has outlined. I will draw his further and specific remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on Mr. Pym's visit to Luxembourg.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I were to announce that dinner will be available 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 which the Pilotage Commission (Additional Function) Order 1982 and the Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 will be taken.

Children's Homes Bill
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In moving this Third Reading, it is perhaps not inappropriate that, following the Statement made by my noble friend the Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal, I draw attention to the fact that this is the first Bill to go through your Lordships' House since the birth of the Royal child and it concerns the wellbeing of children. This Bill is concerned with the protection of those children in the care of local authorities who are sent to live in privately run children's homes. At present these homes are not required to be registered and this Bill redresses this anomaly. There are some 2,000 children in privately run homes in this country, and if this Bill passes through this House these homes will be registered and inspected. I should say that the Association of Independent Householders, who represent privately run children's homes, are in agreement with the Bill.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a third time.— (Baroness Faithfull.)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, may I say briefly, before the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker puts the Question on the Third Reading, how much the Government appreciate the efforts not only of my noble friend in bringing this Bill to this stage but also of the honourable gentleman, the Member for Hartlepool in another place, who initiated this Bill and got it through the other place so that it could be presented to your Lordships, and now it happily approaches the statute book. My noble friend refers to the fact that this is the first measure to do with children that we are passing following the happy event of yesterday. I suppose that it is worth saying that it is unlikely that the new Prince will end up in one of these homes.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am happy to associate myself and my noble friends with this Bill. The honourable Member in the other place and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, have put the House in their debt and have rendered a service to Parliament by drawing attention to what was an omission in the protective legislation. Also they have put the social services of this country in their debt. We are glad to join in the support for this Bill and hope that its implementation will be effectively carried out.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Planning Inquiries (Attendance of Public) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Gaming (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General restriction on custodial sentences]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 8, leave out (" Subject to subsection (2) below,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the first amendment on this long Bill with a great number of amendments, I want to explain that the purpose of these amendments—which I think are important amendments as they get to the root of the problems in the Bill: that is, who should be in prison, how many should be in prison and what should be the different categories—if enacted, is to ensure that young offenders are not remanded or committed into custody with adult prisoners. Clause 10 gives the Home Secretary power to provide remand centres for young offenders aged 14 to 21, but, as Clause 1 stands at present, young people can and will continue to be remanded in adult prisons. I cannot believe that anyone considers this to be right for young people. On the contrary, an adult prison, however carefully segregation is attempted, is an evil finishing school for youngsters and an introduction to adult crime and to a series of antiheroes.
I remember many years ago, when I was a prison visitor at Holloway Prison, finding there a number of young people—and I was also lecturing there at the same time and so had considerable personal contact with them. Although there was a very brave attempt to try to segregate them, and the officials and warders wore plain clothes, contact with the adults in the adult prison and the amount that was speedily learned from one category to the other was nevertheless very considerable.
Such contact means also that the deterrent effect of prison is quickly lost. Several of those young women told to me that for the first day or so the idea of being sent to prison is terrible but after a few days people get used to it and then the whole deterrent effect has gone. I find it sad that I am now talking of something like 10 to 15 years ago and still the situation remains the same: that it is still not only possible but is happening all the time that young people are sent to adult prisons.
Secondly, it adds to what is one of the central points running through this Bill; and that is the question of prison overcrowding. By sending young people to prison, one is adding to the strain upon the population in that particular prison. In another place, in Committee, the Minister conceded that the object of the amendment (a similar amendment was moved there) was desirable but argued that practicalities prevented any real progress. The National Association of Probation Officers feel very strongly about this and

917
about the particular amendment. They are naturally well able to judge the disastrous effects of the continuation of the present system. 1 agree that all Governments have been dilatory over this, and that this is not something which has suddenly happened. However, it is about time that it was brought to an end. The critical overcrowding of prisons, together with the recognition of the importance of young offenders being treated in a way which will not help to turn them into recidivists, should certainly give an impetus of urgency to what we are trying to achieve by means of this amendment.
I do not for one moment expect the Minister to stand up and say that he will accept the amendment as it is, because I understand the practical problems. But what we want to hear from the Government is not just that there is agreement on the principle, but that they believe this has a high priority and that they hope to be able to give a timetable of possible and highly probable implementation. If the Minister cannot give that today I hope that he will come back on Report, so that we do have some record and some indication that this really is being treated seriously now, when we are becoming more and more aware, in matters both of theory and of research, of what is happening in penology. Unfortunately, the distance between theory and practice is growing wider rather than narrower. I beg to move.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: I should like to associate myself very strongly with my noble friend's amendment, and to emphasise that, while it may be possible occasionally in a large central prison like Holloway to achieve some sort of segregation of young people, in local prisons where so many of them go, the conditions are particularly bad—worse than they are in central prisons—and the overcrowding is intense. There is really no possibility of proper segregation.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I add support from these Benches for this amendment. The time comes when Governments have to accept that things that they have been saying for 15 years ought to be done and will now say that they shall be done. I would ask for approximately that which the noble Baroness has asked for—that the Government agreeing that this should be done, the noble Lord on behalf of the Government will now give us a timetable showing how it is going to be done and even saying: "It shall be done except in certain circumstances."
I do not think that the Government can be asked to legislate for something which they simply cannot do, and I think that they are really in that position—more shame to them and to all the other Governments before them—but I believe that we want something positive. The noble Baroness has put forward an unanswerable case. I am sure the noble Lord the Minister in fact agrees with it, and I hope that we get something out of it.
Baroness Bacon: May I emphasise what my noble friend Lady Wootton has said? There is overcrowding in nearly every prison in the country, but the overcrowding in the local prisons, such as Leeds, is very
918
much worse than in the training prisons, such as Wakefield. This is so because the local prisons have to take everybody who is sent to them by the courts, whereas to some extent the training prisons can say which prisoners shall come to them. But it is precisely to the local prisons that, with very few exceptions, young people are sent on remand. Therefore the likelihood of their being in the worst possible conditions is much greater than applies in some of the other prisons. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this question and make sure that the local prisons are not made worse than they otherwise might be by the influx of these under-21s.
Lord Elton: I can say at the outset that I have the greatest sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness and with the proposition on which it rests: that young people remanded for trial and young people committed pending sentence should be kept apart from the general run of the prison population and held in young offender establishments rather than in prisons which, as all your Lordships are aware, are overcrowded.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, referred to Leeds, which I recently visited myself at a very early hour in the day, so that I saw it at its worst; and I take the point. I only wish, however, that I could translate that sympathy into acceptance of the noble Baroness's amendment, although she was kind enough to say that she did not expect that. That would certainly get our proceedings off in a friendly and accommodating atmosphere in which we all work at our best. Sadly, however, I cannot; and that is in part because things are not entirely as they seem.
What seems to be the case is that we have two distinct sorts of institution—prisons on the one hand and remand centres on the other—and that we are free to allocate remanded prisoners to one or the other as we choose. We can allocate them as we choose, and I quite see why the noble Baroness would like us always to choose remand centres rather than prisons, in particular for young offenders. But the fact so far as the law is concerned is that there is no distinction between the two categories of establishments. Both are prisons in law, and on the face of it the effect of the amendment would be to exclude something like 2,100 unsentenced under-21s from that accommodation; and we would have nowhere else to put them.
We do not regard this lack of distinction between remand centres and other prison establishments as satisfactory. Indeed, in Clause 10 of the Bill we shall, if your Lordships agree—and the noble Baroness has drawn attention to our intentions here—take power to do something about it. Under those powers, we intend to designate remand centres as such, and as being distinct from prisons. We shall be doing the same for detention and youth custody centres.
Why then, your Lordships may ask, can we not anticipate your Lordships' approval of those powers, accept a restriction preventing our sending young people under 21 to prison at any stage and not just after sentence, and agree to the noble Baroness's amendments? In the first place, it will take some time to achieve the recategorisation, and not every establishment will be redesignated at the same time. That

919
perhaps could be overcome by transitional arrangements of one sort or another, cumbersome though that procedure doubtless would be; but I regret to tell your Lordships that even then we would still be in a difficulty. At present we already, wherever possible, follow a policy of detaining unsentenced young people in what we call remand centres, and we detain such people in ordinary local prisons only when no remand centre place is available for them in that part of the country. Even so, about 700 of them are in prison at any one time; and it is to them that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, all referred.
The noble Baroness's amendments would therefore result in there being nowhere (other than police cells, I suppose) in which any of those people could be detained and, given the crying need of almost every other part of the prison system for copious resources, I am afraid there is no prospect of my being able to undertake to run up sufficient accommodation in time to contain these young people.
Following the debate in this House on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, a few weeks ago, your Lordships will be only too well aware of the great range of heavy and conflicting demands now facing the resources of the prison service and you would not, I think, expect me to commit a significant part of those on one requirement, even if I could. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was most specific in the desire that I should give a timetable to your Lordships. The fact is that, again, things are not as simple as they look. Improvements in one sector of the prison provision relieve pressure upon others, and I am not able to say with what rapidity this will affect a particular sector, especially when we remember that in many cases remand centres are in some sense attached to existing prisons.
The noble Baroness and the rest of your Lordships can be very well assured of the Government's intention to keep young people, including unsentenced young people, separate from the more mature criminal population in local and other prisons. This we are already doing to a substantial, if limited, extent by administrative means. As our building programme progresses and as other provisions in this Bill begin to bite, we shall be able to do so for increasing numbers of them.
I hope the noble Baroness will accept our commitment to this policy as being a genuine one and that she will not feel the need to try it further.
Baroness Bacon: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I get his figures right? Did he say that there were 2,200 under-21s in remand centres and 700 in local prisons, or was it a total of 2,200?
Lord Elton: The total of unsentenced persons under 21 is 2,188.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: This amendment touches on a very important question; namely, the sense of grievance of those who are kept in prison on remand, and who are then either acquitted or not sentenced to any form of incarceration at all. Therefore, it is very important
920
indeed to remedy that rightly felt sense of injustice on the part of those who come within that classification. I wonder whether the Minister can help us about the percentage of those who are imprisoned on remand and who, ultimately, are found guilty or are sent to prison. I do not ask for an answer off the cuff, but I suspect that quite a large proportion do not have subsequently to face terms of imprisonment. Therefore, there is an element of urgency in this. I confess that we have not found a great deal of satisfaction in the answer of the Minister, but no doubt my noble friend Lady Birk will be able to cross-examine with some particularity about the nature of the unsatisfactory answer.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I wonder whether I may very briefly support my noble friend. We are dealing here with young people under the age of 21. That incorporates those who come before the juvenile benches and, also, the young people who come before the adult benches. Therefore, one has to see where one can send the worst of the possible offenders on remand. I have had the privilege of being in an area, PSD, where we had two very good remand homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to Holloway, where they are all girls and women, and, although I am well aware that there are, unfortunately, an increasing number of girls who are getting into trouble with the law, I suppose that we are really thinking of young men.
From the noble Baroness's knowledge of the bench, which is extensive, she will know that there are many ways of dealing with young people, if one wants them to come back to court having had social services reports in, perhaps, three weeks. One can put them on bail, one can put them in a remand centre, one can send them back to their homes or one can remand them in custody. In custody, in my courts, always meant—perhaps I was lucky—a remand home. At this moment, I am talking of the juvenile courts and the under-17s, but I do not think one would ever have sent one to prison.
But when we take into consideration the increasing number of violent crimes that are committed at this time by the 16 to 21s in this country, it seems that any court must be able to remand a young person under that age to prison. If we were dealing with the under 17s, I would be entirely with the noble Baroness. But, as we are dealing with up to 21s, it is very important that courts should still be able to remand whenever they see fit. So I support my noble friend.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: May I come back to the basis of the question that arises from the amendment? What we are dealing with are the 700 young people who are in local prisons, and surely the Minister would agree with the Prison and Borstal Governors' Association, who have described that situation as being a national scandal. I should like to ask the Minister not whether things are not as simple as they appear, but why some effort cannot be made immediately to build into the prison programme remand centres which are suitable for the type of person whom the noble Baroness has just mentioned—the person who needs to be locked up, but is not requiring, in any shape or form, the kind of security which is provided in a local prison? This national scandal should be

921
brought to an end, and I should like to ask the Minister whether there are any plans for building such premises, which could be done very quickly without any major security.
Lord Elton: I should like first to say that I am very much obliged to my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve for explaining more fully than I had both the pressures on this part of the system and the reasons for wishing to continue with a custodial remand. As to what primarily concerns your Lordships, it is clear that there is an agreed inordinate pressure of bodies upon places throughout the prison system, and we have debated this at length on a number of occasions. What your Lordships are saying is that not only should there be an application of our finite resources to reducing pressure by increasing the places —and also, I hope your Lordships will agree, by reducing the number of bodies or the duration of their imprisonment, which is one of the principal objects of this Bill—but the young offender should go to the head of the queue for those resources in the prison system which extend to the need for more staff to oversee the activities of prisoners when they are out of their cells, more accommodation for prisoners to engage in manufacturing and other activities out of their cells, more resources for the education of prisoners in education centres, more cells, more washing facilities, better reception facilities and better processing all the way to the courts.
What I am trying to say, first, is that a programme of specific capital investment directed to that point, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has suggested, could not be implemented as swiftly as he suspects. The time range of introducing a new prison establishment is very long. It is a good deal longer than a hospital, or certainly as long, with the planning requirements and so on. It is not an overnight waving of the wand. But, given that, and before the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, leaps up to put me right, saying that that does not alter anything, I go on to say that a lot of the accommodation that we have is suitable, and that it will become available in the process of our modernisation programme, not necessarily in buildings designed to take young offenders, but in buildings designed to take those who are now in the accommodation which the young offenders could better be occupying.
I have sought to arrive at the percentage of acquittals of young persons received on remand. This is the question about the numbers who subsequently receive or do not receive, sentences, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked me. I understand that, in very round figures, it is about 50/50. That underlines the understandable feeling of resentment of those who have been incarcerated and who have subsequently been told on their release that they need not have been. I accept that, but I do not think that it is the principal reason for trying to improve the conditions in which they are kept. The two points that I want to put before your Lordships are, first, that we are committed to listening and, finally, to resolving this problem; and, secondly, that it must be part of an overall programme for the whole of the prison population. The rest of the programme cannot be deferred in order to favour this part of the population, about which we feel very strongly.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The noble Lord anticipated my interrupting him, but he has not altogether prevented me. I take exception to the view that it takes years to build a prison, when it is not that that we are talking about. We are talking about the kind of country house which can be bought almost anywhere, putting a fence around it and installing a few telephones. Half the people who will be remanded there will not be sentenced to custodial service, anyway, so it is in no way parallel to building a prison.
Lord James of Rusholme: From the point of view of the outsider who is not an expert on this, I must confess that what the Minister has said seems to be very unsatisfactory, for two reasons. He gave us a list of important things which have got to be done for the prison service, which is absolutely right, but some of us believe that these particular people ought to go to the top of the queue for two reasons: first because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said, the whole business of remand in custody is a very suspect business indeed, and secondly, and much more importantly, because these young people are at the very age when, if we send them into the environment of an adult prison, we shall breed lifelong prisoners. For those two reasons, particularly the second, I feel that this must be an absolute priority over all the other desirable things which the Minister mentioned. If the Minister has been told that it takes longer to build a fairly secure remand centre than it does to build a hospital, I suggest that it is time he consulted another architect.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I shall not want to hear what the last seven words of the noble Lord's interjection were, but I did not hear them. Was he telling me to tell it to the marines?
Lord James of Rusholme: No, the marines have got their hands fairly full at the moment. What I was doing was telling the noble Lord to consult other architects than the ones who told him that it takes longer to build a remand centre than it does to build a hospital, because it cannot be true.
Baroness Bacon: I was interested in what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. At one point, however, she confused remand homes and remand centres. She also said that her court is able to send the most serious offenders to prison. In our part of the world, and in other parts too, maybe, it does not happen like that. There is a remand centre some 15 miles out of Leeds which is on the same site as an open prison. The reason why young people are sent into the most appalling conditions in Leeds Prison—I am pleased that the noble Lord the Minister has seen the appalling conditions there—is not because they are the most severe offenders but because the remand centre is full and there is nowhere else to send them, so they have to go into Leeds Prison on remand.
Lord Mottistone: To return to the amendment, I have tremendous sympathy for what all noble Lords have said about the obvious long-term need to get the balance right. I am a little suspicious of instant

923
remand homes at the waving of a wand, but it can happen. Nevertheless, in the nature of things they take time. Surely the question, though, is whether it is right for this House to put the amendment into the Bill at this point. It seems to me that in due course it would be right to have the sense of the amendment included in the Bill. However, it is too early to do so now because there will be insufficient resources and time to allow us to obey the law if the amendment is included now. Perhaps we can come back to it in two or three years' time when other things have been done.
Lord Renton: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Mottistone is right. Architecture and what is practically desirable on the one hand are one thing. Legal necessity and the problem of having to cope with young offenders, many of whom have committed very serious offences, within the framework of the present system are another. We have to take things as they are, not as we should like them to be. Taking things as they are, it seems to me that it would be folly to leave out subsection (2) of the clause.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my two noble friends for bringing us back to a consideration of the amendment in the context of the Bill. As a finale to my response to what noble Lords have said about this, I would say that I have tried to make our concern clear. It is not a question of a country house being done over, with a few inexpensive additions. The people who could live there could be sent home on bail. We have to provide secure accommodation. That accommodation is expensive. I thought I retracted that it took longer than a hospital—I said it took a very long time, commensurate with that, and I stand by that—to provide prison accommodation, which is not always the most welcome new neighbour in a community. There are many planning difficulties. However, the state of the prison service as it now is—the noble Baroness has been generous enough to accept that this is not the fault only of this Government; the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has attributed it to many Governments, and I would endorse both speakers—means that to include the amendment in the Bill at this stage would leave us with nowhere to send a large number of remand cases, a considerable number of whom would subsequently be convicted, and convicted of violent misdemeanours, which means that they ought not to he left free to roam the streets. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the earnest assurance I have given her of the fact that my perception of this very nearly coincides with hers.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: One of the things which the Bill proposes is to do away with borstal training. No doubt the youth custody centres will be largely located in the borstal institutions, but it seems likely that the length of sentences and the number of persons so committed will be less than the total man-woman population, over time, in the borstal centres. Could not some use be made of the borstal centres to relieve this problem? Could not some spare accommodation be found in that way?
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness
924
for giving an instance of the principle which I sought to adduce: that the improvements which we are making both in the capital programme and in the Bill will reduce pressure on accommodation and allow young people to go into it. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk: I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment The Minister—and I agree with him—said that he agreed with the principle behind the amendment, as did the Minister in another place. He also pointed to the defects in the amendment as it stands at present. However, I think the Minister will agree with me that that is not the important part of it. If we are to enter into a discussion of remand centres in prisons and the fact that although they are used they are not remand centres in law, there is a danger that we shall get bogged down in semantics. That is not the principle which we are discussing.
I did not intend to divide the Committee when moving the amendment. However, having listened to what other noble Lords have said, and also to what the Minister has said, 1 am extremely worried—and I think other noble Lords who have spoken feel the same —that there does not seem to be the sense of urgency and impetus behind what the Minister said which I was hoping to hear. We on this side of the Committee are also extremely worried about the wording of the subsection. The subsection which we are trying to remove is written in such a way that it is a complete endorsement of the present system. It is not written in a way which gives an indication that this is going to be temporary and that we shall get rid of a wretched system which has gone on for too long.
My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones made a telling point when he referred to the numbers of young people who are sent to prison. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, is quite right when she says that there are alternatives which all of us certainly try to use. I do, as I am sure the noble Baroness does. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are still far too many young people in prisons—and not only in the prisons I was talking about. My noble friends have pointed out the even worse state in local prisons. Because there is no indication of any hope of trying to remedy or starting to remedy what is an atrocious system at the present time, I feel that I must test the temperature of the Committee.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness does that, may I ask her whether she will consider the terms of the amendment very carefully, because she is in fact throwing 2,100 people out on the street. I cannot imagine that many people would wish to vote for that.
Baroness Birk: I am dividing on this amendment because of the whole principle involved and the approach put forward by the Government. Unless a miracle occurs, I do not believe that we are going to win this Division; but it will at least make the Government think and come back with something they themselves have drafted for the Bill, which would at least meet the very strong feeling expressed around the Committee. Then we would feel that we had achieved something.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: The amendment does not say that the 2,000 people who are already there are to be turned out. It just says that further people are not to be put in.
3.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Bacon, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe. B.

Balogh, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

McCarthy, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Blease, L.

Milford, L.

Blyton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Molloy, L.

Brockway, L.

Onslow, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Oram, L.

Caradon, L.

Peart, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Rhodes, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Denington, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Shinwell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stamp, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stedman, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Faithfull, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gardiner, L.

Stone, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Walston, L.

Hunt, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ingleby, V.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

White, B.

James of Rusholme, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jeger, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Digby, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Allerton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Avon, E.

Effingham, E.

Bathurst, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elton, L.

Beloff, L.

Ferrers, E.

Berkeley, B.

Fortescue, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Cairns, E.

Gainford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Garner, L.

Cawley, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Chelwood, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Colyton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hatherton, L.

Daventry, V.

Hawke, L.

Davidson, V.

Henley, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hives, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Derwent, L.

Ilchester, E.

926

Inglewood, L.

Reigate, L.

Killearn, L.

Reilly, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Renton, L.

Long, V.

Richardson, L.

Lovat, L.

Rochdale, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rugby, L.

Lyell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sandford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Mar, C.

Selkirk, E.

Marley, L.

Sharples, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Spens, L.

Mersey, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mills, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Milverton, L.

Terrington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Teviot, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Tollemache, L.

Mottistone, L.

Torphichen, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Newall, L.

Trumpington, B.

Northchurch, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Porritt, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Radnor, E.

Westbury, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Glenarthur: I think your Lordships would agree that it might now be appropriate for the Statement to be repeated. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Luxembourg Meeting of Foreign Ministers
3.49 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the visit which he paid to Luxembourg on 20th to 21st June, during which he attended a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Ten and the first part of the Foreign Affairs Council, which continues today and on which there will be a report to the House. The Statement is as follows:
"At my request there was first a discussion of the Community's decision-making procedures. I left our partners in no doubt about the British Government's position that where a member state considers that very important interests are at stake, discussion must be continued until unanimous agreement is reached and that Community business should continue to be governed by this principle in accordance with the Luxembourg Compromise. This position was supported unreservedly by two member states and by two others with minor qualifications.
" The position is therefore that five member states support the principle that decisions must be deferred where a member state considers that its major national interests are at stake. It was not to be expected that the five members who declined

927
to endorse this principle in 1966 would do so now, but they made it clear that they were not seeking to reopen the Luxembourg Compromise. The Community's practice since 1966 was based on an agreement to disagree, and this remains the position.
" In view of what happened at the Agriculture Council on 18th May, I would obviously have preferred a clear-cut result. Although there is now a better understanding in the Community of our position and of the principles involved, we may have to return to the subject. The crucial point is what will happen in practice when our very important national interests are at stake. We shall continue to defend them on the basis we have made clear to our partners.
" In addition to the discussion on majority voting, we also had a brief discussion on the Genscher/ Colombo proposals. No conclusions were reached but it was agreed that work on the proposals would continue.
" The Foreign Ministers agreed that the arms embargoes on Argentina imposed nationally by member states would remain in force for the time being. They decided that the European Community's ban on Argentine imports should be lifted as from 22nd June in the expectation that there would be no further acts of force in the South Atlantic.
" They also agreed that, should this not be the case, a new situation would arise to which the Ten would be obliged to react immediately. Normal commercial relations between Argentina and the member states of the European Community depend therefore on a lasting cessation of hostilities in the South Atlantic.
" Foreign Ministers also discussed the increasingly serious situation in the Lebanon. They expressed their determination to continue humanitarian aid both nationally and in the Community framework. The Community decided not to proceed at this stage with the signature of the second Financial Protocol with Israel.
" On 21st June I had a meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister. Sr Perez-Llorca informed me that the Spanish Government wished to postpone the arrangements by which the Lisbon statement of 10th April 1980 would have been implemented on 25th June 1982 with a meeting between us in Portugal and the opening that day of the Gibraltar border.
" Her Majesty's Government were fully prepared to go ahead and I much regret this further postponement. Nevertheless I agreed with the Spanish Foreign Minister that we were both determined to keep alive the process envisaged in the Lisbon agreement; that we would remain in touch on the matter personally and through diplomatic channels; and that the date for a new meeting would be fixed in due course. The Governor of Gibraltar will be returning to London for consultations tomorrow, and I hope to have talks with Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Isola in the near future ".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House
928
is grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Is she aware that that part of the Statement which deals with the Luxembourg Compromise is vague and unsatisfactory? Is the way not left open for the veto to be ignored once again, and what happens if that takes place? Is it not vital for further talks to be held as soon as possible to clarify the matter? And was not some procedure which would define a very important national interest, which is the wording in the Luxembourg Compromise, discussed? On the Genscher/Colombo proposals, are not the voting procedures dealt with in these proposals, and is there a chance that the work on the proposals might be completed fairly soon? Perhaps the noble Baroness could put a date on it.
While it is disappointing that the imports ban should be raised before the cessation of hostilities by the Argentine, can the noble Baroness enlarge on the proposal to extend the arms embargo, which is very welcome news? Can we be sure now that armaments from France, like the Exocet missile and other armaments, will not reach the Argentine through Peru or some other country?
With regard to the Lebanon, is the EEC now proposing any further action in accordance with the Venice declaration? Are any initiatives from the leaders of the EEC in view? Can the noble Baroness say if United Nations Resolution 512 is being implemented; namely, the resolution which deals with the humanitarian aspects of this matter, and the need for medical supplies getting through to the Lebanon from the United Nations and other agencies as soon as possible? Is it true, for example, that a ship in Cyprus is unable to get through because the port of Lebanon is mined? On the last point, Gibraltar, does the decision taken mean that the frontier at La Linea will remain closed indefinitely now, or will the 1980 argeement that the frontier should be opened be implemented before the talks are resumed? Will what has taken place now affect the United Kingdom's attitude to Spain's entry into European Community?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we, too, would like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. First, I think, we would all like to express sorrow at the postponement of the talks on Gibraltar. We must all hope that when the tension over the Falklands has diminished somewhat they will still, as I think the Government anticipate, take place.
Even though the deplorable so-called compromise of Luxembourg has apparently been reinstated—and here I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn; I think it has been reinstated—as the accepted unofficial rule, we must at least hope, surely, that it will not be so disgracefully misused as it has been in the past. What is more sad, to my mind at any rate, is what I fear is the prospective demise of the Colombo/ Genscher plan. Since this plan, it seems, can only be accepted, even in a watered down form, by unanimous vote—I think I am right in saying that this is necessary —is it not obvious that no significant proposals contained in it will ever see the light of day? The Danes, for instance, have a veto, and seeing that the overriding objective is never to separate themselves, or to separate themselves as little as possible, from their Scandinavian friends, they will invariably exer-

929
cise it in order to block the smallest advance towards European political unity, of which in principle they thoroughly disapprove. I would be interested to know if the noble Baroness can comment on that statement.
Would not the Government, therefore, agree that, if there is to be any advance in this direction, it must be made by such members as favour it? After all, political action is outside the treaties, and those who favour it can do so in any way they please. There is no reason, for instance, why members who favour some sort of co-operation as regards defence should not co-operate, without involving those colleagues who do not want so to co-operate, and who in any case would in no way be bound by any decision taken in this sphere. Otherwise, frankly, I see little future in common political action, still less in the formation of any genuine common foreign policy.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their response to the Statement. They have asked a number of questions on different matters, and I will do my best to answer them. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked a number of questions, on the Luxembourg Compromise. I would like to say that five member states agreed that the Community should continue the practice of deferring majority voting when member states consider that major national interests are at stake. We can, therefore, expect that the Community will continue to operate on a basis which will enable us to safeguard our important national interests.
On the question of the Genscher/Colombo proposals—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos—again I can give no date when they might be implemented. Discussion continues between the member states and there are a number of problems still to be resolved. I am afraid that that does not answer the detailed points that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised but, as the noble Lord will know himself—and he no doubt will have heard the Government's views expressed in a speech by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place last week—it has now been recognised that there is an ad hoc group of officials which have been examining the proposals, and they should continue this work under the Danish Presidency.
As regards the Lebanon, I was asked quite specifically about help on humanitarian grounds. We are contributing, through the European Community, to the International Committee of the Red Cross appeal for aid to the Lebanon, and the Government have also pledged almost £¼ million of humanitarian aid to the victims of the conflict. This is being channelled through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Lebanon Red Cross and other agencies.
Finally, both noble Lords raised the question of Gibraltar. I think that we all agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made that it is most regrettable that the opening of the border has been postponed. I do not feel that I can go further than what I said in the Statement on this matter.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as regards the Statement,
930
I wonder whether the Government can give a little more information on three particular points. First, as regards the Luxembourg Compromise, did the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs find it possible to introduce the idea of a country giving its reasons in writing when it was invoking the veto—an idea which was very fully debated in this House?
On the question of the Genscher/Columbo proposals, we heard in the Statement that work would continue and, in her answer just now, the noble Baroness referred to an ad hoc group of officials. It all depends on the tone of voice, does it not? Is this work continuing among the group of ad hoc officials in a hopeful tone of voice or in a "sweep it under the carpet" tone of voice? I think that the House would like to know the answer to that.
As regards the Lebanon, we find that for the fifth time in a generation the Middle East is in flames; the Israel Army stands halfway up the Lebanon; and world war is nearer than it has been for many weeks at least, to put it mildly. Yet the European Community, after its considerable history of political co-operation and positive proposals in this matter, simply proposes not to proceed with the Second Financial Protocol. Can the Government at least tell the House what is the Second Financial Protocol?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has raised three further points. The first concerns the Luxembourg Compromise. I think that I can only say further on this matter that, on the question of whether or not it enables us still to have a veto, it was accepted by the Six nations that it did enable us to do so, and the agreement to disagree has worked for nearly 10 years among the Nine and the Ten. As regards the question of giving our reasons in writing, that certainly is an idea which was included in the Genscher/Colombo proposals, but there was no decision reached about the texts of this matter at the meeting which concluded on 20th June. I really cannot add anything further to what I have already said about the Genscher/Colombo discussions and certainly, if I may say so, not about the tone of voice. I have tried to indicate that the discussions are continuing, and I think that that is where the matter must rest. I have no doubt that, when it says that the report makes this quite plain, that is what is happening and it is continuing its work under the Danish presidency at present and will, of course, continue—should it not be concluded before then—under the next presidency.
The noble Lord finally asked me a further question about the Lebanon. I should like to say on this matter that we did once again maintain the firm commitments to the principles of the Venice Declaration as a framework upon which progress towards a negotiated settlement in the Middle East could be based. We are regularly in touch with the parties concerned to promote the acceptance of these principles.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. The first concerns the Luxembourg Compromise, as regards which I think everybody would accept that the veto should be there for real and proper defence of national interests—that is, stopping people fishing up to the shores of Great

931
Britain. But it seems to have been used recently as a bargaining counter. To use it as a bargaining counter—in other words, to say, "I will not pay my parking fine unless I get my case heard favourably in the House of Lords"—seems to be an abuse of that Luxembourg Compromise. I ask my noble friend to bear in mind what happened with the liberum veto in Poland. When that happened, the whole of the Polish constitution collapsed because everybody had the power of veto. Can we please have an undertaking from Her Majesty's Government that they will not use it in the way which I described as regards the parking fine in the House of Lords?
Secondly, I should like to go back to the problem of Gibraltar. When we have a situation like the Berlin Wall across from Gibraltar to La Linea, is it not rather odd that Spain should still be a member of NATO when it has not taken down that "Berlin Wall" between Gibraltar and Spain?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope I made clear in what I said earlier that, as regards the question of whether the Luxembourg Compromise is still valid and when it would be used, from discussion it is quite clear that five member states, including ourselves, took the view that the practice of deferring decisions by majority voting where a member state considers that important national interests are at stake should be continued. The operative words are "important national interests I think that this is the matter upon which we should concentrate. It provides a basis for the Community's decision-taking procedures which will enable important national interests in the future to continue to be safeguarded.
On the question of Spain and NATO, of course, as a Government we have welcomed Spain's entry into NATO which has just taken place and which will be good for the NATO Alliance. We have not set any pre-conditions to this. However, it is a fact that it is regrettable that the border between the territories of two NATO allies should be closed, and that is why we hope that the situation will be rectified as soon as possible.
Lord Boothby:My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness one very brief question. While we all hope for an amicable solution to the problem, can she give us an assurance at least that, so long as Spain keeps the frontier with Gibraltar closed, the accession of Spain to the Common Market will not be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the question of the accession of Spain to the Community, I should like to confirm what I think has already been said—namely, that, although we have supported Spain's application to join the Community, it is inconceivable that there should be a closed frontier between the territories of two members of the Community, and we have made this point clear to the Spaniards.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House just one question. Although I welcome the arrival in this country tomorrow of the Governor and the visit later on of Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Peter Isola, in view of what has
932
transpired in Luxembourg, will Her Majesty's Government be willing to place on the agenda of the discussions with these gentlemen the question of a Government reappraisal regarding the sustaining of the economy of Gibraltar? First, one is not sure that the commercialisation of the dockyard is viable. Secondly, the alternative economic activities which were looked into by a consultancy firm appointed by the ODA on behalf of the Gibraltar Government included tourism, financial operations, industrial activities and free trade zones. Are some of those not somewhat irrelevant in view of the fact that Spain has decided not to open the frontier?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have no doubt at all that when the Governor comes to London all these many issues will be discussed. They are, of course, material to all the reasons for wanting the frontier to be reopened. But as I have already indicated, it is an unhappy situation that Spain has not reopened the frontier, as we hoped she would.

Criminal Justice Bill
4.12 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert (" or make a detention centre order.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment which stands in the names of myself, my noble friend Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. The effect of this amendment, if it were to be graciously accepted by the Government and incorporated in the Bill, would be to abolish detention centres. The amendment has been moved upon the basis that to allow it would be a logical progression in the philosophy of Part I of the Bill, and also that it would be consistent with the development of progressive thought on this matter over the last decade.
As many Members of the Committee will know, as early as 1974 the Advisory Council on the Penal System recommended that the three systems of imprisonment, borstal and detention centre should be merged into one youth custody scheme. That report spelt out very succinctly its reasons. They were as follows:
" The general concept of constructive training pioneered by the borstal system has indeed won such wide acceptance that it is largely applied not only in borstals but throughout the young prisoner centres and detention centres as well. The result is that the supposed distinctions, which were once real and significant, between prisons, borstals and detention centres as establishments offering alternative ways of dealing with young adult offenders in custody, have now become blurred and indeed misleading ".
That argument was accepted by the last Labour Government in their Green Paper of 1978 entitled,Youth custody and supervision—a new sentence.
The present Government, when they took office, very soon thereafter published their White Paper of 1980, Young Offenders. But although accepting that there was an unanswerable case for the fusion for young offenders of the system of imprisonment and borstal, they jibbed at the inclusion of detention centres.
In the submission of those of us on these Benches, there are very strong and overwhelming reasons for accepting this amendment. I think that the reasons can be summarised as follows. If fusion is brought about, it will inevitably create a more flexible system than ever existed before. It will enable the problems of overcrowding to be tackled on the one hand and, on the other, the conditions of under-utilisation also to be dealt with. The effect upon the individual offender more often than not would be that that offender can be placed in an institution much nearer home than is the case at the present moment. I am sure that every Member of this Committee will agree that that is an extremely important factor. It means that the close contact which is so necessary and so desirable between the young person, his family, his friends, probation officers and social workers, which very often is now threatened by long expensive journeys, would, in the alternative, be maintained.
Even though efforts are now often made by probation officers to see young people before the end of their term in borstal, very often in practice this is not possible. In my submission, this factor is something that can have a very considerable influence indeed upon the situation in relation to detention centres, which reflects a failure in the context of so many young people. As the Committee is well aware, 76 per cent. of all young people who go to detention centres are reconvicted within the period of two years.
The Advisory Committee on the Penal System in its 1974 publication stressed the following:
" It should be an object of policy so to reorganise the pattern of location of establishments and the allocation of young adult offenders to them that periods in custody will normally be spent in establishments situated nearer to their home areas ".
As, I trust, a realist, I have no doubt that the Government will set their face against this amendment and will say, indeed, that there is really no justification for it. It seems to me that the Government are committed to take that view because of the paramount significance that they attach to the maintenance of detention centres. They conceive of them as being places not only of training but basically punitive institutions where the short sharp lesson is to be learnt. May I say, with great respect to those who hold those views, that although there has been research the world over during the last 20 years into various types of youth custody and, indeed, in many countries into the phenomenon of the short, sharp sentence, there is no hard evidence from any part of the world to suggest that it is more successful than a more ameliorative system. Indeed, in 1980, when the experiments at Send and New Hall were commenced, the Government made it clear that those were only in the nature of experiments and promised that data would be published as soon as possible.
My calculation—and I stand to be corrected on this—is that by now a total of some 1,200 young people or so will have passed through those two institutions. By now the Government must surely have a fair idea whether those figures show a marked improvement upon the old system. If there has been a marked improvement, then no doubt it is the duty of each and every one of us to reconsider the position in the light of such data. If, on the other hand, there is no such data to support that contention, clearly,
934
in my submission, there is a duty upon the Government to reconsider their whole position in the context of detention centres. If it be the case that there is nothing to suggest that the short sharp sentence is any more successful in 1982 than it was in the 1950s and 1960s—and there are ample data to show that there was no earthly justification for it in terms of success in that period—then most certainly there should be the most radical rethinking on the part of the Government.
The Government have, it seems, wavered on this matter before. In 1970, when they came into office, they accepted for a short period the report of the advisory committee in 1970 on detention centres. It may have had something to do with the fact that a Minister of State at the Home Office then was Mr. Mark Carlisle, a Member of another place, who himself had been a member of that particular sub-committee. It is therefore in that light and against that background that this amendment is moved as an urgent plea for the Government to justify the experiment that has now been running since April 1980; and, if they are not able to justify that experiment, to say that they are still willing to reconsider the situation fundamentally. 1 beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I briefly support the opening speaker here. He has raised two points, one pro and one against. The pro point is the increased flexibility which the Home Office and the prison department very much require. To have one youth service covering the whole gamut of youth offending would give them a flexibility which would make it easier for them to send people to detention near home.
The second, and negative, point is that the detention centre, as opposed to borstal, is punishment without any particular effort at rehabilitation. Rehabilitation has very much gone out nowadays. We none of us think that borstal was doing much good, and there is no plea for it to be retained; but there is no doubt that the staff working in these institutions are very unhappy indeed if no room is left for rehabilitation as one of the things they can do—and the short, sharp shock more or less excludes the direct rehabilitation. There is a pious hope that there will be indirect rehabilitation, which many of us doubt. The figures do not show it, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, in asking for some justification for not doing this. It obviously is not a matter of life and death, but a matter of organisation which would be improved by this amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like briefly to intervene. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, drew our attention to the possibility of a youth custody scheme. It seems to me from what he and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, have said, that it would be at the direction not of the courts but of the Home Office as to where any of the juveniles—that is the under-21s we are still talking about—should go. If the direction of their destination should be left in the care of what we must call civil servants instead of the magistracy, instead of the law, then I am sure that that would be wrong.
The noble Lord mentioned Send detention centre,

935
where I was a short time ago. Indeed, I was on the telephone to them this morning. I, for one, was impressed by the way young people were—and I use the word carefully—treated. They were 15s to 17s. The centre was not full. The youths were obviously not rehabilitated because, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, says, there was not the time available. The sentence in the future will be, as I understand it, from 21 days to four months. But there will be remission on any sentence. Therefore, a young person could remain in a detention centre for as short a time as one week, which means that no rehabilitation is possible.
On the other hand, when I was there I was told that it is apparent that these young people are taught something. They are taught a bit of discipline. They are taught, perhaps for the first time in their lives, occasionally to do what they are told. It is an important remedial way of treating some of these offenders. I asked the warden what were the categories of offence that came to him and were there at this time. They were for burglary, several cases of TADA, several cases of GBH and robbery. I asked, "Robbery with violence on the street, being mugging?" He said, no, because they are a county and they do not take in those from London; therefore, they do not have many of those. But that if there were those cases they would surely end up there. With this package deal that we are being asked to approve in Part I of this Bill, I feel that the detention centres certainly—not the borstals—have an important part to play.
Lord Wigoder: I intervene to make only one observation from the standpoint of someone who believes that the short, sharp shock is probably slightly preferable, to the long, sharp shock, but otherwise has very little to support it. I dislike talking in generalised terms, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would give us some simple figures that the Home Office must have by this time. First of all a simple question: how many young offenders underwent that treatment in the first 12 months since April 1980? The figure must be available. Secondly—and it may not be conclusive; we can argue about the significance of it—how many of those people were reconvicted in the 12 months after their release?
4.27 pm..
Lord Elton: May I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on board this Bill, which I think is going to voyage for some considerable time, and compliment him on the obvious conviction and considerable eloquence with which he argued his case. May I start from the standpoint of the common man, which is the one 1 think I am best fitted to occupy. It generally is the case in human experience that the first experience of any strict or unaccustomed régime has the greatest impact. I remember with pangs of unhappiness my first day at boarding school,
I remember with almost sharper pangs being woken at three o'clock in the morning at the Castlemartin camp—into which I had the day before been conscripted to howls of derision from the rest of those conscripted because I had a mackintosh and they had not—in the grey light of dawn at the sound of the
936
furniture being broken up by my fellow conscripts to light the fire. All this was a new world and it was something which it took me time to adjust to. It was in the first weeks of that experience that I found myself most affected by this new experience. Thereafter, being a young person I adapted rather quicker, I dare say, than I would now. Therefore, I think that there is, from the commonsense point of view, a supposition that the first part of any sentence is going to have the greatest effect upon the people who experience it.
That means that the provision for the sentence needs to be different from the traditional form of sentence, because for a start there will be no time for an elaborately structured training programme; but that does not mean that there will be no progress made with the inhabitants, with the young person detained. I recently visited Haslar, which is one of the detention centres running the new régime. I was greatly impressed by the way in which the education resources there were used for diagnostic and helping activities with the young people.
I would go along with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, if I could not persuade your Lordships further down the road which the Government wish to travel, or nearer to the dotted white line in the middle of it, that is, that we are all agreed that the necessity of locking people up is unfortunate. Most of us are in considerable doubt as to whether there is a rehabilitative effect when we do so and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan quoted reconviction which must prove damaging to the thesis that people should be in prison detained for longer because of its rehabilitative effect.
If detention, or custodial treatment of any kind, is not to be beneficial to the subject and is not to achieve what it sets out to achieve, then presumably the shorter the time occupied by it, and the smaller the resources devoted to it, the better. But that is an argument from weakness which I would not want to pursue very far. Under the provisions in the Bill the detention centre order will on the whole be used for those who are fit and have little or no experience of custody, and it seems right that they should be held in separate establishments, apart from those more serious offenders who have received longer sentences, and let us remember that the detention order is intended to be the first experience of that sort.
We also intend to retain the distinction between junior and senior detention centres so that juveniles are, wherever possible, held separately from older offenders. Under generic sentence, such as the noble Lord suggests, although there would be flexibility, there would not be the advantages that we expect from allowing courts to send offenders to places appropriate to their age and character. As I say, in some detention centres there will be a new régime. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that altogether about 5,000 have been through the tougher régime, but I regret to tell him that we do not as yet have reconviction figures, that there is a monitoring exercise actually in progress, but that it is required for statistical reliability to run for two years and therefore, as I said on Second Reading, those figures will be available at the end of this year.
The amendmendment would, as I say, combine

937
all custodial sentences for young people in one indistinct whole and remove from courts the ability to choose the destination of the people they sentence. I would remind your Lordships that it is necessary to obtain the confidence of the courts in any system we run, and that it is an important aspect of it. The Children and Young Persons' Act 1969 contains within it provision to abolish the sentence for juveniles, and the future of the system, and more particularly the future of the people who work in the system, has therefore been in doubt for no less than a decade. It seems to me proper that that doubt should be put at an end for the sake of the people who operate the system.
The only other matter I would draw to your Lordships' attention is that this is a determinate sentence, whereas the borstal sentence is indeterminate, and here again we touch on the confidence of the courts in the system as they wish to decide what is to happen to the young people who come before them. That is our position. It does not accord with that of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. Indeed, his position appears to be hostile to the whole philosophy to a major part of the Bill for which the Government seek to obtain your Lordships' approval.
Lord Wigoder: Leaving aside the question of statistical reliability, which is a matter each of us can make up our own minds about, my Lords, may I ask the Minister if the Home Office have the simple figures (we can argue about their significance later) first, for the number of people who went through the detention centres, where there is the short, sharp shock, from April 1980 to April 1981? They must have those figures. Secondly, do they have those figures, down to April 1982, of how many of those people have been reconvicted? Let us argue about the significance later. It is idle to pretend that, because of the question of statistical reliability, the Home Office are not able to give those figures to the House and apparently will not be able to do so until consideration of the Bill is over.
Lord Elton: I had no intention of using an excuse to conceal from the House knowledge which the department already had. What I wished to explain was that the actual evaluation would not be sufficiently reliable as an exercise as a whole for us to put before your Lordships until it had run for two years, and it then needs to be processed. As to the figures, the only figures I can get now is the round figure of 5,000 who have been through already. I take the noble Lord's question and I see its relevance. It appears not be possible to produce them at this stage. I assure him that I shall get them as soon as may be possible and convey them to him and other of your Lordships who may be interested by the most appropriate and expeditious means, but I cannot put my finger on them at the moment.
That is not very satisfactory, but it is the best I can do. The fact remains that our general philosophy believes that the most effective part of a sentence is the beginning, that unless it is to be a very long programme of rehabilitation, tailored to the individual, the shorter it is the better, not only in terms of resources but also in terms of the individual offender, and of
938
course by reducing the length of the attendance, that means less use of resources which are scarce and better conditions for other people in the system, and that is something we want as well.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his customary graciousness, has indicated that the answer he has just given is not very satisfactory, and with that most of us would agree. He is arguing today that it is desirable to maintain detention centres in a separate existence, and that is an arguable proposition about which a valid argument could no doubt be made on both sides. He was then pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to say what had happened in relation to the short, sharp shock sentence, and he has been unable to give any clear indication about that except to say that he will correspond with Lord Wigoder and others at some later stage to tell them what the results have been of the analysis. Being well used to debates in this House, the Minister will recognise that that is not a very satisfactory position.
Lord Elton: What I would imagine might happen would be that we should be able to raise the issue at a later stage so that all your Lordships could partake of the knowledge. I do not wish to hold cards close to my chest. I cannot display them until I myself see what is on the face of them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am delighted to be reassured on that and let us hope that on Report we shall be able to have that information. I would remind the Minister that no serious argument was ever made for the introduction of the sentence in the first instance; there was no serious criminolgical or social research which ever justified it. It was an ill-considered phrase in a weekend speech, and that is the basis of the short, sharp shock. I suggest that we are entitled to have an early answer as to what is the result of the research that has taken place. I hope it is being carried out by the Home Office Research Unit, which has a substantial reputation. The Minister has indicated that we shall have the information, and I hope that every effort will be made to make sure that we have it by Report, when we shall be able to return to the matter and see what the result of the study has been.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I might elaborate a little. I shall certainly be able to produce the reception figures to 1981. The reconviction figures are not so easy to come by, because each individual case has to be tracked down. I shall certainly see that every best effort is made. I have no wish to conceal things from your Lordships. What I cannot produce is what we have not got, but we shall do our very best to get everything that your Lordships may wish, and the proper time, I accept, to do that is at the next stage of the Bill, rather than by correspondence.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether he would agree that the boy who has been in detention has to have had re-offended before we can get any figures at all?
Lord Elton: I am very sorry, but my attention was wandering to the previous point when my noble friend

939
asked her question with such admirable brevity that I was not able to pick it up.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Is it not correct—and the detention centre short, sharp shock treatment started in April 1981—that the person who has left the detention centre has to re-offend before one can get any figures?
Lord Elton: Indeed, yes, that is so, and therefore, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, would say, there would be some limitation on the use of all of this. What the noble Lord wants is some indication of where we are going, and I think that that is a perfectly acceptable desire.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: Since the statistics give the reconviction figures for detention centres as a whole, it would surely not be necessary to track out every individual, but to have a breakdown according to the different types of detention centre—those which practise the short, sharp shock, and those which are less short, less sharp and less shocking.
Lord Elton: In fact, at the moment, the normal method is not to conduct research until two years after conviction. That is why at this stage I am being so very hesitant in making an unwise commitment to more than I can deliver. The normal screening is after two years, to see how many reconvictions there have been. Therefore, there is not a running programme out of which we can just pick the figures as the noble Baroness suggested we should. The latest figures given in prison statistics are for those released until 1977, I understand.
Baroness Faithfull: I wonder whether it would help my noble friend the Minister if I were to say that I understand that the short, sharp shock was based on experience at Glenochill Detention Centre in Scotland. Glenochill Detention Centre has had the short, sharp shock for some considerable time. Would it help the Committee and the Minister if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who is present, were able to obtain the figures from Glenochill Detention Centre, on which I understand the English detention centres were based?
Lord Melchett: I should like to make a point to the noble Lord before he replies to that question. The two detention centres that have been referred to are not simply part of the generality of criminal statistics; they were set up as experimental programmes. If I may say so to the noble Lord, it is not good enough to come to the Chamber and say, "Well, the criminal statistics are collected two years later and I won't be able to tell you anything until then". In the normal course of events, if governments really want to know what is happening—and I suggest to the noble Lord that there must be some doubt about that—the experimental programmes are monitored as they go along. Each individual young person who has been through the short, sharp shock will be followed very carefully to see what happens to him. It ought to have been possible for the noble Lord to give us
940
some information today, and certainly to give some information before the Report stage, so that we can consider it before we debate a similar amendment at that stage.
Lord Elton: As I say, the experiment is designed on a statistical basis, with a two-year base. We have not reached the end of it. As to an "ill-considered phrase in a weekend speech", that really is not the basis of policy. It was, rather, a well-considered and apt phrase, describing the policy. I would point out that we are talking about only two places. We are not talking about every detention centre being full of people who are there for only a week or a fortnight. I really cannot tell the Committee more than I have told it. I am certain in my bones that, in the difficult position in which we are, this is the better way to proceed, that we ought not to continue as we now are, and that we should not leave the question mark hanging over the people at present working in the detention centres. To the best of my ability I shall put before your Lordships further information at the Report stage.
I would say that the actual number of reconvictions is not the only aspect of the experiment which is being carefully monitored, and I have every reason to believe that what we see is reassuring. But I would remind the Committee, as it has been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who started this hare running, that in fact, even if it is only the same product as what we already have, it means that people will be detained for shorter periods, at less expense and less inconvenience. That, as I say, is an argument for weakness, and I hold it only in reserve.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: I wonder whether it would ease the noble Lord's problem if he were to finish the quotation, which runs:
" A short, sharp shock
On a cheap and chippy chopper
With a cheap and chippy chopper
On a big, black block ".
Then the noble Lord would not need any follow-up.
Lord Mishcon: There may in fact be an argument, a philosophical argument, a practical argument, a statistical argument, in regard to the short, sharp shock in the detention centre. But the one thing that, so far as I am aware, the noble Lord the Minister has not dealt with is the very real advantage that will be apparent to the whole Committee, and which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan—that is, the greater flexibility. About one thing there is no doubt at all—that is, that overcrowding of our institutions is an absolute disgrace. That applies in respect of the youngster as much as everybody else. There is also the point that greater flexibility obviously would allow of non-overcrowding, if I may put it that way, because of the variety of institutions that are available if there is a single youth sentence.
The other point concerns the greater ability to send the youngster to somewhere which is near his home. The great advantage of a family being able to visit is one of which the Committee must be very conscious. The terrific hardship following the short, sharp shock that there might be to the family of a young man or a young girl in a detention centre is

941
somewhat relieved by the ability to visit, and is made all the worse by a complete inability to visit owing to the distance away from the family home of the detention centre in question.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Before the Minister replies to that, I wonder whether he can also enlighten us. If the régime has the benefits that he has indicated, why are girls deprived of the privilege of undergoing the short, sharp shock as much as boys?
Lord Elton: I suppose the disadvantages of mixing young offenders with adult offenders which would result from the larger sentence that the noble Lord was after apply even more when one mixes male young offenders with female young offenders. As to the question of nearness to home, of course I accept that it is a good thing when a prisoner can be visited and is close to home. As a matter of policy, we always put young offenders, as others, as near to home as is possible. However, there are other considerations. It is better to have him in provision that is suitable to him a little further away, and we are dealing with short sentences, when of course visiting is of rather less importance.
Baroness Bacon: Does not the noble Lord recall that we did have detention centres for girls and that it was because they were so unsatisfactory that we decided to close them and not send any more girls to detention centres?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: May I go back to the point on which the noble Lord was so helpful a few moments ago? As I understand the assurance that he has given the Committee, it is that before the Report stage, or at the Report stage, he will bring to the House all the information that is available about the trial régime at the particular detention centres. As I understand his argument, he goes further than that. He said that it is not just a question of the statistics involved. Referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, had said, he went on to say that it is not just a question of statistics; there are other matters of an unspecified character with which he will be able to assist your Lordships when we reach the Report stage.
I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. First—to repeat the question which, no doubt inadvertently, he was unable to deal with earlier—is the statistical analysis being carried out? Who is carrying it out? Is it being done by the Home Office esearch Unit, or by somebody else? Secondly, in terms of the qualitative judgments which, as I understand it, he indicated are being made, who is making them? Is that being done by the Home Office Research Unit, or is it being done by somebody else?
I think these are important matters; and, as the Minister will be aware, he is in fact endeavouring to persuade the Committee that it is necessary to retain detention centres. Being a person well versed in debates in your Lordships' House, he will realise that the onus is upon him, given the character of the debate we are now having, to demonstrate that there are satisfactory answers to these questions. Speaking for myself, if he indicates that what I have said broadly speaking represents the assurances he has given the Committee, then I think a number of us will
942
be content, certainly until the Report stage, when we hope we will get a detailed statement by the noble Lord on these questions.
Lord Elton: If I may revert first to the question of girls, I would remind your Lordships that there was in fact, and has only ever been, just one detention centre for girls. Moor Court, in Staffordshire, was opened in 1962. It served only the northern part of the country, and had an average daily population of about 24 girls. It was closed in 1969 on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Penal System; and a study of girls sent there and to borstal showed that, apart from the number of previous convictions, there was little difference between the sort of girl sentenced to the detention centre and the sort of girl sentenced to borstal training.
The advisory council concluded that short-term custodial training was in principle unsuitable for girls, and that girls of the kind who were sent to the detention centre would be better dealt with non-custodially or given the longer period of treatment that borstal training provides. The advisory council considered that the needs of delinquent boys and delinquent girls were so dissimilar—and this is the point—that there was no reason why the disposals open to the courts should be the same for both sexes.
The evaluation of the short, sharp shock is being done by the Home Office statisticians and psychologists. There are also two distinguished independent academics who sit on the steering committee. The department and my colleagues get our advice from as wide an area as possible. I think that your Lordships have possibly debated this issue for a length of time which suggests that we should not go on, but, of course, that is in the hands of the Committee.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has made the admirable point that it is the first few days, if not indeed the first few hours, of a custodial sentence that have the greatest impact upon the offender. I am sure that no one would seek to contend to the contrary; but, with great respect, it does not seem to me that that answers the argument. That of course will be the case whether you sentence a person to seven days' or to seven years' custody. It does not deal with the question of what the appropriate length of sentence should be in any particular case. In any event, in so far as the category that we are dealing with here is concerned, there is the range of from 28 days to 4 months less remission already catered for.
Of course, it may be that a tough régime can show the most beneficial results, and that is really what the argument has been about on this amendment. But, basically, there is nothing to show that the imposition of toughness on top of the deprivation of liberty has in itself anything to commend it. As I am sure the Minister will recollect, the Advisory Council on the Penal System, in its report in 1970, made this point and recommended,
" that the function of detention in a detention centre should he regarded as fulfilled by the deprivation of an offender's liberty ".
That in no way militates against the principle of the greatest impact taking place inside the first few days.

943
That impact may be a more beneficial impact on account of deprivation of liberty than on account of anything else punitively grafted on top of that particular restriction.
The matter that worries me most in this connection is the dogmatism of the Minister. He has accused me of dogmatism, but my own attitude is that, although one has certain preconceived ideas in this matter, for my own part—and I am sure that I speak for my noble and learned friend and for my noble friends behind me in this matter—I am prepared to reconsider the situation if there be some spectacular, massive truth that stems from the data that is eventually to be published. But it does not seem to me that the Minister is willing to be regulated in the same way.
The Minister accepts that here was an experiment set up by the Home Office; here was the Home Office setting up a machinery for the collection of data; but as far as the Minister is concerned, not having been supplied with one item of that data, he is still totally certain as to the eventual result. Is the Minister prepared to tell the Committee that, although he has his own views about the matter, nevertheless, as a Minister in the Home Office, he is prepared to look at this data upon its merits when it is eventually available?
I join with those noble Lords who have asked for the maximum data to be released at a significant time in the passage of this Bill; namely, at such time as would allow your Lordships to act upon it. If it be that in practice it would not be possible even to give the reconviction figures for one year for all those who have passed through Send and through New Hall under the latest régime, surely it would be possible to take a sample of letters—say 500—and, on the basis of that sample, to make an intelligent calculation as to what, in total, the data would reveal? If the Minister is prepared to give that assurance, then most certainly I would not seek to press this amendment.
Lord Elton: It is difficult to be clearer in an undertaking than I hope I have already been. What I will seek to do is to obtain the largest appropriate and feasible sample. There are constraints upon recovering information about reconviction. I am not personally familiar with how long it takes to trace the subsequent career of a released detainee, but I will see the extent to which I can satisfy your Lordships with information and I will make available the whole of the information which I feel the Committee ought to have in this context.
I cannot be more specific than that because I do not know how you get the reconviction figure back. It is not a very easy process, because unless the person re-offends you do not know where he is. As my noble friend said, is that an indication that he has not been reconvicted, or is it an indication that we have not looked in the right place for him? But I shall be advised about this, and I hope to be able to assure your Lordships as to the quality as well as the quantity of the information I give, and your Lordships will be able to judge it on that.
But I would just come back to this point. We are not embarking on this in the sort of slap-happy way that the noble Lord seems to suggest. It is the result of mature reflection, not of a word cast aside in a speech.
944
Even if we were wrong in our expectations and there was no change, there would be advantages both to the inmates and to the system, and therefore I think your Lordships, casting your minds over the other points that I made earlier, would be wise to welcome the noble Lord's decision not to press this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert (" because it appears to the court that he is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or because a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public or because the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified ").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 as well because the same points apply in those amendments. Having had this debate on detention centres, may I say that my central interest in this Bill is non-custodial care, and not custodial care. Clause 1 (4) of the Bill states:
" Where a person under 21 years of age is convicted or found guilty of an offence, the court may not—

(a) make a detention centre order in respect of him;

(b) pass a youth custody sentence on him; or

(c) pass a sentence of custody for life on him,

unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate ".
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will feel or say, or feel and say, that that is adequate. My contention, with my amendment, is that it is not adequate. This is because I think we should put into the Bill the words,
" because it appears to the court that he is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or because a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public or because the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified ".
My noble friend may say that this could go into regulations and that it is not for the Bill, but I would point out two things. First, the Children and Young Persons Act was passed in 1969 and in that Act non-custodial treatment in the form of intermediate treatment was recommended. However, although it was in the Bill, it was not clearly spelt out, there was no formula laid down, and, as a consequence, here in 1982, the Bill having been passed in 1969, we have not got overall satisfactory intermediate treatment throughout the country. Therefore, it seems we should have a formula as to exactly what it is that the court should do before it makes a custodial order. That is the reason for moving this amendment.
I believe that, if this amendment were to be accepted by my noble friend the Minister, there would be a shift from custodial to non-custodial care. I would say this. Of course we all agree that there are certain of the difficult young people that we deal with who need and must have, for the protection of the public and for the protection of themselves, custodial care; but, down the years since 1969, the number of juveniles sent to borstals and detention centres rose from about 3,000 in 1970 to 7,500 in 1980 and, correspondingly, supervision orders dropped considerably from 1970. If a formula had been laid down concerning intermediate treatment and if it had been law, I maintain that we should not have lost all those years from 1969 to 1982.
Surely, we want to reduce the level of custodial care. I think it has been said in many other debates that we have the highest number of children and young persons in custodial care in the EEC. I think that I have already mentioned that a German criminologist told me that the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act was a good Act badly administered. I believe it was badly administered because we have not got a proper formula. A Danish criminologist rang me recently to say that he thought it was an extraordinary thing that in this country we had so many children in custodial care. This formula which I suggest we should put forward would be a help to the magistrates, but not only to them; it would help the social workers as well. It is not always either social workers or magistrates who have embarked on so many custodial sentences: I would suggest that it is both and that both need to have the same formula.
Another point is that we need an overall policy in the country. The policy from bench to bench is uneven and this is shown by a piece of research that was carried out by the National Children's Bureau, which showed how different was the sentencing on the part of different courts throughout the country. I wonder whether with the shorter sentences we may find that more, not less, children get sent to custodial care. This, I think, is worrying. In the last debate, on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, a great deal of discussion took place over monitoring and over general principles. I would suggest that, if we were to monitor what happens over non-custodial care, if cases were to come to the Court of Appeal and were to be analysed, perhaps we might then get at what should be done and what is our policy and where we are going; but I fear that, by the time that happens, we shall not have built up a policy and, although this wording may be, for an Act, somewhat heavy, nevertheless I believe it would be aguideline, a formula, for the courts, and for both the social workers and the probation officers. Also, it will be the same the country aver. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: I am happy to rise to support the amendment moved in the name of the noble Baroness. I know that she will not mind if 1 remind her that this amendment arose from one of the recommendations in the report by the all-party penal affairs group entitled, The Young Offender: A Strategy for the Future, in which we strongly recommended that the precise circumstances for a court decision to incarcerate a young offender should be spelt out in the statute. It may be felt by some that to give three specific conditions or reasons to help the courts in interpreting the word "appropriate" is an undue interference with the discretion of the courts; but as the noble Baroness has made clear—and I should like to make this point again—that word "appropriate" is wide open to a diversity of interpretation by magistrates' courts up and down the land.
I see this amendment, as, I think, do my colleagues as one step towards reducing the lack of consistency in sentencing policy by the courts and, therefore, reducing the degree of inequity to young offenders who are sentenced by the courts. Both points seem very important indeed.
946
The noble Baroness has said that her concern—and it is the concern of all in the all-party penal affairs group—is to reduce the number of young people put away into custodial situations by the courts. The fact is that the numbers who have been put away have risen astronomically during the last decade and far outstrip the undoubtedly rapid rise in crime—and all this without a corresponding effect in deterring young people from committing offences.
On all these grounds, we feel that it is extremely important to spell this out in the statute so that the courts and, as the noble Baroness has said, the social workers can be adequately guided and not left in considerable doubt on the basis of that euphemistic word "appropriate".
Lord Avebury: I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and to underline one of the things that has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the preparedness of the courts to incarcerate children since the passing of the Children and Young Persons Act which, as the noble Baroness told us, was thought to be going to be a means of reducing the number of children in custody when in fact the reverse has happened and there has been a very sharp increase indeed over the last 12 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reinforced this point by saying that not only has the number of children in custody increased but the proportion of children coming before the courts and being given custodial sentences has also risen over this period. It may be of interest to say that the proportion of boys aged between 14 and 16 convicted of indictable offences who received custodial sentences rose from 6 per cent. in 1970 to 12 per cent. in 1980, while the number receiving supervision orders fell from 22 per cent. to 16 per cent. This emphasises the point which was made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—that we have not been at all successful since the Children and Young Persons Act was passed and it has not meant that we were less prepared to lock up young people than we were prior to that Act coming into force.
I should like to refer to the undertakings given by Ministers in another place that the criteria along the lines of these amendments, if not identical with them, would contain any guidance that was given by the Court of Appeal on the use of the sentencing powers in the Bill after the Bill comes into effect. Surely if that is so and if the Court of Appeal would give the sort of guidance that we have in this amendment, it would be better put into the statute itself. Why wait until after the Bill comes into effect and until the Court of Appeal has got around to doing what the Government say it is going to do anyway? Is it not really the job of Parliament to say what they think legislation means, rather than to leave it to the courts to deal with as best they can afterwards?
I must say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the word "appropriate". It is so nebulous and vague that the Court of Appeal in theory could develop guidelines along a totally different path from that which has been set down by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. If this is what Parliament wants, let us put it into the Act now and let us not

947
leave the tidying up to be done by the Court of Appeal after the Bill comes into effect.
Baroness Birk: I should like very strongly to support this amendment from these Benches. I would entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that most of our interest is in seeing how very much more we could do in the way of non-custodial methods of dealing with crime rather than the custodial methods. I think it is perfectly true that there is tremendous danger in what is in fact a good measure of reducing the minimum period at a detention centre from three months to three weeks. I can say without any doubt that many benches will use this as a sentence in preference to a non-custodial. They will do it from the best of motives and with the best will in the world, but it will be a custodial sentence rather than a non-custodial sentence. If the Minister feels, as he may, that this is covered quite sufficiently in the Bill—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the word "appropriate"—I would put it to him with great respect that this really is not so. We have seen in so many other pieces of legislation—not necessarily criminal legislation but others also—that these things have been left open and not spelt out in detail, and it has caused a great deal of confusion and difficulty.
In this case it is particularly important because, as the noble Baroness pointed out, one of the important things is that there should be uniformity. It is wrong that one should leave too much flexibility. Obviously, there must be flexibility in looking at individual cases; but not too much flexibility, not just between one bench and another but between different compositions of benches within the same court area and another, which is in fact what happens. If this is spelt out in this way it would concentrate the minds of magistrates, and I think they would be grateful for these guidelines which are in the legislation. We have seen that, although those are in the guidelines, until something was spelt out on the criteria for bail—and this is rather different; it should be in the major, primary legislation—it was extremely difficult because one got such different approaches. We found exactly the same problem when we were debating legal aid: it was difficult to find a consensus of what the criteria should be. Here is being spelt out, in what I think is a quite admirable way in order to remove doubt, what should be the criteria for giving a custodial sentence rather than a non-custodial one.
It has been pointed out that there has been an increase in juvenile crime, but that increase is not proportionate to the rise of those who are sent to penal establishments. If we wanted any further evidence of the failure of the custodial method of sentence, we have only to look at the reconviction figures of young offenders: those leaving prisons, 68 per cent.; those leaving borstal, 69 per cent. But when we come to detention centres the reconviction figures are quite horrific; 76 per cent. of those leaving detention centres and 83 per cent. of those leaving borstals are reconvicted within two years.
Finally, I think we should also be keeping our eye on the economics of the situation and the question of value for money. There can be no question that non-custodial methods need only a fraction of the resources that custodial methods need, and I hope
948
that the Minister will accept these amendments. They have the support not only of those of us on this side of the House but of other noble Lords as well.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like very briefly to support my noble friend Lady Faithfull, for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who, as a very experienced magistrate, has put the side of the magistracy. I also agree with the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I think that uniformity would be brought about by these words being put into the Bill and I warmly support the amendments.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I support what the noble Baroness Lady Birk, was saying from the practical experience point of view, because I think these words:
" No other method of dealing with them is appropriate"
are imported—are they not?—from the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. All experience of those words in court has been this. What happens in magistrates' courts very often is that the clerk, after the magistrate has sentenced the person to imprisonment of some kind, looks up and simply says: "No other method appropriate"? The magistrate nods and then that is entered on the record. It becomes a pure formality. Exactly the same thing has happened with not sentencing first offenders to prison. Again you have to state your reasons and once again off goes the person to prison and the clerk says: "Seriousness of offence?", and the magistrate nods, and down goes "seriousness of offence". It becomes a formality.
I am personally a little ambivalent about what my noble friend Lord Avebury was saying about putting criteria into a statute rather than leaving the matter to the Court of Appeal. I am not so sure that I entirely agree with him about that. The trouble is, can one guarantee that the Lord Chief Justice—one almost can with the present Lord Chief Justice, if I may say so—will in fact lay down the criteria? He has laid down the criteria recently in the case of Clark for partially suspended sentences. He has done the same thing in the cases of Bibi and Upton in the most admirable way.
It is much easier for courts to follow guidelines which come down from the Court of Appeal than to try to wrestle with words in a statute and try to interpret what they really mean. If there was some guarantee that the Lord Chief Justice would lay down the guidelines, if these words were not included and the amendment was not accepted, that might be a better method of proceeding. But I see difficulties in guaranteeing that situation.
The Earl of Onslow: I also should like to support this amendment, mainly on the grounds which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned. It seems to me that if you have a reconviction rate of 82 or 83 per cent. in two years of people who have been sent to borstal, then borstal has been shown to be almost a total failure. Of course, I concede that there are people who must be kept inside simply for the protection of the public. But, surely, the fewer people there are in prison or in borstal, the more the care that

949
can be taken to do the essential part of borstal training, which is to train, re-educate and civilise. If the more people we can keep out, the more accurate and generous the treatment within borstals can be, it may consequently be that the reconviction rate will be reduced from 82 to 81 per cent.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Melchett: This seems to me to be a fundamentally important amendment and it is worth just reminding your Lordships of the background against which we are discussing it. As has already been said, over the last few years, whether there has been a significant increase in juvenile offending or not, the proportion of young offenders being sent to institutions has increased substantially. The percentage of young people coming before the courts and being sent to institutions has increased, at the same time as our knowledge about the ill effects of being sent to institutions has grown, as my noble friend Lady Birk said, with the enormously high proportion that are reconvicted within two years. In effect, what a sentence to an institution of that sort means for a young person is that his chances of not being reconvicted within the next two years are almost negligible.
The Government have introduced a major Bill dealing with criminal justice against that background, and also against the background of mounting concern about the numbers of young people and adults whom this country sees fit to lock up in institutions. On any international scale, we are one of the countries that locks up more people—young people and adults—than others. There is no doubt that most of the professional organisations and experts who have looked at the Government's legislation have come to the view that it is likely to worsen the situation rather than improve it. It is likely to lead to even more young people being sent to institutions, albeit possibly for a shorter period, than the reverse. This amendment seems to me to be the one chance that Parliament has of putting that matter right. That is why I think it is so important.
If I may make just one other point in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said about the possibility of the Court of Appeal using these words in a judgment, or in advice to the courts on sentencing policy, I think that that would be very much a second best. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it would be completely unsatisfactory, in comparison with having the words in a statute, unless the Government were able to reassure me that all courts would have to give their reasons in writing, in the light of the Court of Appeal's instructions, when they sentenced a young person to an institution. As I understand it, that would not be the case unless the words were incorporated in the Bill.
My second ground for concern is that a great deal of research has been done on sentencing practice, and I do not think there is very much doubt that judgments of the Court of Appeal, significant as they may be, particularly for the higher courts, very often have some difficulty in penetrating to magistrates' courts. This is no criticism of magistrates. The Court of Appeal makes a great many very worthy judgments and it would be unrealistic to expect all lay magistrates to be familiar
950
with all of them, even those which affect sentencing policy, of which there are now a great many. I really do not think that that is any adequate substitute for incorporating these words in the Bill, and we are left, as we so often are when arguing with Governments on matters of this kind, with trying to get the Government to say, if the Court of Appeal are prepared to say this, why they cannot put the words into the statute, which is what we ought to do.
Lord Elton: There is a remarkable unanimity about what we wish to achieve and I subscribe to it. We want to stop people from going improperly to custodial treatment, when they can be treated in the community. We are alert to, and share, the anxiety about the rising figures for custodial treatment, particularly of young people, and I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend Lady Faithfull—I almost forget what she looks like, because she will sit behind me—wishes to achieve and with the way in which she has advanced her cause. But it is not only the interests of the individual offender which demand that he should receive a custodial sentence only when no other method of dealing with him is appropriate. The appalling pressure, to which I have referred before, throughout the prison system advocates that as well. I say this to make absolutely clear both the Government's acceptance of the principle embodied in these amendments, and the spirit in which they have approached them. There is already in Clause 1 an unequivocal provision that no court shall pass a custodial sentence on a young offender unless no other method of dealing with him is appropriate, and the amendments themselves borrow words used in paragraph 3 of this Government's White Paper.
The principle, therefore, is not in dispute. What is at issue is whether these amendments would achieve the aim which we all appear to share. 1 appreciate that they differ from the amendments tabled in Committee in another place, which were discussed at great length, and which have been expanded in the light of the debate in another place to include a reference to the seriousness of the offence, as one of the matters which the court must take into account. Indeed, the amendments essentially turn on the need to protect the public and on the gravity of the offence. They leave it to the judgment of the courts to decide what type or length of sentence is demanded by the need to protect the public or by the seriousness of the offence. Therefore, the amendments would not prevent the courts from imposing custodial sentences where they thought them necessary.
One could argue on that ground that the statement of principle enbodied in these amendments cannot, therefore, be objectionable. But there is an equally important point which I ask the House to consider very carefully. It is that, for the same reasons, such a statement of principle is not likely to be effective. It directs the courts towards the principle that custodial sentences should be imposed only in respect of serious offences. Unless, however, there is any guidance as to what constitutes a serious offence, a provision on these lines is not likely to be of much help to the courts. They are left, again, with determining something which has not been quantified. The difficulty which we are up against is that legislation can seek

951
to provide only comprehensive, general principles. In matters of sentencing, there are very real limits to how far Parliament can have a practical effect on the day-to-day decisions made by the courts in an enormously wide range of individual cases.
The question, therefore, is how far can the principle, that a custodial sentence should be awarded only if unavoidable, be helpfully and effectively spelled out in legislation and how far should we look to the courts to provide the guidance? The Government have taken soundings on this, in the light of the discussion in another place. There is no disagreement about the importance of the principles underlying the amendments. They are, indeed, considerations which the courts should—and do—have in mind. But are principles at this level of generality a help to the courts? They have, after all, to cover a wide variety of specific facts and circumstances. It could be said that, at the least, statutory principles on these lines could do no harm. I would be cautious about that.
For example, there may well be circumstances where an offender has, through repeated but minor offending, shown himself "unable or unwilling" to respond to non-custodial penalties. It may nevertheless be right in particular cases to persevere with non-custodial sanctions. The courts need the flexibility to suit their response to the case before them. If it is said that the amendments would leave this open, that is surely to concede that their efficacy is doubtful.
As I say, we agree on the preferability of keeping people out of custody. The phrase must have a familiar ring to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Keeping people out is something in which he has a laudable interest. My noble friends and others have all spoken to this. My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that she had heard the Children and Young Persons' Act referred to as a good Act badly administered and she asked for a formula. All we are discussing is where the formula should come from. Before I address myself to that, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that Clause 1(7) requires magistrates' courts to give their reasons for imposing a custodial sentence. That is something to which I think he attaches importance.
Lord Melchett: No, that was not my point. So that I do not forget it and in order to allow the noble Lord to get more advice, what I want to know is this: if the Court of Appeal lays down guidelines, will the reasons given by the magistrates' court for imposing a custodial sentence have, in writing, to take into account those guidelines? In other words, will the reason which is given in writing have to say which of the various reasons from the Court of Appeal's guidelines they have taken into account? I understand that if we put these words into the statute, this will quite clearly be an obligation placed on the court.
Lord Elton: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I take his point exactly. It is something which I shall take into consideration. The noble Lord need not think that I am trying to fob him off. I want first to establish that in my view it is from the courts—indeed, from the Court of Appeal—that this kind of guidance should come. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, for his inter-
952
vention. I take the point that the track record of the Court of Appeal in relation to Upton, Bibi and so on is extremely convincing. I hope your Lordships will note that, as my honourable and learned friend the Minister of State indicated on Third Reading in another place, we can be confident that the Court of Appeal will doubtless take it upon themselves to provide guidelines in exactly the way noble Lords wish. I would refer the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others who feel that this kind of guidance ought to be on the face of the Bill not only to the actual detectable effect of the advice given in Upton and Bibi, which appears to be already becoming apparent, but also to the fact that where the court gives this guidance it will be able to do so with the authority of its own experience of sentencing and with the advantage that it will not require, as my noble friend's amendment would require, the passing of another statute through both Houses of Parliament if experience shows that the guidelines need to be either modified or expanded.
The argument that custody fails, on the evidence of reconviction rates, does not establish that cheaper community-based treatment will succeed. The courts will not therefore necessarily accept the view that a custodial disposal is better. The guidelines in that respect are admirable, but are they effective? They leave it to the courts to decide, as they do now, whether custody is necessary because of the seriousness of the offence. It would be far better to let the Court of Appeal spell out the considerations in detail. That method gives to the courts an element of flexibility which would be denied to them by legislation, because cases will arise from time to time when the statutory principles cause difficulty on particular facts.
There can be no doubt that we are all after the same thing. I am content that guidance of the kind wanted will be provided by the Court of Appeal with greater authority and with greater flexibility than can be provided in your Lordships' House by this means. I hope my noble friend will feel able to accept this reassurance as in fact achieving what she wants with more certainty than the amendment which is now on the Marshalled List.
.36 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: I speak as one who will not forget what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, looks like, even if she were sitting behind me on these Benches—as, indeed, I hope she will one day. I waited to intervene because I was not entirely sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was going to argue that this amendment is unnecessary or whether he was going to argue that it is inadequate. As I followed his argument, he is not saying that it is inadequate. He is not suggesting that there are other criteria, apart from those set out in the amendment, which the courts should consider in deciding whether to impose a custodial sentence. Therefore, the only basis for the difference of opinion that has emerged during the course of the debate is whether it is unnecessary or whether it serves a useful purpose to set out what appear to be commonly agreed criteria in the statute.
I can only say that for my part I should have thought that it would have helped not only magistrates but also recorders and judges to have the criteria set out in this simple and clear way and in a form which will make

953
them, at the end of their decision, have to say in terms on what basis they have imposed a custodial sentence. I accept that the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, have a point in saying that there may be a role for the Court of Appeal, but I doubt whether it is right for your Lordships to hand over the whole of the responsibility to the Court of Appeal in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, says, for example, that if we include the words "the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified" they may require further clarification. I respectfully agree with him. This is surely the area where the Court of Appeal should come in and say what is meant by a somewhat general term of that nature. However, on the issue as to whether or not it is unnecessary to include a clause of this nature defining the criteria, I should have thought there was a great deal to be gained for judges of all sorts and magistrates at all levels and nothing whatever to be lost.
Baroness Trumpington: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has just said. In a curious way, it is not flexibility that one wants. The fact of the matter is that there has been flexibility of different minds in different courts up to now. If we have too much flexibility, we shall be right back to the situation where those of us who have worked in different courts know full well the different decisions which different courts will come to on the same kind of case. Therefore I support what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said and agree very strongly that it is the guidelines which are necessary which should be set down, which still leaves room for the Court of Appeal to make additional moves, if they so wish.
Viscount Ullswater: My noble friend Lady Faithfull said at the beginning that she was speaking to the three amendments together. Clause 5 deals with imprisonment for default. It also says that no court can commit a person unless there is no other method of dealing with him which is appropriate. In default of a fine, somebody can receive a prison sentence but there is no way of providing that another form of alternative sentence is available. For instance, community service orders are not available to the originating court, because it would not be an imprisonable offence if only a fine could be imposed. I would like to clear up whether instead of being sent to prison for default of a fine, a community service order could be instituted.
Lord Elton: I take it that that question is addressed to the mover of the amendment. In any event, I think that we are focusing our attention on the essentials of this issue and it is simply a question of what will be more efficacious in doing what we all want. Some noble Lords say that it is best done in tablets of stone which can only be chiselled away by all the stages of another statute, and that the corners and the commas should be rounded and inserted by the Court of Appeal. I can only say that the guidance given by the Court of Appeal will be binding on the lower courts. I do not doubt that it will be extensive and specific, and not simply in the form of a check list which the lower courts can tick off, as has been suggested. The sentencing courts will have to take
954
into account the statutory requirements and the principles which the Court of Appeal lays down. The reasons for these will be recorded and will be open to appeal. I believe that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
I regret to be at issue with some of my noble friends as well as with noble Lords opposite. I am content to rest my case because I believe that it is the right way to proceed, and that I would be supported in this by the judiciary. I believe also that it gives an opportunity for law to evolve rather than go jerking about from one piece of legislation to another. I still hope that my noble friend Lady Faithfull will see fit not to pursue the matter further.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he say if he can conceive of any circumstances in which the Court of Appeal's guidance would conflict with the words proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for insertion in this Bill?
Lord Elton: I can well conceive a pattern of the guidance far wider than that which my noble friend proposes and some parts of which would not be in precise accord with what she says. I do not see any point in having unnecessary, overlapping grids of guidance when we have the expertise and experience of the Appeal Court of this land, which can be adjusted to meet circumstances as they change, rather than placing immutably on the statute book something smaller and bolder, and therefore rougher and readier.
The Earl of Onslow: If the Court of Appeal will have to lay down these guidelines at some future date, would it not be better to put them in the statute book now so that everybody knows what it says, and then we do not have to go to the Court of Appeal?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I should like to follow that by suggesting that is essentially a policy matter, on which Parliament is to give guidance. It is neither fair nor appropriate that we should simply "pass the buck" on to the judiciary. This is for Parliament to legislate on. I co not believe that the judiciary would be unhappy about being given guidelines such as these. I think that we ought to go forward and support these amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: I feel like a desembodied voice, standing behind my noble friend. Would my noble friend Lord Elton like to look at me? To the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I will say that I am committed to these Benches but I thank him for inviting me to the Liberal Benches. Could I first take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. Obviously he is very well versed in these matters, but perhaps I could say, with the utmost diffidence to magistrates, that not all magistrates know what goes on in the Court of Appeal.
Secondly, social workers and probation officers are the people who make recommendations and provide social inquiry reports to the courts. The courts have the final say but I believe that two magistrates in our House would possibly concede the point that they are influenced by what is said in the probation officers' and social workers' reports. I regret to say that they

955
also do not always know what the Court of Appeal has said. It is a question of the whole climate of opinion, and I am not all sure that we can even wait for these Court of Appeal judgments to be issued and worked upon.
My noble friend the Minister talks about the formula. I believe we must concede that a formula is necessary. My noble friend agrees that the formula is necessary but what he does not agree upon is where it should come. If he agrees that a formula is necessary, then why could it not be in the Bill? I hope that I remain to my noble friend the Minister a disembodied body because I am afraid I feel that I must divide the House on this issue.
5.46 p.m.
On question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 81.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kagan, L.

Auckland, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Avebury, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bacon, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Balogh, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Banks, L.

Listowel, E.

Barrington, V.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bishopston, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyton, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mar, C.

Brockway, L.

Melchett, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milverton, L.

Byers, L.

Molloy, L.

Cairns, E.

Mottistone, L.

Chitnis, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Onslow,E.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peart, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Plant, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rochester, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Shinwell, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Simon, V.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Spens, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stedman, B.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Foot, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Forester, L.

Stone, L.

Gardiner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gosford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Greenway, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Trumpington, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ullswater, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wade, L.

Ilchester, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ingleby, V.

Walston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

956

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Long, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Lyell, L.

Allerton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Avon, E.

Marley, L.

Bathurst, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bellwin, L.

Merrivale, L.

Beloff, L.

Mersey, V.

Bessborough, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Newall, L.

Cockfield, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Daventry, V.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

De La Warr, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Radnor, E.

Dormer, L.

Reigate, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Fortescue, E.

Selkirk, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sharples, B.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gowrie, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swansea, L.

Harvington, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hatherton, L.

Teynham, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Torphichen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Kilmany, L.

Westbury, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert (" because it appears to the court that he is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or because a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public or because the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 6, I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 6 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 7.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 18, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships may find it to the convenience of the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 6, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 176, and 180. I am pleased to bring forward these amendments to give effect to an undertaking which the Government gave during the passage of the Bill through another place. The Government were strongly pressed to provide that a court should always and invariably consider a social inquiry report before imposing a custodial sentence on a young offender.
May I in parenthesis address myself to a question which I think is exercising the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps the noble Lord, the Chairman of the Committee would allow me to say that Amendment No. 7 is consequential on Amendment No. 4, which has fallen, or, if you happen to look at it from the other side, stood up. Therefore, it does not relate to this debate. All I can do is to congratulate those with whom I disagree on their victory and look for their magnanimity.
Reverting to Amendment No. 6, I am glad to bring forward these amendments to give effect to an undertaking which the Government gave during the passage of the Bill through another place. The Government were strongly pressed to provide that a court should always and invariably consider a social inquiry report before imposing a custodial sentence on a young offender. That was difficult because there would sometimes be cases in which a rigid requirement of that kind would operate in a ridiculous way. Such a case might arise where, for example, the court after a long trial already had a great deal of information about the offender and his circumstances and the offence was so serious that a substantial custodial sentence was absolutely unavoidable. It would clearly be wrong if in such a case the court had to adjourn the case before sentence simply because its information did not happen to be in the form of a social inquiry report.
After long debate there was general agreement that a court should normally consider a social inquiry report before passing a custodial sentence on a young offender, but that it should be able to dispense with the requirement where, in the circumstances of the case, it thought such a report unnecessary. That is the provision which this new clause makes.
The Government have taken the opportunity with these amendments to offer a slight rearrangement of the opening clauses of the Bill. This new clause incorporates the provisions which now appear in subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 1. Clause 1 sets out the general principle that a court may not impose a custodial sentence on a young offender unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate. The new clause elaborates on that provision by providing that the court should usually consider a social inquiry report, and that it must take into account any information before it which is relevant to the young offender's character and his physical and mental condition. A magistrates' court must state and record the reasons for its opinion that no other method of dealing with the offender is appropriate and, if necessary, its reason for dispensing with a social inquiry report.
This clause improves and strengthens the Bill. It serves to emphasise that custody should always be a last resort and that any decision to impose a custodial sentence should be arrived at only after the fullest consideration of all the circumstances of the offender as well as the offence. I urge the House to accept these amendments.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The Committee will be grateful, or at least we on this side of the Committee will be grateful, to the noble Lord for having met the strongly expressed opinions in another place commending the view that before a custodial sentence is imposed on an
958
offender under 21, the court should consider a social inquiry report unless there are special reasons which make that course unnecessary. Where there are such circumstances the court should give its reasons why it considers this unnecessary. This is a helpful amendment and I think that it will greatly assist the courts in the application of these clauses.
Lord Wigoder: I should like to raise one matter to ensure that I have understood the position. If and when these amendments are carried, as I understand it Amendment No. 7 will not now be called. Amendment No. 7 is consequential to Amendment No. 4 which the Committee has just supported. As I understand it, the position is—and I would be grateful for the Minister's confirmation—that if these amendments are carried, Amendment No. 7 will not be able to be put, but at the Report stage Amendment No. 7 will be re-tabled to come in at the appropriate stage after the new Amendment No. 9 and subsection (4). It will, in effect, then follow on as it would have done had these new amendments not been proposed.
Lord Elton: I think that perhaps I was injudicious in my intervention at the beginning of my introductory speech because the noble Lord has looked at what the noble Lord Chairman said. It would seem that we are to remove a part of the Bill which is to be amended by Amendment No. 7, although it is a consequential amendment. When I was doing my preparation I had not made the assumption that the last Division would go against me and that is why I drew that conclusion. It will be for my noble friend not to move Amendment No. 7, but to do what is appropriate at the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I cannot call Amendment No. 7. The next amendment is Amendment No. 8.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
(" (9) For the purposes of this Act the age of a juvenile or young person found guilty or pleading guilty to an offence shall be deemed to be the age of the person at the date of the commission of the offence.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and myself. The purpose of this amendment is to supply what we believe to be essential information—an essential factor—in regard to the general purpose of this clause. Clause 1, as your Lordships are well aware, has to do with the general restrictions on the custody of young people. In the previous subsection—subsection (8) as it stands at the moment, which is the last subsection —there is reference to the matter of age. As your Lordships will see, it says:
" For the purposes of any provision of this Act which requires the determination of the age of a person by the court or the Secretary of State his age shall be deemed to be that which it appears to the court or the Secretary of State (as the case may be) to be after considering any available evidence ".
It seems to us that there is something missing. I have never sat on a Bench myself, but it seems to me

959
that in determining the disposal of a young person, the age of that person at the time either of the arrest or of the sentence—or could it be, as we believe, at the time he or she committed the offence?—is totally relevant to the kind of disposal.
If the young person is below the age of 14 he or she cannot be committed to custody and, depending on the length of sentence which the court deems it correct to impose, the person may be sent to a detention centre or to youth custody. To some extent a relevant factor must be the age of that person. It seems to us sensible to relate the age of the juvenile to his offence or to relate the offence to the age of the juvenile at the time when he or she committed it. It is as simple as that. I hope that your Lordships will agree that there is something missing from the Bill as it stands at the moment and that the Minister will be able to see the ommission, agree it, and put it into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: On the face of it this would seem to be a very helpful and sensible amendment. But I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and those who may agree with him, have considered the principle that is summed up in the old Latin tag, nullum tempus occurit regi—there is no limitation in criminal cases. Indeed, somebody can be brought up before the court for an offence which he or she committed years before. Therefore, if in principle this amendment is right, an exemption would have to be added because it really would be quite absurd if, for example, a person committed an offence at the age of 16 or 17 but did not come before the courts until he was in his middle twenties. It is obvious that when he does eventually come before the courts the principles of sentencing which apply to people of the age at which they do come before the courts, should apply. Therefore, I do not see how your Lordships could accept the amendment as it stands, but perhaps my noble friend Lord Elton will be able to clarify this matter.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: This is a probing amendment. The point is that as it stands it seems unsatisfactory that the magistrate sitting on the Bench does not know at what period he has to take the age before he decides what to do with the offender. If that is not the case, we should be very happy to withdraw the amendment. It seems to me that there is a gap here. I do not wish to say what ought to be the case; we have put down what seemed to us to be correct. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, says that it will not "go"—all right, but something should go. It should not be up to the magistrate to say, "Well, you were 14 when this crime was committed but you were only convicted when you were 15 and, therefore, I shall treat you as 15". He ought to know which it is. It seems to me that the situation is wrong.
I should like to mention one other matter that is wrong. In the third line of the amendment, as printed on the Marshalled List, the word should be "commission" and not "committal".
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to ask a question as somebody who has a totally open mind. Surely this is not something very new? The problem must have arisen since the beginning of the commission of
960
crime. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, might have got up to some appalling high jinks when he was 15 but to prosecute him now and to send him to the detention centre at Send to have a quick, short, sharp sentence would be really carrying things to an idiotic length. However, this situation must have occurred previously, but of course not to that extreme.
The point which I want to raise is as follows. Why is the age 21 and not 18? One can vote for my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher at 18, but if in one's exuberance at her winning the election one commits some foul deed, one is sent to a juvenile detention centre as opposed to a male prison. I should like to ask that question.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: It seems to us on these Benches that, as regards the question of the age of an offender in the context of any line that is drawn at law, the choice must really lie between his age at the date of the commission of the offence or his age at the time he is dealt with by the court. No doubt there are many situations that will render either of those two dates less than appropriate. But the lesser of the two evils, in our submission, is the date at which he is dealt with by the court.
In fact, that is the situation at present in relation to a court passing a borstal sentence. It has to consider the age of the miscreant and sometimes that in itself can be a problem, but it must decide that issue of fact as best it can. It has to decide the age at the date on which it deals with the particular offence. That is the position under Section 80 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948. Therefore; of the two evils that would seem to be the lesser in this connection.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my work has almost been done for me. My noble friend Lord Onslow, is, of course, right that the question has arisen before. He thinks that it was resolved at the moment when crime began; that was when Eve first picked the apple, and I think that the result was almost instant eviction, which is not an order appropriate to what we are now considering. But the usual rule is, as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has said, that a court should sentence an offender according to his age at conviction and sentence. There would be very absurd results if this were not so, even if some of the results are not altogether agreeable as things are now. Indeed, this is borne out in Clause 3(1)(a) of the Bill itself, which relates to detention centres if under 21 and over 14 when convicted, and the same for youth custody in Clause 5(1)(a). So I do not think that there is an omission on the face of the Bill.
I could illustrate this further but, as I say, I think that the work has been done for me. If the noble Lord wishes me to proceed further, I could point out other difficulties that will result from what he proposes, but the fact is that to award a sentence appropriate to a 16-year-old compared to, say, a 25-year-old would be rather absurd, and I think that the court has to decide on what is appropriate for the culprit at the time of his trial rather than for the crime at the time of its commission.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In regard to the biblical reference to the eviction from the Garden of Eden, it may help

961
the Committee to remember Mark Twain's famous observation that he would rather be outside the garden with Eve than inside it without her!
Baroness Trumpington: May I just ask, Eve who?
Lord Hunt: I do not think that your Lordships will wish me to detain the Committee very long on this amendment. As my noble friend has said, it was intended to be a probing amendment. I am still left with the impression that there is something to be said which is not said at the end of this clause with regard to this matter. I am in the weak position of not having any judicial experience myself, so I would not know whether the usual practice—which I now understand is to take the age as the age at conviction and sentence—is the normal and usual practice. If that is so, I personally am quite happy to leave it at that. But I would ask the Minister whether he would give a little further thought as to whether it would not be useful, as it is not in the Bill as it stands at the moment, to put it in at the end of this clause.
Lord Elton: I thought that I had made it clear that it is in the Bill, but in Clauses 3 and 5. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has pointed out that the usual practice is also based on statute, so I think I can assure the noble Lord that what he seeks to do is superfluous.
Lord Hunt: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord withdraws it, can my noble friend give me some answer as regards the age of 21 as opposed to the age of 18? It may not be the appropriate place to ask this question, but it seems to me to be a relevant point.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend afterwards, because I have not actually grasped the point, and we wish to get on with the Committee stage.
Lord Renton: I think I mentioned that the Committee on the age of majority some years ago decided that the criminal provisions, such as provisions relating to sentencing, the age of various criminal liabilities, and so on, should not be touched by their recommendations. I think that that must be the answer to my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments but perhaps I may draw attention to the fact that, thanks to the success of my noble friend Lady Faithfull—with whom I did not vote I must confess, but nevertheless I congratulate her—we now have two additions to Clause 1 in precisely the same terms, and neither of them very brief. I hope that if these provisions are to remain part of the law and if the Government are not to try to get them reversed somewhere, somehow, the draftsman may be invited to collate them so that we do not have repetition.
962
The other point I wish to make is as follows. This is a very important clause because it replaces Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. Of course, there have been three Criminal Justice Acts since the war, several Criminal Procedures Acts, Magistrates Courts Act—a vast amount of legislation—in most of which some of us, in one place or another, have taken part. I have regarded all the statutes dealing with the criminal law and its application as experimental. Perhaps I may make a confession to your Lordships. I was largely responsible for the much maligned Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. At the time it was fairly controversial and I never expected it to last 21 years. Under Governments of both complexions that is what it has done, but, speaking for myself, I shall be gald to see the back of it.
Lord Elton: The only point of substance which my noble friend raised was to ask us to have a look at the technicality which my noble friend has placed upon the face of the Bill, and of course we shall do so.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
(" Social inquiry reports etc.
.—(1) For the purpose of determining whether there is any appropriate method of dealing with a person under 21 years of age other than a method whose use in the case of such a person is restricted by section 1(4) or (5) above the court shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances and shall take into account any information before the court which is relevant to his character and his physical and mental condition.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the court shall in every case obtain a social inquiry report for the purpose of determining whether there is any appropriate method of dealing with a person other than a method whose use is restricted by section 1(4) above.
(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply if, in the circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain a social inquiry report.
(4) Where a magistrates' court deals with a person under 21 years of age by a method whose use in the case of such a person is restricted by section 1(4) or (5) above, it shall state in open court the reason for its opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate.
(5) Where a magistrates' court deals with a person under 21 years of age by a method whose use in the case of such a person is restricted by section 1(4) above without obtaining a social inquiry report, it shall state in open court the reason for its opinion that it was unnecessary to obtain such a report.
(6) A magistrates' court shall cause a reason stated under subsection (4) or (5) above to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register.
(7) No sentence or order shall be invalidated by the failure of a court to comply with subsection (2) above, but any other court on appeal from that court shall obtain a social inquiry report if none was obtained by the court below, unless it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case it is unnecessary to do so.
(8) In determining whether it should deal with the appellant by a method different from that by which the court below dealt with him the court hearing the appeal shall consider any social inquiry report obtained by it or by the court below.
(9) In this section "social inquiry report" means a report about a person and his circumstances made by a probation officer or by a social worker of a local authority social services department.").
The noble Lord said: This is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Orders for detention of male offenders aged 14 to 20]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 44, at end insert—

(" (1A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a higher number for the minimum number of years of age for the time being specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above.

(1B) An order shall not be made under subsection (1A) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: This is an amendment which does not ask Her Majesty's Government to do something at the moment, but which looks into the future when we may think of children of school age being dealt with in the education system instead of in the penal system. From the point of view of figures, we have noticed that it is the older children or young persons who commit the most difficult crimes with which to deal, and we feel strongly that as a future policy we should consider and work out how children of school age should be kept in the education system, and not the penal system.
I speak with great feeling here, and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat what I have said before in your Lordships' House. During the time that I was a children's officer and director of social services only six children in those 18 years went into a penal institution. The remainder were kept in the education system or in the care system of children's homes. I think that it is this to which we should work towards, even if we cannot achieve it now. Therefore, the meaning of this amendment is to make it possible
" by statutory instrument [to] substitute a higher number for the minimum number of years of age for the time being specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above ".
That is really the substance of this amendment.
We have continually talked of the number of young children and young persons going into custodial care who really could be dealt with in the community, and I shall not continue with that. It is distressing to prison and borstal governors when they find themselves dealing with juveniles, and it is distressing to the staff of those institutions. Perhaps most significant of all is that the present Government have themselves accepted the desirability of ending prison department custody for juveniles, but they have done so in another part of the United Kingdom; namely, Northern Ireland.
In 1979, the Black Report on Legislation and Services for Children and Young Persons in Northern Ireland made the controversial recommendation that, except in the case of very serious offences, all existing custodial and residential sentences for juveniles should be amalgamated into a single determinant residential order. The Black Committee recommended that this order should be reserved for those who are clearly a threat to society, and proposed that those sentenced under this order should go to a mixed secure establishment with a régime which could be as helpful and supportive as possible.
However, the then Minister of State for Northern Ireland told the House of Commons Northern Ireland Committee on 5th November 1980 that the Government accepted these proposals. He added that new residential establishments for juvenile offenders would be run by former training school staff and not by
964
prison staff. With justifiable pride, he pointed out that following these changes Northern Ireland would be one of the first areas in Europe which would no longer accommodate children in adult penal institutions. Therefore, I move this amendment in the hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it, bearing in mind that this is what we should move towards. I beg to move.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It is an interesting and important amendment. It is doing something which I hope we will see done in this Bill. It is bringing something creative and looking towards the future, and following a particular philosophy which we try to embody more and more in the field, which is to move away from the custodial side into the non-custodial side when dealing with penal offences. In this part of the Bill, where we are dealing with young offenders and juveniles, it is appalling to be reminded so many times as we go into these amendments of the rise in the numbers of juveniles going into custody.
Furthermore, when we have to accept that the rise in the number of juveniles in custody has no parallel among the older age groups, even today, it makes one gasp. Apart from the awful aspect of so many youngsters in custodial care, and I will not rehearse the arguments on previous amendments where we have shown what the rate of recidivism is, what we are doing is to create future generations of prison occupants. It is becoming this vicious penal circle, and it is something that we should stop.
This amendment opens a window of fresh air to the future and is saying that the minimum age should be able to be raised. In looking into this amendment, which is supported by the all-party Penal Reform Group, I was impressed that not only the prison and borstal governors share this view, but the probation officers and social workers. When the comments came out on the parliamentary all-party Penal Affairs Group report, Young Offenders, a Strategy for the Future, the Police Federation also expressed its support for the phasing out of prison department custody for juveniles. It is interesting that one has this all round support.
It is important to show in this major Bill that we are moving towards the future and not staying put in the unfortunate rut in which we find ourselves today in this great area of dealing with juveniles and young offenders. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept this amendment. If there is anything in the drafting that does not please him, what we are concerned with is that the spirit and intention of it should be incorporated into the Bill.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I wanted to say something and it seems to me that this is the right part of the Bill at which to do so, in view of the noble Baroness's amendment. Last weekend I was sitting next to the former Lord Mayor—deputy now—of Birmingham, who was the chairman of the committee of social services. I was fascinated by what he had to tell me in that large and difficult city. He, as chairman, had been round to all the establishments run by the social services. He had found that those establish-

965
ments were in no cases full. He had, therefore, closed some of the establishments, but he had made a specific point of taking out the social worker from each of those establishments and he had formed them into a fostering committee. He had organised them into this committee, and they had been sent into the City of Birmingham to find fostering homes for these children. It was not only for delinquent children, but others who needed to be removed from the care of their own homes. I am only telling your Lordships this because it seemed to me that this might be a way ahead for certainly some of our big cities.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I would support the noble Baroness who has just spoken about fostering, which is one of the most important remedies open to us. I do not know whether it is strictly applicable to this amendment. All that I want to say about this amendment, because it has been fully discussed by the noble Baroness who moved it and my noble friend on the Front Bench, is that I want to give just an impression of total gloom. Everybody that I know who is connected with penal affairs thinks that it is a mistake, where it is avoidable, to send children—and by children, I mean youngsters up to 18, anyway—to prison.
Every magistrate you speak to says the same thing. Every judge says the same thing. Yet the increase in custodial sentences since 1965 has been five fold. That is less than a fifth of the percentage rise in crime. So it is a real increase in courts sending juveniles to prison. This may be inevitable. They may be so clearly evil that there is no other way of treating them, but I do not believe it. On the other hand, I do not think that either magistrates or judges are telling anything but the truth. I do not know what on earth is the answer, but it is a nasty situation that exactly the opposite of what we all think ought to happen is in fact happening.
During the past 20 years the proportion of convicted adults received into custody has been more than halved. During the same period, the proportion of juveniles receiving custodial sentences has more than trebled. I am not giving any answers. I am only saying that I am thoroughly worried, and the least we can do in this Committee tonight is to persuade the Government to leave it open to themselves to improve the situation by raising the age as soon as the opportunity arises.
Lord Hylton: It is relevant to mention in connection with the amendment the experience of the alternative probation project which has been running for five years or more at Farnham in Hampshire. It was conceived originally as a new way of doing probation, but in the process it was discovered that most of the young offenders coming into it had either missed school or failed to benefit from school. Therefore they built into the whole project an educational component. That is why I support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in all she said about keeping children in education and not doing custodial sentences of one kind and another. I hope the Government will take the matter very seriously.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have a short suggestion for my noble friend the Minister. Would he agree that the amendment imports a desirable degree of flexibility in an area where flexibility is desirable?
Lord Elton: Part of the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, seeks, rests in other parts of the Bill, and I am sure my noble friend will accept that our principal intention in the Bill is to reduce both the numbers in custody and the duration of custody—to increase the confidence of the courts in non-custodial sentences—and thereby to reverse a progress which we all deplore. But 1 do not think my noble friend believes any more than I do in what I would call aspirational legislation. The fact is that even she, in her lengthy and enlightened régime at Oxford, was constrained to see six children consigned to penal institutions. There will always be cases, I regret, when younger as well as older young offenders, however few, will be of a nature when they will have to be so contained. That is the reality of the situation. I wish it were otherwise, but we have a duty to deal with things as they are and not things as we would like them to be.
The whole burden of this part of the Bill is to direct the courts very strongly away from the use of custody for young offenders, but we do not intend to deprive them of that power in the most serious cases. The amendment seeks to insert a provision which would enable the Secretary of State to present a draft order to raise the minimum age for detention centre orders. It is in one sense a statement of aspiration, as I said, for the future, but it is wrong to put on the statute book any provision which has no real prospect of being brought into use. There was a reference to the Black Report in Northern Ireland. I have to say that the recommendations of the Black Report have not been implemented. There is a great deal to be said for them, but they could not easily be applied here and my noble friend read out the passage in which an exemption was made for the very people to whom I am referring—very serious offenders: for those we have to make provision.
If the proposals were fully implemented, there would be major changes in the framework of the juvenile justice system, but it has not been possible over the last 13 years to implement in full the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Again, this is aspirational legislation which may feel like a window open to the future, but it is one through which it is impossible to go. It has itself caused a great deal of uncertainty, not least for those who work with juvenile offenders, who simply do not know where they stand. If the amendment were accepted, the staff of junior detention centres would ask us, quite rightly, what use we intended to make of the provision, and the truthful answer would have to be, alas, that we saw no real, foreseeable prospect of being able to use it because it would close the option for that limited number of people for whom, I regret, it will always be needed.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the Minister for that reply. I appreciate what a difficult amendment it is and the fact that possibly we may all have to work to prove it is necessary and to bring it in at a later stage. I was always taught to hitch your wagon to a star. I believe one can help young offenders. I do not take the gloomy view of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I think we have got off the tracks but that we can get back on to them. Perhaps over the next few years we may try to get better relationships between the social services and education and we may try to help with the

967
new schemes that are being started and which are being monitored. There is a scheme, for instance, run by Barnardo's and the local authority in Pontefract, which is showing signs of improvement in an area of high delinquency, and I could give examples of many other areas. Therefore, I hope that, having brought the amendment before your Lordships, perhaps as the years go by we may completely alter the way we deal with juveniles, bearing in mind of course that there are some who, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, need a particular type of help because of their particular difficulties. I will not divide the Committee on the amendment at this stage. I will read what my noble friend said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where reports indicate that a specific course of treatment is necessary (whether it be medical or otherwise) provision may be made exceptionally by the Court to extend the period of 4 months in order that treatment may be completed.
( ) Where the period of custody is extended in accordance with subsection ( ) above, the case is to be reviewed at 14 day intervals.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will have seen that I have several amendments down. It may be convenient if I make a short preface to them all: I do not propose to move them together, but separately as we come to them, because they all deal with different subjects. On Second Reading I said I had been advised in the matter by a recently retired warden of a custodial establishment for delinquent girls in the London area. I slightly stress the London area because the theme of my amendments, and the questions I have to ask, may distress my noble friend Lady Faithfull somewhat in view of what she said; the general theme deals with the six whom she had to send to prison—repeated in the London area, as it were—and I suspect that in the London area there are rather more people who are too difficult to deal with under other circumstances than there are in other parts of the country, where it might be possible to handle them more reasonably.
I am grateful to my noble friend for the kind letter he wrote in response to my remarks on Second Reading. It was surprisingly confident, I would say, in referring to the ability of local authority personnel to handle what they are asked to handle. My advice is that in many parts of the country that is not quite the case, but I will leave it at that. All my amendments are probing—I have informed my noble friend of that—and are really asking him a series of questions and, as he knows what they are, hopefully I shall get some splendid, or at any rate meaningful, answers.
The problem is that there are types of medical and other treatment which last for more than four months. The question, therefore, is how the detention centre is to complete a course of treatment for drugs, solvent abuse, venereal disease or something of that sort when the cure may last for more than four months. That is really the substance of the question. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to my noble friend for narrowing the area of his concern in this amendment to the question of medical and other treatment in detention centres. The Committee will know that the intention is that the sentences shall be short, and I accept that it is possible that inmates might be partaking of courses of treatment of one kind or another which last longer than the sentences. The question that my noble friend is asking is: should we keep them inside the detention centres for longer than the sentences in order to see that the courses of treatment are completed?
I think that I can assure my noble friend that under any circumstances we should not wish to keep anybody in detention for longer than the sentence required, but equally we should not wish a person to be discharged into the community without proper medical supervision and the chance of completing a course of treatment. if the course of treatment were such that it could not be given in the detention centre, the young person would already have been transferred to the National Health Service, or to another part of the Prison Service where the treatment was available. If, on the other hand, the course of treatment could be carried out in such an establishment, then in the natural order of things, the medical officer would ensure that the detainee was put in touch with the National Health Service and that his treatment was not interrupted upon his release.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, I feared that my noble friend might say that, but really that is not an answer. The kind of people whom we are talking about, on being released from prison, even if they were put in touch with the local doctor, would not have the same approach as your Lordships would have to these problems. If we, at our great age, are put in touch with the doctor, we do not dare to go to see him. But if you are 14, 15, 16 or even in your early twenties, and you are told, "Gosh, you've got venereal disease, and you've got to complete the course, otherwise you are going to be a menace to society ", you do not care a fig for that, and you do not go to the doctor. It is a real problem. My adviser had this sort of problem.
Perhaps I may press my noble friend slightly. I would not necessarily expect an immediate answer, but I should like him to study the situation of people who will not comply with what one might call normal social pressures. What is to be done if the course of treatment is perhaps three-quarters complete when the sentence ends? What do we do to make sure that the treatment is completed?
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. There is another aspect to this problem, and it is concerned with the question, who is to treat the people involved? My experience is that at the moment in the psychiatric service one cannot get psychiatrists or mental hospitals to accept a patient if he is not willing to go for treatment. Those of us who have dealt to a considerable extent with drug addicts know that they will not go to a clinic. If the people in question are to be handed on to the National Health Service, will the NHS in fact take them? I ask that because my experience is that it will not take them.
Lord Elton: I must make it quite clear that the function of the prison service is not to cure the sick. We had lengthy debates in this area when considering the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, and it was then made quite clear the types of illnesses under which people could be detained because they suffered from them. Frankly, under those circumstances a person would not be in a detention centre, anyway. But if he were suffering from a lesser affliction, whether it be a social disease or a mental disease, we must remember that when the sentencing justice says to him, "You must take your medicine", he uses the term entirely figuratively. The young person is put inside for a purpose which relates to his misdemeanour, not to his state of health.
I consider that the prison service has a highly commendable record for close co-operation with the National Health Service in this field. What the noble Lord seeks to do is to extend periods of detention in order that courses of treatment which do not relate to the offence can be completed. I regret that that is not the function of the Bill; nor is it the function of the prison department.
Compulsory treatment outside the prison system, and indeed inside it, leads to very considerable difficulties, which we have discussed in very great length in this Chamber. My noble friend Lady Faithfull for one has taken part in such debates, and many of your Lordships whom I see sitting here are familiar with the issues. I should not think that we wanted to broach them now. The only reassurance that I can give to my noble friend is to say that this is an area which interests me, too, in particular in the mental health field, but also in the medical field. I have the matter under review. I believe that it might be possible to make things better than they now are, but they are by no means bad.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If I may intervene briefly, I would say that though I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has raised a matter of importance, I believe that there are arguments of principle against what he is proposing. As I understand it, the court would have the opportunity to extend a period of custody to ensure that a course of treatment is completed. I speak subject to correction from the Minister, but I know of no provision in the English law which has ever given a court such a power.
I might be wholly mistaken in that view, but I should like to cite one particular example of which I have some knowledge. It relates to the problem of mental illness, touched on by the noble Baroness. I think that doctors would approach with the utmost caution the question of wanting powers of this kind to be exercised on behalf of a person who had some form of mental illness. As I understand the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the court would have the power to review the matter at 14-day intervals. I cannot think of a worse manner in which to approach a person suffering from a difficult psychiatric problem of one kind or another. Though, of course, completely aware of the reality of the issue described by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I do not believe that this is the way to deal with the problem.
Lord Mottistone: I hasten to dispel any opinion that I have been seeking to put through the amendment;
970
it is a probing amendment. My noble friend, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, went off and followed the hare that I wanted to put through the amendment. I want to put to the Government the fact that there is a very real problem involving the prison service and all that goes on there, local authority care, and doctors. In a sense they are all saying. "It's your job, not mine". There is a group of people whom it is difficult to convince that they must do something for the benefit of themselves, let alone the benefit of the community, and in effect they fall between the official bodies and so are not dealt with.
As I say, this is a real problem. I received a glimmer of hope from my noble friend when he said that he is desperately interested in the matter, and I trust that that might lead to some action in some way. I reserve the right to go on being a nuisance at the Report stage in one way or another in order to try to get something more solid out of my noble friend. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is different from the last one, though it is another probing amendment. At present there are no detention centres for girls. This point was mentioned earlier, and it was partly answered under Amendment No. 3 by my noble friend. I cannot remember to whose speech he was responding. I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—no, it was the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington.
My question is—and I hope that my noble friend will be allowed to listen to it—are detention centres for girls to be established? If not—and this is the key question—what provision is to be made for young female offenders? Your Lordships might recall that at Second Reading, speaking on advice that I had received, I told the House that it is the 14- to 17-year-old girls who have been involved in the biggest increase in vicious crime among any group of people in the last few years. What we are to do? So what provision is to be made for young female offenders?
Lord Elton: May I say first that all young offenders released otherwise than on parole will, on release, be subject to a period of supervision, and that supervision is integral. Perhaps your Lordships would bear with me for a moment. They will have to observe certain conditions, and the Government intend that these will be relatively simple and will relate mainly to keeping in touch with the supervisor. There must be sanctions if they are not observed. Clause 15 deals with the offence of breach of supervision and sets out the penalties, which are a fine of up to £200 or a custodial sentence of up to 30 days. The offence of breach of supervision is directly connected with the original custodial sentence. The courts should be able to remind the offender of the importance of supervision and of the need to comply with its conditions.
My noble friend was particularly interested in short sentences for juvenile girls. Under the provisions of the Bill the custodial sentences made available for

971
young women and girls broadly reflect the present situation. Girls aged 15 and 16 will be eligible for a youth custody sentence of over four to 12 months. Young women aged 17 and over will be eligible for youth custody sentences of 21 days or over, and custody for life. The Bill does not affect the power to order juvenile girls convicted of grave offences to be detained under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. No attempt is made to introduce a detention centre order for girls or a short custodial sentence for juvenile girls.
My noble friend is not I think anxious to claim that it is unjust to discriminate on grounds of sex by providing a short custodial sentence for boys aged 14 or over but not for girls. That is generally used to support the abolition of detention centre orders for juvenile boys; but there may be some noble Lords who feel that there should be a detention centre order or some other short custodial sentence for juvenile girls. There only has ever once been one such detention centre, Moor Court, which I had occasion to refer to earlier this afternoon. That is in Staffordshire, and was opened in 1962. As I said, it served only the northern part of the country, and had an average daily population of about 24 girls. So the scope of this problem is not an enormous one. It was closed in 1969; and, as I reminded your Lordships earlier, the Advisory Council on the Penal System came to the conclusion that the needs of the boys and the girls were so dissimilar that there was nothing wrong in having separate provision.
The number of girls who offend is very much smaller than the number of boys. The offending by the boys is on a much larger scale, as well; and the courts, I think, could not manage without the custodial sentence for the boys. The type of régime operated in detention centres is suitable for boys but not for most of the adolescent girls who commit serious offences.
The question is: where should they be put? The answer is that we feel that in those circumstances there are two sets of reasons why the age groups should be allowed to mix. One of them is the simple logistical one that there are too few to have a national provision without journey times being absolutely unacceptable. The other is that the nature of the female young delinquent, young offender, is such that the older offenders seem to have a steadying effect on the slightly younger girls, and therefore it is proposed that the provision for these girls shall be the same as for the older offenders.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that answer. The only point I should like to leave with him on this matter is that, having experimented with a girls' detention centre in 1962 and closed it in 1969 because there were to few people to occupy it, I understand that, sadly, the rise in the number of teenage female offenders has been such in the years since 1969 that he might well find that it would be wise to consider re-introducing such a place. Even if it was found unnecessary in the 1960s, in the 1980s the increase in crime among teenage girls might justify it. But having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, leave out lines 14 to 16.
The noble Lord said: In this case it says in the Bill:
" Subject to subsection (6) below, a court shall not make an order under this section for the detention of an offender…if it considers that his detention in such a centre would be unsuitable because of his mental or physical condition ".
My question then is: What alternative arrangements are to be made? The present problem is that medical units for the disturbed or addicted accept individuals on a voluntary basis only. If a young person does not want to stay, or absconds, then the necessary treatment and help is not received. What is the answer to this problem that my noble friend would care to give me? I beg to move.
Lord Elton: If a young offender is not physically or mentally fit for the régime at a detention centre, then ideally he should not be sent there, and we shall be debating this issue, I think, at greater length after dinner. If, on the other hand, he arrives there and proves not to be fit to pursue the tougher régime, he can be moved to a less demanding one. Furthermore, if he is seen by the court not to be fit either mentally or physically for a detention centre régime, then his sentence can be made one of youth custody and he will go to the establishment appropriate to that régime. I hope that answers my noble friend's question.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that answer. It is the best one I have had so far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—
(" ( ) For the purposes of determining whether the detention of an offender in a detention centre would be unsuitable because of his mental or physical condition the court shall obtain and consider a report into his mental and physical condition ").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to require the courts to obtain a medical report before passing a detention centre sentence. I am well aware that such a practice is already widely in use, but no compulsory legislation exists and it is my contention that, in order to make sure that medical reports are always obtained, this amendment should be made to the Bill.
In 1972 Home Office Circular 179 drew the courts' attention to the demanding nature of the detention centre régime and pointed out that the régime is brisk and involves a vigorous and active day with comparatively little free time. That circular therefore stressed that the régime is unsuited for those with physical or mental handicaps likely to interrupt detention centre training. Despite this guidance there is much evidence to suggest that a considerable number of those entering detention centres are far from fit or stable young men either physically or mentally.
Since the new régimes were introduced, medical officers at the centres have made the decisions as to whether the boys received from the courts were

973
physically or mentally unfit to stand up to the rigours of the régime, and if they decided they were not then transfers to other establishments were arranged. Between 21st April 1980, when the tougher régimes were introduced at two detention centres, and the 25th January of this year, 81 trainees were transferred from New Hall and 107 from Send—around 7 per cent. of the trainees sent to those establishments. The Prison Officers' Association has expressed serious concern about the number of unfit boys being sent to these centres who then have to be tranferred elsewhere. I am sure that we would all agree with those sentiments. I find it hard to believe that anyone could argue against the fact that it would be much more sensible for information relating to the young person's mental and physical condition to be available to the courts in every case at the point of sentence. Why not? What are the difficulties? After all, no court can pass a community service order without considering a report as to the offender's suitability for community service. Far from fettering the discretion of the courts to pass the sentence most appropriate to the offence and to the offender, the availability of a medical report would help the court to pass the most appropriate sentence having regard to the state of the offender's health.
The other point is that in most cases the court already considers a medical report before passing a detention centre sentence. All this amendment would do is to extend that normal practice and make it invariable practice. There will be no delay because the courts in practice do not wait for long periods to obtain medical reports from general practitioners before passing detention centre sentences. In Home Office Circular 179, the following advice is given:
" In general, police surgeons in their private capacity would be the most appropriate doctors to perform the examinations since the scheme requires the attendance at short notice of a medical practitioner to examine the defendant within the precincts of the court or at an adjacent place, for instance, a police station. After examination, the practitioner would provide the court with a certificate indicating the fitness or otherwise of the defendant for detention centre training ".
The circular asks clerks of courts to make local arrangements for the attendance of doctors when needed for conducting such a medical examination. If there are areas where such arrangements are inadequate, then that is a case for improving the arrangements and not for rejecting the amendment.
I hope the Government will accept the amendment. It must be obvious that the case for requiring a medical report for detention centres operating the tougher régime is particularly strong; but the nature of even the ordinary detention centre régime is sufficiently exacting to make the consideration of a medical report desirable in all cases and not just in the majority of cases, as at present. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: I am happy to support the noble Baroness, my colleague on the all-party penal affairs group. She covered the points that I would have covered. There are only three points that I should like to make. The first is that this: I would see the proposal as one more move towards achieving greater consistency between the courts than is the case at present. The noble Baroness mentioned the rigours of the detention centre régime which make severe physical demands and create a strong emotional impact on those who go through the régime.
974
The other point where I believe medical advice is needed is in regard to the temperament of the boy concerned; whether he is likely to react favourably to the régime or whether it is likely to aggravate those delinquent and criminal propensities which caused him to be sent there. I would doubt whether courts of law are sufficiently qualified to reach a decision on that without taking medical advice and psychiatric opinion.
Thirdly—and it is a simple administrative point—the noble Baroness mentioned the considerable numbers of young people who arc sent to the two borstals administering the short, sharp shock—nearly 200 of them in the course of 12 months. One must think of the amount of administrative work and the cost involved, quite apart from the disturbance that this causes the young offenders themselves. On those grounds, in addition to those put to your Lordships by the noble Baroness, I hope the amendment will prove acceptable.
Lord Wigoder: I endorse all the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It seems to me that what it is sought to provide is something which would at once be acceptable to most noble Lords; namely, that, in view of the régime at a detention centre, nobody should he sent there unless there is a medical report which indicates that the person is suitable for that sentence. Unhappily, so far as I can see, the Bill as drafted and the amendment as drafted do not achieve that at all, because of the rather curious way in which the Bill is drafted. The Bill puts it the other way round. What the Bill says is that the court shall not make an order if it considers that the person's detention would be unsuitable because of the mental or physical condition, and the amendment provides that, if the court wishes to determine whether it is unsuitable, there must be a medical report to that effect. This seems totally different from providing what I think most of us would agree should be provided—which is to put it in a positive way so that if the court makes an order it shall not do so unless there is a medical report specifying the medical and mental condition of the person in relation to whom the order is made.
I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, but I think that the flaws in both the Bill and the amendment need to be turned round before we reach the next stage if they are to achieve what is sought.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I agree with the sentiments of the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches: it would be better if it were put in that particular way so that a court would not be allowed to come to that conclusion unless it had had the benefit of a medical report. I hope very much that the Government will be able to accept this amendment, for it seems to me that the arguments in favour of it are wholly irrefutable. The situation in law at the moment falls only barely short of what the amendment seeks to achieve.
Clause 1(6) says:
" For the purposes of determining whether there is any appropriate method of dealing with a person under 21 years of age other than a method whose use in the case of such a person is restricted by subsection (4) or (5) above the court shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take into

975
account any information before the court which is relevant to his character and his physical and mental condition."
Furthermore, Clause 3(5) reads:
" Subject to subsection (6) below, a court shall not make an order under this section for the detention of an offender in a detention center—
(a) if it considers that his detention in such a centre would be unsuitable because of his mental or physical condition ".
The amendment advances the protection of the young person only slightly beyond that. Secondly, in so far as the situation on the ground is concerned, I am assured by those who deal with these matters day in and day out that in the overwhelming majority of cases reports are sought by most courts in any event—a point already touched upon by the noble Baroness.
Lastly, on the one hand, I do not think there is the slightest danger that the courts would be fettered at all, because this would enable a court to have greater information and to feel that it was more free in its scope to deal with the young person than if it did not have it. Nor, on the other hand, is there any real danger of delay. In the main, the reports need not be prepared by general practitioners. They can be prepared by police surgeons who are probably in a position to attend that very court to make such reports.
There is one further argument. It is that, if a report has been properly made, a court is in a position to consider the very sort of case that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, spoke about in his earlier amendments. If in fact a court knew that a youngster was suffering from the sort of conditions the noble Lord has described to us, then it would make a care order and that person would never end up in a detention centre at all. Therefore, if that full information is given at the right time, it is in everybody's interest.
The Earl of Onslow: There is one point I should like to raise in supporting my noble friend Lady Trumpington. If there were 87 people sent away from Send and a number from another place, surely this disturbs the régime in the detention centre, whose object it is, we all hope, to have a curative effect. I am sure it cannot be good for those who are undergoing a short, sharp, shock to see people coming in and going out for what they may feel are slightly unfair reasons.
The other point I should like to ask, although I do not necessarily expect an immediate answer, is this. Of those people who were sent away from Send, how many had undergone medical examinations at the point of sentence in the courts, and how many had not?—because if it is shown that none of them had been asked to undergo a physical or mental test at the time of conviction and sentence, it would seem to show that a medical test at court level would save time, trouble, money and administration. That would be very well worth while from their point of view and also, I would suggest, from our point of view and the point of view of the taxpayer.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Very briefly, may I say I believe this should be absolutely mandatory. I would agree with the noble Lord who said that in the majority of courts that would obtain and they would have a medical—and especially if the magistrates concerned had been to a detention centre themselves.
976
I think this is important, and when I was at Send recently—though 1 do not want to harp on the fact that I have just been to see the institution—the warden tried to make the point to me that there were some boys who had been sent when they were not physically fit and he hoped that in future this would not happen.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Elton: I can travel a good deal of the way down the same road as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, did in dealing with the amendment proposed by my noble friend. I think I am right in saying that in her intervention just now my noble friend Lady Macleod had it in mind that had the magistrates been to detention centres in an inspectorial role, rather than a custodial role, they would certainly see that a medical report was furnished.
Let us see what the law already provides in this Bill. It goes a long way. First of all, the court must be of the opinion that no other method of dealing with the offender is appropriate. In deciding that, the court, under the new clause which the Government have introduced, must consider a social inquiry report in most cases. It must also take into account any information before it which is relevant to the offender's character and his physical and mental condition. It is further prohibited by Clause 3(5), as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, from making a detention centre order if it considers that the offender's detention in such a centre would be unsuitable because of his physical or mental condition.
I think we have to trust the courts to some extent to satisfy themselves that they have the information they need to come to a proper decision, and they can obtain whatever medical, psychiatric or other reports they ask for. Even if they are placed under a statutory obligation to obtain a medical report in every case, which is what this amendment seeks to do, the ultimate judgment as to whether an offender is unsuitable for a detention centre will remain with the court.
Now let us see what would flow from a decision to amend the Bill in the way proposed by my noble friend. I think there is more than has so far been suggested. The court will have before it a young offender. It has already decided that nothing less than a custodial sentence will do. It has also decided that the sentence should be served in a detention centre. Such a centre is designed for people (and Clause 3 seeks largely to reserve it for such people) who have had no earlier significant custodial experience. The sentence can be for as little as three weeks.
What must the court now do? It will adjourn the case for a medical report and the young offender will be remanded. It has already been decided that by reason of the seriousness of his offence he should be detained in custody and, as most remands for this purpose are for three weeks, the result for the older age group will be a period of three weeks spent in a remand centre or a local prison while it is decided whether or not he is fit enough for a course of treatment designed for people who have had no experience of either.
That I think is a somewhat absurd situation; but I do take on board my noble friend's anxiety and I should like to say that the reference in Clause 3(5) to the offender's fitness is not, as she seems to think, a flimsy

977
shield for a weak offender against a savage régime. The centres themselves are not anxious to recruit weak or ailing inmates, and the truth is that it is simply not very convenient to have to deal in a detention centre with an offender who is in some respect not quite up to the régime. I will seek the breakdown of the statistics my noble friend Lord Onslow asked for, but I cannot instantly answer how many of those who were subsequently referred on were subject to a medical report.
However, allowances and concessions are made for offenders who are not up to the régime, and they will continue to be made for any who, in spite of the Bill, are found not to be fit when they are examined by medical officer on reception. The provision is aimed at those who are to receive custodial sentences anyway and is designed only to ensure that they go to the most suitable type of establishment. It is in the interests of the whole system, and not just of the offender, to get him into the right place; but I wonder if I could say something to help my noble friend. A procedure was established under the Home Office Circular 179 of 1972 for medical examinations to ascertain fitness for detention centres to be carried out at or in the vicinity of the court, usually by police surgeons. The purpose of the circular was to reduce the need for remands in custody for medical reports. It is still in force, but we do not know in what percentage of cases sentencing courts have the certificates of fitness before them when committing persons to detention centres. We think the percentage is quite small.
When the new custodial sentencing scheme set out in Clause 1 to 15 is brought into force, we shall be giving further information to the courts. I wonder whether my noble friend would be reassured if I undertook to draw this provision rather more forcefully to the attention of the courts so that we can avoid what may appear to be this embarrassingly high number of people who are wrongly allocated to more stringent régimes. I hope this will be of help.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The noble Lord has made a very interesting and curious reply. He began by saying (and it was agreed by everybody) that it is very rare in cases of this kind for there not to be a medical report. He then told us it was impossible to arrange it in under three weeks; and he finally said he thought it could be arranged quite quickly. I am in a state of total confusion.
Lord Elton: I am so sorry to have brought the noble Lord into a state of confusion immediately before dinner. What I was saying was that, under the normal cycle, if somebody is remanded, typically he is remanded for three weeks for a medical report; and that comes from somewhere else. But there is provision, which is not at present properly used, as I understand it, for this report to be available more or less in the precincts of the court. I was saying that I thought it would be wrong to introduce into the Bill a procedure which would probably result in these remands but right if I could persuade, by administrative means, the courts to avail themselves of what is already available. It will be possible to monitor this by the number of people who are subsequently transferred. I think it will go down dramatically.
Lord Wigoder: Can the noble Lord say how long it would take an officer in reception to assess whether the person arriving is fit for the régime or not?
Lord Elton: No; I would have thought that a thorough medical examination for this purpose would not take more than hours; I do not think it would be measured in days. I could not say how many minutes there would be.
The fact is that, whatever other provision we have, I do not think those responsible for running such a centre would wish to dispense with that operation. I think that they would wish, for their own reassurance, to be certain that all was well with the people who went in with them. Otherwise, if something subsequently went wrong, there would have been negligence and they might feel themselves protected by a medical examination. So, if the noble Lord is seeking to save time in the detention centre, I have grave doubts about whether it would do that.
Baroness Trumpington: I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister very much indeed. His words have given me food for thought. Faced by a lot of hungry noble Lords, I feel that food for other parts is more important at the moment. I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I may raise it again at Report stage when I have discussed it with my colleagues.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: I should like to ask a very brief question —arising out of Amendment No. 11, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—and I ask it in my ignorance. If it is clear to a court that offences have been committed in connection with, or closely linked to, alcohol, drug or glue abuse, is it open to that court, instead of making a detention order, to make a care order or some other kind of order, which will provide for medical treatment for such purposes as detoxification and, if possible, the prevention of future alcohol, drug or glue abuse?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Is not the situation this? If it is an offence which is punishable for an adult with imprisonment, then the Crown court or the juvenile court can make a care order?
Lord Elton: Indeed, it is. I was about to phrase it in a different way. I accept that.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think that this is probably an appropriate moment to adjourn for dinner. We have other business during the adjournment, but it may be of interest to the Committee to know that I shall be proposing, when the other business is finished, that the House stand adjourned until ten minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Pilotage Commission (Additional Function) Order 1982
7.23 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Pilotage Commission (Additional Function) Order 1982. This order has been examined by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. They have considered an explanatory memorandum from the Department of Trade and I understand that they are satisfied as to the legal basis for the order. The order gives the Pilotage Commission the function of devising schemes to compensate marine pilots for loss of employment or reductions in earnings. It was envisaged in Section 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 that the commission's functions would be extended in this way. Subsection (2) provides that, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses, the Secretary of State may by order confer on the commission such functions as he considers appropriate for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1). Subsection (3) states that such an order may provide for the making of compensation schemes by the commission.
I should like to take up a little of your Lordships' time to explain some of the background to this order. In recent years, and, more particularly, following the United Kingdom's accession to the EEC, there has been a substantial shift in the level of shipping movements away from the West coast ports of the United Kingdom, to East and South coast ports which offer the shortest routes to the major European markets. The growth of containerisation and the increase in the size of tankers has reduced the number of ships entering nearly all ports, and the worldwide recession has affected shipping more severely than most other economic activities. As a result, the demands on the pilotage service have reduced considerably in all ports. It is likely that demands on the pilotage service will be even further reduced, as more masters and first mates qualify to undertake their own pilotage in the approaches to those ports which they visit regularly.
I would explain to your Lordships that these masters and first mates are issued with pilotage certificates by local pilotage authorities, which effectively means that they do not have to take a licensed pilot when they enter a port. Until the passage of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, these certificates were issued only to British subjects, but, because of the obligation arising from our membership of the EEC, the 1979 Act made it clear that any EEC nationals who are masters or first mates of EEC flag vessels can apply for these certificates, and this significantly extends the potential number of holders.
A further very important factor is the need, which has been long recognised, for a major re-organisation of the structure of pilotage in the United Kingdom. The provisions on pilotage in the 1979 Act, which established the Pilotage Commission, provided the legislative framework under which the re-organisation could take place. The commission has started this work and it is clear that re-organisation will add still further to the number of surplus pilots. There are some 40 pilotage authorities responsible for the
980
organisation of pilotage in 78 pilotage districts in the United Kingdom. The best known of these is, of course, Trinity House.
The pilots themselves are self-employed, except in Orkney and Shetland, although I would explain that they operate within a regulatory framework which is made under pilotage legislation, and their earnings are determined by national agreement between pilot and shipowner representatives. But their self-employed status means that they cannot be discharged merely because the demand for their services falls away, partially or entirely. Indeed, incentives need to be devised if their numbers are to be reduced to the extent that is likely to be required. We do not yet know how many pilots will become surplus to requirements, but at present there are about 1,400 pilots and this could be several hundred too many.
The Pilotage Commission advises that there is little prospect of natural wastage leading to reduced manning levels, except over a period of many years. It has advised my noble friend the Secretary of State that, in order to make progress with reorganising the pilotage service, and, in particular, increasing the efficiency of that service, it is essential to devise a national scheme which will provide financial incentives for the voluntary surrender of pilots' licences, and my noble friend the Secretary of State has indeed accepted this advice.
The order that is before us this evening enables the Pilotage Commission to consider the form which these incentives might take. It does not, however, empower the commission to raise the finance that may be needed to implement any detailed scheme which it may propose. The approval of the Secretary of State will be needed for this and he has made it clear that he expects the commission to work in close consultation with shipowners, pilots and other interested parties. He has also urged on the commission the need to achieve early agreement between the parties and to give this the highest priority in its work programme.
I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I give some indications of the possible—and I hasten to stress the word "possible"—sources of finance; indeed, the commission is examining all possibilities. First, Section 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 empowers the commission to make schemes requiring pilotage authorities to make payments to assist the commission to meet expenses incurred in performing its functions. This would be in the form of a levy on pilotage receipts and it is entirely lawful for this levy to be passed on to the shipowner in the form of increased pilotage dues. But these schemes require the confirmation of the Secretary of State before they come into force.
Secondly, charges levied for the use of pilotage certificates could be increased by the pilotage authorities, subject to approval by the Secretary of State of the by-laws giving effect to these increases. Thirdly, the commission could, if it wished, borrow within its statutory borrowing limit and it could borrow such sums as it thought necessary. At present, the statutory limit is set at £200,000, but this could be increased by order to £500,000. But such borrowing, which need not be from the Government, would provide for perhaps part of the cost of a scheme to be spread over a period of years, with repayments being refunded through the levy arrangements which I have already outlined to

981
your Lordships. Fourthly, pilots themselves could contribute towards the cost of a scheme and payments would have to be agreed between the pilots and the promoters of the scheme. I am sure the House will appreciate that this would not be the sole source of finance. The number of pilots potentially surplus and the need to reduce their number quickly make this inevitable.
It is therefore likely that the main cost burden will lie upon the shipowner, although of course there will be major offsetting savings from the reduction in the pilots' earnings as more pilots leave the service. Some 70 per cent. of the pilotage dues in United Kingdom ports are paid by ships which are not registered in this country. Nevertheless, the charge which falls on the British shipowner remains substantial and the Government simply cannot disregard the adverse effect that additional charges would have on an industry which is already under intense financial pressure. Port authorities, too, are much concerned about anything which diminishes the competitiveness of the services which they can provide. The pilots, on the other hand, are deeply anxious about their livelihoods and about the maintenance of the highly skilled and experienced service which they provide to the shipping industry, and it is understandable that they should seek the best possible terms on which they would be prepared to leave the industry.
I have made these general points in order to attempt to identify the conflicting considerations that will need to be resolved by the commission when they make detailed proposals on the form and the funding of compensation schemes. Before my noble friend the Secretary of State confirms any scheme he will wish to be satisfied that an acceptable balance has been achieved. It simply is not possible to form judgments at this stage, and especially this evening. They must await the full consideration of the proposals of the commission when they come forward. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
7.35 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for explaining the draft order in such detail. Your Lordships will very much have appreciated the fact that the noble Lord was able to go into the amount of detail which he did in explaining the order. The order itself is not contentious but its results could be highly contentious. The noble Lord explained in detail the problems which have arisen and which have made necessary the laying of this order, but any scheme devised by the Pilotage Commission to induce a pilot to retire early is bound to create problems. The noble Lord himself underlined a number of the problems. Who, in fact, is to pay the inducement to persuade a pilot to retire early? Is it to be the shipowners? Is it to be the remaining pilots? Is it to be the Government? Or is it perhaps to be the European Economic Community? The shipowners are unlikely to be happy about paying this inducement as they will not derive any benefit from making this payment. The pilots themselves will not wish to see their earnings eaten into by having
982
to make a payment in this way. And I am sure that the Government themselves will plead poverty.
The noble Lord explained how this situation has arisen: that is, that, as a result of our accession to the European Economic Community, more traffic is coming into the east and south coast ports and less into the ports in the west. One would have thought that because it was a result of our closer links with Europe there would be a strong case for suggesting that we should expect some help from the European Economic Community in this way. One wonders whether the problems which the noble Lord indicated might be solved by natural wastage. In his introduction he did not give us any indication of the present age structure of the 1,400 pilots. Is the noble Lord able to give that information to the House? In view of the remarks which he made, I wonder whether the problem really arose in the ports on the west coast which lost trade as a result of the movement of trade after our accession to the European Economic Community. As it is now possible for EEC nationals to have pilots' licences, will there be opportunities for re-employment, in particular of some of the younger pilots, within Europe itself?
As the noble Lord indicated, there arc inevitably many difficulties in creating any scheme for compensating those who are self-employed. As the noble Lord indicated, United Kingdom pilots are self-employed in some 76 out of 78 pilotage districts. None of the items which is listed in the order will of itself make any of the pilots redundant in the normal way. The events described in the order would certainly reduce the amount of work available to pilots in a particular district and could result in their earning less than they do at present. I understand that at present average earnings are in the region of £20,000 per pilot. The only way in which those earnings can be maintained at their present level if the amount of work decreases is, as the noble Lord has said, by some pilots being induced to retire earlier. This order is about schemes to provide such inducement. In those circumstances, it would seem to be wrong for any scheme to have the effect of increasing the real cost of pilotage. I wonder whether we could have confirmation from the noble Lord that this is the Government's view. In his consideration of this point the noble Lord suggested that the shipowners might expect to pay a levy.
In conclusion, may I say that this order is basically a licence to think. However, it is important that the commission should know the views of the Government in order to avoid future disappointment and frustration when it comes to making the order. I hope that the noble Lord can give us an assurance that when he is in a position to lay an order your Lordships will have an opportunity to debate it.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for the detailed and careful way in which he has led us through the order. May I also very much endorse what the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, particularly when it comes to the question of cost. However desirable may be a scheme that the commission puts forward, somebody has to pay for the cost of it. This is made more complicated by the fact that the pilotage industry is a self-employed industry

983
and the inducements to make a number of pilots withdraw from their work may be quite costly. Who is going to pay for it? Ultimately the cost must be met by pilotage dues.
Therefore the question that I should like to put to my noble friend, which is no more that underlining what the noble Lord opposite has just said, is, can we have some assurance that when the schemes are put forward, the Secretary of State will be very careful indeed to see that the ultimate cost is not higher and therefore a greater burden on the shipping industry than is the position today? This is immensely important when one considers the difficulty that the shipping industry has in many ways. It must be a question of reducing costs rather than allowing a scheme to go forward which will increase them. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some assurance on the Secretary of State's attitude to any scheme.
7.41 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I should like to follow the two other noble Lords who have commented on this order. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, I, too, have been advised that British shipowners are seriously concerned about the possible repercussions of this order. As has already been pointed out, it provides for the Pilotage Commission to made schemes under which payments may in certain circumstances be made by the Commission to compensate pilots and their assistants for loss of employment or reduced earnings. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made clear, the commission has no funds and no power to raise funds for this purpose—so these schemes, if they are to provide for payment, will, I presume, have to provide for payment by somebody else. The question is, who should that "somebody else" be? The right answer to that question seems to be different in each of the three sets of circumstances suggested in the order.
Before I refer to those, may I first comment on one statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who said that one possibility would be that contributions could be levied by the Pilotage Commission towards the cost of carrying out its functions. But the function which is being given to the commission is merely to draft a scheme and not to pay for the scheme. So I do not consider that that clause should be prayed in aid in getting the Pilotage Commission to raise a surcharge out its functions in this way, because it is limited to producing a scheme. I will just leave that for the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to think about.
The Secretary of State is not, of course, bound to approve every scheme put forward by the Pilotage Commission, but, where he does decide to do so, a further order will be required in each case. But that order would be subject only to negative procedure, and we all know how difficult it is effectively to stop such an order, which in any event cannot be amended. I ask this of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell: is it not incumbent on the Secretary of State to lay down some guidelines for the Pilotage Commission? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that this is in his mind. This follows on what has been said already by other noble Lords, and I apologise if I am knocking at an open door.
984
It seems to me that where in any pilotage district the organisation has been improved to the extent that the same number of ships can satisfactorily be dealt with by fewer pilots, then something really has been achieved. 1 understand that in those cases it has already been agreed between the General Council of British Shipping on behalf of the shipowners and the bodies which represent the pilots that the net financial benefits shall be shared between the shipowners and the pilots. In those circumstances, one would hope that any scheme devised by the Pilotage Commission would follow that line.
As I see it, the position in regard to the grant of pilotage certificates is not so clear. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, explained what these certificates are. If, as a result of the 1979 Act, the number of these certificates is to be substantially increased following the extension of the privilege to citizens of the European Economic Community, thus reducing the demand for pilots, then payments may well be justified to enable some existing pilots to surrender their licences. But it would hardly seem reasonable for all the users of pilotage services to pay for that. I was interested in the suggestion that perhaps the EEC themselves might help. I was going to make the simpler suggestion that, since this is a matter arising directly from our membership of the EEC, the cost would properly fall on the Government.
Finally, in respect of the third category described in the order, where a reduction in demand for pilots results from falling trade, is there really any case for compensation? As has been said, the pilots are, at their own wish, self-employed persons. I do not believe that any other self-employed persons would claim or would expect compensation from potential clients or customers because their business was falling away. This seems to me to be rather a curious proposition.
I expect that all these propositions merit discussion. I am told that at the Joint Committee the Minister did say that he would insist that any scheme must be fair to the shipowners; I am sure he meant also that it must be fair to other people. But I do suggest that guidelines would be of considerable advantage to everyone, including the Pilotage Commission, and that these should be prepared in consultation with all concerned. I hope, too, that it will be made clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, stated so lucidly at the end of his speech, that no scheme can be approved if it will add to the cost of pilotage in any district.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful, as we are, for the tremendous interest which has been evoked by this apparently fairly simple order before your Lordships this evening. I am immensely grateful to the two noble Viscounts and noble Lord who have spoken. Clearly they have a great deal of expertise and have studied the order in detail.
Perhaps I may attempt to reply to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and by others who have spoken. If I do miss any points I am sure these will be carefully noted, and I will write if I have made any major omissions. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, asked me a number of questions. The first major point he raised concerned

985
the age structure of the pilots. As far as we are able to deduce, there are at present a little more than 1,400 pilots in the service. Approximately one-quarter of these pilots are over 55 years of age, and some 60 per cent. of the 1,400 pilots are between 40 and 54 years of age. the balance of about 15 per cent. are under 40 years of age. Although some of the older group of pilots may come up for retirement shortly, it could take up to 10 years before what we would call normal natural wastage leads to a significant reduction in the overall number of pilots. Given this age structure, and indeed this pattern, it would be obvious to your Lordships that a scheme for voluntary premature retirement will be one option the commission would wish to consider.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also raised the point that I mentioned in my comments about the West Coast ports, and the slightly differing structure of maritime trade with the United Kingdom, which has arisen from among other things the increase in containerisation and port handling and the pattern of maritime traffic. As regards West Coast ports in the United Kingdom that have lost their share of traffic, some of them are worse than others, but if we take one example, Milford Haven, which is oil traffic, this has not been affected by United Kingdom membership of the EEC.
The noble Lord also raised the question of job opportunities for pilots in other EEC countries if they were among those who took voluntary retirement or were surplus to the requirements of the pilotage districts here. This would be a matter for the member states of the EEC and it would depend very largely on their competence in the language and their knowledge of the EEC ports.
Certainly I would confirm that the Government would be reluctant to impose any increased charge on the shipping industry. That is a very major consideration in the thoughts of my noble friend, and indeed I believe of the Government, in looking at the possibilities of trying to raise funds for these purposes. I would also give a very very firm assurance that your Lordships' House would have an opportunity to debate any further order arising from the order that we have before us tonight. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, put much of the dilemma that is before the Government and the commission with the order tonight, by calling it a licence to think. I think that puts much of the matter in a nutshell.
My noble friend Lord Rochdale raised the problem of added expenditure as a burden to the shipping industry. There is the possibility that shipowners might have to pay to help out with the funds for compensation, but I would add that so would other interested parties, the pilots themselves and possibly port authorities. I would stress the comment I made earlier, that my noble friend will be very reluctant to impose any increased charge particularly on the shipping industry.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, raised several points. The first one, which I agree is particularly important, concerned the Pilotage Commission. I understand that the Pilotage Commission may lawfully levy charges on pilotage authorities already to provide finance to carry out its particular functions. Given the present order that is before us tonight, it would be a function which could use charges already
986
levied on pilotage authorities to promote the compensation schemes. So already the power to levy is there, and the uses to which those charges can be put, I understand, certainly are intra vires. Given the present order, this would be a function, and funds could be expended to see if one could promote the compensation schemes.
The noble Viscount was worried about the negative resolution procedure. I think it is quite in order and quite normal for orders of this nature to be subject to the negative resolution procedure, certainly in your Lordships' House. We have no doubt of the vigilance of all the interests in shipping, in pilotage and in maritime trade, and particularly the interests within your Lordships' House; we are confident that they would pick up any points and give very detailed scrutiny to any orders brought forward in this particular field. 1 would stress to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that my noble friend the Secretary of State has no power to impose guidelines on the commission. I think the whole process which he will follow from this order tonight will be very much one of thought and consultation.
My Lords, I hope I have covered the major points that were raised by the noble Lords who so kindly discussed the order before us tonight. If I have missed any points, I will of course fill in the details, and write briefly to the noble Lords who raised them. With that I commend the order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982
7.57 a.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I beg to move, That the Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order, the draft of which was laid before your Lordships House on 20th May, be approved. On 2nd March we debated the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order. This, as your Lordships will remember, established a new Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland. That first phase of the reorganisation of departments, following detailed reports on their organisation in the spring of last year, 1981, was completed by 1st April this year, 1982, and strengthened the control functions of the Civil Service.
The present order, the details of which were only decided when the earlier order had reached an advanced stage, and which therefore could not be included in that order, will permit a similar strengthening of the economic departments by amalgamating the present functions of the Departments of Manpower Services and Commerce in a new Department of Economic Development. Further, as a distinct operational arm of this new department, we intend to create a new Industrial Development Board, a distinct and commercially oriented organisation, which in our view is best suited to promote Northern Ireland's industrial development drive. This action, the creation of the new Industrial Development Board, will be much more fully debated when the House considers the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order in the near future. The board, however, will work closely with the rest of the new departments, where

987
functions such as energy, tourism, aircraft and shipbuilding, industrial relations and the new youth training programme are concerned. It will also handle the overall economic and industrial development policy. This new structure will enable us to plan more effectively for the future and to allocate resources where they are most needed. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for this explanation of this order. It is an important order as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and, as I understand it, during the past few months there have been appropriate consultations and discussions with the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and with other bodies generally affected by the changes arising from the provisions of this order. I understand also that there has been detailed consultation with the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, representing the staff affected by the changes. From these consultations, I gather that there has been general agreement and favourable reaction concerning the Government's objectives in creating this new unified Department of Economic Development. It is generally expected that the new department should enable an improved and a more effective organisation of the Government's involvement in the industrial, commercial and manpower affairs in the Province—affairs vital to the future prosperity of the Northern Ireland people.
While we propose to give approval to this order, there are a few points which I should be grateful if the noble Earl the Minister could clarify, or on which perhaps he could give me some assurances. The noble Earl has mentioned the Industrial Development Board. That is a matter which we shall discuss at length on another occasion and, therefore, I do not propose to deal with it during our discussions on the order which is presently before us.
I should like to ask whether the order will bring about any reduction in the existing levels of staff employed in both departments? If so, in what divisions are the reductions likely to occur? There is no doubt that the new Department of Economic Development faces a colossal task in seeking to deal with chronic high levels of unemployment and in any efforts to surmount the problems and responsibilities of each of the functional divisions at present covered by the Department of Commerce and the Department of Manpower Services. These functional divisions are responsible for the Government's direction and policies over a wide range of matters affecting industrial investment, manufacturing and commerce, tourism, supplies of energy, mineral exploration and manpower policies which include training, employment services, youth employment programmes and industrial relations.
It is inevitable that the merging of the two departments will give rise to new administrative arrangements and staff changes. Can the Minister give an assurance that the momentum and the scope of the functions and services of these divisions can be maintained and improved during the changeover and the amalgamation
988
arrangements? Will there be any changes in the role or the remit of advisory bodies attached to some of these functional divisions?
The Minister will know from his experiences in Northern Ireland of the importance of manpower to the Province. In the process of the changes that are taking place in the setting up of this new Department of Economic Development, may I ask that the noble Earl will use his good offices in seriously exploring the usefulness of setting up a manpower advisory council with a remit to deal with management development, employment services and youth training, along with the other range of manpower matters? I feel that this would be an extremely useful proposal which I know is being examined at present by organisations in Northern Ireland, particularly in the manpower field. With those remarks from this side of the House, we wish to give approval to the order.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very grateful for the very constructive way in which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has received the order. On the staff side concerns I should like to reassure him that, while common personnel and financial services will be used by the whole new department where previously there were two departments, and that while this will allow savings of at least 15 posts, there are not enforced redundancies. Throughout the whole exercise there have, in fact, been discussions with the staff representatives about the implications of the changes and their attitude has been extremely constructive as has the attitude and action of all the staff concerned in the exercise.
I shall bring the noble Lord's point about the manpower council to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place who has specific responsibilities in that connection. As I noted when I opened, this simple order will permit a rather more effective organisation of Northern Ireland's economic institutions. Of course, we are not pretending in any way that such a reorganisation can solve the very intractable, indeed tragic, economic problems facing Northern Ireland, but it will I think enable us to apply our policies generally more efficiently and effectively and that can only help. As I have said, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has received the order and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House be now adjourned during pleasure until ten past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.5 until 8.10 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 4 [Consecutive terms and aggregate periods of detention]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 15, leave out from (" that ") to ("; and ") in line 17

989
and insert (" the only appropriate method of dealing with him is to pass a custodial sentence on him ").
The noble Lord said: The Government thought it right to seek this amendment partly in order to harmonise the phraseology of the Bill, and partly to emphasise its purpose. In Clauses 3(1) and 5(1), we require a court, in dealing with an offender, to be satisfied that:
" the only appropriate method of dealing with him is to pass a custodial sentence on him ".
That is in negative terms, emphasising that no other method is appropriate.
Clause 4(5), on the other hand, expresses the same provision in the words:
" a custodial sentence would be appropriate for the offence ".
That has overtones of positive suitability, which we should prefer to avoid. This amendment changes that so that it is identical with the wording of the other two provisions. It therefore makes a small improvement to the text of the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I think that the proposed amendment is an improvement, and I agree with it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Youth custody: offenders aged 15 to 20]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 39, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Once again, this is one of my probing amendments and it is significant that the provision in Clause 5(1)(a) applies to 15 year-olds and upwards. There seems to be no alternative provision for 14 year-old girls. Statistics show that the highest increase in female crime is in the 14 to 17 age group. I have noted in passing that Clause 3 copes with 14 year-old boys and, although I do not want to differentiate between the sexes on this, the fact is that 14 year-old girls can be just as vicious as 14 year-old boys. I wonder whether my noble friend can tell me whether there is any provision and, if not, why not. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Paragraph (a) is an essential part of the framework within which the courts are to use youth custody. It sets the limits in terms of age and in terms of seriousness of offence. There is widespread concern about the use of custody for young offenders. The Government do not agree with all the restrictions yroposed for the limitation of custody on young offenders. But on the basic principle that it should be a last resort we do agree. That is indeed the principle on which the Bill is constructed.
But my noble friend again refers to the provision specifically for female offenders, this time in the younger age group. Really, my answer to the last amendment which my noble friend moved before the dinner break—I think it was the last one—holds good on this occasion. It is that, because there is no prospect of a sufficient number of customers, as it were, to justify a central, national provision, simply because it would be central, young female offenders have to be I
990
accommodated in places which are in other respects for older offenders. I sought to persuade my noble friend at that earlier stage that this was fortunately and coincidentally beneficial for the régime which they underwent. If it had not been so, it would have been a more difficult problem, but that is the way in which we tackle it.
Lord Mottistone: I appreciate that my noble friend was initially trying to answer the amendment as though it was straightforward, but I was not altogether happy—otherwise I should not have moved that amendment—that this particular point of the young teenage girls has really been hoisted in as a problem which needs to be tackled. When we are able to read Hansard and can see all that my noble friend has said, we shall perhaps get a thread of it. But I have a slight feeling that this is something which the Government would like to avoid—I am not talking about this Government but about any Government—and have been avoiding. It is a very difficult problem of how to deal with young teenagers, particularly the girls, who have become a great problem in recent years. So, having made that point yet again—and I shall probably make it again on subsequent amendments—I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithful Baroness Faithful had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 13, at end insert—

(" (1A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a higher number for the lower number of years of age for the time being specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above.

(lB) An order shall not be made under subsection (1A) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 10, which I withdrew, saying that I would consider it further on Report. Therefore, I shall do the same regarding this amendment.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
8.18 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 13, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where a person who is not less than 15 nor more than 16 years old is convicted by a magistrates' court of an offence punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment then, if the court is of opinion that a youth custody sentence should be passed on him, the court shall commit him in custody or on bail to the Crown Court for sentence.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Donaldson and myself. The point at issue here is a very simple one. It is to ensure that, when a lower court—a magistrates' court —wishes to impose a sentence of youth custody on a young offender, the lower court should refer the recommendation to the Crown court, which will impose the sentence. It is self-evident that to impose any form of custodial sentence, particularly on those young offenders susceptible to receive youth custody sentences, is a very serious step indeed.
As I understand the present position, in imposing a borstal sentence the magistrates' court regularly refers

991
to the Crown Court, which imposes the sentence. Now that borstal sentences are no longer to be imposed, this is the logical requirement that we should like to see introduced in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: What is proposed here is, in effect, a special limit on the powers of a magistrates' court when it is dealing with juveniles. Magistrates' courts have power to impose a custodial sentence of up to six months on offenders of any age. That is the general limit of their sentencing power.
The approach adopted in legislation is to place limits on the maximum penalty available to any court. These limits relate to particular offences. There are also limits according to the age of the offender. What the legislation does not do is set a special restriction on the sentencing powers of particular courts according to age; that is to say, any restrictions according to age are general. Thus, under this Bill the limit on the length of a sentence of youth custody which may be imposed on a juvenile—that is to say, a boy or girl under 17—is 12 months. But there is no special limit on the powers of magistrates in dealing with juveniles.
What this amendment seeks to do is exceptionally to introduce a special restriction which would prevent magistrates from imposing youth custody sentences at all. No doubt this derives from the fact that magistrates cannot at present impose a sentence of borstal training. They have to commit to the Crown Court for this. But the new sentence of youth custody is not simply an equivalent to borstal training. This point becomes clear when we consider the range of powers which the Bill as it stands makes available to the magistrates' courts.
Under the Bill a magistrates' court can pass a sentence of any length up to six months on a 15 or 16-year-old juvenile or on a young adult. It can commit the offender to the Crown Court for a longer sentence. The Bill sets a maximum of four months on a custodial sentence for a 14-year-old and of 12 months on a sentence for 15 and 16-year-olds. It is those maxima which are important. The law provides that in almost all cases the proper place for a juvenile to be dealt with is in the juvenile court. We should think long and hard before we start saying that a magistrates' court can be given the difficult and serious task of trying and convicting a young offender, but should be deprived of its usual sentencing powers, although it can try and convict. Both trial and sentence are serious matters —and we cannot say that a court is fit to carry out one task but not the other.
This amendment would not, incidentally, have quite the effect which its sponsors desire. The usual minimum for a youth custody sentence will be four months, but there will be plenty of youth custody sentences much shorter than that, where the offender is unfit or ineligible for a detention centre order. Moreover, the four months minimum is, under Clause 13, movable by statutory instrument. If it went up to six months magistrates would in any case have to commit to the Crown Court for a youth custody sentence. We have made allowance for that in the amendment in paragraph 41 of Schedule 13, which we shall take later. If it went down below four months the effect would be that the Secretary of State, by order, would reduce the jurisdiction of the magis-
992
trates' courts. That, I think, is not what we wish to do. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will perhaps think better of his amendment.
Lord Hunt: I am grateful to the Minister for providing me with some necessary education, and I am now wiser than I was and to some extent reassured and relieved by what he has told me. In view of what he has told me, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 19, at end insert—
(" and
(c) in a case where the court considers that the offender's detention in a detention centre would be unsuitable because of his mental condition, that there are special circumstances (whether relating to the offence or to the offender) which warrant the passing of a sentence of youth custody in that case ").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment, and it is in the same field as the various amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I really move it in order to seek information. If a child is found to be mentally unsuitable for a detention centre but his offence is such that it commands a short custodial sentence, and yet he cannot go to the detention centre because of his mental condition, he is given a youth custody order. May I know exactly what happens if his mental condition is such that he cannot go to the detention centre? Does he then go to prison or to borstal? If so, does he get the necessary treatment there? If not, what happens to him, or her? I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: According to the White Paper, Young Offenders, 1980, the answer to the noble Baroness's question is that he goes to prison. If that is so —and that is the only authority I have for saying so—it is a scandalous and serious state of affairs. Here is a youth, or a boy or a girl, who needs the maximum amount of care who is simply dumped in adult prisons, if this report is true. This amendment is a probing amendment, but if those facts are accurate it is something that should be terminated forthwith. What we should like to know, if the Minister has the information, is how many are involved in that situation and what is going to be done about it.
The proposal in the amendment is that that state of affairs should not be allowed to arise, and that rather than let that arise there should be no incarceration at all. But if any of the young people in this group are ending up in adult prisons that clearly cannot do them any benefit, and it is an intolerable situation. It is presumably impossible to provide facilities for them which are adequate, let alone separate facilities. According to the White Paper, Young Offenders, a comment made by the Prison and Borstal Governers' Branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants—not an irresponsible body—is this:
" They are squeezed into a bank of cells at the end of a wing or landing or, in the case of one local prison, into a basement. Recreational facilities are meagre, and sometimes non-existent. The same applies to work and physical education. It is only remarkable that control and other problems are not more severe, but staff in local prisons will invariably highlight this group as the most difficult one to manage in prevailing conditions ".
The report of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group, of which the noble Baroness was a

993
distinguished member, comments upon this in its report, Young Offenders, a Strategy for the Future, paragraph 227, by saying:
" We recommend that those young offenders for whom a custodial sentence exceeding four months is inappropriate but who are mentally unfit for detention centre régimes should not receive any form of custodial sentence. Since these are cases where by definition only a short custodial sentence is being considered, the offenders concerned will not be among those who represent the most serious danger to the community, and a suitable non-custodial sentence, where appropriate, involving treatment for the offender's mental condition within the National Health Service should be imposed ".
This amendment does not go as far as that recommendation of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group, but it goes some way to achieving that aim by providing that a short custodial sentence should be imposed on such an offender only if there are special circumstances. I, and I am sure the Committee, shall await with concern and interest what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has to tell us either by way of asurance, or whatever it may be, to deal with what appears to be, if these facts as I have read them out are true, to be a scandalous state of affairs.
Lord Hunt: In rising to support the noble Baroness in probing through this amendment, I should like to underscore the concern felt by members of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group on this matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has referred to the White Paper, which makes it clear that young offenders are likely to serve in adult prisons in the circumstances of the Bill at this stage.
My concern is the greater because when the matter came up in Committee in another place, the Minister said the Government had given further thought to what was said in the White Paper, and he said words to the effect that every effort would be made to place all the young people concerned who were under 17, and some of those who were 17 and over, in youth custody centres, but he added that some of those aged 17 and over would probably serve their time in adult prisons. This is a matter of great concern, although the Minister tried to sugar the pill by saying that they would serve their sentences either in a hospital wing or a young prisoners' wing. Anyone who knows the picture in local prisons would endorse every word of what the people who really know—the Prison and Borstal Governors' branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants—have had to say about those establishments, They are scathing and they speak of a national scandal in relation to the detention of young people in adult local prisons. That merely adds weight, if weight were needed, to what the noble Baroness said.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I hope the Government will not shy away from the possibility of letting somebody free when they cannot be accommodated properly. That is what, in my opinion, the whole prison problem is about. Because the Government—the British Government for British justice, not just the Tory Government at the moment—are incapable of dealing with the number of offenders sent forward by the courts, they are piling them in a way that is unacceptable. This is a very small element of the whole, a certain number of very vulnerable disturbed young people, and the right answer is that if a proper place cannot be found to send them, let them free. Let there be no mistake; that is what should be done.
Lord Mottistone: That may be a disaster. I am sorry to tell the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that, but, having been involved with the Mental Health Bill both in this House and another place, I can say that the tragedy is that there are some mental patients of all ages, including the young, particularly schizophrenics, who are totally vulnerable when not under some sort of control. Custody is one thing, and we are talking about prisons. I cannot but say that, because the matter is not going through in the other place as well as it should, there is strong pressure to say that civil liberty must ride above all. The trouble is that there are vulnerable people of whom some people—it has happened in the United States apart from here—are saying, "Let them free. That is the prime thing", and they are casting them into the gutter. That is what is happening. The legislation is just—only just—all right in another place, and for goodness' sake do not think that by saying, "Set them free", life will be made better for them. They are probably being condemned to disaster.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I must reply to that. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is talking about dangerous lunatics. Of course they should not be free, but they should not be in prison either.
Lord Mottistone: Of course not.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Right, and we are talking about a prison sentence on these people, and that should not be confused with a medical sentence of insanity. It has nothing to do with that. These are people who are mentally unfit, but not in a position to be sent to a lunatic asylum, or whatever they call them nowadays. It is failing to meet the situation to talk about it differently. Of course, if somebody is insane, they should be certified and sent to a proper place. We are talking about children, or people slightly older than children, who are mentally unfit, who are unreliable, who are difficult, who are possibly even slightly schizophrenic, but not on a basis which would justify certification. This cannot be laughed off. It must be dealt with and it cannot possibly be dealt with by certification because they are not as ill as that.
The Earl of Onslow: I suggest there is right both in what my noble friend Lord Mottistone says and in what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, says. If these people are set free into the gutter, it is equally possible they could be sent to Wormwood Scrubs to the gutter. What we must try to do is find a balanced, sensible way between the two. Surely, nobody who is mentally sick should be in prison; they should be in hospital. I suspect there are large numbers of adult offenders in secure prisons when they should be in secure mental hospitals. I cannot say because I am not an expert on the subject. Having listened to that interesting exchange of views between my noble friend and the noble Lord, as is often the case in such circumstances, there is right on both sides.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is thinking of the more seriously mentally ill individduals who may come before the courts because of some very grave offence they have committed, and in that case they would, of course, be liable to be transferred

995
by the court to a special hospital under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959, and I think I am right in saying—the Minister may wish to confirm it—that Section 60 may be applied to young people as it is to adults. However, under the amendment I do not think Section 60 would be appropriate because we are talking about the young person who would not be given a custodial sentence of more than four months, so the offence would have been of a relatively minor nature. One assumes that the mental illness from which the young person was suffering would not be so severe as to warrant his detention in a special hospital under the powers of Section 60.
There are, however, other powers in the Mental Health Act which enable a person to be detained for shorter periods. I believe that Section 28 allows for one month's detention, and there are other provisoins in the Act. Thus, when we are considering what is an appropriate disposition for a young person who may be found to be mentally ill when he comes before the courts, we should not neglect the powers which already exist under the Mental Health Act, which have nothing to do with offences but which, I think, might be more appropriate to the minor offences with which we are dealing in the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I might respond to that by saying: Do not forget the gutter!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is, with great respect, forgetting that we are dealing with persons sentenced to something less than four months' imprisonment. The picture he built up of the homicidal man who should be in Broadmoor is totally and absolutely irrelevant to what we are considering.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I might intervene in this developing exchange to say that my noble friend Lord Mottistone is not entirely irrelevant in what he says because it is not only the dangerous and suicidal lunatic who is in danger of falling into the gutter if he is released into society without some other provision. I do not doubt that if we were addressing ourselves to an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—I am not suggesting by that that we prolong the proceedings on Report—he would say, "No indeed, that person should not be discharged into the gutter, but some other provision (some other supervision or care) should be provided".
Returning to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the question she sought to answer, I would say that the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, was broadly right in saying that where you have the extreme case, there is provision under the Mental Health (Amendment) Act and the Mental Health Act itself to deal with it. My noble friend, however, was concerned about where juvenile offenders would go. When we come to Clause 11, your Lordships' Committee will see that we have put down amendments to make sure that juveniles are not held in prison; they will go to youth custody centres, or remand centres when we have them, appropriate to their care. They will not go into adult prisons.
As to young adults, we intend to hold them in young offender establishments also, but I think that we must face the reality that, until the effects of the Bill and
996
the effects of our building and refurbishing programmes reduce current pressures, some of them may have to go to prison. We arc talking now not about juveniles, but about young adults. We are talking not about the majority, but about a minority. Our best intentions are that none of them shall go to prison, but there is a possibility that, until we get it right, some of them will have to, and that I have to admit.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Can the noble Lord say how many are in that category at the moment? The report by the Prison and Borstal Governors' Branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants is absolutely hair-raising. How many are they talking about? It is not known, I see.
Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord can see, if not from my face, from the faces of others, that I shall have to write to him on that point.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The Minister is saying that we must face up to reality. That is what the amendment is all about—reality. The reality is that, with all the magnificent provisions for young people, there comes a moment under detention sentence when the court says, "This person is not eligible for a short sentence in a detention centre because he is not fit mentally or physically ". Then what happens? That person is given 21 days, or whatever the period is, in a youth custody centre. As I understand it—the Minister has not made it clear—the régime in a youth custody institution is not suitable for a very short sentence. It upsets the training which is being provided in such a centre.
So one is left with a group of people unfit for the short sentence in the detention centre—rogue elephants so far as the youth custody training system is concerned —and what is to happen to them? One understands that at the moment they are just put into a local prison, and it is that which the governors have described as a scandal. That is what is involved in facing up to reality. As I see it, the purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government to face up to reality. The reality is that these young people are going to go to prison, and that is a scandal. I suggest that the Minister has not answered the question of where they are to go, if it is not to prison. If it is to prison, it is a disgrace.
Lord Elton: With respect, I think that, when the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow, if he does so, he will see that I said that the juveniles will go to youth custody centres and that the great majority of those of 17 and over will also go to young offender establishments. The pressures are such that I do not want to put my hand on my heart and say that none of them will ever again go to prison, because we have not reached that position. The noble Lord cast doubts upon the suitability of youth custody centres for this sort of treatment, saying that there would be rogue elephants —I think that was the phrase. Well, I taught for 10 years. I am not saying that it is a directly analogous experience to running an establishment in which young offenders are supposed to receive education and training. But the fact is that one can accommodate oneself to a certain number of people who are not capable of taking up the full benefits of a régime, or a curriculum, without throwing out the administration for the rest.

997
We have all along in these debates been talking about flexibility, and I think that this is an area in which it is to be expected that these establishments will be able to cater for these people, will be able to provide the medical supervision that they require, and will indeed be able to give them advice which may follow them through into the community when they leave and be of great value to them. These are not simply disciplinary machines. We are not talking about detention centres which have a rapid and rigorous régime. We are talking about youth custody centres, which are specfically available to those for whom the detention centre régimes are not suitable, and I believe that we do less than justice to the service if we say that it could not cope.
As to the prisons I accept that we do not want to send people there. I undertake that we shall do our best not to send any of them there, and as time progresses every effort will be made to see that such numbers as are sent there diminish. But I should be dishonest if in my response to the amendment I suggested that we could undertake that the kind of people whom we are talking about would never go to prison.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like very much to underline the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was raising. The numbers here seem to me really vitally important. If it is a case of one person every two years, then one must be prepared to say, "All right, that's just bad luck" But if there are going to be tens of people a week, then the situation is much more serious. I would ask my noble friend whether he will request his advisers to produce the figures for information during the course of later debates on the Bill. I concede that the offices are probably now closed, but the figures must be available somewhere, and they seem to be very important.
Baroness Phillips: I did not have the opportunity to hear the noble Lord who introduced the original amendment, but, as a magistrate, I am becoming completely confused about who these people are. We are told that they would probably receive sentences of no more than four months in prison; I think that that was the maximum quoted. We are also told that they are vaguely schizophrenic. Now, you cannot be vaguely schizophrenic; either you are schizophrenic, or you are not schizophrenic.
Last week I had a group of young people over here from Malta and three of them were robbed by other young people in Oxford Street. Your Lordships' Committee might regard that as petty and unimportant, but when it cames to a court hearing I think that these are the kind of people whom we would be talking about. I am not quite clear how they come to be in such numbers. The noble Lord on the Front Bench nods his head, but I am wondering about the ages that have been referred to. I should like to have some idea of the offence for which they have been brought to court in the first place. Then we could know whether we were dealing with someone who was genuinely disturbed, or someone who, as it might have been said in the old days, was simply committing an offence. Nowadays nobody seems to be able to commit an offence; they always plead diminished responsibility, or something like that. But I feel that there are some people who actually commit
998
offences. This is a terrible area of confusion. Who are we actually referring to in the amendment?
Lord Elton: As to the numbers, I shall do what I can to help your Lordships' Committee. Whether or not the people who robbed the noble Baroness's friend were mentally disturbed, I cannot say; that would he for the court to decide—
Baroness Phillips: They were not caught.
Lord Elton: I did not catch the allusion. I think that we shall do better if only the person standing up takes part in the debate. I shall be very happy to sit down for as long as noble Lords wish. But the thing is—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The noble Lord did not catch what was said. The trouble was that the offenders were not caught, either.
Lord Elton: In that case we shall never know whether or not they were mentally disturbed.
For the benefit of the noble Baroness, who came into the Chamber after the amendment was moved and therefore did not hear described the people in question, I shall say merely that they are people who are thought physically or mentally unsuitable for detention in a detention centre. My noble friend and various other noble Lords have said that such people ought not be thrown out on to the street, nor ought they to be thrown into an adult prison. I have said that the Government have no intention of throwing juveniles into anything except youth custody centres, and that we also wish to put people of 17 and over into young offender accommodation. But I would be less than honest if I said that we could bring this about by the time the Bill reaches the statute book. Of course, it depends on the future practice of the courts; but I can tell my noble friend now that we would estimate that up to 100 people at any one time, with a variety of conditions—some serious, some minor—may be concerned throughout the entire prison population. It is a small percentage, but for them, of course, each case is 100 per cent.
I take very much the anxiety that noble Lords have. I was earlier on in my as yet brief political life in the Department of Health, where I saw these people at the other end, as it were, of the tug of war, and I recognise this as a profoundly disturbing thing which worries me deeply. I said earlier that I was interested in the sick prisoners. It is actually this form of illness which I find most compelling and in which I have the greatest interest. So noble Lords need not feel that this is going to be left idle on the sideboard until the next legislation. All I am saying is that, keen as I am to get this set right, I really cannot undertake to do it before the legislation gets on to the statute book.
Lord Avebury: May I make one additional point before the noble Baroness concludes the debate? Now that we are armed with the figure that the noble Lord the Minister has given to us—we know that there are up to 100 of these young people who are mentally ill at any one time who get dumped in the prison system—does the noble Lord agree that it would provide a strong incentive to the Home Office to get on with the job of providing these youth custody centres for up to 100 young persons if this amendment were put on the statute book now?
Lord Elton: Indeed, yes, but I should point out that these are all unfit people and not just mentally unfit people. The noble Lord will agree, I think, that there is a difference between putting somebody who has a mental illness to cope with in a youth custody institution, or indeed in an adult prison, and somebody who has a hernia, for instance. They are really of rather a different order.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, hit the nail on the head. We are in impasse. I think I should say that there are of course places for the mentally ill under youth custody orders, but there are not enough of them to deal with all the mentally ill young offenders.
I had hoped that my noble friend the Minister could have talked a little bit about adult secure units, which were recommended by the late Lord Butler. If such units are recommended for adult prisoners, should there not be adolescent units for young people attached to such centres? In the mental health service we have a service for the adult patients and we have adolescent units for the young patients. It seems to me that one of the most constructive things we could do would be to have adolescent units in secure units for the mentally ill prisoners. This is what I hoped might perhaps be considered.
We obviously cannot get very far on this tonight. It is a vitally important problem, but at this point in time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Provision of premises for young offenders etc.]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I have to tell your Lordships that there is a misprint in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 20 should read "leave out from beginning to second (' and ') in line 2 on page 9".
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, line 37, leave out from beginning to second (" and ") in line 2 on page 9.
The noble Lord said: I did not spot the error. With the leave of the Committee, with this amendment I should like to take Amendment No. 38, because they are similar. I was planning to take them separately, but I really think that I have dealt thoroughly enough with female delinquents. Perhaps I might find myself associated with Mr. Gladstone; that would be the Liberal Party, and that would all be a disaster!
The amendments are similar because it is not clear from the provision which I seek to leave out in Amendment No. 20 whether remand centres are going to be set up for females over 14 years of age. There is none in the London area at the moment. Holloway used to be used, but is no longer. In connection with Amendment No. 38, there seems to be no provision for attendance centres for young females. Such centres would be especially important if no other provision for under 17 year-old girls is made.
So part of the point which I hope my noble friend will be able to respond to is the question of what to do with the very young, new offenders of around 14 years old of the female sex. What are the Government going to do about providing means for accommodating them under the different circumstances dealt with in Clause 10 and later in Clause 17? I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: We appreciate the reason for this amendment, and we have already had a full debate on the detention centre order. If we are to have the order, we must have somewhere to put those sentenced under it. This amendment would deprive the Secretary of State of his power to provide detention centres, which is an integral part of the Bill's provisions. We shall in due course lay before Parliament draft detention centre rules which will set out more fully the way in which those institutions are to be run. I am afraid the Government cannot accept this amendment, and I hope my noble friend will not press it.
Lord Mottistone: That is a most unsatisfactory reply. I took the trouble to write to my noble friend to tell him that these were probing amendments and what the reasons for them were. I also said that this one was going to relate to Amendment No. 38. My noble friend Lord Sandys replied to it as if it were just a straightforward amendment, but it was not. I wrote a special letter and I got a special "Thank you" reply from my noble friend. It really is most unsatisfactory to have that pat answer. The advisers really must he spanked.
Lord Elton: I think I ought to intervene to shelter my noble friend and the advisers, and possibly provide a magazine to slip down the trousers. I apologise if the answer went astray, but, as the noble Lord had linked it with No. 38 and my noble friend was about to take that, I handed it to him, and this is where the slip came between the cup and the lip.
There will be three units in remand centres for young women—at Pucklechurch, Brisley and Lower Newton—but no unconvicted girl under the age of 17 can be remanded in custody, though 15 and 16 year-olds can be committed to a higher court for sentence. There are six attendance centres specifically for girls; there are nine attendance centres which take girls as well as boys. I hope that that is more the sort of material that my noble friend wanted.
Lord Mottistone: I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for that reply. It was one I had hoped for in the first place. It is the sort of answer I was seeking. I really do think that if one takes the trouble to write the bloody civil servants should do their job properly.
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Sandys: I hope that my noble friend will withdraw what he has just said.
Lord Mottistone: Of course, I will withdraw because the Committee would like me to withdraw.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: A very ungallant remark.
Lord Mottistone: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 9, line 7, at end insert—
(" ( ) No person detained in an institution provided under this section shall be required to share a cell with another person.
( ) Dormitories in institutions provided under this section 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.
( ) 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 institutions provided under this section shall conform.").
The noble Lord said: It will make for the peaceful atmosphere of this Committee if I move this amendment. The Committee may be very surprised to learn that there is no statutory provision anywhere for prison accommodation in this country. One hears speeches, one hears of reports, one hears of White Papers criticising the accommodation that exists, but nobody can refer to a standard. There are other standards to which I hope to refer the Committee briefly; but what this amendment tries to do is to set down for the first time some standards and the Committe may feel that we are making a good start when we do that in respect of juvenile offenders.
I said that there were other standards and the first thing that I should like to do, if I may, is to refer to the standards that are set by the 1973 European standard minimum rules. Rule 8 provides that prisoners should be lodged during the night in individual cells. Rule 9 provides that prisoners' accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation. Rule 11 provides for sanitary facilities and says that they must be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in clean and decent conditions.
There were references to the standard rules in the May inquiry into the European prison services. Noble Lords will remember that in 1979 that report was issued. It concluded in this way in regard to the standard minimum rules. It said that it required a target of a minimum of no enforced cell sharing except in regular dormitories, incorporating continuous ready access to lavatories or integral sanitation as appropriate.
It is hardly to be thought, hardly to be anticipated, hardly to be prayed for that juveniles who go into this sort of condition which now all too often prevails will come out with a respect for society and in any way cured in regard to their habits of living when those who are placing them in custody put them into completely uncivilised conditions. So, although we may be doing it for the first time, we should comply with European obligations and the obligations, you may think, of a civilised society. What we must do in the Bill before us is to set down standards which I hope the Committee will think are absolutely minimal standards for any decent incarceration.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: It is. a particular pleasure to me, having been asked by my noble friend Lord Harris to move this amendment, to find how well the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has done it. He has, in fact, anticipated a great deal of what my noble
1002
friend asked me to say, but not quite everything, so I will add a few points. Parliament's attention was drawn to our failure to lay down statutory standards in penal establishments by a very distinguished old friend of mine who alas! is now dead, Pearce, who was, most imaginatively, appointed by the present Home Secretary as the Inspector of Prisons as a result of the May Report recommendations. He was rather a splendid man. I do not think it would be right to talk about this without some reference to him.
It was his first report and, as the first holder of the office, he pointed out that, like the rest of us, he was gratified by the announcement of an increase in prison building but clearly this will take many years and it was clear to him and his colleagues that it was unsatisfactory that there were so few specific standards laid down. This point the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made clearly as far as cell accommodation is concerned.
It seems to me, it seemed to my noble friend Lord Harris and to Bill Pearce who made this report, that it was about time we started somewhere. You cannot start everywhere; so why not start with youth accommodation'? This is what this amendment is about, as the noble Lord said. The standards laid down in this amendment were laid down first by the American Correctional Association. They insist on a minimum of 60 square feet of floor space if prisoners' confinement does not exceed 10 hours and at least 80 square feet if prisoners were confined for more than 10 hours a day which, alas! quite often in this country they are.
They insist that prisoners should be housed singly. In order to be accredited by the Association, the city authorities must comply with 90 per cent. of all the standards classed by the American Correctional Association as essential and 80 per cent. of all standards classed by them as important.
Both my noble friend Lord Harris and I and, no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have seen something of the prison conditions in the United States. I went to the Tombs about 10 years ago and, frankly, it was the most awful thing I have seen in my life. It "blew up" about three months later and has since been closed. There is every sort of variety in American prisons but the Tombs was an experience. The top floor was kept for the psychopathic chaps and there were numbers of loonies wandering around. It was the most dangerous experience in my life. There was this with the noise from the uncovered floors with people wheeling food cannisters about.
It was high time that the American correctional standards were reinforced and I think we here should do something about it. The standards movement has been of great importance in improving conditions in American penal establishments and I think it has a part to play here. I do not think you are going to get standards improved with the difficulties there arc in improving anything, without setting them down in advance and giving people something to aim at. The prison governor has got to be able to say to the Home Office: "I am terribly sorry: I cannot do this because it crosses the standards I am obliged to hold up". If you do not do that, he has no power at all. He has to do what he is told, and the result is more or less disaster.
Last December the Prison and Borstal Governors' Branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants declared its position. It said this:

1003
" The first essential step is to set minimum standards for prison conditions in the 1980s ".
Let me say, the 1982s: we still settle for that now.
" These should be based on the European standard minimum rules and should be incorporated into English law. In practice, this means the outlawing of compulsory cell-sharing and the abolition of ' slopping out '. We have asked the Home Secretary to include this legislation in the Criminal Justice Bill ".
The Home Secretary has not included this legislation in this Bill, so we are putting it forward to help him.
My third point is that we do indeed have obligations on this matter under the 1973 European standard minimum rules. Rule 8 provides that the prisoners should normally be lodged during the night in individual cells. Rule 9 provides that prisoners' accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation. In this country we can skip the climatic conditions, but everything else is highly relevant.
Rule 11 states that,
" sanitary facilities should be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the need of nature when necessary and in clean and decent conditions ".
I know that in a sense this is asking for the moon and with over 44,000 prisoners in prison at the moment it is not something that can be done under, say, seven or eight years; but I believe that in relation to young offenders this could be done now. I do not ask the Government to say that this should be put into the Bill, but I ask them to give me some assurance that they will at least aim to do this within three years for young offenders. It seems to me something they could do, something that they ought to do, and something over which they are going to be in breach of European regulations very soon if they do not. Following the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I beg to support this amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to make just two points. One is that the situation is very strange since standards are laid down by the Department of Education and Science for all their establishments and standards are laid down by the Department of Health and Social Security for all their establishments. In addition, many of the establishments run by the social services departments take young offenders. How, then, does it happen that two Ministries have very strict standards and one—the Home Office—does not?
I should like to make a further brief point, which concerns the requirement to share a cell. There are some who are gregarious and who like to share a cell, and there are others who find it really difficult. I once saw a girl in a community school for education and asked her: "Why are you in a room by yourself?" She said: "I jumped on matron's foot and hurt her." I asked: "Why did you do that?" She said: "To get sent to a place where I would be in a room by myself." It just means that some people cannot tolerate—some can but some cannot—sharing a room and there does need to be some flexibility. For these reasons, and others, I support the amendment.
Lord Avebury: I should like to make a couple of observations. First I should like to refer to the European standard minimum rules, which have been
1004
referred to several times in the course of this debate. As I understand it, the rules were drafted in 1973 and so they have been there as a model for us to aim at for almost 10 years. During that period, if anything, we have gone even further away from the realisation of the aims set out—such as allowing people to sleep in a cell by themselves if they want to—than we were at the beginning of that period.
I should like to ask the Minister to address himself in the course of his reply to what exactly is the status of the European standard rules. Obviously they are not justiciable. You cannot seek an injunction that the governor of a particular establishment should bring it up to any of the standards set down in those rules. You cannot bring an action against the Secretary of State for his failure to observe them. So may I ask the Minister this. Have these rules any force whatsoever, or are they just a set of pious platitudes to which we have no intention of ever adhering?
If the latter is the case, I cannot see the point in having a document which, as the noble Lord recently told me in a letter which he was good enough to write to me, is available in the libraries of all our prisons in England and Wales for anybody to refer to. That would be a very good thing, if the prisoners on reading it could see any chance of the admirable standards laid down ever being attained. But if they can see that the Government have no intention of providing the kind of standards which are laid down, then it is stimulating unrest in the prisons not only among the wretched prisoners themselves, but also among the staff who have to cope with the appalling conditions that have been described.
The second point that 1 want to make relates to the certification of accommodation in prisons as being fit for occupation. Under the prison rules, the medical officer has to certify every cell in every penal establishment as being fit for the occupation of prisoners. What I should like to ask the noble Lord—and this is something which I have tried to pursue in the course of correspondence, both with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when he was in office—is how the medical officer does this job. He goes and looks at a cell and can see what are the dimensions, the amount of light, of heat and so on. but what are the objective yardsticks by which the medical officer judges the suitability, or otherwise, of the accommodation for a certain number of prisoners? If he does not have the European minimum standards, or any other internal guidelines which are laid down by the Home Office, it is asking a great deal of a medical officer. I do not think that such a duty should be imposed upon him, and the prison rules ought not to lay it down that the medical officer has to carry out a duty for which he is given no guidance whatsoever.
So an amendment of this kind, if it were confined, as has been suggested, to juveniles, would begin to set the pattern which would then be extended throughout the whole of the prison system. I agree with those who have said that it would be far too ambitious to try to aim at meeting anything like the European minimum standards for the 44,000 people whom we have in custody, but I believe that we can make a start on the juveniles and that we should do it while we have an opportunity in this Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: I am not totally happy with this

1005
amendment, not because I do not agree 100 per cent. with the aims behind it, but because I wonder what happens if there is not the money to do it. If we legislate for something which has to be done, and then there is no money, the law comes into disrepute. What happens if somebody is put inside in a double cell? Can he get an injunction stating that the courts are imprisoning him illegally, so that he then has to be let out?
The standards of our prison accommodation should be vastly improved. The thought of three people in a cell for 23 hours a day, with just a chamber pot each, is quite repellant and very barbaric. But to put these standards into legislation would bring the law into disrepute. And let us be quite honest; there are no votes in money for prisons. My right honourable friend the present Home Secretary deserves a great deal of credit for managing to extract out of a very tight-fisted Treasury—quite correctly—money for prison building and such like. But if we put such an amendment into the law, it will be counter-productive.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If I may answer that, we are talking about a limited number of people. It would be quite possible to say that we have to deal with these 3,000 or 4,000 people. We could begin with 500 and bring them up to standard, and have a programme over the next three years to bring the remainder up to standard. This is the kind of proposal that we want to get from the Government, but we never get it. What we want them to say is that they agree with what we say ought to be done. They could say that they do not have the money to do it all, but they could make a start and provide a programme. But can we get it? The answer is, Never.
Lord Elton: I shall try to be brief and to satisfy your Lordships. The first point from which we started was the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, of which there are both United Nations and Council of Europe versions. These cover much of the ground in the amendments, though without specifying quantities or dimensions. The standard minimum rules have the status of recommendations to guide legislation and practice. In administering the prison system, the Government endeavour to comply with the rules, so far as is possible, but they are not—I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—conventions subject to signature and ratification, as capable of enforcement. They are, as it were, international guidelines. I recognise the attraction of what is proposed. It puts noble Lords who have tabled the amendments—whoever moves them—on the side of the angels. They are very attractive in some respects.
However—I urge noble Lords to bear with me beyond this paragraph—before I go on I have to point out the difficulties. If we set standards high enough to inspire and stretch management, there will inevitably be many failures to meet them in the less favoured establishments. If we set lower standards which can be met, the exercise has a diminishing point to it. If in statute we set different standards for different parts of the prison system, as is now proposed, we should introduce a degree of complexity and enshrine inequity in statutes or regulations. As circumstances change over time—for example, in respect of public expenditure levels
1006
and priorities, staff recruitment or industrial relations—a particular code of standards may become obsolete fairly quickly. Yet the amendment of statutes takes an inordinate length of time. Futhermore, the setting of standards does not in itself increase the resources available. It must be recognised that there will still be other pressing demands for the expenditure of public funds which noble Lords, who put down these standard minimum rules, may well feel equally enthusiastic about.
However, those are all arguments for caution. This is not to say that nothing should be done. The Government have given considerable thought to the arguments for setting standards. We recognise that this is a case in which we must try to surmount the difficulties. We have decided that we should try to draw up a code of standards as a basis for discussion. This would cover and may well focus on the main elements of prisoners' accommodation and living conditions, but we ought also to look at régime activities as well. The two, in terms of resources, are inextricably linked because resources are required to get people supervised out of cells, just as they are required to put them in cells which are relatively congenial. It is too early to say how far we could go in setting quantitative criteria, but we recognise that they are needed if standards are to bite and that we should go as far as possible in this direction. It will not be easy and it will take time. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, asked for some sort of target. I cannot give a commitment. The noble Lord will realise that a good deal of consultation, some of it quite difficult, will be required. However, we should be aiming at about 18 months.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If accommodation for young prisoners could be brought up to standard within 18 months I should have no comment.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has entirely misunderstood me. What we are saying is that there should be guidelines, that there should be something like the SM Rs—a target, a standard which ought to be reached and adhered to. That means quite a bulky document, as the noble Lord will realise if he has looked at the European and United Nations equivalent. To get that out may take about 18 months. Then we have to bring the accommodation up to standard. How long that will take I cannot say until we know what the standards are and how far we are below them. However, we intend to do what the noble Lord wishes us to do—not by statute, though, but by guidelines.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am grateful for that; it is very slightly more than nothing, I admit. May I just point out that in prison building this has been done over the last 30 years. I was chairman for 10 years of Grendon where the conditions are at least three times as good in every way as they are in ordinary local prisons. If you can do it in prisons, why can you not do it for youth custody? Why can you not have one which is right, and the others you will get right later? You will never move if you do not do that, I assure noble Lords.
The Earl of Onslow: Is not the standard for prisons laid down for Northern Ireland extremely high—individual flushing lavatories in cells, which is what

1007
we should all aim at, and one prisoner per cell? Has one not seen photographs of that at Long Kesh? I may be wrong; I am speaking off the top of my head.
Lord Avebury: I asked a specific question: how medical officers are to carry out this function which they are obliged to do under the prison rules. So there is a statutory obligation on prison authorities that medical officers should certify a cell as being fit for accomodation by prisoners. What I wanted to know was, in the absence of any quantitative standards, how is the medical officer to know that a cell of any particular dimensions, having windows of a particular size and heating to a particular temperature, is in fact adequate for accommodating prisoners?
Lord Mishcon: I think it would be—I am so sorry.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord was going to emulate his noble friend and answer the question for me, I will be only too happy to give way. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has raised a point which I regret f am skirting because I have set the relevant piece of paper on one side. The Prison Rule 23, Borstal Rule 25 and Detention Rule 5 all say much the same. Neither the legislation nor a prison department guidance sets the precise standards to be applied and, in practice, accomodation is certified by governors and medical officers operating under regional oversight. In setting certified normal accomodation levels, they are enjoined to determine the uncrowded capacity of the establishment and, in so doing, to bear in mind such factors as the size, shape and general condition of the accommodation; the number and position of doors and windows; ventilation and lighting; heating; and access to ablutions and lavatories.
To say that such prisons as I have seen in Northern Ireland had individual flush toilets is not so; far from it. But because of population pressures the CNA serves as an index rather than a limit to the capacity of accommodation. It is a sort of Plimsoll Line and sometimes we sail rather deep.
Lord Gardiner: Does this mean that there are no criteria by which the prison medical officer certifies whether something is fit for occupation or not? I have often wondered about the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was saying—and he is always so helpful—that there are no criteria laid down at all. It seems that the medical officer takes a look and then says, Yes, or, No. Is that right—that there are no criteria at all?
Lord Elton: The level we are talking about is the certified normal accommodation. If a prison medical officer thought that it was exceeded to a level which made things not only uncomfortable but dangerous to health, then obviously he would have a duty to intercede. The CNA is what the prison is regarded as being designed for. As I have with tireless regularity told your Lordships, it is something which we are forced to accede. This Bill is among the armoury of things which we are using to bring that excess down to a lower level.
Lord Wigoder: Does that mean that one medical officer can say that a cell of a certain size will accomm-
1008
modate one prisoner while another medical officer at another prison may say that a cell of precisely the same size can accommodate three prisoners?
Lord Elton: No. As I think I said, this is done under regional supervision and the regions themselves are under the hand of central Government, so there are not wide discrepancies about the standards. The question of the extent to which CNA is exceeded depends on a great many different factors in different areas—catchment area, the types of offenders, and the number of establishments available in a particular area. Therefore, there is more overcrowding in some prisons than in others.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, mentioned Grendon, which is a special psychiatric prison. Therefore, the accommodation there is rather different and I do not believe it would be appropriate to use that as a benchmark for all the others. I was trying to say that we must have standards—I agree with that. We want to make them applicable throughout the system—we agree with that. When we have them, then it is a question of whether one should concentrate on bringing one bit of the service up to standard ahead of another or not. I do not doubt that that is something to which we shall return when the guidelines are available.
Lord Avebury: Why is the Minister being so coy about this business of certified accommodation? If one looks at the Prison Department's annual report one can see in the appendix that every single prison is listed there and a figure is given for certified normal accommodation, which is the figure arrived at by the judgment of the medical officers using the process which the noble Lord the Minister has described. He said that this exercise of the judgment of medical officers was under the supervision of the regional prison departments. What I want to know—and what I am sure the noble Lord who moved this amendment and noble Lords who are signatories want to know—is how in a particular region the medical officer and the governor together arrive at the figure for certified normal accommodation. And if there is any difference between one region and another, what is the rationalisation for that? On the other hand, if there is a figure which applies throughout the whole of the prison department establishments of the amount of floor space, the cubic content, the level of illumination, the level of ventilation, the level of temperature and so on, if such things are uniform throughout the prison system, why is it the noble Lord cannot give us the figures? If it is not uniform, could he tell us what the variations are between one region and another. I think the Committee must know the answers to these questions before coming to a decision on the amendment.
Lord Elton: The amendment addresses itself to standardising these criteria. I have said that we endorse that proposal. There will he variations, do not doubt, of circumstance from one region to another. It is the function of the prison governors and the medical officers to see that minima are observed in setting what is certified normal accommodation. Almost every establishment is above certified normal establishment, and of course that is what we are

1009
trying to reduce. I cannot produce a handbook of guidance which is of a national level, because as far as I know it does not exist, and that is exactly what noble Lords opposite are enjoining us to create and that is what I am saying we are going to do. It hope this satisfies the noble Lord.
The Earl of Onslow: On a very minor point, what possible difference can there be in sending somebody to prison in Durham and Cornwall, and why should there be a regional variation in standards? I find it incomprehensible.
Lord Elton: If one prison was built in 1896 and another in 1920, the rooms are likely to be a different size and they are liable to be a different size which is not modular to adjust to prisoners; you either have one and three quarter prisoners or one and a half or half of one prisoner. I would have thought this was elementary, and I think we were straining at a gnat. The principle the amendment is after has been conceded, and I do not see why we go on with the debate.
Lord Mishcon: It is quite obvious from the number of noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and indeed the time we have taken on this amendment, that we have hit upon a very vital subject indeed. I think it would be quite wrong at this time, and with the size of the Committee as it is at present, to take the matter further at this stage. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment, and will come back to it, if I may, or may be someone else will be coming back to it, at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 9, leave out lines 10 to 14.
The noble Lord said: This is a comparatively harmless amendment, unlike many of the others we have been concerned with. It is really a probing amendment. The national Association of Probation Officers take a very strong view that it is just as wrong to mix young women with older women as it is to mix boys and young men with older men. The Government, as far as I know, take exactly the opposite view. My own view is at the moment undefined, and I wanted this to be discussed in the Committee. It seems to me that the danger of a girl being corrupted by an older woman who is of a criminal mind is about the same as the danger of a boy being corrupted by an older man who is of a criminal type. I am not aware of any argument in the other direction. But I have no experience of either, so I am hoping to get some information from the noble Lord or other people. This is purely a probing amendment. I think it is important that if we are going to give the Government the leave, which this part of the Bill does, to mix older women with younger women and girls we ought to be very sure what we are doing. I am not in a position to give advice on this and I am asking for information. Are the Government sure that it is right to say that this is a perfectly good thing to do and have they any information of any kind, derived from any scientific or other examination, to support it? The National Association of Probation Officers have a great deal of widespread experience about this and take the opposite view. I have no experience myself and I am interested to know what
1010
has happened. In order to find out, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Elton: I can quite understand the noble Lord's interest in this subject because I also find what I have discovered rather surprising. The arrangment is, in fact, intended for the benefit of the individuals concerned. It is the case that the present law does not distinguish between prisoners on the basis of their age; and in the women's and girls' system over 21s and under 21s subject to sentences of imprisonment, which start at the age of 17, have been held together for many years. That has not been done casually or in response to the need to solve an ad hoc problem; it is a practice well founded on management experience.
During the preparation of this Bill we specifically consulted the governors of women's and girls' establishments about the reasons for, and the results of, this mixing. Their experience is that to hold selected adult women with young offenders brings benefit to both sides. I shall return to the matter of selection in a moment. However, their firm advice is that it is essential because young women in custody can react in a volatile and over-emotional manner, and this seems to be reinforced where an exclusively young population is kept together. The presence of adult women prisoners has a stabilising effect upon them—a matter to which I referred earlier. From the point of view of the adult women, the opportunity to mix often gives them a greater sense of responsibility and maturity.
By contrast, young men are more likely to challenge older male prisoners and themselves to be exploited by them. That is not to say that there are no risks at all with women, but they are more limited and can be dealt with by a proper selection. If I have said enough to satisfy the noble Lord, then I think I shall leave it at that because the other considerations arise from the administrative arrangement which would flow from the amendment if it were accepted.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, I think that we ought to have some evidence. The noble Lord says that consultations have been held with prison governors. It would be interesting to know what they said. I think that this is rather an important point. I shall certainly not press the amendment to a Division because I think that it is quite likely that the Government are right. But I think that there has been a rather generalised "everything is all right" line. What does the Governor of Holloway say? What does the last governor of Holloway say? What do other women governors of whom many are very distinguished—say? Could we have a symposium from half a dozen of them and hear something about it? I am not asking for this before Report but I think that it should be done before the British nation adopts a particular policy which is logically difficult to explain. I am not saying that there is not a good reason, but I should like more backing for it. Anyway, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(Amendment No. 23 not moved.)
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 10, line 7, at end insert—
(" (8) The Secretary of State shall at monthly intervals notify the Crown Court and magistrates' courts of the number of vacancies available in institutions provided under this section.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24. We have been discussing—and discussing with great interest and with an endeavour to do something about it—overcrowding in prisons. Your Lordships may think that it is suitable to come out at least with some amendments which are of a constructive nature to try at least to do something about it.
It is generally agreed that, over the years, the prison service has been placed in an impossible position by being asked to accommodate and to look after more inmates than it has the resources to cater for properly. All this amendment asks—and it is in accordance with a report of the Expenditure Committee from which I shall briefly quote in a moment—is that reports are issued monthly which enable the courts at least to know what the availability of prisons is in order to ensure that those which happen to be under-occupied, if there are any, at least receive a correct number of prisoners. This quite obviously applies also to those institutions which happen to be overcrowded.
The quotation that I want to make from the 1978 report of the Expenditure Committee on the reduction of pressure on the prison system reads:
" The sub-committee desire to make it clear that they would not wish to interfere in any way with a right of a court to send a person to prison. We feel, however, that it would be helpful to provide regular status reports on prison and borstal institutions, giving information about the accommodation available, and we recommend that such information should be available to all Crown Courts and magistrates' courts."
When this was dealt with in another place, the Minister —and I believe that this was on 23rd February—although not prepared to accept the amendment, agreed that the courts should be aware of the pressures under which the prison system operates and said that he would look seriously into the matter to see whether the frequency or the scale on which the courts are informed of the state of the prison population in various establishments could be improved.
I ask this question—hopefully because this may make me take a certain course in regard to this amendment: what has been done since 23rd February to carry out what the Minister said he would do? If something constructive has happened, it will obviously help my friends and me to know what we ought to do about this amendment.
Lord Elton: As the noble Lord said, this amendment is similar to one which was tabled and discussed, though not formally moved, in another place. Although it is well meant, the Government do not believe it is quite the right approach and, indeed, if brought into the Bill it could produce some confusion. The demand for places in the prison system is, in effect, determined by sentencing decisions taken by a judiciary operating within general but not specific limits imposed by Parliament. A statutory provision requiring individual courts to have detailed population returns at regular intervals could indeed exert an overt influence on individual sentencing decisions. I do not say that those responsible for taking sentencing decisions should not have relevant information about custodial
1012
provision and about the problems the system faces. On the contrary, that is an aim that the Government share. The problem that we face is how best to do it.
I accept that the extent to which the executive should seek to influence the judiciary is ultimately a matter of judgment, and that it would be possible to take different views from the ones I have just implied on how far it is right to go in this direction. But on a more practical level, I do not think that the amendment would work in the way its proposers wish. Population levels in institutions can change rapidly; in detention centres and remand centres they change from day to day. So that information to the courts could rapidly become out of date before it was repeated. Furthermore, overall vacancies in, for example, the youth custody system could, as with borstals at present, mask pressure on secure establishments and, indeed, pressure on all establishments in large areas of the country. And I should add that for unsentenced people the criteria for refusing to grant bail are clearly defined, and I cannot see any scope for a system in which courts would or should be influenced by figures about vacancies in remand centres.
Generally, it would be difficult for the courts to interpret monthly figures except in the broadest sense. Decisions about the movement of offenders within the prison system are made on the basis of daily figures. Detention centres are in fact the only type of young offender establishment to receive sentenced offenders direct from court. By contrast, places in youth custody centres, to which the amendment also relates, will be filled by allocation from the establishments which first received the young offenders from court, and their level of occupation at any one time will not reveal the ebbs and flows of a changing situation.
That said, we are anxious to see whether the ways in which courts are informed of population levels can be improved in an effective way, and since the discussion in another place we have given further thought to how we might do it. Taking detention centres first, magistrates' courts are already requested to inquire about vacancies before passing sentence. This is not—as is sometimes thought—with a view to their being refused places but so that, where necessary, offenders can be committed to centres under less pressure. We propose that a modified inquiry system should continue when the changes in this Bill are brought into force and the courts will, therefore, continue to be aware of fluctuating pressures on the detention centre system. Such a system would not be useful for other young offender establishments because, as I have explained, they do not receive offenders direct from courts. Courts are made aware of pressures in the prison system generally by Ministers, officials and others—including, indeed, Members of your Lordships' House—drawing attention to them, and through publications such as the annual prison department report and accompanying statistical volume. I doubt that there is a court in the country which does not know that the prison system is generally under great pressure at the moment. For our part, the Government will continue to make known these facts and encourage the dissemination of relevant information.

1013
As to the formal transmission of this information a committee of the Magistrates' Association does in fact receive six monthly statistics about population levels. Before Part I of the Bill is brought into force, we will have a look at these arrangements to see if there is any scope for change. Plans are also well in hand for the issue by the Judicial Studies Board of a bulletin of material of interest to sentencers. We may be able to build on this. These various approaches are, I think, likely to bear more fruit than the one
1014
reflected in the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord feels that we have not been idle since the proceedings in another place.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. The Committee will be grateful that the amendments in another place and in your Lordships' House have produced some practical results. I repeat our gratitude to the Minister, and in the circumstances beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 11 [Accommodation of young offenders and defaulters etc.]:
9.47 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 8, leave out (" the enactments mentioned in ").
The noble Lord said: The first of these amendments in line 8 is purely to simplify the wording of the Bill. I shall speak to the next amendments as a group, if I may. I beg simply to move this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 29:
Page 10, line 17, at end insert—
(" (1A) Subject to subsection (9) below, an offender aged 16 years or less who is sentenced to youth custody, other than an offender who falls to be detained in a youth custody centre by virtue of subsection (1) above, is to be detained in a youth custody centre or in a remand centre as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct unless—

(a) the term of his youth custody sentence is treated by virtue of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 as reduced to less than 21 days; or

(b) he has been sentenced under section 15(6) below to youth custody for less than 21 days; or

(c) the Secretary of State gives a direction for his detention in a prison under subsection (2) below.").

Page 10, line 18, at end insert (" (a)").
Page 10,line 20, after (" above ") insert ("; or
(b) an offender who falls to be detained in a youth custody centre or a remand centre by virtue of subsection (IA) above,").
Page 10, line 24, after (" above ") insert (" or an offender who falls to be detained in a youth custody centre or a remand centre by virtue of subsection (1A) above ").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry. I have this slightly confused because I changed over folders at this point and the folder to which I was changing was not present briefly on the Front Bench. Therefore, I have leapt ahead of myself and your Lordships. May I now beg to move Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 29 en bloc.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I was nearly denied the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for giving effect to suggestions in anotherplace, which are embodied in Amendments Nos. 25 to 29. It is a good thing to introduce a little calm, gentleness and gratitude in what at one time became a most unlordly display.
Lord Elton: I cannot forbear to thank the noble and learned Lord for his calm and generous response. Nothing would mortify me more than through my own ineptitude denying myself the pleasure of being thanked by the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move the following amendment:
Page 10, line 28, at end insert—
(" ( ) No offender who is less than 17 years of age shall be detained in a prison under subsection (3) above other than for a temporary purpose.").
The noble Baroness said: In view of Amendments Nos. 25 to 29, for which I thank my noble friend—they are amendments to be welcomed—I shall not move my Amendment No. 30.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt had given notice of his intention to move the following amendment:
Page 11, line 6, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: I am caught out, much in the way the Minister was temporarily caught out a few moments ago. Even worse, I have no brief. Therefore, I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Release on licence of young offenders]:
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 32:
Leave out Clause 14 and insert the following new clause:
(" Release on licence of young offenders.
14. Subsection (5A) of section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to make the length of licence for those young offenders released on parole the same as that for adults. The licence would then end at the remission date. In general, distinction between young and adult offenders is made with the intention of benefiting the young offender. That is the general pattern and policy. However, the present parole arrangements have the opposite effect and can put a young offender in a worse position than an adult in similar circumstances.
The Bill improves on the existing arrangements under which parole for young offenders extends to the latest date of release, rather than the remission date, but in our view it does not go far enough. A young offender released on parole could still be subject to licence, and therefore to recall, for a longer period than an adult serving the same length of sentence. That also means that the young offender who is subject to recall is liable to spend a longer period in custody, as the unexpired part of the licence will be longer. The amendment would remove that anomaly and therefore the potential for a serious injustice would be expunged.
When this amendment was debated in Committee in another place the Minister of State, Mr. Mayhew, after hearing the debate, commented:
" I am very willing to look again at what has been said in the debate…there is no commitment on my part to change, but I would welcome the opportunity to read again what has been said ".
Perhaps rather anodyne words that have fallen from the lips of Ministers of various Governments from time to time. During the debate the Minister acknowledged that he could see the attractions of the argument that there should be equity of treatment between young offenders and adults released on parole. The Minister was, however, concerned to maintain,
" a kind of equality of treatment between young offenders as a class ",
as he described it, and therefore about how the amendment would affect those released on parole compared

1017
with those released in the normal way on licence. We hope the Government will give earnest consideration to the matter so that the iniquity which is at present a possibility in many cases between young and adult offenders will be removed. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I understand the concern which underlies the amendment. It can sometimes be difficult for the probation service to deal with young offenders who resent being supervised, and their task is not helped when the offender feels he is an adult and should not therefore be treated differently from people who are sentenced as adults, and it may help if I explain why the Government have included the provision in Clause 14 and why, therefore, we are not disposed to accept the amendment. We take the view that all young offenders should on release be subject to a period of supervision. An offender who has been in custody is likely to be in a vulnerable state and a supervising officer can provide him with both firm guidance and support of a practical kind. The period of supervision is an integral part of the sentence.
At present those released from detention centres, borstals and sentences of imprisonment of less than 18 months are under supervision for a period of 12 months. The Government take the view that that is too long. The general rule that we introduce in Clause 15 is that all young offenders will be supervised until the date on which their full sentences would have expired. That can be called the remission period. The period of supervision is therefore related to the length of the sentence, but with a minimum of three months and a maximum of 12 months.
However, we do not intend that the new arrangement should interfere with the young offender's chances of being released earlier on parole. At present young prisoners are eligible for release under the parole arrangements in the same way as adult prisoners. The only difference between the two categories is that the parole licence of a young offender runs until the end of the full term of his sentence, while the parole licence of an adult is shorter; it runs until the two-thirds point of his sentence. That is the date on which he would otherwise have been released without any supervision.
The amendment to Clause 14 would abolish the difference between adults and young offenders released on parole. The Government intend to retain it because it balances the general principle underlying the custody and supervision of young offenders. In general, offenders released under Clause 15 will spend two-thirds of their sentences in custody and one-third under supervision. Those released early on parole under Clause 14 might spend one half of the sentence in custody and one half on licence under supervision. That means that there is some equality of treatment as between young offenders as a class, and that is the Government's aim.
If the amendment were to succeed, it would make a severe inroad into the general approach to young offenders. It would introduce as well a dramatic difference between the way that we treat those who are released on parole and those who are not. So in seeking equity in one area, it would create inequity in
1018
another. Let me illustrate the point in the case of two young offenders who have three-year sentences. One is released on parole after 19 months, and under this amendment he would spend 19 months in custody, five months on licence under supervision, and then he would be scot free. The other is released in the ordinary way under Clause 15. He would spend 24 months in custody and 12 months under supervision. The second offender would be released under supervision on the very day that the first became free of supervision.
I have said that the Government intend to retain the existing parole arrangements for young offenders which are set out in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. While that is generally true, it does not explain the small adjustments that we are making to Section 60 in Clause 14 of the Bill. The purpose of those changes is to harmonise further the provisions for parole and those for supervision.
I think that rather than carry forward the argument to what we shall be saying about Clauses 14 and 15, I shall say that I hope the noble Lord sees that what we are proposing is at the very worst the lesser of two evils. It is less inequitable than what he proposes.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Although with his usual courtesy the noble Lord has explained in full the effects of the Government's decision in this matter, with the very greatest respect to him, I do not think that he has really justified the distinction drawn between young offenders in this case. The general policy of the present Government, and of previous Governments, has been to expunge that difference. Indeed, in this very Bill there is a very substantial provision that deals with making time spent in custody by young offenders count as against eventual sentence in exactly the same way as for adult offenders. Having therefore endorsed that principle of equality, why should the Government fly in the face of their own basic philosophy in this matter? We are mildly disappointed, but not altogether dismayed by the Government's attitude, and we hope to return to the matter at another stage, at, one trusts, a more propitious hour than the present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The next amendment is Amendment No. 33, and I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that if it is agreed to it will not be possible for me to call Amendment No. 34.
Clause 15 [Supervision of young offenders released otherwise than on licence]:
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 13, line 29, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(" (1) A person over 17 and under 22 years of age who is released otherwise than under section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 from a term of detention under a detention centre order or a term of youth custody shall he under the supervision of a probation officer from his release until the end of the supervision period.

1019
(1A) A person released as in subsection (1) above who is under 17 years of age on the date of release shall be under the supervision of a probation officer or a social worker of a local authority social services department from his release until the end of the supervision period.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Donaldson and myself. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify a grey area in penal practice, as to which of the two services, the probation service or the social services, should be responsible for the supervision of young offenders, out of custody, depending on their age. There remains, and will remain if this amendment is accepted, a grey area in respect of young people under 17. My understanding from the probation service, at any rate, is that that grey area is sorted out quite satisfactorily between the two services at local level.
Our concern is in regard to the older ones, those who are 17-plus, and it is my feeling, from some experience, that it is necessary to stipulate that the probation service—which is, after all, the service serving the courts —with its particular training and with its familiarity with the more strict controls and disciplinary supervision which are sometimes quite necessary for young people of that age, should be given the specific responsibility for young people of that age and above.
The clause as it is worded, if your Lordships would glance at Clause 15(1), lumps together all young offenders under the age of 22, and goes on to say that such an offender,
" shall be under the supervision of a probation officer or a social worker of a local authority social services department from his release until the end of the supervision period ".
It does not make any distinction at all; it leaves it to be sorted out locally. I repeat that it is our feeling that this distinction should be made, and this is what we have done in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble Lord for exposing his interest in this matter so clearly. Under Clause 15 there is provision to continue the existing arrangement whereby certain juveniles released from detention centres and borstals are supervised by local authority social workers. Mainly these are youngsters who would have been under the care or supervision of the local authority when they were sentenced, and whose continuing supervision by the same local authority social worker is considered to be essential.
It will probably help the Committee if I indicate the sort of case that I have in mind. There is, for example, the case where the whole family is receiving effective help from the social services department. It would be disruptive and unnecessary for the family to have the probation service involved with one child, even though he might be over 17, on release from custody, while a social worker has responsibility for the rest of the family. There will also be those youngsters for whom the local authority will have a continuing legal responsibility under the Children and Young Persons Act, who will, on release, be returning to local authority community homes. The clause enables the continuity of supervising officer to be maintained in those cases where it would be beneficial.
The effect of either this amendment or a later one
1020
which I suspect my noble friend will be speaking about —1 hope I have not leapt up ahead of him, if he was intending to speak—would be to prevent any continuing involvement by the social worker even in those cases where it is thought essential, and make the probation service responsible for supervision in every case. Each case needs to be considered from the point of view of what would be best for the young person concerned.
At the moment, local authority social services departments co-operate with the probation service in an arrangement to decide in each case who should supervise. Although the lion's share is taken by the probation service, there are and always will be cases, such as those that I have illustrated, and others, where it is without doubt for the benefit of the recipient of care (if I may so describe it) that he should be overseen throughout his career, including the interlude (we hope the solitary interlude) of custodial treatment by the same caring adult. That is what we propose and that is why the area is grey, but in a beneficial and not a muddled sense.
Lord Hunt: I was pausing hopefully to get some support for this amendment from any other quarter of the Committee. In view of the late hour, it is obvious that I do not wish to press on and insist on dividing a small Committee. 1 have fully understood what the Minister explained, the circumstances which can arise particularly in the family situation and the need for continuity. I am still not entirely happy that there should not be something more specific about the responsibilities of the probation service as distinct from the social services as a general rule. I should like to think about this and to consider coming up with something else at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 13, line 33, leave out from (" officer ") to (" from ") in line 34.
The noble Lord said: This is linked with the previous amendment, but I wish to follow a slightly different line. I am advised that, whereas supervision of difficult young people carried out by probation officers is of a good standard, there is experience that, unless monitored from the courts, the social workers do not always carry out the supervision as intended. They seem in many cases perhaps to lack the training for this task. I suppose they have a wider range of things to deal with, and difficult young people may be particularly difficult for them. We know that my noble friend Lady Faithfull is very experienced in this area and did extremely well in Oxford; but I am talking about London area where perhaps the ability to have people so well trained in not so great. But almost more importantly—and this is something that my noble friend could perhaps comment on—whereas the probation officers are quite clear about their authority to give instructions and to see that they are carried out, the social workers do not seem to carry the same authority. In general terms, one would be grateful

1021
if my noble friend could clarify whether there is any step being taken to ensure that social workers who get the opportunity of dealing with young people of the offender type, the difficult ones, are trained up to the same standards as the probation officers for doing what is essentially similar work. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: If I may elaborate on what I have said, the social workers have perfectly ample authority to cope with the most difficult cases, and they do so: in my last job I saw them do it and was impressed. As to training, there is a common element in the CQSW course and therefore I feel that the social workers are as well equipped as the probation officers for this work.
The reason why I hesitate in speaking is that I do not want to mount a hobby horse, but I should like to say there has been a habit in the past of some sort of rather ungrateful rivalry between the social work departments and the probation services, and each has perhaps been happy to advance its own expertise at the expense of the other. I believe that those days are behind us and I am just wondering whether the noble Lord's disquiet stems from memories or perhaps the persistence of an unhappy case where each service felt that it was in some way better than the other, when both were doing the same job. Of course that is manifestly unproductive. It is also manifestly diminishing, it if is not extinct.
If I may return to my noble friend's point of anxiety, I am confident that the social worker has adequate authority. In many cases it is greatly to the advantage of the young person to be dealt with by someone he knows and, hopefully, already respects. Where there is an advantage in changing oversight, the advantage is perceived, and because the social work service and the probation service discuss these cases on the occasion of the young person coming to court, they can profit from the opportunity to change the supervision. But there will always be cases where it is better to have care through from before to after sentencing.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his very full reply and for reassuring me on a point on which I was advised that there had been difficulties in the past. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman: Amendment No. 35: 1 understand that there is a misprint here. The amendment refers to line 26 and not to line 25.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 14, line 26, at end insert (" subject to the limitation that the length of any period of custody is not such that an offender would spend longer in custody than under the original sentence.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment which is involved simply with what is down there. It is in order to make sure that a greater punishment than originally imposed on the offender by the court cannot be incurred as a result of this. I do not think it is very likely that it would be, but it is possible, and we should
1022
guard against the possibility. I do not think I need say more at this point. The Chief Whip wants us to be quick, and I always do my best to comply. I think the case is perfectly clear. We do not want to see this subsection enabling the offender to be given a longer time in detention than he would have had under his original sentence. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I will try to match the noble Lord's brevity. I do not think I can quite do it, but I think he would like me to make it clear that the provision in Clause 15(6) is not some form of recall or return to custody. It creates a new and separate offence like any other offence, and sets a maximum penalty for it. That penalty is available whether the offender is under supervision after being in custody for three years or three weeks. It does not provide an easy way for the court to pop someone back inside when they seem to be going astray. The imposition of a custodial sentence under this provision will be subject to all the restrictions in the opening clauses of this Bill, including social inquiry reports, legal representation and so on.
The court is simply sentencing for a fresh and separate offence of which the offender has been convicted. No doubt it would look at the offender's previous custodial history, but it should not be bound by it. It is highly unlikely that a court would impose a sentence with a maximum of 30 days on someone whose original sentence was a few days less than that. The Government's view is that this is a matter which can properly be left to the discretion of the courts and that what is proposed amounts to, as it were, excessive fine tuning.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I will accept that, but I am not entirely happy. It does not seem to me that a sanction for breaking is the same as a new offence. It seems to me a wrong use of words and I believe the noble Lord should look at this. The position is really quite clear. The offender is given some orders to comply with and fails to comply with them. This is part of the old offence. It is arguable. 1 do not want to go into detail at this hour. I am not happy, but it is not worthwhile dividing the Committee on the amendment. I shall think about it, but I am sure that shall not come back on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 14, line 26, at end insert—
(" (6A) A person released from a custodial sentence imposed under subsection (6)(b) above shall not be liable to a new period of supervision.").
The noble Lord said: This is a slightly more substantial amendment, which is based on the knowledge that those of us who work in this field have acquired from people who are professionals in it about what the offender feels. We are trying to ensure that a person released from a custodial sentence imposed under subsection (6)(b) shall not be liable to a new period of supervision. The point is that he has had his punishment, he has failed to keep to the orders that he was given, he has been punished for that and released and

1023
that should be the end of it. He should not then have a further period of supervision.
I think that I have said it as clearly as it can be said, and there is no point in elaborating. My own view is that he should pay his penalty and then be free and not have a further period of supervision. I hope, at least, that if he cannot agree now the noble Lord will look again at this amendment, because it is more important than some of those that we have been dealing with. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This turns also, to some extent, on the concept of whether what happens is a new offence or, as it were, a distortion of the old conditions. I see one attractive side to the noble Lord's argument, which is that there is a danger of somebody being trapped into a constant recycle of offence, breach, offence, supervision and so on. But the period of supervision on release under Clause 15 is an integral part of the young offender's sentence. During that time, he must comply with the requirements in his notice of supervision. These will be quite simple and mainly concerned with keeping in touch with the supervising officer. If he fails to comply, he will be guilty of an offence carrying up to 30 days in custody. Plenty of other offences might result in a young offender being given up to 30 days in custody. The question is: should this offender be treated differently from all other offenders?
All custodial sentences of up to 30 days will carry three months' supervision. An offender's breach of supervision will be quite serious if he is given the maximum penalty of 30 days. Should he, unlike all other offenders, be exempt from supervision altogether on release? On balance, I think not. If an offence—be it theft, breach of supervision or criminal damage—is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence, it will also automatically attract the period of supervision. We should be very reluctant to start modifying the structure of the sentence, according to the type of offence.
I can see what the noble Lord will say in reply, because he wishes to relate everything that happens after release from the first period of custody to the original offence. What I am saying is that, in the period of supervision, the offender is required to conduct himself properly, both in respect of all other pieces of legislation affecting the whole population, and also in respect of the orders which apply to him because of his case. If we treat an offence against one differently from an offence against the other, we introduce principles which slightly worry the sentencing authorities. I do not see an unbreakable cycle of reconviction and re-supervision breaking out, because the courts will be aware of this danger and will conduct themselves accordingly and not giving 30 days' supervision to somebody who appears to be unsupervisable. They might possibly expect him to conduct himself properly for three or four.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: One of my least worries is upsetting the sentencing authorities. That is not at all a problem in my life. The noble Lord has not noted that Section 14(8) already allows continua-
1024
tion of the existing licence to its normal termination. The more I think about this the more I am inclined to think that it is rather an important amendment. It would be quite wrong to divide the Committee when there is nobody here. Therefore, I shall raise the matter again at Report. It is an injustice that somebody who commits an offence, who is given a supervision order, who breaches that supervision order and is then punished for the breach which, clearly in his mind, is part of the whole sentence, should then be given further supervision when he comes out. It is not acceptable, and I think that I should like to fight it. However, I shall withdraw the amendment this evening. I will gather my forces, consider whether I can put something down at Report and then see what support I can get.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Provision, regulation and management of attendance centers]:
10.21 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 14, line 36, leave out (" may ") and insert (" shall ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and myself. My purpose in doing so is simply to make an inquiry or to probe what the Government have in mind by using the word "may" rather than "shall". I hope that I am not reading into the Bill, as Clause 16(1) is worded, any lukewarmness or doubts on the part of the Government about the value of attendance centres. My understanding is that attendance centres are serving an essential purpose and that, by and large—they are variously administered around the country—they are doing the job well. When he replies I should like the Minister to explain why the word "may" is used. It looks almost as though the Government may drop the idea of attendance centres after the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there is no intention of displaying any degree of lukewarmness in this area, as I hope my remarks will show.
The Government are committed to the provision of attendance centres. Clause 16(1) preserves the Secretary of State's power to do so. The Government made clear their commitment in the White Paper which we have all been looking at—Cmnd. 8045. We noted that there were 71 junior attendance centres for boys aged 10 and under 17 at the beginning of 1979 and a mere two senior centres for young men aged 17 and under 21. Today there are 117 attendance centres in England and Wales. That is an increase of 44 in three years. I hope that helps to demonstrate to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the enthusiasm which the Government have for this particular measure. I think it will be agreed that the Government are making good use of the existing power in Section 48(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948

1025
which subsection (1) replaces. The 1948 Act power is expressed in terms of "may".
It would not be customary to provide that the Secretary of State "shall" provide attendance centres. I have suggested that it would be unnecessary. Of course a future Secretary of State might take the view that attendance centres were no longer an appropriate form of response to juvenile offending. For the foreseeable future it is difficult to imagine so cost effective a disposal being given up.
But more to the point, the substitution of "shall" for "may" would be ineffective. Attendance centres are provided in centres of population. This must be so, since the young offenders who attend there for two or three hours on Saturdays have to be able to travel there without undue difficulty. Absolute comprehensive coverage for the whole country could not be achieved since centres could not be maintained in sparsely populated parts of the country where the number of young offenders within reach of a centre would be too few to make it viable. Thus, the Secretary of State must have the discretion as to where centres can be maintained. Even if subsection (1) allowed the Secretary of State to maintain attendance centres he could—and I emphasise the word "could"—decide that few were needed. Indeed, the fact that until recently there were only two centres for young men aged 17 and over bears out this point. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would not prevent that neglect. I venture to hope that the Committee will agree that the Government can and should be trusted to use the power to set up attendance centres properly and that the amendment should therefore be withdrawn.
Lord Wigoder: Could the noble Lord help by saying how many of the 44 youth attendance centres are senior ones?
Lord Sandys: I do not have that information immediately to hand, but I believe it may emerge in the course of later discussion—possibly on the next amendment.
Lord Hunt: I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for his admirable brief and for making it so clear that there is no sinister inference to be drawn from the word "may". I feel very comforted by that, while being somewhat puzzled by the extraordinary interpretation put on the word "shall". I would have thought that the word "shall" was pretty binding and would give the Secretary of State more power to his elbow to develop the attendance centres up and down the land, but with the assurance that the noble Lord has given me I am not going to press this point, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I want to say one very brief word about attendance centres. The All-Party Penal Affairs Group, of which I am the pilot
1026
secretary, and which has done a certain amount to produce amendments which we have debated today, feels very strongly that the attendance centre is one of the most useful non-custodial penalties for young offenders. We have not had an amendment which has enabled us to discuss this subject, so I just want to stress that point. I would like to point out also that the Home Office research study on junior attendance centres published in 1980 found that junior attendance centres appear to be satisfactorily achieving the objectives set for them by the courts; that they are used for a wide variety of offenders; and that there are no contra-indications to their continued use for any particular type of boy. Indeed, their use might be extended to include some of those to whom the courts reluctantly award custodial penalties. Your Lordships will see, therefore, why my noble friend Lord Hunt and I wanted "shall" instead of "may" in this category.
Lord Sandys: Perhaps in response to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I might say that while being very grateful to him for his comments, I believe it will be appreciated by all your Lordships that this clause re-enacts with amendments the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 which enabled the Secretary of State to provide attendance centres for offenders under the age of 21 and for persons under 21 who fail to comply with the requirements of a probation or supervision order.
Rules for the regulation and management of attendance centres may be made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument and the Secretary of State may also make arrangements with local authorities or police authorities for the use of their premises for attendance centres purposes. Most attendance centres are held on school premises as these provide the most suitable range of facilities. Few are held in police training schools or in an operational police station.
Attendance centre orders have been found to be a very useful non-custodial sentence for young offenders and the system is being rapidly expanded with centres now available for girls, either separately or at mixed centres. In particular, more centres are being opened for young adults aged 17 to 20. This does give me the opportunity, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to say that, of the centres recently opened, there are 12 senior centres, of which 10 are new.
Clause 16 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
Lord Denham: Although we have perhaps not got quite so far as I would have wished this evening, I think in view of all the prevailing circumstances, that this is the time when we might call a halt to the day's proceedings. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

  ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND CRIME
  ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND CRIME
  MR. ABDUL QAYUM BUTT
  MR. ABDUL QAYUM BUTT
  SOUTHALL MARKET: REPORT OF MRS. R. HARRIS
  SOUTHALL MARKET: REPORT OF MRS. R. HARRIS
  SOMERSET LEVELS: LAND USE STUDY
  SOMERSET LEVELS: LAND USE STUDY
  COIN COUNTERFEITING: DETECTION AND PREVENTION
  COIN COUNTERFEITING: DETECTION AND PREVENTION
  NHS PAY BEDS: TRAIL SCHEME
  NHS PAY BEDS: TRAIL SCHEME