Sitting of 11 May 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  NEW WRIT
  For Mitcham and Morden, in the room of Bruce Leslie Home Douglas-Mann, Esq. (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]
  NEW WRIT
    Private Business
      EAST LINDSEY DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
      Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

      HUGH SMALL AND NORMA SMALL (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [Lords]
      Amendment made: In page 1, line 10, leave out "was" and insert "were".—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
      Read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

      JOHN FRANCIS DARE AND GILLIAN LODER DARE (MARRIAGE ENABLING) BILL [Lords]
        Clause 2

          INTERPRETATION
          Amendment made: In page 2, line 32, after "Eleanor" insert "Norah".—The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
          Read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

          TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
          Order for Second Reading read.
          To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

  SECOND READINGS
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It may be for the convenience of the House to know that I propose to set down the Second Reading of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill for consideration on Thursday at Seven o'clock.
  The Second Reading of the Greater London Council (Money) Bill will be set down for a later date.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Health Authorities (Appointments)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on future appointments to health authorities.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The terms of office of the chairmen and half the members of the regional health authorities end later this year. We are consulting widely on future appointments and considering possible changes to the composition of the authorities. None of the chairmen or members of district health authorities come up for reappointment this year.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Will he do his best to ensure that in future we appoint more people with recent practical medical experience and experience of current patient care to the higher echelons of the boards?
    Mr. Clarke: We endeavour always to appoint the right people. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said and also the recommendations that he has put forward for health authorities in his locality.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Minister aware that the North Staffordshire district health authority wants proper representation on the regional health board? Views are put forward only at second hand. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman arrange for all districts to be properly represented in the regions?
    Mr. Clarke: We are consulting the local authority associations on the future pattern of local authority representation on the regional health authorities. We hope to make some decisions on that matter in due course to ensure not only that the regions are not too big but that there is proper local authority representation.
    I shall have another look at the problems facing the North Staffordshire district health authority.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Cannot the Tory Party find a Tory in Lewisham to be chairman of the Lewisham district health authority? Why does it have to go as far away as Sevenoaks to find the nearest decent Tory to be chairman of our district health authority?
    Mr. Clarke: Our appointments reflect a reasonable political balance. We try to ensure that there is not an excessive number of purely political appointments. I have every confidence in the new chairman of the Lewisham district health authority. Given the history of that authority, I trust that he will have every success in sorting out and solving its problems.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Has the Minister given instructions that there should not be political appointments at district health or regional health authority level? There is a suspicion that he is changing the interpretation of the rules.
    Mr. Clarke: We do not make political appointments—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady is interested in analysing the appointments, she will find that those chairmen of district health authorities who have political allegiances come from all parties.

    Fuel Bills (Assistance)
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what sum from social security funds was spent on help with fuel bills in the financial years 1978–79 and 1980–81.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The sums spent were about £90 million and £161 million respectively. In addition, in 1978–79 there was expenditure by the Department of Energy of £34 million on the electricity discount scheme.
    Mr. Carlisle: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the latest figures for 1981–82 show that the help that we give with fuel bills is 25 per cent. greater in real terms than that provided in the last year of the Labour Government? In a world recession, in which funds are inevitably short, does that not prove that we accept and understand the need to give help to those in that group?
    Mr. Newton: I confirm what my hon. Friend said. Assistance under those headings rose to about £250 million last year, and in the present year it is likely to rise to about £300 million, which will be a further real increase. In addition, by comparison with the electricity discount scheme, we are giving far more effective help to those who need it.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that the savage increases in gas and electricity prices brought about by the Government mean that, even with extra help, most of those on supplementary benefit have to spend a higher proportion of their income on fuel bills than they had to spend before the Government's measures?
    Mr. Newton: As I said last week in the debate on fuel-direct, given the background of the world increase in energy prices, we cannot totally protect any section of the population. The record that I outlined in my initial answer shows our clear determination to protect as much as possible the least well off in our community.
    Mr. Watson: Will my hon. Friend consider spending the £161 million per year on energy conservation instead of continuing subsidy for energy use?
    Mr. Newton: If I had elaborated my initial answer, I would have included the various steps that we have taken to help families, particularly poor families, to improve home insulation. Therefore, we are also doing as my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. Rooker: How much of that money is due to the 300 per cent. increase in the standing charge for gas since the Conservative Party came to office?
    Mr. Newton: I cannot give the precise figure, but the substantial increases reflect our concern about the general rise in energy charges.

    Mothers (Marital Status)
    Dr. Edmund Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why the Department has requested regional health authorities to record the marital status of women who have given birth.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): This is no new request. For more than 30 years marital status has been included in the hospital in-patient inquiry. But a fresh look at the information needs for the National Health Service is being taken by a steering group set up in 1980. It has proposed that marital status should continue to be recorded for the time being, and its proposals have gone out for consultation. Formal recommendations have not yet come to us.
    Dr. Marshall: What business is it of the health authorities to pry into the marital status of patients? Without in any way devaluing the moral and social standing of marriage as an institution, will the health authorities confine themselves to health matters?
    Mr. Finsberg: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the information has been supplied for the past 30 years. The lack of sensible statistics in the National Health Service has been criticised by health service managers and by the Royal Commission. I do not see why it should be wrong to ask the committee to consider the matter. When we have seen the recommendations, we shall decide what to do.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm or deny reports in the Daily Mail that his hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health recently stated that doctors should be free to prescribe oral contraceptatives to girls under 16, without their parents' knowledge——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is another question, although I do not know much about it myself.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Why does the National Health Service need any statistics on how many mothers are married and how many are not, if the purpose of the forms is to improve the health of the children?
    Mr. Finsberg: There was general unease about the quality of information available within the National Health Service. That is why we set up the Körner committee. In the light of the Körner committee's recommendations and of the consultations, we can decide whether to change the system that has been in existence for 30 years, under several Labour Governments.

    Social Workers (Barclay Committee)
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the work of the committee chaired by Mr. Peter Barclay on social workers.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): I am grateful to the committee and the institute for this thorough report. Many of its broad conclusions are consistent with our policies for care in the community. I am seeking urgently the comments of interested bodies and will then consider what action the Government need to take.
    Mr. Alton: I am grateful for that reply. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need to protect the citizen more adequately against the arbitrary powers of social workers? In particular, has he had time to consider the case of Miss Caroline Pritchard of Liverpool? In that case a social worker took a child into care and the paediatrician involved described it as legalised child stealing.
    Mr. Fowler: I have not looked at that case, but I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about it, and also the Gaskin case, which he has raised in the House. Essentially, his questions are for the local authority to answer. I shall look further at the case that he has raised to see whether there is anything that I can add.
    Mrs. Faith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public expenditure White Paper shows that appreciably more money, in real terms, will be spent on social workers in future? Will he comment on that? Would it not be better to spend more money on increasing the number of home helps?
    Mr. Fowler: There is a need in both respects. The theme of the Barclay report is to harness the efforts of the community in both the statutory and voluntary sense. That is very much in line with the Government's view.

    Midwifery Services
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he has issued to district health authorities on the organisation of midwifery services.
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has received any representations about the reorganisation of the midwifery service.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In July 1980 we issued a circular requiring district health authorities to arrange their services into units of management, giving several examples, including the districts' maternity services. I am now awaiting regions' decisions on the pattern of services at district level.
    Mr. Newens: As hospital confinements ensure the highest possible standards of safety for both mother and child, will the Minister ensure that in any reorganisation adequate places will be available for all women to have their babies in hospital? Will he also take steps to ensure that induced births—which have deterred many mothers-to-be from going to hospital—are reduced to the minimum?
    Mr. Clarke: Such management decisions will have to be made by the new management structures which the districts will set up. The aim of modern maternity practice is for children to be born in hospital whenever possible. It should also be an aim to pay proper regard to the wishes of mothers about the way in which they wish their children to be born.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister agree that, in the organisation of midwifery services, the most important factor is the quality of service for the patient? Does he accept that that is more likely to be achieved by reorganisation based on midwifery divisions than on small geographical areas? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the reorganisation of the NHS will not have a detrimental effect on the midwifery service?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with those general propositions. The advice of the Royal College of Midwifery has been to have midwifery units, and the Government cited midwifery units as an example of the kind of structure that should be set up. I understand that in Pontefract a separate maternity unit has been established. I am sure that district health authorities, which in the end must decide on these matters, will bear in mind all the advice that they are receiving on this subject.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: But there is clear evidence that there is no proper pattern. Some areas are moving away from functional organisation, others are using geographical boundaries, and as a result there is utter chaos in the midwifery services. Will the Minister take great care to find out what is happening, because it is important that midwifery should be properly organised for the benefit of mothers and children?
    Mr. Clarke: We are seeking to increase local responsibility for the Health Service. Therefore, we have left some discretion to districts to set up a management structure to fit their particular needs. Thus, variety is produced, not chaos. There is plenty of advice that midwifery units are desirable, and we backed up that advice in the circular that was issued.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is the Minister aware that most right hon. and hon. Members were probably born not
    586
    in hospital, but at home? Having listened to the Royal College, will he also listen to ARM, the Association of Radical Midwives, and make certain that those women who want to have their babies at home have the ability to do so?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that it is the desire of all professionals involved that perinatal mortality should be reduced to the absolute minimum and that every possible care should be available to the mother and child during childbirth. I agree with whatever groups put forward the proposition that one must have regard also to the wishes of mothers. Those two aspects should be equated in reaching decisions about future practice in the maternity services.

    Social Security Budget
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans for further savings in the social security budget for 1982–83 or 1983–84.
    Mr. Fowler: Our plans for savings in the social security budget for 1982–83 and 1983–84 have already been given to the House. The measures taken from 1979 to 1981 were detailed in a written answer to the hon. Member on 28 January. Since then the Government have published the public expenditure White Paper outlining expenditure plans to 1984–85. These savings must be seen against a total social security budget in 1982–83 of some £32 billion, including an uprating in November 1982 of about £3 billion.
    Mr. Rooker: But does the Secretary of State appreciate that the figures in the public expenditure White Paper do not tell the House or the country how the savings will be achieved? Does he accept that the savings achieved so far, for example, for a woman becoming widowed today, compared with three years ago, mean a loss of £15 a week, and for a person on average earnings losing his job today, compared with three years ago, a loss in benefit of 13 a week? Are those the kind of savings that are still ahead of us?
    Mr. Fowler: I cannot commit myself on future savings, but I have no present plans for further announcements in that regard. The measures taken, and how much they will save, have already been set out for the hon. Gentleman in the answer to which I referred. I am sure that he will recognise that part of the Government's success in bringing down inflation is due to the success that we have had in this area.
    Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the campaign to detect and end abuse of social security payments will continue unabated?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, it will continue. I am sure that the whole House will recognise that it is important, when many people are unquestionably in genuine need, to lake action against those who abuse the system.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Does the Secretary of State agree that in any savings that may be made priority should be given to the just claims of the nurses and the lower paid in the National Health Service? How does he reconcile the despicable behaviour of the Government in allowing the Civil Service unions to go to arbitration, accepting the arbitration award and rejecting the application of the Health Service unions?
    Mr. Fowler: I should be happy to debate that matter with the hon. Gentleman, but it does not remotely come under the social security budget and the savings there.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the social security budget is intertwined with the tax income to the Government? Will he give further thought to reversing what appears to be the Government's slightly wobbly position on the 5 per cent. abatement, given that the income from the tax on those benefits will be 10 times as great as the cost to the Exchequer of the increase in the social security budget as it should be increased?
    Mr. Fowler: I have already given a commitment to the House that we shall keep the 5 per cent. unemployment abatement under review, and we shall do that.

    Medical Unemployment
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his estimate of the trends in medical unemployment.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On the figures available to me, no significant trend of medical unemployment appears to emerge, and I have no evidence of an over-supply of doctors at the moment.
    Mrs. Short: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he bear in mind the considerable unmet needs in many of the shortage specialties and the fact that many general practitioners are working longer than they should do and have longer lists than they should have?
    Does he accept that, in preventive medicine, more skilled medical help is needed? Will he continue to tell those sections of the medical profession that suggest that we need to reduce the intake of medical students that their proposals are just not on?
    Mr. Clarke: I accept, of course, that there are continuing unmet needs in all those areas. The hon. Lady did not mention the hospital service, where, under this Government, the number of doctors employed has been increased by over 1,700. We should like to make advances in other areas. I am glad that we have the support of the Select Committee, which the hon. Lady chairs, for the target number of medical students that we have set. We shall pursue that policy. We shall reach that target as resources in the education service allow.
    Mr. Body: Why does my right hon. Friend not take more credit for what is being done—not only the 1,000 more doctors, but the 5,000 more medical auxiliaries, and the 8,000 more nurses? Why do we not hear more about that?
    Mr. Clarke: We should take full credit. In fact, the figure is 34,000 extra nurses in terms of whole-time equivalents in the NHS. Much of the campaigning that is directed against the Government in this respect overlooks the fact that we have given high priority to and increased spending in real terms on the National Health Service. That spending is showing results, because there are now more people at the sharp end of patient care—more doctors, more medical auxiliaries, and more nurses.

    Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much his Department gave in grants to voluntary organisations in 1978–79 and in the latest year for which figures are available.
    Mr. Newton: In 1978–79 my Department spent £4,445,000 on grants to some 180 organisations under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. Comparable figures for 1981–82 are £8,881,000—a real increase of 33 per cent.—on grants to over 250 organisations. I will circulate the detailed list of these 1981–82 grants in the Official Report.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that full and comprehensive reply. It shows that the Government are indeed caring and compassionate and that my hon. Friend is a caring and compassionate Minister. Will he tell the House what safeguards exist and what monitoring there is to ensure that we are receiving value for money?
    Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is embarrassed.
    Mr. Newton: I can tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that I am not at all embarrassed. I want to share the congratulations with my other compassionate and caring friends on the Front Bench, many of whom made the decisions for which I am now being given the credit.
    The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that we go into these matters carefully beforehand, keep an eye on what is being done with the money, and ask the organisations to make sure that we are kept informed of their accounts and other arrangements.
    Mr. Marks: Does the Minister accept that the Government's failure to support local authorities has meant that they cannot assist voluntary organisations, as they have done in the past, and that, because of the real fall in wages throughout the country, individuals cannot help in the same way? Does he further accept that the voluntary organisations, because of unemployment and all the other disasters that have taken place under this Government, have far too much to do?
    Mr. Newton: I do not accept any of those comments. The latest figure for local authority help to voluntary organisations relates to 1980–81, when it was £22 million. That represented a real increase of 19 per cent. over the previous year. In answer to the other parts of the hon. Gentleman's question, my impression is that voluntary organisations are getting a great deal of support and are enjoying doing more work of this kind. The Inland Revenue is receiving an increasing number of applications for covenants, and more money is going to charities from individuals.
    Mr. Squire: Is my hon. Friend aware how welcome was the announcement yesterday of the £20,000 grant to the Child Poverty Action Group, which, in its assistance to hon. Members on both sides of the House on matters of child benefit and family support, has set a standard that many other voluntary groups would do well to emulate?
    Mr. Newton: I should make it clear to my hon. Friend that the grant is specifically for the citizens' rights office of the CPAG, not for its campaigning work. I think that that will be understood on both sides of the House.
    Mr. William Hamilton: It is not understood.
    Mr. Newton: That was made clear. I should have been deeply embarrassed if we had not been able to make the grant, because the first thing that I found on my file when I took office was a letter from me to my predecessor urging that we should make the grant.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the Minister being honest with the House? Will he tell us how much money is being taken from voluntary organisations in VAT? Does it not more than offset the grant?
    Mr. Newton: All hon. Members are familiar with the problem of VAT and are aware of the extensive discussions on the problem that have taken place between charities and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury. We are sorry that we have not been able to find a solution, but successive packages and measures to help charities in the last two Budgets and Finance Bills are bringing significant additional help.
    Following is the information:

    Grants to Voluntary Bodies 1981–82 Provisional Outturn

    £

    Action on Smoking and Health

    90,012

    Advocacy Alliance

    4,000

    Age Concern

    286,000

    Alcohol Education Centre

    65,814

    Alcoholic Hostels

    300,179

    Alcoholic Recovery Project

    4,000

    Alcoholism Community Centres for Education Prevention and Treatment

    38,225

    Alzheimer's Disease Society

    2,250

    Aquarius Resource Centre

    10,500

    Apex Trust

    24,343

    Association Aide a Toute Detresse

    24,400

    Association for all Speech Impaired Children

    10,000

    Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus

    30,000

    Association of Breast-feeding Mothers

    1,500

    Association of Residential Communities

    8,000

    Asthma Society

    2,000

    Back Pain Association

    17,000

    Bethnal Green Intermediate Education Centre

    32,000

    Birmingham Settlement

    7,000

    Blenheim Street Agency

    7,600

    Bobath Centre

    3,000

    Breakthrough Trust

    75,000

    Bristol Council for Voluntary Service

    800

    British Association for Adoption and Fostering

    246,000

    British Association for Counselling

    1,200

    British Association of the Hard of Hearing

    18,600

    British Association of Immediate Care

    20,000

    British Deaf Association

    20,000

    British Diabetic Association

    1,500

    British Epilepsy Association

    22,000

    British Institute of Mental Handicap

    24,500

    British Red Cross-Cosmetic Camouflage

    1,260

    British Retinitis Pigmentosa Society

    4,500

    Brook Advisory Centres

    30,000

    Calibre

    7,000

    Campaign for Single Homeless People

    22,000

    Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped

    14,000

    Care

    12,500

    Catholic Marriage Advisory Council

    23,000

    Centre for Policy on Ageing

    44,800

    Centre on Environment for the Handicapped

    19,500

    Chest Heart and Stroke Association

    5,000

    Child Accident Prevention Trust

    29,040

    Child Poverty Action Group

    900

    Children's Legal Centre

    10,500

    Church of England Childrens Society

    35,000

    City Roads Crisis Intervention

    66,500

    Clock Tower Association

    10,500

    Coeliac Society

    10,000

    Coke Hole Trust

    8,000

    £

    Combat Huntington's Chorea

    15,000

    Community Drugs Project

    5,300

    Community Service Volunteers

    47,396

    Contact

    22,400

    Contact a Family

    3,000

    Cope

    73,950

    Coronary Prevention Group

    3,000

    Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People

    10,000

    Coventry Day Centre

    5,000

    Cranstoun Hostel

    9,750

    Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes Ltd.

    25,000

    Cruse

    56,000

    Cyrenians

    66,400

    Disability Alliance

    5,000

    Disabled Drivers Association

    3,500

    Disabled Living Foundation

    242,000

    Disablement Income Group

    11,000

    Downs Children's Association

    4,500

    Dr. Barnardo's

    65,000

    Elizabeth Fitzroy Trust

    12,500

    Employment Fellowship

    38,000

    European Dialysis and Transplant Association

    10,000

    Family Forum

    22,749

    Family Holiday Association

    2,500

    Family Planning Association

    124,500

    Family Rights Group

    5,000

    Family Service Units

    128,000

    Family Tree

    8,750

    Family Welfare Association

    112,680

    Federation of Alcoholic Rehabilitation Establishments

    77,400

    Fire Precautions (in voluntary residential homes)

    138,428

    Fluoridation Society

    14,000

    Gingerbread

    48,000

    Hampshire Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

    5,000

    Handcrafts Advisory Association for the Disabled

    9,300

    Handicapped Adventure Playground Association

    6,500

    Headway Association

    5,000

    Holiday Care Service

    5,000

    Home Farm Trust

    12,500

    Home Start Consultancy

    14,000

    Horticultural Therapy

    5,000

    Hungerford Day Centre for Drug Addicts

    12,700

    Ileostomy Association of Great Britain

    2,250

    Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence

    115,710

    International Hospital Federation

    35,000

    International Social Service

    27,500

    International Voluntary Service

    20,831

    Invalid Children's Aid Association

    44,000

    Invalids At Home Trust

    2,200

    Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled

    600

    Kent Council on Alcoholism

    900

    L'Arche Ltd.

    22,500

    La Leche League of Great Britain

    375

    Leicester Council for Voluntary Service

    14,000

    Leonard Cheshire Foundation

    20,000

    Liverpool Alcoholism Services

    18,000

    London Voluntary Service Council

    11,750

    London Youth Advisory Council

    4,400

    Makaton Vocabulary Development Project

    2,000

    Mastectomy Association

    6,000

    Maternity Alliance

    10,000

    Medical Council on Alcoholism

    64,600

    Mencap

    209,750

    Mental After Care Association

    50,000

    Mental Health Film Council

    3,200

    Motability

    299,069

    Motor Neurone Disease Association

    3,000

    Muscular Dystrophy Group

    20,000

    National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society

    2,500

    National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

    92,310

    National Association for the Childless

    13,000

    National Association for the Deaf/Blind, Rubella Handicapped

    5,000

    £

    National Association for Maternal and Child Welfare

    5,000

    National Association for Mental Health

    400,000

    National Association for Patient Participation in General Practice

    2,000

    National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital

    45,000

    National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends

    11,750

    National Association of Victims Support Schemes

    7,350

    National Association of Voluntary Hostels

    4,100

    National Association of Youth Clubs

    33,467

    National Childbirth Trust

    15,000

    National Childminding Association

    25,000

    National Children's Bureau

    156,745

    National Children's Home

    7,500

    National Council for One-parent Families

    110,000

    National Council for the Single Woman and Her Dependents

    8,000

    National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations

    20,417

    National Council for Voluntary Organisations

    178,167

    National Council on Alcoholism

    252,000

    National Eczema Society

    9,250

    National Elfrida Rathbone Society

    11,000

    National Federation of Kidney Patients

    2,134

    National Federation of the Blind of the United Kingdom

    1,000

    National Foster Care Association

    63,450

    National Library for the Blind

    9,500

    National Listening Library

    16,000

    National Marriage Guidance Council

    20,000

    National Playbus Association

    14,500

    National Schizophrenia Fellowship

    76,000

    National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

    225,000

    National Tape Magazine for the Blind

    400

    National Youth Bureau

    52,000

    Network for the Handicapped

    1,000

    Norfolk Children's Projects

    30,000

    Norfolk Council on Alcoholism

    25,000

    Northern Regional Association for the Blind

    38,478

    One-to-One

    9,000

    Opus

    4,500

    Outset

    14,250

    Overseas Doctors Association

    7,000

    Parent to Parent Information on Adoption Services

    2,250

    Parents for Children

    34,000

    Partially Sighted Society

    12,000

    Peter Bedford Project

    5,800

    Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied

    35,000

    Plymouth Night Shelter

    15,650

    Possum Users Association

    14,750

    Pre-School Playgroups Association

    300,000

    Queen Elizabeth's Foundation for the Disabled

    10,000

    Rainer Foundation

    65,375

    Rape Counselling and Research Project

    10,000

    Richmond Fellowship

    70,000

    Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation

    270,000

    Royal National Institute for the Blind

    355,000

    Royal National Institute for the Deaf

    14,000

    Royal School for the Blind

    114,000

    Salvation Army

    2,573

    Samaritans

    80,000

    Save the Children Fund

    269,625

    Sexual and Personal Relationships of the Disabled

    30,000

    Shaftesbury Homes and Arethusa Sailing Barge

    25,000

    Shape

    5,750

    Sheffield Family Service Units

    14,000

    Short Stay Young Homeless Limited

    3,000

    Social Work Training Grants

    65,375

    Society of St. Dismas

    6,980

    Southern and Western Regional Association for the Blind

    53,312

    Spastics Society

    141,738

    Spinal Injuries Association

    15,000

    Standing Conference on Drug Abuse

    53,800

    St. Albans Diocesan Council for Social Responsibility

    14,725

    £

    St. John Ambulance

    36,000

    Stonham Housing Association

    10,000

    Sue Ryder Foundation

    2,000

    Talking Newspapers Association of the United Kingdom

    750

    The Patients Association

    5,000

    Toy Libraries Association

    41,000

    Turning Point

    68,000

    Venture 12 Project

    19,992

    Voluntary Council for Handicapped Children

    22,000

    Voluntary Organisations Liaison Committee for Under-Fives

    5,400

    Volunteer Centre

    13,660

    Westminster Pastoral Foundation

    60,000

    Widows Advisory Trust

    11,000

    Winged Fellowship Trust

    6,300

    Womens Aid Federation (England)

    96,000

    Womens Health Concern

    3,000

    Womens National Cancer Control Campaign

    67,900

    Miscellaneous

    25,930

    8,881,164

    Hospital Beds (Usage)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many beds in the National Health Service are unused for lack of (a) staff, (b) finance and (c) patients.
    Mr. Fowler: The information requested is not available centrally, but at any point a considerable number of beds in National Health Service hospitals will not be in use for a variety of reasons.
    Mr. Miller: Is it not the case that the action proposed by certain bodies in the National Health Service to extract an increase in wages over and above any increase in output in the economy will lead to more beds being left empty and an increase in the waiting lists, which were being shortened? Is it not the case that the action is undoubtedly seeking to make use of patients as a form of moral blackmail of the Government?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with the points that have been made by my hon. Friend, in particular his comments about waiting lists. Waiting list numbers have fallen from about 750,000 in March 1979, following the winter of discontent, to fewer than 630,000 on 31 March 1981. It would be a tragedy for patients if that advance and those improvements were now to be put at risk.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: If the Secretary of State wants to see peace in the National Health Service, why is he not prepared to let the health unions go to arbitration, because it is tremendously important that, if we are to have an efficient Health Service, it must be staffed by people who know that they are important to the country? The Secretary of State is making it clear to them that he does not give a damn.
    Mr. Fowler: That is a total travesty of the position. The Government have not cut the National Health Service, but have increased the real resources that go to the National Health Service by about 6 per cent. We have also increased the amount of money that is available for pay, so that an extra amount can be made available for nurses and midwives. I am sure that that has the support of the House. I hope that the Opposition will also take the opportunity to deplore any industrial action that puts at risk the interests of patients.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people will accept that if the National Health Service unions continue to insist upon a pay increase of 12 per cent. it can lead only to more inflation and less of the real growth that provides the resources for the NHS? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition would be well advised to try to sort out about a year in advance which groups have a special case rather than supporting every special case each week?
    Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. We have made a fair and realistic offer to the NHS. Like him, I believe that the 12 per cent. claim is unrealistic.
    Mr. Pavitt: What is the Secretary of State doing about the effect on unused beds and waiting lists of the acute shortage of qualified theatre sisters and qualified renal nurses? What is he doing about the 7,140 qualified nurses who are now on the dole?
    How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to help hard-pressed nurses, suffering because of the six-month maternity leave provisions for their fellow nurses? Is he aware that extra finance is not being made available so that the vacancies can be filled?
    Mr. Fowler: The numbers of people employed in the NHS have increased from 1979 to 1981 by 47,000. That includes a 34,000 increase in nurses. That is a considerable achievement.

    Industrial Injuries Scheme
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received regarding the White Paper on the reorganisation of the industrial injuries scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): The White Paper invited comments by 31 March on two of its proposals—special hardship allowance and the ending of double payment for industrial injuries by means of benefits and damages claims. The 28 replies received are being studied and we shall announce our conclusions in due course. In recent weeks we have also received a smaller number of other comments on the White Paper proposals as a whole.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not a fact that amidst all the compassion that the Tories trot out day by day at the Dispatch Box, they have introduced a White Paper that proposes to get rid of hospital treatment allowance and industrial death benefit for the widows of those killed at work? The White Paper proposes reducing payments for those who receive disablement benefit of less than 10 per cent. and stopping any other payments from social security to those who are receiving common law payments. In other words, those people will be knocked off. Is it not time that the Government faced up to the representations that they are receiving from the trade unions and others and withdrew this wicked White Paper on the reorganisation of the industrial injuries scheme?
    Mr. Rossi: The White Paper followed a long period of consultation and represents what is virtually a consensus throughout the country on how the industrial injuries benefit scheme can be brought up to date. [Interruption.] The document that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is waving is a distortion of the facts and has been
    594
    answered point by point. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper for himself. He will see in it that we are directing resources to the most seriously injured people in our community.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister compose himself and tell the House what is the estimate of the number of gainers and losers under the proposals in the White Paper?
    Mr. Rossi: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the financial consequences in the White Paper, he will see a saving of about £54 million, which is being reallocated, and will be increased to £61 million. The people who are losing are those who suffer injuries such as cuts and bruises at work and receive average payments of £9 We are allocating resources so that, for example, someone who loses a leg will have an increased benefit of about £400.

    Health Education Officers (Development and Training)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the proposal in the Kirby report to establish a national advisory committee on health education officer development and training.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I accept that there may be a need for an appropriately constituted advisory committee to take overall responsibility for the future oversight of health education officer development and training. But, I think, its form and its relationships with the Department, the service and the Health Education Council, will best be decided in the light of the outcome of the current reviews of the National Training Council and the National Staff Committee.
    Mr. Dormand: That is a disappointing reply. Is the Minister aware that the Government's contribution—not just in financial terms—to health education leaves a great deal to be desired? Does he agree that the health education officer has the key role to play in health education? Will he therefore implement the report's recommendations as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Finsberg: We recognise the importance of the role of the health education officer. That is why his post has been excluded from the management cost exercise. There are 450 health education officers in post. It would not be doing a service to the hon. Gentleman's beliefs to rush in until we have finished considering the reports that I have mentioned.

    Private Acute Hospitals
    Mr. Alexanderasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many National Health Service patients are treated in private acute hospitals.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The latest available figures show that in England in 1980 there were 23,700 in-patient treatments and 116,500 out-patient attendances under contractual arrangements made by health authorities with institutions outside the NHS. Separate information for private acute hospitals is not available.
    Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that reply indicates how foolish it would be for the Labour Party to decide to scrap private medicine, since private medicine is a contributor to, rather than a burden

    595
    upon, the National Health Service? Is it not the case that all the costs of private sector use of National Health Service facilities are refunded by the private sector? If so, should we not be asking for more partnership between the two rather than having ideological conflict?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It would be foolish and impracticable to suggest the ending of private medicine in this country. I agree that the private and public sectors have a great deal to contribute in terms of assisting each other, and both are additions to the health care of the country. As regards income, it is estimated that pay beds alone will contribute an extra £52 million to the National Health Service next year.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the private sector acts as a drain on the National Health Service? Is this not confirmed by the fact that the Minister's predecessor said that he was keeping under review the possibility of levying the private sector to provide training facilities? Is it not a disgrace that the Government are encouraging private clinics, such as the Yorkshire clinic near my constituency, that act as a drain on the National Health Service without making any contribution to patient care?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) is correct in what he said a moment ago. We ensure that the private sector pays the full cost to the Health Service of any facilities that it uses. We are anxious to develop the partnership between the two sectors and the mutual benefit that each can derive. We are considering ways in which the private sector can improve its contribution to the training of staff. The general case made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is not sustained by the facts.

    Supplementary Benefit
    Mr. Cockeramasked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much the supplementary benefit rate for children under five years rose in real terms (a) between 1974 and 1979 and (b) between 1979 and the present date.
    Mr. Newton: Between July 1974 and November 1979, the real value of the scale rate fell by 3p. In November 1980 the under-five scale rate was replaced by an under-11 scale rate. This led to a real value increase in the scale rate provision for a child under five between November 1979 and March 1982 of £1·22.
    Mr. Cockerham: Will my hon. Friend note that even the Socialist-inspired Child Poverty Action Group felt compelled to congratulate the Conservative Government on this real increase, which is in such contrast to the poor performance of the Labour Government?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, I had noted that and I am pleased that we were able to make that improvement.
    Mr. Race: Will the Minister tell the House how many planted questions he has answered today?
    Mr. Newton: I am not aware of having planted any questions. All I can say is that they are growing very well.
    Mr. Rooker: Can the Minister tell us the full effect of the change in the scale rates from five rates to three? Is he aware that the selectivity of the question brought about my hon. Friend's riposte? Can the Minister give the same figures for 11-year-olds?
    Mr. Newton: The position will be very nearly as good for the 11 to 12-year-olds. I can give the figures but I do not intend to spend too much time leafing through my papers. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the main changes were to remove the under-five scale rate and replace it with the under-11 scale rate, which led to that effect. At the same time we abolished the 11–12 scale rate and included it in a higher figure. That is why the 11 to 12-year-olds have also done very well.

    Benefits (Entitlement)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many men and women aged 55 to 60 years and 60 to 65 years are unemployed and looking for work, but receive no State benefits, because they have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit and, because of their spouse's income, are not eligible for supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Rossi: At November 1980, the latest date for which information is available, 11,000 married unemployed claimants aged 55 to 59 had exhausted their title to unemployment benefit and were not receiving supplementary benefit. The corresponding figure for the 60 to 64 age group was 31,600. No analysis is available of the reasons for the non-payment of supplementary benefit in these cases.
    Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister accept that many people are suffering considerable hardship because their spouse's income is marginally above the supplementary benefit rate and therefore they receive no benefit? Is the Minister aware that these people are condemned to live on very low incomes until reaching retirement age and that they do not get a proper pension because they have been unable to contribute to the earnings-related pensions scheme?
    Mr. Rossi: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when the contributory rights expire and supplementary benefit comes into play it has, of necessity, to be means-tested. The requirements and resources of married couples are always aggregated for supplementary benefit purposes. This reflects their mutual responsibility to each other. Currently, only the husband may make a claim. The requirements and resources of a couple living as husband and wife are also aggregated, so that they are treated neither more nor less advantageously than a married couple.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Neubertasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 11 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today. This evening I shall be dining with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
    Mr. Neubert: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing belief that the Argentine Government are deliberately, to their own advantage, trying to spin out the negotiations over the Falkland Islands that are at present

    597
    being conducted through the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Can she say what has happened in those negotiations since the Foreign Secretary's statement last Friday?
    The Prime Minister: The negotiations will take a little time. I must make it clear that the fact that we are negotiating does not close any military options at all. The Secretary-General is pursuing the negotiations vigorously. He has seen our ambassador to the United Nations once or twice each day and also, separately, the representative of the Argentine Government.
    There are certain fundamental principles that we cannot fudge in any way. The ceasefire must be accompanied by a withdrawal to a specific timetable and in a comparatively short time. We must make it absolutely clear that the Argentines must not enter into those negotiations in the belief, or on the condition, that by the end of them sovereignty is ceded to them.
    Mr. Foot: Since these discussions under the auspices of the Secretary-General are obviously of the very greatest importance, and since the outcome may be of the very greatest importance in the dispute, will the right hon. Lady give a clear undertaking that the House of Commons will have the chance to judge those propositions before the Government takes any final decision?
    The Prime Minister: We frequently have debates on the Falkland Islands issue, but the Government must be free and, I believe, are inherently free, to make the best judgment that they can in the situation and, finally, to be accountable to the House of Commons for that judgment.
    Mr. Foot: Of course the right hon. Lady's Government is responsible to the House for what they do. We are asking for something different. These are important discussions. As the right hon. Lady indicated in her reply a moment ago, important principles are involved. The Government have made some very wise departures from previous utterances on many of these matters, but the House of Commons has the right to make a judgment on this matter before any decision is taken by the Government that would enlarge the conflict. I ask the right hon. Lady and her Government, who have been very leniently treated by the House on this matter, for that assurance.
    Mr. Lee: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not meet the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Foot: Because the House has the right to make the judgment. That is why I am asking the right hon. Lady to give the House the chance to judge the outcome of the discussions that are being held under the auspices of the Secretary-General.
    The Prime Minister: We have to take our decisions on those discussions. I agree that they are very important, but it is an inherent jurisdiction of the Government to negotiate and to reach decisions. Afterwards, the House of Commons can pass judgment on the Government.
    Mr. Foot: I ask the right hon. Lady to consider this matter afresh. It could be that a decision on these matters made by the Government could utterly frustrate and destroy their outcome. Therefore, I again ask the right hon. Lady to give the House of Commons the chance to make a judgment before the Government themselves make the final judgment.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Government have this responsibility, will shoulder that responsibility and will stand before this House and defend their decision.
    Mr. Marlowasked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 11 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marlow: With regard to the Falkland Islands, unlike the Commonwealth and the United States, our Community partners, despite their public utterances, seem to have been flapping around like decapitated chickens. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless we have their robust, continuing and wholehearted support, it will go ill with the Community within this country and we might be forced to move against the Community, which neither she nor I would wish to do?
    The Prime Minister: I must point out to my hon. Friend that the European Community has given us staunch support right from the beginning of the Falklands campaign. It gave us staunch support by imposing an import ban. It extended it. There are no military exports from the European Community to the Argentine. There are no new export credits, and at present an import ban is in force. The Community will make a decision by the end of this week on whether it should extend that import ban and I hope and believe that it will.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: While the Prime Minister is considering these matters and the exercise of a prerogative that lies in the hands of a Government, will she bear in mind that at no time has this House been informed, or been invited to accept, that there should be any other sequel to the repossession of the Falkland Islands than the immediate and unconditional restoration of sole British administration?
    The Prime Minister: I am fully aware of the point that the right hon. Gentleman has made. Sovereignty cannot be changed by invasion. I am very much aware that the rights of the Falkland Islanders were to be governed through the means of a legislative and executive council, and that is what democracy is all about.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: If my right hon. Friend has time today, will she watch a recording of last night's "Panorama" programme? Is she aware that for the most part, but not all, it was an odious, subversive, travesty in which Michael Cockerell and other BBC reporters dishonoured the right to freedom of speech in this country? Is it not time that such people accepted the fact that if they have these rights, they also have responsibilities?
    The Prime Minister: I share the deep concern that has been expressed on many sides, particularly about the content of yesterday evening's "Panorama" programme. I know how strongly many people feel that the case for our country is not being put with sufficient vigour on certain—I do not say all—BBC programmes. The chairman of the BBC has assured us, and has said in vigorous terms, that the BBC is not neutral on this point, and I hope that his words will be heeded by the many who have responsibilities for standing up for our task force, our boys, our people and the cause of democracy.
    Mr. Winnick: Does not the Prime Minister agree that one of the virtues of a political democracy is that radio and television should be independent from constant

    599
    Government control and interference? Would it not be useful if some of her right hon. and hon. Friends stopped their constant intimidation of the BBC? Perhaps the Prime Minister would take that hint as well.
    The Prime Minister: It is our great pride that the British media are free. We ask them, when the lives of some of our people may be at stake through information or through discussions that can be of use to the enemy—[Interruption.]—to take that into account in their programmes. It is our pride that we have no censorship. That is the essence of a free country. But we expect the case for freedom to be put by those who are responsible for doing so.
    Mr. Pittasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 11 May.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pitt: In view of what has happened in the preceding weeks, will the Prime Minister give her views on the wisdom of selling arms to non-NATO and unstable countries?
    The Prime Minister: Each and every request for the sale of arms is dealt with separately, and it will continue to be done in that way.
    Mr. Body: During the day, will my right hon. Friend indicate the extent to which the Government appreciate the way in which Australia and New Zealand have imposed trade sanctions on Argentina and the manner in which those sanctions were imposed, totally, speedily and unconditionally?
    The Prime Minister: Gladly. The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have been absolutely magnificent from the day when the Falkland Islands were invaded. From the very outset they have recognised that pressure must be brought to bear and that the Falkland Islanders wish to have the right to live in their own way under a Government of their own choice.
    Mr. Dalyell: Who is there, from Mexico City to Cape Horn, who supports what the task force is doing?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks even at some of the resolutions——
    Mr. Dalyell: Answer the question.
    The Prime Minister: —of the Organisation of American States, he will see that a number of them condemned the use of force. Some of them may well believe in Argentine sovereignty, but they have totally and utterly condemned the use of force. In any case, I am circumscribed not by the views of those countries but by the interests of our people.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I thank the Prime Minister for her robust remarks earlier. During the course of her busy day, has she been made aware of the rising tide of anger among our constituents at the media treatment and presentation of enemy propaganda and the defeatist views of an unrepresentative minority? Is she aware that an increasing number of people are telling us that this amounts to a sort of treachery?
    The Prime Minister: Our people are very robust and the heart of Britain is sound. I hope that individually they will make their views directly known to the BBC, by their letters and telephone calls.
    Mr. Ashton: Will the Prime Minister comment on the reports in The Sunday Times two days ago that last Thursday Fleet Street was promised an announcement by Mr. Ian McDonald at six o'clock that two Harrier jets had gone down but that it was delayed until nine o'clock because it was polling day and there would have been an effect on the vote?
    The Prime Minister: That reason is totally and utterly untrue. Does it not occur to the hon. Gentleman that there are times when we must try to get the names of those who have been killed and inform their relatives before people hear that these things have happened? In addition, there may well be operational reasons why one does not tell the enemy immediately of every loss.
    Mr. Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend try to study, at some time today, the press reports of the demonstration that took place in London on Sunday and which was graced by the chairman of the Labour Party and by the right hon. Member for Bristol South-East (Mr. Benn)? Will she especially examine press reports to the effect that certain people at the demonstration were shouting "Victory for Argentina"? Does she not agree that this crisis has thrown up some strange bedfellows when the extreme Left wing of politics in this country is supporting the Fascist junta in Argentina?
    The Prime Minister: Whatever the demonstrations that took place, I have no doubt that the vast majority of our people support our task force and our boys in the South Atlantic, who are trying to provide that our people who are under the heel of the Argentine dictator shall have the right to self-determination and democracy.
    Mr. Foot: Some of us on the Opposition Benches have been opposed to the Argentine junta a good sight longer than most Conservative Members. I return to the replies that the right hon. Lady gave on the question of the BBC and some of the broadcasts. This is, of course, concerned with the important matter of how freedom of discussion is to be conducted in this country. Some of us are determined to defend it.
    Before the right hon. Lady pursues further her strictures of the BBC, where I am sure people are seeking to do their duty in difficult circumstances, will she take some steps to reprove the attitude of some newspapers that support her—the hysterical bloodlust of The Sun and the Daily Mail, which bring such disgrace on the journalism of this country?
    The Prime Minister: Taking the view that the right hon. Gentleman does of the Argentine junta, I hope that he will support the Government in their every act——
    Mr. William Hamilton: No.
    The Prime Minister: —to free the people of the Falkland Islands from what he called this "foul and brutal aggression" on the very first day. The media are totally free to discuss and publish what they wish. Equally, as the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated, we are free to say what we think about them.
    Mr. Foot: When the right hon. Lady asks that we should support every act of her Government, I am sure that she must understand that this cannot be the case. I am sure that, on reflection, she will not wish to press any such claims. I repeat what I said at the beginning. It is far and away the most important aspect of the matter with which

    601
    we have to deal. Whatever may be the views on the BBC, the newspapers and the rest, this House of Commons is the place where the most important issues of all should be debated. I ask the right hon. Lady once again to give this House the chance of judging what proposals may come from the discussions with the Secretary-General. She owes that to the House of Commons and to the country.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has asked the same question. I give him the same answer.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. As long as it is a genuine point of order.
    Mr. Dalyell: In supplementary questions, the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) referred, in relation to myself and, I imagine, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), to treachery, and the right hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) referred to dishonour. Some of us who have been in the 7th Armoured Division, who have been gunner operators on tanks and many of whose contemporaries in training were shot up with the King's Royal Irish Hussars in Korea, take it ill to be accused of treachery and dishonour.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I was listening carefully to the exchanges. There was no reference to any individual Member of the House. To make doubly sure, I called the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) after those question were asked. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that he was called afterwards. There was no individual charge about any particular persons in the programme, at least no person belonging to this honourable House.
    Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's high feeling but I can deal only with points of order on which I can rule. So far as I am aware, our order has not been breached.
    Mr. Dalyell: "Treachery" is something of a serious word. Can I, through you, Mr. Speaker, if he was not referring to myself or to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, ask——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot pursue the argument in that way.
    Later
    Mr. Dalyell: Normally I am rather relaxed about parliamentary rights, but a charge of treachery
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter. If I had thought that the hon. Gentleman had been charged
    602
    with treachery I would have intervened at once, but I think the House is aware that there was no personal charge against the hon. Member. Therefore, there is nothing that I can do to ask anyone to withdraw a general remark.
    Mr. Dalyell rose——
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understood the question of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), he referred to those who took part in a television programme last night. Two of the people who took part were my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). In that sense, there was a direct connection to the allegation——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I dealt with that matter to the best of my ability. If a personal accusation had been made, I would have had no hesitation in intervening. I cannot pursue the matter.
    Mr. English rose——
    Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. English: How can anyone be guilty of treason when Her Majesty's Government refuse to accept 'that Argentina began a war without declaring it?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that question.
    Mr. Faulds: Mr. Speaker, can I ask you to look at another aspect of the use of the word "treachery" in the House of Commons? Some of us saw fingers being pointed at the two hon. Gentlemen at whom the accusation was being made—we saw fingers being raised—which I should have thought was a pretty specific way of making the point. Regardless of that, since the charge of treachery was made at unspecified hon. Members, is it still nor an unacceptable use of such a phrase, and would it not be for the good health of the House if the use of that word were to be withdrawn by the hon. Member responsible for using it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In reply to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), I agree that it would be in the interests of the House if, during these difficult days when there is severe tension both here and in the country, we tried to avoid the words "treachery" and "treason'', and such things, because they advance nobody's argument. I hope that we can now proceed. We shall go on to the business motion.
    Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order——
    Sir Frederick Burden: On a point of order——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. l am not taking any more points of order.

Falkland Islands
Mr. Eric Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that it is courteous and the custom in this place that an hon. Member, when he proposes to take certain action at a particular time, tries to give you notice. In doing so last week, I got into certain difficulties. The fact that I have not given you notice now, Mr. Speaker, is not discourtesy but caution.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The conduct, progress and direction of the Foreign Secretary's negotiations to achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflict forced on us by the Argentine invasion and occupation of the British Falkland Islands, the defiance by the Argentine Government of the United Nations Security Council resolution 502 while they have increased their forces of occupation, and the apparent willingness of the Foreign Secretary and his advisers to abandon the three principles of unconditional withdrawal of Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands, the restoration of a British administration for the people of the islands and the right of self-determination for the people of the British Falkland Islands, against the quite specific promises given by the Prime Minister to this House and to the people of the Falkland Islands. All of this, if allowed to continue without this House being able to record what hon. Members believe their rightful concern about the risks now being placed on the British task force by prolonged negotiations, the dangers of a surrender in New York, not an honourable settlement, and the ability of this House, as expressed today to remind the Government that the British Act of Parliament which created the Government of the British Falkland Islands and dependencies cannot be set aside for the convenience of Ministers, however powerful or weak, requires that the House discuss these matters urgently, before the Falkland Islanders are betrayed for a second time with even more disastrous consequences for the freedom and for future of the United Kingdom."
Mr. Speaker: I allowed the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Mr. Ogden) to make his application without notice because I presumed that it arose out of the exchanges this afternoon. Otherwise, it would not have been possible to allow him to move his application. The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The conduct, progress and direction of the Foreign Secretary's negotiations to achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflict forced on us by the Argentine invasion and occupation of the British Falkland Islands."
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with an application under Standing Order No. 9.
I listened with great care to the arguments of the hon. Member for West Derby, which he adduced from having listened to the exchanges this afternoon, and which arise out of the matters of this afternoon, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the standing order and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Falkland Islands

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, on consideration of the Criminal Justice Bill, such new Clauses relating to capital punishment as may be selected by Mr. Speaker shall be first considered, and if proceedings thereon have not been completed by Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall then put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Clause then under consideration and any selected Amendments thereto and thereafter the Questions necessary to dispose of any other of those Clauses, and selected Amendments thereto, which may be brought up at that time.—[Mr. Thompson.]

University Grants Committee
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg leave to bring in a Bill——
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. I am not taking any more points of order.
3.35 pm
Mr. Canavan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make the University Grants Committee more representative and accountable and to provide for adequate financing of universities; and for connected purposes.
Among the terms of reference of the University Grants Committee, set up in 1919, was
"to inquire into the financial needs of university education in Great Britain and to advise the Government as to the application of any grants made by Parliament towards meeting them."
Recently, the purpose of the UGC seems to have changed somewhat. Instead of being responsible for the distribution of university finance, it seems now to be responsible for the distribution of cuts in university finance. The circular letter of 1 July 1981 from the UGC meant savage cuts in higher education, which plunged many universities into the most serious crisis in their history. It is proposed to destroy 20,000 student places by 1984, at a time when the participation rate in higher education in this country is poor compared with those in many other industrialised countries.
The Government are directly responsible for the volume of the university cuts, but the UGC must bear a responsibility for the distribution of the cuts. The truth is that, instead of standing up to defend the university system as a whole, the UGC has failed in its duty and is behaving like a docile puppet of the Government, meekly implementing Government policy. Even Lord Robbins, who chaired the committee on higher education that enunciated the Robbins principle and that led towards its implemention—a principle that has now been abandoned by the Tory Government—is on record as saying that he would have resigned as chairman of the UGC rather than implement the Government's cuts.
The present composition of the UGC is heavily biased in favour of an Oxbridge elite, whose main concern seems to be to try to give the maximum protection to a privileged minority within the university system without caring about the consequences for some of the younger and more innovative universities that are not hidebound by ancient, ivory-tower traditions. It seems that the new motto of the UGC is "The smaller and younger you are, the harder we will hit you."
If we examine the academic background of the UGC, of the 18 members and secretary—that is 19 people—we see that 15, nearly 80 per cent., were educated at either Oxbridge or London. Of the 18 universities to suffer larger than average cuts, not one has a representative on the main UGC committee and only three have representatives at sub-committee level.
For example, Stirling university, in my constituency, has no representation on the UGC. It is the youngest university in Britain and the UGC proposals would mean a 23 per cent. cut in the current grant and a 27 per cent. cut in student numbers by 1984. This would bring the student population down to just over 2,000, yet, for the next academic session alone, there are 8,000 applicants for
606
a mere 600 first year places. Therefore, Stirling desperately needs an injection of extra finance to cater for the increased number of young people who are applying.
Stirling is not alone. In Scotland, for example, the university of Aberdeen is in a critical situation. Other universities, not just those in Scotland, are suffering much larger than average cuts, including the universities of Strathclyde, Salford, Keele and Bradford and the university of Manchester institute of science and technology.
Some of these institutions specialise in science and technology courses, the very courses that are so essential to bring about an industrial recovery. It seems that the Government, by cutting the number of science and technology graduates, are cutting the supply of the very life blood of British industry, which is so important for our economic revival. Successive appeals by myself, and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, to the Secretary of State and the UGC, have fallen on deaf ears. That is why I am introducing the Bill.
The Bill proposes an immediate supplementary grant to be given to help those universities which are critically threatened. There would also be a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that adequate finance is provided for all universities in future years.
The Bill also proposes a radical restructuring of the UGC to make it more representative and accountable. At present, the UGC has no statutory authority at all, yet Ministers consistently use the UGC to try to avoid accountability. When we put questions to Ministers about individual universities, they try to pass the buck to the UGC and thereby to dodge the questions.
Under my proposals, all universities in the United Kingdom would have the opportunity to take part in elections to the University Grants Committee. Instead of the members of the committee being appointed by the political patronage powers of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, there would be a system of election in which all universities would have the opportunity to take part.
Trade union representatives would also be elected to represent not only the academic staff and their unions such as the AUT but the ancillary staff and their unions—NUPE, NALGO, ASTMS and so on. Those unions also have members whose jobs are at stake as a result of the UGC's decisions. The employment considerations are considerable. For example, Stirling university is the largest employer in my constituency.
To counter any accusations of infringement of academic freedom, I propose that any decisions or deliberations of a purely academic nature should be remitted to an academic sub-committee along the lines of the proposals recently approved by the Association, of University Teachers executive. There could be other sub-committees within the general committee of the UGC. Because of the distinctive features and traditions of the Scottish educational system, I propose that there should be a Scottish sub-committee consisting of representatives from the eight Scottish universities. When devolution becomes a reality, this may develop into a fully-fledged Scottish UGC but, even in the meantime, such a Scottish sub-committee would have a valuable role to play in defending and developing the Scottish university system and improving the liaison between universities and schools and between universities and other colleges of tertiary education in Scotland.

607
I ask the House to support my Bill. It is not only about restructuring a committee; it is intended to make the higher education system in Britain more democratic, more accountable and more responsive to the needs of the whole community. It would also help to protect our education system from a dangerous and destructive Secretary of State who, having spent some time at the Department of Industry before his appointment to his present position, and having destroyed much that is good in British industry, now seems hell-bent on destroying much that is good and excellent in our educational system.
At present, thousands of people, particularly young people, are literally queuing up to get into the universities and colleges. The Government are using the UGC to slam the door in their faces. The purpose of my Bill is to turn that closed door into the open door and, eventually, to turn all universities into open universities.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Martin J. O'Neill, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Allen Adams, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. R. McTaggart and Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk.

University Grants Committee
  UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMITTEE
  Mr. Dennis Canavan accordingly presented a Bill to make the University Grants Committee more representative and accountable and to provide for adequate financing of universities; and for connected purposes: 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 125.]
Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice Bill
  As Amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Criminal Justice Bill
    New clause 22

      LIABILITY TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
      'A person convicted of murder shall be liable to capital punishment'.—[Mr. Bendall.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) is going to move the Second reading of the new clause standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner).
      Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are new clauses tabled on the reintroduction of the death penalty. The new clauses are being introduced into a Bill which, unless it is specifically stated to the contrary, covers England and Wales only. Could you, Mr. Speaker, give the House a ruling—or, perhaps, request one of the Law Officers from either Scotland or England to do so—as to whether, if the new clauses are passed—I am certain that the House will have the sense not to pass them—they would not cover Scotland but only England and Wales?
      Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) awaits a ministerial contribution to the debate, he may—I put it no higher—hear something to his advantage.
      Mr. Vivian Bendall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 19—Death penalty for terrorism involving loss of life—
      'As from 1st January 1983, the penalty of capital punishment shall be available to the courts as the penalty for acts of terrorism involving the loss of human life.'.
      Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, after 'be', insert 'the maximum penalty'.
      New clause 20—Death penalty for murder by firearms or explosives—
      'As from 1st January 1983, the penalty of capital punishment shall be available to the courts as the penalty for murder by means of firearms or explosives.'.
      New clause 21—Death penalty for murder of police and prison officers—
      'As from 1st January 1983, the penalty of capital punishment shall be available to the courts as the penalty for murder of a police or prison officer.'.
      Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, after 'be', insert 'the maximum penalty'.
      Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, after 'a', insert 'uniformed'.
      New clause 27—Death penalty for murder in course of robbery and burglary with offensive weapons—
      'As from 1st January 1983 the penalty of capital punishment shall be available to the courts as the penalty for murder in the course of robbery and burglary which involves the use of offensive weapons.'.
      Mr. Bendall: The clauses deal with the return of the death penalty for certain categories of murder. May I,

      609
      first, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the Government for allowing a full debate on this important subject. I tabled the clauses in such a way as to give hon. Members the opportunity at the end of the debate to vote on one or more of the categories. In the past, the vote has always been on the general principle. It had come to my notice that many hon. Members would support, perhaps, one of the categories but not the general principle because, often, the general principle contains social and domestic murders together with crimes of passion. Therefore, my new clauses are specific to avoid that particular problem. I understand that there will be a separate vote on each of the clauses at the end of the debate. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, in that respect.
      In recent years we have seen a serious rise in crimes of violence. The general public have, therefore, become worried and concerned about this trend. They are particularly concerned about murder, especially in certain categories. In the main those categories are outlined in the clauses that I have tabled.
      The death penalty would act as a deterrent. A would-be murderer will think twice before taking a life if he knows that he may well forfeit his own life in so doing. If one examines the homicides that have been reported to the police since 1964—the year the death penalty was done away with on a trial basis—one sees that the figure for murders in 1964 was 296.
      In 1980, the figure was 620. The number has more than doubled in that period.
      New clause 19 deals with acts of terrorism involving the loss of life. The figures contained in the Home Office's 1980 statistics for England and Wales show that there are great variations. It appears that crimes involving terrorism and murder come in spates. In 1974, 43 persons lost their lives and in 1975 the total was 11.
      4 pm
      I shall deal specifically with some of the problems that we have seen recently as a result of acts of terrorism. In October 1981 there was the disastrous bomb incident at the Chelsea barracks, which killed one widow and injured 40 other people, including 25 Irish Guardsmen and two children. At a later stage it resulted in the death of John Breslin, who died from his injuries. That was followed rapidly by another bomb explosion in a Wimpy bar in Oxford Street. At the same time another bomb was detected in Debenham's in the same area. These bombs could easily have maimed and killed innocent people. Many of the inhabitants of the Wimpy bar were young school children who were on a half-term holiday or some other sort of holiday. We tragically lost one of our explosive experts, Kenneth Howarth, when he tried to defuse the bomb.
      That was followed rapidly in October 1981 by the Dulwich bomb, which severely injured Lieutenant-General Sir Steuart Pringle. The general lost a leg as a result of that terrorist activity.
      These examples in England are far too easily forgotten, until the next incident occurs. As I have said, these activities come in spates. However, in Northern Ireland it is a regular occurrence. Over 2,000 have been killed in Ulster, including the civilians of Ulster, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and more than 400 members of our armed forces.
      It is said that the death penalty would make martyrs of terrorists; I disagree. Last year we were presented with the
      610
      problem of the hunger strikers at the Maze. Those would-be martyrs saw the silliness of their ways in the end. They were persuaded by parents and relatives not to give up their lives in hunger strikes.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not restore the death penalty for murders involving terrorism unless to do so would materially assist the task of the security forces? Has my hon. Friend embarked on any discussions with the security forces to ascertain whether they support him in this policy? If he has, what was the result of those discussions?
      Mr. Bendall: I have not involved myself in discussions with the security forces as I feel that it would not be my place to do so. I believe that the death penalty for murders involving terrorism would reduce the number of lives lost. I believe that parents would be persuasive——
      Sir Frederick Burden: Does my hon. Friend accept that he is not in a position to ask any of those killed by terrorist violence for their views on this subject?
      Mr. Bendall: No, I am not in that position. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to the attention of the House. As I was saying, I believe that relatives would be able to persuade potential murderers to adopt methods other than senseless and barbaric acts of terrorism if the death penalty were reintroduced.
      Mr. Christopher Price rose——
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I do not wish to discuss the technicality of the argument, because the new clauses do not apply to Northern Ireland, but it is clear that the hon. Member thinks that the death penalty should be restored there. Does he believe that that can be done in the absence of trial by jury?
      Mr. Bendall: I do not think that it could be administered without trial by jury. However, I believe that the death penalty would help in resolving and stopping much of the terrorism that takes place. I have drawn attention to the losses that we have sustained throughout the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Christopher Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a paradoxical way the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland are a greater protection, in some instances, against miscarriages of justice where an act of terrorism has occurred than trial by jury in a heightened emotional situation? Given the number of miscarriages of justice that have taken place and the uncertainty about some convictions, is he happy about hanging a possibly innocent man?
      Mr. Bendall: I have referred to the death penalty and not to hanging. The cases of innocent men being hanged are rare. Nobody would be happy with that, but I believe that we have a duty to preserve human life. The position is becoming serious as crimes of terrorism continue.
      New clause 20 deals with murder by firearms or explosives. The figures of serious offences recorded by the police in which firearms have been involved are serious. In 1970, 1,358 cases were recorded. In 1980 that escalated to 6,587. The incidence of these offences has quadrupled. It is said that many of these cases involve the use of air pistols, but air pistols are often used for armed robbery. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) has introduced a Private Member's Bill that is designed to deal with replica firearms. When a replica or

      611
      a genuine firearm is used, it is extremely bad for the person on the receiving end, whether or not they are shot. Air pistols can cause serious injuries, given the type of pellets that can now be acquired.
      If the increase in the use of firearms continues, more people are likely to be murdered as more criminals carry firearms. If that happens, more and more police officers will have to be armed. In many respects we shall become like the United States of America. When more of the police are armed and when more criminals carry firearms, there is a greater likelihood of shooting on our streets. That will mean that more innocent people may be killed. Furthermore, when more people become armed there is always the danger that they will become trigger-happy. That is one of the serious problems that faces the United States.
      The use of shotguns in bank raids and post office holdups has increased. In 1972 there were 350 such cases but by 1980 there were 552. The worst year was 1978 when there were 760 such cases. There were about 301 in 1969.
      The use of pistols has vastly increased. In 1972 there were 254 cases involving the use of pistols and in 1980 there were 620. That compares with 233 in 1969. I do not think that it can be argued that the criminal use of firearms is not increasing alarmingly. Serious offences are being committed. The incidence of armed burglary has also increased. In 1975 there were about 77 cases of that sort but there were 102 in 1978. That compares with only 36 in 1970. There has, therefore, been an escalation in those figures as well.
      There has also been a rise in the use of firearms in murder. The figures for the mid-1970s of 46, 43 and 43 compare with the rise to 48 of such offences in 1979. The figures for the late 1960s and early 1970s reveal 23, 30 and 34 cases.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: What about the 1980s?
      Mr. Bendall: The worst year for the use of explosives was 1974, when there were 42 cases. The figures vary because of acts of terrorism. When the coming year's figures are published they will no doubt have risen as a result of what happened towards the end of last year. Crimes using explosives come in spates. It is, therefore, impossible to discern a definite trend in the figures. Nevertheless, the use of firearms and explosives must be stopped. If innocent people are otherwise to be maimed and killed, the only deterrent and the only answer is the return of the death penalty.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend go behind the important statistics that he is giving to the House and explain what motivates men and women to use firearms and therefore to commit the murders that he has described?
      Mr. Bendall: Many people commit crimes. With regard to terrorism, the motive is obviously political. With regard to armed robbery, I firmly believe that those concerned arm themselves because they believe that by shooting their way out of trouble they may not be caught.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: About 70 per cent. of murders are committed within the family environment. That means that if all the murders that were committed
      612
      with the use of firearms, as given in the statistics, were committed only by strangers, about 90 per cent. of murders committed in any one year by strangers involved the use of firearms. It must follow from the statistics that the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) is quoting that many of the murders involving the use of firearms occur within the family as crimes of passion.
      Mr. Bendall: I refer the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) to page 52 of the Home Office "Criminal Statistics for England and Wales 1980". At paragraph 3.3 he will see a graph showing that the figure for robberies committed as a result of the use of pistols and shotguns is nearly 1,000. I have obtained all of my statistical figures from that paper.
      I turn now to the murder of police and prison officers. They do a difficult job in difficult circumstances. They should have the protection of the death penalty. If such protection is not offered to them, I predict that within the next decade most policemen will be armed. That is a horrifying prospect. Even more criminals will arm themselves. Shooting in the streets will increase. Police and criminals alike will become victims if that is allowed to happen. I do not believe that the police want to be armed any more than they are now.
      In the 17 years prior to the death penalty being abolished, 11 police officers were murdered. In the 17 years since the death penalty was abolished, 27 have been murdered. That is another doubling of the figure. The figures speak for themselves. Only this year, Detective Constable Porter of Durham was murdered while chasing armed robbers who had snatched a payroll. One of his colleagues was also injured. PC John Egerton of Greater Manchester was murdered near Bolton, having disturbed someone siphoning petrol from a van in a factory yard. Detective Constable John Sanford, also of Greater Manchester, was recently murdered at Manchester airport. He died as a result of head injuries sustained when carrying out investigations. Those are three examples of police officers who have been murdered already this year. Only last weekend, a policewoman, Beverley Townsend, was attacked in Fulham. Fortunately, she sustained far less serious injuries than might have occurred. That is to say nothing of the regular murder of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The total of their dead is now nearly 150.
      4.15 pm
      Prison warders also deserve our protection. With the use of firearms increasing at its present rate, criminals may try to release their friends who are in prison, or prisoners might themselves organise their release.
      I turn now to the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) to new clauses 19 and 21. The death penalty should not be regarded as the maximum in a scale of penalties. It should be the deterrent. It should fit the crime. The amendment to new clause 21 which deals with uniformed police, presents problems. If one of the new clauses is accepted today, there should be a further debate on the matter, as it would need to be clarified, and, presumably, new legislation would be required.
      Mr. J. Grimond: May I ascertain exactly what the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) means in new clause 19? It says:

      613
      'As from 1st January 1983, the penalty of capital punishment shall be available to the courts as the penalty for acts of terrorism involving the loss of human life.'.
      Is he suggesting that capital punishment is mandatory and that the courts will have no other penalty available to them?
      Mr. Bendall: As I understand it—I tabled the new clause—that is so.
      I turn now to new clause 22.
      Mr. John Wheeler: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he tell the House whether he believes that any jury in the country will convict if new clause 19 becomes law?
      Mr. Bendall: I entirely accept that the jury must make the decision. I was referring to uniformed officers. The matter should be further debated if the new clause were approved.
      I fully support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) on new clause 22. I should like some clarification. Does it include social and domestic murders and crimes of passion? The House would welcome clarification on that.
      I confirm that I shall support new clause 27 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). It is important, as it deals with mugging and other offences that are committed on the street and in the home. Moreover, it covers one of the principal concerns of the public about murder that is often committed as a result of mugging.
      The public have become extremely anxious about law and order. They have witnessed the figures for crimes of violence rise to more than 100,000 in 1981. The Home Secretary has vastly strengthened the police and has put more constables back on the beat. I warmly congratulate him on his efforts in that direction.
      Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: New clause 27 provides that:
      "the penalty of capital punishment shall be available to the courts as the penalty for murder in the course of robbery and burglary which involves the use of offensive weapons."
      How does the hon. Gentleman justify the penalty of capital punishment in cases where the murderer has used a knife or a gun but not where the victim has been strangled, perhaps in hideous circumstances? Is that not an invidious anomaly?
      Mr. Bendall: There are always anomalies in these matters. One would not deny that. Certainly, however, I believe that, statistically, robbery involving violence with an offensive weapon is more common than strangulation.
      The Home Secretary is to be congratulated on the increase in the police force, honouring the Conservative manifesto pledge to the public at the last general election, but the general public are still concerned at the number of murders taking place in our society. The police should have the added protection of the death penalty. This view has been clearly expressed in opinion polls. In the 1975 opinion poll, 64 per cent. favoured capital punishment. In the 1981 Gallup poll the figure was 69 per cent., and in the Gallup poll just a few weeks ago 78 per cent., 75 per cent. and 74 per cent. favoured the death penalty for certain categories of murder. The Police Federation has received more than 200,000 signatures in favour of capital punishment and I suspect that many hon. Members have received letters supporting it. In the correspondence that
      614
      I have received, the ratio is 30:1 in favour. Moreover, I have today received a petition from the Manchester and Merseyside areas, with 125,000 signatures, seeking a binding referendum on the question of capital punishment.
      Those figures give a clear picture of the views of the vast majority of the British people. They want the death penalty restored for certain categories of murder. Parliament is well aware of that. I believe that the death penalty would act as a deterrent. The elderly and the young in my constituency, and I am sure in those of many other hon. Members, are worried about going out at night, using subways or opening their doors after dark. I shall not go into detail, as that is well known to all of us. I believe that this would also provide added incentive for parents to accept more responsibility for correcting their children during their formative years. It might also, in time, lead to more discipline in our schools. The young must be taught the difference between right and wrong and it is in youth that the problems first begin. If the problems can be resolved at a far earlier stage, so much the better.
      I believe that the restoration of the death penalty would also stop the senseless killings that often take place around football grounds during and after matches, as in the recent instance at Highbury. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but to me it is not a laughing matter for a young man to be found dying in the gutter as a result of a serious attack after a football match.
      The House has a very serious decision to make. It must examine its conscience and it cannot ignore the feelings of the vast majority of British people who call for the return of capital punishment for certain degrees of murder. That is needed if law and order are to be maintained, democracy upheld and lives preserved.
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) has undoubtedly raised a very important issue of deep public concern at this time, although I did not find the way in which he presented his arguments persuasive.
      I have two reasons for wishing to speak in the debate. First, I have the most recent direct contact with the electorate—fairly intensive contact in two by-elections in the past year—and I know that there is concern about this matter, although in neither case was the electorate in any doubt about my views. Secondly, for two separate periods, I held the office of Home Secretary and had to discharge the heavy responsibilities involved in these matters.
      Those experiences certainly do not leave me in any mood for dogma on this and other issues. There are many questions relating to crime and punishment to which none of us knows the answer and we mislead ourselves and the public if we pretend too much that we do. There are great dangers, as perhaps the Government and the Prime Minister found after the last election, in trying to make this a party issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "She did not"] The right hon. Lady did. I was interested that eventually, in February or March, she agreed with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr Callaghan) that it did not make much difference who was Prime Minister when dealing with these difficult problems.
      No one can fail to be impressed by and to take seriously the deep sense of concern about violent crime and the fear that it provokes which is now in the minds of many people, particularly, although not exclusively, the old. It would be quite wrong for any of us to pretend that the forces of enlightenment are entirely on one side in this matter or to

      615
      try to dismiss as a mere desire for atavistic vengeance the feelings of those who search for some protection that they believe would make them feel more secure.
      Therefore, in considering this matter, I have tried to set aside what I regard as the traditional arguments against the death penalty—those which certainly persuaded me and were deployed with great force in the debates leading up to the 1965 decision. I have always regarded the in some ways corrupting and certainly macabre ritual of the death penalty as repugnant, but I believe that it is one's duty to set aside those feelings if one believes that the death penalty will help to give security and protection to people who feel great need for security and protection at this time.
      Having said that, I am not so persuaded, for three reasons which I shall try to state briefly.
      First, the worst form of mass murder and mutilation that we have experienced recently has without question resulted from terrorist acts on a mass scale. The hon. Member for Ilford, North referred to 1974. In that year, 21 young people were killed in a pub bombing incident in Birmingham. At that time, I was Home Secretary and I represented a Birmingham constituency. It was my duty to visit in hospital not those who had been killed, but the many who had been mutilated not just in that incident but in four or five others. What is involved is, therefore, deeply engraved on my mind. I have been as close to it as any hon. Member, with perhaps a few exceptions, such as the right hon. Members for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser) and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) who have experienced direct attacks.
      4.30 pm
      As the hon. Member for Ilford, North made clear, terrorism is a major threat. On the face of it, it would be curious to suggest that we should have the death penalty for some forms of murder, but to exclude it for terrorism. That is not what the hon. Gentleman suggested, but it is what I believe some hon. Members may have in mind. I do not believe that it can begin to be convincingly argued that capital punishment for terrorism would be either wise or protective.
      First, is the death penalty to be used in Northern Ireland or only in Great Britain? I remember the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), now Secretary of State for Education and Science, announcing his conversion to using it in Great Britain, but saying that it must be excluded from Northern Ireland. It seemed to me a most extraordinary proposition. One comes forward with what is said to be a unique and effective deterrent, but where the threat is greatest the sword is left in its sheath and it is drawn only where the threat is less. I find that a difficult proposition to accept. Yet—and the intervention of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) was pertinent to this view—almost everyone—one must never be too extreme in a statement—who has been directly concerned with security and the administration of the law in the horribly difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland knows that the death penalty would make things worse, not better.
      The most knowledgeable convert is the Home Secretary himself who, of course, abolished capital punishment in Northern Ireland in 1972. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly learned from his experience. Apart from anything else, it would make it impossible to continue with
      616
      the Diplock courts. Could anyone seriously argue that we could have the supreme penalty without trial by jury in one part of the United Kingdom?
      Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point. I do not know whether he considered it when he was Home Secretary. If the treason law is applied, where the death penalty exists anyway and it becomes recognised that acts of terrorism create the offence of treason felony because every one of the persons concerned commits treason against the State, that might make it unnecessary to amend the terrorism new clause. Why has that law not been brought into effect? Surely, if the law needs to be amended, it can be done in that way. That would take into account the large number of IRA murders that have been perpetrated.
      Mr. Jenkins: To be honest, I do not understand the force of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. I am concerned with the substance, not the legal form. I am concerned with whether hanging, or any other form of judicial killing, for terrorist crimes would give greater or lesser security to the innocent.
      My point was whether one could possibly use the supreme penalty—even if it were thought right for other reasons—without trial by jury. Whether one uses the Treason Act, or any other Act, one still has to have a trial with, in my view, a jury. If we were to abandon the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, I believe that we could say goodbye to the majority of convictions for terrorism. We would have less, not greater, protection.
      Moving from Northern Ireland to the general terrorist position in the United Kingdom as a whole, I do not believe that it can be argued with conviction that capital punishment would be a deterrent against a determined and vicious terrorist. Surely the experience of the past year or so has made that argument even clearer than it was before. Nine or ten hunger strikers have starved themselves to death in an Ulster gaol. One could not argue that they would have been deterred by the fear of death. They sought death for the purposes of their own perverted cause. How much more glamorous—if one may use the word in that horrible context—and striking for their perverted purposes it would have been had they met death upon British gallows than in the squalor of starving to death in a hospital bed. How much more frightening might have been the consequences for other people. How much more dangerous the repercussive elements might have been. I believe that in the major category of terrorist crime the death penalty would not protect but would further endanger innocent lives.
      We have many other applications before us. Leaving aside the illogicality in proclaiming the unique value of the deterrent and then not being able to use it in cases of the worst form of slaughter, it has long been attractive to some people to seek different categories, despite the general disillusionment with the attempt to do that in the Homicide Act 1967, which lasted for seven years and proved extremely difficult to administer. What categories are raised? There are police and prison officers. Although numbers are small by international standards, it is a grave matter when a police officer is killed in the course of duty. There are too many.
      What are the most important aspects of the effectiveness of the police to combat crime? First, the

      617
      understanding and support of the public. Secondly, the likelihood of the courts convicting the guilty whom the police have apprehended. I doubt whether capital punishment would help in either case. It would perhaps hinder. If there were a different and more severe punishment for killing policemen than for killing a civilian—perhaps a young girl bank clerk who endeavoured to resist a criminal and to uphold the law—would that help relations between the police and the public and the degree of mutual support which I regard as absolutely crucial?
      Next, there is the likelihood of conviction. Police opinion on that matter is not unanimous. I am well aware of the position of the Police Federation, which I respect having had dealings with it over many years. I do not agree with its view on this matter—a view which it has held for a long time.
      In 1974 the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, without being asked by me, spontaneously stated that it was his view and that of four out of five of his most senior officers that capital punishment would be a hindrance, not a help. I have not inquired about the position since then. I do not believe that senior police officers should be canvassed in this respect. I tell the House that because the statement was volunteered to me. Why did they take that view? It was not, I think, out of softness, but for fear that capital punishment would make conviction more difficult to achieve and leave the police less well protected at the end of the day.
      Another question, which is for the House, not the police, is that of majority verdicts in criminal trials. I introduced that provision into the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and it went through, but not without considerable opposition and difficulty in the House. It was something of a cross-party issue, although most of the opposition came fom the Conservative Benches. I make no great point about that.
      It was a difficult change to introduce, but in my view it is now widely accepted. It has worked well and it is valuable and important in the fight against crime. More than 10 per cent. of convictions are now secured by majority verdicts. Those especially affected are the most hardened and professional criminals. Could we continue with majority verdicts in capital cases if the ultimate penalty were to result? It would be a difficult question to answer. If we say that majority verdicts are not acceptable in one category of cases, might not that undermine the position of others?
      One would have difficulty in obtaining convictions, not out of sentiment but occasionally because of corruption, supineness or perhaps a scintilla of genuine doubt in the minds of the jury. Some possibilities of doubt are too great to be shrugged aside. I have been concerned with 10 capital cases in which there were varying degrees of doubt. Some turned out to be wrongful convictions. Some cases raised doubt—sometimes substantial doubt—which led to it being clearly shown that there had been a miscarriage of justice. In others there was just a scintilla of doubt which left a lingering feeling of uncertainty. There have been one or two further cases since then. That is not a negligible proportion. During the 20 years after the Second World War when capital punishment existed, 186 people were sentenced to death. Not all of them were hanged, but two were and others might well have been.
      That leads me to the conclusion that the death penalty is too final for the frailty of human judgment, especially
      618
      as there is no convincing evidence that it would give greater security and a very strong argument that, in major cases of terrorism, it would increase the danger.
      In present circumstances, some may say "Let us try anything, especially what the public wishes." While I in no way dismiss public views on this matter easily, that is not a responsible attitude for the House. We do not live in a plebiscitary democracy, except recently on rare major constitutional issues, nor should we. I hope that the House will exercise its current judgment tonight, as it has on previous occasions, and reject the new clauses.
      Mr. Edward Heath: It is a pleasure to welcome the first speech of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) since he returned to the House. He spoke with all the distinction of a former Home Secretary and it is well known that I find myself in agreement with his views. My contribution this afternoon will be very brief and largely personal. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), who introduced the new clauses, emphasised the immense increase in crimes of violence in Britain. That is undeniable, but it has led to confusion in the minds of the public between crimes of violence and homicides. The increase in the former has led to the view that the increase in homicide is also vast and therefore requires the drastic remedy of the reintroduction of capital punishment.
      I do not believe that to be the case. Of course the increase in crimes of violence is of the utmost importance to society and every credit goes to the Home Secretary and to the Government for the steps that they have taken in trying to deal with the problem in modern times. We, all know that circumstances are now very different from what they were in the past. The facilities for crimes of violence are far greater than they have ever been and the difficulties of coping with them are also measurably greater.
      I hope that we may concentrate upon the essential matter that we are discussing today, which is the reintroduction of capital punishment for homicide. I read an article in The Times by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), the former Solicitor-General for Scotland, who assumed that to have a proper deterrent one should place capital punishment at the disposal of the courts for any crime of violence. It is difficult to believe that that would be acceptable to public opinion, let alone the House, and it is not really the answer to the problem that we are facing.
      4.45 pm
      I was intimately involved in the preparation of what became the Homicide Act 1957, with Lord Kilmuir as Lord Chancellor. Our purpose in preparing that Act was to try—I say it quite openly—to bridge the gap in the Conservative Party between those who believed in capital punishment and the abolitionists. At the same time we hoped that it might succeed in bridging the gap in the House of Commons. To begin with, Mr. Sydney Silverman, who was a most redoubtable fighter for the abolition of capital punishment, I think also believed that.
      The Act was passed. It distinguished between different categories of homicide. The critics said that the Act meant that if a public man was shot while crossing Parliament Square the death penalty had to be used in that case. If, however, a man poisoned his wife, it was purely a matter between the two of them, and the case should not be affected by the death penalty. The basic point was that the

      619
      Act, although passed by the House of Commons, with many doubters, was not acceptable to public opinion for one moment.
      The reason was quite simple. Our fellow citizens said that they recognised that the life of a policeman or a prison officer was very important, but in what respect was it more important than the life of a citizen who was killed by some chance bullet during a bank raid? That question was impossible to answer satisfactorily to the public. I must say with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, who is trying in the new clauses to categorise homicide in various ways, that even if he succeeds it will not be acceptable to public opinion for the reasons that I have given.
      Mr. John Carlisle rose——
      Mr. Heath: That seems to me to be a compulsive argument to which I have never heard an answer, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle) has one now.
      Mr. Carlisle: Is it not true that policemen and prison warders are exposed to dangers that the general public need not face and that they therefore require further protection?
      Mr. Heath: That is not acceptable in the minds of the public, because today they believe that they are just as exposed to danger. That includes the risk of being shot by someone who is carrying out a bank raid because one happens to be in the way or, as the right hon. Member for Hillhead said so movingly, because of the whole question of terrorism today, which is a feature not just of Britain but of the modern world.
      We must face the question—is there to be a restoration of the death penalty in all cases or should we remain as we are at the moment? I have heard no arguments in the years since capital punishment was abolished to persuade me that it should be restored. Indeed, the only arguments that I have heard have reinforced my view that it would be a mistake to do so.
      However, there is still the question of terrorism, about which we have heard. I was Prime Minister when the death penalty was abolished in Northern Ireland. Of course, the Government did it knowing that those dealing with terrorism on the spot at tremendous risk to themselves did not believe that the death penalty helped them in any way. We took that decision in that full knowledge. I believe that remains the situation.
      As for the police, they require the support of all sections of the community. I can understand the view of many of them but we must not overlook the views also of other members of the police, known to ourselves, who do not believe that capital punishment would be a help to them. This is why I regret the Police Federation's campaign in the press, not because it has caused an immense amount of work for Members of Parliament but because the Police Federation should endeavour to secure the support of all sections of the community, regardless of its view, particularly on questions such as this. Moreover, when chief constables decide to become again the silent service, it may be better for all of us and we shall form better judgments of the real problems of society and of the best way in which to help the police.
      620
      The right hon. Member for Hillhead mentioned my experience of terrorism. I do not believe that the death penalty would have prevented the attacks on my life; nor would it have prevented my house from being blown up, nor a further attempt being made to do so. Nor would it prevent further attacks in countries overseas. I do not believe that the existence of the death penalty would help, and I am not asking that it should.
      The real point which is emphasised to me by many constituents is that, even if the death penalty is not a deterrent, murderers deserve to die. This is the question of revenge. Again, this will be a matter of moral judgment for each of us. I do not believe in revenge. If I were to become the victim of terrorists, I would not wish them to be hanged or killed in any other way for revenge. All that would do is deepen the bitterness which already tragically exists in the conflicts we experience in society, particularly in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Percy Grieve: My right hon. Friend characterised the demand for the taking of a life upon the taking of a life as revenge. May it not be said that society shows its respect for human life by exacting the death penalty against those who have deliberately taken life?
      Mr. Heath: My hon. and learned Friend is right in saying that that is a point of view which can be put forward. It is not one which I share. It leads me to the next point.
      The one substantial change which I have noticed since the abolition of the death penalty is the revelation of the number of people who have been wrongly condemned. This was just touched upon by the right hon. Member for Hillhead. The number is seen to be considerable when compared with the figures of those who are charged with homicide. To me it is unforgivable that one should take a life judicially through the State in this way. Therefore, that alone has strenuously reinforced my opposition to the reintroduction of the death penalty.
      There are, of course, those of my constituents who have written to me and said, roughly in a similar way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, that there are bound to be mistakes sometimes and that if innocent people suffer by mistake and lose their lives that is a good reason why, if people are wrongly condemned, they should lose their lives also. This is not an argument I can share or a view with which I can agree. Because there has been one mistake, one should not therefore indulge in a process in which other, equally grievous mistakes are made. That is not an argument in which I agree with my constituents.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: May I draw to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the murder in 1969 for which Patrick Meehan was convicted? The lady who was murdered was my aunt. Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that in the whole family there was no desire for revenge. When I spoke to my uncle he showed no desire for revenge, either. It was evident at the time that there was an element of doubt. The family was happy and pleased that there was no capital punishment at that time, because otherwise an innocent man might have been hanged.
      Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. When I said that the argument was one of revenge I was not referring to any specific case and I had none in mind. I was referring purely to the letters

      621
      which I have received, largely as a result of the Police Federation advertisement, from all over the country in which people say that, even though the death penalty may not deter, somebody who has committed this crime deserves to die. That is not a view which I can accept.
      We all know that for many years there has been a major difference of view between Parliament and public opinion, as expressed in the best way in which we can see it, through public opinion polls. It is well known that I do not support the constitutional doctrine of a referendum. However, I sometimes think that if a referendum were fought openly up and down the country the views of the public as expressed in public opinion polls might prove to be different. That is purely a matter of judgment. At the moment we know that there is a great gap between public opinion and the House of Commons. This situation is not only regrettable but always extremely difficult for society and Parliament.
      We should carry out our basic responsibilities. I know that some of my hon. Friends, and perhaps some who have come to the House of Commons after recent elections, feel very much torn between the views of their constituents, often expressed forcefully, and their own views as to what should be done in these matters. If it is not presumptous of me, I would ask them to go back to Edmund Burke and remember that he said:
      "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
      In these matters we should hold to our own judgment as we best can.
      Mr. Greenway: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this is the greatest moral issue which faces the country or which could face the country? Is it not reasonable and perhaps right that it should be put to the conscience of each adult and that a referendum would not be wrong in that sense?
      Mr. Heath: No. I take the contrary view. I will not argue which is the greatest moral issue facing us individually or the country because that would lead me into other fields which are not appropriate today. Each of us should have the courage and responsibility to form his own judgment and his own views and then act upon them in the Division Lobby.
      If I may reinforce what the right hon. Member for Hillhead said, my constituents, in what after all was originally a marginal seat, have known my views on this subject for more than 20 years. I can assure my hon. Friends that that is not the most difficult or unpleasant thing with which I have had to contend in politics. I have survived this public knowledge and we still remain on perfectly good terms. This is a great issue, but it is in our hands and we should accept our individual responsibility for deciding it.
      5 pm
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The House owes a sense of gratitude to the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) for having given us yet again the opportunity to debate this serious and important issue. Like the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), I hope that we shall tonight deal effectively once and for all for the remainder of this Parliament both with the general principle which
      622
      is enshrined in new clause 22 and with the several variants that the hon. Gentleman and his friends have put before us.
      I hope that the House will decide not to reintroduce capital punishment, either as a general principle or in the four ways that have been itemised, for four main reasons.
      First, capital punishment is clearly not the unique deterrent that its advocates claim it to be. Evidence adduced in Britain and abroad shows clearly, convincingly and overwhelmingly that capital punishment does not deter the commission of murders and homicides. The evidence of an exhaustive examination in America, where comparisons were made between abolitionist and retentionist States in relation to the number of homicides, the number of police officers killed and the number of prison officers who were assaulted or killed, was that there was no substantial difference between those American States which had abolished the death penalty and those which had retained it. On that basis, there does not seem to be the evidence which its advocates would like to claim that capital punishment acts as a deterrent to homicide or to murder.
      The hon. Member for Ilford, North said that the number of capital murders had increased since the abolition of the death penalty. However, that increase happened before capital punishment was abolished. Many of the murders that have subsequently been described as capital would probably not have been so categorised if the death penalty had still been available. There has been a corresponding increase in crime generally, particularly in violent crime, for which the penalties have not changed and therefore cannot be said to have had a deterrent effect upon those offences.
      Secondly, it is difficult to categorise those homicides which should be subject to the death penalty. We all know that the vast majority of murders in Britain are domestic murders; they occur in a family context. It is far more likely that if one is murdered it will be by someone one knows rather than by a cool, calculating, vicious, premeditative stranger in the streets. Most of those murders are committed in emotion such as rage and often by people who are severely mentally unbalanced. By their very nature, they are not susceptible to deterrence. The return of the death penalty will have no impact at all on such murderers.
      Mr. Rees-Davies: For the sake of completeness, the hon. Gentleman must point out that in those instances there was always a reprieve by the Home Secretary. There was never any question of the death penalty applying for domestic murders.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to take issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He has far more experience in the courts than I, but if he had read the 50 cases cited in the report of the Royal Commission on capital punishment he would know that in many such cases both men and women have been hanged in the past. He is wrong to suggest that the kind of murders that I have just described were never liable to the death penalty, because clearly they were.
      It is because most hon. Members accepted that domestc murderers were not susceptible to deterrence and therefore should not be liable to the death penalty that a series of distinctions were drawn. The Homicide Act 1957 detailed those distinctions, which everyone acknowledged to be invidious and anomalous. We have the same kind of distinctions now in some of the clauses before us.
      Mr. Gary Waller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most notorious domestic murders which made capital punishment repugnant to the public was that by Ruth Ellis? She was hanged when the Home Secretary found himself unable to grant a reprieve. It is certainly not the case that domestic murderers were immune from capital punishment. That case made a great impression on the public.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman is right. That confirms what I said. That case was one of many other so-called domestic murders for which capital punishment was exacted.
      We acknowledge that the death penalty should not be available in those circumstances and attempt, as we did in the Homicide Act, to distinguish the most heinous category of murder which should be subject to capital punishment. The hon. Member for Ilford, North has put several options before the House today. However, I do not believe that poisoning or strangling is a more honourable or noble way of killing than shooting. The hon. Gentleman obviously believes that they are more acceptable and more honourable. In new clause 20 he propounds that those who shoot shall be hanged but he does not suggest that such retribution should follow those who carry out the far more heinous, despicable, premeditated and calculated acts of poisoning or strangulation.
      New clause 27 makes murder in the course of robbery and burglary susceptible to capital punishment, but not murder in the course of rape. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a murder carried out in the course of a robbery, perhaps a minor robbery, or a burglary, which may be insignificant, is far more serious than a murder carried out in the course of a rape? Is he suggesting that the House and the country should regard offences against property as more important than offences against the person? Of course they are not.
      That is precisely the point that was made by the right hon. Member for Sidcup. Once we accept capital punishment for certain categories—as the hon. Member for Ilford, North has done tonight—once we try to draw distinctions and determine the appropriate categories, all kinds of invidious anomalies and injustices arise, some of which I have referred to and some of which were referred to by the right hon. Members for Sidcup and for Hillhead.
      New clause 21 provides that capital punishment shall be available for the killing of a policeman or a prison officer, but not, as the right hon. Member for Hillhead pointed out, for the murder of a security guard, a post office worker, a counter clerk or a bank clerk, who may not have interfered in the robbery at all but just been an innocent bystander. Alternatively, such persons might have interfered, tackled the assailant, put up a courageous struggle and been killed. Yet the hon. Gentleman does not regard such deaths as important enough to warrant capital punishment. Any policeman or prison officer murdered in whatever circumstances is somehow regarded as a more superior citizen. Such anomalies have always been the bane of attempts to introduce capital punishment and are just as valid now as they were in the past.
      Reference has been made to, and there is a clause tabled for debate on, capital punishment for acts of terrorism. The right hon. Members for Sidcup and Hillhead have effectively demolished the arguments in that respect. Clearly the availability of the death penalty will not deter terrorists. They are not the type that are likely to be
      624
      deterred. Indeed, they are likely to be attracted by the risk and adventure involved in embarking on a political cause that has the added attraction of being more dangerous because they may be hanged if they are caught, or subjected to some other form of final punishment. Many of them would welcome the martyrdom that hanging brings.
      Presumably none of us would wish to countenance the possibility that, while a terrorist awaited the carrying out of the death penalty or the result of his appeal, his colleagues might take hostage schoolchildren, political leaders, or members of the Church or of the public in order to secure his release. Presumably we are aware of the consequences if we suggest that capital punishment should be available for terrorism per se. The comments made by the right hon. Member for Hillhead about the absence of jury trials forcibly makes the point that, although hon. Members and the public may want capital punishment for, above all, acts of terrorism, it is the most inappropriate method of reducing terrorism.
      My final reason for believing that we should not vote in favour of capital punishment is the possibility of mistakes. Mistakes have been made. There is now serious doubt about at least 13 cases in which people were hanged. It is accepted that in three of those cases a mistake was made. In one case, that of Timothy Evans, the mistake has, in a sense, been recognised by the granting of a posthumous pardon. We cannot countenance the possibility that by taking such an irrevocable step an innocent life might be taken judicially, in cold blood, by the State.
      Such a negative attitude would have a deleterious effect on prison staff and on those who have to try to cope with the overcrowding and the appalling conditions in our prisons. Many of them would be unable to cope with the fact that a civilised society intended to deal with offenders in that way. It would lead to many resignations from the prison service and would change the atmosphere for both prisoners and prison officers.
      Unlike the right hon. Member for Sidcup, I do not necessarily believe that the overwhelming majority of the public are at variance with the House. However, I accept—given the evidence of opinion polls and the letters that I receive—that that would seem to be the case. In opinion polls and debates the public answer one simple question in the heat of the moment, when they may be in an emotional state. They simply have to respond to the question "Do you believe that capital punishment and hanging should be made available again?" In a simplistic way, their reply is "Yes".
      If the public were asked to define the individual against whom, or circumstances in which, capital punishment should be used, the substantial majority in favour of a return to hanging would be substantially and quickly eroded. If they were asked whether the death penalty should be made available for those aged under 18, for women, for the murder of policemen in one set of circumstances but not for the murder of a bank clerk or a post office worker in another set of circumstances, for a female terrorist, for a 16-year-old terrorist or for a terrorist when conviction might lead to the taking of hostages, the apparent majority in favour of a return to hanging would quickly disappear.
      Whether or not it disappears is irrelevant. As the right hon. Member for Sidcup rightly said, we must decide. We are representatives, not delegates. As in 1979, we must

      625
      decide on the basis not of prejudice or dogma, but of what we believe, on a full, dispassionate and reasoned examination of the facts, is in the interests of our constituents. The return of capital punishment in any of the categories mentioned in the new clauses would not be in the interests of my constituents or of the country. It would not reduce terrorism or the incidence of homicide. It would give no greater protection to the police or to prison officers. If I could be shown convincingly and clearly that my beliefs were false, I might vote differently. However, that evidence is not available and, therefore, I hope that a majority of hon. Members will vote against the introduction of any of the new clauses.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) is an engaging and eloquent speaker. Just because he says several times that certain things are true, he expects us to assume that he is right. The same is probably true of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). He constantly assured us that capital punishment was not a deterrent and that there was no evidence to show that it was. He said that it would do nothing but damage.
      I shall challenge some of the assumptions that have been made. The hon. Member for Ormskirk said that, although there had been an increase in the number of murders since the abolition of the death penalty, the trend had begun before then. How does he know that? Where is the evidence? If he is in any doubt, he should look at "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1980" that he so often cites. Does page 61 prove the hon. Gentleman's point? That page shows that between 1957 and 1965, when capital punishment was abolished, the number of homicides reported to the police remained virtually constant. Immediately after that there was a substantial rise in the figures and the number of murders now reported to the police is more than double the figure in 1964, the year before abolition.
      The same is true of Scotland. Until recently I was a Scottish Member of Parliament. In the 20 years before abolition in Scotland there were about three convictions for murder per year. After abolition, the figure rose to about 30 per year. The fact that the hon. Member for Ormskirk believes that the number of murders has not increased and that capital punishment is not a deterrent does not mean that that is true. There is a danger here, because a few people give the impression of having great wisdom. Their arguments should be carefully scrutinised.
      Like all hon. Members, I was impressed, as always, by the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He spoke with his usual eloquence and sincerity. It was reassuring to listen to a former Chief Whip saying that hon. Members must be motivated only by their consciences. Chief Whips would do well to put more emphasis on that point of view when they are in that position. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup and the hon. Member for Ormskirk may accept that the Burke doctrine is not relevant in the same way to every issue. We will make a grave mistake if we consider public opinion on this issue in the same way as we consider public opinion on issues that can be determined at general elections. Every five years people can decide about the running of the economy and so on. They have a choice. Therefore, it is fair and reasonable that hon. Members should exercise their judgment on such issues as they arise.
      626>
      However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup might accept that the situation is different if people cannot decide on an issue every five years and if the politicians of the major parties tend to be drawn from a group with one consistent point of view while the majority of the public hold a different point of view.
      This important debate has, of course, been overshadowed by the serious conflict in the South Atlantic. Innocent British citizens living in peace have been attacked and subjected to the rule of a totalitarian aggressor. Although the Falkland Isles are geographically distant from this debate, the principle at stake is similar. The facts of the international rule of law are similar to those involved in the battle against violence at home. Those facts show that when we possess strong and frightening deterrents against aggression—as NATO has established in Europe—peace is maintained. However, where a credible deterrent is not believed to exist, aggression can take place in a second, and lives can be lost.
      Of course, there are those who, like the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), reject the whole deterrent theory, and believe that both at home and abroad we should abandon our defences and rely in the last resort on moral persuasion and passive resistance. It is perfectly logical to hold that point of view, although in my view it is foolish and irresponsible. What I find difficult to accept is the view of those who are perfectly willing to support the expenditure of vast sums of money on the most appalling and frightening weapons of mass destruction—not because they want to use them or because they want to lay waste cities, but because, as they say, "We preserve the peace and we deter aggression"—but are not willing to restore a law that would threaten killers and men of violence at home with the death penalty.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, short of war, when one can contemplate even the firing squad, it would be a mark of national decadence to reintroduce capital punishment? Could he personally dispose, in a rational moment, of a human life? If not, why does he impose that on other people and, in the last resort, through the reprieve powers of the Home Secretary, place in his hands the disposal of a human life?
      Mr. Taylor: Those who support capital punishment do not want to kill more people, but we genuinely believe—and the evidence supports our view—that it would lead to the saving of innocent human life. I am sure that few of us on these Benches or on the Labour Benches who vote for the clauses tonight will do so because we believe in revenge or because we think that it is an appropriate penalty. We do so only because the evidence shows—in my view, overwhelmingly—that if we had such a deterrent we would save innocent human lives. We do not know who those individuals might be. They are people whom we cannot identify. Most people would accept, I believe, that there are people in Britain today who will be murdered next year, and whose lives could be saved if we had the deterrent of capital punishment.
      I hope that some of my hon. Friends who are abolitionists will face the moral principle. If they believe that capital punishment, as the right hon. Member for Hillhead said, is something too macabre and horrible to contemplate, why do they go into the Lobby to support the

      627
      spending of billions of pounds on horrifying instruments such as Trident, neutron bombs and atom bombs? They say that they are deterrents which save lives. If capital punishment is so macabre, is not an atom bomb more inhuman and awful? Is not the moral principal exactly the same? I support both nuclear weapons and the death penalty, not because I want them to be used" but because I believe that they will save innocent human life.
      There appears to be ample evidence that when deterrents are removed law-breaking increases. During the 20 or 30 years when official policy under Governments of both parties appeared to be designed to erode deterrence, there was an appalling increase in crime and a rising tide of violence. Of course, there are individuals and nations whose activities are so irrational that nothing can deter them, although the numbers involved are far fewer than is generally assumed.
      Those who have spoken against the clauses have said "Where is the evidence? If there were evidence we would accept it". What kind of evidence do they want? Which facts should be established? Surely we must accept that what was a relatively stable rate of killing increased fairly dramatically after abolition, and is now more than double what it was. The argument that some hon. Members use is that surely violence has gone up, too. I suggest that we should remember that many of the crimes of violence would have been murder had it not been for the skills of our surgeons in hospitals. There are many of us who believe that the increase in the carrying of weapons since abolition has led to the increase in violence as well as to the increase in killing.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman talks about the relatively stable number of murders before 1965. On the table to which he referred us, it is clear that in the decade before the abolition of capital punishment there was an increase of about 30 per cent., and there has been an increase, since the abolition of capital punishment, of 50 per cent. I accept that that is an increase, but it is hardly a relatively stable position against a dramatically increasing one.
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is quite wrong. If he looks at the page, he will see that in 1957 the number was 321. In 1964, the year before abolition, the number was 296. In other words, the figure had actually gone down since 1957. That is on page 61. It was a relatively stable figure of around 300. After abolition of course, it went up, and more so in Scotland.
      Mr. Maxton rose——
      Mr. Taylor: I shall not give way. We should accept that the rate of killing has increased substantially, as has violence.
      There is a second factor on which I hope that some of my hon. Friends will comment. If they are looking for evidence, surely they will accept the simple fact that, since abolition, there has been a substantial increase in the carrying of firearms, guns, airguns and sawn-off shotguns. The evidence is overwhelming. If my hon. Friends think that that has nothing to do with capital punishment, can they give any logical reason why there has been an increase of more than 500 per cent. in the number of serious offences involving the use of firearms during the past 10 years?
      Mr. Wheeler: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the past 15 years, the success of the crime prevention industry in the manufacture of bank vaults and safes has meant that the professional criminal no longer attempts to break into a bank vault, but is obliged to go directly for the money? Is that not the reason why more sawn-off shotguns are being used? Crime has rolled over from one position to another. The question is: how do we stop it at the second position?
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend gives a counsel of despair. He is saying that if we want to stop our properties being damaged, we should leave our windows open and our doors unlocked. That is not an answer. My hon. Friend is saying that, because safes are more secure, criminals have to be more clever. That is not much compensation to the general public, who look to the Government to protect the law-abiding public.
      If people like the right hon. Member for Hillhead and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup do not think that this is the reason, what other reason is there for the massive and sharp increase in the number of serious offences involving the use of firearms?
      The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) spoke of the tragic case in which his family was involved. He has made his views clear. If he believes that deterrents do not work, does he not recall the appalling outbreak of razor slashing in Glasgow, which was rather similar to the outbreak of mugging in the South? Gangs ran round the Glasgow streets carrying open razors and carving up people's faces. What stopped that? It was stopped because the late Lord Carment imposed substantial sentences of over 10 years on three of the persons involved in those crimes. He said that others would get the same. The outbreak stopped. It is another example of how deterrents work. We should appreciate that if we erode the deterrents we are inviting an increase in crime.
      Apart from the general argument, there is the matter of definition. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup was right about the possibility of creating anomalies once one tries to make a distinction. My right hon. Friend explained why the 1957 Act had been introduced. Apparently, the reasons involved keeping the Conservative Party happy—somewhat different from protecting the public. The 1957 Act tried to base the definition on the motives of murder. These four new clauses seek to make the basis of the definition the means of murder—whether guns, knives and explosives are carried and used. The best way to stop violence and murder is to try to stop individuals carrying weapons or other means which can be used in offensive conduct and in assault and robbery. That is why the four new clauses have been presented. That is why we have tried to identify and put forward a reasonable definition that can separate murders that can be deterred from those that the majority of people regard as not being able to be deterred.
      5.30 pm
      The one real argument that makes any person supporting capital punishment stop and think seriously is the appalling possibility that a mistake might be made. Many supporters of capital punishment are concerned about that because it is the one great argument that can undermine the determination of anyone ever to look at such a policy. I accept that it is the greatest and most serious argument against the use of capital punishment,

      629
      because its finality makes the possibility of error a desperately serious moral as well as important issue in all other respects.
      The new clauses stress that capital punishment should be available to the courts. There is an element of discretion for the judge and there is the sifting effect of the jury. There is also the protection of the Royal Prerogative. Taking into account the extent by which human conduct can be controlled in a realistic and reasonable fashion, the new clauses have been drawn up in such a way that the possibility of an error is probably remote in relation to the benefits and saving of life that I believe will stem from the introduction of capital punishment and from the reduction in violence that will result. If there is any other reasonable suggestion as to how the new clauses could be amended to make those safeguards more secure, I am sure that the sponsors will accept them.
      At this time we must accept that the responsibility of the House of Commons and the Government is to protect the law-abiding public. I accept that the House must make its own judgment, but it would be a major error to ignore entirely public opinion. We must remember as politicians that the country belongs to the people, not to the politicians. I accept that within the framework of the policies that are advanced at the time of general elections there must be complete freedom for individuals to exercise their judgment. It would be wrong to disregard the fact that capital punishment is not the policy of any party.
      It is a fact that crime has been increasing substantially, that mugging has been increasing and that a large number of people are living lives of hell because they are not able to follow a peaceful existence due to the activities of small groups of rowdy people, vandals and men of violence. We have a duty to protect those people. What worries me is that if we do not take this action and make it clear that we in the House are determined to do all in our power to control violence and killing we shall let down all our constituents, irrespective of their views.
      The evidence is overwhelming. The abolition of capital punishment has led to more guns and knives being used, and to more killing. There is overwhelming evidence that deterrents deter. For that reason I hope that the House will change its opinion and will take the first step towards the restoration of capital punishment.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: I cannot go all the way with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), but only part of the way. Every hon. Member, whatever view he or she may take on capital punishment, should strongly condemn as loudly as possible the outbreak of violence. An example could be set if some of our television programmes could be adjusted to meet the needs of the people so that they do not see the present programmes of violence that are churned out on both channels.
      My contribution will be short and personal. Like other right hon. and hon. Members I have had a number of letters and petitions from constituents arising from the decision of the Police Federation to raise the question of capital punishment again. I have had letters from individuals. A resolution was passed by the Methodist church of the Cumbria district. It asked me to uphold the decision of the Methodist Conference in 1979, which was not to support bringing back capital punishment.
      I shall relate an experience that I had only a few months after I arrived in the House in 1964. Sydney Silverman had introduced his measure to abolish capital punishment. I
      630
      followed the dictates of my conscience and moral grounds. In the Division Lobby I supported Mr. Silverman on the abolition of hanging. Just after I had voted in the Lobby as a constituency Member there was an unfortunate incident in the county of Cumbria. A maniac had broken loose and he was tracked down to the waiting room of Oxenholme police station. Three officers of the Cumbria police went that dark February morning to that wailing room. One opened the door. As soon as he broke in the maniac fired his gun and unfortunately my constituent, police constable George Russell, was shot dead. The two others with him were injured.
      Before Sydney Silverman had brought in his Bill I had never received one letter from my constituents asking me to support capital punishment. However, I received a large number of letters asking me to vote for its abolition, but after that unfortunate incident my postbag was full of letters from my constituents asking me to support capital punishment.
      I had to follow the dictates of my conscience and take into account moral grounds. I stood upon moral grounds and followed the dictates of my conscience. Someone has said that when one has lost one's conscience, there is nothing else worth losing.
      I went to the funeral at the cathedral and heard the chief constable praise his force. However, despite all that, I continued to support Mr. Silverman's Bill, which became law. I well remember during some of our debates healing Mr. Henry Brooke, now Lord Brooke, who was Home Secretary for a number of years. As Home Secretary, Henry Brooke reprieved more condemned prisoners than any other Home Secretary. I recall that his speech had a great impression on the House.
      Like many other hon. Members, from time to time I have a word with policemen. Some of them have a word with me from time to time. I have been pulled up for a parking offence twice, but be that as it may. Last hack-end I spoke to a policeman in his house just after the Police Federation made its decision. The policeman did not express an opinion either for or against capital punishment. During my conversation with him he recalled that eight years previously his duties included attending a prisoner who had been convicted of murder. While on duty he played cards and dominoes with the prisoner and talked with him. After almost every shift with the prisoner he went home and said to his wife "I am convinced in my own mind that the chap is innocent". That was his conviction arising from the conversations that he had with the prisoner when carrying out his duties as a police officer. About eight years later the prisoner walked out of prison a free man, having been given a pardon by the Home Secretary.
      Some hon. Members may ask about my constituents. At every election that I have fought in Carlisle the Christian churches have asked for a joint meeting with all the candidates. I remember one such meeting that took place after service one Sunday night. The Conservative Party candidate, David Bloomer, the Liberal candidate and myself were there. Naturally, all kinds of questions were fired at us. One of the main questions was "Where do you stand on the issue of capital punishment?"
      During the election campaign the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, gave an undertaking, rightly so, that the whole question would at least debated in the House if the Conservative Party won the election. In fairness to the Prime Minister, that was duly carried out.

      631
      At the meeting I made it clear where I stood. The Conservative candidate said in no uncertain terms that if he was elected as Member for Carlisle he would not, and could not, support bringing back the death penalty. His wife, who was at that meeting, was even more vociferous. The only person who would hang everybody was the Liberal candidate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Liberals?"]. This is not a party point.
      Therefore, when people write to me I can reply that I gave an undertaking before the election that if the subject was debated in the House of Commons I could not, and would not, support the reintroduction of the death penalty. I would follow, on moral grounds, the dictates of my conscience.
      5.45 pm
      I have received many letters from members of various religious denominations. Many have attempted to base their argument on the scriptures in asking me to support bringing back the death sentence. I stand by the Bible, although I admit that there is much I do not understand. I suppose that we could all use the scriptures to justify whatever argument we support, but I do not want to decry the Bible. I wish that there were more people who read the Bible than read The Sun. Our morals would be much better if there were.
      I am not a virtuous person. I try to follow the dictates of my conscience and to abide by the law, but there is one thing more important to me than the scriptures. I therefore pose this question. If the Lord Jesus, whom I profess to follow—I hope I do—with all my failings and faults, was in the House tonight, on whatever side, into which Lobby would he go? I have no hesitation in saying that he would support the continued abolition of the death penalty.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): It would be tempting for me to follow the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), whose constituency is beside mine, in the history of Cumbrian politics over the period that we have both been Members in that area. It would be tempting for me to comment on my own experience of these matters in different spheres or to follow the speeches made so far. I must not, in my capacity as Home Secretary, do any such thing.
      My principal task in this debate is to help in placing before the House the considerations which must be applied to the issue of the death penalty. In so doing, I shall follow the long-held convention that the Government take no side on the issue itself. That is a matter for individual Members voting freely according to their own personal judgment. I hope, therefore, that what I have to say will assist hon. Members, whatever their predisposition may be, to vote in the full appreciation of all the factors involved.
      It is, as I have said, a matter for Parliament, not the Government. There are sincere and deeply held views on both sides of the argument on this subject in the House and in the country at large, but it is for Parliament, and Parliament alone, to come to its own conclusion.
      In my efforts to assist the House, it is inevitable that I should hark back to the substance of the debate that the Government provided for in the House on 19 July 1979. I make no apologies for that, since much of what was said then bears directly on the substance of the new clauses now before us. The balance of the arguments may change—and
      632
      it is an important function of the new clauses to test the preponderance of view then expressed—but the arguments and the background to them remain basically the same.
      For many, of course, the argument is already settled in their own minds, and they will hold fast to their views whatever may be said in this debate. On one side is the view that those who kill unlawfully and deliberately automatically forfeit their own right to life, and judicial execution is, therefore, a just retribution. On the other side are those whose belief in the sanctity of life leads to the unshakeable conclusion that to take life as a judicial act is wrong in itself and contrary to the moral standards on which the laws of society should be founded. Others, perhaps taking the view that the moral and ethical arguments either way cancel each other out, rely on their own objective assessment of all the factors surrounding the issue in which one, or a small number of factors, may tip the objective scale one way or another. I belong to this group. As Home Secretary that is no bad thing since it is my duty in that office to give the House a careful appraisal of the arguments which have to be weighed in reaching a decision.
      This debate, like the one held in 1979, takes place against the background of widespread concern about the rate of crime, and in particular violent crime. Some of that concern is expressed in a belief that capital punishment not only acts as a deterrent to the would-be murderer, but has the function of re-establishing respect for the law in general. Those who base their call for the restoration of capital punishment on the argument of deterrence have to make the case. The evidence was reviewed in 1979 by three eminent criminologists, and their findings were published in New Society. They concluded:
      "There has been much research, but the results are either inconclusive or suspect."
      As they said, there is no reliable evidence to show that capital punishment has a unique deterrent effect. Those who claim this have not established their case.
      It is true that in England and Wales the figures for homicide since the abolition of capital punishment in 1965 are greater than for a comparable period before abolition, but the upward trend started before 1965 and has not changed substantially since.
      Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, but I do not want to do so when I am trying to put forward the facts.
      Mr. Maxton: Perhaps I may inform the Home Secretary that over the past three years in Scotland there has been a substantial decline in the number of murders.
      Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) may prefer to argue their cases between one another, and perhaps I should leave them to do so. It is better that I do. Later in my speech, I shall return to the point about Scotland, which is important.
      Turning to the more general effect of the availability of the death penalty, it must, I think, be remembered that it has been applied in practice in this century to a small minority of offenders convicted of murder. It seems unlikely that the general rate of crime is influenced by the existence or otherwise of capital punishment. Recorded offences of violence against the person have increased on average by about 10 per cent. a year since the beginning

      633
      of the 1950s. Capital punishment was abolished in 1965 and there has been no significant change in the trend of offences of violence since then.
      It is often said that while there is no positive evidence that the availability and exercise of the death penalty had any significant effect on homicide rates or the level of crimes generally, its abolition has encouraged professional criminals to carry and use firearms. There are no reliable figures against which to test this proposition. The official statistics date only from 1969. Although there has since been a considerable increase in the number of recorded offences in which the use of firearms was reported, the increase has been similar to the increase in all recorded offences. For example, there has been no significant change in the proportion of homicide or robberies in which the use of firearms was reported. That proportion remains small. In the last five years it has been about 8 per cent. for robbery and about 6 per cent. for homicide.
      I turn now to a consideration of the practical implications which would attend the reintroduction of the death penalty. The first fundamental question that would arise is: which crimes should be made capital offences? Very few of those who might support the principle of the death penalty would, I suspect, support its application to all types of murder in all the circumstances in which the offence is committed. A substantial proportion of convictions for murder arise from domestic incidents, and there is, I think, a widely shared feeling that such killings ought not to attract the death penalty.
      I take that as just one example of an attempt to draw a dividing line between more and less heinous types of murder to determine which offences ought, or ought not, to attract the death penalty. This would make liable for execution the burglar who, in a panic, strikes out at the householder who disturbs him and then finds that he has killed him, but would absolve from the death penalty the man who deliberately over a period slowly poisons his wife to death. Would this distinction be right and just?
      An exhaustive study of the problems of definition of types of murder for the application of the death penalty was carried out by the Royal Commission on capital punishment which, under the chairmanship of Sir Ernest Gowers, reported in 1953. It concluded that there was no satisfactory means of drawing in law a distinction between one class of murder and another. Whatever approach was adopted with the objective of defining a class of murder in which alone the infliction of the death penalty was appropriate, anomalies arose in which the issue of life or death could not properly be resolved.
      Despite the finding of the Gowers commission that any approach along those lines was impracticable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) pointed out, the Homicide Act 1957 attempted one. It reserved for the death sentence the following categories: murder in the course of theft; murder by shooting or explosion; murder while resisting arrest or escaping from custody; murder of a police officer or a prison officer on duty; and a second murder committed on a different occasion.
      The Act did not work as intended. It failed in practice to separate the more from the less atrocious murder. Killings of equal atrocity were capital or non-capital according to whether or not the weapon was a firearm. Anomalous and controversial decisions arose from the difficulties confronting the courts in the interpretation of the concept of murder in the course or furtherance of theft.
      634
      These problems gave rise to considerable disquiet about the administration of the death penalty and were, I believe, a contributory factor in its abolition just eight years later.
      Against that background, the practicability of seeking to restrict the application of the death sentence on any rational and just basis must remain open to grave doubt, and that doubt cannot, to my mind, be resolved by further limitations on the categories of capital murder.
      Murder of a police officer on duty is an example which is often put forward as an obvious and self-contained category, and a new clause to that effect has been tabled. This is an understandable reflection of the support which the community wishes to give the police in their often dangerous duties. They certainly merit all the practical support that may be given in their efforts to counter crime in all its forms. But it is questionable whether it would be right to select for the application of the death penalty murders where the victim is a police officer. Such murders fill us all with particular abhorrence. Could we in justice permit capital punishment in such cases but withhold it for the murder of, say, post office staff or bank clerks?
      Another category covered by the new clause is the murder of a prison officer. Thankfully, no prison officer has been murdered since 1965. Nevertheless, we must bear in mind that, with the increase of life sentence prisoners and in the proportion of violent people in custody generally, the task of the prison service has become more difficult and potentially more dangerous over the years.
      The prison system is indeed beset with serious problems. I have every confidence in the ability of the prison service to tackle them, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women in the service who daily cope with the stresses of prison overcrowding. But to make the murder of a prison officer a capital offence would raise precisely the difficulties inherent in applying the death penalty to the murder of a police officer. There are many other types of murder, depending on the subjective considerations which must inevitably be brought to bear on this question, where an equally strong case might be argued for the availability of the death penalty.
      6 pm
      One of the new clauses suggests another approach by reference to whether the method of killing was by a firearm or by explosion. I dealt with the use of firearms earlier in my speech. I would add only that other forms of murder—for example, by knife or poison—may involve a degree of callousness and viciousness which is quite as dreadful as that which may be involved in the use of firearms or explosives.
      The application of the death penalty for murder of the kinds that I have mentioned and reflected in some of the new clauses, therefore, raises very difficult issues of principles and practice. They would be quite as difficult to resolve as they were under the Homicide Act 1957. Separate but perhaps even more problematic considerations apply to the remaining major category—terrorist crime resulting in death.
      None of these considerations featured, of course, in connection with either the 1957 Act or the 1965 Act. The resurgence of IRA activity started later, but not. I should say, later than the abolition of the death penalty in Northern Ireland, which was effected in July 1973 under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act of that year. I do not wish to make too much of that fact, since

      635
      no death sentence has been carried out in Northern Ireland since 1961. However, it does call into question whether the availability of the death penalty is a significant deterrent to terrorist activity. More significant, perhaps, is the experience of the appalling events in Northern Ireland in which it is palpably evident that many hard-core fanatics are prepared, even anxious, to put their lives at risk and even to take their own lives. It is difficult to believe, in the light of that experience, that many—if any—such people would be deterred by the prospect of judicial execution. Indeed, it is a tragic fact that some would welcome it in its offer of martyrdom and propaganda value for the cause they represent.
      We should also consider the probability that the reintroduction of the death penalty would encourage the trend towards recruitment by terrorist organisations of young people. There would not, I think, be support for an age limit lower than 18 for the application of capital punishment. Some young people below that age are already on the fringe of terrorist activity and might be moved to its centre to thwart whatever objectives might be attached to the death penalty.
      There is also the issue of reprisals. We have already seen how terrorist organisations justify their taking of life as a reprisal for action against their members. They do so even when their members have ended their own lives. The question that has to be answered is: would capital punishment, administered in the hope of deterring terrorist crimes, in practice lead to more deaths and injuries not only of hostages but of those closely associated with the trial and execution? Perhaps the question is unanswerable in any conclusive way, but those implications must surely be weighed in the balance.
      Those considerations are central to the issue whether terrorist crimes should attract the death penalty. There are others concerned with the scope, extent and administration of the law which also raise special difficulties. We would need, in the first instance, a definition in law of terrorist crime for the purpose of determining in individual cases whether the death penalty was available. How certain and clear-cut such a definition could be is open to doubt.
      Beyond that problem, there is the question of scope. Parliament remains responsible for enacting criminal law throughout the United Kingdom. On a matter as fundamental as capital punishment, it is clear that the law must be uniform in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
      I should like to mention to the hon. Member for Cathcart a technical point. As this is a Criminal Justice Bill for England and Wales, any new clause added to the Bill would not apply to Scotland. I should, however, advise the House that, in any event, if the House decides to pass any of the new clauses, we could not proceed on the basis of the new clauses alone in a Criminal Justice Bill. We would have to come back to the House with a new Bill that would carry through the will of the House expressed in the new clauses. Any such decision would have to be added for Scotland.
      In Northern Ireland, as the House will know, the impracticability under present conditions of securing conventional and proper trial by jury means that nearly all serious offences, and all those involving terrorism, are
      636
      tried by special courts without a jury. As a result, the decision on which a man's life rested would be for the judge alone. Would that be acceptable to Parliament?
      That brings me back to the arrangements that would need to be considered in relation to the availability and exercise of the death penalty in the United Kingdom as a whole. The new clauses suggest that the death penalty should be the maximum but not the mandatory sentence, as it was before it was abolished.
      There are, of course, arguments to be deployed both in favour and against the mandatory death sentence. Briefly, those for consist of the burden imposed on judges if they have discretion in this special instance, and the need to ensure consistency of sentencing, which is best served by quiet consideration by those detached from the trial itself. The arguments against rely on the principle that the judges should have discretion, since they are as well placed as anyone to make the right decision.
      This fundamental issue would need to be resolved. It would lead in turn to the question of arrangements for considering clemency. The House would need to decide whether this task should, as before abolition, fall wholly on the Home Secretary of the day or should be discharged in some other way.
      There next has to be considered the change made to our jury system in 1967, to which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) referred, under which majority verdicts of 11: 1 or 10: 2 are permissible under the judge's authorisation. Would such a majority be acceptable when a man's life hangs in the balance? Would it be justifiable to provide for unanimous verdicts only in capital cases? We should also bear in mind that if a juror was determined to avoid the awful responsibility for conviction for which death was the penalty, the acquittal of murderers from whom the public is now protected by life imprisonment might be the result; and, of course, as hon. Members have frequently mentioned, execution following mistaken conviction is irreversible.
      No system can guarantee to avoid mistaken conviction. The case of Timothy Evans is well known. Apart from murder, there were, in recent years, the notorious cases of Dougherty and Virag, in each of which the accused was wrongly identified as the criminal. The House will be familiar with other cases. They are exceptional, but they occur.
      I turn now to the means of execution. The Gowers commission concluded in 1953, after surveying practice both here and abroad, that hanging, as carried out in this country, was at that time the most humane method of judicial execution. "Most humane" in this context is, of course, a relative term. Whether it would be right to reinstitute the arrangements for hanging which, after nearly 20 years of disuse, would require the revival of the skills needed for that method, or whether some other means should be adopted, would be a matter for the House to consider. But, whatever the chosen method of execution, we should acknowledge that such an event would attract, as it did before, interest of a macabre kind as well as public demonstrations from those wholly resolved against the death penalty.
      That concludes my survey of the issues that, as Home Secretary, I believe are significant in relation to the new clauses under discussion. They demonstrate that, underneath what may on the surface be a simple proposition, there are matters of great difficulty and complexity, which Parliament would have to face if, by

      637
      a vote in the House today, a new clause were included in the Criminal Justice Bill. In that event, the Government would need to consider the means of achieving the exact basis on which capital punishment was to be made available. As I said in the 1979 debate, the problems in bringing forward and seeking agreement on precise legislative proposals to take account of the issues of principle and practice that have been raised in my contribution and many others would be an immensely difficult task. As Home Secretary, it would be my duty to prepare legislation to give effect to the will of the House, and that I should do.
      From our last debate on this subject the House is well aware of my personal views on capital punishment. I must make it clear that they have not changed. Indeed, everything that I have learned during the past three years as Home Secretary confirms me in the view that to bring back capital punishment would not produce the results intended by hon. Members who propose this, and might, indeed, produce the reverse effect. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to know that I shall be voting against the new clauses.
      Mr. Roy Hattersley: Most of the speeches that we have already heard have dealt with what I call, with no disrespect and in terms of a compliment, the practical effects of the restoration of the death penalty—the practical effects on the level of crime and on the nature of society. I wish to do much the same in the time that I intend to occupy. Before I do that, I must, in conscience, make it clear to the House that I oppose the return of capital punishment in principle and without reservation. I believe that it is morally wrong for the State to execute a man or woman, whatever crime that man or woman may have committed.
      There are occasions when the State possesses the right, indeed the duty, to take life, but, in my view, there is a major difference between say, acting to prevent a terrorist from taking or jeopardising another life, and capturing a criminal and calmly and coldly executing him of her after commitment to custody. To equate those two situations lies at the heart of the confusion that has characterised much of the capital punishment debate over the years.
      To equate those situations is to assume that the practice of specific protection is the same as the theory of general deterrence. Protection and deterrence are not the same thing. While I believe that most of us would find it possible, perhaps easy, to justify the protection that I have tried to describe, the theory of deterrence seems to me, even if it can be demonstrated—a point to which I hope to turn in a moment—to be based on much more difficult moral grounds.
      To execute one man to deter another seems to me to be indefensible. So does the execution of a man for whom the theory of deterrence, by definition, has failed. I regard the evidence that purports to demonstrate the practical effects of capital punishment as a deterrent to be, at best, unconvincing. I shall try to demonstrate what I see as its inadequacy in a moment. However, I must say, and I must repeat in honesty to the House, that even if I believed the arguments concerning the deterrent to be valid, I should still regard it as my moral duty to vote against the return to capital punishment.
      6.15 pm
      Some hon. Members, and more people outside, I suspect, support the principle that lies behind the new
      638
      clauses for reasons that they will not object to me describing as fundamentalist. Some assert that anyone who takes a life should forfeit his own life. That must be what the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) meant when he talked about the punishment fitting the crime.
      Others say, regarding the dictum as self-evident, that those who have committed such an appalling crime have lost any right to continue to live themselves. That can be regarded either as self-evident or as meaningless. I hold the second opinion. A few hon. Members, and certainly many people outside, extol the virtues of vengeance and proclaim the necessity for retribution.
      An article putting forward that point of view appeared in a popular newspaper yesterday, offering the rather alarming theological suggestion that the enthusiasm for vengeance had declined with the reduction in Christianity in this country. I take the view that vengeance has no place in a civilised community. I hold the opinion, with all the strength at my disposal, that retribution is not a principle that we should consider including in legislation.
      I suspect that many right hon. and hon. Members who will go into the Lobby in favour of the new clauses tonight do not hold that opinion either. They support the amendments because they think that a return to capital punishment and a return to hanging—it is hanging about which we are talking—will reduce the crime rate. They believe that terrorism would be suppressed, burglars would no longer carry guns and muggers would attack no more. The best that can be said for those arguments is that there is no evidence to support any of them.
      The argument that a return to hanging would be a solution to our rising crime rate seems to me to be possibly, and perhaps even probably, one of the factors that militate against the attack on crime, and crimes of violence in particular, that all hon. Members wish to see. For too long, the most vocal campaigns against rising violence have suggested, have asserted, have felt absolutely confident, that a return to draconian punishment would in itself reduce our crime rate. By asserting that, they have diverted public attention and perhaps even Government enthusiasm from the real deterrents to crime.
      The real deterrents are the certainty of arrest and the likelihood of conviction. Those of us who talk, either in principle or in practice, of our opposition to a return to capital punishment are in no way arguing a course of action that makes crime less likely to be detected. It is possible to argue that deflecting the community, the Government and the police from the real methods by which society can be made more law-abiding is doing what is called law and order a disservice.
      The return to capital punishment in one new clause on which we shall be asked to vote this evening might well increase both lawlessness and support for the lawless. I can think of nothing more likely to help terrorists and terrorism than the ritual execution of willing martyrs. The hon. Member for Ilford, North gave a list of past horrors as if describing what terrorists had done in the first place and then proposing a return to capital punishment for the men and women who had committed such wicked acts was, in itself, a demonstration that capital punishment would prevent those acts from occurring in the future. That is not simply wrong but diametrically wrong. The evidence of the recent past is that many terrorists are not simply willing to die, but, bizarre and macabre though we may find it, positively anxious to die.

      639
      I shall take an example from the distant past, for in a sense that is less painful. I think of Dublin in 1916, distasteful though it is to consider the real patriots of the Post Office on that Good Friday in the same paragraph with some of today's political hooligans. The facts of 1916 are clear. If the arrests had not been followed by the execution of the prisoners who were taken in the Post Office, 10 years of bitterness, hatred, murder and mayhem would not have followed. I have no doubt that the execution of terrorists would have disastrous consequences, not for them and for their organisations, about which we care little, but for the communities that they terrorise. That is the frightening illogicality in the letter that all hon. Members received from the Police Federation today.
      Dr. M. S. Miller: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that, in that respect, the name of Kevin Barry still lives on in Irish circles nearly 70 years after he was executed?
      Mr. Hattersley: It exists and has become a symbol, for right or for wrong, in a way that—I agree with my hon. Friend's implication—would not have been the case had he not been executed.
      Mr. John Carlisle rose——
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, after I have dealt with this point. It leads me to what I described as the frightening illogicality in the letter that all hon. Members received from the Police Federation today.
      The letter states that the terrorists would not be the martyrs were they executed, and that the martyrs are the victims of terrorism. I do not disagree with that, but I want to make fewer martyrs in both categories—the bogus martyrs the terrorists claim to be, and the genuine martyrs who would be killed more often by terrorists seeking this awful and ultimate penalty.
      There is a second real problem about the concept of executions for what are called terrorist offences. That is what the Home Secretary described as the real difficulty of finding a definition of terrorism. Clearly there is a great philosophical difficulty in doing that but there is also a major distinction that this House has always resisted. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said that all the amendments were intended to reintroduce the concept of capital crime, according to the method by which the murder had been carried out. That is wrong because new clause 19 clearly intends to reintroduce capital punishment according to the motives of the person who had murdered an innocent victim. It specifies terrorism. If we are to take action against terrorists, we are taking action against people by judging their motives.
      We have always refused in the House absolutely to draw a distinction between political crimes and other crimes. We have always said that it is no worse, and no better, to kill a bank manager in order to give the funds to the IRA than to kill a bank manager in order to keep the money for one's own purpose. Introducing the definition of terrorism as a special offence which receives a special punishment is introducing into our law a concept of a political crime. Were there no other arguments against that clause, that seems to be a conclusive reason for rejecting it.
      640
      The problem of definition also lies at the heart of the difficulty, I would say the impossibility, of classifying murder as a capital or non-capital crime according to the profession or activity of the victim of the murder.
      Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My right hon. Friend has outlined the pragmatic and compelling arguments against the restoration of capital punishment for terrorism. If those arguments, which are compelling, are accepted, does he not agree that there is therefore no way of restoring capital punishment and no justification for its restoration for any similar but lesser offence?
      Mr. Hattersley: I am about to make a point which is, perhaps, directly related and certainly obliquely related to that by talking about the categories of crime which might be regarded as suitable for capital punishment according to the nature and profession of the victim. But, at the moment my hon. Friend came in, I made the point that characterises all that I have said—that I am against capital punishment in principle and without exception. Like my hon. Friend, therefore, I am easily led to the conclusion that one argument against a specific call for capital punishment is a conclusive argument against capital punishment in general.
      I was talking about the difficulties of making the killing of one category of individual a capital offence and not making it a capital offence to kill another. We can all supply examples of the absurdity into which the law would fall—for instance, a man who is executed for the killing of a policeman on duty but not executed for killing a passer-by who came to the assistance of an injured policeman, or a person who is executed for killing a prison officer who tried to prevent an escape but not executed for killing the pedestrian who tried to intercede once the prisoner had got over the wall. Such distinctions seem to be wholly unacceptable as a way of determining the right to life or the risk of death. Talk as we will about public opinion, I believe that outside there will be a general revulsion about introducing capital punishment in a way which is plainly inconsistent between one group of potential murderers and another.
      If we are to execute any murderers at all I share the Home Secretary's view that it is almost impossible to defend the concept that we exempt the slow poisoner who kills for financial gain, yet hang everyone who kills with a gun or a knife. I shall be interested, as the debate goes on, to hear any justification for making such a distinction. I suspect that following speakers, like those who have preceded me, will not attempt to do so. They will say that they are not interested in the search for philosophically acceptable definitions or discrete and consistent categories. They will say that those arguments are less important than deterring all the categories of violent crime which have increased year by year since capital punishment was abolished.
      It is wholly wrong to decide such a fundamental matter in those terms. To say it is to be decided in those terms is to make up our minds according to expediency rather than principle. It is much more difficult to justify making up our minds in those terms when the evidence on which the call for expediency is based is, in fact, propped up by such flimsy facts and such unreliable figures.
      I say again, so that the House will not be in any doubt, that even if I believed the deterrent effect to apply I would not vote for the new clauses tonight. But I cannot argue

      641
      against the contention that the evidence which is brought to bear in both directions is genuinely and absolutely meaningless for statistical judgment on the return of capital punishment.
      When we last debated this matter, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who moved the restoration motion, wisely announced that he proposed to avoid statistics. On the same occasion, the Home Secretary avoided them as well. If I may say so, without offence to either Member, I think the Home Secretary avoided them for far better reasons. The Home Secretary said:
      "While the statistics can be, and indeed are, called in aid … to support either side of the argument, the only sensible conclusion to reach is that their evidence is inconclusive."—[Official Report, 19 July 1979, Vol. 970, c. 2047.]
      I believe that that is half right. Those hon. Members who have looked at the tables of figures provided by the Library are tempted to take our own selective examples of high crime rates in capital punishment countries or low crime rates in non-capital punishment States, in the United States of America for example, and to draw what I agree to be generally phoney conclusions.
      The only real conclusion that can come from international comparisons and the record of crime in this country since abolition is that there is no genuine and adequate way of relating crime in general, or murder in particular, to the presence or absence of the death penalty. The figures prove nothing whatsoever. The Home Secretary is right to say that today, and was right to say it two years ago.
      But the fact that the figures do not prove one argument or the other does not mean that the figures have nothing to teach us. The fact that the figures prove nothing shows that there is no correlation between the prevention of crime and the presence of capital punishment. The absence of any relationship between them means that if we were to reintroduce capital punishment today, and if we were voting for hanging today, we would be doing it as a matter of hunch and guesswork.
      We should be doing it because plain men say that it only stands to reason that if they knew they were going to be hanged they would not go out with the cosh, the revolver, the jemmy and the knife. Although that sounds as if it has a superficial plausibility, although, indeed, it does have a superficial plausibility, the evidence to suggest that that is how the criminal mind works, and that is how the criminal deterrent will apply, is at best flimsy and at worst nonexistent.
      6.30 pm
      I do not believe that, on hunch and guesswork, and in the absence of any evidence which could be remotely regarded as conclusive, we should risk all the catastrophes that would follow from a reintroduction of capital punishment. The catastrophes would range from the hanging of the wrong man to the brutalisation of society.
      If Members are sceptical about what I call the brutalisation of society, let them consider the way in which some newspapers have prepared us for today's debate. Three weeks ago the News of the World had Ruth Ellis's daughter supporting capital punishment with a photograph in which she was dressed and made up to look like her executed mother. In the same issue of the News of the World a superannuated hangman described, with the aid of drawings, how sentence was carried out. A return to such a system would inevitably have an effect on the
      642
      nature and the quality of society. The feeling would be spread abroad that in some circumstances the taking of life was justifiable no matter what form of judicial execution was introduced.
      When the House last debated this subject there were re those who tried to blur the ghastly nature of execution by insisting that they were discussing alternatives to hanging. The Home Secretary urged them to read the two pages of the Gower report which dealt with alternative methods. I took the right hon. Gentleman's advice. Having done so, I share his conclusion that overwhelmingly the supposition must be that if we are to return to capital punishment we shall return to hanging. The alternatives are no less macabre than the drop and the rope. We cannot reintroduce the death penalty without having a desperate and damaging effect on the entire nature of society.
      The society which the News of the World described is not the society that I want to see. It is not a society for which I am prepared to vote. No doubt I shall be told that many of my constituents have a different view and that a majority of the population wants the death penalty restored. That may be because capital punishment has been falsely presented to them as a cure for all the ills of an increasingly violent society. However, an increasingly violent society cannot be cured by a return to draconian punishment. It must be improved by other methods and techniques.
      Many hon. Members today and during other debates in the past have urged the likes of me to play the proper parliamentary role and to make our own judgments according to our own consciences. I believe that there is at least a possibility that a majority of those who voted for me believe that capital punishment should be restored. I think that they have no doubt where my instincts, convictions and beliefs lie. They are aware of all the categories of parliamentary independence, such as Europe, NATO, incomes policy, discrimination in favour of ethnic minorities and opposition to capital punishment.
      It is our parliamentary and democratic duty to leave our constituents in no doubt about our attitudes on these great issues. However, in the end, it is our duty to decide what seems right for the nation and right in terms of our individual consciences. In judging the debate and the proposal against those two criteria, I propose to vote against all the new clauses.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that the Front Bench spokesmen have made their contributions, I appeal to hon. Members who are called to participate in the debate to bear in mind that many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak. I hope that that fact will be borne in mind.
      Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I shall vote according to my conscience, which tells me that it would help generally to deter crimes of murder if the death penalty were again to be available to the courts.
      When I moved the motion on which the House debated this issue some years ago, I gave two undertakings first, that I would not return to the issue unless circumstances changed in such a way as to justify a further debate; secondly, that in no circumstances could I support a referendum. I wish to comment on both those undertakings.

      643
      First, I do not believe that circumstances have changed sufficiently to justify the House again taking its time to debate the issue. The Police Federation, with which I have a connection, took the decision to advertise the matter in the press during my absence in El Salvador as a member of a Committee of the House. If I had been present at the time, I should have advised the federation not to take that action for two reasons: first, because it might have been thought, quite wrongly, to be a criticism of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—that was not intended by the federation, but I knew that it could have been so construed by some—and, secondly, because I believe that the Criminal Justice Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for a debate on capital punishment. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said that if the new clause is accepted the death penalty cannot be reintroduced under this Bill in Scotland. This is one of the reasons why the debate has not been properly timed.
      As to a referendum, on the evidence that is available suggests that it would support the view that I hold. But I would be appalled at the thought that any hon. Member should be subjected to the pressure, even the blackmail, of a public opinion poll, in order to force him to vote against his conscience and judgment. Therefore, I could not and would not support a motion to hold a referendum.
      None of us can have any certainty on this difficult issue. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) spoke with great sincerity. But unlike him I do not take the opinions and judgments of the police only occasionally. I deal with the police all the time. I listen to them week by week as they bring to me precise examples of their operational problems. And I take their judgments seriously, as I hope the House will. I do not ask the House to accept the police views as gospel. But I ask it to take into consideration the views of the men and women whom we ask to risk their lives in dealing with armed criminal gunmen and terrorists. And it is the virtually unanimous view of the police service—I accept that there are some variations—that the capital sentence could assist them in the operation of their work and would have a material effect in protecting the public.
      Mr. Tom Benyon rose——
      Mr. Griffiths: First, the death sentence could assist the police in dealing with armed criminal gunmen. During the period before abolition it was the practice of the older members of criminal gangs in London to frisk the younger members of those gangs to ensure that they were not carrying firearms. They did that because, in the criminal vernacular of the time, "You kill a cop and we are all topped". There is no doubt that the existence of the death sentence at that time led many professional criminals not to carry firearms when they committed crime. By contrast, since abolition—I claim not a causal connection but a factual one—there has been a substantial increase in the carrying of firearms by criminals.
      I do not believe for one moment that the existence of the death penalty would lead all those who now carry guns to desist from doing so. Nevertheless, the man who cleans and loads a gun, puts it is his pocket and takes it with him when he is about to commit a robbery does so by calculation. It is not an emotional or a passionate decision. It is a calculated decision that if he takes a gun and is prepared to use it he has a greater chance of succeeding
      644
      in his crime. He may be able to eliminate the witness. He may be able to shoot the police officer who happens upon him while the crime is being committed. But, in any event, he has calculated the odds. He has made a cold, determinate decision that, if he carries a gun and is prepared to use it, there is a greater likelihood of his getting away with the offence. To the extent that such a man is a calculator, I ask only that he should also be required to take into account the possibility that he, too, might suffer the same penalty that he inflicts, without due process of law, on others. That is the first case in which I believe that there could be a deterrent effect on the calculating criminal gunman.
      The second case is in relation to terrorism. I have a connection with the RUC. I talk to its members frequently. I agree wholeheartedly with what the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. There is no evidence to suggest that the existence of the death penalty would deter the ideological or political fanatic. It would not. On the contrary, it could lead to the very kind of martyrdom that some fanatics may seek. Nor do I believe that the existence of the death penalty would necessarily deter other groups of fanatics such as we see in Northern Ireland and other parts of the world. These are the younger men who are led by such motives as theatricality, braggadocio, exhibitionism, follow-my-leader-itis and other such half-baked notions. Such people would not be deterred. There is, however, one group of terrorists who could and, I believe, would be deterred. They are very few. They are the professional guns for hire—the so-called jackals. I am glad that there are not many of them. But there is evidence available to the security services that a small number of international professional assassins are available for hire to carry out brutal murders.
      Such men are distinguished by one characteristic—they calculate the odds. Above all else they wish to live to collect their pay. When they accept an assignment they calculate the risks, the rewards and the chances of getting away with it. The advice that is available to me is that when a professional assassin knows that the death penalty exists and that he too, if caught, would be sentenced, one thing is certain—his price goes up. The cash nexus is an important aspect of terrorist activity. That is why there are so many armed robberies in connection with terrorism. The existence of the death sentence could have some deterrent effect on some—not all—of the armed professional criminal gunmen who work in connection with terrorism.
      Mr. Maxton: How many?
      Mr. Griffiths: I do not know. But is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) prepared to admit that he will allow any such man to commit brutal murder if there is a reasonable chance of his being prevented from doing so by Parliament passing the proposals?
      Mr. Bidwell: That argument is contradictory, as the Police Federation also argues that, in normal circumstances, it does not want its members to carry guns.
      Mr. Griffiths: The heart of the Police Federation's case is this. Unless steps are taken to provide the police with greater protection, a policeman who is confronted in a dark alley with an armed criminal who has already committed a murder will hesitate before going down that

      645
      alley to tackle the offender. Instead, he will send for weapons. That is a fact. Before abolition, many police officers, by remarkable acts of personal gallantry, tackled armed criminal gunmen. They do so now only rarely. They now send for guns and use them. The federation's fear, which I share, is that if better protection is not provided for the police service, there must be a risk that the police will shoot first and ask questions afterwards. That is now the practice in the United States. I do not wish to see it in the police service of this country.
      6.45 pm
      It would be wholly wrong for the House to attempt to categorise murder, either by the victim or by the method. I none the less support the proposition of my hon. and learned Friend the Member of South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) who wishes the death sentence to be available to the courts. I understand the difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has explained. I hope that if the House were minded to pass any of the new clauses, it would be clearly understood that in no circumstances would the death penalty apply in cases of domestic or matrimonial murder. That is about 70, 80 or even 90 per cent. of all murders. Moreover, it could not and should not apply in cases of diminished responsibility. It would nearly always be wrong, too, if it were applied to first-time offences.
      What I am asking the House to consider is simply whether the State should for ever abandon the same sentence that is so frequently carried out by armed criminal gunmen and increasingly by assassins, and so create a circumstance in which the death penalty is applied by criminals but is never to be applied by the State in protection of the innocent. It is a modest request. I put it no higher, because, unlike many hon. Members, I have no certitude in this matter. I am not certain that the death sentence would necessarily deter. I am not certain either, that it would not. I listen to the advice of those with more experience than, with respect, most hon. Members. I listen to the police. They are at the sharp end. Their view is virtually unanimous. I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Arising out of the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), I should say that my only knowledge of a professional international assassin is Carlos. There is evidence that Carlos has committed offences in countries both where the death penalty is available and where it is not. Indeed, he has committed offences in countries, such as Israel, where it is possible to be killed on the street. In those circumstances, I do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to that kind of international criminal any more than it is to any other kind of potential murderer.
      The most significant aspect of the debate is that the Benches on both sides of the House are relatively empty. I have been involved in debates on this issue three or four times since I came to the House. I recollect there being more tension in the House about the issue then than on this occasion. Perhaps within the House—I stress that—the argument about the death penalty has been proved. We face an overwhelming weight of opinion against the reintroduction of the death penalty which is based upon our appreciation of the arguments.
      That is not, however, the picture outside. It is not the view of the electorate as a whole. There is a divorce between those of us who have argued the case many times in the House and those outside who from time to time
      646
      approach the concept of dealing with increasing crime by saying that the only solution is the reintroduction of the death penalty. The House, therefore, has a duty to make plain to the electorate as a whole the arguments that: we have found convincing over the years. It is not enough simply to answer letters that we receive in response to the Police Federation's call or to answer questions from the hall during a general election. There must now be a concerted attempt to explain to the electorate why we take the view that we do.
      I agree with the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Although I do not support a referendum, I am convinced that, if a referendum were held, if the issue were debated fully and all the arguments were presented to the electorate on television, after a reasonable public debate the great majority of our constituents would agree that there is nothing to be gained by reintroducing capital punishment. It is a measure of our failure to put that across that the divorce still persists. If the House rejects the call for the reintroduction of the death penalty today, the Government should make it plain to people why that has happened.
      The basic reason is that one cannot persuade Members of Parliament, or indeed any reasonable person, that to take life is justified, save in the most exceptional circumstances—namely, that it would prevent the tatting of further lives. I do not question the morality of those who find themselves in a different position, but I cannot accept the view that one should be able to take life because somebody else has done so. That seems to me to be the denial of any kind of morality. I would be prepared to back the State's right to take life if it would save life in the future.
      Therefore, for me, the question of deterrence has always been crucial and the figures, boring though some hon. Members may find them, have always been crucial. If I disagree at all with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), it is in the suggestion that the figures prove nothing. Indeed, he went on to show conclusively that they in fact prove that the death penalty does not make any difference to the incidence of murder. When I last spoke in a debate on this matter I went into the figures in some detail, causing tedium for hon. Members and getting myself into trouble for speaking at great length. I suggest that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds should read the report of my speech on the last occasion. If he analyses the figures, I think that he will reach the conclusion that I have reached.
      If one compares the position before the abolition of capital punishment, during the 10 years in which it was available for some but not other types of murder and in the period since then, the evidence is fairly clear. There has been a rise in the crime of murder, but it is certainly not so great as the rise in violence generally, and it is consistent with the rise that took place before the abolition of capital punishment.
      Mr. Rees-Davie rose——
      Mr. Lyon: I shall not give way. I must continue my speech.
      The picture is clear. From 1958, when there were 261 homicides, to 1966, when there were 364, the increase was 30 per cent. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) quoted the figure for 1957, which was 321, so

      647
      there was only a slight increase between that time and 1966. In 1967, however, the figure was 414 and in 1977 it was 484. That was exactly a decade later. The figure had increased only marginally—about 10 per cent.—in both cases. Between 1967 and 1980, however, the increase was about 50 per cent.
      Although the rate of increase in the past 15 years has been greater than in the previous 10 years, there had been a gradual increase in the crime of murder previously. Moreover, in the same period, crimes of violence increased by about 170 per cent. We have moved into a social climate in which crimes of violence are more acceptable than previously. Inevitably, therefore, one would expect an increase in the crime of murder. Most significant of all, however, 70 per cent. of homicides are still committed within the family circle. Only in a very few cases—about 160 last year—was the assailant a stranger to the person who was killed.
      Mr. Grieve rose——
      Mr. Lyon: I am trying not to give way, as I have only three minutes in which to make a number of points.
      I believe that the most crucial issue in the whole debate is that a number of people have been hanged who manifestly were innocent and that, since the abolition of the death penalty, people have been convicted and subsequently released who could not have been released if the death penalty had been available.
      I cite one case from my own experience as a Minister—the Confait case, in which three youths in Lewisham were convicted of murder. I was asked to intervene because the Court of Appeal had rejected their appeals. The Home Secretary intervenes only when there is new evidence that was not available to the court, because to overrule the court would seem an excessive use of the prerogative. I breached that principle on that occasion—the one and only such case known to me in English legal history—and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal. I was persuaded that the case had not been properly put to the jury, but I could find no new evidence that would allow me to exercise the power of the prerogative in the normal way.
      The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction. As a result, Mr. Justice Fisher, although he was no longer a judge, was asked to conduct an enquiry. Judges being the kind of animal that they are, it is difficult for them to express the view that there has been a mistake. Nevertheless, he took the view that the men had been wrongly convicted of murder, but that they were present at the scene and were probably guilty of arson.
      A year or so later, after the conviction had been quashed, two men—one of whom confessed—said that they had been present, had started the fire and had killed the man. They could not be prosecuted because the only evidence was that of each man saying that the other had done it. There was no corroboration, so they could not be prosecuted for the offence, but it was manifestly clear to the Home Secretary that they had done it.
      Therefore, the three boys never committed the arson and never committed the offence, but one of them was over the age of 18. His mental attitude was such that he may not have been sentenced to death even in the old days, but he might, and that I take with great seriousness.
      648
      There is the point about categorisation. When we categorised offences in 1956, the first case involved a man who was charged with causing murder in the course of theft. He had broken into a warehouse and been disturbed by the watchman. As he tried to get away, in a panic he pushed the watchman out of the way. The watchman fell downstairs and was killed. The accused man was convicted of murder in the course of larceny and was hanged. It was manifestly clear that the House never intended that such a case should result in that sentence. It had to be because the Home Secretary thought his discretion had been removed by the decision of the House. The trouble with categorisation is that the Home Secretary will be faced with that severe difficulty. He would not be able to exercise discretion because the House had previously stated that he had no discretion. I give way to those who want to put forward a different point of view.
      7 pm
      Mr. John McQuade: When we talk of terrorist murders, we are not talking about killings that take place in the heat of passion, jealousy or lust. Nor are we talking about a killing that is carried out by a man suffering from such a degree of mental instability that no civilised society would ask him to forfeit his life. No, we are dealing with a gang of men who are fully aware of what they are doing. They coldly and calculatedly plan in every dastardly detail to rob another human being of existence. Unlike those acting in the throes of passion, they can foresee the possible consequences of their actions and be deterred by them.
      Again, we hear it said: Are we not inviting a situation in which terrorists who hold hostages will threaten to kill them if an execution takes place? I am ashamed to say that that is an argument in common currency. Let the House think of its significance. It means two things. First, it means that we as a community are confessing our inability to enforce our own laws, but not because they are unacceptable to people, which would be understandable. Secondly, it means that we are prepared to be blackmailed by the possible threat of a bunch of murdering thugs. Are we prepared to confess our inability to govern to that extent?
      We in Northern Ireland know that hon. Members in Westminster cannot govern because they cannot provide personal security for our citizens. I want them to understand that the necessary implication of the argument with which I am dealing is that they now admit it. Then there is the "martyr" theory. I do not propose to waste words upon it or on those so bereft of a sense of reality as to espouse it. The House can take it from me that I know my country. The hanged man would be a martyr to nobody except a few of his fellow thugs. I will exchange that any day for the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Let us hear no more of that rubbish.
      If it is said that hanging is ghoulish, then shoot the murderers, or use whatever ingenuity people still possess to devise a more acceptable form of capital punishment. To us, killing is a daily occurrence. We do not know where it will strike next but we know that it will. We are fightened for our lives, both personal and commercial. Hon. Members can afford to see terrorism as something that, in a greatly diluted form, irritates them once in a while.
      It is our duty to protect our people and the only way to do that is for capital crime to receive capital punishment.

      649
      My home has been attacked twice by the gunmen of the IRA. As a result, whenever I go from home I have to have a police escort. I cannot take a walk down the street without the detectives beside me. That is how we live in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.
      Someone spoke about 1 July 1916 on the Somme battlefield. On that day the 36th Ulster Division was practically wiped out. That is what we gave to the mother country. We ask nothing more than that the law be upheld in Northern Ireland. I say on behalf of the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, who are in the majority, let the security forces do whatever they want to do. Do not let us tie their hands behind their backs, as we always have. In 1939 when the BEF went to France the soldiers then asked:
      "Why do they not bring the House of Commons out here, and then they would do something about it?"
      I ask the House to look after the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, who are as British as anyone sitting in the House. That is all I ask.
      Mr. Charles Irving: I unashamedly admit to being a life-long abolitionist. I have spoken each time such matters as we are discussing now have been raised in the House. However, I share with other speakers the grave anxiety and distress that one is bound to feel for those who suffer from violent offences in our community. Whatever one's wishes may be, or whatever one's personal views are, they cannot detract from the fact that it was an unfortunate timing of events that Metropolitan Police figures depicting violence as against homicide were released just before the campaign by the Police Federation. In my view, they left many people totally confused about what we are talking about in a debate on the restoration of capital punishment.
      I find the way the series of new clauses have been produced particularly offensive. It is a pin-pricking effort to take out a few choice morsels for which capital punishment or the rope can be introduced. One might well say that it could in some ways be seen as a charter for dispensing with mothers-in-law. How can one discriminate? A murder is a murder and selectivity is as nauseating to me as the ritual of hanging. I find this Dutch auction offensive and I cannot subscribe to the proposals. One must remember that only a few weeks ago a lorry driver in Luton was released after serving eight years of a life sentence for a murder which he was found not to have committed.
      I have received many letters about the subject from my constituents. I received one letter from a lady in the following terms:
      "My dear Charles, I know you and you know me as a compassionate person and we both feel that hanging is barbaric, but I know that you are not in favour of the restoration of capital punishment. But could we not do something slightly less offensive, like gassing or shooting or electrocution"——
      Mr. Tom Benyon: Or mincing.
      Mr. Irving: Or mincing, if one wishes that. I thought to myself, "This is a strange lady." She said:
      "After all could we not introduce for attempted rape or rape immediate castration? I think that we should look at these sort of things in a kindly way."
      I could not think of an answer to the lady except to write to her in my usual generous way when I deal with those who are slightly demented. I could not simply say: "My dear, I was grateful for your letter. If it is one of compassion thank God that you do not write to me when you are getting tough."
      650
      If capital punishment were introduced generally for murder, there would be a wide use of the power of reprieve, but any process of reprieve under which execution became the exception rather than the rule would impose intolerable pressure upon the Home Secretary or any other authority, such as a panel of judges appointed for that task.
      The Homicide Act 1957 took into account the selectivity about which we have heard so much in the new clauses. Poisoning and strangling were surely not notably morally better than shooting when one carried the death penalty and the other did not. The murder of a policeman or prison officer was capital, while the murder of other workers, such as security guards, bankers and Post Office workers—who are also at risk because of their employment—was not. Murder in the course of theft was capital but other murders for gain were not. The problem of distinguishing between capital and non-capital murder would inevitably prove just as intractable and indefensible if another attempt were made to reintroduce capital punishment on a selective basis.
      I shall not refer to the figures that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary put forward so clearly, but l believe that the figures for murders of policemen and prison officers before and after the abolition of capital punishment do not necessarily suggest that capital punishment has a unique deterrent effect.
      I wish to say a little about terrorism. I share with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade)—who has now left the Chamber—a grave emotional anxiety about terrorism. Of course there is a strong feeling that the death penalty should apply at least to such murders. Terrorists are even less likely to be deterred than other murderers. They are fanatics who, however perverted in their thinking and feeling, see themselves as fighting for a cause higher than themselves and who are living in a state of dangerous exaltation in which they hold even their own lives at a relatively low price.
      Mr. Rees-Davies rose——
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Irving: It is so nice to see my hon. and learned Friend but I make it a policy never to allow interventions during my speeches. I would love to have a chat with him another time.
      There are two further important reasons for arguing against the introduction of capital punishment for terrorist murders. In the stages leading up to an execution, terrorists would have a strong motive for taking hostages and threatening to kill them and to intimidate all those taking part in the trial, especially jurors. One must predict the possibility that executions would be followed by serious reprisals. Informers would be less prepared to help the police. As capital punishment would not apply to those under 18, there would be real dangers that the death penalty would reinforce the trend for terrorist organisations to recruit increasingly younger members. It would create a new generation of martyrs and there is considerable evidence that martyrs stimulate recruitment to fanatical terrorist organisations.
      It is understandable that public opinion, deeply disturbed by killing and violence, should naturally and instinctively seek a clear and decisive remedy and feel that execution or the threat of execution must be a unique deterrent. But there is no evidence in this or in any other

      651
      country that that is so. The more closely that one becomes involved with the responsibility for violent crime, the greater are seen to be not only the moral but the practical objections to the reintroduction of capital punishment.
      Mr. Maxton: I am in a little difficulty because the Home Secretary said that if the new clauses are passed they will not apply to Scotland. I am a Scottish Member. Some Conservative Members who are waiting to speak may say that perhaps I should not speak at all. However, the Home Secretary made it clear that if the new clauses are passed there must be separate legislation and we in Scotland could not dodge the issue. I think that makes the perfect case for devolution for Scotland. This matter could be covered by a devolved Assembly in Scotland and Scottish Members would then have a right to vote.
      However, even if the whole House votes for the return of capital punishment, I guarantee that the majority of Scottish Members will vote against it. As we have a separate legal system, that should have some bearing on what happens in Scotland.
      The first time that I came to this building I sat in the Strangers' Gallery and heard the late Sydney Silverman introduce one of his many Bills to abolish capital punishment. On that occasion the man who had been Home Secretary in the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951, the late Chuter Ede, admitted that as Home Secretary he had made a mistake in not allowing the reprieve of, I think, Timothy Evans. He admitted that it lay heavily on his conscience because, as Home Secretary, he had allowed the execution of one man whom he later considered to be innocent. All who speak -and vote on this issue should remember that. If we allow one innocent person to be executed, morally we are committing exactly the same or, in some ways, a worse crime than the person who committed the murder. Certainly it is the same crime morally.
      The second reason why I want to speak on this matter is that, during the 1979 general election, even though capital punishment was not one of the issues which I would have considered to be important, it was forced upon me by the public stance taken on it by my Conservative opponent who is now the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). We debated the issue publicly. It was the only issue that the hon. Gentleman would debate publicly with me. He felt that he had public opinion on his side. He felt that he was on a winner. Of course, as the electorate in Cathcart showed, he was not on a winner. At a time when his party was doing well throughout Britain, he was the only Conservative to lose his seat to a member of the Labour Party.
      I shall not make a great claim that that showed that public opinion in my constituency is against the return of capital punishment, but the hon. Member for Southend, East cannot claim that it is an issue on which people never vote or about which they are not concerned. On that occasion the public knew where both of us stood in regard to capital punishment.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southend, East is not in the Chamber. He said that the problem of the razor gangs in Glasgow in the 1930s and 1940s was solved by harsh measures taken by the police. It must be pointed out that when those razor gangs were operating and this great wave of violence was sweeping through parts of Glasgow,
      652
      both capital and corporal punishment were in existence. Capital punishment was much more widely used then than later. Yet neither capital punishment nor corporal punishment deterred the razor gangs from using violence on the streets. What deterred them eventually was the certainty of capture. There was a massive police operation to make sure that they were caught and given some form of punishment. The certainty of capture and conviction, not the nature of the punishment, is the major deterrent to any criminal. That has to be taken into account.
      The Scottish figures were mentioned by the hon. Member for Southend, East. Those figures do not prove anything one way or another. We all accept that statistics cannot be used in this argument, although some Conservative Members have been trying to do so. In Scotland in 1948 there were eight murders; in 1969 there were 26; in 1977 there were 61. Some hon. Members refer to the enormous increase that has taken place. Of course, if they took 1946 instead of 1948 as the base line, they would find that there were 22 murders in that year. What do the figures prove? Capital punishment existed in both those years. There was a massive decline and then the number of murders went up.
      There was a 140 per cent. increase from 26 murders in 1969 to 61 in 1977. If we take the 1977 figure of 61 and then the 1979 figure of 38, there is a completely different picture with a massive decline in the number of murders. Strathclyde regional police report this year that, despite a massive increase in other crime, particularly crime against property, the murder rate at 29 is the lowest since the region was formed in 1974. Again, there is a decline which proves nothing. Statistics cannot be used to show that capital punishment has a deterrent effect.
      Why did the murder rate go down between 1977 and 1979? I cannot answer that question, particularly when other crime has increased. The point is that statistics cannot prove the case for hon. Members who wish to bring back capital punishment. It is those hon. Members who have to prove the case. Hon. Members who are defending the present position do not have to produce figures.
      Probably the best figures to examine come from the United States. In the 1930s capital punishment existed in one State while in the next State it had been abolished, although those States had similar social backgrounds and make-up. There is no evidence that the murder rate was higher in one State than in the other. If anything, the murder rate in States which had abolished capital punishment was marginally lower than in those which had not. Again, it does not prove anything. It is up to hon. Members who argue for the return of capital punishment to give clear statistical proof, if they have it, that it acts as a deterrent. I know of no evidence that it does.
      In regard to the drawing of lines, the case has been put well by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), by the Home Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It would be impossible to differentiate between different types of murder. A policeman chasing someone who is armed with a gun may be joined by a member of the public. If the criminal turns and shoots the policeman, it is proposed that he should be executed, but if he shoots the member of the public he should not. There are many variations and differences.
      Prison officers have also been referred to. In Scotland we had immense problems with violence in prisons. No prison officers were killed, but they were being attacked.

      653
      I give credit to the Conservative Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) for solving the problem. The Home Office might take note of what they did. They set up a special unit in Barlinnie prison to deal with the violent prisoner in a manner different from the one in which he had been dealt with before. That has been a major success story. It has lowered violence in Scottish prisons and gone a long way to bringing many of those violent people back to a condition in which they could go out into society again. That should be our aim in dealing with criminals, not executing them.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook rightly mentioned the 1916 uprising. Later examples could be used. When those people were taken out of the post office in Dublin by the British Army, the people of Dublin and of Ireland mocked them and laughed at them. They thought they were a bunch of extremists. One might say that their execution was almost the point when the problems of modern Ireland started, because they became martyrs.
      That trend has continued. Now, of course, they still make their own martyrs when we do not execute them. What was Bobby Sands doing? He was making himself a martyr. He is now a dead hero to the people who support him. Whether we like it or not, he is. I do not like that fact. No hon. Member likes that fact, but it is a fact. He is a dead hero. That is what would happen with terrorists. Those who support them would consider them to be heroes.
      7.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned the Jackal. He has not read the book. The Jackal sought to execute President de Gaulle in a country that had the death penalty. As in so many other cases, the hon. Gentleman is marginally wrong.
      At the end of the day, the question comes down to morality, not statistics. It comes down to the opinions of hon. Members. Under all the new clauses that have been put down for debate, Paddy Meehan would have been executed. He committed a murder in the execution of a crime. When the hon. Member for Southend, East was the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, he fought to have Paddy Meehan released from prison. If the new clauses to which he has appended his name had been in operation when Paddy Meehan was caught and convicted, he would have been fighting posthumously for Paddy Meehan. Yet Paddy Meehan was innocent. He has been released and is now seeking compensation from the State for the prison sentence that was imposed upon him.
      That is the morality that all hon. Members must consider when they vote tonight on whether to restore capital punishment. We cannot allow the execution of one innocent person. If we have the death penalty, we cannot guarantee that it will not happen.
      Mr. Grieve: With one observation of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) I am in entire agreement: that the issue which faces the House today is a moral issue. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) castigated those hon. Members who have tabled the new clauses. I respect the views that have been expressed by hon. Members and I respect the profound feelings that motivated most of those who have contributed to this debate.
      It is fairly well known that I am in disagreement with those who have spoken against the restoration of capital
      654
      punishment. However, I was impressed by the cogent speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I would like to preface my short contribution to this debate by saying that I accept a great many of the points that he made.
      First, I accept that it is almost impossible to prove scientifically that the death penalty is a deterrent. We all make subjective judgments in this matter, based on our own experience. My experience is that of a barrister of 45 years' standing, who, although with a civil practice, has had a good deal of experience in the criminal courts and who has sat as a recorder, an assistant recorder or the like, for 26 or 27 years. In my experience, alas, I have mot a number of cold, calculating criminals. Therefore, I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that there are those who calculate the risks. Before the abolition of the death penalty they did not normally go armed to their robberies. Now they do. They run the risk of killing in doing so. The death penalty is necessary to deter such men.
      I agree that generally speaking we cannot regard deterrence as proven. Moreover, I accept that a high percentage of homicides are committed in the family circle, or in narrow, limited circles, under the stress of great emotion. No death penalty will deter those who act under the stress of such emotions on such occasions. However, such homicides have largely been taken out of the category of murder by the provision in the law since 1957 that where responsibility is diminished, as it frequently is under the stress of great emotion, the crime is reduced to mansaughter. The death penalty would not apply in a large number of cases.
      With the death penalty there is the danger that an innocent man might be executed. That is a terrible and terrifying prospect. However, in a well-ordered, good system of criminal justice such a thing would be very exceptional. I must face the fact that it might on occasion be necessary to weigh that possibility against the need to defend society against the criminal and the wrongdoer.
      I have not always been a retentionist. In 1951 I went to the Canal zone to defend Tom Houghton, a corporal who was charged with murdering his captain. He was a boy of 18. He obviously acted under the stress of great emotion and he was hanged. I think that 10 years later he would not have been. Ten years later he would have been able to take advantage of the provision that would have reduced his crime to manslaughter for diminished responsibility. That gave me a revulsion. I can understand the revulsion felt by many of my hon. Friends and Labour Members when they consider the individual cases where there has been a miscarriage of justice, where execution has occurred when it should not have done.
      Having said that, I believe that the death penalty has a place in an ordered, reasonable, civilised society for the protection of that society. That was why I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sid cup (Mr. Heath). I do not hesitate to make the point again. Do we not show our respect for human life by having the death penalty? I do not believe that our society now respects human life as it should. In the days when we had the death penalty we did respect human life. The existence of the death penalty showed that we respected human life.
      Mr. George Foulkes: Rubbish.
      Mr. Grieve: Although not every member of the public would put this feeling in the words in which I am putting

      655
      it now, I believe that it is a truth that the public perceives and that I am echoing a feeling that exists in the hearts and minds of many of our fellow citizens.
      Those who take the view in debates on capital punishment that I have just expressed have driven themselves into a corner by concentrating entirely on the question of deterrence or the question of reform. In a system of human justice deterrence is not the only element, nor is reform, although they are important elements. Retribution has its part. We would be blind and foolish to shut our minds to that fact. After all, we are brought up to believe that retribution has a part in divine justice. Our fathers, grandfathers and forefathers would not have hesitated to say that it has a part in human justice as well, and that to a large extent the punishment must fit the crime. Nowadays that is very much mitigated, and rightly and mercifully so, but it cannot be excluded as an element in human justice. Those who believe that know that the death penalty marks our respect for the lives of our fellow citizens. We should say to a person who commits wicked, premeditated murder—not an emotional murder or the type of homicide that is now regarded as manslaughter—that as he has wickedly taken the life of one of his fellow citizens he is at least in danger of forfeiting his own.
      It would be wrong to expunge from our considerations that fundamental concept. It is not a concept of vengeance or revenge. Prior to this century no moral philosopher would have said that retribution as an element of justice was revenge. On the contrary, it plays its part in providing an ordered and civilised society in which people do not seek to revenge themselves.
      Therefore, in principle, I support the new clauses. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, they will not carry the day. However, if the House believes that there is room for the restoration of the death penalty, the matter will have to be considered in great depth and detail and provisions will have to be laid before the House. I accept what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the difficulty of formulating a code. Under the 1957 Act there were obviously appalling anomalies. It was shocking that Ruth Ellis should have been hanged because, under the stress of great emotion, she shot her lover. Then someone who used slow poisoning to kill would not have been hanged.
      We must reconsider the matter. Does it defy the ability of this great Parliament of the United Kingdom to formulate a statutory means of protecting our society when we believe that the death penalty is a necessary reserve measure? I believe that that is not beyond our wit and capacity and, therefore, I shall support—with one exception—the new clauses. I shall not go into the question of the murder of police or prison officers. However, that is one of the matters for which the death penalty should be held in reserve.
      I have been greatly influenced by the argument that there should not be a particular category for terrorist murders. The terrorist murderer is likely to be made a martyr and it may well be better not to have such a separate category. Therefore, I shall abstain in any Division on that new clause. However, a civilised society needs the death penalty for the reasons that I have given. Therefore, as a matter of principle, I shall support most of the new clauses.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. David Stoddart: People are for or against the death penalty on many grounds. I am against the death penalty on many grounds. One of those grounds is that of conscience. Many hon. Members feel that the taking of human life is completely and utterly wrong. I am not one of those, but I have a conscience about the State taking life. There is all the grisly apparatus of the scaffold, of the man or woman being dragged—docilely or perhaps screaming—to his or her death after weeks, perhaps months, of waiting to be summarily executed by the State. That causes great offence to many people and it has caused me offence for a long time. That is why I shall not support any of the new clauses.
      Many hon. Members have mentioned the practicalities of the matter. The speeches have clearly shown that there is no evidence that the restoration of the death penalty will act as a deterrent to murder. Those who wish to restore the death penalty must prove their case. They have not done so for a long time and they have not done so tonight. Often, the existence of the death penalty may well be an encouragement to murder. I am talking not about terrorist murderers, but about poor little people in our society who will never, in their lives, be noticed. They are mentally deranged and think that public attention can be gained only by committing a murder that will put them on the national, and perhaps international, stage in a trial at which the death penalty is the ultimate sanction, with all the drama that that involves. Those of us who are old enough to remember the death penalty know how true that is. Until the last moment petitions, signed by hundreds of thousands of people, are sent to the Home Secretary. People may well commit murders to gain public attention. Therefore, the very existence of the death penalty can encourage murder.
      Anyone who commits a murder should be punished and kept away from society so that he cannot commit another murder. We all know that until the abolition of the death penalty juries were increasingly reluctant to convict, because the death penalty lay ahead. They knew that, once they had convicted the defendant and the death penalty had been carried out, there could be no redress. Since then, things have probably moved a stage further. Today, juries would be even more reluctant to convict than they were before 1957. That is another reason why we should be very careful about returning to the death penalty. A murderer who would otherwise be convicted and put away might well be released because of the reluctance of a jury to convict if there were any doubt about his guilt.
      People such as me are accused of being on the side of the murderer because we do not believe that the death penalty should be restored. It is said that we have no sympathy for the victim. That is a calumny and is completely wrong. From the beginning to the end, my sympathy is with the victim and those affected by the crime. With the death penalty, there is the danger that, as the date of execution approaches, all the sympathy and attention will go to the person who is to be strung up at 8 o'clock one fine or nasty morning. People will stand outside the prison gate on an all-night vigil. At 8 o'clock in the morning the sonorous tones of the BBC announcer will be heard saying that one second or one minute ago so-and-so was hanged. Therefore, with the death penalty on the statute book, sympathy may well float to the murderer and leave the victim.

      657
      Another matter that has been mentioned several times is the possibility of the hanging of innocent people. We are told that we have no right to ignore public opinion. The general view is that public opinion at this time is for the return of the death penalty. I remember a time when it was different. I remember the horror and revulsion felt by the nation, myself included, when it was realised that Timothy Evans had been hanged for murders committed by Christie. If a public opinion poll had been taken at that time—I believe that it was—public opinion would have been found to be quite the reverse. Public opinion, correctly, was on the side of the abolition of the death penalty. The public realised that the death peanlty meant that they themselves had committed a crime—judicial murder. It is all of us who do it. The public could not turn back the clock. At that time, public opinion was as much against the death penalty as it now appears to be for the death penalty.
      Many people do not remember the debates and what went on when we had the death penalty. I fear that there are some people who either have forgotten or never knew about the problem. They are even writing to Members of Parliament—certainly they are writing to me—and going so far as to say that it is worth hanging a few innocent people for the general good. That is a dreadful thought. It is a dreadful view for anyone to hold. This issue has been whipped up so by certain elements that people have forgotten their very morality. That is unfortunate.
      The issue has become mixed up with other forms of crime. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members have received letters similar to the letters that I have had. Not only do the writers advocate capital punishment for murder, but they want to string up the vandals. This campaign has unleashed an unthinking attitude. It is unfortunate that responsible organisations felt it right to whip up such a campaign. In my view, there are no additional reasons and no additional evidence, other than those that have always been available, for the return of the death penalty.
      I want to say a few words about the new clauses. I am sorry that they have been put on the Order Paper. They do not reflect well on Parliament and on those in Parliament. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), I believe that the new clauses are absurd. They distinguish between one human life and another. There is no distinction. Murder is murder, whether the victim is a policeman, a warder, a bank clerk defending the bank's money or an employee defending his company's property. Let us not forget that. A policeman or a prison officer is no different from a bank clerk or a citizen who goes to help a policeman and is murdered instead of the policeman. In my view, therefore, that new clause is bad and should not have been tabled. I sincerely hope that it will be thrown out hook, line and sinker.
      Another new clause deals with murder by firearms or explosives. That is an invitation to the strangler. If we accepted this new clause, the Yorkshire Ripper would still have got away with it, because he had the good sense not to use a gun. He used a knife instead. If it were a case of shooting a person, a crossbow could be used, but not a 22 rifle.
      It is absurd to suggest that there should be a penalty for murder by firearm or explosive different from murder by strangling, stabbing, bow and arrow, drowning, poisoning, or anything else. In my view, the new clauses deserve to be thrown out, and thrown out decisively. I
      658
      make my position clear now as I have done throughout. My constituents are well aware, and have been since 1969 when I first stood for Swindon, of my total opposition to capital punishment. That remains my position on the grounds of conscience and intelligence, and I shall vote against all the new clauses tonight.
      Mr. Wheeler: This has been a good-natured debate, and a debate in which right hon. and hon. Members have expressed their views with honesty and sincerity. In 1979, the House did the same. It debated capital punishment and, by a large majority of 119, rejected its restoration. The arguments and the balance between them have not changed since then.
      This is the subject on which many people on both sides of the argument have particularly strong and absolute views, not to be swayed by continued argument. The debate includes arguments that certain types of killers deserve nothing better than death—a readily understandable sentiment, given the nature of some of their crimes. However, moral sentiments have to be distilled into workable laws.
      The Homicide Act 1957 tried to apply the death penalty selectively to killers in the same way as is being proposed today. That Act could work only at the cost of being morally repellent. It would be a great tragedy if a majority in the House allowed sentiment, however genuinely held and honestly expressed, to snare the Government into promoting unsound, inequitable and ineffectual legislation.
      One new clause simply calls for the availability of capital punishment for a person convicted of murder. It implies a growing problem,. with an increasing number of murders. That is not so. The actual number of murders is so small that annual variations prove very little. In 1979, for instance, 121 homicide cases were decided by the courts to be murder. In 1980, it had fallen to 101. The truth is that most murders are committed against victims who are closely associated with the killers, in circumstances of rage, quarrels or jealousy. In the period 1970–1980, the victim was acquainted with the suspect in over 70 per cent. of homicide cases, and in about half the cases the victim was a member of the suspect's family, such as a spouse or lover.
      Most killings are impulsive and casual and ire undertaken in the heat of the moment or occasioned through panic. There was no thought before the killing, so no potential deterrent would be effective in stopping the crime. A deterrent penalty is effective only for those who think before killing and who calculate that they will be caught. The clear-up rate for homicide is 97 per cent. That is the best form of deterrence.
      8 pm
      The alternative approach is the reintroduction of the death penalty for selected types of killing. The new clauses refer to terrorism, murder by firearms or explosives, the murder of police and prison officers or murder in the course of robbery and burglary in which offensive weapons are involved. Those proposals are as illogical as they are unworkable. Is it being argued that murder by stabbing, hitting, kicking, strangling, burning or drowning or by poison or drugs is morally better than shooting? Why should the murder of a police or prison officer be capital while the murder of people in similar occupations, whether they be security guards, bank or post office workers, as well as many others who face special risks, not be capital?

      659
      It is proposed that murder in the course of robbery or burglary should be capital, but presumably murder in the course of rape or to conceal fraud would not be. There is no logic to such proposals. The courts would be plunged into a legal nightmare of trying to distinguish between capital and non-capital murder.
      Is there evidence that police or prison officers are at special risk? Although the prison population has more than doubled since 1945 and there are more high risk offenders in prison, only two members of the prison staff have been killed—one in 1948 and the other in 1965.
      The figures for the murder of police officers before and after the abolition of capital punishment do not suggest that capital punishment has any unique deterrent effect. The number of killings of police officers resulting in murder convictions has varied between nil and two every year since 1957, except for 1966 when the number was four, of whom three were killed in a single incident at Shepherds Bush.
      With regard to firearms, in 1980 the number of homicides by shooting, at 19, was the lowest number since records began to be kept in that form in 1967. No police officer was killed in England and Wales in 1976. The six officers killed since then were not involved in incidents involving firearms. Most so-called serious offences in which firearms are reported as being used relate to the use of an air weapon, which applies in over 5,000 cases out of 6,500. Most of those crimes are of vandalism.
      I now come to the question of the death penalty for terrorism. Of course, I can understand the feelings——
      Mr. Geraint Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Wheeler: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me for not giving way. Time is short.
      Of course I understand the feelings in the country and in the House that the death penalty should be available for terrorist murders. However, the House will have to define a terrorist murder. Would it be a murder committed by a known member of the Provisional IRA, the PLO or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Lambeth? Would it apply to a known terrorist engaged in an ordinary crime, such as bank robbery, during which a killing occurs? Given that political status for inmates of the Maze prison has long been withdrawn, would not a working definition of "terrorism" produce irresistible demands for its restoration on the grounds that the criteria of political crimes had at last been set out?
      Would the terrorist death penalty apply to Northern Ireland? No one has been hanged in the United Kingdom for hundreds of years other than upon the verdict of a jury. However, as the House knows, the degree of intimidation in Northern Ireland is such that it has not been possible to try such cases by jury. They are tried by the Diplock one-judge court. The defeat of terrorism cannot be achieved by the ordinary processes of the criminal law.
      I wonder whether any hon. Members have asked Members of the Northern Ireland judiciary whether they are prepared to act as juries in capital cases. If they are not, what is to happen?
      There are other important reasons for arguing against the introduction of capital punishment for terrorist murder. In the stages leading up to an execution terrorists would have a strong motive for taking hostages and would threaten to kill them and to intimidate all those taking part in the trial, particularly perhaps jurors.
      660
      There is the expectation that executions would be followed by reprisals. Informers would be less likely to be prepared to help the police. As capital punishment would not apply to those under 18, the death penalty would reinforce the trend for terrorist organisations to get those of 16 and 17, or even younger, to commit those crimes. Capital punishment would create martyrs.
      For all those reasons, many senior Army and police officers, as well as many in the judiciary, the criminal Bar and all political parties, believe that the reintroduction of capital punishment would hinder rather than help the fight against terrorism.
      I go further. From my experience as a former assistant prison governor who got to know the terrorist mind well, I would say that the fanatical terrorist, whom I encountered when I served in the prison service ten or more years ago, would regard the availability of capital punishment as a positive advance for the cause.
      If the House were to be so unwise as to succumb to emotion it would confer upon terrorists the greatest propaganda gift imaginable. Worse still, the reintroduction of capital punishment, as a whole or specifically, would be more likely to increase than to reduce the level of violence in our society, thus putting our police or citizens at greater risk. That is why I shall vote against all the new clauses.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Like you Mr. Speaker, I was in the House during the Sydney Silverman days. I know that I must not refer to your activities then, but I can refer to mine.
      I supported Sydney Silverman during all the events that took place. Now I have changed my mind because of many reasons. One reason that has stuck in my mind, and which has been proved to me beyond question, is that there was a professional burglar in my constituency who consistently boasted of the fact that he had spent about one-third of his life in prison. He told me at the time of the Sydney Silverman Bill what would happen, and he was right. He said to me "I am a professional burglar. Before we go out on a job we plan it down to every detail. Before we go into the boozer to have a drink we say 'Don't forget, no shooters"—shooters being guns. He added "We did our job and didn't have shooters because at that time there was capital punishment. Our wives, girl friends and our mums said 'whatever you do, do not carry a shooter because if you are caught you might be topped.' If you do away with capital punishment they will all be carrying shooters."
      I voted in favour of Sydney Silverman's Bill, but hardly a day goes by when the papers do not report that a post office, a bank or Securicor has been raided by a gang of men all carrying sawn-off shotguns. They carry them because, as my criminal friend told me—if I can call him a friend—"We can get rid of the witnesses. We may get away with it. If we are caught the penalty is the same, so we must carry sawn-off shotguns, and we do."
      The position is worse than that. Hon. Members should read the papers. I read today that a poor Asian standing on the street doing no harm to anyone was murdered by a skinhead and that the judge has dealt severely with the man who was found guilty of the crime. I cannot mention his name, as there may be an appeal. That man received only a three-year prison sentence. With one year off for good conduct, he will serve only two years. The newspaper reports on the same page that a chap has been given 18 months for forgery.

      661
      There is a further point to be made. Mrs. Smith or Mrs. Brown might have a son or daughter who is deliberately murdered by a vicious, wicked crook, who has set out with the intention of robbing a post office, or an old lady on her own, and commit murder if need be. But the mother, wife or daughter has to pay towards the £185 a week cost, or whatever it is, of maintaining the murderer in prison. If she has lost her husband she will have to go out to work to earn the wherewithal to keep her family. The taxes she pays help to keep these vicious brutes in prison. Why should we keep them in relative luxury in prison? I know, I have seen the prisons.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) referred to the difference between certain types of murder. If a member of the public went to the aid of a policeman and the criminal had to shoot, what would he decide? With the death penalty for shooting a policeman but no death penalty for shooting a civilian I am sure that he would not shoot the policeman. The death penalty would make him think twice.
      Be that as it may, why should murderers be allowed to get away with it? There is no question but that there are certain streets in London where one cannot walk in daylight, let alone at night. People are running a thriving mugging business. But we are the mugs, because we allow them to get away with it. They have knives, which they intend to use. However, if they and their next of kin knew that if they were caught there was the prospect of the death penalty and being "topped" I am convinced that many of them would not carry knives. That, at least, gives the old ladies a bit of a chance. We are talking about the streets of London, not Timbuktu or parts of Africa. Old ladies of 70 and 80 are being mugged. They are not safe in the streets, nor in their own homes.
      The death penalty does not have to be used. It was not always used in the past. The Home Secretary can exercise his right to advise about the Royal Prerogative, as can the judge. The judge can ask the Home Secretary to have sympathy or exercise clemency. Judges must have the chance to pass the sentence of death. We read of judges saying that they are sorry that the most they can give is a penalty of five years in prison, or whatever the maximum might be, although they would like to be more severe. We must give the judge the opportunity to decide.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: Is my hon. Friend arguing that in many countries where the death penalty still prevails mugging and all the other things of which he has been speaking have been eliminated, or is it a better situation overall there than it is here?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Lewis: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. My hon. Friend is entitled to his views and opinion, which I respect and to which I shall listen. I am merely giving my views and opinion, even though I may be the only Labour Member to hold them.
      Criminals and some people who have been guilty of this offence have said that if there was a danger of them being "topped" they would not carry an offensive weapon. To that extent the old lady victim at least stands a better chance. I am sure that that old lady would rather not have her throat cut. I believe that the old lady in charge of a post office would feel happier if she knew that because of the possibility of the death penalty the robber would not carry a sawn-off shotgun. That is all I am saying, and I believe that to be a statement of fact.
      662
      We must now show some backbone and stand up to these people. If hon. Members are not in danger of being mugged themselves, they should ask people travelling on the tube whether they think that we are far too soft and lenient with such people and whether we ought to lake much more serious and definite action against them.
      We are all animals. We are the human animals on whom money is spent like water to give us a good education, home and all the rest. Yet some people behave worse than the non—human animal, such as my dog. I can, and do, teach my dog to sit and to behave. It does not bite. If it did, it would be liable to be put down. That is what should happen to some of these bestial brutes. They ought to be liable to be put down, and the sooner the better.
      Mr. Tom Benyon: This is a matter of great importance to our constituents, most of whom passionately hold views on one side of the argument or the other.
      I remind the House that my predecessor was assassinated in a cruel, cowardly and bloody crime within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. Therefore, there is no other constituency in the land where feelings about the reintroduction of capital punishment run as high as they inevitably do in mine.
      Many of my colleagues must have a sense of déjà vu at this action replay of the debate that was held in 1979. However, it is right to express our views to our constituents and to take every opportunity we can to make our position entirely clear so that we can avoid any further speculation on their part as to what this House feels on these serious and important matters.
      This has been a healthy debate between people of entirely opposing views. It has been held without rancour and is in the best traditions of the House of Commons. This is the essence of the democracy and freedom which our country is fighting elsewhere to preserve.
      I should like to meet the arguments of my opponents, who proposed the new clauses, at their most potent. I shall first deal with the issue of revenge or retribution. I happen to believe that such matters should be left to God Almighty. They are not matters that should play any part in the deliberations of the courts or the judgments made in this House over how hon. Members should vote. I should also like to deal with what method of execution we are talking about. To my mind, it makes little difference whether we are talking about shooting people, hanging them or injecting them. We are talking of a cold, deliberate act of judicial execution with the full solemnity of the State.
      The root of the matter is, what acts as a deterrent? My response is that what acts as a deterrent at its most potent is the certainty of detection, followed by long periods of imprisonment. That is the most salutary and effective form of deterrent. Contrary to popular belief, the courts at present have plenty of scope to pass long and exemplary sentences. We need extremely good reasons for encompassing the new clauses within the Bill. We need extremely good reasons if we wish to run the risk, by adopting the new clauses, of facing the problems of implementation and of setting up yet again the means of execution, having scrapped it in 1965.
      I shall not dwell on the legal problems of categorisation tabulated by many hon. Members. There are the believe them most serious—of error. One also has to take account of the enormous prurient publicity that would attend any form of judicial execution. I do not need to

      663
      remind the House of the way in which the press can conduct itself at its worst. If there were any form of execution, some parts of the press would act at their worst.
      Those who may have forgotten need to be reminded of the dreary and pathetic groups waiting outside prisons and carrying placards and the agony of Home Secretaries of both parties who had to make the final and dreadful decision and who bore the terrible responsibility upon their shoulders. There would be enormous protests from the "antis". There would be the problems, totally unforeseen, of the first execution of a coloured youth from a deprived inner city area. Those who are tempted to gloss over this matter should consider the increased racial tensions in our society if such a step were actually taken.
      Many people have pored over the statistics with slide rules attempting to search the entrails for some sign that the reintroduction of capital punishment would make any difference. At best, the evidence is confused and inconclusive. What is certain is that crime levels for all offences have risen in all countries. There is great public concern. People are worried about increasing levels of vandalism, rape, robbery and violent crime, none of which would be prevented by the implementation of the new clauses.
      It may come as a great surprise to our constituents that Peter Sutcliffe, the Kray brothers, Hindley or Brady would not have been executed if the new clauses were already implemented. All would have been excluded. But the public are frustrated and want us to do something. When we are nonplussed about what to do, it is helpful to tell the unvarnished truth to the electorate, who are usually far more intelligent than some of us give them credit for.
      The first truth is that there is no solution to an easily quantifiable law and order problem. It is not that politicians are failing to fulfil their obligations. It is a problem of rising crime that the whole community, as well as ourselves, must attempt to solve. It would be extremely helpful if we could devote as much time as we are spending on this rather negative subject to the real problems of crime that face us.
      The public want to solve the problem of the roots of crime. Are they in television violence? That must play a part. Are they in the breakdown of parental influence and discipline? Are they, to some degree, in the problem of our soulless comprehensive schools? Are they in the fact that the more property we acquire in our society, the more policemen we need to guard it? These are the important matters to which we should be addressing ourselves, not the totem pole of capital punishment by which we continually divert ourselves from the real problems.
      Another and most important issue that we should address ourselves to with speed is why small children and those between the ages of 12 and 18 are committing crimes of violence and vandalism in school hours. These are matters that we can do something about. They are far more important than debating yet again the issue of capital punishment, as I am sure we shall have to in the next Parliament.
      I can find no evidence in the Home Office statistics relating to the possibility of executing those who kill policemen to prove that police deaths have escalated substantially since 1965. I agree with hon. Members who say that public opinion would find it extremely difficult to accept the selection of the police, as a group, for the sort
      664
      of protection that we would not give to other, extremely important groups in our society, who are also possibly exposed to death—bank clerks, for one.
      The use of statistics relating to armed robbery and to murders committed during armed robbery by some of my colleagues and by the press recently in furtherence of their case is, to put it politely, somewhat spurious. If people talk about the enormous escalation of the number of guns used in armed robbery, they should also point out that the bulk of these guns are air guns. Many of the offences that are termed serious are, when stripped down, not particularly serious.
      I should be fascinated to know if, when Spike Milligan shot his neighbour's cat in the bottom, that was part of the statistics quoted as a reason why we should consider yet again the reintroduction of capital punishment. The use of these statistics by my colleagues makes a good case for the regulating of air guns, but it does not advance the case for capital punishment one jot.
      I endorse what hon. Members have already said about the serious mistakes that have been made in the past when, after the event, fresh evidence has been unearthed which, if it was known at the time of the trial, would probably have meant that the jury would have acquitted or that the judge would have stopped the trial. This is not just a question of innocent people being killed by the State, although that is intolerable, and a terrible thing to be done. These mistakes have happened often in the past—for brevity's sake I shall not dwell on the circumstances of each case. If hon. Members wish to know, they can see me afterwards and I shall show them a document that will horrify them.
      It is clear to me—I have been told this by several senior policemen and barristers—that the fears of a jury about errors subsequently discovered could be played upon, and the jury might feel compelled to acquit someone who otherwise, as a guilty man, would have received a long prison sentence. Society could be put further at risk with a guilty man, capable of committing a crime of murder, still at large.
      It is incredible that anybody can sustain an argument that capital punishment can deter terrorists. All history dictates the contrary. We have seen example after example—in Aden and Cyprus, and in the Easter Rebellion of 1916, which saved no lives but cost many, and united a people who had had no previous use for the Sinn Fein to its bloody cause.
      After several young men have starved themselves to death in the cause of old Ireland, how can it be said that capital punishment is a deterrent? The ghouls who run the IRA are not deterred by death. They feed on death to suck inspiration from the grave. The IRA needs destruction to fuel its cause and it is frustrated, indeed, that until this time we have denied it judicial execution, enormous international publicity and martyrs.
      8.30 pm
      Young men starved themselves to death to gain the publicity that we denied them. Without any question, to hang them would be to aid their cause. We should let them rot. That is a tough and terrible sentence. Let us not be fooled for one moment. Our prisons are not the glorified holiday centres that were described to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) by his friend in a pub. Many of our prisons are horrible, rotting stinking places.

      665
      I believe that if a young man were sentenced to an extremely long sentence ——
      Mr. Arthur Lewis rose——
      Mr. Benyon: Let no one be under any illusion. These people are in prison for an extremely long time. I would much prefer to be executed than to stay in prison for a long time.
      Mr. Lewis rose——
      Mr. Benyon: How would we work out who would be executed? Would it be just those who planted and made the bombs? Do we really believe that the IRA has not thought this through carefully? Do we really believe that the IRA will not get 16-year-olds to plant the bombs? Do we think that the IRA will not get pregnant 16-year-olds to do it? What will we do then? Do we believe that the IRA will not get black pregnant 16-year-olds to do it if we exclude them?
      What are we going to do about those problems? Has anyone seriously thought through the problem of hostages which would come in the wake of capital punishment?
      Mr. Lewis rose——
      Mr. Benyon: It is conceded in civilised societies that no man should suffer sentence of death without the benefit of trial by jury. The absurd situation could arise where murderers would hang in Britain but not in Ulster. Perhaps that is regarded as a detail and perhaps, if the will is there, all is possible, but I would wish the proposers of the clauses the joy of all the juries they could find which would convict a man of capital charges in Ulster. The answer would be that we could replace juries with military tribunals. Men should think carefully before they venture down that avenue.
      The senior politicians involved do not want the return of the death penalty in Northern Ireland for crimes of terrorism. The security forces and the judiciary do not want it. Home Secretaries, current and past, do not want it. The only beneficiary of the reintroduction of capital punishment in Northern Ireland would be the IRA. If the new clause dealing with terrorism is scrapped, the others will fall. If an individual who plants a bomb in a pub and kills 12 people is not hanged, how can a man who kills one man in a robbery be executed?
      I have been told that, because the overwhelming majority of my constituents want the return of capital punishment. I should be mandated to come to the House to reflect their views. I am not a messenger boy for my constituents. I was elected to make judgments and, if those judgments are bad, my constituents have the option to vote for someone else at the next election. We do not have a plebiscitary democracy. I believe that that would undermine the House. Without doubt, a plebiscitary democracy is a friend of tyrants and demagogues. I shall not surrender my judgment to my constituents just because I feared that the expression of my convictions might prove unpopular to some.
      Let us unite to fight violent crime. There is no division in the House on that fight and on our resolve to do all that we can to defeat it. We must place logic before emotion and reason before passion. It is our duty to our constituents to use our reason and judgment. I am sure that the new clauses are honourably motivated in their intent but they
      666
      would cause anguish, division and confusion in operation and save not one innocent life. A Member of Parliament's duty is to use his reason and I shall vote "No" tonight.
      Mr. Bidwell: I am glad to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon). I noticed that he was nodding agreement when my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said that we need a much more informed debate throughout the country on the restoration of capital punishment. The manner in which the subject is handled by the media is too flippant. If it is discussed on a late-night television chat show, it is usually one of several items that is discussed rather than the one item. The degree of human emotion that is involved and the necessity for a calm and reasoned judgment means that the issue warrants the widest possible debate.
      Those of us who have consistently opposed the restoration of capital punishment over the years fear the groundswell of public opinion, which is urging us to lake what I described in an earlier intervention as a decadent step for the nation. It would appear externally that Britain was taking a backward step and a disproportionate view of its internal affairs.
      It is all very well to say that for an offence of murder judges should be allowed to sentence an individual to death. Surely it becomes a ludicrous intellectual exercise to try to equate the murder of a policeman with the murder of any other person in the execution of his or her duty or in going to the aid of a policeman.
      The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who advises the Police Federation, made an extremely blunt speech. He spoke of the mistiming of the debate. I understand the emotion that caused some policemen to organise a considerable lobby to restore capital punishment.
      It has been said by many who have participated in the debate that there is a massive urge to bring back capital punishment. I do not believe that. If my own mail is anything to go by, there is no reason to think that that is so. London Members have received many communications enclosing cuttings from newspapers on fares increases in London. That lobby has been helped along by the insertion of coupons in newspapers and by other means, but at the same time there is genuine feeling about the increases. I understand the arguments that have been advanced by the Bromley council, but there is a strong feeling in London that it is necessary to introduce cheap fares. There is a relationship between crime in London and the ability to travel by public transport. The arguments intertwine. I shall not allow myself to be sidetracked by the argument that is adduced by London Transport.
      There is an enormous swell of public sympathy when it is announced that a policeman has been killed in the execution of his duty. That is extended to those who are injured or maimed for life. I have in mind a policeman who apprehended some robbers when he was not on duty. He was shot. He is paralysed and will spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair.
      There has been much sympathy for such people. One can understand that. There is no lack of sympathy on my part for policemen who have been injured in the execution of their duties. In my family circle I have argued whether the restoration of capital punishment would deal with the problems more effectively. Notwithstanding the strong argument that the wrong person may be convicted, if I thought that the restoration of capital punishment for

      667
      certain types of murder would bring about a dramatic change in the crime rate, I would go into the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis).
      I am not as well informed about the criminal world as my hon. Friend. He told the House about the robber who would go out with a gun, and be ready to use it, if he knew that he would not be hanged if he was caught. My hon. Friend may have superior connections with the criminal world. I hope that the story that he related is on the police records. He had a duty to inform the police in advance about the man who was disposed to commit the crimes about which he told the House.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend could not have been listening with his usual diligence. I repeat, at the time of the Sydney Silverman Bill, for which I confess I voted, the criminal told me that if capital punishment was abolished, criminals would go out with their guns to shoot us. The matter is on the record. I will give my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) the name and address of the person concerned afterwards. What the criminal told me has happened. Otherwise, every time one picks up a newspaper and reads that criminals have used sawn-off shotguns, the press is not telling the truth.
      Mr. Bidwell: I cannot accept the part of my hon. Friend's story that implies that the criminal would discriminate and calmly shoot another person rather than a policeman. If it was his intention to shoot at the outset, he would shoot the person who prevented his getaway.
      Mr. Lewis: I did not say that.
      Mr. Bidwell: The House will know that most of the speeches that I have made in the past have been on immigration. The present topic reminds me that the public favour or do not favour an issue in a blanket way until they consider individual cases. That is precisely the case if we are to restore previously used practices. The possibility of reprieve must, therefore, be placed in the hands of the Home Secretary. It is interesting to note that his would be the final judgment on both the death sentence and immigration.
      Home Office Ministers responsible for immigration matters will know that there is blanket hostility to immigrants, especially brown and black people, until there is a specific case. The public then examine the humanitarian issues involved and may want to make exceptions. I suspect that the same is true of public attitudes when there is a specific instance of the possible disposal of a human life. Historically, public attention has always varied in proportion to the horrific nature of the crime.
      8.45 pm
      As I did not know how many Opposition Members would have the chance to take part in the debate and I was conscious of your warning, Mr. Speaker, about the large number of hon. Members who wished to take part—especially Conservative Members, although I appreciate that this is a non-party matter—I intervened earlier to try to explain my position to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) who has always been an activist in this matter. I had to narrow the matter down, and in doing so I thought in terms of the military situation
      668
      that the hon. Gentleman sought to introduce, allying this matter to the Falkland Islands situation. That is a wartime situation. I am not a pacifist and in certain circumstances, if I were a military commander, only the firing squad would suffice.
      That is not the situation here. Although many Opposition Members wish fundamentally to change the society in which we live, we cherish its liberties and processes as a whole and we cherish the nature of our national debates to rationalise these matters. When the London Television network sought a round-up of opinion in advance of today's debate to find out where Members of Parliament stood as individuals, I said that I do not tell people in advance exactly how I shall vote. I respect the hon. Gentleman's views, although I pulled his leg a little today, and I know that he reflects a large body of public opinion. Nevertheless, I believe that his conclusions are wrong, because I do not believe that people have considered coolly and calmly, in a national debate, the pros and cons, as has the Home Secretary. Moreover, the Home Secretary's views were buttressed in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
      I have listened to a number of these debates over the years. Today we had a massive, reasoned statement from the Home Secretary which, in my view, is well worth reading by those not privileged to be in the House when it was made. He made an unanswerable case against the restoration of capital punishment.
      In the end, however, it comes down to me. Even in cases of the most hideous crime, am I prepared in normal peacetime circumstances and normal civilised conditions to dispose of a human being? That is the question that I put to members of my family circle and beyond who, from a distance, argued for the restoration of capital punishment. Could they play the role of the executioner, the hangman? Some say "Yes", but most shy away from that challenge. In the final analysis, however, that must be the question, because we are asking the judicial process, the judges, and ultimately the Home Secretary, to make that lonely decision, unless the old system is changed to something new, which the Home Secretary was hinting at but which is unlikely to take place.
      Criminals and murderers are not let off in this country. As has been suggested, to some extent life imprisonment—if that is really what it is—or imprisonment for the best part of a person's life is a far worse punishment. Certainly my mentality recoils from it. Indeed, we have to prevent those serving life sentences from having in their cells the means to dispose of themselves. I remember a Tory candidate in one by-election suggesting that hardened criminals should be provided with the wherewithal to dispose of themselves, but we have rightly recoiled from that. Also, some people come out of prison to lead serious, successful and useful lives when, after the sifting process of probation and so on, they eventually emerge from incarceration.
      I have been open-minded and listened to the whole debate, but nothing has deflected me from my view that it would be a nationally decadent step to carry any of the new clauses, either the straight one to which I have alluded or any of the more idiotic gradations of sentencing.
      Several Hon. Members rose ——
      Mr. Speaker: I make a special appeal to the House. I understand that the wind-up is expected to begin at 9.40

      669
      pm, which gives us 50 minutes by my arithmetic. If speeches were limited to 10 minutes, we could have at least five.
      Mr. Malcolm Thornton: It is quite clear that there is a great deal that is not clear. It has been said, I think by the Home Secretary in his remarks, that when one looks at the question of the deterrent it is a marginal decision as to whether the statistics back up or disprove the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) referred to the fact that there is no easy solution to the problems of law and order and the increase in violence, not only in this country but in any civilised society throughout the world.
      I believe we should seek to add to the range of punishments that are offered by the courts. It has been said that a deterrent is the certainty of detection coupled with an effective punishment. Many of us believe that the ultimate deterrent, the finality of death, is the best deterrent for certain classes of capital murder. There are a number of clauses before the House and I particularly support the all-embracing one that seeks capital punishment for the wilful and unlawful taking of another person's life.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) talked about the distinctions drawn by the Homicide Act 1957 and the fact that they were unacceptable to public opinion. I believe that it has been shown quite clearly that it is almost impossible to draw such distinctions in the House. I believe strongly that we should answer what I believe are the people's overwhelming wishes. It has been said that we are not here as delegates. That is quite true. The views that I hold are views I have held for a long time.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon said, he and I received today from people in the North-West—the majority of whom actually live on Merseyside—a petition of almost 125,000 signatures asking the House to restore capital punishment to our courts. In my constituency we recently undertook a sample survey of 1,000 voters and 960 of them were in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment. There is a tremendous level of public support.
      I do not ask any of my colleagues to act against their wishes or their consciences. I am certain that they feel as strongly as I do, but I believe that they should, in all conscience, recognise that public opinion is equally strong. I believe that it is important to point out, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup mentioned, that there is a degree of confusion in the public mind when it calls for capital punishment to be restored. The public somehow believe that, by doing that, all violent crime will suddenly disappear from our society. I do not suggest that that is so. I suggest that for this most heinous of crimes—the wilful taking of someone else's life—the death penalty should be the ultimate deterrent. It is because I believe that it is a deterrent that I support the new clauses.
      Arguments may be marginal on either side, but it is important that hon. Members should say why they are prepared to support a course of action. I go back to the occasion when, as a very young man, I talked to a prison chaplain who had officiated at the executions of three murderers. He talked about not only his own experiences but the experiences of some of his colleagues. Between them, they had officiated at the executions of 11 murderers.
      670
      Obviously, many of us were interested to know what he felt about the death sentence. He said many things, but one thing especially stuck in my mind and I can recall his words to this day. He said that when a man is taken to be hanged it is an especially horrible experience. He is seldom able to walk and is usually dragged. He is out of control. He is vomiting with fear and unable to control his bowels. The prison chaplain said:
      "It is an experience which we all found extremely degrading—an experience which, because we were them on behalf of society, must inevitably degrade society as well. But do not ever, ever, underestimate the deterrent effect of that most awful punishment".
      The thought of being hanged by the neck until one is dead, which as we all know is an extremely clinical way of despatching someone, would certainly act as a deterrent to me. It should be available to our courts and the vast majority of our fellow citizens believe in it. For that reason, I shall go into the Lobby tonight and vote for the new clauses.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: The lion. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) has expressed a belief—no doubt sincerely—about the value, as he considers it, of capital punishment, but he did not elicit any evidence in support of that conclusion. I find it impressive that Home Secretary after Home Secretary in successive Governments of different political colours has formed the view that there is no satisfactory evidence that capital punishment provides a deterrent effect. Home Secretary after Home Secretary has concluded that the judgment of the House of Commons, as expressed for many years now, has been what he would wish. That is impressive because such people speak with considerable experience. A volume of evidence is available to them in making that judgment. The present Home Secretary expressed precisely that view today.
      Like most hon. Members, I have travelled in many countries where the death penalty prevails, but I have found no evidence in countries comparable to Britain that the position is demonstrably better in their inner city areas than here. Often it is significantly worse. The burden of establishing that capital punishment should be resurrected in Britain lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those who wish to re-establish it.
      9 pm
      Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Would the hon. Member confirm that one of the most vehement opponents of the argument of capital punishment being a deterrent is the former official hangman, Mr. Pierrepount, whose book on the subject—"Execution"—should be read with great care?
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: He changed his mind again.
      Mr. Rhodes James: No, he did not.
      Mr. Davis: I have not had the benefit of reading his book. If I have an opportunity to do so, I will. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order.
      Mr. Davis: I had not thought, Mr. Speaker, that I fad said anything remarkable or contentious up to now but the House seems to be in a tizz about it.
      Several propositions have been put before us about categorisation. None of the propositions is new. Of course,

      671
      hon. Members have properly referred to the experience of the Homicide Act 1957 in which capital murder was categorised. Murder in the furtherance of theft, by shooting or explosion, murder to prevent arrest, the murder of a policeman or the murder by a prisoner of a prison officer were categorised in that Act as capital murders. But grave anomalies were revealed, both as to sentencing and as to definition. That is what some hon. Members want to foist on us again. That would be a cardinal error.
      There are many reasons why capital punishment should not be reintroduced. I support particularly the argument about mistakes. I was interested to hear the arguments adduced by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve). He accepted that mistakes might occur but thought that, however sad, that was a risk that should be accepted. I am not prepared to accept that risk.
      In regard to the sort of mistakes that can occur, there is the innocent mistake that all advocates come across at some stage in their professional practice. I have been a lawyer since 1953 and have practised in the criminal courts for a long time. Often there is an innocent mistake about the identity of the assailant or the accused. Of course, careful directions are given by the trial judge about that sort of matter but I recall a case, not one of murder, where my client was positvely identified by two witnesses who could not be shaken. They had no room for doubt, but they were absolutely and totally wrong. Many such experiences could be revealed to the House by lawyers who have appeared in criminal cases over the years. In that instance we were able to establish an alibi but it is not always easy to do so. Often it is difficult to obtain corroborative evidence to support an alibi.
      Again there is often a mistake about what was said, the circumstances in which it was said and who said it. These aspects of evidence can often lead to a jury finding someone guilty, but they may be wrong. Capital punishment means that such mistakes cannot be repaired.
      Then there is the deliberate mistake, where a jury may be induced to make mistakes because of concocted evidence, such as "verbals" or planting. These things happen in real life, regrettable though they may be.
      Mr. Rees-Davies: Never in my experience in murder cases.
      Mr. Davis: That is an absolute statement by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure there are many lawyers who would disagree fundamentally with his conclusion.
      The risks are grave indeed. They are notably grave where the defendant has a record and where, perhaps, the prosecution genuinely believes that he has committed the offence but where the evidence is a little threadbare.
      There have been a number of cases—I will not cite them all—where people have served sentences of imprisonment in murder cases for long periods of time and then had their sentences quashed. A posthumous pardon provides little satisfaction to anybody.
      I agree with those Conservative Members who spoke about the dreadful symbolism in the taking of life by the State. I was recently in South Africa where I attempted to see a prisoner in Pretoria prison. I do not begin to compare that tawdry and corrupt society with our own, but I will never forget the haunted faces of relatives who were
      672
      visiting their loved ones day after day, waiting for the day when their loved ones' lives were to be extinguished. It is not a happy situation.
      For me, that situation made a reality of something that I had not witnessed for many years. When I was an articled clerk my firm was engaged in the Ruth Ellis case, although only towards the end. It was a ghoulish situation indeed. I never want to see a situation recur where people wait outside the prison gates for the notice to be posted, for the bell to toll, waiting to see some signification that the prisoner's life has been taken, because it is not the sign of a civilised society.
      Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) will forgive me if I do not pursue him too far down the road that he has signposted.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member of Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) on his initiative in introducing this debate. It has proved to be extremely worth while.
      I am pleased that the debate is taking place without the added pressure of emotion. Thankfully, there has not recently been an infamous murder, such as the brutal killing of a paper boy some years ago, the Moors murders or the kidnapping of Leslie Whittle when she was taken into a tunnel and murdered. There is no emotive case fuelling today's debate. There are no screaming headlines. There are no distraught parents or anguished friends. There is only the realisation that society evidently cannot protect itself effectively from those who are not prepared to live by the rules that bind most of us. That underlines the strength of today's arguments for the return of capital punishment. It is not being pressed in this Chamber in heat as a result of some recent terrible action. The debate is the more thoughtful and the more reasoned because of the absence of such emotional pressures. Yet, as I said, it certainly underlines the strength of public feeling on this issue. Public opinion demands the return of capital punishment. That it can be argued coolly and unemotionally in the Chamber reflects well on all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
      I am convinced that the death penalty constitutes a real and substantial deterrent.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: Prove it.
      Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman asks me to prove it. If he is patient and listens to my argument, perhaps he, too, if he has an open mind, will be convinced of the strength of my argument.
      The overwhelming majority of people believe in the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Criminals and murderers are part of that same society. Therefore, I see no reason why they should be different from the mass of society, in this instance at least. If that majority of society believes it to be a deterrent, it follows logically that the majority of those who might be tempted to commit murder will likewise be influenced and the existence of the death penalty will therefore have a considerable deterrent effect.
      Those who favour the continued abolition of the death penalty have, throughout the debate, produced a string of statistics that allegedly support their view. I am reminded of a quotation:
      "lies, damned lies, and statistics."
      I am also reminded that selective figures may be produced to bolster and substantiate virtually any argument that one

      673
      wishes to advance. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, the numbers of homicides has doubled since 1964. That is fact, not myth. The death penalty would be a positive deterrent to certain types of murder. That would certainly include the murder of a police or prison officer.
      Mr. John G. Blackburn: I have taken part in five murder inquiries and arrested a murderer. The last case of a police officer being killed in the execution of his duty occurred in the Merseyside police force in July last year. Constable Davonport was murdered. His assailants were convicted and sentenced to four years and two months imprisonment.
      Mr. Pawsey: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, who is certainly learned in this matter. That instance helps to underline the strength of my case. The death penalty would also be an effective deterrent to premeditated murder. Under that heading, I include the carrying of a firearm. I mention that because, according to Mr. Kelland, assistant commissioner for crime in the Metropolitan Police, firearms were used in 1,415 offences last year compared with 767 offences in 1980. Clearly the increase in the use of firearms has resulted in an increase of the number of people at risk. No doubt we shall shortly read that someone has been shot and killed in the futherance of a criminal act. But fewer criminals would carry firearms if they knew the penalty that would probably be exacted from them if their victim died.
      It cannot be argued—as hon. Members on both sides of the House have sought to do—that life imprisonment is a significant deterrent for violent crime. Violent crime continues to increase and, therefore, a deterrent that clearly does not deter is worthless. I am also convinced that fewer people would be maimed and injured if the death penalty were in existence, for the criminal would know that, if his aim were a little less sure or his blow a little less precise and his victim died instead of being desperately disabled, he would pay the penalty.
      Criminals calculate just as we do. They will weigh up the risks and decide that it is not worth carrying a firearm or weapon. Therefore, the introduction of the death penalty will have a significant effect not only on the number of murders committed but on the number of violent assaults against the person, particularly assaults in which a high degree of violence is involved.
      Mr. Flannery: Prove it.
      Mr. Pawsey: In an earlier intervention the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) asked how I could believe that the public were in favour of restoring the death penalty. I am quite prepared to put the issue to a referendum, because I am confident of the outcome of such a referendum.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman, I hope not deliberately, has totally misquoted me. I never said to him that he should prove to me that the general public would 'agree with his stance. He said that he would prove that capital punishment was a deterrent, and I said to him `Trove it". So the hon. Gentleman has utterly distorted what I said. What is more, he has not given one iota of proof about the subject that I asked him to prove.
      Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Member has not been listening carefully. One of the snags of making sedentary interventions is that one can be misunderstood.
      I come back to the argument. The fact that we rightly exercise our individual judgment in the House and make up our own minds is clearly good for parliamentary democracy. However, in another sense it may weaken that same parliamentary democracy, because we are clearly shown to be at variance with the overwhelming wishes of our constituents.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose——
      Mr. Pawsey: I shall not give way. There are other hon. Members who wish to speak.
      The electorate may well question the effectiveness of Parliament and democracy when it sees proceedings in this place running counter to the wishes of the majority. After all, we accept majority decisions in our lives, and it is a majority decision that brings hon. Members to the House.
      To disregard the wishes of the public brings the institution of Parliament into question. I do not advocate Members of Parliament becoming populists, but we should accept that perhaps the people have a point. On this issue they might be right and the majority in the House might be wrong. I do not particularly enjoy advocating capital punishment, because it is a penalty that I personally find repugnant. However, I find equally repugnant the murder of those who, if the penalty had truly reflected the crime, might be alive today.
      One of the arguments that is often advanced against capital punishment is the risk that an innocent person might be properly tried and yet wrongly convicted. That is the principal objection. I recognise it and take it into account. However, such cases are rare. The point was well made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) who spoke from personal experience on the matter. I respect the advocacy that he presented to the House.
      We must have a balance sheet with, on the one hand, the loss of one or perhaps two innocent lives through judicial procedure, and, on the other, the loss of innocent lives by acts of murder that would have been prevented had an effective deterrent been in existence. The balance sheet of life would show that many more people would be alive today if capital punishment had been retained.
      Justice should be as nearly perfect as we can get it in an imperfect world. Clearly the death penalty should be exacted only when all the proper and judicial procedures have been exhausted. I am aware that no human justice can be perfect, and that even the cleverest judge and jury can be fallible. Even knowing that there is a risk of an innocent person being convicted and executed, as an indication of my sincerity and belief that the deterrent will work, I advocate the reintroduction of the death penalty tonight. I shall therefore vote for the new clauses.
      Mrs. Jill Knight: In debating the issue whether a convicted murderer should be liable to capital punishment, we have to face the fact that no punishment is presently available to British courts which acts as a deterrent to murder. The figures prove it, and the people know it. Although it would not be right for hon. Members to vote on this issue under pressure, or to vote against their conscience, they should take into consideration the clearly expressed and overwhelming opinion of the British people in deciding the issue.

      675
      To consider that opinion is one thing. I am not saying that we should be shepherded into the Lobbies by it if it is against our consciences, but we should consider it. I do not think that the British people are bloodthirsty, vindictive, stupid, overemotional or thoughtless. They are apprehensive and fearful. Whatever the statistics may be said to show, the people know that there are more murders today than they can ever remember in the past. I have been amazed to hear hon. Members suggest that it is otherwise. Only a few years ago, a murder would make the headlines. Today, in practically every paper that we pick up we find that in several instances small paragraphs are sufficient to contain the news about a murder.
      To a certain extent, statistics have been fudged by the renaming of so many murders as manslaughter. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) mentioned that point. In Birmingham recently, while a man was working peaceably on his allotment, two young thugs came up who wanted to steal his car to impress a couple of girls. They battered him to death. According to the statistics, that is manslaughter. I cannot understand it. Recently, an old lady was stabbed to death by robbers in her corner shop for the few pounds in her till. According to the statistics, that is manslaughter. Even when police on duty today are killed in the execution of their duty, time and again the case is down as manslaughter. I find that difficult to follow.
      We should listen to what the people say. I am certain that they want Parliament to protect them. In deciding this issue, we must take that into consideration. The great question that we have been debating is whether capital punishment would deter. Some hon. Members believe that it would not. I respect their view. They have a perfect right to express it and to vote in support of that view. Equally, I have a right to say that I cannot believe that capital punishment does not deter.
      I have no doubt that, faced with the possibility of losing his life, a potential murderer, in most cases—not all cases—would draw back. The only reson why I support new clause 22 and making the sentence of capital punishment available to the courts is that I want to save life. I am not interested in the least in revenge.
      In the debate hon. Members' views are coloured 95 per cent. by their own convictions and 5 per cent. by statistics. That is wise because statistics on this matter can be made to prove anything. We are making up our minds. We should listen to the evidence. I have been surprised that in the whole debate there has been so little reference to the evidence of the Police Federation. Whatever we may feel and whatever our convictions may be, the members of the Police Federation are 99·7 per cent. adamant that capital punishment would deter. We should listen to the experts.
      Many times in the debate the old argument has been brought up about the possibility of mistakes being made and of innocent people being hanged. What has not been brought up in the debate or in any other debate on the issue is the fact that on record there are now a large and frightening number of known murderers who have been convicted, sent to prison and let out and who have murdered again.
      I shall give a few names. There was Wesley Churchman, who murdered in 1958 before the abolition of the death penalty. He was imprisoned for his crime and released in June 1964 and murdered a man called Mr.
      676
      Alfred Martin. Donald Forbes murdered a night watchman. He was imprisoned and then released on parole in May 1970; he killed again in July 1970. Mr. Simcox, who had relatives in my constituency, murdered his wife in 1948. He was released and murdered his sister in 1964.
      There are many others, and I have spent a considerable time investigating their cases. There was Abdul Hussin, Kenneth Sharley, Terence Iliffe, Bryan Knight, John George Robinson, Stefan Sterncynski and Leslie Goodall. George Unsworth killed a prostitute in 1970, was released from prison in 1979, and eight months later killed a little boy of 8. In 1977 Vincent Smith stabbed and beat a man to death. He was given life imprisonment and while in prison strangled a young cellmate. Arthur Wynne was freed from a life sentence for murder. He was a model prisoner, undertaking an Open University degree course and getting his BA degree with flying colours. He was a splendid prisoner. Two months after his release he strangled a 23-year-old girl.
      There are many more such cases. Time prevents me from citing them all. In a fairly short time in the Library last night I found no fewer than 18 examples of convicted murderers who had been released and had murdered again. It has been adduced that the overwhelming majority of murders are committed within the family. Out of those 18 murders, seven initial murders were committed on members of the family, but 10 were committed on strangers. The argument that murders are nearly all family matters does not stand up. It is absolutely certain, beyond peradventure, that between 20 and 25 people were killed by those released murderers. Many of those people would have been alive today if capital punishment had not been abolished.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Knight: No. I am trying to get through my speech as quickly as I can.
      The arguments run thick and fast, but because they are so well balanced we must in the end come back to the evidence of the experts and the conviction of hon. Members. Every point put forward on this subject has a counterbalancing argument. I cannot believe, as one hon. Member said, that if we brought back capital punishment there would be a rush of people anxious for the glory and drama of facing the gallows who would murder because of the dramatic effect. That does not make sense.
      The argument has been put forward that capital punishment would coarsen society. Society was not as coarse when we had capital punishment as it is today. There was much more respect for people's lives. Again and again all the arguments have their counterbalance. I do not like the fact that the police carry guns and kill without judge and jury. However, that is necessary in todays circumstances. We have capital punishment in' Britain today, and to a large extent it is capital punishment for the young, the old, the innocent and the helpless. That worries me. Not once tonight has a reason been put forward that convinces me that a return to the threat of capital punishment would not save life. On that basis shall support the new clauses tonight.
      Miss Joan Lestor: I wish that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight)

      677
      had given way during her speech, because some of her remarks were inaccurate and must be corrected. Many of the people on her list were not convicted murderers.
      Mrs. Knight: Yes, they were.
      Miss Lestor: They are convicted murderers only if initially charged with the crime of murder. Many of them were charged with the crime of manslaughter. That point was not made by the hon. Lady.
      Mrs. Knight rose——
      Miss Lestor: I shall not give way. The hon. Lady did not give way during her speech and so she must remain seated and take it for a moment.
      The more important argument is that many of the people on the hon. Lady's list, even if we had retained capital punishment, would not have been hanged, because of the circumstances of the crime they committed. The hon. Lady must be accurate when she brings forward such evidence.
      Earlier, an hon. Member said that it was worth the lives of a few innocent people to ensure this great deterrent of capital punishment. I wish he would say that to the family of Timothy Evans, who was hanged and later pardoned; to the family of James Hanratty, over whom much doubt still exists and has existed ever since he was hanged for murder; and to the parents of Bentley, an educationally subnormal young man who was hanged for a crime that he did not commit because at no time was it ever alleged that he fired the shot that killed.
      9.30 pm
      I wish that those hon. Members who say that it is worth sacrificing innocent lives so that the rest of us may go in safety would face those parents, some of whom I have met, and put that argument to them. I doubt very much whether they would make the same suggestion if it were their sons who were hanged for murders that they did not commit.
      Many hon. Members have talked a great deal about the deterrent value. We have heard about the prison chaplain who spoke of the horror and indignity of a man being dragged from prison to be hanged. That chaplain said that, although it was horrific, we should never underestimate the deterrent value of such an event. On that argument, we had better go back to public hanging, because, thank God, most of us will never witness such a thing. If the deterrent value in hanging lies in the drama, tragedy and horrific nature of the ceremony that surrounds it, we must go back to public hanging. In effect, that chaplain was saying "Let people see what I have seen and they will be deterred from murder." That is what must happen, because that is the logic of the argument.
      Other hon. Members who support the reintroduction of capital punishment have said in simplicity that society is more violent today—I am not convinced of that—and that it follows that if we had hanging for certain types of murder people would be deterred.
      The hon. Member for Edgbaston gave an example of a person who had committed the crime of manslaugher or murder at a time when capital punishment existed. Therefore, it was not a deterrent to that person. Nevertheless, the argument is that people will be deterred.
      The arguments and all the evidence do not sustain that view. Whether we are more violent now than previously is something that we must debate on another occasion. I
      678
      look to South Africa, where a quarter of all executions by States or countries take place. That is a most violent society—[Interruption.] There is nothing wrong with my figures. I said that a quarter of all the executions in the world take place in South Africa. South Africa is an extremely violent society.
      I look to Iran, where, despite the most hideous penalties, including various types of death sentence, people again and again risk those penalties and suffer them to oppose a regime about which they feel deeply.
      In America, the situation varies between States as to whether they have capital punishment or not.
      The evidence in support of the deterrent argument is very weak indeed. People trot out the referendum argument when they believe that it will be on their side. But whatever our constituents may say, they have a choice. They can say to us at the end of the day "We do not agree with what you did; therefore, we shall seek a representative who supports our views on capital punishment." Alternatively, we must go to them and say "These are my views. This is what I believe. Just because you believe something else, I cannot vote for something that I believe to be damaging and brutalising to our society with no evidence to suggest that it will deter one individual or make our society any better."
      Many people who take refuge in the argument that hanging is a deterrent run away from some of the more difficult problems about why a minority of people behave in the way that they do and how we can begin to change social conditions and circumstances to prevent it from happening.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have listened to most of this debate and I do not wish to comment on any speech except to say that we have had two notable speeches from the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said that he thought that this debate should not have taken place so soon after the last debate on this subject. I agree with him and I hope that there will be no repetition of this debate, at least in this Parliament.
      Most of the debate has revolved around the question whether the death penalty is a deterrent. We used to speak of the death penalty as being a deterrent against murder, but the argument has now been extended so that even the Police Federation is speaking of it as being a deterrent against not only murder but violent crime generally. This reasoning has been taken up in the country and, to some extent, in the House itself. Some people are beginning to say that the abolition of the death penalty is a cause of all violent crime. I do not accept that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), in a good speech from his point of view, somewhat destroyed his own case. He said that when he was a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency, there was much violent crime in Glasgow, especially among young people. It was stamped out because the courts began to take a strong line on imprisonment and imposed heavier prison sentences against the young razor gangs in Glasgow. Therefore, I believe that my hon. Friend destroyed his argument that the death penalty alone is a means by which violent crime can be reduced. There

      679
      are other means of reducing violent crime, and one of them is to increase prison sentences and the rigours of the prison system.
      My position has changed since we last debated capital punishment. I then voted in favour of the death penalty for those who murdered police officers, prison warders and the like. I do not intend to repeat that. I shall not vote for the death penalty in any circumstances. I shall give two reasons, and only two reasons, why I have changed my mind and will therefore change my vote. First, recently a man in Leeds sought to apprehend someone who was committing a burglary. The burglar turned on the man. That man, who was really making a citizens' arrest, was killed.
      If there were the death penalty only for those who killed policemen, the relatives of that man, acting as a policeman, and the country would have had no redress. The man who had committed the murder would not have suffered the death penalty under most of the proposed new clauses. Do the police really want cover for themselves but not cover for other citizens who are trying to hold back those who are violent?
      My second reason for a change of mind is the jury system that now exists. This matter was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Hillhead, but he did not take it as far as I intend to do. In a system where there is both a unanimous verdict and a majority verdict, is it not inevitable that among the 12 people on the jury there would be at least two, perhaps three and maybe more, who would be opposed to the death penalty?. They would be reluctant to contribute towards a unanimous verdict. I do not believe that any judge would put on the black cap and inflict the death penalty under a majority verdict. In practical terms, I believe that there would hardly ever be a unanimous verdict if the death penalty were available.
      Most of our constituents do not understand the difficulties. I become as mad as anyone when I hear of some of the murders that take place. I do not think that the number of murders of police officers has greatly increased, although the number of murders generally has increased. Of course I should myself feel like murdering any person who had committed a murder. My instincts are no different from those of my constituents. I believe, however, that hon. Members have to be practical. In practical terms, I do not believe that it is possible to bring back the death penalty.
      Mr. Edward Gardner: I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) has changed his mind and will not be accompanying in the Lobby those who support the return of capital punishment. I have little time in which to try to change my hon. Friend's mind again, but I am not entirely without hope.
      This has been a most impressive and, at the same time, most disturbing debate. A distinguished contribution was made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who gave a cool and careful appraisal of the arguments both for the reintroduction of capital punishment and for retaining the present position.
      The debate has also been distinguished by the speech of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), a former Home Secretary, who, as I understood
      680
      him, said that if he could be satisfied that the security and protective effect of capital punishment did what it was purported to do by its supporters he would think again.
      I should like also to mention the authoritative and impressive contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), a former Prime Minister, who used those sweet words of Edmund Burke instructing Members of this House that they must act according to their conscience. Those words, coming from a former Chief Whip, gave an authority and comfort that otherwise they would not have had.
      9.45 pm
      Three new clauses have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) that attempt to bring in capital punishment for specific forms of murder—for murder by terrorists, for murder by firearms, and for the murder of police officers and prison officers. The clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) adds to those three categories capital punishment for robbery and burglary with offensive weapons.
      Each of those clauses is an illustration of the way that capital punishment could be used if it were reintroduced. The clause in my name, and the names of my hon. Friends, is an attempt to give the House the opportunity of voting on the general principle of whether we ought to reintroduce capital punishment into our law.
      We all know, and have known for a long time, that the overwhelming majority of people in this country—our constituents—want the death penalty to be reintroduced because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that the death penalty is a deterrent—a unique deterrent that no other punishment can replace, will give hope of reducing the numbers of murders, and will provide a safeguard for those innocent lives that may otherwise be lost at the hands of potential murderers.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend think that the sixth vote—which is what tonight's will be—on capital punishment will persuade the people in this country who believe that Parliament is not in step with them that it is in step? Does he not consider that perhaps a referendum is the only way by which Parliament and people can come together over this issue?
      Mr. Gardner: I have seen my hon. Friend's amendment, as we all have. Let us wait to see what tonight's vote produces before deciding what to do if it produces the wrong result.
      There is no doubt that we are called upon tonight to decide by our vote whether we can reflect in the House, by a majority, the view of most people by restoring capital punishment to the legal punishments that are available for murder.
      If it were possible to be persuaded that without capital punishment there is remaining to the law a deterrent as effective as capital punishment many of us would have to think again. The view of those of us who want the return of capital punishment is that there is no other alternative that will give the effect that we want to achieve and that capital punishment undoubtedly provides. Whatever our views on capital punishment, we all agree that the paramount duty of the State is to protect innocent human life with the best possible means available.
      The protection of human life is a duty higher than any duty to protect the property. The vital question that we are

      681
      debating—it is vital to the people of Britain, whatever the House may think about it—is how best we can provide the best means of giving the best protection against murder.
      The death penalty is undoubtedly a terrible punishment, but it is a punishment for a terrible crime. It is the gravest of all crimes which deserves, in the opinion of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment of 1953, the gravest of all punishments. Can anyone doubt that the death penalty is a deterrent? But what kind of deterrent is it?
      We believe that by reintroducing capital punishment we can materially lessen the risk to innocent lives of death by murder. Those hon. Members who support new clause 22 believe that the death penalty is the most powerful and effective deterrent, the most likely deterrent to deal with and suppress any intention to kill and that there is no other form of punishment that compares with it. In other words, it is a unique deterrent. Dr. Johnson said that those who contemplate this punishment have their minds concentrated. It could be added that there is nothing more likely to persuade a professional criminal to leave his gun at home than the prospect of capital punishment.
      Mr. Frank R. White: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Albert Pierrepoint, the last official executioner in Britain, in his autobiography concluded, having faced murderers eye to eye, at that last terrible moment before putting the noose over the neck, that no single act of hanging had been a deterrent?
      Mr. Gardner: He did write that in his book, but he said later that he had changed his mind. In any event, it seems to me, as it may seem to the House, that that is a completely irrelevant point. There is nothing so terrible as the death penalty. In 1964, Henry Brooke, a former Home Secretary, in the debate on Mr. Silverman's Bill, said:
      "I think that if it can be shown that by retaining the death penalty for some or all types of murder one is materially lessening the likelihood of innocent people suffering death by murder, then there is no ground or moral principle on which one should dismiss the death penalty … it is a unique deterrent."—[Official Report, 21 December 1964; Vol. 704, c. 908.]
      Mr. Brooke was saying what I understood the right hon. Member for Hillhead to say, that if he could be satisfied that the death penalty was effective there were no moral grounds for opposing it. That is the case for the abolitionist—for the person who does not want to have the death penalty back. It is a question of the onus of proof.
      Speaker after speaker in the debate has said that the onus of proving that the death penalty is an effective deterrent lies on the shoulders of those who assert it. The burden of proving that the death penalty is not a deterrent lies well within the province of those who are trying to defeat our attempts to reintroduce it. If someone could establish with any certainty that capital punishment is no more effective as a deterrent than life imprisonment, he would have a formidable argument and those of us who want to see the reintroduction of the death penalty might well have to think again. However, no one has established that. There is no evidence to that effect.
      The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that he thought that those of us who want to reintroduce capital punishment are acting on a hunch. He said that there is no conclusive evidence on either side of the argument. He claimed that the statistics do not add up and that the figures do not make sense. He argued that we cannot produce a conclusive argument from such figures. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we
      682
      are acting on a hunch, what is he acting on when he invites the House to reject our arguments? How can anyone believe and accept that capital punishment is to be equated with life imprisonment as a punishment?
      Life imprisonment does not mean what it says. It holds out the continuous hope of release on licence. The police do not believe that life imprisonment can be equated with the death penalty, and nor do prison officers. The enormous majority of the public who have made their views known do not believe it either. In common with them, those of us who want to reintroduce capital punishment do not believe it either, and that is why those of us who support the clauses will vote for them in the Division. I hope that other hon. Members will follow our good example.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
      The House proceeded to a Division:—
      Mr. Speaker: Would the four Tellers come to the Table, please?
      MR. MARCUS Fox, MR. GEORGE GARDINER, MR. ALFRED DUBS and MR. JOHN MAXTON, who had been named as Tellers in the Division, came to the Table.
      Mr. Speaker: I understand that there is to be a statement by one of the Tellers.
      Mr. George Gardiner: In the "No" Lobby, Mr. Speaker, there is a dispute between the Tellers over the counting procedure, so we have halted counting and we are not in a position to complete it.
      Mr. Speaker: Under those circumstances I shall put the Question again and call the Division a second time.
      Question again put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 357.

      Division No. 142]

      [10.16 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Cockeram, Eric

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cormack, Patrick

      Alexander, Richard

      Corrie, John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

      Crouch, David

      Atkins, Robert (Presfon N)

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

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

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Dover, Denshore

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Eggar, Tim

      Blackburn, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Blaker, Peter

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Farr, John

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bright, Graham

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

      Brinton, Tim

      Fry, Peter

      Brotherton, Michael

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Gorst, John

      Butcher, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Grieve, Percy

      Cant, R. B.

      Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'dis)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Grylls, Michael

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Hannám, John

      683

      Hastings, Stephen

      Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Hawksley, Warren

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Heddle, John

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Henderson, Barry

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Hicks, Robert

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hill, James

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)

      Roberts, Albert(Normanton)

      Holland, Philip(Carlton)

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rost, Peter

      Jessel, Toby

      Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)

      Kaberry, SirDonald

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Shepherd, Richard

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Silvester, Fred

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Sims, Roger

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Lang, Ian

      Smith, Dudley

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

      Latham, Michael

      Speller, Tony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Spence, John

      Lee, John

      Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)

      LeMarchant, Spencer

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Sproat, Iain

      Loveridge, John

      Stainton, Keith

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Stanbrook, lvor

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Stanley, John

      McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

      Steen, Anthony

      McQuade, John

      Stevens, Martin

      Marland, Paul

      Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

      Marlow, Antony

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mates, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Mather, Carol

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mawby, Ray

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Mills, Iain(Meriden)

      Thompson, Donald

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Thorne, Neil(IlfordSouth)

      Molyneaux, James

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Trippier, David

      Moore, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Morgan, Geraint

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Viggers, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Wakeham, John

      Murphy, Christopher

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Neubert, Michael

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Normanton, Tom

      Ward, John

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Warren, Kenneth

      Osborn, John

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Wilkinson, John

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Parris, Matthew

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Wolfson, Mark

      Pawsey, James

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Mr. George Gardiner and

      Pollock, Alexander

      Mr. Marcus Fox.

      Porter, Barry

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Adams, Allen

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Allaun, Frank

      Beith, A.J.

      Alton, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Bennett, Andrew(St'kp'tN)

      Ancram, Michael

      Benyon, Thomas (A 'don)

      Anderson, Donald

      Benyon.W.(Buckingham)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Best, Keith

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ashton, Joe

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Atkinson, N.(H'gey)

      Body, Richard

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Baker, Kenneth (Sf.M'bone)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Banks, Robert

      Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

      684

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Flannery, Martin

      Bradley, Tom

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ford, Ben

      Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

      Forman, Nigel

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

      Forrester, John

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Foster, Derek

      Buchan, Norman

      Foulkes, George

      Buck, Antony

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      Budgen, Nick

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Freud, Clement

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n&P)

      Garrett, John (NorwichS)

      Campbell, Ian

      George, Bruce

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Ginsburg, David

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

      Golding, John

      Carmichael, Neil

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Gow, Ian

      Cartwright, John

      Graham, Ted

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Grist, Ian

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Coleman, Donald

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Hardy, Peter

      Conlan, Bernard

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Cook, Robin F.

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Cope, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Cowans, Harry

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cox, T. (W'dsw't h, Toot'g)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Haynes, Frank

      Critchley, Julian

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Crowther, Stan

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Cryer, Bob

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cunningham, G.(IslingtonS)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

      Cunningham, Dr J.(W'h'n)

      Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Home Robertson, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Homewood, William

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hooley, Frank

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hooson, Tom

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Horam, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Hordern, Peter

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Dewar, Donald

      Howells, Geraint

      Dixon, Donald

      Huckfield, Les

      Dobson, Frank

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Dormand, Jack

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Douglas, Dick

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Dunn, James A.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Dykes, Hugh

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)

      Eadie, Alex

      John, Brynmor

      Eastham, Ken

      JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Edwards, R. (W'hampt'nSE)

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      English, Michael

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Kerr, Russell

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Ewing, Harry

      Kinnock, Neil

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Knox, David

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lambie, David

      Field, Frank

      Lamborn, Harry

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lamond, James

      Fitch, Alan

      Lamont, Norman

      Fitt, Gerard

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      685

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Race, Reg

      Leighton, Ronald

      Radice, Giles

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Renton, Tim

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Litherland, Robert

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Richardson, Jo

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Luce, Richard

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Robertson, George

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Rooker, J. W.

      MacGregor, John

      Roper, John

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Rossi, Hugh

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Rowlands, Ted

      McKelvey, William

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Maclennan, Robert

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Sandelson, Neville

      McNally, Thomas

      Scott, Nicholas

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sever, John

      McTaggart, Robert

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Madel, David

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Magee, Bryan

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Major, John

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Marks, Kenneth

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. (Dulwich)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Silverman, Julius

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Snape, Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mellor, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Squire, Robin

      Mikardo, Ian

      Stallard, A. W.

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Stoddart, David

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Stott, Roger

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Strang, Gavin

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Straw, Jack

      Moate, Roger

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Morton, George

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

      Myles, David

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Needham, Richard

      Tilley, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tinn, James

      Newens, Stanley

      Torney, Tom

      Newton, Tony

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Ogden, Eric

      Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Park, George

      Waller, Gary

      Parker, John

      Walters, Dennis

      Parry, Robert

      Watkins, David

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Wells, Bowen

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Welsh, Michael

      Penhaligon, David

      Wheeler, John

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      White, Frank R.

      Pitt, William Henry

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

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

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Whitlock, William

      Price, (Lewisham W)

      Wickenden, Keith

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      686

      Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      (Crosby)

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Alfred Dubs and

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Mr. John Maxton.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of any remaining new clauses relating to capital punishment selected by MR. SPEAKER which might be brought up.

    New Clause 19

      DEATH PENALTY FOR TERRORISM INVOLVING LOSS OF LIFE
      'As from 1st January 1983, the penalty of capital punishment shall be available to the courts as the penalty for act of terrorism involving the loss of human life.'.—[Mr. Bendall.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 332.

      Division No. 143]

      [10.29 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Dunnett, Jack

      Alexander, Richard

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Ancram, Michael

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Arnold, Tom

      Eyre, Reginald

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

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

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Farr, John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fry, Peter

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Blackburn, John

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Blaker, Peter

      Gorst, John

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gow, Ian

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gray, Hamish

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Greenway, Harry

      Braine, Sir Bernard

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

      Bright, Graham

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Brinton, Tim

      Grylls, Michael

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hannam, John

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hastings, Stephen

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Butcher, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Hawksley, Warren

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

      Heddle, John

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Hicks, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hill, James

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grth'm)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Hooson, Tom

      Cockeram, Eric

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Cope, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Corrie, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Crouch, David

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Dover, Denshore

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      687

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Lang, Ian

      Rost, Peter

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Latham, Michael

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lee, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      LeMarchant, Spencer

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Smith, Dudley

      Luce, Richard

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

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Speed, Keith

      MacGregor, John

      Speller, Tony

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Spence, John

      McQuade, John

      Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)

      Marland, Paul

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Marlow, Antony

      Sproat, Iain

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Stainton, Keith

      Mather, Carol

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mawby, Ray

      Stanley, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Steen, Anthony

      Mellor, David

      Stevens, Martin

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Moate, Roger

      Stokes, John

      Molyneaux, James

      Tapsell, Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Moore, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Morgan, Geraint

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Thompson, Donald

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Thorne, Neil (IlfordSouth)

      Mudd, David

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Murphy, Christopher

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Neubert, Michael

      Trippier, David

      Normanton, Tom

      Trotter, Neville

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Viggers, Peter

      Osborn, John

      Waddington, David

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Wakeham, John

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Wall.Sir Patrick

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Ward, John

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Warren, Kenneth

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Wells, Bowen

      Pink, R.Bonner

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Whitney, Raymond

      Porter, Barry

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Wilkinson, John

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Wolfson, Mark

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Mr. George Gardiner and

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Mr.Marcus Fox.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Adams, Allen

      Best, Keith

      Allaun, Frank

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Alton, David

      Body, Richard

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Anderson, Donald

      Boothroyd, M iss Betty

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bottomley.Rt Hon (M'b'ro)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Ashton, Joe

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Atkins, Robert (PrestonN)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Bagier, Gordon AT.

      Brown, R. C (N'castle W)

      Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

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

      Banks, Robert

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Barnett.Guy (Greenwich)

      Buchan, Norman

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Buck, Antony

      Beith, A.J.

      Budgen, Nick

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      688

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd''t'n&P)

      Ginsburg, David

      Campbell, Ian

      Golding, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Canavan, Dennis

      Graham, Ted

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Grimond.Rt Hon J.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Grist, Ian

      Cartwright, John

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Channon.Rt. Hon. Paul

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Hardy, Peter

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Coleman, Donald

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Cook, Robin F.

      Haynes, Frank

      Cowans, Harry

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Crowther, Stan

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Cryer, Bob

      Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Holland.S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

      Cunningham, G (Islington S)

      Home Robertson, John

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Homewood, William

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hooley, Frank

      Davidson, Arthur

      Horam, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Hi)

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Howells, Geraint

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Huckfield, Les

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Deakins, Eric

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Dewar, Donald

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Dixon, Donald

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Dobson, Frank

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Dormand, Jack

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillhead)

      Douglas, Dick

      John, Brynmor

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Dunn, James A.

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Dunwoody, Hon MrsG.

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Eadie, Alex

      Kerr, Russell

      Eastham, Ken

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

      Knox, David

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lambie, David

      Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Lamond, James

      English, Michael

      Lamont, Norman

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Ewing, Harry

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Field, Frank

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Litherland, Robert

      Fitch, Alan

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Fitt, Gerard

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Flannery, Martin

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McCartney, Hugh

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Ford, Ben

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Forman, Nigel

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Forrester, John

      McKelvey, William

      Foster, Derek

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Foulkes, George

      Maclennan, Robert

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Freud, Clement

      McNally, Thomas

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McTaggart, Robert

      George, Bruce

      McWilliam, John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Madel, David

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Magee, Bryan

      689

      Major, John

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Penhaligon, David

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Pitt, William Henry

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (SDown)

      Meacher, Michael

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Mellish.Rt Hon Robert

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Miller, DrM.S. (E Kilbride)

      Race, Reg

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Radice, Giles

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Renton, Tim

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Morton, George

      Richardson, Jo

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Myles, David

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Needham, Richard

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Robertson, George

      Newens, Stanley

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Newton, Tony

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Rooker, J. W.

      Ogden, Eric

      Roper, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Rossi, Hugh

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Rowlands, Ted

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Park, George

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Parker, John

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Parry, Robert

      Sandelson, Neville

      Scott, Nicholas

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Sever, John

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Shersby, Michael

      Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Waller, Gary

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Walters, Dennis

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Watkins, David

      Silverman, Julius

      Watson, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wellbeloved, James

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Welsh, Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Wheeler, John

      Soley, Clive

      White, Frank R.

      Spearing, Nigel

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Squire, Robin

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Stallard, A.W.

      Whitlock, William

      Stoddart, David

      Wickenden, Keith

      Stott, Roger

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Strang, Gavin

      Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

      Straw, Jack

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Winnick, David

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Tilley, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tinn, James

      Mr. Alfred Dubs and

      Torney, Tom

      Mr.John Maxton.

      Question accordingly negatived

    New Clause 20

      DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER BY FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES
      'As from 1st January 1983, the penalty of capital punishment shall be available to the courts as the penalty for murder by means of firearms or explosives.'.—[Mr. Bendall.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 343.

      Division No. 144]

      [10.41 p m

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Hawkins, Paul

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Hawksley, Warren

      Alexander, Richard

      Heddle, John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Henderson, Barry

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Hicks, Robert

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

      Hill, James

      Bendail, Vivian

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Hooson, Tom

      Blackburn, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Blaker, Peter

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Jessel, Toby

      Bowden, Andrew

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Brinton, Tim

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Brotherton, Michael

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Lang, Ian

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Butcher, John

      Latham, Michael

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Lee, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Loveridge, John

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      McCusker, H.

      Cockeram, Eric

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Colvin, Michael

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Corrie, John

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

      Costain, Sir Albert

      McQuade, John

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Marland, Paul

      Crouch, David

      Marlow, Antony

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Mather, Carol

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Mawby, Ray

      Dover, Denshore

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Eggar, Tim

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Eyre, Reginald

      Moore, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Morgan, Geraint

      Farr, John

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      Mudd, David

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Murphy, Christopher

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

      Neubert, Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Normanton, Tom

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Osborn, John

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Gorst, John

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Gray, Hamish

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Grieve, Percy

      Pawsey, James

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Grylls, Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Hannam, John

      Porter, Barry

      Hastings, Stephen

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      692

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Thompson, Donald

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Trippier, David

      Rost, Peter

      Trotter, Neville

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shepherd, Richard

      Waddington, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Smith, Dudley

      Ward, John

      Speller, Tony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Spence, John

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sproat, Iain

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Stevens, Martin

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Stokes, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mr. George Gardiner

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mr. Marcus Fox.

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Adams, Allen

      Coleman, Donald

      Allaun, Frank

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Alton, David

      Conlan, Bernard

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cook, Robin F.

      Ancram, Michael

      Cope, John

      Anderson, Donald

      Cormack, Patrick

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cowans, Harry

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

      Ashton, Joe

      Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

      Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Crowther, Stan

      Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone,)

      Cryer, Bob

      Banks, Robert

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Beith, A. J.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Davidson, Arthur

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Best, Keith

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Deakins, Eric

      Body, Richard

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dewar, Donald

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Dixon, Donald

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Dobson, Frank

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dormand, Jack

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brocklebank-Fowler,

      Douglas, Dick

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Brown, R. C (N'castle W)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

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

      Dunn, James A.

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Buchan, Norman

      Dykes, Hugh

      Buck, Antony

      Eadie, Alex

      Budgen, Nick

      Eastham, Ken

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Elliott, Sir William

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

      Campbell, Ian

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      English, Michael

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Evans, John (Newton)

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

      Ewing, Harry

      Carmichael, Neil

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Faulds, Andrew

      Cartwright, John

      Field, Frank

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Fitch, Alan

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Flannery, Martin

      693

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Litherland, Robert

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Forman, Nigel

      Luce, Richard

      Forrester, John

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Foster, Derek

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Foulkes, George

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Freud, Clement

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      McKelvey, William

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      George, Bruce

      Maclennan, Robert

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Ginsburg, David

      McNally, Thomas

      Golding, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McTaggart, Robert

      Gow, Ian

      McWilliam, John

      Graham, Ted

      Madel, David

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Magee, Bryan

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Major, John

      Grist, Ian

      Marks, Kenneth

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Hardy, Peter

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Mates, Michael

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Meacher, Michael

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mellor, David

      Haynes, Frank

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Mikardo, Ian

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

      Mitchell, R.(Soton Itchen)

      Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

      Moate, Roger

      Home Robertson, John

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Homewood, William

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Horam, John

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Morton, George

      Howells, Geraint

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Huckfield, Les

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Myles, David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Needham, Richard

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Newens, Stanley

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Newton, Tony

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Ogden, Eric

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Neill, Martin

      (Hillhead)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      John, Brynmor

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Park, George

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Parker, John

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Parry, Robert

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Kerr, Russell

      Penhaligon, David

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Kinnock, Neil

      Pitt, William Henry

      Knox, David

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

      Lambie, David

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Lamond, James

      Price, (Lewisham W)

      Lamont, Norman

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Leighton, Ronald

      Race, Reg

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Radice, Giles

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rathbone, Tim

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      694

      Renton, Tim

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Richardson, Jo

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Tilley, John

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Tinn, James

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Torney, Tom

      Robertson, George

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wakeham, John

      Roper, John

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Rossi, Hugh

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Walters, Dennis

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Watkins, David

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wellbeloved, James

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wells, Bowen

      Sever, John

      Welsh, Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wheeler, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      White, Frank R.

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C (Dulwich)

      Whitlock, William

      Silverman, Julius

      Wickenden, Keith

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs

      Spearing, Nigel

      (Crosby)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Squire, Robin

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Winnick, David

      Stoddart, David

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Stott, Roger

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Strang, Gavin

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Straw, Jack

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Mr. Alfred Dubs and

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 21

      DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER OF POLICE AND PRISON OFFICERS
      'As from 1st January 1983, the penalty of capital punishment shall be available to the courts as the penalty for murder of a police or prison officer.'.—[Mr. Bendall.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The House divided:Ayes 208, Noes 332.

      Division No. 144]

      [10.41 p m

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Hawkins, Paul

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Hawksley, Warren

      Alexander, Richard

      Heddle, John

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Henderson, Barry

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Hicks, Robert

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

      Hill, James

      Bendail, Vivian

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Hooson, Tom

      Blackburn, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Blaker, Peter

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Jessel, Toby

      Bowden, Andrew

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Brinton, Tim

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Brotherton, Michael

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Lang, Ian

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Butcher, John

      Latham, Michael

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Lee, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Churchill, W. S.

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Loveridge, John

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      McCusker, H.

      Cockeram, Eric

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Colvin, Michael

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Corrie, John

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

      Costain, Sir Albert

      McQuade, John

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Marland, Paul

      Crouch, David

      Marlow, Antony

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Mather, Carol

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Mawby, Ray

      Dover, Denshore

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Eggar, Tim

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Eyre, Reginald

      Moore, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Morgan, Geraint

      Farr, John

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      Mudd, David

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Murphy, Christopher

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

      Neubert, Michael

      Fry, Peter

      Normanton, Tom

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Nott, Rt Hon John

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Osborn, John

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Gorst, John

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Gray, Hamish

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Grieve, Percy

      Pawsey, James

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Grylls, Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Hannam, John

      Porter, Barry

      Hastings, Stephen

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      692

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Thompson, Donald

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Trippier, David

      Rost, Peter

      Trotter, Neville

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shepherd, Richard

      Waddington, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Smith, Dudley

      Ward, John

      Speller, Tony

      Warren, Kenneth

      Spence, John

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Sproat, Iain

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Stevens, Martin

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Stokes, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mr. George Gardiner

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mr. Marcus Fox.

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Adams, Allen

      Coleman, Donald

      Allaun, Frank

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Alton, David

      Conlan, Bernard

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cook, Robin F.

      Ancram, Michael

      Cope, John

      Anderson, Donald

      Cormack, Patrick

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Cowans, Harry

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

      Ashton, Joe

      Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

      Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Crowther, Stan

      Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone,)

      Cryer, Bob

      Banks, Robert

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Beith, A. J.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Davidson, Arthur

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Best, Keith

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Deakins, Eric

      Body, Richard

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dewar, Donald

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Dixon, Donald

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Dobson, Frank

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dormand, Jack

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Brocklebank-Fowler,

      Douglas, Dick

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Brown, R. C (N'castle W)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

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

      Dunn, James A.

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Buchan, Norman

      Dykes, Hugh

      Buck, Antony

      Eadie, Alex

      Budgen, Nick

      Eastham, Ken

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Elliott, Sir William

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

      Campbell, Ian

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      English, Michael

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Evans, John (Newton)

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

      Ewing, Harry

      Carmichael, Neil

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Faulds, Andrew

      Cartwright, John

      Field, Frank

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Fitch, Alan

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Flannery, Martin

      693

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Litherland, Robert

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Forman, Nigel

      Luce, Richard

      Forrester, John

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Foster, Derek

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Foulkes, George

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Freud, Clement

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      McKelvey, William

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      George, Bruce

      Maclennan, Robert

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Ginsburg, David

      McNally, Thomas

      Golding, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Goodlad, Alastair

      McTaggart, Robert

      Gow, Ian

      McWilliam, John

      Graham, Ted

      Madel, David

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Magee, Bryan

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Major, John

      Grist, Ian

      Marks, Kenneth

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Hardy, Peter

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Mates, Michael

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Meacher, Michael

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mellor, David

      Haynes, Frank

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Mikardo, Ian

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

      Mitchell, R.(Soton Itchen)

      Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

      Moate, Roger

      Home Robertson, John

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Homewood, William

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Horam, John

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Morton, George

      Howells, Geraint

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Huckfield, Les

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Myles, David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Needham, Richard

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Newens, Stanley

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Newton, Tony

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Ogden, Eric

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy

      O'Neill, Martin

      (Hillhead)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      John, Brynmor

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Park, George

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Parker, John

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Parry, Robert

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Kerr, Russell

      Penhaligon, David

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Kinnock, Neil

      Pitt, William Henry

      Knox, David

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

      Lambie, David

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Lamond, James

      Price, (Lewisham W)

      Lamont, Norman

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Leighton, Ronald

      Race, Reg

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Radice, Giles

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rathbone, Tim

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      694

      Renton, Tim

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Richardson, Jo

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Tilley, John

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Tinn, James

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Torney, Tom

      Robertson, George

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Wakeham, John

      Roper, John

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Rossi, Hugh

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Walters, Dennis

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Watkins, David

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wellbeloved, James

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wells, Bowen

      Sever, John

      Welsh, Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wheeler, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      White, Frank R.

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C (Dulwich)

      Whitlock, William

      Silverman, Julius

      Wickenden, Keith

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Snape, Peter

      Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs

      Spearing, Nigel

      (Crosby)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Squire, Robin

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Winnick, David

      Stoddart, David

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Stott, Roger

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Strang, Gavin

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Straw, Jack

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Mr. Alfred Dubs and

      Divsion No. 145]

      [10.54 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bowden, Andrew

      Alexander, Richard

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Arnold, Tom

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bright, Graham

      Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

      Brinton, Tim

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Brotherton, Michael

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

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Banks, Robert

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Bendall, Vivian

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Butcher, John

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Blackburn, John

      Cant, R. B.

      Blaker, Peter

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      695

      Channon.Rt. Hon. Paul

      Mather, Carol

      Chapman, Sydney

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

      Churchill, W.S.

      Mawby, Ray

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Cockeram, Eric

      Mellor, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Corrie, John

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Moate, Roger

      Crouch, David

      Molyneaux, James

      Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

      Monro, SirHector

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Moore, John

      Dover, Denshore

      Morgan, Geraint

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Mudd, David

      Dunnett, Jack

      Murphy, Christopher

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Neubert Michael

      Eggar, Tim

      Normanton, Tom

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Osborn, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Farr, John

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Fell, Sir Anthony

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

      Fox, Marcus

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Fry, Peter

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Gardiner, George(Reigate)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Gorst, John

      Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Gray, Hamish

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Grieve, Percy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

      Rost, Peter

      Grylls, Michael

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Hannam, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hawkins, Paul

      Shersby, Michael

      Hawksley, Warren

      Silvester, Fred

      Heddle, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Henderson, Barry

      Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)

      Hicks, Robert

      Smith, Dudley

      Hill, James

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

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Speed, Keith

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Speller, Tony

      Hooson, Tom

      Spence, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Spicer, Michael (SWorcs)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Jessel, Toby

      Sproat, Iain

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Stanley, John

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Steen, Anthony

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Stevens, Martin

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Lang, Ian

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Latham, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Lee, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Thompson, Donald

      Loveridge, John

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      McCusker, H.

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      MacGregor, John

      Trippier, David

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Trotter, Neville

      McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      McQuade, John

      Vaughan Dr Gerard

      Marland, Paul

      Waddington, David

      Marlow, Antony

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      696

      Ward, John

      Williams, D. (Montgomery)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Watson, John

      Wolfson, Mark

      Wells, Bowen

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Whitney, Raymond

      Mr. J. F. Pawsey and

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Mr.Peter Viggers.

      Wilkinson, John

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Adams, Allen

      Dewar, Donald

      Allaun, Frank

      Dixon, Donald

      Alton, David

      Dobson, Frank

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Dormand, Jack

      Ancram, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Anderson, Donald

      Douglas, Dick

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Dunn, James A.

      Ashton, Joe

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bagier, Gordon A.T.

      Eadie, Alex

      Baker, Kenneth (St. M' bone)

      Eastham, Ken

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Elliott, Sir William

      Beith, A. J.

      Ellis, R (NE D 'bysh 're)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Bennett, Andrew (St 'kp' tN)

      English, Michael

      Benyon, Thomas (A' don)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Best, Keith

      Ewing, Harry

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Body, Richard

      Faulds, Andrew

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Field, Frank

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (W 'wich W)

      Fitch, Alan

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Flannery, Martin

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Forman, Nigel

      Buchan, Norman

      Forrester, John

      Buck, Antony

      Foster, Derek

      Budgen, Nick

      Foulkes, George

      Callaghan Rt Hon J.

      Fraser, J. (Lamb 'th, N'w'd)

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd'tn & P)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Campbell, Ian

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Freud, Clement

      Canavan, Dennis

      Garel-Jones Tristan

      Carlisle, Kenneth

      Garrett, John (NorwichS)

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

      George, Bruce

      Carmichael Neil

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Cartwright, John

      Ginsburg, David

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Golding, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Gow, Ian

      Coleman, Donald

      Graham, Ted

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Cook, Robin F.

      Grist, Ian

      Cope, John

      Gummer John Selwyn

      Cowans, Harry

      Hamilton James (Bothwell)

      Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

      Hardy, Peter

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Crowther, Stan

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Cryer, Bob

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cunningham, G (Islington S)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Cunningham, Dr J.(W 'h' n)

      Haynes, Frank

      Dalyell, Tam

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Davidson, Arthur

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

      Deakins, Eric

      Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

      697

      Home Robertson, John

      Morton, George

      Homewood, William

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Hooley, Frank

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Horam, John

      Myles, David

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Needham, Richard

      Howells, Geraint

      Nelson, Anthony

      Huckfield, Les

      Newens, Stanley

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Newton, Tony

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Ogden, Eric

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Janner, Hon Greville

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Park, George

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

      Parker, John

      John, Brynmor

      Parry, Robert

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Pitt, William Henry

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

      Kerr, Russell

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Kinnock, Neil

      Price, (Lewisham W)

      Knox, David

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Lambie, David

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Lamborn, Harry

      Race, Reg

      Lamond, James

      Radice, Giles

      Lamont, Norman

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rathbone, Tim

      Leighton, Ronald

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Renton, Tim

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Richardson, Jo

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Litherland, Robert

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Robertson, George

      Luce, Richard

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Roper, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Rossi, Hugh

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Rowlands, Ted

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      McKelvey, William

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Sandelson, Neville

      Maclennan, Robert

      Scott, Nicholas

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Sever, John

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      Sheerman, Barry

      McNally, Thomas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McTaggart, Robert

      Short, Mrs Renée

      McWilliam, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Madel, David

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. (Dulwich)

      Magee, Bryan

      Silverman, Julius

      Major, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marks, Kenneth

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Snape, Peter

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Squire, Robin

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stallard, A. W.

      Meacher, Michael

      Stoddart, David

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Strang, Gavin

      Mikardo, Ian

      Straw, Jack

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Miller, DrM. S. (E Kilbride)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Mitchell, R. (Soton Itchen)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Tilley, John

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Tinn, James

      698

      Torney, Tom

      Whitlock, William

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Wickenden, Keith

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Wakeham, John

      Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs

      Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

      (Crosby)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Waller, Gary

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Walters, Dennis

      Winnick, David

      Watkins, David

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Wellbeloved, James

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Welsh, Michael

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Wheeler, John

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      White, Frank R.

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mr. Alfred Dubs and

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Mr.John Maxton.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 27

      DEATH PENALTY FOR MURDER IN COURSE OF ROBBERY AND BURGLARY WITH OFFENSIVE WEAPONS
      'As form 1st January 1983 the penalty of capital punishment shall be available to the courts as the penalty for murder in the course of robbery and burglary which involves the use of offensive weapons.'.—[Mr. Teddy Taylor.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 331.

      Division No. 146]

      [11 07 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Fox, Marcus

      Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

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

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Goodhew, Sir Victor

      Blackburn, John

      Gorst, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Gray, Hamish

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Grieve, Percy

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Grylls, Michael

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Brinton, Tim

      Hannam, John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Heddle, John

      Burden, Sir Frederick

      Hicks, Robert

      Butcher, John

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Carlisle, John (Luton West)

      Hooson, Tom

      Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

      Jessel, Toby

      Clegg, Sir Walter

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Cockeram, Eric

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Corrie, John

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Crouch, David

      Lang, Ian

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Latham, Michael

      Dover, Denshore

      Lawrence, Ivan

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Lee, John

      Dunnett, Jack

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Eggar, Tim

      Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Loveridge, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      McCusker, H.

      Farr, John

      McQuade, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Marland, Paul

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Marlow, Antony

      699

      Mather, Carol

      Smith, Dudley

      Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

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

      Mawby, Ray

      Speller, Tony

      Mawhinney, DrBrian

      Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Miller, Hal (B'grove)

      Sproat Iain

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Stainton, Keith

      Molyneaux, James

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Monro.Sir Hector

      Stevens, Martin

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Mudd, David

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Murphy, Christopher

      Thompson, Donald

      Neubert, Michael

      Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

      Normanton, Tom

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Osborn, John

      Townend, John(Bridlington)

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Trippier, David

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Trotter, Neville

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Vaughan, DrGerard

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Waddington, David

      Pink, R.Bonner

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Pollock, Alexander

      Wall, Sir Patrick

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Ward, John

      Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wells, Bowen

      Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Rost, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Shaw, Michael (Scanborough)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Shepherd, Richard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shersby, Michael

      Silvester, Fred

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Mr. J. F. Pawsey and

      Smith.Cyril (Rochdale)

      Mr.Peter Viggers.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Adams, Allen

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

      Allaun, Frank

      Carmichael, Neil

      Alton, David

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Cartwright, John

      Ancram, Michael

      Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

      Anderson, Donald

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Ashton, Joe

      Coleman, Donald

      Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)

      Colvin, Michael

      Bagier.GordonA.T.

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Banks, Robert

      Cook, Robin F.

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cope, John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

      Cowans, Harry

      Beith, A. J.

      Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot 'g)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Benyon, Thomas (A 'don)

      Crowther, Stan

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Cryer, Bob

      Best, Keith

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cunningham, G. (IslingtonS)

      Body, Richard

      Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dalyell, Tam

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Davidson, Arthur

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

      Deakins.Eric

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

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

      Dewar, Donald

      Buchan, Norman

      Dixon, Donald

      Buck, Antony

      Dobson, Frank

      Budgen, Nick

      Dormand, Jack

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

      Douglas, Dick

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      Campbell, Ian

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Dunn, James A.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      700

      Eadie, Alex

      Knox, David

      Eastham, Ken

      Lambie, David

      Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lamond, James

      Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)

      Lamont, Norman

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Leighton, Ronald

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Ewing, Harry

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Field, Frank

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Flannery, Martin

      Litherland, Robert

      Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Luce, Richard

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Forrester, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Foster, Derek

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Foulkes, George

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Fraser, J. (Lamb'th.N'w'd)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      McKelvey, William

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Freud, Clement

      Maclennan, Robert

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

      George, Bruce

      McNally, Thomas

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      McTaggart, Robert

      Ginsburg, David

      McWilliam, John

      Golding, John

      Madel, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Magee, Bryan

      Gow, Ian

      Major, John

      Graham, Ted

      Marks, Kenneth

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Grist, Ian

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Gummer, JohnSelwyn

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Meacher, Michael

      Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Hardy, Peter

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Mikardo, Ian

      Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Miller, Dr M.S. (E Kilbride)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Mitchell, Austin(Grimsby)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mitchell, R. (Soton Itchen)

      Haynes, Frank

      Moate, Roger

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire)

      Morton, George

      Holland, S. (L'b'th.Vauxh'll)

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Home Robertson, John

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Homewood, William

      Myles, David

      Hooley, Frank

      Needham, Richard

      Horam, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Howell, Rt Hon D.

      Newens, Stanley

      Howells, Geraint

      Newton, Tony

      Huckfield, Les

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Ogden, Eric

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Janner.Hon Greville

      Park, George

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Parker, John

      Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

      Parry, Robert

      John, Brynmor

      Patten, Christopher (Bath)

      Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

      Penhaligon, David

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Pitt, William Henry

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

      Kerr, Russell

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Kilroy-Silk.Robert

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Kinnock, Neil

      Price, (Lewisham W)

      701

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Straw, Jack

      Race, Reg

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Radice, Giles

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Renton, Tim

      Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Tilley, John

      Richardson, Jo

      Tinn, James

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Torney, Tom

      Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

      Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

      Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

      Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

      Robertson, George

      Wakeham, John

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Waldegrave, Hon William

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

      Roper, John

      Waller, Gary

      Rossi, Hugh

      Walters, Dennis

      Rowlands, Ted

      Watkins, David

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Wellbeloved, James

      St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

      Welsh, Michael

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wheeler, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      White, Frank R.

      Sever, John

      White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Whitlock, William

      Short, Mrs Renée

      Wickenden, Keith

      Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Silverman, Julius

      Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)

      Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Snape, Peter

      Wilson, William (C'try SE)

      Soley, Clive

      Winnick, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Woolmer, Kenneth

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Squire, Robin

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Young, Sir George(Acton)

      Stoddart, David

      Stott, Roger

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mr. Alfrd Dubs and

      Strang, Gavin

      Mr.John Maxton.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.— [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

  Town and Country Planning
  11.20 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move,
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 19th April, be approved.
  I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the Scottish motion,
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.
  These amending regulations, which are laid under powers contained in section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, provide for a number of changes to the fees scheme introduced in April last year. Those changes reflect our, necessarily limited, experience of the operation of fees, and respond to a number of representations from hon. Members and others that the scheme contains unintentional injustices and anomalies. We are also closing a few loopholes. We are therefore making a quick response to certain specific problems. The amending regulations are thus a discharge of my undertaking to review the scheme during its first year of operation but, given the relative novelty of the lees scheme, we have thought it right to confine changes this year to minor adjustments and alterations. Major changes at this stage would, in our view, involve disruption and upheaval on a scale that would not be justified.
  But we propose—I shall return to the point—a much more fundamental review during the year. Against that background, we are also proposing a modest across-the-board increase of 10 per cent. in the levels of all fees, with scale maxima going up by the same amount.
  There is a conflict between simplicity and equity in any system of charges, and the fees regulations are therefore characterised by some complexity. I hope that we can in due course diminish that complexity. Although there have been some difficulties about interpretation and application, especially in the period immediately after the introduction of fees, it is our impression that the scheme has on the whole worked reasonably smoothly and reasonably well.
  I wish to pay tribute to the local planning authorities which have handled the new scheme. I would not pretend that people like paying fees—it would be very odd if they did—but it seems to have been grudgingly accepted that the users of the development control system should make a contribution towards its not inconsiderable costs.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Can my hon. Friend tell us how much money will be raised?
  Mr. Shaw: That reference will be made in due course.
  The 1981 regulations sought to achieve three main objectives—a fair balance of fees between different categories of development, levels of fees which reflected in broad terms the costs to planning authorities of processing different sorts of applications and levels of fees which did not have the effect of discouraging development. Although the 1981 regulations went some considerable way towards achieving those three objectives, I would not pretend that they have in practice fully met each of them. That is why we have laid the amending

  703
  regulations. It may be for the convenience of the House if I now briefly summarise the main changes embodied in the amending regulations. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I occasionally touch on rather complex and technical matters.
  As I have said, the amending regulations provide for a modest increase of 10 per cent. in the levels of fees, with scale maxima going up pro rata. Although there have been suggestions that the increases should be larger—some people have suggested over 50 per cent.—we concluded that it would be unjustifiable to go for any larger increase than one which would keep fees roughly constant in real terms. Fees are a comparatively recent innovation, and it would not be right at this early stage to make them considerably higher in real terms.
  I turn now to the detailed changes in the fees scheme. We have received a number of representations, not least from hon. Members, that the fees regulations bite hard on large but low-cost agricultural buildings. Although the levels of fees are related to processing costs rather than the costs of the proposed development itself, and agricultural buildings up to 465 sq m are generally a permitted development under class VI of the General Development Order, we have thought it right to respond to those representations.
  The amending regulations therefore provide that, for those agricultural buildings which do require planning permission, the first 465 sq m will be discounted when it comes to calculating fees. In my view, that is a substantial concession. It seeks to strike a fairer balance between the costs of processing applications for what can often be large and obtrusive developments in the countryside and the interests of the agricultural community.
  The National Farmers Union has made representations to me that there should be further concessions in particular to glasshouse growers. I have received a letter, which no doubt hon. Members on both sides have also received, from the chairman of the parliamentary committee of the National Farmers Union, in the opening paragraph of which he states:
  "I should like to express our thanks in the light of our previous representations for proposing a special category for agricultural buildings whereby the majority of farmers should have their planning fees almost halved."
  That is correct and it is a considerable reduction. I believe that all those in agriculture will be glad that that change has been made. However, the chairman goes on to a particular question about the glasshouse grower and refers to the differences in benefit from the lower development of half an acre or less and those of the 1 acre development or more.
  I have to accept that the calculations show that the benefit is greater for the smaller than for the larger development, but the comparison between the half-acre cost that is quoted under the new draft regulation, a saving of some 19 per cent., would have been about 28 per cent. had the 10 per cent. increase in fees been taken into account. I must also point out that the 6 per cent. increase in payment on the larger building is really a net benefit of 4 per cent. again when the 10 per cent. increase in all charges is taken into consideration.
  There are substantial benefits to the glasshouse grower in the revised regulations before the House. I have no doubt, however, that this will provide hon. Members—I
  704
  know some of my hon. Friends are already of this opinion—with the view that more should be done for horticulture. I therefore give the House an undertaking that we will look at this issue again during the review which I mentioned.
  It was recently brought to our attention that the present regulations also contain a wholly unintended anomaly. It is that the fees category dealing with the subdivision of dwellings into flats has no upper limit. As a result, the developer proposing to subdivide three large blocks of vandalised flats in Liverpool, known as the "Piggeries"—I see the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) in his place—faced a fee of over £6,000. Although this may be a unique case, clearly action had to be taken to deal with it.
  In the amending regulations we have placed the same upper limit on this category of fee as on the category dealing with the erection of dwellings. At the same time, we are making some more technical changes in this category to ensure that the subdivision of warehouses and the like are treated in the same way as the subdivision of dwelling houses.
  An anomaly in the other direction was the treatment of waste disposal applications. At present applications for the disposal of waste to land attract a flat rate fee of £40, but it has become clear that complicated matters of this nature can involve a substantial amount of work for planning authorities. Therefore, the amending regulations recognise that fact by providing that waste disposal applications should be treated in the same way as those for the extraction of minerals, that is at a rate of £22 for each 0·1 hectare of the site area. That will have a maximum of £3,300.
  Those are three fairly substantial changes to the regulations. Others are more technical. Arrangements for charging for reserved matters are tightened up in the amending regulations, thus closing some loopholes. At present, it is possible to frame applications for outline permission in such a way as to include details of design and external appearance, thus ensuring that a subsequent detailed application attracts a low flat rate fee. Design and external appearance normally involve local authorities in a fair amount of work and hence costs, and that minor loopnole defeats one of the objectives of the fees scheme. We are therefore closing it.
  At the same time, we are extending the scope of the regulation dealing with reserved matters to cover cases where an appeal has been made to the Secretary of State under section 37 of the 1971 Act, and cases in which land has been added to the site covered by the earlier application to provide better access. We are also amending the wording of the regulations to tighten up the "free go" arrangements, under which one revised application is allowed free within 12 months.
  At this technical level, there are also two minor but useful improvements to the present arrangements for the payment of fees for the deemed planning application which arises from any enforcement appeal made to the Secretary of State. First, we cater for the situation where someone makes an enforcement appeal, and would normally be required to pay the appropriate fee for it, at a time when he is still waiting for the local planning authority's decision on a planning application for the development cited in the enforcement notice. In those

  705
  circumstances, it is obviously unfair to have to pay two fees, so the amending regulations introduce an exemption from the fee for the enforcement appeal.
  Mr. David Alton: Will the Minister say what will happen when two owners of a semidetached house decide to put in an application to the local authority for an extension which will benefit both occupiers in both portions of the semi-detached house? At present, they would pay two lots of fees. Will it be possible for them to make their application and for only one fee to be paid?
  Mr. Shaw: Without detailed knowledge of the case I can only say that it would depend upon whether they are two separate hereditaments involving two separate planning applications. If it is one extension, it will be one fee. If it is two extensions, one for each half of the semidetached property, it will require two planning applications.
  Second, we take account of a provision in the Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Act which followed the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). As a result of that Act, the Secretary of State now has a power to quash an enforcement notice, or to dismiss an enforcement appeal, in certain specified circumstances where procedural requirements are not carried out. When that happens, there is no consideration of the deemed planning application and it is therefore entirely appropriate to refund any fee already paid. The amending regulations provide accordingly.
  The amending regulations also contain some reorganisation and amendment of the schedules and other drafting amendments. The Scottish regulations are in most respects the same as those for England and Wales but have some minor differences to reflect different circumstances north of the border. The differences are a special rate of charge for the extraction of peat, a flat rate fee for all applications for express consent to the display of advertisements and a different approach to outline applications for single dwelling houses.
  As I said, we have not sought to make fundamental changes to the fees scheme. We have only limited experience of its operation, and major alterations in, for example, the incidence of fees would not be justified at this stage. However, we propose during this year to look again, and in much more depth, at the scheme and its details and at the way in which it treats different sorts of development. To that end, the Department will be seeking the views of interested parties.
  One issue that we will be examining with particular care is that of minor modifications to existing planning permissions. A number of examples have come our way of local authorities insisting on a fresh application—and therefore another fee—for quite minor changes. It is certainly not our intention that people should be charged twice in that way. We will also be looking at a number of other matters raised by the local authority associations, developers and others.
  I commend the new regulations to the House.
  Mr. Lawrence: I hope that my hon. Friend will not sit down before he answers my question.
  Mr. Shaw: I beg the pardon of my hon. and learned Friend. It is too early to estimate with complete confidence
  706
  the total income for 1981–82. We expect it to be in the range of £23 million to £25 million, but we cannot yet be certain.
  11.34 pm
  Mr. Ted Graham: We shall discuss not only the amendments in the regulations before us but the original regulations. In addition, we shall review the experiences of local councils and the Government's attitude and behaviour towards the regulations and, most importantly, towards the rate support grant. The question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about the moneys received is significant in that regard.
  As the Minister said, it is about 12 months since the original recommendations to introduce the principle of charging for planning applications came before the House. On that occasion, Opposition Members opposed the principle and we intend to oppose the principle of adding to those charges. In Committee, when the Government first mentioned this seemingly simple way of cutting public expenditure and of helping the Exchequer by making councils and applicants pay, it was said that about £30 million might be raised. Indeed, the Minister and I served on that Committee and I am glad to see other Committee members in their places tonight.
  When we met about 12 months ago the Government decided that the figure that might be raised was about £38 million. We were told that, consultations had taken place and that about £38 million could be raised. In discussing the rate support grant settlements for 1981–82, the Government then indicated to local authorities that they would assume that that was the type of figure that would be raised. My first charge against the Government is one of gross incompetence in estimating the income from fees.
  Although the Minister has given us a figure of £22 million to £25 million, the local authority associations have given us a figure of between £20 million and £22 million. As a result of incompetent estimating, local authorities have been placed in a difficult position. The councils have to make up their budgets. They have used a figure given to them by the Minister. There has been a global pre-emption of about £38 million. If that sum is not received, the charges cannot be increased and the Minister cannot be asked for more. As a result, if councils have assumed they would receive about £200,000 in fees but have received only £120,000, they will have to make up the £80,000 by an internal measure, perhaps affecting social services, education or bringing about the redundancy of one or two members of the planning department.
  The Government were far too eager about launching the scheme. They paid lip service to consultation. They were warned by local authority associations that the income that they had estimated was far too high. Therefore, our first charge is incompetence. Our second charge is that, not content with landing councils with a whopping shortfall, the Government have failed to take it into account when deciding on the allowance in the 1982–83 rate support grant. I accept that more than 12 months ago the Government were entitled to the benefit of the doubt in that they genuinely believed that a certain figure could be raised. However, as they moved towards the settlement for 1982–83, it became clear from the evidence that the Minister and I have received that the income was likely to be about £22 million to £25 million. In the figures

  707
  produced for 1982–83, the Government have written into the current rate support grant figure an estimate of £38 million. Even with the increase, there is likely to be an income of about £23 million, £24 million or £25 million. In two years, there has been a shortfall for authorities of about £27 million. That money has to be found by the councils. In our view, that is disgraceful.
  It is not as though the Government were not told that that was likely to happen. The three associations—the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—protested last year and again this year, when this year's settlement was proposed, but to no avail.
  The associations did not oppose the drafting regulations. I quote a letter that they sent me:
  "The three local authority Associations representing all local planning authorities in England and Wales welcome the drafting changes to the Regulations. However, we are concerned about the financial implications of the new scale of fees, which will involve continuing substantial losses for local authorities".
  I hope that the Minister will tell us what he intends to do, very late in the day, to redress that horrendous situation. The letter goes on:
  "In 2 years a total loss of £28·4 million will have been incurred and the Government has quite cynically and quietly imposed this added burden on local authorities."
  Whether or not that was intended, that is how the three authority associations see the situation.
  I level a third charge at the Government, and that is one of deceit. Even when they seek to impose this system of planning application charges, they deceive councils into believing that they will have an income that is palpably untrue and unattainable.
  Mr. Den Dover: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the past year or two the construction industry has gone through a dull patch, and that therefore the number of applications has been much lower than the Government or anyone could reasonably have expected? In the next year or two, with lower interest rates and a mood of optimism, the applications may increase considerably, and thus bring in the £38 million.
  Mr. Graham: If the depression that was suffered by the construction industry was a surprise it was a surprise only to the Government. Another factor that helped to reduce the number of applications was the amendments to the general development order. The Government should be able to see the trends that are there. They simply said to local authorities "On this level of charges, we assume that you will be able to get £38 million". The authorities are saying that in two years there has been a shortfall of about £28 million. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) is, perhaps, right when he says that it was a bad guess. In our view, the Government did not have to guess, because they had last year's experience to guide them, but they still told the authorities that they would get £38 million, although they got only £22 million last year.
  Mr. Alton: Is it not true that what has happened is yet another unannounced cut in rate support grant to local authorities throughout the country?
  Mr. Graham: I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton). The authorities say that
  "the Government has quite cynically and quietly imposed this added burden on local authorities".
  708
  I am certain that in many council chambers and many gatherings of local authority officers inflammatory language has been used. All that I am saying is that local councils have had this additional impost laid upon them.
  The Minister said that there had been a call for increased charges. I am told that in order to make up the shortfall the increase, instead of being 10 per cent., should have been 53 per cent. If there were a 53 per cent. increase in the fees instead of a 10 per cent. increase, there would not be a shortfall. Imagine the enormity of the charges in this early period. We would not be faced with that dilemma if the Government had been honest in their understanding of the matter, recognised the true situation and said to local authorities that they would put the matter right.
  The position is made worse because, before the charges for planning applications were brought in, a charge for building regulation applications had been imposed. Authorities were told by the Government of the rate support grant settlement for income from building regulations in 1980–81. There was a shortfall of £19 million. In 1981–82 there was a shortfall of £28 million. It is estimated that in the current year 1982–83, there will be a shortfall of £25 million.
  For building regulation fees the shortfall in three years is £72 million. When one adds the £28 million from the planning applications shortfall to the £72 million, one finds the disgraceful situation that, in addition to all the other burdens and imposts that local government has had to bear thanks to the Government, £100 million has been filched from the totals that the people of the country have been led to believe existed.
  The other charge we make is that the regulations do not take effect until 1 June. There is no excuse for the Government not bringing in the charges on 1 April. However, they will take effect on 1 June. One-sixth of the year will have passed before local authorities will have the opportunity to recoup.
  The Opposition must accept the situation as it is. That is why we have sought to protest strongly about the direct financial consequences for councils—which means ratepayers—of the way in which the Government have imposed the regulations, riding roughshod over councils and councillors. It is unacceptable that we should tolerate deception or acquiesce in this blatant financial chicanery.
  There is wide acceptance that the changes in the planning fee regulations will close a number of loopholes revealed in practice during the first year. The Minister is right. The evidence we have it is that the exercise—not merely the increases, but the attempt to put the matter right—is welcome. I am satisfied at the treatment of charges for waste disposal.
  A number of lessons have been learnt during the year. The Minister will not be unaware of this, but I want to read into the record a number of confirmations of what was said by the Opposition when the regulations first appeared earlier this year.
  The planning officer for the city of Bradford tells me that
  "in spite of the reduction in level of applications, the overall workload of the Section does not appear to have been reduced. From an administration point of view the registering process is more complex due to the checking of fees, answering of queries on fees and accounting procedures. From a professional point of view, there has been a significant increase in pre-submission

  709
  discussions between applicants and planning officers, with applicants wanting to know the likely outcome of an application before applying."
  Faced with the need to pay, individuals and companies, to see whether they can avoid paying, are taking up the time of the staff. There is no reduction in staff. The Secretary of State for the Environment is constantly saying to councils—although they are being given more work and the Government are taking away more money from them—that the Government still insist that councils should reduce staff.
  The metropolitan borough of Wolverhampton states in a letter to me:
  "There is a noticeable change in public attitude, requiring more staff time to answer pre-application queries and matters involving processing of applications".
  The Barnsley metropolitan borough council writes—and this is a significant point—
  "The payment of a fee no doubt deters many applicants from seeking permission and when unauthorised development is noticed or brought to the attention of the Council it is often necessary to invoke the enforcement procedure merely to obtain an application. This is particularly relevant in cases where a complaint is received and the local Ombudsman could become involved if no action is taken.
  It is considered that the collection of fees is in no way helpful to the planning control process, which is already complex and resented by many prospective developers."
  Let there be no doubt that for fundamental reasons the Opposition remain opposed to the whole philosophy of charging for planning applications. We regard planning as a community obligation. To make individuals and developers pay reveals and underlines the Government's misunderstanding of the nature of planning legislation that has been developing in this country for more than 150 years.
  The purpose of planning restrictions is to protect the community generally. The planning system is not a service for the individual applicant. It is designed to benefit the general public. Experience shows that once charges were known to be about to be brought in a flood of applications were made before the 31 March 1981 deadline This must have affected the total for last year. The Opposition stand by the principle that the built environment is shaped by and for the benefit of the community as a whole, not for companies or corporations. Tonight's measure is a second bite at the cherry. To propose 10 per cent. more towards bridging the gap that was created by the sheer dishonesty of the Government is an outrage that will be deeply resented by beleaguered councillors of all political persuasions. The Government show a total disregard for the views of the associations and a contempt for local government that we have come to expect.
  Other vital community services will be trimmed to offset this deliberate stealing of already reduced rate support. Above all, the Government show no regard for the concept that our environment should not be put up for the highest bidder but should be preserved, directed and paid for by the community. For that reason I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby tonight and vote against these regulations.
  11.53 pm
  Mr. Peter Mills: I shall not follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). Some of the words that he used, such as "outrage", "dishonest" and "contempt", are surprising. There is usually some exaggeration when in Opposition, but not as much as that.
  710
  I declare an interest. I welcome the regulations. They will benefit agriculture, and we are grateful for the changes. They are important concessions.
  I bring to the attention of the House—the Minister briefly mentioned it—the problem of the glasshouse growers. There has been no easement for them. My party's sub-committee on horticulture is anxious about the matter and we must make our representations to the Minister tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) is in the Chamber and if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will outline the problems of the glasshouse industry far better than I can.
  I ask the Minister to reconsider the problems of the industry. To illustrate them, I quote from the brief given to me by the National Farmers Union:
  "The evidence provided to the NFU by its members during last year indicates that most developments were in the size range ½ to 1 acre. A grower replacing or erecting new glass covering ½ acre will under the new draft regulations save some £200, a saving of 19 per cent. over the fees in the 1981 regulations; at the 1 acre level he would face an increase in fees of £112, which is 6 per cent. more than he would pay under the present scheme. This compares very unfavourably with the 40–50 per cent. saving to agriculture in general."
  That is it in a nutshell. Therefore, the Government must look at the question of horticulture again. Bearing in mind the pressures from which the horticulture industry is suffering at present because of energy problems and so on, they should not place another burden on its shoulders. We must ease the burden on the horticulture and glass house industry rather than increase it.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The view that my hon. Friend has just expressed is strongly endorsed by horticulturists in the East Sussex and Kent county agriculture committee.
  Mr. Mills: I am sure that it is right as there are many glass house owners in that area. My hon. Friend knows from practical experience of the problems of the horticulture industry.
  There are practical reasons why there should be some easement for horticulture and glass house growers. In their planning applications, not a lot of work is envisaged, and they are usually of standard or set designs. Very few take place each year, and most of them relate to existing nursery sites. In addition, there are no appeals, so this is not a costly business. Those are practical reasons why there should be some easement.
  I hope that the Minister will consider this matter again, because it is essential that next year the horticulture and glass house industry should have some easement of its problems.
  11.56 pm
  Mr. David Alton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has raised the problems that are now being faced by the glass house and horticulture industry in many parts of Britain. I shall return to that point later in my remarks, particularly as it affects the Isle of Wight. Many hon. Members will appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has raised this matter with the Minister, but because of ill health he is unable to be present.
  Hon. Members can be forgiven for feeling that we are perhaps treading down a path that we have been down before. I am sure that hon. Members will recall that in July 1980, when we were discussing the Local Government,

  711
  Planning and Land Act, I and 20 other hon. Members called a Division on this matter. In March 1981, we pursued the matter again, and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) had my support then, when at a very late hour we discussed the fees and the way in which they affect planning, individual householders and local authorities.
  Tonight I wish to support much of what the hon. Member for Edmonton has said. His language was sometimes colourful, but that can be forgiven because there is much anger and resentment in many local authorities about the fact that these decisions were taken without the wholehearted support—indeed, against the opposition—of many local authorities and local authority associations whose views were sought but not listened to.
  Last year, when the regulations currently in force were introduced, I, like Liberals on all previous occasions, was opposed to fees for planning applications, believing that they were an infringement of basic civil liberties. I said:
  "It is ludicrous and a travesty of justice that individuals should be charged for restrictions which are designed to safeguard the people as a whole".—[Official Report, 3 March 1981; Vol. 1000, c. 238.]
  I pleaded then for an improvement in the way in which we planned our communities and unashamed spending by the community for the benefit of the whole communtiy.
  A year later, even with the refinements that the Minister has announced tonight, the system is no less ludicrous. That sentiment was reiterated at the Town and Country Planning Association's annual development control seminar at Warick university on 15 and 16 April this year. Gathered there were town planners, councillors and other local government representatives. They argued that, even if the planning fees could be worked without undue problems, they should not be applied.
  Coupled with that underlying principled objection is the additional factor mentioned by the hon. Member for Edmonton that the fees estimated by the Government to raise £38 million realised only £25 million. The shortfall of £13 million has been lost as yet another unannounced cut in the rate support grant. This is a smokescreen designed to mask another crude reduction in local government spending.
  One of the architects' groups has stated:
  "It concerns the group that it is a common misconception that local authorities benefit from the imposition of planning charges. It should be made more clear that local authorities merely act as agents for central government in what is the collection of a crude tax. It is certainly not generally understood that the income received by a local authority is deducted from the direct block grant."
  The principled objections remain. Many harmful effects are now being felt which will not be ironed out even with the minor alterations proposed by the Minister tonight. The town planners feel that the fees poison relations between applicants and planning authorities and increase the negative aspect of planning. As one official of the Royal Town Planning Institute put it to me, the public outcry is equal to that which occurs when museum charges are suggested. He believes that planning should be for the benefit of all and paid for by all.
  The House-Builders Federation remains opposed to the fees. It says that there is no doubt that the fees are wholly unjustifiable in principle and that the private sector is
  712
  being forced to shoulder the first of a series of annual fee increases to subsidise a thoroughly inefficient planning system.
  Turning, perhaps unusually for me, to the farming population, I would welcome, with the NFU, the exemption for agricultural buildings announced by the Minister if only it were a universal exemption. However, even this glimmer lights up an anomaly that a divisive system causes. Speaking with the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, who regrets his absence through ill health, I can say that no glasshouses are being built on the Isle of Wight. As the NFU points out, far from being substantially helped, those with average buildings covering half an acre to 1 acre will pay 19 per cent. less and those with buildings covering more than an acre 6 per cent. more. The costs do not reflect the work involved, for most glasshouses are standard and merely replace defunct houses. The fees are divisive between one type of farming and another. They do nothing to help our horticulturists compete with subsidised Dutch growers.
  On the home front, where I feel more at ease, the small house owner must save up for his front extension—one anomaly among others to which the southern region group of the ARIBA has drawn attention. The group says that even if two adjoining house owners put in a full application for a joint development of linked garages or porches, they will have to pay twice because the fee is related to the dwellings. Another example is a householder with two cars who builds a double garage and pays one fee whereas the owners of two semi-detached houses could build a double garage housing two cars, but both would be required to pay full fees.
  Admittedly, some of the more obvious peculiarities have been ironed out in the new regulations but some iniquities remain. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will continue to review some of the oddities that have emerged in the enforcement of the regulations. The architects say that there are sufficient problems to indicate that the best interests of good planning are not being met in many situations. They claim that their view that the standard of architechural design was bound to venture on the safe or mundane has been justified over the last year.
  The National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses says that it sees the thin of the wedge in a series of annual increases crippling to the small business man. It feels that it has to shoulder costs that would otherwise have been shared by the whole community.
  Even those who are purportedly in favour of the regulations and the amendments favour the increase in fees to counteract the Government's clawback in the RSG settlement. They operate on the basis that local government should not incur an overall loss for operating a Government scheme. I agree that they should not suffer, but it is wrong to use this as an argument that the fees should be increased. Because the Government steal the wherewithal for services from local authorities, they should not, in turn, as converted criminals, double tax some members of the public. Planning is a right that should remain unfettered from these fees. I therefore oppose the regulations.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): This is short debate and the Front Bench Members are hoping

  713
  to catch my eye again at 12.30 am. I say that as a warning to those who wish to speak so that we can get in as many speeches as we can.
  12.6 am
  Mr. Michael Spicer: There will be great relief, not to say rejoicing, in the Vale of Evesham tomorrow morning when people wake up to discover that the Minister has said that he will look again at the fee structures as they apply to horticulture.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has said it all, but, when the Minister comes to reexamine the matter—it is clearly important that he does, as he recognises—perhaps he will bear in mind two points about horticulture. The first point, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West, is that the industry has been suffering greatly recently. This is largely due to its relative position vis-à-vis its Dutch competitors because of energy subsidies and VAT. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the general position of the industry.
  My second point relates rather more specifically to the regulations. Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the glasshouse element in horticulture has a low value of production in ratio to the acreage of the glasshouse? Therefore, there are special considerations affecting the industry that merit the Minister's consideration. He seems to recognise this and I look forward to his being able to modify the regulations as they apply to horticulture.
  12.8 am
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I shall refer to a different aspect from that which interests most of my hon. Friends. I refer to the changes to regulation 7, dealing with the opportunity to submit a second application in one year, without payment of a second fee. The widening of the application of this regulation, I assume, will be generally welcomed in the sense that it is presumably designed to improve the situation when genuine applications are being made and then modified according to circumstances.
  The Minister may well recall that I wrote to his Department earlier this year on a problem that I felt was arising, particularly in my constituency, but I imagine in other urban areas as well, of repeated and vexatious planning applications. In these, an individual, knowing well that a particular application causes alarm and concern to his or her neighbours, repeats this process, largely to gain notoriety or to strike back for imagined wrongs.
  The introduction of the fee for planning applications, whatever its merits or demerits, had one great advantage: it was a marked disincentive to making planning applications that were known to be unacceptable. The problem is that when an application of this sort is made, those who wish to object have to take action to object on each separate occasion. If they do not happen to note that a new application has been made, the planning committee may assume that there are no objections. I have found that it is not considered proper for a local planning committee to carry forward objections to a particular proposal from one application to another, so they have to be made on each occasion.
  I regret that at the same time the Minister has chosen to widen the operation of regulation 7, he has not sought to provide powers whereby local authorities might deal effectively with vexatious applications. The regulation as
  714
  it stands—it has not really been changed this year—is an open invitation to a vexatious planner or would-be planner to introduce a second application just for the sheer hell of it. That matter should be given active consideration in the near future, particularly in urban areas.
  12.10 am
  Mr. Richard Alexander: I do not want unnecessarily to add to the burden of the Minister, but I do not regard the regulations favourably.
  I was initially doubtful about the wisdom of charging for planning applications, but I went along with it because I believed that the contribution could be useful to local government revenue.
  But what we have here is what I feared; a complicated rigmarole covered in a great deal of verbiage and worthy of the sort of regulations that builders and developers had to contend with and live their lives by in the aftermath of the last war. Now, every solicitor, estate agent and architect will need a copy of the regulations by his side whenever he tries to run his business. He will also need a slide rule to help him out. Every town hall will have dozens of copies, and clerks will gleefully reject planning applications because they have been submitted with a. fee appropriate to paragraph 2(iii) rather than paragraph 2(iv) of part II of schedule I to the regulations.
  It is the layman's nightmare and the professional man's cause to look up the exact terms of an insurance policy. I regret that a Conservative Government are putting through regulations of such complexity and burdening the community in this mariner. We promised simpler government and less government. When one sees regulations such as these, one begins to doubt whether that has been offered in this instance.
  I had hoped to support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) about the glasshouse industry, particularly with regard to Nottinghamshire. The point has been well covered, the hour is late, and I do not intend to repeat what he said. But while we are discussing the regulations, I should like to express my disapproval of the fact that the fees, which are apparently increasing by 10 per cent. in less than a year, are not to be returnable in the event of a planning refusal. Where fees run into thousands of pounds, it is a burden that the building industry and the developer ought not to have to carry. The developer may not only lose his application, he may lose his fee, too. He also has to apply for development somewhere else, involving a new fee. We did say, and do say, that we are helping the smaller builder and the smaller developer. If we make fees of this size non-returnable we make the risk of his continuing in business and trying to develop unacceptably high. I am sorry to speak in those terms. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my remarks in the spirit in which they are made. I urge the introduction of early amending legislation along those lines so that we may help the planning, developing and building worlds a great deal more than we have done hitherto.
  12.15 am
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I begin by declaring an interest. I am the owner of land in an area in which significant developments are taking place. Furthermore, I think that I was the only Conservative Member to vote against this proposal when it was introduced last year. My views have not changed in the

  715
  light of the experience that we have had of the operation of this unhappy brainwave of the Department since it was introduced.
  I do not go all the way with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) in his strictures. He spoilt a good case by speaking rather too strongly of the Department. He dwelt on the shortfall in the anticipated revenue to local authorities, but for the best part of his speech he criticised the impact of this imposition. I shall support the hon. Gentleman if he presses this issue to a Division. I believe that I was right to oppose the proposal last year.
  I recognise that where building regulations are concerned the local authorities are providing a service. There is no uncertainty about whether the service will be provided and they are entitled to charge a fee, but a planning application is an entirely different matter. Planning regulations are a restriction of the rights of property of the individual. I am not trying to say that that is a reason for scrapping all planning legislation. I entirely support such legislation because I recognise the need for it. But it is not right that entrepreneurs and householders, who, for the most part, initiate planning applications, should have to bear this tax.
  I join my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) in saying that it is amazing that a Conservative Government should have introduced this wretched measure. We are in favour of helping householders and we are in favour of helping small builders and entrepreneurs, but this is a tax on home owners and on enterprise, which has already had the effect of limiting the way in which developers seek opportunities to put land to its optimum use.
  I feel sure that, with the passage of time, it will be recognised that the imposition of these charges was a mistake and that they will be repealed altogether. If they are not repealed altogether, I feel that they will be very much reduced. This is something that will have to happen. I do not favour people being able to submit frivolous applications without proper consideration or preparation, thereby putting local authorities to a great deal of unnecessary work. I would not object to a charge of £20, perhaps, for an amendment to a house or garage, or even a charge of £100 for applications in respect of an acre of land or more, but where the charges run into four figures they deter enterprise, and they are having that effect. I most sincerely ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to look again at the way that this tax is being applied and to recognise that, on balance, it would be better to return to the House and say that the regulations should be withdrawn in their entirety.
  12.18 am
  Mr. John Wells: I cannot support my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) in some of his strictures. The running of a planning department is costly and it is not unreasonable that those who are getting a financial or amenity benefit from gaining planning permission should pay something rather than the great body of ratepayers having to support them.
  I reiterate the grief that has been expressed in many parts of the House about the division that has been created between those who are engaged in agriculture. Horticulture has always been viewed in the House as an
  716
  integral part of agriculture, yet my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is differentiating between agriculture and horticulture. That is not good enough. I know that the regulations cannot be amended, so I shall not support the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) if he presses the issue to a Division.
  However, I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider the matter sympathetically. He has heard moving pleas from West Devon, Derbyshire, East Grinstead, Maidstone and even darkest Liverpool. We are all aware that one third of the food that we eat is of horticultural origin both in terms of value and volume. Horticulture is an integral part of agriculture and I deplore the division that has been created in the industry by my hon. Friend.
  12.20 am
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I am not so surprised as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) about the differences in the original estimate and the yield. Clearly, with a measure such as this there are so many imponderables that it is impossible to be precise. The hon. Gentleman partly hit upon the solution in that there were an enormous number of applications to beat the deadline last year and no doubt that will be partly ironed out this year.
  I, too, must declare an interest. I am worried that an increase of 10 per cent. is proposed, and should have hoped that the increase could be nearer 6 per cent. as I would have expected it to be spent mainly on salaries and the Government expect a settlement of that order. Therefore, I regard a higher estimate as inflationary, particularly as an efficiently run Department ought more or less to pay its own way. Therefore, if it is to receive an extra 10 per cent. in revenue, one would expect it to be tempted into spending 10 per cent. more on its services, and this, I believe, would be wrong.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Edmonton about the number of people now seeking more advice before submitting applications. In my experience, if people were acting prudently they always went into the matter in great detail before submitting applications, and the larger developers have always been at great pains to withdraw an application if they knew that it would not be approved. There is usually great reluctance among developers actually to receive a refusal for a substantial development. Therefore, they did all that they possibly could, but if they felt that if was impossible to persuade the authority to grant approval, they have always withdrawn the application. I believe that the prudent small developer, too, including the private person wishing to add an extension to his property, has had the same motive in mind. People do not like to receive a refusal if they can possibly help it. The consultation process on the submission of a planning application has always been an important ingredient and I do not think that it is any more so today then it has been in the past.
  I think that one intention of the new system was to reduce the number of planning applications made, as some people tended to try to swamp the planning authority by making a large number of applications for the same site in the hope that one might be approved. The measure has, I think, gone a long way towards resolving that, as I think that the public are now far more careful and selective in submitting applications than they used to be. I have known as many as 12 applications to be made at the time for one site in the hope that something would come out of it. That

  717
  has been achieved by slight amendments of plans. The measure has reduced that and I welcome the reduction because I believe that planning is a positive matter which should not be conducted in the form of a lottery.
  I am concerned, however, that we still seem to have made no provision to deal with the dilatory local authority. I had hoped that a way could be found to ensure that value for money was given to those who now have to pay the fees. In every avenue of life where fees are paid, those paying the fees expect some form of service and as part of that service they expect their applications to be dealt with promptly and diligently.
  In my own professional life, I have known a number of local authorities, many of them in country districts, which have been most unhelpful to developers, particularly if they were represented by professional people who were not local. I found that they were inclined to delay applications on every possible excuse. There should be some penalty for a local authority that does not deal with applications quickly and diligently. Where the behaviour of the local authority has been such that the fees have not been earned I believe that there should be a right of appeal to the Minister, who should have the power to reduce the fees.
  Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Member also agree that where the member of the public or the developer has acted in an inordinately lengthy and frustrating way he should be asked to pay more?
  Mr. Thorne: I believe that that was covered when it was said that some local authorities asked for amendments and alterations and claimed an extra fee. I think that local authorities already have the power to look after their own interests. I am much more concerned that those who pay the fees do not have a similar opportunity. I think one should be fair. If the local authority is completely unreasonable, it should be within my hon. Friend's power to reduce or cancel the fees. That would concentrate the minds of dilatory local authorities. There are only a few; by and large planning is dealt with professionally and the majority of planning officers and committees try to give a reasonable service, but that still does not alter the fact that others do not. This is one way in which they could be made to mend their ways.
  12.26 am
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Those of us who have followed the debate with some attention will not have forgotten that there is also a Scottish order. I hope that I am not trespassing on anyone's tolerance, and certainly not that of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), if I raise one or two Scottish matters. This is not the first occasion on which the Minister has had to stand in as a surrogate for the Scottish Office and I hope that he has been reasonably briefed. I see the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart) lurking by his side; it may well be that he can fill any gaps.
  On a general and preliminary point, I have seldom seen a Government measure which has received such a frosty reception from Government Back-Benchers [Interruption.] It seems that I should review my phraseology. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East is lurking; I think he is skulking and glad to have no part in the debate, because the measure has received almost universal condemnation. "An unhappy
  718
  brainwave", is I believe, the kindest thing that any Conservative Member has managed to say about it. Most of them judged it much less charitably. It was regarded with personal distaste by one hon. Member and dismissed as a tax on enterprise and owners by another.
  I accept that the Minister is only tinkering with the structure, and he has said that there will be a fundamental review. I hope that he will pay attention not only to the eloquent and special pleading of the horticulture industry, which has been well represented tonight, but to the broader matters of principle, the justification for charging for planning applications and the effect upon local government finance in Scotland as in England. I take it that it hardly needs confirmation—no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am under a misapprehension—that there will be a similar review in Scotland carried out independently by the Scottish Office. There is a danger when dealing with regulations north of the border similar to those south of the border, of the review tending to miss out Scottish aspects. I hope that that will not happen.
  The minor amendments to the structure are welcome. No one will get very excited about the change to paragraph 4(b) of the schedule, which makes a special rate for
  "The winning and working of peat"
  to differentiate between peat and other minerals. That has a good Scottish ring to it and we do not quarrel with it. A single dwelling house owner will pay a fee of £44, instead of £40, irrespective of area. That is important, because in Scotland we had the ludicrous position whereby one paid a fee of £40 for a site measuring 0·1 hectare, but if one had a house on a larger site of, say, 0·4 hectare the fee was multiplied four times. It is sensible to remove that provision and it will be of some help to the individual who is building a house for his own occupation. There are similar useful minor amendments.
  I wish to consider briefly some of the points of principle that are involved, many of which have been referred to in the debate. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) in saying that we should not have the charging system at all. I agree with that if there is public scrutiny it will be an inhibition of ownership. There is no doubt about that. We maintain that there should be some inhibition for the public good, but it is a little anomalous that we should ask the developer to pay for the scrutiny, which is not carried out at his behest but is forced upon him because it is necessary to control and regulate building development. In theory, there is little case—certainly in Conservative theory as we have heard it this evening there is even less case—for that form of planning charge.
  The method that has been used is not only bureaucratic—there have been eloquent protests about that—but rather strange and inconsistent. I do not wish to relive the battles of earlier today, but the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I have been locked together in a room considering the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill for what seems to be many hours. It is interesting that we have just written into schedule 1 to that Bill a system of site advertisement. A fee will be charged by the local authority in that connection, but the Government saw no benefit in trying to stipulate the fees. They have left a fairly wide measure of discretion to the local authority and merely said that fees will be charged.
  If we compare that with schedule 2 to the 1981 regulations, which are now being repealed by a replacement provision in the new Scottish regulations,

  719
  there were many problems with variable fees set at between £10 and £40 for site advertisements. There is now a set fee, which is apparently an attempt to average out the costs, of £22. Not only do we object to the principle of those charges, but I cannot understand why we should have a scale of charges when dealing with similar planning phenomena whereas a different approach has been taken by Ministers in this case.
  I contend that the proposal is theoretically wrong and in practice objectionable. I do not know the position south of the border, but I took the trouble to check with Glasgow district council, which is unhappy about the impact of the charges on the administrative burden that has fallen upon its planning department. The Secretary of State for Scotland maintains a merciless vendetta—certainly the energy that he puts into the campaign justifies such a term—against local government employment and is constantly preaching the need to cut local authority jobs. He talks not about creating unemployment in the public sector but about fitter, leaner and more efficient local government. However, the effect is at the end of the unpleasant and ever-increasing dole queues.
  I am told by Glasgow district council—it is a small matter but significant when one considers the Government's policy—that it has had to employ two further technicians and one administrative assistant in order to cope with the administrative burden. It has spent about £5,000 to reorganise the office and install safety precautions, because money is now changing hands over the counter in planning departments. Because at the end of the year we are changing all the scales of charges, the council will be put to the added expense of printing new guidance notes. This may seem to be a comparatively minor matter and small beer, but it is of significance and it is an additional burden that we could well do without.
  The most important point, and the reason why so much bad theory has been imported even from the Minister's point of view, is financial expediency. The Government have seized the opportunity, as has been said by several hon. Members, to cut the rate support grant substantially and to say to local authorities "Do not worry about it, lads. It is not really a cut in your ability to employ resources to meet services because you will be able to recoup the loss from the rate support grant from the revenue from the fees as they come in".
  The question has been raised from the Government Benches as to what has come from England. The estimate is £23 million to £25 million which is very much short of the £38 million downward adjustment in the rate support grant which I understood was brought in.
  I should like the Minister to give us the Scottish figures. The figures there are more modest, but the sum is still significant. The rate support grant was cut by £2 million to make room for the alternative financing through this charging system. I do not know what has been raised in Scotland. In Glasgow it was reckoned that in a full year about £200,000 was taken in. If that is right, then in Scotland there will again be a considerable gap. There is certainly a saving from the Minister's point of view because the rate support grant has been cut by £2 million, but there will be a large shortfall from the local authorities' point of view because the charges are not producing that £2 million. The result will be, by the back door, another cut in local authority spending and another deterioration
  720
  in the services which are already under insupportable pressure because of the policies being followed by the Scottish Office and the Treasury.
  Mr. Alexander: Would it not help to recoup some of that money if Glasgow district council decided not to employ all those extra people, whose only additional job is to take money over the counter, remembering that there is no extra work involved apart from that?
  Mr. Dewar: There is a considerable amount of extra work. I understand that the hon. Member is a solicitor. Even in the modest way in which solicitors' offices operate, if they start taking money over the counter, say, through a building society agency, often they have to institute accountancy checking and security methods which are demanding of staff time. In view of the scale and the complicated range of charges which have been introduced under these regulations during the last year or so, obviously there will be an impact upon the staff requirements of a major planning department like Glasgow which is dealing with more than 3,000 applications during a year. Therefore, I do not accept that point.
  I would not make too much of it, but there has been the requirement, although it has to some extent been simplified, to carry out a great deal of measuring. It may well be that the charging will depend on the measuring of site areas.
  In any event, the information I want from the Minister is the extent of the shortfall between the expected revenue and the rate support grant cut, and what he intends to do about it in the coming year and in future years. It is wrong for him to allow that situation to continue if he is genuine in saying that this is not a form of cutting local authority spending power but a substitution where a situation of balance and equality should result at the end of the day. If, as we suspect, both in England and in Scotland there is a gap, we want assurances that steps will be taken in future and, indeed, in the present financial year to ensure that we do not suffer any further from this mishap, if mishap it be.
  I want to give the Minister every chance to deal with the anger and sarcasm of his own supporters. They certainly threw up a large number of prickly points for him to deal with. I hope that he will give particular attention to the Scottish situation, particularly the financial implications. The scheme is not cost-effective. It is of marginal relevance to the running of an efficient planning system and it is counter-productive in the sense that it has built-in waste and bureaucracy of a kind that no one wants.
  The House-Builders Federation in England has made representations to colleagues in the Liberal Party. In the last sentence of his letter its land and planning officer says:
  "There is no doubt that the fees are wholly unjustified in principle and that the private sector is being forced to shoulder the first of a series of annual fee increases to subsidise a thoroughly inefficient planning system."
  I am not sure that this is a thoroughly inefficient planning system, but I am clear that the private sector has a genuine grievance, mirrored in the public sector, and that in the condemnation of the initiation of this charging system there is total unanimity in local government, in the private building industry and right across the board.
  The Minister owes all hon. Members the assurance that he will look at the need for fundamental changes and possibly the sweeping away of the whole system when he considers the results of the review that he has promised in the coming financial year.
  12.42 am
  Mr. Giles Shaw: May I first respond to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) in relation to the Scottish matters that he raised? I can confirm that a review will be undertaken in Scotland similar to that being undertaken in England and Wales. I can also confirm that the income in Scotland for the current year is expected to be pretty close to the estimated £2 million. With regard to the forthcoming year, while estimates at this stage must invariably be rough, the expectation is that the figure will be £2·2 million and that that too will be raised.
  The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), as I expected, laid greatest emphasis in his remarks on the failure, as he put it, to live up to the estimates in relation to the performance of the fees. I have to accept that in relation to the estimates put in, as the House is well aware, a significant shortfall has occurred in the first year of operation. It is an open secret that the levels of fee prescribed in the 1981 regulations were estimated to produce about £37 million. Against that figure the shortfall is significant. As I told my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), we estimate the range to be of the order of £23 to £25 million on this year.
  Let me offer the House an explanation as to why that has occurred. First, as the House will know, the very fact of fees being introduced for the first time resulted in a substantial bunching of applications made to the planning authorities before the fees were introduced. We expected that, but we were not able to anticipate the scale on which that distorted the subsequent planning applications that were made.
  Secondly, it is certainly true that more applications than we estimated were of a kind that were exempt from fees. That particularly applies to those made as a result of an article 4 direction and those involved in conservation areas.
  Thirdly, as the House will know, we took steps earlier on to amend the general development order and thus exempted about 50,000 planning applications from entering the system. The absolute amount of smaller applications that came into the fee were omitted from the system. As I said, we estimate that the outcome will be of the order of £23 million to £25 million for the year 1981–82. We cannot, even at this stage, be completely clear as to what the final income yield will be.
  Given those important caveats, it looks as though the income for 1982–83, having made allowances for what we now know is the performance of the fee system, will be of the order of £27 million to £29 million. Therefore, the prospects are for a further shortfall in 1982–83.
  In my opening remarks I referred to the fact that, given the prospect of recovering the total shortfall, a significant increase in planning fees, of the order of 50 per cent., would be required. The recommendation before the House tonight is that the increase be 10 per cent. That is because of the general level of the development industry. In addition, given the relative novelty of the fee system, it would be unwise to become involved in a major increase in fees. However, the shortfall affects the rate support grant. The implication of the level of the increase combined with the estimated level of shortfall will be a matter for early discussion with the local authority associations and I undertake that such discussions will take place.
  Mr. Graham: The Minister said that the shortfall could be made up by an increase larger than 10 per cent.—53 per cent. was estimated—and has pointed out why that is, in practical terms, a non-starter. However, may I take it that the shortfall estimated by the authorities in the first and second years could amount to £25 to £28 million? Will the discussions cover how the rate support grant can take that shortfall into account in a future settlement?
  Mr. Shaw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I cannot commit myself here and now to the terms of the discussions. However, I assure him that the effect of the shortfall in the two successive years will be a matter for discussion with the local authority associations. I cannot prejudge the outcome of those discussions.
  The objections are twofold. First, there is objection in principle to the idea of fees, to the parent Bill and to the portion of legislation from which the fees and regulations are derived. I was sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) propose to vote against the regulations.
  However, the issue centred on agriculture and, particularly, on horticulture. Many of my hon. Friends threw stones in the direction of my glasshouse. The horticulture industry has a serious problem, but hon. Members should recognise that in the amendments we sought to strike a balance between competing agricultural interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) said that the balance between agriculture and horticulture had been changed by the regulations. That is a serious matter. We are talking about an exemption from fee income although—as the House is aware—there is a significant shortage of fee income. Although I have undertaken to examine afresh, towards the end of the year, what might be done about horticultural fees, I must take note of the fact that the total agricultural exemption is regarded by some of my hon. Friends as almost excessive.
  Undoubtedly there is a case for looking at the problem of horticulture. We felt it right to make an immediate adjustment and the exemption of the 465 metres will make a significant contribution towards many of the smaller units for horticultural production. That will be welcome.
  Mr. Alton rose——
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) was concerned about the complexity of the regulations. I agree with him and we shall reconsider ways and means of simplifying them. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) raised the question of the vexatious application. Under regulation 7, there will still be only one free further application. The second, third and fourth applications from such a planner would certainly carry the full fee. There is no intention of widening the exemption in that regard.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) referred to the dilatory handling of planning applications. I agree that the fee has brought to the attention of local authorities the need to process applications both fairly and efficiently. My hon. Friend will be aware that, for the first time, we have published a list of the planning authorities, showing their performance in relation to the eight week deemed period

  723
  for dealing with planning applications. It is vital to maintain the pressure on planning authorities to process the applications correctly.
  The object of the fees regulations is to make some changes based on what we have learnt, particularly from agriculture, and to make a modest increase in the level of the fees. Tonight the House has said that it expects an increase and accepts the 10 per cent. limit. On the other hand, my hon. Friends argue that there should be a further review of horticulture later in the year. I undertake to do that. Although the Opposition seek to divide the House on the major proposal before us, it is essential that we provide a system under which the substantial costs and benefits of the planning costs should produce some——
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business)
  The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 41.

  Division No. 147]

  [12.50 am

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Eggar, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Goodlad, Alastair

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

  Gow, Ian

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Gray, Hamish

  Benyon.Thomas (A 'don)

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hannam, John

  Blackburn, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Heddle, John

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Bright, Graham

  Jessel, Toby

  Brinton, Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Michael(Brigg & Sc'n)

  Lang, Ian

  Budgen, Nick

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Cadbury, Jocelyn

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Loveridge, John

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

  Luce, Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Cope, John

  Major, John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Mather, Carol

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Dover, Denshore

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Dunn, Robert(Dartford)

  Moate, Roger

  724

  Murphy, Christopher

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Needham, Richard

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Thompson, Donald

  Newton, Tony

  Thorne, Neil(Ilford South)

  Osborn, John

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B 'heath)

  Patten, Christopher(Bath)

  Waddington, David

  Pawsey, James

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Waller, Gary

  Renton, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Rossi, Hugh

  Wheeler, John

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wickenden, Keith

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilkinson, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Sims, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Speller, Tony

  Mr. Peter Brooke and

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  NOES

  Alton, David

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Beith, A. J.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)

  Marshall, Dr Edmund(Goole)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Parry, Robert

  Canavan, Dennis

  Penhaligon, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cryer, Bob

  Robertson, George

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Donald

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Dormand, Jack

  Snape, Peter

  Eastham, Ken

  Soley, Clive

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Foulkes, George

  Welsh, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Graham, Ted

  Hardy, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Mr. Allan McKay and

  Haynes, Frank

  Mr. George Morton.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 19th April, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 1982, which were laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.—[Mr. Berry.]

  Twickenham (Environmental and Traffic Problems)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Berry.]
  1.1 am
  Mr. Toby Jessel: I am most grateful for the opportunity to discuss the quality of life in my constituency. I make no apology for doing so at a time of national crisis when, between anxious moments, people can derive spiritual refreshment from seeing what is fine and beautiful.
  I congratulate the Department of the Environment on the splendid way that it maintains the two royal parks in my constituency—Bushy Park and Home Park, Hampton Court—and the palace and gardens of Hampton Court. These are magnificent treasured parts of our national heritage. Hampton Court grounds and palace are visited every year by vast numbers of people from home and abroad. I am told that it is the third most visited site in the country, after the Tower of London and Stonehenge.
  I live across the road from Hampton Court and confess to having sometimes slightly mixed feelings in the summer when I see crowds of tourists at Hampton Court in the morning and at Westminster in the afternoon. But one has to rise above such feelings, because tourism brings a great deal of employment and trade to the country. Our national heritage is a draw that few other countries can equal.
  To many of my constituents in Teddington, the Hamptons, Twickenham, Whitton and beyond, both Bushy Park and Home Park are regarded as local parks that give endless pleasure through the changing scenes round the year. For example, currently in Bushy Park one can see the avenues of chestnut trees that are in full bloom; and the azaleas in the woodland gardens ae a truly marvellous sight. A month ago in Hampton Court gardens one could see the finest daffodils in the world.
  I believe that those pleasures are enjoyed by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), who is on the Government Front Bench tonight and whose constituency adjoins the area. I believe I speak for many thousands of our constituents, and of yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as your constituency in Croydon is not far away. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is within seven or nine miles of the area and I thank him and his Department for all the skill and artistry which they have applied to these matters.
  However, I do not think that my hon. Friend will like so much what I shall say next. Facing the east side of Hampton Court palace is a double row of 180 tall lime trees, about a quarter of which need replacing. There is a school of thought within the Department of the Environment that wants to cut the lot down in one clean sweep and start again with two new rows. That would look fine for posterity in 50 or 100 years, but not very nice meanwhile.
  The alternative policy, which I prefer, is to fill the gaps or to replace the dud or stunted trees with individual saplings. This question was discussed fully and heatedly in 1978. There were eminent experts on both sides, and there were 20 or 30 letters in The Times. I fought against cutting down the lot, as did the distinguished actor, Marius
  726
  Goring, who lives nearby and is chairman of the Hampton Court Association. I believe that I also have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher.
  In the end, the Labour Government accepted our view. Last week, however, when. I called on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, partly to ask what was happening about the infilling, I sensed that some of his advisers were now speaking on hehalf of those who were fighting a rearguard action to reinstate the plan for a clean sweep.
  My hon. Friend is, of course, aware that many people feel very strongly indeed about trees. One of the jobs of hon. Members is to tell officials and experts what the public will not stand. As Sir Winston Churchill once said, "The experts must be kept on tap and not on top". If either my hon. Friend or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment authorise the destruction of more than 100 sound and beautiful green lime trees at Hampton Court, facing directly on to the palace, which are seen by 1 million people every year, they will unleash a fury and rage of such a size that they will wonder what has hit them. I hope that any such idea will soon be dropped.
  My next point concerns Barge Walk by the river Thames at Hampton Wick, where for years there has been a small and ugly car park. I do not believe that our royal parks should be in the business of providing car parks in conservation areas for commuters. This car park is so small that it was not economic to post a man there to run it. Therefore, it could not be occupied for the odd hour or two by short-stay parkers who might be shopping over the bridge in Kingston. It therefore tended to fill up with all-day commuters. Can my hon. Friend please make a statement on the action he is now taking to deal with this blot on the landscape?
  I turn to a small open space known as Glenside at the junction of Spencer Road and Popes Avenue near Twickenham Green. Application was made to the Richmond upon Thames borough council to develop that site at high density with 28 three-storey houses. Local people objected individually or through their excellent Strawberry Hill residents association. The Conservative-led borough council was united and refused planning permission, but the applicant appealed, the Ministry's planning inspector recommended reversal of the council's refusal, the appeal was accepted and planning permission was granted, even though this planning application related to a site of purely local interest.
  However, the land is subject to a covenant that it should remain open space. The Minister appears to have the power either to override that covenant or to uphold it. Therefore, the future of the site hangs upon that one point. If the covenant is upheld, development cannot proceed even though planning permission has been granted. There is strong and widespread local feeling that the site should remain open, and I ask my hon. Friend to respect that feeling and to honour the covenant.
  I turn finally to the effect of heavy traffic OE the environment of my constituency. Over the years, I have supported strongly the construction of the M25 ring motorway around Greater London. We suffer very heavy traffic on the orbital route around London through Uxbridge road, in Hampton Hill, through Hampton village and Hampton Court as well as on the Great Chertsey road, the A316, which leads to the M3 motorway and on main

  727
  roads between Kingston bridge, Hampton Wick, Teddington and Twickenham, towards London and through Whitton.
  The completion of the M25 is urgently needed. To give any effective relief to my constituents, this means the whole length of the south-western quarter from Reigate Hill, where that part of the M25 now ends, to Chertsey. There are four separate contracts—the first from the top of Reigate Hill to the Leatherhead interchange, the second for the Leatherhead interchange, the third from the Leatherhead interchange to Wisley on the A3 Portsmouth road and the fourth from Wisley to Chertsey from where the M25 is already open to the north.
  To relieve my constituents in Hampton Hill and in Hampton, it will be no good merely to have one, two or three of those parts open. All four must be open to remove traffic from the part of my constituency that has suffered for so long. No one imagines that all the flow of traffic or even a majority of it will be removed. I believe, however, that a significant part will be removed by direct transfer to the M25 and also the transfer of traffic crossing the Thames at Hampton Court to Walton bridge which will be made possible by the transfer of traffic from Walton bridge to the M25 nearby. I should like to know when each of the four parts of the M25 that I have mentioned will be completed and opened.
  Once the M25 is completed around the south-western quarter, I believe that it will take a proportion of the traffic that now passes through my constituency, including a disproportionate number of heavy lorries as a percentage of the total. It will also be a boon to the two-thirds of households in my constituency that possess cars. The motorway will become accessible between Esher and Leatherhead and so bring Kent, Surrey and Sussex 10 minutes' travelling time nearer.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some encouraging news.
  1.13 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I am pleased to be able to answer many of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and to congratulate him on his diligence in ensuring that the interests of his constituents and those of the many thousands who visit his constituency are thoroughly looked after. I willingly accept the congratulations that my hon. Friend asks me to convey to the parks staff. I echo the congratulations that he has offered on the work that has been done in making our royal parks so superb. I have been privileged in recent weeks to visit Bushy Park, Home Park and Hampton Court palace. My Department spends a great deal of taxpayers' money and I am anxious to discover how it is spent and to make certain that the parks staff are assured of our total interest. I shall willingly convey my hon. Friend's good wishes to the bailiff of the royal parks.
  I turn now to the points raised by my hon. Friend, which he and I have discussed on some previous occasions and which cause much anxiety in his constituency. The first of these is the question of the lime trees at Hampton Court palace. As my hon. Friend knows, we face a genuine dilemma. It is a question of looking at what the local representatives want and taking into consideration the advice of experts. I know that my hon. Friend may not
  728
  have too much of a rose-tinted view of what an expert may be. On another occasion somebody said that an expert was someone who carried a briefcase. On this occasion we have to listen to the advice of experts.
  As my hon. Friend was kind enough to mention, my constituency is not far away and the park is a regular route between my main home and my constituency. Although I do not know the area as well as he does, I know it fairly well. Many people get vast pleasure from Hampton Court, which attracts large numbers of tourist. Their interests, particularly those of the local residents, are very important. We have to take all those interests into account.
  My hon. Friend knows that essentially we have two options. One is to infill, as he has suggested, where trees have been felled, with new trees between the older, healthy ones. It would preserve the old trees to which so many people attach importance. If we cut them all down, and that is an agonising possibility, it will be many years before people can take pleasure from an avenue again. We also have to take nature into account. Trees planted in existing avenues, in particular when the trees remaining are mature, find it difficult to live under these conditions. They are unable to tolerate the growing conditions when they have to remain under the canopy of these trees. The shade cast forces them to look for light. In consequence, they either make tall, thin trees that are vulnerable to winds, or they become "one-sided" trees as they lean towards the light. Rarely do they grow as nature intended. Instead of noble, well-branched trees, they tend to form unnatural shapes and are often untypical of the species.
  Such trees are also being planted into ground that has been taken over by the existing trees. They therefore have to struggle for the water and nutrients that are essential to their growth. Although special planting positions are provided, new trees are not as vigorous as they would be if all other conditions were equal. I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that the firm advice of the experts is that we shall never have a satisfactory avenue if we follow an infilling policy. That is one view from the experts.
  Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that not all the experts' advice is on one side? When the matter came up three and a half years ago there were a number of eminent experts, such as Professor Stearn, president of the Garden History Society, who took an opposite view to the Tree Council, which is serving his Department.
  Mr. Macfarlane: That is one of the reasons why it is such an agonising decision. It is a major step, and we are anxious to absorb all the observations of all experts.
  The alternative of felling all the trees and planting afresh is something that we have looked at over the years. All the trees would then have an equal chance and eventually there would once again be a magnificent avenue for visitors and residents to admire. History could not criticise us for doing that. I understand my hon. Friend's arguments, but there is a genuine dilemma.
  I recognise the view of those who argue for infilling. I emphasise that my Department has taken no decision, although we clearly must do so soon. I am grateful for the views we have received. I shall let my hon. Friend know the Government's decision as soon as I can. Meanwhile I hope that he will take up the suggestion I have put to him to look at the effects of past infilling in lime avenues at Hampton Court and then compare the infilling at Hampton with the avenue of trees in Kensington Gardens, which were planted 30 years ago, to see what has happened there.

  729
  My hon. Friend also raised the problem of Barge Walk. I took the opportunity of going down to have a look at the problem some weeks ago. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend for the plans that the Department has for what used to be the car park on Barge Walk in Hampton Court park. It was high time that this area was returned to natural parkland. As he knows, the Department has wished to do this for some time now. But we have had to wait until the borough council was successful in evicting the vehicles illegally parked there and used for residential and other purposes. These vehicles were on site at the time that the Department withdrew the licence for the council to run a car park there and it thus fell to it to take legal action to remove them.
  We are now moving forward very quickly. A barrier has been in place for some weeks now, across the main entrance off Barge Walk. Next week work will start on breaking up the concrete ground. This is in preparation for sowing seed and planting trees and shrubs later this autumn. When we are preparing the ground, as I have described, we shall erect a further barrier to prevent access to the area from the road under Kingston bridge that leads to the towpath. We shall not interfere with passage along this road or access from it to the towpath, which belongs to the Thames water authority.
  I hope that everyone in Hampton Wick and the surrounding area will welcome what we have in hand for removing this distinctly untidy blot in a most important Royal Park. Foremost among those who will benefit will be the owners of houseboats moored alongside the towpath. I am ensuring that they are being kept informed, through the Thames water authority, of our plans step by step. I shall continue to keep my hon. Friend informed of progress in the next few months, as I have been doing in meetings and correspondence.
  I turn to the third point raised by my hon. Friend—the Glenside site. I wrote to him yesterday about the Glenside lawn tennis club and reassured him that all the relevant factors that he has put forward will be taken into account before any decision is reached. There is nothing that I can add at this stage except to say that I have examined all the details, and I am aware of the problems of the town planning application and the covenant. I guarantee to take all those factors into consideration.
  I turn to the traffic problems facing my hon. Friend's constituents. I can understand my hon. Friend's great interest in the progress of the London outer orbital between the M4 and Reigate. He knows the history of that problem better than I do because it affects his constituency a great deal more than mine. As he knows, about five miles of the M25 is already open to traffic from Yeoveney, north of Staines, to Chertsey. Completion of the remaining sections is expected to be as follows. The first will be Reigate westward to Wisley. There are three separate contracts covering this section and all three are expected to be completed by spring 1985. The second part is Wisley to
  730
  Chertsey. This is well under way and is expected to be completed in the summer of 1983. The stretch from Yeoveney northward to Poyle is also under construction, including a spur towards the west side of Heathrow airport. Completion is expected by the summer of 1983. Work has not yet started on the stretch from Poyle northward to the M4, but completion is programmed for 1985–86. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that this work has the highest priority in his trunk road programme, and he regrets that he can see no possibility of hastening the project.
  I shall say a few words on the degree of traffic relief which the M25 should bring to two main routes in my hon. Friend's constituency. First, the Uxbridge Road (A312), Hampton Court Road (A308) and Hampton Court Way (A309) over Hampton Court bridge all combine to form an orbital route in outer South-West London. On these routes it is expected that between 5 per cent. and 25 per cent. of the traffic on them will transfer to the M25 when the sections that I have mentioned are completed. The greatest relief will be on the A309 over Hampton Court bridge and the least relief will be on the Uxbridge Road, the A312. That is an estimate that has been put forward.
  Secondly, the Great Chertsey Road, the A316, is part of a major radial road with primary route signposting between the M3 at Sunbury and Central London. Traffic studies carried out by the Greater London Council tome years ago indicated that traffic on the Great Chertsey Road would be reduced by about only 3 per cent. with the advent of the M25. However, as the 3 per cent. reduction is expected to relate to vehicles undertaking longer distance journeys, it is a significant figure because many of those vehicles will be lorries. Their diversion to the M25 wall be an undoubted environmental benefit for those living on and near the Great Chertsey Road.
  I hope that, by examining some of those points, my hon. Friend will realise that it is our intention to pursue that particular programme as quickly as is possible. Everyone understands and sympathises with the congestion and the problems facing not only his constituents but also the many tourists who visit that part of South-West London. We are anxious that those programmes should proceed.
  I have covered the issues that my hon. Friend raised, including the lime trees, Barge Walk, the Glenside problem and the M25. I conclude by offering further discussion on any of the matters raised by my hon. Friend. He knows that my door is always open and that the Department is anxious to do what it can to help. I acknowledge the thanks and appreciation that he expressed of our park staff. I endorse his remarks and congratulate the staff too. It has done a magnificent job after a heavy and bad winter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past One o'clock.

TRADE
  Aviation Security Levy
  Aviation Security Levy
  Trading Check Services
  Trading Check Services
  Insolvencies
  Insolvencies
  British Midland Airways
  British Midland Airways
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Special Deposits
  Special Deposits
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Civil Servants (Salary Scales)
  Civil Servants (Salary Scales)
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Wick Airport (Customs and Excise Clearance)
  Wick Airport (Customs and Excise Clearance)
  Development Land Tax
  Development Land Tax
  Assets (Special Sales)
  Assets (Special Sales)
  Preferential Debts
  Preferential Debts
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. and Mrs. Karas (Residence Permits)
  Mr. and Mrs. Karas (Residence Permits)
  Sex Discrimination Act (Amendments)
  Sex Discrimination Act (Amendments)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Young Persons (Training)
  Young Persons (Training)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  European Community (Education Ministers' Meeting)
  European Community (Education Ministers' Meeting)
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Secondary Schools (Select Committee Report)
  Secondary Schools (Select Committee Report)
  Toxteth
  Toxteth
ENERGY
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Central Electricity Generating Board
  Wave Energy
  Wave Energy
WALES
  Cot Deaths
  Cot Deaths
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill
  Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill
  Local Authorities (Overspend)
  Local Authorities (Overspend)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Factory Closures
  Factory Closures
  Plastic and Rubber Bullets
  Plastic and Rubber Bullets
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  South Georgia
  South Georgia
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Residential Accommodation (Charges)
  Residential Accommodation (Charges)
INDUSTRY
  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
SOCIAL SERVICES
  In-patient Statistics
  In-patient Statistics
  Hounslow Hospital
  Hounslow Hospital
  "Children and Poverty"
  "Children and Poverty"
  Health Service Patients (Overseas Treatment)
  Health Service Patients (Overseas Treatment)
  Child Care
  Child Care
  Blood Supplies
  Blood Supplies
  National Health Service (Pay)
  National Health Service (Pay)
  Small Cottage Hospitals
  Small Cottage Hospitals
  St. George's Hospital, Tooting (Dental School)
  St. George's Hospital, Tooting (Dental School)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Secure Units)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Secure Units)
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Midwifery
  Midwifery
  Patients (Records)
  Patients (Records)
  Mothers (Ethnic Origins)
  Mothers (Ethnic Origins)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  District Health Authorities (Appointments)
  District Health Authorities (Appointments)
  Obstetric and Neonatal Care
  Obstetric and Neonatal Care
  Social Security Offices
  Social Security Offices
  St. George's Hospital, Stafford
  St. George's Hospital, Stafford
EMPLOYMENT
  Work Availability (Pilot Trial)
  Work Availability (Pilot Trial)
  Women Employees
  Women Employees
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Jobcentre Placings
  Jobcentre Placings
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Pay Rates (Jobcentres)
  Pay Rates (Jobcentres)
  Unemployed Women
  Unemployed Women
  Draft Notification of Hazardous Installations Regulations
  Draft Notification of Hazardous Installations Regulations
  Housing Insulation (Expenditure)
  Housing Insulation (Expenditure)
SCOTLAND
  Police Officers (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Police Officers (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Council Housing (Dampness)
  Council Housing (Dampness)
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Miss Christine Vertucci
  Miss Christine Vertucci
  Hong Kong (Visas and Work Permits)
  Hong Kong (Visas and Work Permits)
  Arms Sales
  Arms Sales
  Passports
  Passports
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Salmon
  Salmon
ENVIRONMENT
  Forest of Wychwood (Public Access)
  Forest of Wychwood (Public Access)
  Village Churches
  Village Churches
  Hemerdon (Public Inquiry)
  Hemerdon (Public Inquiry)
  Industrial Research Fellowship Scheme
  Industrial Research Fellowship Scheme
  Hyde Hall, Denton (Public Inquiry)
  Hyde Hall, Denton (Public Inquiry)
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  House of Commons (Annunciators)
  House of Commons (Annunciators)
  Rating System
  Rating System
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  National Re-survey
  National Re-survey
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
TRANSPORT
  Motorways (Traffic Flows)
  Motorways (Traffic Flows)
  European Council of Transport Ministers
  European Council of Transport Ministers
  Channel Link
  Channel Link
DEFENCE
  Low-flying Aircraft
  Low-flying Aircraft
  Belize
  Belize
  Exocet
  Exocet
  Meteorological Office
  Meteorological Office
  Widows (Pensions)
  Widows (Pensions)
  South Georgia
  South Georgia
  Porton Down Chemical Defence Establishment
  Porton Down Chemical Defence Establishment
  Animals (Laboratory Experiments)
  Animals (Laboratory Experiments)
  Requisitioned Vessels
  Requisitioned Vessels
  Chatham Dockworkers (Radiation Exposure)
  Chatham Dockworkers (Radiation Exposure)

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Air Security Charges Review
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to say when they expect completion of the Review on Air Security Charges and related matters being conducted by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and whether, upon completion, a Statement will be made in both Houses of Parliament.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the Government expect to complete the review before the summer adjournment, and to inform each House of Parliament of the results. I can tell the House now, though, that I have decided, subject to the approval of Parliament, to extend the reduction of 40p in the aviation security levy from 31st August 1982 until 31st March 1983. Draft amendment regulations to give effect to this will be laid shortly.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while being glad of any information and, of course, being grateful for the reduction that the noble Lord has just announced, may I ask him whether it would be possible to give advance information to those of us who are interested as to when we might expect the Statement when the time gets a little nearer?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I shall certainly bear in mind what the noble Baroness says, but usually one makes a Statement on these matters as soon as possible after the review has been completed.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the method of search at each gate is efficient and economical, and whether the American system of having one large system at the entrance to all the gates is not a lot more economical and a lot more efficient?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I shall certainly bear in mind what my noble friend says, but the review is primarily directed to the question of charging and recoupment of the costs involved.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while the Minister probably would not wish to give an answer, may I ask him whether the views recently put before the Government by both IATA and the British Civil Aviation Standing Conference on the method of charging for air security are receiving their unbiased consideration?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we always give all representations unbiased consideration. It does not always follow, however, that the representations are within the ambit of the review.

Medical and General Certification: Charges
2.39 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether medical practitioners are entitled to make a charge for signing an application for postal votes in local or general elections for those National Health Service patients who wish to apply for them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords, they are not.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that I can provide sufficient evidence that this is in fact happening? May I quote just one case in Sutton and Cheam, where a housebound patient has been charged £3 for the signing of such a form?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there is a formal complaint procedure for these matters. The local family practitioner committee would wish to look into any such case as the noble Lord describes, and the complaint should be made within eight weeks of the event; but if there is any such occurrence falling outside the ambit of the complaint procedure and the noble Lord would like to draw it to my attention, I should be happy to look into it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister check whether the publicity that is usually given in newspapers and by TV shots, particularly prior to a general election, about the facilities for postal voting includes the fact that medical practitioners should not charge for this; and if it does not include it, will he ensure that it does so in future?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is a very relevant point, and, again, if the noble Lord will draw my attention to any particular difficulty I shall be happy to look into it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the patient have any opportunity of recouping from the errant medical practitioner in the circumstances?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that in the first instance that would be a matter for the family practitioner committee, to which I referred just now, but I certainly think that any wrongly made charges ought to be refunded.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while many doctors show no reluctance to make quite heavy charges for

115
things like private certificates, is the noble Lord aware that there is an increasing number of doctors who are beginning to resent the intrusion of direct charges between themselves and their patients? Would the noble Lord also agree that it might be helpful, not only to patients but to some younger doctors who are perhaps in ignorance about these matters, if he would publish a list of the items which doctors are required to supply free of charge to patients on their National Health Service lists, such as a certificate to exempt from jury service, and so on?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think the occasions when doctors should or should not charge for certificates of this nature are quite clearly laid down in the doctors' terms of service, and the matter which is referred to in the Question is in fact covered by paragraph 31 of the doctors' terms of service, so I would not necessarily agree that there is need for greater clarification of these matters; but I am certainly open to be convinced if the noble Lord wants to persuade me otherwise. As for the wish of doctors to charge or not to charge, there are circumstances, I think, when doctors should very properly make a charge for an examination, particularly when a patient is not suffering from any particular disease but needs a certificate for some private purpose. I gather, for example, that a number of London doctors were somewhat concerned recently to be asked to examine people prior to the recent London marathon to make sure that they were fit to participate in that event; but that, perhaps, is another matter.

Enterprise Zones
2.42 p.m.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now able to give a report on the progress of the enterprise zones as a factor bringing industry and jobs back to the specific inner city areas selected by the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, we cannot report comprehensively on the development of the enterprise zones at this stage, because Government requests for information from firms in the zones are being kept to a minimum. However, consultants have been appointed to monitor what happens in the areas designated, and later this year they will be reporting on the first year of operation of the zones. In the meantime we are taking a close interest in developments brought to our attention by enterprise zones authorities or other bodies; and, of course, not all the zones are located in inner city areas.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that we still need some social control over the
116
geography of employment and that the placing of these enterprise zones is therefore of great importance? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that a new scheme has been established by the Undet-Secretary only a few weeks ago for painters and decorators in the enterprise zones, whereby they are given £40 a week, taxable, and must have £1,000 capital to start? Will he be able to tell us, not necessarily now, how these areas are selected?—because new housing is of paramount importance in the mobility of labour for employment, and houses to rent come before houses to buy in these enterprise zones. Is the noble Lord aware that on both sides of the House those of us in the Small Business Committee appreciate the efforts that the Government have made in connection with small businesses and enterprise zones?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the information that he gave me in asking the supplementary question. He seems to know something about the zones that I do not know. I was interested to hear what he said about the scheme for painters and decorators, about which I had not heard. So far as I am aware, this is not an official scheme that comes through my department. I will want to look at it to see the implications or possibilities that arise from it. As to his other observations, I agree that the location and siting is very important. What we did previously was to call for applications from authorities who wanted to have zones in their areas and there were more applications than placings of zones. What happens in future will depend upon what is being achieved. We understand that there is some element of needing to know perhaps more quickly than might have been the case previously. We are hoping to have the consultants' report next month, and we hope to be able to come out with its findings in early autumn.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to comment upon the allegation that a number of these zones are failing by simply attracting some companies to hop from just outside the zone to just inside the zone without any real creation of new jobs? Is this happening to any extent which is likely to prejudice the success of the experiment?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a valid question. if what he said became the rule, it would bring into question the success of the scheme. But we have no general knowledge of this happening. There is the odd situation—and one would expect that. If zones are to be the success that is hoped, they will bring up the whole of the area and not just those which are within the zones; so that everyone should benefit. But only time will tell if this is so.

Israel: Withdrawal from Occupied Territories
2.46 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they

117
will initiate discussions in the United Nations to secure the withdrawal of Israelis from territories occupied by them to be followed by a takeover of such territories by United Nations peace-keeping forces.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we remain committed to Security Council Resolution 242, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war. We believe that the necessary guarantees should ideally be provided by the United Nations by a decision of the Security Council, or, if necessary, on the basis of other mutually agreed procedures, and we are ready to play our part in this.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. Would he not agree that if we can make this first step a reality it will create a new climate in the long search for peace and security? The other attribute is that it will stop the maiming and killing and the suffering of humanity in that area.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government agree with the noble Lord that this would be the ideal way of proceeding; but we feel that the parties are too far apart to make a United Nations solution realistic at the present time. However, the Venice Declaration sets out the common ground that we believe the parties must agree upon before negotiations for a comprehensive settlement can be agreed.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not true that the Israelis took a great risk for peace when they surrendered the Sinai? Surely, this is a risk which has not been acknowledged or taken into account by anyone—including the Venice Declaration.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the 10 countries of the European Community have welcomed the peace between Israel and Egypt and the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai. But, having said that, there is further work to be done. The 10 countries of the Community believe the way forward will be by way of the Venice Declaration.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that before 1957 there were United Nations peace-keeping forces in position in the Sinai but that, when Colonel Nasser amassed his forces to invade Palestine, he asked the United Nations' forces to get out of his way and they duly scarpered? Is this likely to create much confidence in that sort of security force? Is he further aware that since then no anti-semitic motion in the United Nations has ever failed to obtain a 10-to-1 majority and that, very properly, most of them were vetoed later by the Americans and by ourselves?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am aware of the information which the noble Lord gave me at the beginning of his supplementary question. Our participation in the Sinai peace-keeping force demonstrates our
118
support for the Egypt-Israel peace treaty and the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai which has flowed from it. On the second point which the noble Lord, Lord Paget, put to me, I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that regretfully—because we believe that the United Nations provides the ideal method of going forwards—the parties are too far apart to make a United Nations solution realistic at the present time.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, in fact we would need another United Nations.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is a matter of opinion.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it would be advisable to leave the matter to the Camp David framework where there is an obligation on the part of the Israelis, the Jordanians and the Palestine Liberation Organisation to work out between themselves an ideal solution?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as I have said, the 10 countries of the European Community have welcomed the peace between Israel and Egypt and the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai which of course has flowed from Camp David. However, the autonomy talks must result in a workable arrangement acceptable to the Palestinians if they are to be successful. We therefore believe that early Palestinian involvement is also essential.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make sure that, if there is such an international peace-keeping force, it is irremovable, strong and has some good, sharp teeth because we may be needing it elsewhere fairly soon?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand the concern which the noble Viscount is expressing. The United Nations presence in the Middle East—of course the peace-keeping force in Sinai is not a United Nations force—is an example of the United Nations doing its best. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Paget, that his second supplementary question was a matter of opinion because the Government disagree with him.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Camp David accord is based upon and in the context of United Nations Resolution 242? It had two parts: the first dealt with Sinai and the other with Gaza and the West Bank. The first part has been carried out with great faith and courage by the Israelis and the Egyptians. So far as the second part is concerned, will he agree that Israel published autonomy proposals for the West Bank in January of this year? Will he encourage Egypt and Israel to discuss those proposals as a basis for autonomy, which of course is an interim stage, rather than pursue the Venice proposals which Israel will not look at? What is the good of pursuing that when these proposals are on the table and that is the only hope of progress in that part of the world in the immediate future?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for saying so, but we are getting a little far from the United Nations. The Government agree with the

119
noble Lord that Camp David achieved a major step forward by bringing about peace between Egypt and Israel. It was a notable step. The question is now whether the Camp David process can lead to a comprehensive settlement. But I repeat that, although that is a very important consideration, the 10 countries of the Community support the principles of the Venice Declaration. We have always made it clear that at the same time we do not wish by doing that to cut across the work which is also going on as a result of Camp David.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Israelis are at present impeding the Camp David autonomy talks by requiring as a new departure that they should take place in Jerusalem, thus requiring the Egyptians and the Americans to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? Will he also say whether this subject was discussed by the Community Foreign Ministers last weekend and whether the Community are proposing to take a new initiative?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the second question which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asks me. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, I agree that there is trouble concerning the status of Jerusalem so far as the Camp David talks are concerned. But I think that your Lordships will forgive me if I say now that this is not a United Nations matter; and now we really are outside the scope of the Question.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, is it not the fact that the disagreement which clearly exists between the two sides in this matter is a serious one, as the Minister emphasises? Is it therefore not clear that it is more necessary than ever that there should be an independent initiative based on an understanding of the needs of both sides, and that that initiative should not be left aside but should be energetically pursued, not least by our own country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, again I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. It is necessary for both Israel's right to exist in peace and the Palestinians' right to self-determination—which are the two principles of the Venice Declaration—to be recognised. I repeat again that Her Majesty's Government will be only too pleased to see, ideally, these matters pursued through the United Nations. The political will to reach a settlement through that channel is necessary. At the moment that will is lacking.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, in view of what happened in Lebanon this week, may I ask the Minister whether there is not a great danger that conflict will become intense? While one recognises that the Secretary-General of the United Nations is concentrating on the Falkland Islands crisis, is it not desirable in this situation that there should be a meeting of the Security Council demanding an end to military action, by either Israel or the PLO, and strengthening the United Nations peace-keeping force in Lebanon to prevent further outbreaks?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the problem regarding a Security Council initiative is the familiar one. The work of the Security Council is valuable. The actions of the Security Council are difficult to carry through into achievement. The Government have expressed our concern publicly and have taken diplomatic action with all the parties concerned to urge them to exercise maximum restraint as a result of the events in Lebanon in the past few days. We hope there will be no further resort to violent action.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what he has said this afternoon will make a massive contribution to those who read his words on both sides of this grievious dispute? One day they will have to meet and they will have to talk because the alternative is that they will have to go on killing. I would have thought that any sane person in this Chamber would agree that this cannot be. Therefore, I suggest that Her Majesty's Government use their good offices to bring the issue to the United Nations along the following lines, with this order of priority: stop the killing; reduce the bitterness; and sit down to discuss a lasting security in peace for all in that area.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on the desirability of reaching a settlement in the Middle East. We believe with our fellow Common Market countries in the two Venice principles. We and our partners in the 10 will continue to work energetically to urge the acceptance of these principles as a first step towards negotiations on a comprehensive settlement.

Dinner
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period.

Hertsmere Borough Council (Rowley Lane) Bill
Read a third time, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Cornwall County Council Bill [H.L.]
County of Lancashire Bill [H.L.]
Hampshire Bill [H.L.]
Nottinghamshire County Council Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That those provisions in the Bills against which no petition has been presented, or if presented has been withdrawn in whole or in part, or which

121
become unopposed by reason of any of the provisions of Standing Order 113 be committed to a Select Committee and that the quorum of the Select Committee be two.—(Lord Aberdare.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill
3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Gas Corporation's powers of disposal]:
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 18A:
Page 9, line 41, at end insert—
(" Provided that such disposal shall not result in the impairment of essential services nor imperil supplies to or safety of consumers.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends. Clause 9 takes power to fulfil the Government's intention, as announced by the Secretary of State on 19th October last year, to privatise the British Gas Corporation's offshore oil assets. If my reading of the clause is correct, the powers will also be capable of use for the disposal of the British Gas Corporation's showrooms, although I perfectly understand that the Government have announced that this would have to wait until new safety legislation has been passed.
In these clauses the Government are asking for very wide discretionary powers to be given to the Secretary of State, including the power to order the British Gas Corporation to dispose of any part of the corporation; but in my comments I shall concentrate on the gas showrooms. During the Second Reading debate my noble friend Lord Underhill spoke at length on the position of the gas showrooms and his remarks are in col. 513 of the Official Report, Tuesday, 20th April. Though my noble friend raised many points regarding the gas showrooms, in the Minister's winding-up speech I do not think my noble friend received one reply to any of the comments he made regarding the gas showrooms. No doubt later today my noble friend will be reiterating those points and hoping to get some answers.
I understand completely that the Monopolies Commission brought forth their findings on the sale of gas appliances, but I should be grateful if the Minister could give us some information regarding the soundings he had from consumer organisations, particularly from the gas consumer organisations and from organisations generally interested in consumer affairs regarding the closure of the gas showrooms. It would be interesting to know whether a public opinion poll was even considered to see what the gas customer really
122
wished. I should like to tell your Lordships that the trade union movement organised a petition. It had widespread support. In fact, there were over 5 million signatures on it when it was presented, and those signatures were for the preservation of the gas showrooms for the services that they gave to the gas customer.
Like others of your Lordships in this Committee, I have the opportunity of speaking at many meetings and conferences and perhaps because one is a female one gets invited to more female than male groups—perhaps that is because we do not know the right kind of stories to tell to a male group. These meetings have enabled me to gain the views and opinions from many women's organisations—political, non-political, those which are attached to Churches and various institutes and those which are attached to no particular organisation. One of the most important points they emphasise is the advice that is given to them on the appliances which are sold. That advice goes into great detail regarding the suitability of the appliance for the purpose that is required, the advice that is given on running costs and the advice that is given on service arrangements. These things are important to the consumer when they are making what is in many instances quite an expensive purchase. Another thing which I have gathered from the opinions I have heard is that customers appreciate being able to browse and look round in the showroom and to come in again if necessary. They are not subjected to the high-pressure sales techniques we find in many organisations.
Another opinion I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention was one that was continually expressed; namely, the easy access for advice which was given at a very personal level. Noble Lords might not appreciate these points so very much because perhaps they are more skilful in the use of the telephone, but there are thousands and millions of people in this country who have not got that great skill of being able to use the telephone to the very best advantage when seeking information or making complaints. The very fact that thousands of people have not got that skill means that they get a real sense of satisfaction by going into the gas showroom, making their complaint and asking for advice. The very fact that they have spoken face-to-face with somebody gives them the satisfaction of a service which they very much appreciate.
This opinion was emphasised in meeting those persons in the older age groups. They really appreciated being able to, as they said, "Pop into the showroom", if they had any fears about the safety of an appliance. In many cases to the elderly it might be something quite simple—that the pilot light on the gas stove might not work correctly or the gas fire keeps on popping, and that causes them worry. There might be a vague smell of gas that causes them concern. What they did appreciate, and I hope the noble Minister appreciates it as well, was the personal contact with an understanding person who realised their fears. These fears to the elderly are real. It is something on which the Gas Board have really tried to be particularly helpful to them. I would go so far as to say that safety is paramount.
The confidence which the public now has in the BGC arises from the fact that the undertaking is publicly owned. There is always a greater expectation of

123
safety from a statutory undertaking, and it is important that that confidence should be retained. Confidence arises mainly because the Government lay down rules and regulations in Acts of Parliament, and local authorities, as well as statutory undertakings themselves, take on board the paramount need for safety, and I do not think that the Government can seriously challenge the record of the Gas Board. In the present state of affairs, we have to be completely satisfied that the Government are cutting no corners regarding safety, and there must be no public anxiety.
If I may pose a question to the noble Earl the Minister to make quite sure that he understands our concern about gas showrooms, can he give us an assurance that gas prices will not rise significantly as a result of hiving-off the showrooms? There is an anxiety that, because of the lack of profit arising from the sale of appliances, gas prices will in future have to be increased in order to provide services. May I say to noble Lords on the Government Benches that, in trying to please some of their friends, they may be losing friends elsewhere.
I draw the attention of the noble Earl to the fact that many gas showrooms are in shopping precincts. The gas showroom, the electricity showroom, the building society office and the bank are what are called the prestige buildings, which are liked because they add stability. More often than not, those organisations will keep their shops up to a very high standard and will be continual tenants. Therefore, I imagine that noble Lords on the other side, and their friends in the property business, will be looking askance at the fact that in future gas showrooms may disappear from shopping precincts.
Would it be too much to ask the Minister to explain to the Committee how he expects that safety and the fitting of gas appliances will be safeguarded if the Government take away the services that are provided by the gas showrooms? Is it the intention of the Government to prevent the Gas Board from selling appliances? Will the Government say, quite categorically, that under this Bill the Gas Board cannot sell appliances in future? The important point is that, up to the present time, the consumer has been adequately safeguarded by the Gas Consumer Councils. But will the consumer organisations disappear when we go over to greater privatisation, and will consumers have no organisations to which they can make their complaints?
Finally, we are particularly concerned on this side that there will be a loss of jobs if gas showrooms are closed. The figures have been given on many occasions, and the figure of unemployment arising from the closing of gas showrooms is a very large one. But there is another aspect which concerns my noble friends and myself on this side of the Committee. There are many people employed in the manufacture of gas appliances, and we are concerned that the abolition of gas showrooms could have a serious effect on British manufacturers. There is no need for me to go into great detail this afternoon, about how very large and well-known firms have been seriously hit by competition in what we call the white goods trade; that is, the manufacture of fridges, freezers, washing machines and dryers. We know that considerable unemploy
124
ment has arisen in that manufacturing area, and we are concerned that people who are employed in the manufacture of gas appliances could be similarly affected. I beg to move.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Miles: I shall come to the matter of the sale of showrooms towards the end of my five-minute oration. I suppose we should all agree that one of the primal aims of the present Government is to underscore the total failure of nationally owned and operated enterprise, and to emphasise that fact by restoring as much as possible of it to the private sector. So would it not be fair to ask what on earth can be the sense of transferring a highly successful nationalised enterprise—in this case of British Gas, one of the most successful examples of nationally owned and operated enterprises of all time—to the private sector, unless for the sake of some idée fixe or cherished dogma?
Am I not correct in believing that one of the Government's most precious objectives is to break the stranglehold, as they conceive it, of nationalisation in order to encourage market efficiency? But British Gas, in its nationalised form, has already shown all the marks of individual enterprise and market efficiency; the very foundation stones upon which wide areas of Government policy rest. It cannot, surely, be made more successful than it has been. It is run by one of the major figures in the energy field, a classic example of individual enterprise and initiative operating in the interests of the community at large.
Thus I submit that the Bill aims at cutting a particularly successful nationalised enterprise down to size, in order to maim and shackle it, not for the sake of common sense or justice, or for the general wellbeing, but for the sake of rigid dogma. This seems to me to be topsy-turvy version of the very tenets which the Government claim to embrace.
If I may personalise the matter, I would venture to put it thus. As a reward for inspiration, technical ability of the highest order, a true sense of adventure and total commitment to the work in hand, Sir Denis Rooke and his department are now to have part of their home pulled down around their ears. Would this not seem to resemble, in Sir Denis's case, a man who has built a fine house equipped with all modern conveniences, including a magnificent bathroom, but who, on going to relieve himself one morning, finds that the bathroom has been removed in the night because some well-intentioned zealot on a local authority —probably a vegetarian—believes that it not only saves water, but is healthier, more enjoyable and more morale-boosting to relieve oneself in the open air? As the great Marie Lloyd sang in one of her most touching and charmingly evocative songs:
"I sits among the cabbages and peas".
I could also mention the uncertainties of the Bill in the matter of drafting—at least, in my submission. Disquieting phrases like "for the moment", "at the present time", and "liable to be modified" would seem to appear all too often, possibly foreshadowing deviations already settled upon but for the moment held under close wraps.
With your Lordships' leave, I will make one final, very brief and, I hope your Lordships will agree, rather moving plea. For many years it has been a first

125
principle of British Gas to exhibit in their showrooms only domestic articles and equipment made in England. How many of us are old enough to remember those three cheerful words stamped on our toys and household goods—how they warmed the Christmas stocking! May we hope that this policy will be adhered to after the sell-off.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Underhill: It is good to listen to the fresh air from the noble Lord, Lord Miles, which indicates that this is not a party political amendment. If noble Lords will look at it, the amendment refers to the necessity not to dispose of any subsidiary of British Gas if it will imperil the position of the consumer, or imperil supplies, or imperil safety.
My noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal referred to my remarks at Second Reading concerning the sale of gas showrooms. Before I deal briefly with the showroom position, may I refer to two other matters? The Government made clear at Second Reading in the other place that they have no plans at present—the important words are "at present"—to dispose of their interests in the British Gas gasfields, or to dispose of its transmission and distribution system. But the important words are "at present". The power is there. If the gasfields, as distinct from the oilfields where there is gas, were disposed of, British Gas would no longer have complete rights over the gas which it at present owns. It would have to compete in the market for supplies. I suggest that that cannot possibly be in the interest of consumers.
Having listened to the praise of British Gas by the noble Lord, Lord Miles, may I say that I hope all noble Lords have seen today's press statement by the corporation's chairman, Sir Denis Rooke, that there have been two further encouraging finds of gas off the Lancashire coast in the Irish Sea, made entirely by British Gas. It conducted the exploration. It would be a tragedy if the Government used their power to take over those gasfields from the gas industry. It would adversely affect the consumer.
I am certain that no noble Lord visualises that there will be more than one transmission or distribution system in one area. But if at some future date the Government did decide—remembering that the words "at present" are in the Bill—to dispose of any part of the system, then there would be a monopoly situation in that area, because nobody visualises two gas transmission systems running in parallel. In those circumstances, how would the interests of consumers be preserved? Under the Gas Act of 1972, British Gas is subject to the supervision of the Secretary of State and Parliament. How would similar control be obtained over a private company supplying gas in what would be a monopoly situation in a particular part of the country? There would seem to be no provision whatever in the Bill for such an eventuality.
May I say just a few words about the issue of showrooms. Many noble Lords—certainly on this side of the House, and I am certain that others will agree—believe that this will impair the services to the consumer and will raise issues of safety. I emphasise what I said at Second Reading: that both private and public gas undertakings were almost the sole suppliers of gas appliances long before nationalisation in 1949. It
126
has always been a primary part of the business of the various gas undertakings. There is certainly no monopoly. Again I would emphasise the point that when the Monopolies Commission started its work there were only 500 private outlets, that by the time the commission issued its reports there were 1,000 private outlets and that by June of last year—a year after the commission's report—there were 2,000 outlets. There is therefore no monopoly situation for British Gas, which has only 900 showrooms.
My noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal referred to the visits which ordinary consumers make to the showrooms. May I refer to out-of-production models? There are now 34 million domestic appliances in use, of which some 24 million are out-of-production models which have to be maintained with a degree of safety. People go to showrooms to discuss this matter and also to discuss with the corporation the question of spare parts. It must be recognised that the corporation maintains a massive spare parts section carrying no fewer than 125,000 items and, in all, some 2·5 million spares.
It is generally recognised that the corporation believes the safety aspect of its work with consumers to be as important as anything else. Despite the 2,000 private outlets, people still go, as my noble friend said, to the gas showrooms. They have confidence in them. They also go there for purposes other than to buy appliances. The corporation has made it clear that only 50 per cent. of showroom staff time is spent upon dealing with the sale of appliances. Some 50 million visits are made each year to the showrooms—a great public service—to buy appliances, to pay bills, to arrange for services and to seek advice on energy conservation. The corporation emphasises that no fewer than 8 million visits are made for the purpose of buying gas savings stamps, of which £34 million-worth are sold each year to visitors to the showrooms. When people go for that purpose to the showrooms they ask about other advice which they need in connection with their gas supply. The corporation now carries out each year, on average, some 50 million customer service jobs. Two million customers—I am one of them—have service contracts with the corporation. I have a service contract for my gas central heating. Over half a million visits are made to consumers by the corporation to check gas fires. Many of these visits are made as a result of contact with people at the gas showrooms.
May I repeat the question which my noble friend asked and which I asked at Second Reading? I said then that I should be very happy if the Government would make it clear that, even if they eventually decide —which we hope they will not—to proceed with the disposal of the gas showrooms, they will not carry out their statement that they will also call upon the corporation to cease any participation in retailing—something which the gas undertakings carried on for decades before nationalisation in 1949.
The closure of the showrooms would be against the interests of consumers and could affect safety. The Government recognise this. When the original statement was made, both in this House and in the other place, the Government overlooked the question of safety and had to come along later and say that they would not dispose of the showrooms until they had

127
introduced safety legislation. That seems to me to be a cockeyed way of doing things. Therefore I hope that we may receive today a clear answer to the question: why are the Government deciding to go ahead with the sale of the showrooms? They were not told to do so by the Monopolies Commission. The Monopolies Commission put forward three options. It said that the Government should select two of these, and the Government decided to select the more restrictive one of the sale. The other question is: in the light of this, will the Government change their view on ensuring that the gas corporation does not take any part in retailing? That would seem to be hitting at the very principle of competition which the Government endeavour to put forward. If the Government do want to go ahead with the sale of the showrooms, which I believe would be a great pity, then they ought to permit the gas corporation still to take part in retailing in competition with private outlets.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Lee of Newton: My noble friend Lord Underhill has stressed that the Government agree that the gas corporation is a highly successful publicly-owned industry. Those of your Lordships with long memories will recall the days prior to nationalisation when the gas industry was rapidly moving downhill and would probably have ceased to exist at all in a year or two. In those days it depended entirely upon the carbonisation of coal, a most uneconomic process. It had literally hundreds of very small gasworks throughout the country which could not possibly be made a viable proposition. When the industry became nationalised it immediately began to modernise and make a whole of what had been its disparate parts. I will pay as great a tribute as I can to Sir Henry Jones, who was then chairman of the gas corporation, and to his colleagues for the fact that they accomplished at least two revolutions within the course of a few years.
The first was the changeover from carbonisation of coal to the use of the by-products of oil. It is easy to just say that, but it was really a huge and highly successful revolution in the production of gas in this country. That being so, why in heaven's name do the Government wish to continue with their destructive interference in what on any count is one of the most highly successful industries in Britain, either in the public or the private sector? When the changeover to the use of the by-products of oil had been completed —and, incidentally, that development encouraged other industries, as well—the gas corporation had what we called the ICI process in operation for only a short period of time when a further revolution came; instead of changing over from carbonising coal to using oil by-products, the industry stopped producing any gas at all. It had to change from being an industry which had always based itself on producing gas to one which simply distributed methane from the North Sea. Indeed, the corporation imported a certain amount of methane from Algeria as well.
That huge revolution took place in a comparatively short period of time. Indeed, during my days at the Ministry of Power in 1965–66, we did not even know for certain that we were going to get any gas from the North Sea. Sir Maurice Bridgeman, who was then
128
chairman of BP, was good enough to send me almost daily bulletins on the subject and there was great excitement. At last we realised that we were going to have our own supply of gas and that it would make a huge difference to the terribly bad terms of trade and the adverse trade balance which were the curse of that particular period.
So it seems to me that, instead of the stupid interference which we read about in the clauses we are now seeking to amend, there is so much that should be done now for British industry. The Government have presided over a period in which a huge percentage of our manufacturing industry has gone to the wall. Yet, instead of trying to concentrate on renovating some of that, and in the process getting down the shocking levels of unemployment, the Government continue giving the Secretary of State more and more powers to interfere with one the the most highly successful industries in Britain. It is beyond description. It can be explained only by the fact that we have a Prime Minister who hates the thought of the public owning anything—especially anything that makes a profit. It seems to me that in many ways the interference which the gas industry has suffered, and having its prices forced higher than they need to be, which gives nationalisation a bad name (and, incidentally, helps the Government with their public sector borrowing requirement) is typical of the destruction we are now faced with. I challenge the Minister to go to the Dispatch Box and to give us any fundamental reason why there should be this gross interference with such an industry. Do the Government accept that it is a highly successful publicly-owned industry?
My noble friend mentioned the discovery made today off the Lancashire coast, where the chairman has been able to tell us two more strikes have been made. I remember cutting the Coal Board in on the Irish Sea. At that time, the only people who knew anything about drilling under water were BP. Shell did a bit, but they were not a wholly-owned British industry. One was almost sure that there were in fact oil deposits in the Irish Sea. Now we have further proof of the ability of the board to find the product—even though that is not easy, because it is still reckoned that only one hole out of 10 is successful. The gas corporation have done a remarkable job of work on any count by finding the stuff and getting it out, and doing so at an economic price—even though that price has been forced up by the Government, which is nothing to do with the gas industry. Let the Minister give one concrete reason for this stupid interference with a very successful industry—perhaps in the hope that it will not be quite so successful after the Government have engineered its downfall.
Lord Somers: I dislike nationalisation for its own sake as much as anybody, but there can be no doubt that in certain cases it is the only workable system. The Post Office, for example, has been a nationalised industry since the day of its inception. Can anybody imagine the Post Office chopped up into various individual enterprises?
Several Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Somers: I am old enough to remember the days when electricity was in the hands of local authorities and I certainly would not like to go back to the days when there was no uniformity. Some current was AC and some current was DC; voltages were different, and there was no standardisation of fittings. There is no doubt that in some cases nationalisation is the most efficient thing. However much one may dislike it, one should not be blinded to the fact that sometimes it is the best thing.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Unfortunately, I was unable to make my contribution at Second Reading, but I want to say one or two words about this clause. It is in the nature of your Lordshops' House, and I hope other noble Lords will agree, that we do not always have to agree with everything that is said, especially from my side of the House. So it is with a certain amount of trepidation that I agree with every single word that has been said from the other side of the House this afternoon. I speak with a certain amount of knowledge, in that I was appointed the first ever Gas Consumer Council chairman in 1971 and served in that capacity as an offshoot, perhaps, of British Gas or as part of it sometimes. We tried to make the safety of gas paramount in its supply to the whole of the country. It was a particularly fascinating five years.
Perhaps I may say how pleased I am sure British Gas will be to have heard the many tributes that have been paid in this Committee this afternoon to a particularly well organised authority. My five years were certainly enlightening, and I hope that under my not very expert chairmanship we did manage to bring to the notice of British Gas some of the things we felt should be put right, and at the same time that we represented all users of gas, whether in their homes or in industry.
But paramount above all was safety. All those of your Lordships who have dealt with gas, whether it be as a housewife cooking or in industry, will know what an explosive material this is. This is why I am afraid I am going to say that I am very unhappy about the diversification and perhaps the selling off of the showrooms, the place where British Gas, as knowledgeable people, can sell the appliances that are for sale in this country. I am quite certain that the Minister will tell us that every appliance will, as is the case now, have to pass the British Standards Institution. I remember many years ago, I think it was at a big Daily Mail exhibition, there were many appliances coming from all over the EEC to be used by gas consumers in our country, and to my absolute horror I found that one of the appliances had a wooden oven. That I am quite certain is not the sort of thing that could even happen or be put on sale here, but I should like to know and be completely assured that any appliance that is sold, either through the gas showroom or through the private sector, will have to pass the British Standards Institution.
I was particularly interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, figures of the many people who go to the showrooms. I am well aware that those figures are right, that there are many people who perhaps have been accustomed while paying their bills to having a rapport and friendship with the staff,
130
and deed trust in the person selling these products to the consumer. I am very worried that the many private outlets, and there will of course be very many more if this is agreed upon in the fullness of time, will not have sufficient back-up services. We all know that the follow-up service is almost as important as the selling service, in that the cooking appliance must be properly fitted and must be properly serviced. 1 hope the Government will have more to say on this subject, because, unless that is followed up, I am certain from my own knowledge that we shall have many more explosions. It is no fault of the housewife, and certainly nothing over which she or anybody else has any control, but there are a great number of explosions. Unless appliances are properly fitted by qualified people who have been trained, we are going to be in trouble.
I shall look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, especially on the subject, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, of spare parts. To my knowledge, British Gas keeps spare parts for up to 15 years, and I cannot see that small undertakings will be able to keep those spare parts. I am sure that the Minister will be able to allay my fears, but I felt that in your Lordships' Committee this afternoon I ought to state them.
Lord Tanlaw: May we support the words of this amendment on the Marshalled List. I think some balance is required from these Benches to show that we are against the monopoly of British Gas in the showroom area, and we think it could be beneficial, indeed should be beneficial, to consumers once this has been de-monopolised. There are just two points that I would ask the noble Earl to confirm. I hope the Government will support the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its 1980 Report Domestic Gas Appliances, where it indicated that the monopoly by the Gas Board was threatening the longer-term efficiency and viability of the gas appliance industry. I think anyone interested in employment should take those words quite seriously. I hope that the Government have something to say on this.
The other point is that one would hope that splitting off the showrooms would be beneficial. The cost of retail outlets for the Gas Board has, to my knowledge, never been properly costed and competition would ensure that the consumer at least had a choice and had the knowledge that the costing was the finest that competition could give. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill; I think it would be quite wrong to take away the right of British Gas to have its own showrooms and to go into the retail market; this would be an excellent thing. It is only because no one else can do so at the moment that we support the principle behind this Bill.
There is one other point. The noble Baroness in introducing her amendment mentioned the role of consumers. One point has always struck me. You can go into a gas appliance showroom and they are extremely good, but the one thing you cannot buy in a gas showroom is an electric cooker, and you cannot buy a gas cooker in an electricity showroom. Up and down the country these showrooms are on prime sites in every high street and in all the new shopping precincts. If the consumer is the person we are trying to look after, the consumer should have the choice

131
to compare the two types of cooker side by side as regards price and efficiency. This is one other point that we would like to see brought in. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us whether gas cookers will be allowed to be sold in electricity showrooms and vice versa once this Bill becomes law. I think that if that were the case there would be a great saving to both industries in the cutting down and sale of valuable property sites, leaving sites to be united to serve consumers on a competitive basis. Indeed, I think the consumer then has a better opportunity to decide whether to go for gas or electricity. At the moment, if the consumer goes to one showroom or the other, regrettably he is encouraged to go along one line or the other in buying appliances.
Lord Thorneycroft: I would like to say a word not about the theory but about the practical problem of buying a gas cooker, which is, after all, what this comes down to. I do not say I would attempt such a dangerous and difficult job myself, but I have recently witnessed my daughter attempting to do so. My daughter rings the gas showroom. She says, "I am the mother of two young children with no means of cooking in the house which I have just moved into. I wish to order a gas cooker. I would like to place an order and I can inform you of the type and mark and so forth". The gas showroom reply, "We will be delighted to place the order; will you please give it". My daughter says, "There is one thing; I am not prepared to place a firm order unless you can give me a guaranteed delivery, because I cannot sit here cooking over candles and the rest day after day. I wish to know at what time and date this cooker will be delivered and fixed". "I am sorry, Madam", say the gas showroom, "it is quite impossible for us to quote any delivery until we have a firm order placed". "But", my daughter says, "this is an impossible situation". "Madam", say the gas showroom, "you must remember we are a big corporation and we are completely computerised". "But can you not ask your computer what the date of delivery is?" "No", say the gas showroom, "we are quite unable to ask our computer to give, and our computer cannot give, a firm delivery date until we get a firm order for the cooker".
Lord Beswick: I should like—
Lord Thorneycroft: I am going to finish this. The noble Lord can well reply afterwards.
Lord Beswick: I do not want to reply: I want to ask a question.
Lord Thorneycroft: No, I am not going to give way to the noble Lord. I want to finish my story. I am not very fluent on gas cookers, so I do not want to be interrupted. My daughter is, therefore, put in a completely impossible position and so is the Gas Board. But she has her father standing by and a humble motor-car to escort her to the nearest private enterprise firm up the road where a gas cooker is procured, ordered, without any of the difficulties presented by this great corporation. I do not say that this is a
132
reason for the Bill. No doubt there are many occasions when the Gas Board is extremely efficient. But there must be many people in the position of my daughter who are attempting to get a gas cooker urgently to produce meals for two children in a house which has no other form of cooking facilities. I must say that some of those girls will be very grateful for a measure of this character.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am sure that the gas corporation will be agreeably pleased with the way in which this debate has gone, apart from the gripes and troubles of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, as regards his daughter trying to get a gas cooker and cases like that which are just a few out of millions. That argument is not very convincing to me, at least. I, too, bought a gas cooker in recent days and I had no trouble at all. I installed central heating just a few years ago and there was no trouble at all with the gas corporation. There are 14 million people using gas and using appliances that they bought very successfully from showrooms. There are 900 showrooms scattered throughout the country.
When it comes to the maintenance of this gas cooker that was bought privately by the daughter of the noble Lord, I wonder whether she will ring up the Gas Board or whether she will ring up the private retailer. I am perfectly sure that the private retailer has no replacement stocks. He will need to have a firm order. He will need to send to the manufacturer. He will need to wait, and once again we shall have the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, coming here trying to joke away a very serious amendment.
Remembering that 14 million people are involved, what does the amendment seek to do? First, in the clause the gas corporation are given the power to dispose of any of their properties as they think fit. That is what it says in the clause, believe it or not. Of course, once we get to Clause 11 we find that there is some other power—they can only exercise this power under a direction and with the consent of the Secretary of State, and indeed the Secretary of State can give them a direction. I noticed that the noble Lord's daughter did not go to the Secretary of State, because he does not know; he probably knows as much about gas cookers as the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. But he is going to order the gas corporation to dispose of any and all of its assets. There is no limitation. There is nothing that gives us assurance that all the services about which the noble Lord, Lord Miles, the noble Baroness opposite or the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, spoke will be retained. That is most important.
It is a simple amendment that I am sure every single noble Lord and Baroness in this Committee will agree with. It says that they shall not dispose of these assets if it might,
"result in the impairment of essential services".
I want Lord Thorneycroft's daughter to be assured of her gas once she has got it, and so does the noble Lord. Is that not fair? It goes on,
"nor imperil supplies to or safety of consumers".
I am sure that the noble Lord does not want his daughter suddenly to be blown up because of some defect either in the gas cooker or in relation to the general supply.

133
That is what we ask in the amendment and in my view it is reasonable.
Your Lordships may say, "What has this to do with showrooms? "Showrooms are the point of contact between the gas corporation and its customers. It is from there that the whole servicing operation runs. It is from there that the advice is given by the gas corporation to the manufacturers as to some change that is needed, some development that is needed or, indeed, what the customer is asking for, so that they can go on with further research. Research is done by the manufacturers and the gas corporation and they come together. It is amazing that it says in the commission's report:
"There was no evidence from any witness, whether retailer, wholesaler, manufacturer or consumer organisation, that any of them had seriously contemplated or prepared for the loss of the British Gas Corporation from appliance retailing or installation or maintenance".
There is not one of the 14 million customers who is aware of what danger there is in passing this clause without the amendment.
What will the manufacturers be faced with? At present they have a nationwide outlet in respect of their appliances. At present they work with the gas corporation, but that work will be destroyed. I have a very good memory. I see former colleagues of the House of Commons sitting opposite me. Do they. remember Brendan Bracken and the Gas Bill? We spent a whole session deciding whether we should spell "nationalisation" with an "s" or a "z". There is nobody up there, root and branch, opposing the gas corporation today. I think that the noble Lord who spoke from the Cross Benches is right. The gas corporation has proved itself and both parties should take pride in this. They should take pride that the people are relatively satisfied from the point of view of safety.
There is also the point of view of employment. The manufacturers are concerned. They do not know what will happen. I think that one of the commissioners said that this was a leap in the dark because there will need to be some new network set up. It will cost more, it will not be as effective, and meanwhile they will not know where they are. "A leap in the dark"—who is declaring that there should be darkness? It is not a case of, "Let there be light" but a case of the Government saying, "Let there be darkness". It is ordered, "Let there be anarchy. Let there be chaos".
There are 25,000 people whose employment is involved. They are people who are giving satisfaction to the public. The gas corporation takes on many engineers and apprentices every year—1,200. They will all go. We cannot take away their point of contact with manufacturers and customers and let people buy all sorts of unsafe equipment and then expect them to carry on the whole business of maintenance. It just will not happen. This obsession has driven them to something that is really quite irrational. I think that it is up to your Lordships today at least to accept this reasonable amendment:
"Provided that such disposal shall not result in the impairment of essential services nor imperil supplies to or safety of consumers".
Nobody could not vote for that.
Baroness Hornsby-Smith: Before the noble Lord sits
134
down perhaps he could explain, if everything he has said is true about the disaster likely to occur in the gas industry, how he accounts for the fact that people can buy electrical appliances on a competitive market and people are not blown up; they do not lose out through safety and by and large they have far more competitive and cheaper prices. Indeed, there are just as many homes with electrical appliances as there are with gas appliances.
Lord Ross of Marnock: As regards gas—and it is gas with which we are dealing here—the facts of safety are on record. One has only to compare the record of safety appliances and gas bodies in West Germany, Holland and Belgium with that of our gas corporation. Occasionally we ought to blow the trumpet for Britain. We have the finest gas industry in the whole world, and we have a Government determined to run it down.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: I suppose it was inevitable that on this, the first amendment dealing with Part II of the Bill, we should go back to principles and matters which certainly were ventilated at very considerable length on Second Reading. Nevertheless, there are those who did not have the opportunity of explaining how they felt about this Bill to your Lordships. I dare say that by having the debate now we can perhaps at least save a lengthy debate on clause stand part, which might have been more appropriate.
No one would gainsay that the gas industry is of very great importance to the nation. We are very fortunate; we possess substantial reserves of natural gas. It has become a major source of heat for the home, for industry and for commerce and, of course, there is the petro-chemical industry, which has not so far been mentioned, but gas provides it with an essential feedstock.
However, it is idle to say that all is well in the gas industry. It is dominated by the British Gas Corporation. I do not want anyone to think that I am attacking that body; it has a record and achievements of which it can be proud. But it enjoys a position of great privilege in the scheme of things. It has special rights in the purchase of gas and it owns the onshore gas transmission and distribution pipeline network; it is exempt from the provisions of the Pipe-lines Act 1962, which applies to private sector onshore pipelines. So the British Gas Corporation has not only an effective monopoly in the purchase and supply of gas by pipe, but it also has major interests in the production of gas, and—this is the first time that this has been mentioned this afternoon—it also has major interests in the production of oil. That, of course, is something for which the Bill provides.
Much has been said today about the retail provision and also the maintenance of gas appliances. That has attracted criticism from the Monopolies and Mergers' Commission, which is something which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said, is a fact among many. But the particular position of privilege, which the British Gas Corporation enjoys has given rise to increasing problems and anomalies. We see no reason—there is no reason, in fact—why a business which is for the production and distribution of gas should be involved in the production of oil. The

135
history of the development of the North Sea, particularly as regards oil, is one of successful private enterprise and that, therefore, is the reason which prompted the Government to suggest—and the House of Commons has now endorsed that suggestion in the form of this Bill—that the BGC's offshore oil business should be transferred to the private sector. Clauses 9 to 11, which we shall soon be discussing, in fact bring that about.
The monopolistic position of the corporation has produced disquiet among those who produce gas, or who want to, and also among consumers. The producers see little incentive to explore for and develop gas reserves, and I hope I need not to tell the Committee of the monopolistic attitude of the Gas Corporation with its take-it-or-leave-it price offer for the gas which is produced out of the North Sea. At worst a producer of gas may get no offer, not even a take-it-or-leave-it one, from the BGC if it has decided to take gas from elsewhere first. So is it a surprise that the companies are unwilling to lay out as much money or enough money for exploration? At the same time, gas consumers—particularly industrialists—face difficulty. They cannot always obtain the supplies that they require, and this particularly affects industrial and commercial consumers of gas in large quantities.
Therefore, by way of summary, the Government want to bring enterprise and competition into the British gas market. The sale of the corporation's offshore oil assets will put them in the hands of the private sector, where they will be used to better effect. The removal of the monopoly purchase rights will provide incentives to explore for gas, and the break-up of the BGC sales monopoly will enable the market to flourish. This will be good for the producers, the consumers, the suppliers, the customers and, indeed, the nation.
That encapsulates the philosophy behind this Bill. Of course, I respect enormously what the noble Lord, Lord Miles, has said, which was good Second Reading material. But I think that it is as idle to pretend that all is well within the industry—even in the retailing part and the provision of appliances and the servicing of them—as it is idle to pretend that the industry is in a total mess. It was when the noble Lord, Lord Miles, caused us to smile with some of his allusions that he made me think of that splendid song by Flanders and Swann which we all enjoyed when I was a little younger, which starts off:
"T'was on the Monday morning the gas man came to call".
Many a strolling player has enjoyed singing and made a good deal of money out of that song. It is obvious to anyone who looks at the television consumer programmes—which, with the invention of the video machine, even Ministers can look at at idle moments—that one of the providers of goods and services which is most frequently criticised is that pertaining to gas. The Government consider that the fresh wind of competition should blow about it. I think that I have said enough as regards philosophy.
What is behind this amendment is in two parts. First, there is the philosophical argument which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, deployed. I understand, if noble Lords opposite do not like any encroachment upon a nationalised industry, that it is something which
136
they do not like, and I respect that. Then we come to the much more detailed consideration in a way concerning gas showrooms, the manufacture and supply of appliances, the jobs of those who carry out those functions, the safety aspects and so on. I do not intend to say too much about this amendment as such, because it is not over-happily drafted and it certainly would not achieve what the noble Baroness and the other co-signatories to it want it to achieve. I shall say no more about that, because I do not believe in taking technical points.
First, I want to go, in the second of the headings of argument, to the question of safety. The safety of supplies, both public and private, is of course dealt with in Clause 14, and we can discuss that later. So far as gas supplies are concerned, the powers are perfectly adequate to ensure the safety of consumers in that respect. The other matter which we have dealt with is the disposal powers which would enable the Government to implement the policy objective which was reached following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. It is worthwhile reminding ourselves that the findings in effect were that the BGC's gas appliance retailing monopoly has acted against the public interest, and that it is desirable that there should be competition and that the BGC's dominance of the gas appliance market should be broken.
I want to make it clear that it was no part of the Government's decision that the corporation should cease their servicing and installation activities. That, I think, is the first point which should be made. Secondly, the Government have made a clear commitment that safety standards would be maintained before any changes to implement the commission's finding were made. It has also been said that such legislation would be complex. It is highly unlikely that time will be found for it in this Session of Parliament.
I should say a word about the proposals for showrooms disposal. What I have said shows that any action which the Government intend to take, in effect to give effect to the recommendation of the MMC report, would be accompanied by measures to maintain standards of safety. Noble Lords I think expressed appreciation for the BGC and its gas showrooms and the way in which it retails gas appliances. Of course, other activities take place in gas showrooms in the sense that people can come there to pay their bills, and they can come there, I think the word was, to browse. I should have thought that that would be more likely to take place in a bookshop rather than in a gas showroom, but nevertheless I suppose it could go on. They can also, of course, obtain advice and assistance.
It is the fact that the BGC will maintain its customer services such as installation and servicing. It would also be desirable for the corporation, in effect, to maintain some type of consumer contact points where people can go to obtain advice and also to pay their bills, I suppose. It is the intention of the Government to encourage the corporation to maintain these contact points. The matter was raised that the manufacturers of appliances will suffer gravely if the BGC are no longer in fact to maintain these gas showrooms up and down the High Streets, but I think there is a danger of overstating the position there. As my noble friend said, one can buy electrical appliances all over the

137
country in many different types of showroom with a vast choice, and the fact remains that whatever happens to the BGC and its sales outlets people will still no doubt want to buy gas appliances, they will still continue to be made, and I think it is idle to say that there will be of necessity adverse employment repercussions if in fact the BGC withdraws from the retail selling of gas appliances.
I was asked a number of questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, asked me how services to customers will be safeguarded. I think I have answered her. First, by legislation on safety standards, and, secondly, by the fact that nobody is suggesting that the services part of the BGC's activities should in any way be curtailed. She then asked if the Consumer Council, or any other consumer bodies, had been consulted. The National Gas Consumers' Council and the Consumers' Association both responded to the Government's invitation to comment on the report on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Both recognised that the problems identified by the MMC were real ones and that the Government would have to tackle them. Since the decision which is embodied in this Bill has been announced, neither has made written representations, but I understand that there have been meetings with Ministers and officials, and various views have been put forward particularly by the National Gas Consumers' Council.
I was asked whether gas appliances will have to conform to BSI standards. Of course such conformity is voluntary at present, and it will remain so. The Government intend to make regulations as soon as possible under the Energy Conservation Act 1981, which will require certain appliances to conform with EEC standards. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked two questions. I really cannot answer his first question. We have not got nearly far enough down the road to say precisely what the British Gas Corporation will, or will not, do if and when the decision is taken so far as gas showrooms are concerned. I think I answered him, when he asked why go ahead, in what I have said.
May I finally come back to the amendment. I should say that the Government have no plans at present to privatise the BGC's transmission system, or its distribution system, or its customer services, as I have said. What we want to do is to increase the level of activity in the gas industry so that in addition to the services and supplies provided by the BGC there are services and supplies provided by others, and the efficiency of both is spurred on by competition. I take the point that safety considerations are paramount in this, but I hope that I have reassured my noble friend Lady Macleod that we have this very much in mind, and that legislation will see to it that in fact the person who buys a gas cooker can be just as confident as the person who buys an electric cooker that he or she is going to cook in safety.
The whole point of the gas supply provisions in the Bill is that they should be in the best interests of the consumers themselves, and also in the best interests of the gas industry and the nation. I hope that I have gone some way, at any rate, to dispel the worries which have been shown by Members of the Committee this afternoon. It may even be that the noble Baroness, on reflection, will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Hawke: May we be told who will train the army of gas fitters? Presumably the finance for that is provided at present by the profit on the sale of appliances. It would seem that there will be nobody in a big enough position to train all the necessary fitters.
The Earl of Mansfield: My noble friend seems to forget that there appear to be armies of trained gas fitters about now. Presumably the appliances will need to be installed, and maintained thereafter, and I can see no reason why the trained fitters who at present exist should not perform that task; and in the same way as electricians are trained, so will future gas fitters be trained.
Lord Beswick: The Minister said the Government intended to maintain what he called "contact points" if the gas showrooms are sold off. May I ask him to enlarge on that? By "contact points" does he mean that they will be in the High Street in the way they are now, convenient but very expensive? If so, over what other services will the costs, of rental and so on, be spread? Will it not be a very expensive operation to maintain the places there simply as contact points? 1 agree such places will be absolutely necessary, especially if some housewives buy houses only to find they must cook over candles. It would therefore be useful to be able to go to a contact point, so perhaps the noble Earl will explain just what is the Government's policy on the matter.
Lord Ross of Marnock: To provide better candles?
The Earl of Mansfield: I did not say the Government would maintain consumer contact points but that they would encourage the corporation to maintain them. Frankly, one does not need a highly expensive showroom in the middle of a city centre to collect people's cash for gas bills and provide advice to would-be customers. I foresee the gas corporation making local arrangements according to patterns of population and the consumption of gas which most commends itself to the corporation in any particular locality.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I thought the Minister's speech, to which I listened with attention, supported the general theme of the amendment. I do not propose to make a Second Reading speech, but I must comment on that part of the noble Earl's remarks when he referred to the safety of the consumer being paramount. I have some difficulty in understanding his objection to the amendment, having regard to the structure of the Bill. The noble Earl said that Clause 14, which deals with safety regulations, applied to safety in a limited area and did not apply to safety in relation to the ordinary domestic consumer who was purchasing appliances.
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but understood him to go on to say that when the Bill was passed, or at a later stage, the Government would introduce another measure dealing with safety regulations. It seems therefore that, regarding that aspect of the safety of the consumer being paramount, there is a lacuna in the Bill which the amendment would fill. The Minister did not make a real attack on the

139
amendment, particularly bearing in mind the emphasis he placed on the safety of the consumer being paramount.
The Earl of Mansfield: When I said the safety of consumers was paramount, it was in the context of that part of the argument to which I was addressing myself. I first went into what I might call the Second Reading part of the argument; then I went on to the question of safety of supplies which, as I said, is dealt with in Clause 14 (that has nothing to do with showrooms and the provision of retail appliances on sale); and then I returned to the amendment. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 9, he will see that it is peculiarly inappropriate that an enjoinment—dare I say a meaningless enjoinment?—should be tacked on to a provision dealing with the shares of a relevant subsidiary. As I said, it would be inappropriate. The Government must bring in legislation before there is any disposal of this part of the corporation's activity, and I am sure the noble Lord agrees that it is undesirable to write unnecessary provisions into a statute in any circumstances, particularly if, as I said, that provision is vague in its application.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and I hesitate to ask him to look at Clause 9 in more detail, but I would presume to draw his attention to the scope of that clause, particularly the last words of subsection (1)(c). The powers of disposal concern not only shares, to which the noble Earl referred, but also,
"any property, rights or liabilities of, the Corporation".
I should have thought it was inevitable when dealing with the disposal of property of the corporation, that the question of liability and safety would be intimately connected with the products which the gas showrooms may be selling and of which the gas corporation may be disposing. The Government should at least reconsider the purpose of the amendment, otherwise from a practical and realistic point of view there will remain a lacuna in the Bill in relation to the inherent safety of the consumer; and that, to use a phrase often used these days, is paramount, as the noble Earl said.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in debating the amendment, and all those who have spoken have done so from a great deal of experience, with the exception of one noble Lord who freely admitted that he did not know anything about gas stoves and gas cookers. I was particularly impressed by the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Miles, my noble friend Lord Ross and those who emphasised the employment situation. Lord Miles took pride in the fact that the gas showrooms sold only British appliances; "Made in England" was something to be proud of, he said, and in another context we expect noble Lords opposite to express great fervour about the "British made "symbol.
That emphasis by the noble Lord, Lord Miles, on items being made in Britain is something I would tack on at the end of the arguments, I would adduce in favour of the amendment. That should be explained to those who say how easy it is to buy appliances from electrical stores. Of all the electrical goods in the retail
140
shops today, not many have a "Made in England" stamp on them. The "white goods" trade in this country—household names like Hoover and so on—has really felt the draught from the importation of foreign goods. I should have thought that in terms of maintaining employment Conservative Members would think seriously before deciding to abolish the selling of gas appliances in gas showrooms.
I was very grateful for the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. She has extensive knowledge of the subject, and as we saw again this afternoon, her experience is the result of her service as the first chairman of the National Gas Consumers' Council. I do not think that we should disregard the view of someone who has served in such a position, and who has known not only the wishes of the consumer, but also how the consumer's point of view can be put to the manufacturer and to the corporation itself. We should not gloss over the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, made this afternoon, in particular those about products—and I hope that the Minister listened carefully to what she said. She considered that some products which she had seen during her chairmanship were not up to the standards of safety which we should like to think would be paramount, to use the term mentioned by a noble Lord.
With regard to the monopoly question, I think that my noble friend Lord Underhill showed quite clearly that figures indicate there is no suggestion that the gas showrooms and British Gas are in a monopoly position in selling gas appliances. My noble friend gave figures which showed that that was not true. The important point here—and it applies to the question of safety—is that, if one is to purchase an appliance, one must be able to have spare parts. This is imperative. The situation is exactly the same when one buys a car. The back-up service for spares is important. Many criticisms have been made of our cars in Europe because we could not supply spares, which are paramount. My noble friend Lord Underhill gave figures which showed how the consumer could rely upon British Gas to provide spares. Let us hope that the noble Lord who made a purchase from a private enterprise shop will be able to get spares the day after his daughter rings up.
With regard to the question of competition between electricity and gas, I think it has always been maintained that the electricity boards and the gas industry should be in competition one with the other. It was important that the consumer should have a choice. At one stage solid fuel also came into great prominence, so that the consumer could benefit from competition between the various utilities.
I would point out that the showrooms are not simply retail outlets for appliances. They offer a local contact for consumers; I think that all noble Lords who have spoken have said that. If the showrooms are disposed of, services will have to be provided by some other means. As was asked by a noble Lord on this side of the Committee, what does it mean to have a consumer contact point? Is it to be a spot in the city market, open every Saturday afternoon? Is that what one calls a consumer contact point? I have never seen one. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, when she was the chairman of the National Gas Consumers' Council, ever

141
considered what was a consumer contact point. It sounds more like an electricity term than a gas term. The Minister knows what it is. Most likely at a later date he will be able to tell us whether it will be painted red, white and blue, or green, or yellow, so that we shall know where it is when he has built it, or when he has told the gas corporation where to build it.
To me it seems absolutely pointless to break up a well-established organisation which is known to the consumer and is accepted by him as giving excellent service, merely to replace it with something else, at quite considerable expense. I propose that we divide the Committee on this issue.
4.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 99.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Airedale, L.

Kaldor, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kearton, L.

Amulree, L.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmany, L.

Auckland, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Aylestone, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Bacon, B.

Leatherland, L.

Banks, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bishopston, L.

Blease, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blyton, L.

Longford, E.

Boothby, L.

Loudoun, C.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Briginshaw, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Brockway, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Macieod of Borve, B.

Byers, L.

McNair, L.

Caradon, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chitnis, L.

Mar, C.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mayhew, L.

Collison, L.

Melchett, L.

Cross, V.

Milverton, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Molloy, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

David, B.—[Teller.]

Oram, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Parry, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Peart, L.

Eccles, V.

Phillips, B.

Effingham, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Porritt, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Rochester, L.

Faithfull, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Foot, L.

St. Just, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Seebohm, L.

Gardiner, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

George-Brown, L.

Somers, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stamp, L.

Gosford, E.

Stedman, B.

Hampton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hawke, L.

Stone, L.

Hayter, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hooson, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strauss, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Ilchester, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jeger, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.

142

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Whaddon, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

White, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.—[Teller.]

Wigoder, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Walston, L.

Woolton, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Kemsley, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kinross, L.

Allerton, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Alport, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Avon, E.

Long, V.

Balerno, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Bellwin, L.

McFadzean, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Berkeley, B.

Mansfield, E.

Bessborough, E.

Margadale, L.

Blake, L.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cathcart, E.

Melville, V.

Chelwood, L.

Mersey, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Craigton, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Morris, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Northchurch, B.

Davidson, V.

Orkney, E.

De Freyne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

De La Warr, E.

Pender, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rochdale, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Romney, E.

Ebbisham, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Salisbury, M.

Elton, L.

Sandford, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Savile, L.

Fortescue, E.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sharples, B.

Gainford, L.

Sherfield, L.

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Spens, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Teviot, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tranmire, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vivian, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Young, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: I wonder whether I may ask the Government Front Bench, after such a resounding defeat in respect of one of the basic clauses of the whole Bill, what their intentions are about the rest of the Bill?
The Earl of Mansfield: I am sure the Opposition, quite understandably, rejoice at such crumbs of victory as fall their way, and I have no wish to spoil the noble Baroness's fun; but at a private and convenient place outside this Chamber she may like to explain to me what this amendment meant and what its effect will be in

143
the totality of the Bill, and I will then tell her the Government's intentions.
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 41, at end insert—
(" ( ) Powers under subsection (1) above shall not apply to the disposal of any interests in a licence granted under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 as applied by section 1(3) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 insofar as it relates to a right to get natural gas.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, which, after the resounding victory on the last amendment, would seem almost mundane; but surely it makes it imperative that the Government should review the basic policy of this Bill, which is concerned with privatisation—and not only with privatisation, but with the complete upheaval of a great public enterprise which has proved itself over many years as being one of the most successful enterprises, either public or private, in this country. It is no good the Minister shrugging off this real victory —and we do not look at it in terms of scoring a point over the Government; we are concerned about the basic essentials of this Bill. We are concerned about the principles of the Bill, and the Committee is far from satisfied that the Government have thought through some of the essential problems which their policy is creating.
Indeed, the Minister has already said that we should leave the Bill as it is and accept the Government's assurance that at some stage in the future they will come along and fill in some of the answers to the questions which the Committee has posed. So this is not a party matter between the two sides: it is a matter of real concern about the future of this great enterprise; it is about the uprooting of teams of dedicated staff who have been working together over many years, to the satisfaction of the public.
As I said on Second Reading, we are not concerned with an enterprise which has failed the nation, an enterprise which has made such monumental losses that something must be done about it; because the first thing the Minister himself said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill was that it was the Government's intention to lessen the area of public ownership. That is a matter between us, maybe; but the country is concerned about the effects of what the Government are going to do. It is also concerned, as we have been this afternoon, about the absence of any assurances in regard to some of the questions which have been asked; and, although I do not want to be personal, I thought that the Minister himself was somewhat unenthusiastic, or, rather, too technical, in replying to the points which had been made.
Of course, this amendment to Clause 9 concerns the gas corporation's powers of disposal. Clause 9(1) gives the gas corporation power to provide for the disposal in such manner as it thinks fit of any shares of a relevant subsidiary; and, of course, the amendment which is tabled would make some changes. I would remind the Minister that under the Gas Act 1972, introduced by the Heath Government of that time—not an Act introduced by a Socialist doctrinaire Government, but one enacted by Mr. Heath's Conservative Administration of 1972—one of the British Gas
144
Corporation's statutory powers, as laid down in Section 2(2)(a), is:
"to search and bore for and get natural gas";
and, as we know, in the course of searching for natural gas it may well be that oil will be found. The then Conservative Government very sensibly included in Section 2(2)(b) the power:
"to bore for and get petroleum found in the form of crude oil in the course of searching, boring for or getting natural gas",
and to treat any petroleum in such a way as to be able to sell it if it turned up.
The corporation has interests in a number of offshore licences where gas as well as oil has been found, or where there are strong grounds for believing commercial quantities of gas to be present. Even if one accepts the case for requiring the corporation to dispose of its oil interests, there can be no justificaton for insisting on the disposal of its gas interests and then leaving the corporation to compete with others for the purchase of that gas.
During the Second Reading in another place the honourable member for Bedford, Mr. Skeet, speaking from the Government Benches, suggested that the corporation should have an option on any gas to which it would at present be entitled by virtue of its share in a licence. He tabled a very similar amendment to the one to which I am speaking at the Committee stage here. During the debate he referred to several oilfields in which BGC had an interest—including Beryl A and B and North-West Hutton. He said.
"They are classically oilfields, but there is a little gas associated with them. Of course, as oilfields, they should be disposed of, but a right should be vested in British Gas to buy the gas. It is in the business of finding and distributing gas, and, if it has discovered gas in association with oil, it should not lose the right… I think that equity could be reached if the Minister says he will give the matter his earnest consideration to see whether anything can be done to assist BGC, which, after all, has been given the task to look for and get natural gas".
That quotation is from cols. 680 and 681 of the afternoon session in another place on Tuesday, 2nd March. The Minister, in replying, gave an assurance that there were no present plans to privatise BGC's gasfield interests but said that if fields like Beryl A and B, Montrose, Fulmar, Hutton and North-West Hutton were left outside the scope of the Government's intentions, there would be nothing left to privatise.
The fact is that the proposal in this amendment is not that the oil interest should not be privatised but that, after the oil interests have been disposed of, BGC should retain ownership of any gas produced. This would go some way towards ensuring that BGC was left with some rights to match its obligations. It seems that the Government have no plans to amend the Conservative Government's 1972 Gas Act. If Section 2 is not amended by this Bill—and it does not seem to be—there seems to be some inconsistency. If it is not the Government's intention, their policy is in keeping with the Tory Minister for Industry in 1972 when he said, on 27th January 1972 (in col. 1643) that:
"the Corporation may find crude oil in the course of looking for natural gas. If it does so, it will have the power to sell it".
the Minister may know that it is difficult to make a distinction between exploration and development programmes as they are not easily distinguishable.
I believe that the proposed amendment would not, as the Government may assume, exclude from disposal

145
all oilfields with associated gas. It refers only to an interest in a licence in so far as it relates to gas. The suggestion is that when an interest in a licence is disposed of the corporation should retain its interest in any gas produced from the licence and take possession of its share of the gas on payment of the appropriate proportion of exploration and development costs attributable to the gas. The corporation would thus get the gas at cost, which seems proper since it risked money in the first place to find and develop it. In the light of the Committee's view on the last amendment, that they are dissatisfied with not only the subject of amendment that we discussed but the general attitude of the Government in relation to the policy they are pursuing, the Government might give a favourable reply to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tanlaw Lord Tanlaw moved Amendment No. 19A as an amendment to Amendment No. 19:
Line 4, leave out ("insofar as it relates to a right to get natural gas").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19A. It would be for the convenience of the Committee that these two amendments are looked at together. Although the wording appears to be somewhat similar, the principles are somewhat wider in the amendment that I put down. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, in saying that the principle behind this amendment is an important one to establish from the Government. In the debate on a previous amendment we heard the noble Earl express the Government policy that this Bill is to increase competition and not to decrease it. Also, we wish to know how this principle can be applied when the private oil companies are being asked to take over the board's oil interests whereas the gas board is not allowed to continue to maintain its oil operations.
We have made our approach from these Benches in the hope that it is the Secretary of State's position to be even-handed to both the public and the private sector interests contained in the Bill, whether it be oil or gas. Once this principle is broken, I think it very much weakens the main incentive for the Government to launch the Bill as it stands. There may be a reason for this. It has been mentioned earlier in Committee and Second Reading that the Government's intention is not one of principle but simply to raise money. If that is so, the noble Earl would be helpful if he expressed it. If he says that that is not the main intention of this Bill but that it is to increase competition, I cannot see how he can object to Amendment No. 19A (which is my amendment) to allow British Gas to continue with its exploitation of oil, and at the same time, with Lord Bishopston's amendment, he should allow the Gas Board the right to exploit the gas in its oil wells.
It is on this matter of principle that we put forward this amendment. I believe that, in some ways, it would strengthen the Bill and strengthen the Government's hands in getting the Bill through Parliament if they appear to remain even-handed in their approach and even-handed in their arguments in support of the very major changes that this Bill brings about. I beg to move.
Lord Beswick: Can we he clear about one point?
146
The noble Lord who has just spoken stated that the purpose of the Bill, as declared by the Government, is to increase competition. He says that this is the principle. I wonder whether the noble Earl will confirm when he replies that that is so. Surely there is no principle in just increasing competition for its own sake. It may be useful for another principle to increase competition and it may be useful to have competition as an instrument to another end. But just to increase competition in itself surely cannot be to the national advantage. I thought that the purpose of this Bill was—I am not quite sure where the Government stated the purpose—to ensure that we have economically-produced energy from oil or from natural gas in quantities suitable for our national needs and at the lowest possible prices. Competition may conceivably help in some cases, but I cannot think that it is a basic factor that should override everything else.
If we are thinking in terms of getting natural gas in quantities appropriate to our national needs and at as economical a price as possible, I should have thought that we should be encouraging the British Gas Corporation. After all, they have had more experience in this field than most other agencies or companies around. They have proved themselves successful. Unless this amendment is accepted, they will be discouraged. Will the noble Earl tell us how the British Gas Corporation can be expected to go out and explore for further natural gas deposits if, having done so, they are going to lose the right to develop them further for their own purpose? That cannot be an encouragement. That cannot be an efficient way of running our national economy.
I hope that the noble Earl, when he considers this amendment, will see that basically it is in the best interests of our nation. The British Gas Corporation, if they find a field, if they are able to discover more supplies of oil, should be enabled to keep that supply in order to distribute the oil among their own customers. Unless that is so, unless that is done, I can see that the corporation will be completely frustrated and we shall lose one very valuable agency for the development of our national energy resources.
5.2 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, comes back to the central question which he has asked on a number of occasions: what is the point of this Bill? I see that I said on Second Reading that the sale of the corporation's offshore assets will put them in the hands of the private sector, where they will be used to better effect.
On studying that remark, I agree with myself wholeheartedly. It will increase competition, apparently a motive with which the noble Lord is inclined to disagree—even to quarrel. In the first part of my remarks on the last amendment, where I went back to Second Reading considerations, I tried to show how the gas industry in this country is in need of change so far as its structure is concerned, and we consider that this is the best way of going about that matter.
If I may come now to Lord Tanlaw's amendment, may I say that the Government have made it absolutely plain that they intend to use the provisions in Clauses 9 to 11 to bring about the disposal of the British Gas Corporation's interests in offshore oilfields. The

147
effect of this amendment would be to prevent the BGC from using its powers under Clause 9(1) to dispose of any offshore licence interests, including the interests in offshore oilfields in respect of which, as I have said, we have announced that we intend to use or make use of provisions in Clauses 9 to 11. If this amendment were accepted as an amendment to Lord Bishopston's amendment, it would effectively prohibit the disposal of any interests in offshore licences. It would not wreck the Bill but it would go a long way towards wrecking the intention of this Part of the Bill.
I have said before that there is absolutely no reason why the gas corporation need be involved in the production of oil. The history of the development of our oil resources is one of successful private enterprise. What the noble Lord seeks to do is basically against the whole concept and policy of this Part of the Bill. I say shortly but categorically that we reject that.
Then I come to Lord Bishopston's amendment. It may be convenient if I talk to it in the same speech and almost in the same breath as I did to Lord Tanlaw's amendment; then we can see where we get to. I repeat that the powers are to be used—in the first instance at any rate—to dispose of BGC's offshore oil assets. We also, as we discussed a few moments ago, intend to deal with the problem which was identified last year by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, although there are no specific plans to use these powers.
If I may put this in parenthesis: the disposals in relation to gas would be much more complicated than in relation to oil. It is for that reason that any scheme —and there will no doubt be a series of schemes—would be complex and extremely wide-ranging. It is for that reason that plans have not so far been drawn up; and it is one of the reasons why—and I was going to answer a point of Lord Underhill, but he is not in his place—this Part of the Bill is subject to Clause 31 and not to Clauses 1, 2 and 3 which we talked about last week.
Nevertheless, as a matter of general principle, the Government consider it right that powers should exist to implement any future disposal proposals; the present powers of disposal and direction in Sections 6(1) and 7(2) of the 1972 Act have not excluded specific types of asset from disposal, and neither should the new powers contained in the Bill. So we have there a point of principle which makes one incline against the amendment.
I come to the point of associated gas. Wherever there is an oilfield there is also associated gas produced. An amendment of the type which we are discussing now might rule out any future disposal of interests in gas fields. It also might prevent the disposal of those very oilfields which the Government have made clear all along are the first target of the powers simply because, like all oilfields, they produce some associated gas. That too would defeat a fundamental purpose of the Bill.
I repeat assurances which have been made before: at present there are no plans for the BGC's interests in gasfields to be privatised. We have a general belief that in principle disposal powers should be available generally to facilitate future disposals as well as those envisaged at the time. Secondly, the practical point that I have referred to—that is to say, the associated
148
gas which is a concomitant part of oilfields—is one which makes one reject this particular amendment.
Perhaps with that explanation—because in their different ways these amendments do go to the heart of the Bill—the noble Lords may see fit to withdraw them.
Lord Beswick: The noble Lord did not answer my question. I wonder whether he would be good enough to think again and give a further answer to it. If the British Gas Corporation, finding gas, are required under the Bill to dispose—if the noble Earl will give me some idea when he is likely to finish his other conversation, I shall continue with my question.
The Earl of Mansfield: If the noble Lord will allow me, one is perfectly able to listen to the noble Lord's tautologous points and also confer with colleagues at the same time.
Lord Beswick: I am so glad to hear that. I personally find it impossible to conduct two conversations at the same time. I was asking whether the noble Earl can tell me, if the British Gas Corporation in their search for oil are required under the Bill to dispose of those gas interests, it will encourage or discourage them? If it discourages them, are we not reducing competition instead of encouraging it?
The Earl of Mansfield: The noble Lord, with great courtesy, merely puts a point which, if I may say so, he has been making at quarter-hourly intervals throughout the consideration of this Bill. But to answer his point—if in the future, taking this Bill as it stands and with no privatisation of the gas, the gas corporation discovers an oilfield, it would be privatised—the gas would be bought by the gas corporation in the way in which it will buy gas in the future: by offering for it. If I may say so, I do not think the matter is quite so simplistic as the noble Lord infers. The gas corporation will not be inhibited in its future exploration by these forms of considerations.
Lord Bishopston: I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and I had the idea that he rather suggested—he will correct me if I am wrong—that there was some doubt about the Government's intention to privatise gas in the North Sea. He will undoubtedly have the words before him, but—
The Earl of Mansfield: Do not let there be any doubt about this: what I have said is that, as it stands at present, the Government have no intention of privatising the British Gas Corporation so far as its pure gas interests are concerned.
Lord Bishopston: That is useful information, but as recently as March, when the Standing Committee in another place were looking at this particular aspect, the Minister said, in column 685 on 2nd March—and I quote:
"Several options are being examined in detail and until work is completed it would be premature of me to conclude which route would be preferable".
Later in the same column he is reported as saying:
"No final decisions have been made on the method of privatisation of BGC's oil assets".

149
If the Minister is able to say—and undoubtedly it would not be unreasonable for him to do so—that this matter is still under consideration by the Government, I may be inclined to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, with the possibility of raising the matter at a later stage.
Lord Tanlaw: If it is correct that I may speak now on my amendment, I wish just to return to this one simple point of why this amendment was ever put down. It was not intended as a wrecking amendment, attempting to stab the Bill in the heart, so to speak; it was merely intended to raise the issue that British Gas are operating in competition efficiently and successfully in the oil business and are being penalised—I think unfairly—if this aspect is taken away from their business, whereas the oil companies who are at present in competition with British Gas operating these fields are allowed access to British Gas interests or to act as competitors to British Gas. Therefore, although I am afraid I disagree with the principles put forward by the noble Earl the Minister, if he advises me that this amendment is a wrecking amendment in the sense that the Bill would be destroyed by it, which was not the intention, I would perhaps wish to come back to this matter when we reach Clause 31. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Skelmersdale: We may have got into some slight muddle at this point. The amendment to the amendment has been withdrawn, but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, would like to have an answer from my noble friend in reply to his point before deciding on what action to take on Amendment No. 19.
The Earl of Mansfield: May I say that I am not in any state of muddle at all. I do not want to be unkind to my noble friend, but I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, having reflected on my recent words of wisdom, would not think that they needed to be embroidered any further. But, of course, I shall be very happy to do so.
Let us go back to the matter of the privatisation of the oilfields, which I think is what the noble Lord really wants to know about. As I tried to say earlier, we have not made any final decisions about privatisation of the gas corporation's oil assets, and still less about the methods which would be adopted to do that. It is for that reason—and it is, I anticipate, a step-by-step approach that will depend to some extent on the factors affecting each particular field—that this part of the Bill has been drafted in a slightly different way, and that the checks and balances, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, inferred when he referred to Clause 31, have been put in.
Lord Bishopston: In view of the Minister's reply, which rather suggests some fluidity in the oil and gas business, and in view of the possibilities of what might be in the pipe-line, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 10, line 7, at end insert ("and after the laying of an order before Parliament together with an accompanying memorandum setting out the terms on which the disposal is to be made.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20. As your Lordships are aware, Clause 9(2) requires the Secretary of State's consent and the approval of the Treasury to the disposal by the corporation under Clause 9(1) of shares in the relevant subsidiary. The Secretary of State's consent, though, is not subject to any parliamentary procedure—not, I may say, for the first time among the legislation proposed by this Government during this Parliament. Thus, if the corporation proposed to dispose of particular aspects and to that end transferred them to a subsidiary, the shares of the subsidiary could be disposed of simply with the consent of the Secretary of State and without any reference to Parliament. Moreover, under Clause 11 the Secretary of State could presumably direct the corporation to set up a subsidiary and transfer certain assets to it. The direction would have to be given by order, but there seems to be no requirement that the order should specify what is to be done with the shares. Alternatively, he could direct the corporation to prepare a scheme under Clause 10 which he could approve, subject to such modifications as he thought fit. Again, the direction would have to be given by order but need not deal with the subsequent disposal of shares. Parliament therefore might have no opportunity to scrutinise the terms of disposal. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot consent to a disposal without the authority of Parliament and that Parliament, without approving an order, will have an opportunity to study the terms.
The Memorandum and Articles of Association with Britoil are now available and indicate how the Government propose to exercise control over the ownership and direction of Britoil, but they give no indication of the terms on which shares may be disposed of. What is needed, I submit, is a full prospectus which can be studied by Parliament and is subject to parliamentary approval. In the case of both Britoil and British Gas, the disposal of valuable national assets is at stake and previous ventures into privatisation do not inspire confidence that the Government can be left to carry out these disposals without detailed scrutiny of their proposals before the event. I need hardly remind your Lordships of the great row there was over the disposal of Amersham and the incompetent way in which it was handled. Indeed, there has been recent criticism by the all-party Public Accounts Committee—surely the oldest and most powerful of all the Select Committees of another place—of the disposal of British Aerospace, Cable and Wireless and Amersham, which adds force to the argument. All that this amendment seeks to do is to ensure that Parliament has control over these disposals. I beg to move.
Earl De La Warr: I find this to be a very strong amendment, and it is much stronger than anything that was moved in an earlier part of the Bill. It is not so much so of the first part of the amendment, but of the second part, which reads:

151
"together with an accompanying memorandum setting out the terms on which the disposal is to be made".
I was very surprised to hear the noble Lord use the word "prospectus", because, with great respect to him, this imposes upon Parliament a duty which it is quite incompetent to perform. We are not a committee of bankers and we are not competent to fix a proper price on a certain day. This is a highly technical affair and I am very surprised that the noble Lord should be asking Parliament to embark on a new venture of this type.
We all know about Amersham, and noble Lords may wish to draw other companies in aid; but so far as Amersham is concerned I am sure that the lesson is well learned. It did go wrong, but I think we can leave it to the Minister to act by executive action, with professional advice, to make sure that this kind of thing does not happen again. But I really make a plea that the noble Lord will not impose a duty of this kind on Parliament, because we are not here to perform that task.
Lord Lovell-Davis: I would take issue with the noble Earl who has just spoken. It seems to me that this is a matter which was very extensively covered in the Second Reading debate, and there was a great deal of disquiet over the whole of your Lordships' House about it. It seems to me astonishing that any noble Lord who has pledged himself to less Government should be prepared to troop through the Lobby against such an amendment, in support of an extension of any Secretary of State's powers. What is meant by "the Secretary of State's powers"? It seems to me that it means major decisions made behind governmental—and that means departmental—doors, which need not be put forward at all for any parliamentary scrutiny, as my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has said. We are talking about the disposal of public assets—and massive ones at that—and I believe that this amendment is vital to safeguard the public interest, and to ensure that we reserve our right to know what is happening behind those doors.
5.22 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: This is a matter which exercised another place at some length. I say that only because I had rather expected the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to say that the Government undertook to review the matter. He might have asked what had been the result of that review, because my honourable friend Mr. Mellor, at column 717 of the Official Report for Standing Committee E said:
"It is not the habit of Governments, before they have made a decision on an important and commercially sensitive matter, to lay before committees or any other bodies, a whole host of background material relating to the precise form that those decisions will take … but because the question has been pursued as it has … it will be looked at… But I do not hold out much hope".
I say that because I want to assure the noble Lord that the matter has been looked at, without any different conclusions being reached.
If one considers the noble Lord's amendment for a moment, what he seeks to do—and we discussed a very similar amendment in relation to the first three clauses of the Bill— is to insert an additional layer of parliament
152
tary scrutiny and inquiry into the disposal process, if I may so describe it, which would be disposing of the shares in a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BGC. We consider that the Bill already secures adequate opportunity for Parliament to obtain information about disposals initiated by the Secretary of State, by virtue of the provision in Clause 31(2), which—and I appreciate this—imposes what I might call the negative resolution procedure. That shall apply to directions under Clause 11(1), or orders transferring shares to the Secretary of State under Clause 11(4).
So that in either of those two instances, either where there is a direction on the BGC to dispose of shares in a wholly-owned subsidiary, or where there is an order transferring shares to the Secretary of State for subsequent disposal under Clause 11(4), Clause 31 comes into play. I should point out that, if there is a disposal which is initiated by the corporation itself of a wholly-owned subsidiary, then that remains an internal matter for the corporation and I cannot see any reason why Parliament should be informed as to that.
I come back to initiatives on the part of the Secretary of State. When Clause 31 has to be invoked—in other words, the negative resolution procedure—that provides the opportunity for Parliament to discover, as it were, the details of the disposal. It provides Parliament with an opportunity to ask about the terms on which the disposal is to be made, and about any other item of interest. That, surely, is the time for discussion and not before. The giving of a consent under Clause 9(2) will be merely a consequence of the action initiated by the direction, and it would be superfluous for Parliament again to be informed with details of the terms of the disposal. The information would be no more than old news because, by definition, the discussion on the direction would already have taken place.
I hope that I do not have to repeat the remarks which I made a week ago on the potentially adverse effect that publication of the details might have on an offer, which, as we debated last week, would very much depend on fairly rapid judgments being proferred, and advice being offered by those who advise the Secretary of State at any particular time. But I conclude by saying that there is no precedent for the principle of this amendment in the 1972 Act, which gives the BGC powers, and, where it limits them, does so by requiring a consent or approval from the Secretary of State, but without any requirement to lay instruments or orders before Parliament. So I have to say to the noble Lord that, just as the amendment was inappropriate in so far as the disposal of shares in an oil subsidiary was concerned, the same applies to gas.
Lord Strabolgi: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. But this is really a question of principle and of the accountability of Parliament, as my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis has said. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that the disposal of Amersham was a disaster and it would have been better to be wiser before the event, rather than after. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, seems to think that Parliament is probably not competent to judge these matters, but particularly in the other place there are

153
the Select Committees, including the powerful Public Accounts Committee, which go into these matters in considerable depth. It would be better if they had had a chance to look at it before rather than after the event. So this is a question of principle—the accountability of Parliament and the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament. For this reason, I feel bound to press the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 103.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale L.

Kennet, L.

Amulree L.

Leatherland, L.

Aylestone L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Balogh L.

Listowel, E.

Banks L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Beaumont of Whitley L.

Beswick L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bishopston L.

Longford, E.

Blease L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blyton L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Boothby, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Molloy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Ogmore, L.

Brockway, L.

Oram, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Parry, L.

Byers, L.

Peart, L.

Chitnis, L.

Phillips, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.—[Teller.]

Collison, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Rochester, L.

David, B.— [Teller.]

Ross of Marnock, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Seear, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Stedman, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stone, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Walston, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kaldor, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kearton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Alport, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Auckland, L.

Daventry, V.

Avon, E.

Davidson, V.

Balerno, L.

De La Warr, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Bellwin, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Beloff, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Blake, L.

Eccles, V.

Boardman, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Cathcart, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Chelwood, L.

Elton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Faithfull, B.

Craigavon, V.

Ferrers, E.

Cross, V.

Fortescue, E.

154

Gisborough, L.

Mersey, V.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mills, V.

Greenway, L.

Milverton, L.

Gridley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mottistone, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Northchurch, B.

Halsbury, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Hawke, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Holderness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Romney, E.

Ilchester, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Inglewood, L.

St. Just, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

Savile, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Selborne, E.

Kinross, L.

Sharples, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Spens, L.

Long, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Luke, L.

Terrington, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

McFadzean, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Tranmire, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Mancroft, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Mar, C.

Vivian, L.

Margadale, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Marley, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Provisions supplementary to section 9]:
5.39 p.m.
Lord Bishopston Lord Bishopston moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 11, line 27 leave out from first ("provisions") to ("as") in line 28.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21. As your Lordships know, Clause 10 contains provisions which are supplementary to those contained in Clause 9. The amendment seeks to delete the words in the brackets. The Committee will know that we are still discussing the powers of disposal of the British Gas Corporation. The wide terms of reference gave powers to the corporation, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, to change the contractual relationships between the corporation and other North Sea partners. The words in the brackets affect—I think some would say undermine—the laws of contract.
Clause 10 confers powers on the corporation. In fact, this clause is very much like the earlier clause with respect to BNOC. Under Clauses 3 and 11, the Secretary of State can direct the corporations to exercise their powers in such a manner as he may specify, whatever that may mean. Thus, the third party contracts could be amended against the wishes of the third party, by either the corporations or the Secretary of State if these words remain in the Bill. If I can give an example, an offshore operating agreement involving BNOC could be modified without the agreement of the other parties or a scientific research company undertaking research work for one of the

155
corporations during which it must show confidential knowhow not protected by patents or the applications of patents, et cetera, to the corporations. It might not be willing to enter into such a contract with a commercial company because this could lead to the loss of part of the scientific base of the company. However, the effect of the Bill is to allow the corporation or the Secretary of State to force such a situation on the company.
Clause 10(4) will permit the BGC, regardless of what the Secretary of State says, to construe the contract as meaning a private company rather than the BGC. It seems to me that privatisation could affect a subsidiary which becomes a private company. The relationship which existed between the BGC and a non-competitor and a contractor could become an agreement between a private enterprise and another partner, possibly in conflict with the partner concerned. After privatisation takes place, it seems that there is some doubt about the position of agreements. I would ask: What is the position of agreements entered into with the corporation and not a private concern? If there are disputes about the interpretation of the contracts, how can matters be settled, possibly without going to the courts? Unless the Ministry gives some clarification during the passage of this measure, various questions which I have posed need an answer, and clarification is essential if the BGC and others who may be in the relationship with it are to know where they stand. With those words, I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
5.42 p.m.
The Earl of Mansfield: This amendment would remove the clarification that ensures that a scheme transferring assets from BGC or a wholly-owned subsidiary to a relevant subsidiary can include supplementary provisions relating to the interpretation of licences, agreements and other documents. Perhaps I should explain the purpose and why these words appear in the Bill.
Subsection (2) of Clause 10 creates the power to make a scheme or schemes, transferring assets of the corporation or a wholly-owned subsidiary to other wholly-owned subsidiaries with a view to disposal of the assets by the means described in paragraphs (a) and (b). Subsection (3) says that the scheme may provide that rights and liabilities specified in the scheme shall be enforceable by or against both or either of the transferor or the transferee and that the scheme may create new rights and liabilities between these two parties. In the case of BCC's offshore oil interests and probably in the case of other interests too, the rights and liabilities mentioned in subsection (2) and paragraph (a) of subsection (3) are at present to be found in licences or agreements to which BGC is a party. Where any of those rights and liabilities are transferred by means of the scheme to a subsidiary, it will be necessary for those licences and agreements to be read as if the transferee was the party thereto in place of BGC. This might be achieved by applying paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 1 to the interpretation of such licences and agreements on and after the transfer date or by setting out the textual adjustments to the documents in the scheme itself. This would be done under the powers contained in lines 26 to 29 and those adjustments would be prefaced
156
by a formula to the effect that on and after the transfer date certain documents are to be read "as if" certain adjustments to their text were made. In the Government's view it is entirely reasonable that BGC should be able to adopt this approach in the scheme if it appears to them to be necessary or expedient to secure the effective enforcement of those rights and liabilities from the transfer date.
I appreciate that at first blush the passage may appear to give one party a unilateral right to amend agreements and other documents. I would reassure the noble Lord by pointing out that lines 26 to 29 contain the safeguards that any amending provisions in the scheme may only be supplementary, incidental or consequential to the transfer of assets effected by the scheme, and they may only be included if BGC considers them to be necessary or expedient. In addition, there are further safeguards in subsection (2) that a scheme may only be made for the purpose of facilitating a disposal of shares in a relevant subsidiary and in subsection (5) that a scheme cannot come into force until it has been approved by the Secretary of State. The Department of Energy will ensure that these safeguards are sufficient to keep the provisions of a scheme within the limits prescribed by the legislation. I hope that what I have said satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, on this point.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I wonder if the noble Earl the Minister will agree with me that the word "rights" will include what is somewhat pompously known as intellectual property rights—that is to say, rights in relation to patents, trademarks, know-how, copyright and designs. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, did make mention of patent rights and as I understand it, no answer was given to that specific point by the noble Earl. I am not complaining because he probably included patent rights in his general statement. But these intellectual property rights are of tremendous value to organisations which own them. Can the noble Earl the Minister give an assurance that there is adequate protection to the British Gas Corporation in the scope of this Bill if the corporation themselves have acquired as a result intellectual property rights which they do not wish to dispose of? These rights can be of great value internationally and can be exploited abroad. Therefore, when they are considering the transfer of rights, will the Government fully consider safeguarding intellectual property rights?
The Earl of Mansfield: "Rights" in this case undoubtedly include patent rights or any other form of right; but, of course, as between the transferor and the transferee. So, broadly speaking, what the Secretary of State would want to achieve in such an eventuality is that the third party would be left in a neutral position so far as the transferor or transferee was concerned. I hope that satisfied the noble Lord.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I thank the noble Earl for his reply but it does not quite cover the scope of my anxiety about the ownership of intellectual property rights in this connection, in view of their potential value. Perhaps it was unkind of me to ask a question on a technical matter at this stage without giving notice

157
to the noble Earl. I will leave it until another occasion to raise this particular point.
The Earl of Mansfield: Perhaps I will shorten the labours of the House by saying that I will communicate with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, so far as any broadening or amplification of what I have said may be necessary.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Again, I am very grateful to the noble Earl.
Lord Bishopston: If I may join the Alliance temporarily in order to get a copy of the letter from the noble Earl, that would be helpful. But I must say that I am still at a loss to understand the reply given by the Minister. He may have some advantage over me in that respect but it seems to me that unilateral action here is hardly justified because it puts at least one party at a severe disadvantage in relation to the others. Although the Minister may say that the provisions to which I have made reference may not be used in the way in which we anticipate, one wonders why the words are necessary in the Bill. I rather feel this is a matter to which we might return later on, and I would seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Powers of Secretary of State as respects disposals by Gas Corporation]:
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
5.51 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 12 line 23, at end insert—
("Provided that the Corporation shall be entitled to retain an amount representing the net book value of the property and rights disposed of together with any tax or other residual liabilities or where the disposal consists of shares in a relevant subsidiary, such a proportion of that amount as is represented by the proportion of shares disposed of and any costs arising from the disposal.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, and, with the permission of the Committee, take Amendment No. 25 with it. These amendments are indeed very modest amendments, as I shall seek to show. They are, moreover, consistent with what is generally known in respectable financial commercial and industrial circles as ordinary commercial probity. To that I shall return.
Clause 11, your Lordships will recall, gives the Secretary of State power to require the board, under Section 9, to obey his directions in regard to the disdisposal of "any shares of a relevant subsidiary", of "the whole or any part of the undertaking of, or any property, rights or liabilities of, a relevant subsidiary", or (c)"any part of the undertaking of, or any property, rights or liabilities of, the Corporation."
These as we have already said are enormous powers; we did indeed reiterate it on Second Reading and I feel quite sure the point has been made again today, although for other reasons I was not able to be here for the early part of the debate; therefore, I will not seek to elaborate further upon it. They do give the
158
Secretary of State enormous powers. The assets of the corporation and its undertaking including its subsidiaries are, of course, extremely valuable.
Indeed, if I may refer your Lordships to the latest accounts—I have an additional copy here for the Minister if he feels it necessary to be taken through any points—the total net assets of the undertaking consolidated amount to some £10,000 million. This is a very large sum. Of course, the right to sell off essential services has been rather restricted so far in your Lordships' House by the passing, against the Government, of an earlier amendment. Nevertheless, the amount of assets in the undertaking as a whole and its subsidiaries that can be sold off at the direction of the Secretary of State represent a very formidable sum indeed.
So far the publicity attending the reason for the sell off of certain subsidiaries or parts of British Gas has been based on the supposition that if certain assets, or parts of an undertaking, or indeed the whole of a subsidiary undertaking, were transferred to private enterprise then the consumer would be far better off, the economy generally would be healthier, it would promote competition, in short, it would satisfy all those favourite nostrums, political nostrums though they are, of the Conservative Party. Be that as it may. The Conservative Party are entitled to have their own philosophy about the benefits of private enterprise, just as we on our side have our right to say that on the whole we prefer the mixed economy but with the commanding heights of the economy susceptible to more planned and co-operative control in the interests of the community at large. These are arguments which are quite proper to go across the political spectrum and these are the arguments that so far have been adduced.
But there are other reasons as well. Your Lordships may be aware—I hope I do not tax your memories or your reading glasses too much—that in the course of the Second Reading debate I did indicate that the very term "privatisation" meant robbery; indeed, as I pointed out from the English dictionary, the word "private" itself means to rob. So we come to a part of the Bill which has not received very much publicity at all. Even though the theory of the party opposite is vindicated—the parts of the undertaking are sold off to private enterprise, and thereafter there is nothing much to do except to wait for the results of the beneficial competition—the other part is there.
The untutored observer might think that, however regrettable it was for the undertakings to be sold off to various private enterprise concerns, the corporation would not suffer very much anyway because of course it would receive the money for which the assets were sold. But under this Bill such is not the case. The corporation is going to be required by the Secretary of State to sell off its assets or parts of them, or subsidiaries or parts of them, but who gets the money? Not the Gas Corporation, but the state. In other words, the real reason—aside from the establishment— of a rather threadbare theory of competition, to which the Party opposite is addicted—is of course to grab the money which arises from the sale of the assets. There are good precedents for this. The party opposite have done it already, in the last two years, when they imposed a compulsory levy on British Gas and forced

159
them to pay over into the Consolidated Fund sums out of their profits, in addition to normal taxation, in relief of general revenue. Of course, what they are going to do is this. They are going to sell these assets, with the powers contained in this particular section, and the proceeds, which may be £100 million, £200 million, £300 million, £1,000 million, are not going to British Gas but straight into the Consolidated Fund.
I pause at this point to remind your Lordships that the party opposite is reckoned to be a party of businessmen, men addicted to the pursuit of enterprise on high business principles, and we hear very often the terms "good housekeeping" and "good management". It never has been good management in my book to use the proceeds of capital realisation to spend as current income; it never has been. If the party opposite has any other ideas on that I would be glad to hear them. The answer, of course, is that this Bill is indeed intended to private, indeed to rob, the corporation.
All these amendments seek to do is to say that when an asset is sold, or when a subsidiary is sold, then in effect the gas corporation shall be reimbursed to the extent of the value at which these assets stand in their own books. In that we are being extremely moderate because we could have put down an amendment, with which your Lordships in all parts of the Committee would undoubtedly have agreed, that the whole proceeds of the sale should be paid to British Gas itself, although perhaps confidence in that is not so good since the disastrous Amersham and other realisations which, of course, cost the Government £21 million in terms of the completely unnecessary underwriting commissions that they paid. No, all we are saying is that the books of British Gas should be left exactly as before; that instead of the assets—which the powers under this Bill enable the Secretary of State to sell—the moneys or the proceeds should be paid into British Gas only to the extent of their book value.
For the life of me I do not know what arguments the Secretary of State will have against that. Speaking in another place the right honourable gentleman did agree with his usual modest disposition, with which all of your Lordships are well acquainted, that there would be refunded to the gas corporation the actual costs which it incurred in the course of the operation. It is almost as though a generous burglar, having robbed a house of all its silver, in a fit of remorse said that he would then send a postal order to the person from whom the goods had been stolen to the approximate cost of the jemmy which he had used in order to get into the building. It is not a very attractive proposition.
What will happen to British Gas on the assumption that the Government take the proceeds, less probably the small amount of costs that are incurred? What will be the effect on British Gas? The first question that I should like to ask the noble Lord is as follows. How does he propose that this matter should be dealt with in the books of British Gas? I have a copy of the accounts here with me. He quite clearly cannot write off the proceeds of sale against capital liabilities. He might write it off against the current cost reserve because the accounts are prepared on a current cost accounting basis. Or he might write it off against retained profits. How will he do it?
The whole supposition is that the assets having been sold, the reason why the Government are taking the money is that they think—and I repeat "they think"—British Gas will not have any need of it. Who are they to say what British Gas will need? Are they going to set themselves up as civil servants, lawyers or accountants for that matter and to say, "Well, on our estimation it will not need the money anyway"? Who are they to say that in any event the gas corporation will still have its activities, its ordinary commercial activities to carry on?—and carry them on it has done very well indeed. I have heard no complaint from the Government as to the profitability of British Gas. I have heard no criticism of its accounts. If the Government are prepared to criticise the accounts then I am quite willing to provide a copy and to go through them with the noble Earl, if necessary in public. There has been no complaint at all.
Let us say that British Gas wants to develop its existing services and needs capital for that purpose. Surely it is entitled to look on the reserves that it has and more particularly its liquid reserves because it is not only a question of balance sheet reserves which may be tied up in fixed assets and in other assets of that kind; it is a question of the liquid cash that is available. Let us assume the unlikely event of this Government continuing in office after the next election —I must say that that is a remote possibility on their existing showing—and let us assume that British Gas, continuing its prosperous activities, wants to make further capital investment in the activities which remain to it unless, of course, the Government so want to cripple it that it cannot expand at all and is all the time under the diktat of the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Energy.
Surely all reasonable counsel would suggest—and I think that I would carry the views of most industrialists and most businessmen with me—that if it does realise its assets either voluntarily or compulsorily it should be entitled to the use of the proceeds. Who knows that British Gas may not need the proceeds for expansion under the dynamic leadership of its existing executive chairman? If it had not got liquid funds, what would happen? Being a nationalised industry and being under a Government who hate and barely disguise their hate of all nationalised industries, the Gas Board—because its borrowing under the insane monetary doctrine is covered within the public sector borrowing requirement—would have to go cap in hand to the Government to borrow money that the Government had already robbed it of. This does not make sense and it does not make for commercial probity. The noble Earl opposite and his right honourable friends in another place ought to be thoroughly ashamed of this Bill which in any case is a rotten Bill and which, as I have indicated, seeks to rob.
We have put forward a suggestion here which says that the corporation shall have its book value and no more. I assume that the books have been accurately kept because there is an unqualified certificate by its accountants. This is the minimum decency that the Government can show to the corporation and I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am obliged to the noble

161
Lord at any rate for speaking to both of his amendments at once because that is logical as well as timesaving. The effect of both Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 is to give the corporation a firm right to retain part of the proceeds of any disposal of assets. That part of the proceeds to be retained by the corporation should— the amendments suggest—be at least sufficient to cover first, any cost incurred by the corporation in the course of the disposal; secondly, residual tax liabilities remaining with the corporation; and thirdly, that "book value" at which the assets disposed of are entered into the corporation's balance sheet.
I shall say right away that there is agreement so far as the first two points are concerned. The Government accept that the corporation should be reimbursed for costs incurred in the course of a disposal or residual tax liabilities remaining after disposal. In fact, Clause 11 already provides scope for such reimbursement.
Clause 11(3) begins with the words:
"If and to the extent that"
making it plain that the Secretary of State has discretion to direct BGC to pay him only part of the proceeds. Clause 11(5) makes it clear that the Secretary of State may pay consideration for shares transferred to him under subsection (4)—the payment of a consideration would he the mechanism for reimbursing the corporation in this case. We have approached the question in this way because while many cases will be clear, there may be grey areas where it is not entirely obvious whether or not a particular cost or tax liability should be regarded as arising from the disposal, and our approach permits the Secretary of State to determine any such uncertainties.
Then the noble Lord came to what I might call the accountant's point which, as he is a distinguished accountant, no doubt causes him less anguish than me, for I am not an accountant in any sense, distinguished or otherwise. In fact, the noble Lord was asking me how the payment of the proceeds will be shown in the accounts of the corporation. I think that that is what it came down to. In other words, how should the corporation treat the proceeds of a disposal in its accounts? The first point is that it is for the corporation to draw up its accounts, and I imagine that it will make some form of charge to the profit and loss account in order to bring its balance sheet into balance after a disposal of proceeds to the Consolidated Fund. If that is what is done, I cannot see that it is so dreadful.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am grateful to the noble Earl for permitting me to clarify the position. After the sale has taken place an asset will have disappeared from the balance sheet of the gas corporation. Instead of having a subsidiary there, there will no longer be a subsidiary there; instead of having some other assets there which have been part of the disposal, there will be no assets there any more. The question that I was putting to the noble Lord was how he would write off that on the other side of his balance sheet? I was not concerned with the actual disposal of cash itself but with how the corporation itself would deal with the position, or how the Government propose that it would deal with it.
The Earl of Mansfield: The easy answer is to say that
162
that is a matter for the corporation and its auditors. I do not think that I can go beyond that because I am not armed with that information—I will be perfectly frank with the noble Lord, and he is a distinguished accountant. The real nub of the noble Lord's argument is what he is saying when he says, in effect, that the proceeds of sale—at least so far as part of them are concerned—should remain within the corporation. The purpose of a disposal of assets under Clauses 9, 10 or 11 will be to give effect to our general policies as to the proper role of the private and public sectors. If we require a disposal, we are, in effect, saying that this is an activity which does not need to be undertaken by the public sector, and we are taking the opportunity of reducing the role of the public sector. I think that that was implicit in the noble Lord's remarks. Of course, he did not welcome that at all, and I perfectly understand his point. But assuming that that is the policy and that it is a policy that is put into effect, what argument can there be for the corporation retaining the same volume of financial resources when, in fact, the scope of its activities is being reduced?
Then the noble Lord asked me about the financial affairs of the corporation. The responsibility as regards any nationalised corporation rests with the sponsoring department, and the British Gas Corporation is no different from any other nationalised industry. The corporation draws up investment plans and submits them to the Government of the day for approval. As much as possible the investments are funded internally. If these funds are not sufficient, then there is a borrowing from the National Loans Fund. It is clear that there is no connection between the funds that the corporation needs for the part of its business which it will continue to operate, and the funds received from a disposal of a part of the business in which it is no longer to be involved. In exactly the same way as we have discussed other disposals, I submit that it is proper that after deduction of any appropriate costs and liabilities—such as tax—the proceeds of a disposal sale should pass to the Exchequer, to be available for allocation to best advantage over the economy as a whole.
The noble Lord takes the point that the Government can use the proceeds of disposal by way of the Consolidated Fund to this or that effect, which may or may not commend itself to the noble Lord. But that is, of course, what happens to all taxation and all sums which are received into the Consolidated Fund. It arises from capital taxation on individuals: their accumulated savings go into the Consolidated Fund; it also arises in the case of taxation of income and, for instance, the gas levy; and it also arises from a sale, such as in this instance. So there is nothing unremarkable about it. As I have said, there will be cases where it is right for the corporation to be reimbursed for the costs of a disposal or for some residual liabilities, and this the Bill caters for. But I do not think that the noble Lord has made out any case for the retention by the corporation of the book value of an asset disposed of. He is saying, if his amendment is accepted, that the corporation would have large sums of money in its account. As I have said, in accordance with normal practice and policy, it is much better that these should be put to good use elsewhere. So what is the logic, I ask myself, of reducing the public sector but at the same time keeping

163
its resources at a constant level? With that quasi-philosophical thought I rest my argument.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Surely these assets did not suddenly appear out of thin air. The gas corporation had to spend money out of its general funds creating these assets. Is it not quite wrong that it has simply to be sold and then the asset is deleted and the money taken by the Consolidated Fund? I wonder what people interested in local authority matters and housing policy would have had to say if, apart from local authorities having to sell off houses—and that is virtually the position—they were told that the money from those disposals would not go to the local authority but would go to the Consolidated Fund. With all due respect, there is a relevance here in the analogy. It may well be that the Government will argue that it means that loan consents for the building of other houses will not be required, but it is still a matter for the local authority to determine how the money will be spent. It was actually out of the resources of the gas corporation that these assets were created. We have no objection to the Government taking the profits. The Minister asks: What will they use this money on? Who has provided all this money, anyway? It has been the consumer. Could not they use this money to do some research and development to the advantage of the consumer? Could not they use it to provide the daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, with cheaper gas? His interest in his daughter and her gas appliance, and in buying candles to keep her going really means that he should be interested in the cost of the gas. There would be a great deal of argument as to what priority one gives to this matter or another matter in relation to the continuing work of the gas corporation.
I do not think it is good enough for a Minister to say "This is only an accountancy matter; I am not an accountant; someone else can answer that", and throw it back to my noble friend, who is a distinguished accountant. I do not know whether or not he is a distinguished accountant, but the Minister has certainly proclaimed his own argument. I would think that anyone interested in the whole question of annual reports will be concerned about what will happen to this asset. There are other people who will not be satisfied with them saying that they can show it as they like or get rid of it as they like. This is not good enough. It underlines the case that the Government are making. They are not wanting to achieve privatisation but they are going to take the money from the gas corporation, who have been ordered to dispose of these assets to the private interests. They are going a hit far on that, and I hope that my noble friend will press this amendment.
Lord Tanlaw: Can the noble Earl clarify one point for us on these Benches? If, like in any normal company, there is a disposal of assets, this must of course decrease the borrowing power of that company. I do not know whether this applies to the British Gas Corporation but can the noble Earl the Minister give an assurance that, if the future financial policy of the corporation is such that it requires money, the disposal of these assets will not in any way decrease their bor-
164
rowing potential? Indeed, could their borrowing powers be matched by the assets which they have disposed of?
If in fact they wish to raise money in the future and they do not have these assets to bring in the extra income, there is little alternative but to raise the price of domestic gas, which is now under this Bill the responsibility of British Gas Corporation. Can the noble Earl say that if this amendment is rejected it will in no way affect the price of British Gas, simply because it is their only way of raising funds because they no longer have the assets on which to earn the income for future expansion?
The Countess of Mar: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, what he proposes should happen if the proceeds from a sale of either shares or property do not meet the net book value of the Gas Board? Is the money to come from the taxpayers?
The Earl of Mansfield: I am very much obliged for that last intervention. I thought that I had covered the points which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, had raised. The intention is that the gas corporation in the future will be treated exactly the same as any other nationalised industry. Therefore, its financial regime will not be changed by virtue of the selling off of part of these assets.
I wonder whether I may answer some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, made. If I may say so, it really is rather muddled to confuse the activities of the gas corporation and the local authorities. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, the money in the first instance came out of the pockets of the taxpayer; now on privatisation the money, less deductions, so to speak, is going to go back into the pockets of the taxpayer, into the Consolidated Fund.
So far as local authorities are concerned, on the sale of council houses the local authorities are not entitled to reduce the rates, if we go on the analogy of Lord Thorneycroft's daughter. What they are empowered to do, and what they are already doing, at least in the part of the world that I know a little about—to wit, Scotland—is to build more council houses, and that surely is desirable. There is not in this instance any comparison between the sale of council houses and the sale of the gas corporation's assets.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I must correct the noble Earl in one respect. As he knows, of course, the original capital of the corporation did not come out of the funds of the taxpayer. If he looks at note No. 12 on the balance sheet, he will find out exactly where the money came from. It came by the subscription to gilts, and all the rest of it, with which he is quite familiar. If there was to be any realisation of assets and the corporation was allowed to keep the proceeds of the enforced sale of its assets, the prudent way would be to reduce some of its debts. That is the obvious way of doing it. If you sell an asset for which you no longer have any use and you still want to retain the credit rating for the company, if you cannot use it immediately on things like research and development, which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, you apply it to the reduction of debt. This is of course the ordinary, prudent way of going about things. I will not make an appeal to the noble Lord, Lord

165
Thorneycroft, who has had a most distinguished career as a chairman and director of many companies, but I am quite sure that he would concur in the ordinary business treatment of the items to which I have referred.
It would not be kind to continue this matter further with the noble Earl opposite. Indeed, it would be a waste of time, because, quite clearly, the main part of the Government have not the remotest idea what they are doing anyway. All they are really concerned with is to get some money into the Consolidated Fund. Whether they do it by selling cruisers to countries that possibly may not always have the friendliest of relationships with us, or however they do it, they do not really mind. They have to get their hands on the money. This, presumably, is so that they can give some extra tax relief, usually to those in the upper income groups, in the next Budget almost immediately before the next election. This is clearly what is going to happen.
No, it would be unkind to pursue the matter further. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Earl will, when he reads through the accounts and the reports of the Gas Corporation—which I take it he must have read already, so I assume it means a re-reading—agree that what I have said is absolutely accurate, and that my own version of what the Government are doing is perfectly correct. I will not prolong the hearing any longer. I ask my noble friends in all parts of the Committee to support the two amendments.
6.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendmend (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Kennet, L.

Balogh, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Banks, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.—[Teller.]

Birk, B.

Bishopston, L.—[Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Blease, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blyton, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Molloy, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Oram, L.

Brockway, L.

Parry, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Peart, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Rochester, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stedman, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stone, L.

George-Brown, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whaddon, L.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kaldor, L.

Wigoder, L.

166

NOT-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Alport, L.

Long, V.—[Teller.]

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blake, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boardman, L.

Mansfield, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mar, C.

Caccia, L.

Margadale, L.

Caithness, E.

Marley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Mersey, V.

Chelwood, L.

Milverton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Craigavon, V.

Morris, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cross, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Daventry, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V.

Orkney, E.

De La Warr, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rochdale, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Romney, E.

Eccles, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Just, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandford, L.

Elton, L.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Enniskillen, E.

Savile, L.

Faithfull, B.

Shannon, E.

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Spens, L.

Greenway, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Terrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tranmire, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kemsley, V.

Vivian, L.

Kilmany, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Kinross, L.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 24A:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("The Secretary of State may also by Order provide for the disposal of any such shares.").
The noble Lord said: I shall not detain the Committee on this. I wish merely to afford the Minister an opportunity to indicate how he proposes to bring these transactions under the control of the other place. The procedure provides for an annulment of any order under Clause 31(2), and I should like the noble Earl to say what procedure will be followed so that we may keep the transactions completely under supervision and know exactly what is happening.
The Earl of Mansfield: As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, correctly said, Clause 31(2), to which we shall come, provides that orders made under Clause 11(4) shall be made a statutory instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure, and that will provide for a proper degree of parliamentary scrutiny by both

167
Houses. Before the Secretary of State transfers shares to himself by order under the clause, there will be the negative resolution procedure. Thereafter, the Secretary of State disposes of the shares in the way which will be appropriate to the particular instance involved. But the whole matter will have already been discussed, as I said, when the shares are transferred to him, and any further discussion which the amendment envisages would duplicate that on the earlier order; and the disposal would be delayed during the 40-day period in which the order might be annulled and that might prejudice the disposal. I hope I have helped the noble Lord factually, although I am well aware that he would like as many layers of parliamentary scrutiny as could possibly be written into the Bill, and my words, therefore, may not be very welcome to him.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The point involved here is not one for an accountant such as myself but for a distinguished lawyer such as himself. The Bill as drafted makes the transfer of shares to him subject to the negative procedure, unless your Lordships decide, as I hope you will, that it should be the affirmative procedure. On the face of it, however, it does not appear that the subsequent disposal by the Minister of the shares that have been transferred to him—which transfer was subject to an order and therefore to some control—is also covered by the order. Perhaps the Minister will consider the matter and at a later stage confirm that both the transfer to him and the disposal by him of the shares to which the clause refers are subject to the control to which I have referred.
The Earl of Mansfield: I am obliged to the noble Lord. Certainly the transfer to the Secretary of State is subject to the negative procedure. With regard to the eventual disposal by the Secretary of State, I shall consider the point, and we can always return to it at a later stage of the Bill, if necessary.
Lord Ross of Marnock: The whole point is that Parliament and the public are concerned about the ultimate disposal of the shares, what will be the terms, who will get the shares, and what control there is. This is the point where public interest is liveliest. This is the kind of thing that the Public Accounts Committee has been concerned about. This is the very point at which we must have some parliamentary control. We are grateful to the Minister for saying that he will look at the matter again, and I think my noble friend has achieved something by getting that undertaking from the Minister.
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am obliged to the noble Earl for what he has indicated, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.42 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: I should like to say a few words on
168
the Question that the clause shall stand part because, as we know, Clause 11 concerns the powers of the Secretary of State as respects disposals by the gas corporation. This is a particularly important clause because it allows the Secretary of State to direct the British Gas Corporation to make use of its powers under Clauses 9 and 10, and so we are here debating also the aspects of those two earlier clauses. We made some progress regarding Clause 9 a few moments ago, and we have since had one or two assurances, but that does not go as far as we would wish. As we have noted, Clause 9 allows the BGC to sell off its shares, subsidiaries, and other assets, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and the Treasury. I rather like the word "allows" in that context, because one rather feels that the corporation has no option, that it might consider not to do so. But the Secretary of State is looming in the background with his friends from the Treasury. The provision covers a wide range of assets and interests some of which have been the subject of debate, and of controversy, both today and earlier.
Clause 10 permits the British Gas Corporation to establish subsidiaries and to transfer assets between subsidiaries in order to sell them off, and so consideration of whether Clause 11 shall stand part is surely the occasion for us to "recap" on the implications of the powers granted to the Secretary of State to direct the BGC to use its powers under the two clauses to which I have referred.
Ostensibly, the Bill is about the need for competition, so we are told, but in reality it is, as the Minister has already assured us, about contracting the public sector. I am not saying that contraction of the public sector might not have merit in some instance, but when one decides that that shall be the main objective, and one then has to "bodge" up the changes in order to achieve that objective, that is surely putting the thing the wrong way round. What the Minister should have said on Second Reading was that he was concerned that the British Gas Corporation, efficient as it was, and as well liked as it is, could yet be improved by certain changes which the Government had in mind. That might have fooled no one, but at least it might have given a far better reason for the measure at all.
A few moments ago my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington said that the Bill is really about a subsidy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is rather interesting to note that in almost every clause of the Bill the policy of the Gas Corporation shall be subject to approval by the Secretary of State and the Treasury. It amounts almost to a kind of collusion: that the Secretary of State and the Treasury agree to a certain policy, which ends up with the Treasury putting its hand out and collecting the "swag" from the sale. One wonders whether the Treasury is really an independent authority in this process. It seems almost indecent that the Treasury shall be brought in in tandem with the Secretary of State in an enterprise which ends up with the Treasury obtaining the proceeds of the sale.
There is no doubt at all that if obtaining money is another objective, besides the objective of contracting the public sector, it is being done at the expense of the corporation. What kind of organisation will the Gas Corporation be after all the assets have been sold off, after it has been instructed to provide pipelines for

169
the private sector on the basis that, if there is any dispute about the rent, the Secretary of State shall be the judge on appeal about the rent that shall be paid? The whole thing gives dictatorial powers to the Secretary of State, and despite the pressures that we have applied and the amendments that we have tabled urging that the Secretary of State shall be accountable and shall come to the House with affirmative orders, we have been out-voted. Even parliamentary accountability, which is so dear to all of us as parliamentarians, seems to be thrown aside as being of no importance whatsover.
My noble friends and I believe in a mixed economy. We believe in public enterprise in so far as we accept that there are many occasions when national assets are best owned by, and national responsibilities are best carried out by, a public body, answerable to Parliament —that is what democracy is about—but there are occasions when matters are not of such great consequence and can be left to the private sector. So far we have had the British Gas Corporation and private enterprise working together quite amicably, with, as was shown by the result of the first vote today, the whole country being satisfied that the BGC has been exercising its obligations in a most responsible way.
In case anyone thinks that I am unduly biased politically, I need only remind the Committee that the BGC is an independent, statutory body, set up by Act of Parliament in 1972 by a Conservative Government. I would not accuse the Conservatives of being doctrinaire when they did that, but they seem to have changed their attitude since. In 1972 the Government envisaged the BGC as an integrated corporation, dealing with all aspects of the gas business: exploration, research, development, production, transmission, distribution, the retailing of appliances, servicing, and, most of all, safety. All those aspects are now at risk under Clause 11, taking into account, as it does, the implications of Clauses 9 and 10.
We believe that after the Bill has been through both Houses, the Gas Corporation should be in a position to compete fairly and reasonably with the private sector in the interests of the public good. It must be given fair terms. It must not be shackled by restrictions and by the Secretary of State and the Treasury working together, without coming to Parliament to tell us what is happening. In the Bill the situation is far from satisfactory. This is not just a party view; up and down the country people of all persuasions realise that the Government have burnt their fingers, because while in some cases there might be sympathy for the belief that publicly-owned industries need a review, or an overhaul, because they are not efficient or because they might not be profitable, here the Gas Corporation meets every test.
As I said earlier, this is really a Treasury Bill, like a whole list of Bills that we have had, such as the forestry Bill, under which the Forestry Commission has to "flog" the forests and hand some money to the Chancellor, who year after year will come along saying, "How about more money?" This will happen to a number of enterprises, but when it happens to a great energy and power enterprise of so much strategic importance to the community it can be a tragedy indeed; not least, of course, in these very uncertain times, when we are told, quite rightly, that the public
170
interest demands the take-over of private assets and facilities at very short notice.
Yet here we are, still proceeding with this measure; and we believe that Clause 11 is one of the most important clauses in the Bill. It certainly has the shortcomings of many other clauses, in so far as it does not come up to the proper standards of accountability and is going to decimate the British Gas Corporation, which has been created over two decades now with a record of serving the public interest. It has done so profitably; it has been in the lead technically; it has provided service to the public at minimum cost; and, of course, it has also provided something like over a billion pounds in money to the Treasury under the heading of a gas levy. This gas levy has two advantages for the Government: it brings money to the Treasury, so that in a year or two, as we run up, to the election, there will be cuts in income tax, which will be to their credit; and, of course, at the same time we shall be reminded that, like many other nationalised industries, the gas enterprise, BNOC and so on, have been increasing their charges (albeit not at the request, but at the demand and on the insistence of the Government) to pay the levy.
So we are faced here in this clause with the basic ingredients of fragmentation, of uncertainty and so on; and those employed by the corporation who have been working as a team in all sectors—the legal side, the financial side, the technical and scientific side and the servicing side—all that is to be smashed and uncertainty will prevail. Even though the Minister says what he said in relation to the sale of gas showrooms, and so on, whatever assurances have been given there is the uncertainty until something comes to Parliament—and even on that we still have to be assured about the safety aspects. So we are pressing on with legislation with some assurances that something will be done somehow later on in order to give the answers to the questions which we have all been posing from time to time.
I believe that this recap on this clause is one which may provide the Government with an opportunity to give us assurances about some of our misgivings. I am only sorry that they have decided to make such changes and to cause such uncertainty at this time in the case of one of the best organised, most efficient and most accountable public enterprises in the country.
Lord Davies of Leek: Before we let this clause go, it is one of the most fundamental clauses and I think we should realise that Clause 11 provides two alternative methods for the Minister or the Secretary of State to achieve the removal from the corporation of any subsidiary. He can do that. It is one of the things on which we have attacked it. We have attacked it on three fronts. We have ordered it and its oil interests to sell off some of their most valuable assets. I do not want to delay your Lordships after 7 o'clock, after the time for dinner, so do not let anybody get worried—I shall finish. But I think we should get it across that the assets can be bought by the Minister. Granted, there is a formula for the corporation to be reimbursed for transferred corporation taxes, et cetera, but I am not concerned with the verbiage; what I am concerned with is the reality.

171
The reality is that when we come to the end of the day and the successful passing of this Bill through your Lordships' House there is a danger that some oil companies may prefer to sell their gas or oil, even at higher prices, to continental customers. That fact has not been emphasised enough. You can sell battleships to potential enemies, but let me be fair; you do not know who is going to be your next enemy. But if you can sell battleships all over the world there will be an argument one day. "We must sell this oil in the market in which we will get the highest price". In my estimation, the strategic importance of this rich national asset is in a deadly way being thrown into the hands of people over whom, in the last analysis, we shall have no control.
This Government may well rue the day. Always remember that, historically, a Government who start a war (or get into one; never mind whether they started it or not) at the end are not there. We must always remember that, here, one of the most important defence materials (it is one of the most important in the world, and God knows why they are doing this) is being sold off to private enterprise over which, whatever the Government of the day may say, be it a Labour Government or the SDP in the future, they will not have the control that they desire. Consequently, I think that before we pass this into law or let it go through this Committee, those words of mine should be highlighted.
Lord Ross of Marnock: As has been said this is an important Bill, and I will ask just one or two points very quickly. After all, the dinner hour is fairly flexible, I believe. This clause concerns the powers of the Secretary of State. In this clause he is mentioned no fewer than 12 times. In the first instance,
"The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Gas Corporation, give directions to the Corporation … ".
He has to produce an order in respect of that. My first question is: Will that order make clear whether he is acting with the agreement or against the wishes of the corporation? That is my first question.
Secondly, we come to subsection (4), where it says:
"The Secretary of State may by order transfer to himself … ".
The ultimate disposal is with the Secretary of State. Can we be given any indication as to whether there is any limit to the time between the taking over of the shares and the ultimate disposal of the shares? As I read it, he can hold on to them for years and years, and nobody will know anything at all about it until some other order is—well, there is no other order that can be produced at the present time; that is something the Minister is going to look at. But I am concerned about how long he can hold on to them, having taken them over, without having any firm plans for disposal.
Then I want to come to subsection (5), which says:
"If an order under subsection (4) above so provides"—
that is the subsection allowing the Secretary of State to transfer them to himself—
"the Secretary of State shall pay to the transferor"—
that is, the British Gas Corporation—
"such sum by way of consideration for the shares… ".
It is not by way of consideration for the actual cost of transfer, but consideration for the shares. I am
172
interested in the values; I am interested in the words. If that means anything, it should be a sum related to the value of the shares.
The other point is this. It says,
"as may be specified in the order".
This is a get-out for the Secretary of State. Why should that not be mandatory instead of discretionary? The sum changing hands there as consideration for the shares ought really to be specified, and not left in a discretionary way.
Lord Beswick: A little while ago the noble Earl was complaining that I had got up more than once to ask very much the same question. I apologise to him in one way, if he thought I was repeating myself, but I think that what he was really getting at is that the same mischief that the Government are trying to perpetrate occurs so often through this Bill that one has to react in much the same way in further, later parts of the Bill. So it is when I come to consider Clause 11 as a whole. What I have been concerned about here, very largely, is the motivation of people within the British Gas Corporation. That is fundamental. Indeed, I think it is fundamental in any case, whether one is considering a football team, a political party or an industry. Unless you get the motivation of people within the organisation you will not get results, you will not get success. It often depends upon leadership and it often depends upon whether there is something over and above the organisation which can frustrate its efforts. Whatever may be the cause of generating enthusiasm or of frustrating that enthusiasm, you will not succeed unless you get motivation from the bottom.
My criticism against this Bill and against much of what the Government are doing is that they are killing any initiative, any enthusiasm and any sense of pride in these different organisations. My noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock referred to the number of times in Clause 11 when reference is made to the power to give directions. He did not mention them all. Subsection (1) says:
"the Secretary of State may give directions";
subsection (2) says:
"the Secretary of State may by order provide";
subsection (3) says:
"If … the Secretary of State … so directs";
subsection (4) says:
"The Secretary of State may by order",
and so it goes on; except at the end in subsection (7) where it says that he may not do any of these things, unless the Treasury agrees.
What sort of a way is this to run an industry? You want the ability to have decisions taken in industry. Most of the noble Earl's noble friends when they get out into their own businesses will have cottoned on to the fact that—I was about to say "delights"—the real secret of success is decentralisation. Unless you can decentralise authority down the line and allow people to get on with the business, you will not have success. Here they are doing the opposite. At every stage they are frustrating the decision-making down below. Therefore, I think that we ought to have another attempt to stop this by voting against this Bill.

173
I make one other point. My noble friend Lord Bishopston said that he thought that all this was in the interests of the Treasury. I think that he is too naive; he is too innocent; he underestimates the capacity of this Government to do mischief and to make mistakes. I advise him to look at the record in the report made last week by the Public Accounts Committee. There he will have the same Treasury and the same Government selling assets. In one company, they sold off £303 million of public assets which the public Exchequer had previously owned. They sold the lot. It did not go into the public purse. At the end of that exercise how much better off were they? According to the Public Accounts Committee, they were £12 million worse off.
I remember Aneurin Bevan once saying what a famous Government they then had. In a country built on coal and surrounded by fish, the Government of the day contrived to create a shortage of both. Here we have an even more wonderful Government. They can actually dispose of £303 million of public assets and get minus £12 million at the end of it. I would not be so sure, if I were my noble friend Lord Bishopston, that all this was going to result in a lot of money going into the public purse. There is a lot of opportunity for making mistakes. Because I do not believe that any industry in any country can operate if this sort of mentality is confusing and frustrating them, I think we ought to vote against this clause.
7.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 54.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Greenway, L.

Alport, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henley, L.

Avon, E.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Kemsley, V.

Belstead, L.

Kilmany, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kinross, L.

Blake, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caccia, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Loudoun, C.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Cathcart, E.

McFadzean, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mansfield, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Mar, C.

Crawshaw, L.

Margadale, L.

Cross, V.

Marley, L.

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Mersey, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Morris, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mottistone, L.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Enniskillen, E.

Romney, E.

Faithfull, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ferrers, E.

St. Just, L.

Fortescue, E.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Savile, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sharples, B.

174

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Spens, L.

Trenchard, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Vivian, L.

Teviot, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Young, B.

Tranmire, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Balogh, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bernstein, L.

McNair, L.

Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Birk, B.

Mishcon, L.

Bishopston, L.

Parry, L.

Blease, L.

Peart, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Phillips, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brockway, L.

Rochester, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos L.

Seear, B.

Collison L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

David, B.—[Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stone, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.—[Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Jeger, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kaldor, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wigoder, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: This would seem an appropriate moment to adjourn for dinner. I suggest that the Committee reassembles at eight o'clock if that suits the convenience of the Opposition.
Lord Strabolgi: Before the Motion is put, may I ask whether the Government Chief Whip will consider letting the Committee have until 8.15? We on the Front Bench were not consulted about this. I think that it is as much in the interests of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who has been working very hard—as we all have—since three o'clock without a break. I know when we were in Government we would usually give a Committee a break of an hour for dinner. I should like to put that to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who is a most reasonable man. We should have a reasonable time in which to have our dinner.
Lord Denham: I very much want to get to the end of Part III of the Bill tonight. It is not very far ahead. If we can do that, then I should be very happy that the Committee should have an hour for dinner, which is the wish of the noble Lord.
Lord Strabolgi: I cannot guarantee what noble Lords in Committee will decide to do or say after dinner, or to guarantee that we can finish Part III. That depends on what noble Lords may wish to say. As the noble Lord knows full well, the Committee makes it own

175
decisions about these matters. I do not think that this invalidates my request.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I would never ask for a definite commitment. All I am asking is for best endeavours. With that prospect in mind, I ask the Committee to resume at 8.15.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): The Committee stands adjourned until 8.15.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.14 until 8.15 p.m.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 12 [Supply of gas by other persons]:
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 13, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) subject to conditions and in the case of a supply of 25,000 therms a year or less to any premises such conditions shall specify the period during which the supply must be continued and include provision for the Secretary of State to establish a selling price where he has reason to believe that the price being charged by the supplier is unreasonable.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 26. After this break we now move to Clause 12, which is rather ominously headed "Supply of gas by other persons"—that is, by persons other than the British Gas Corporation. The two new sections in this clause replace Section 29 of the Gas Act 1972. The broad effect of these sections is to create three categories of consumer. At the top end, if I may so describe it, the large consumer is defined as anyone taking over a million therms a year who will be free to buy gas from the supplier of his choice. Between a third and a half of industrial and commercial gas supplies falls into this category. At the bottom end, the British Gas Corporation will continue to be the sole supplier of gas to premises less than 25 yards from the BGC gas main or, unless the Corporation does not object, to another supplier. The bulk of domestic gas falls into this category. Between these two categories, consumers may purchase gas from a supplier other than BGC but only with the consent of the Secretary of State. Such consent will normally be given, provided safety arrangements are satisfactory.
The effect of these arrangements is to match BGC's monopoly to its statutory obligation to supply on request. British Gas will still have a monopoly supply for the domestic gas market within 25 yards of the main and will have a duty to maintain that supply. Since there is the ability to disconnect interruptible supplies, it is these interruptible customers who could be prime targets for private suppliers. The Bill does not concern itself with the problem if the BGC is unable to maintain sufficient interruptible customers to guarantee a gas supply to those customers that it has a duty to supply.
The purpose of this amendment is to protect the small consumer, mainly domestic and small commercial, which should appeal to the Government, who having been provided with a private supply—no doubt on attractive terms as a result of all this competition and free enterprise—and having incurred the expense of
176
installing gas-burning equipment, could then be faced with escalating charges or a discontinuance of the supply. No doubt the Government's answer will be that adequate protection will be provided by competition and market forces. But there will be no real competition in these circumstances, and how can there be when you are dealing with a commodity like gas and gas pipes? Once the supply has been laid on the consumer is captive and the supplier will effectively have a monopoly. There will be no competing supply system, nor an alternative supplier. There cannot be two competing gas distribution networks. In fact the Government are trying to apply something which is really not applicable or even suitable for this industry, but this is something they refuse to see in their myopic insistence on privatisation.
Quite apart from the disruption caused by laying two lots of pipes, the cost would be prohibitive and it is no answer that gas will still have to compete with other fuels. The consumer cannot switch to an alternative fuel without incurring the heavy expense of changing his installation. The British gas consumer has the protection afforded by the 1972 Act and the supervision of the corporation by Parliament, the Government and the Consumers' Council. The consumer receiving a private supply has no such protection—none at all—unless conditions on the lines indicated in the amendment are attached to the consent. I submit that it is necessary to retain power not only to fix a price but also to stipulate a period, which should surely be not less than 12 or 15 years, during which the supply must be continued: otherwise, a supplier who was not satisfied with the price established might threaten to discontinue the supply. People might even go out of business. It should be noted that the amendment, while affording some protection, would by no means provide the comprehensive control which other countries have found necessary when gas supply is in private hands. For example, even in the United States—the land of free enterprise—utilities are tightly regulated by state regulatory commissions who have developed detailed codes of practice. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to attach conditions to his consent, but he can also give his consent unconditionally. It is silent on the matters to be covered by these conditions. Unless they are so framed as to enable him to maintain continuing control, the consumer is exposed to exploitation—but, apparently, in the eyes of the Government, exploitation by private enterprise does not matter—and, if private supplies were made on a large scale, some regulatory authority would need to be established. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): This amendment seeks to do three things and I should like to comment on each of these in turn. First, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to impose conditions in every consent for the supply of gas under the new Section 29 of the Gas Act 1972, which is set out in Clause 12 of the Bill. The Secretary of State would not be able to give an unconditional consent in any circumstances. I suggest it is pretty obvious that this must be a rather arbitrary and, indeed, rather meaningless requirement, because all one would have to do to meet it would be to make a condition which was not in any way necessary. There may be cases

177
where conditions are required and others where they are not required. The usual practice which the Bill follows, therefore, is to permit conditions but not to require them in every case. Indeed, the then Labour Government followed that practice when they legislated on the supply and use of gas, as can be seen from Section 10 of the Energy Act 1976. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that merely to impose a requirement to lay down conditions is of no assistance by itself.
I should like to make it clear, as my right honourable friend has done in another place, that the purpose of the consent procedure is to permit an additional check on the safety arrangements proposed in the case of the intermediate group, which was described by the noble Lord in moving the amendment. However, no one can say that conditions will be necessary or appropriate in all classes of circumstances. The 2 million therms a year limit, below which consent is required, is inevitably somewhat arbitrary and where, for example, there is a large industrial concern with its own engineers, and its premises are inspected by the Health and Safety Executive, it is by no means obvious that conditions suddenly become necessary because the premises happen to consume slightly below 2 million therms a year, rather than slightly above that figure.
Also, where there is a case for constraining a consent in some way, conditions are not the only or necessarily the best approach; there is also the possibility of giving consent for a specified period only. In some particularly complex or changing circumstances, however carefully one drafts conditions, it may be difficult to be absolutely certain that every possible future contingency has been catered for. In such a case, the better approach may be to grant a consent, as I said, for a limited period. I hope that in the light of what I have said, your Lordships will agree that the Bill is right to contemplate the possibility of unconditional consents.
The second effect of the amendment is to require that consents to supply premises with no more than 25,000 therms a year should specify a period in which the supply is to be continued. In our view, to make this a condition would be rather ineffective in practice. It is all very well requiring that a supply be continued, but what if it is not? The effect on safety is, of course, a matter that would be taken into account in any case, and my right honourable friend, in considering whether to grant a consent, would have that aspect of the matter in view. So that we would say that the question of the period for which the supply is to last is a matter for arrangement between the person taking the supply and the person offering it.
The third effect of the amendment is to require that consents for the supply of gas to premises taking no more than 25,000 therms a year should empower the Secretary of State to regulate the price charged to the consumer, where he considers the price charged by the private supplier to be unreasonable. This raises a fairly fundamental point about Clause 12. The purpose of the clause is to introduce scope for competition in the supply of gas in all areas, other than those where the British Gas Corporation continues to have a monopoly of supply, and that of course is justified by the special circumstances of its statutory obligation to supply on request.
178
Competition will ensure that suppliers have to pitch their price at realistic levels in order to attract customers, while a customer who feels that the price he is being charged may be too high will have the opportunity to seek supplies of gas elsewhere, or even to change his source of energy. No useful purpose would be served by a provision empowering the Secretary of State to regulate prices. Market forces will, by themselves, lead to the most competitive prices and the most efficient modes of supply. That would be a matter primarily for arrangement under the contract by which the supply would be initiated, and would continue to affect the terms of the supply for so long as that contract lasted. I hope that in the light of those explanations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Strabolgi: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation but, for all his skill, he has not made out a convincing case. It is not his fault—I accept that at once. The difficulty is that, in trying to privatise a fuel such as gas, the Government are trying to privatise something which is not suitable for privatisation. Therefore, they are getting themselves into difficulties, as has become clear under this clause, when there are different suppliers, with safety and everything else involved. This is an important matter and it is one that we shall have to press.
8.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 57.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Aylestone, L.

McNair, L.

Balogh, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Beswick, L.

Parry, L.

Birk, B.

Peart, L.

Bishopston, L.—[Teller.]

Phillips, B.

Blease, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Collison, L.

Seear, B.

David, B.

Segal, L.

Hampton, L.

Stone, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Underhill, L.—[Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Kaldor, L.

Wigoder, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Avon, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Bellhaven and Stenton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Beloff, L.

Elton, L.

Belstead, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Bessborough, E.

Faithfull, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fortescue, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gainford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Gisborough, L.

Crathorne, L.

Greenway, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

179

Hylton-Foster, B.

Mountevans, L.

Kemsley, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Long, V.

Rochdale, V.

Loudoun, C.

St. Just, L.

Lyell, L.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

McFadzean, L.

Sharpies, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mansfield, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Margadale, L.

Swansea, L.

Marley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Tranmire, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mersey, V.

Young, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 13, line 29, leave out from ("conditions") to end of line 32 and insert ("but will only be given with reference to particular cases and provided that he is satisfied that adequate arrangements for safety have been made.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 27 and, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 28.
The Bill as drafted permits the Secretary of State to give consent for supplies between 25,000 and 2 million therms a year, either with reference to particular cases or by orders of general application. During the Second Reading debate in another place, the Secretary of State made it quite clear that before giving consent he would need to be satisfied that the safety arrangements proposed were adequate. During the later Committee stage he said that the gas standards branch of the Department of Energy would look at each case and advise him—a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Later he went on to say that the important point is that before consent is given the gas standards branch will check to ensure that an emergency service will be part of the safety provision being made by the potential supplier and that this will be an essential precondition for the giving of consent.
We find it difficult to understand how, if consents are given by orders of general application, this detailed examination of the safety arrangements in each particular case could possibly be carried out. Debates in another place showed that the Government are envisaging that under these provisions some private supplies may go to domestic consumers in remote villages. Safety arrangements in such cases cannot be enshrined in commercial contracts and must be fully scrutinised by the gas standards branch experts.
The Government recognise the importance of providing for safety with regard to these smaller supplies. The Under-Secretary said:
"However, we recognise the considerations for smaller supplies may well be different from those for the larger supplies. That is why for smaller supplies we have insisted that before such supplies are undertaken the Government should have an opportunity to check that the proposed safety arrangements are satisfactory. Where the safety arrangements are considered unsatisfactory, it is clearly apparent on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State will not give his consent".
This was at col. 822. I think we are entitled to ask how it is proposed that this careful scrutiny will be carried out when consents are given by orders of general
180
application. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Tan-law, who said at Second Reading that the Government must show more clearly than they have to date how they see the safety factor being maintained effectively under the Bill.
We on this side have repeatedly stated that we are opposed to giving wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State. Provision for consent by orders of general application is surely yet another example of this. Apart from the safety aspects to which I have already referred, there is, for example, nothing to prevent the Secretary of State, by issuing orders of general application, from effectively lowering the rate beyond which no consent is required. In other words, having made a concession and raised this limit from 1 million to 2 million therms a year, the Secretary of State could, without reference to Parliament, change the limit, if he wished, to any rate he liked.
I must press the noble Earl for an assurance that it is not the intention to use orders of general application in this way. This is a probing amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tanlaw: These Benches will be most interested to hear the noble and learned Lord's reply. I hope that his reply will be in some detail as to what are the safety regulations in terms of manpower, equipment and specification, if any. It is sometimes very difficult in a Bill of this kind, when we move into the technical area of safety regulations, to know what these really mean. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can reassure us on this side of the Committee, and all those who have some doubts, that the technical side, which is covered under the very broad spectrum of safety, will be looked after adequately. There are limits to what we can do with our knowledge in terms of the technical aspects of gas supply and applications.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for taking two amendments together, and I would like to do the same. In my submission, there can be no question that what is here proposed in Clause 12 is in any way breaking new ground. When the then Labour Government sponsored what is now the Energy Act 1976, their provisions on the supply and use of gas included, in Section 10, the possibility of giving consent by means of orders of general application. We are merely following that precedent. The ability to give consent by general order is nothing more than a sensible administrative provision which can be employed where there are a number of precisely similar cases, in order to avoid the need for repetitious paperwork in issuing individual consents for each case.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it plain—and the noble Lord quoted him to that effect—that the purpose of insisting on consent in the intermediate range is for the securing of safety. Therefore, he would give an order of general application only if he is satisfied that in all the cases which that order could cover the safety requirements necessary for the supply to be allowed are adequately met. I would suggest that the consent by general order is nothing more than the removal of unnecessary duplication or repetition.
Turning to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, the basic provision for safety regulations

181
will be under Clause 14, which is the general provision to that effect. It is intended to extend the present powers to make safety regulations, so that regulations may apply to private suppliers as well as to the British Gas Corporation. The safety regulations will apply to all supplies irrespective of size. In other words, they will apply both to supplies which require consent because they do not exceed 2 million therms a year and to supplies which are exempt from the consent requirement because they do exceed 2 million therms a year. The purpose of the consent requirement is to introduce an additional check so that the Secretary of State can satisfy himself that, in the circumstances covered by either the particular consent or the order of general application, these requirements are in fact being met.
Accordingly, I think that I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that the matter of safety is very prominent in the Government's mind, and basic statutory provisions for safety in Clause 14 are there to be seen. In the light of these explanations, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Much of all this depends on the ability of the gas standards branch of the department. Can the noble and learned Lord tell me how many people are employed there at the present time? Apart from what the noble and learned Lord says about the general order application being a hit of an administrative convenience, it will still require detailed examination of every particular case. That is what the Minister said. Have the Government the manpower to do that? Are they going to get the manpower to do that? If so, where are they going to get that manpower, and what will it cost? Before we can accept that everything is all right in relation to safety, we must have from the Government reliable proof that we can be confident that what the Minister states will in fact be carried out. This is far too important a matter just to be written off with words of administrative convenience. That phrase could be considered a matter of parliamentary convenience, just to get over this particular point. The Minister has said that the examination will be done by the gas standards branch of the Department of Energy. How many people are employed there?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My information is that the number of people employed in the department's gas standards branch is in the order of 100.
Lord Ross of Marnock: Is that all?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I have endeavoured to outline the nature of the work that will be required, and the assurance that the Secretary of State has given is that he will not grant a consent unless the investigations which he initiates show that the consent may be safely given. The general application of the regulations is the first line of defence that applies generally, whether consent is required or not. In the intermediate cases where consent is required, he will have carried out this additional check which I have described. I do not know that the question of the numbers involved in actually carrying out these checks is one that goes a great distance one way or the other. The quality of
182
the checks depends on a large number of things apart from the number of people involved. What the Secretary of State is undertaking is that proper checks will be made before he gives his consent.
Lord Ross of Marnock: What worries me is that the possibility of consent is a nationwide matter. There are 100 people covering the whole of Great Britain, but how many of them will be in Scotland? I doubt whether the number would run into double figures. The Minister wants to convince me that all these safety precautions are going to be adequately taken, but I doubt very much that the department can do this to the satisfaction of the House. We are not being given very much chance to probe this matter much further. It is an important matter because the safety of lives is concerned, as is the safety of the industry as well. Does the noble and learned Lord have figures for the number of people working in Scotland? Am I wrong in thinking that there are probably no more than 10 people for the whole of Scotland?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: At the present moment, of course, this provision is not in operation; so it is hardly possible to say how many people are working on this particular task at the present time. With regard to the question of—dare I use the word?—devolution of resources, this will depend on where the consents are required. The point is that the Secretary of State has given an assurance (which I suggest your Lordships can rely upon) that he will not give his consent until a check has been carried out.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that the number of people employed in the gas standards branch is somewhat on the small side. I am not suggesting that is so for the moment, but let us make that assumption for the sake of argument. All that would happen would be that the Secretary of State would not be able to give the consent until the work had been done. I must say I do not see the logic of the approach which the noble Lord is taking. But I do see the necessity for the Secretary of State making a check before he gives his consent, and that is what he says he will do and has assured Parliament he will do, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, read at the outset.
Lord Strabolgi: It is some comfort to have the reassurances of the Government as described by the noble Lord, but, as my noble friend Lord Ross has said, this just shows the difficulty the Government will have when they try to bring in these safety practices, because as we have said again and again their great mistake has been that they have given carte blanche to privatise everything they can, and once they come to gas it is not suitable for privatisation at all, particularly the supply of gas. It may be there is a case, I do not know, for showrooms, as the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, described earlier today, but there is no case, in our submission, for privatising the supply of a very dangerous and difficult commodity such as gas. This is the difficulty the Government have now got themselves into and which they will find becomes increasingly difficult as the practices laid down in the Bill are brought into effect.
As I say, we are grateful for the reassurances. It is easy to give assurances on paper. We will have to see

183
how they work out in practice and we hope they will work out, because we do not want any dangers, we do not want any accidents and loss of life. We hope they will work out; I hope that sincerely. We are grateful to the noble Lord. This was a probing amendment and we shall consider carefully what he says before we consider what to do next. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Mackay of Clashfern moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 14, line 4, leave out ("used by") and insert ("the use of").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 29 is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Beswick Lord Beswick moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 14, line 29, at end insert—
("or
(c) that he has reason to believe that the gas is required by persons entitled to demand a supply or the continuation thereof under paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, page 14, line 29, to insert the words on the Marshalled List. I think the noble Lord will agree this is a reasonable amendment. I hope very much he is going to be able to accept it. It does in fact extend the consent procedure to supplies above 2 million therms and it extends them in the event of the gas corporation being unable to meet its statutory obligations. Hitherto the British Gas Corporation have had clearly defined responsibilities to consumers and equally they have had very wide opportunities to enable them to discharge those responsibilities. But the present Bill has the effect—I hesitate to say the intent—of curbing the opportunities without making sensible and fair provision for limiting their obligations and responsibilities. This amendment is designed to deal with just such a case as that.
There might, for example, be a case where the British Gas Corporation under the 1972 Act has an obligation to supply gas in the quantities with which this section deals, but because of the future possibility of limited opportunity to obtain supplies—and we had a discussion earlier about the possibility of the gas corporation being frustrated by earlier parts of the Bill—if they are unable to obtain supplies the consumer might well be better served by one of the new entrepreneurs in the industry, in which case this amendment would bring the particular case within the consent procedure.
As I understand the Government's position, they might well claim that the corporation might be faced with difficulties in meeting its obligations but if that is so, they may well say, if the corporation pays the right price in the market place it will have no difficulty in securing adequate gas supplies. I wonder whether it is possible to say that with any degree of certainty. There are not an infinite number of gas fields in the North Sea, and the oil companies will now have more options open to them. The oil companies can sell gas
184
direct to large customers; they can attempt to export the gas. They might certainly sell gas back to the corporation but in that case the corporation would be compelled to buy to discharge its obligations and it is going to be a captive customer.
But apart from that last possibility is it really realistic to assume, even if the corporation were prepared to pay the highest price to obtain the gas from the oil companies, that the oil companies would sell the corporation the gas? These are very large multinational corporations with interests in many countries as well as the United Kingdom. They may see strategic marketing advantages in breaking into the United Kingdom gas market, even if it involves some initial reduction in profit, and this would permit the export of more oil, which of course is easier to transport than gas.
It is in this situation possible to see why there is concern about the corporation not being able to guarantee supplies in this new situation created by the Bill. It would, therefore, seem reasonable to say that they are not necessarily held to obligations which were accepted in quite different circumstances. Their fears may be unfounded, in which case the provision in the Bill would never be used. But if their fears proved to be only too well founded I do think this amendment is a reasonable one, and I hope the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: This amendment seeks to give the British Gas Corporation a privileged position in securing access to gas supplies, by empowering the Secretary of State to require that other suppliers apply for consents to supply if he has reason to believe that the gas is required by consumers within the area of the British Gas Corporation's statutory obligation to supply, even although the private supplier would not in general be obliged to require consent because his proposed supply exceeded 2 million therms a year. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in putting forward this amendment has argued that this is a necessary special privilege to the British Gas Corporation. We cannot accept that argument. We must not forget that even under present legislation British Gas Corporation has no assurance of obtaining gas supplies or even of a right to bid for supplies. At present the Corporation has certain statutory purchasing privileges under Sections 8 and 9 of the Energy Act 1976 but these in no way guarantee that licensees will agree to develop their gas reserves. In fact, the present law has had the opposite effect and one of the Government's primary objectives in this Bill is to provide renewed incentive for exploration and development of gas resources. Indeed I think the noble Lord tacitly accepted this point, at least to some extent, in what he said.
A further point is that even where licensees do produce their gas the corporation's present privileges are not comprehensive. The corporation has a monopoly in the supply of gas by pipe for non-industrial purposes and has purchasing privileges where it is proposed to supply gas for industrial fuel purposes. But it has no purchasing privileges where it is proposed to supply gas for industrial non-fuel purposes, such as use of gas as a petrochemical feedstock, nor in relation to use of gas by the licensees who produce it. Also, one must not overlook that imported gas accounts for over 20 per cent. of British Gas Corporation supplies, and the

185
British Gas Corporation of course, has no special privilege when it comes to bidding for supplies of imported gas.
Naturally, the British Gas Corporation will need supplies to meet demand from those within its statutory obligation. But it will be able to obtain the gas it requires by bidding at the right price in the market. To match its statutory obligation to supply, the British Gas Corporation will have a large guaranteed market—namely, consumers whose premises fall within the British Gas Corporation's statutory obligation to supply on request. This gives them a strong position in the market. I would invite the Committee not to accept this amendment.
Lord Beswick: I remember an occasion when another noble Minister, a former chairman or certainly a director of the Tottenham Hotspur Football Club, the late Lord Morrison, stood at that Dispatch Box arid made a very persuasive speech, but then found that he had got the wrong brief and was speaking to the wrong amendment. I was wondering whether the noble Lord had the wrong amendment in this case. I am talking not about special privileges, but about a case where there are special obligations now resting upon the BGC. Those special obligations were incurred in a situation completely different from the situation which this Bill is intended to create. I am suggesting that in those cases it is quite unfair to require those obligations of necessity to be undertaken. I am suggesting that in those cases there should be the possibility, on the part of the Secretary of State, to allow another entrepreneur to be the supplier because he is in a better position to supply the gas. I find the noble and learned Minister's explanation quite unsatisfactory and I shall have to press the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I just want to assure the noble Lord that I understand precisely the amendment that he has moved and that my reply is intended to meet it and, of course, in my opinion it certainly does so very adequately.
9.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
There Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents 58.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beswick, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birk, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bishopston, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Blease, L.—[Teller.]

Parry, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Peart, L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, B.

David, B.—[Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Glenamara, L.

Seear, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Tanlaw, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Underhill, L.

Kaldor, L.

White, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wigoder, L.

Winterbottom, L.

186

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Loudoun, C.

Avon, E.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McFadzean, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bessborough, E.

Mansfield, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Craigavon, V.

Merrivale, L.

Crathorne L.

Mersey, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Elton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Enniskillen, E.

St. Just, L.

Faithfull, B.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Sharples, B.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swansea, L.

Greenway, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Tranmire, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kemsley, V.

Vivian, L.

Kilmany, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Beswick Lord Beswick moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 15, after line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) and (2) above, the Secretary of State may, by order, provide that consent will be required for all gas to be supplied through pipes in Great Britain except gas supplied by or to the Corporation.
(2B) An order under subsection (2A) above may be made at any time but only where it appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable in order to ensure the efficient use of gas and the effective conservation of natural gas resources.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 31 on the Marshalled List. One of the very real concerns about this Bill, which there appears to be a certain urge to hurry through, is that it will mean the abandonment of the current depletion strategy. I am quite sure that noble Lords opposite and the noble and learned Lord, who I hope will reply, will understand that this is a very real concern. Hitherto there has been agreement on both sides of the House that a depletion strategy is required, and it has been a conservationist strategy. The objective has been to reserve gas for high quality uses for as long as possible and, as I say, between successive Governments and with the gas corporation over many years this has been held to be the right policy to follow.
The amendment which I am now moving is a long stop which would allow the Government to exercise a depletion policy if it appeared that gas was being wasted, or if it was being used up too quickly. The amendment itself is modelled on provisions in the Energy Act 1976, which provide the Secretary of State with permanent and reserve powers for energy conservation and control. I believe that there was very considerable discussion on the depletion issue in the Commons, and it would seem that the Government there argued that safeguards in the Bill cannot be justified for a number of reasons.
In the first place they claim that they have sufficient powers under the provisions of the 1975 Act. I certainly believe that there are powers in the 1975 Act and they could be used to control the rate of depletion, but only within certain broad limits. This really is no substitute for control at the market end, and it will be difficult, if not impossible, to apply such a control, as provided in the 1975 Act, in those cases where gas is found in association with oil.
The Government admit that these powers cannot control the use of gas in the marketplace. The corporation itself has tried to direct the gas into certain uses where gas is most highly valued and to restrict the use of gas for steam-raising purposes. The Government say that there are powers under the Energy Act 1976 to prevent the use of gas in power stations, but this essentially misses the point, as there are not many other steam-raising uses where coal is a perfectly adequate fuel, and in those cases the control cannot be exercised. The Government also assert that market forces will direct the gas into those uses where it is highly valued, but I doubt whether in 1982 we can seriously argue that market forces will ensure that the national interest over the long term will be followed. If we are to be governed by market forces it will be the short-term profit not the long-term national interest which will be the decisive factor.
The further Government case, as I under stand it, is that the Bill will result in a lot more exploration and that a lot more gas will be found and brought ashore. I am sure that all of us hope that there will be a lot more gas to be found, but there is absolutely no guarantee of that. Price, if we are talking about the market, will have some effect, but more important than price will be geological factors. The Government cannot alter the geology of the North Sea. There have been cases where even Ministers of the present Government have been compelled to say that they have no complete control, and that they can make no absolutely certain prophecy as to what might be forthcoming from the North Sea.
I see that on 23rd July 1980 Mr. David Howell, a Government Minister, referring to oil certainly, said:
"There are of course major uncertainties about future levels of North Sea production and UK consumption, and there cannot",
he said,
"be any rigid plan".
He was referring to oil, but the same doubts must arise over the exploitation of the gas resources. This amendment does not seek to alter the intention of the Bill. The provision may well never be used, but I suggest that it is a valuable safeguard when the energy future is so uncertain and unpredictable. I beg to move.
Lord Tanlaw: I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in this amendment. I raised this on Second Reading. We from these Benches were also concerned about a depletion policy. Perhaps when the noble and learned Lord replies he will throw some more light on what actually are the reserves. I understand that there is even some possible doubt that the figures given in the Brown Book may have to be revised or altered. Some suggest they may have to be revised
188
upwards, in which case then we at least know a little more where we stand.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, it is impossible to operate a policy of any kind, depletion or otherwise, unless reasonable assessments are made of what reserves of gas we actually have in the North Sea and its environs. Whatever decisions we take about a depletion policy must be based on greater knowledge than we have of the geology around our coasts and the potential that is there, or alternatively that may not be there. There is all the difference in the world between having a policy for gas for 25 years and for 50 years, and these are the kind of parameters people are talking about today. At this stage I am rather bewildered as to what our gas reserves are, whether they are for 25 years or for 50 years.
I want to raise one other point for clarification. This refers to steam-raising. And the other point I raised at Second Reading, namely, the use of poorer quality gas by private suppliers to assist coal-fired power stations in load matching during peak demand. When he replies, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give some confirmation that this will be within the EEC regulations of gas-fired power stations for use for this purpose.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I expect your Lordships will not be very surprised if I say that the Government do not agree with this amendment—and I am talking, just to be sure about it, about Amendment No. 31. The Government have made it abundantly clear that the fundamental purpose of Clause 12 is to permit private suppliers to compete with the British Gas Corporation in the supply of gas in Great Britain. We believe that this is an area which, subject to proper safeguards, is one in which private suppliers have a part to play and in which the economic development of the country will be assisted by their playing their proper part.
The British Gas Corporation's monopoly of supply is to continue only where justified by the special circumstances of the corporation's statutory obligation to supply gas on request; that is, in respect of premises within 25 yards of a British Gas Corporation main and consuming no more than 25,000 therms a year. In all other areas our intention is that there should be scope for competition, and that that competition should not be fettered by bureaucratic Government interventions. There is no case, in our view, for saying that, in order to ensure efficient use, the Secretary of State should have power to apply the consent procedure in respect of supplies to larger consumers; those taking over 2 million therms a year. It is claimed that circumstances may arise where it would be desirable that the Secretary of State's consent should be required in all cases, so as to ensure that gas is not wasted in less efficient applications. I understood that to be the noble Lord's basic argument. This claim appears to be based on the impression that there are "premium uses" for gas the identification of which is revealed by some mystical process only to some central planners in BGC or in the Department of Energy. The plain fact is that the more efficient, or premium, uses of gas will represent the higher value markets. Gas will command a higher price in such markets, so sellers of gas will naturally aim their commodity at

189
these markets. Market forces will be much more effective than Government intervention in identifying the best uses for gas and channelling gas to those uses. We envisage that the consent requirement should be concerned solely with safety, on the basis which I have explained. Much the same argument applies to claims that it may be necessary to apply the consent requirement to all cases in order to ensure conservation of gas resources and control the rate of depletion. The Secretary of State already has powers in relation to the depletion of our offshore oil and gas reserves, and these powers are unaffected by the Bill. These powers, as the noble Lord mentioned, arise under the terms of clauses in the production licences which require that a licensee may not develop a field without first obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State to a development programme. The Secretary of State may reject a development programme on the ground that the proposed production rates are, in his opinion, not in the national interest; or he may approve a programme, but at the same time serve a limitation notice permitting him subsequently to vary the production rates proposed in the programme. This is control of rate of flow essentially at the source, and in our view it is the correct machinery for depletion policy. As I said, the general depletion policy at source, in our view, is adequate; market forces will produce a much surer guide to the use of the gas which is brought ashore.
The consent requirement in Clause 12 is there to permit safety checks and for no other reason. It is therefore right that, as the Bill now provides, the consent requirement should apply only to those supplies where there is need for a double-check on safety. There is no case, in our view, for suggesting, as the amendment does, that the Secretary of State should have power merely by making an order to go back to the old ways, intervening in each and every supply, hindering commercial agreements on the basis of misguided policies in areas much better left to the market. We have no intention of using the consent procedure for any purpose other than safety, and I strongly advise the Committee to reject the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, suggested that we would need to know more about reserves to make an adequate depletion policy. Obviously, the more information one can get about the reserves the better, and there is nothing in the clause, or indeed in the amendment, that bears much on that matter. As for the reserve figures, the latest Brown Book contains the best published figures; obviously the work of estimating goes on through the year, but it is updated on the occasion of each Brown Book publication. In our view, it is not possible to prepare a plan for the use of gas at the centre which will produce economical results so far as its uses are concerned. Central planning always imposes rigidity, and, in our view, in this area, subject to the overall depletion control that I have mentioned, market forces arc much better at responding to changing circumstances.
The situation regarding interruptable gas supplies to power stations is that there are cases when an interruptible supply of gas to power stations may assist the security of gas supplies and in the process offer a useful supplementary fuel for electricity generation. The Central Electricity Generating Board currently has two
190
power stations capable of burning either coal or gas. Proposals for further schemes of this kind would be viewed on their merits under Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976. Nothing in this Bill would hinder such schemes. Indeed, the Bill will assist by providing a choice of gas supplier where in the past the only possible supplier has been the British Gas Corporation.
There is of course an additional cost in constructing a power station so as to be able to burn coal and gas rather than coal alone, and those undertaking the generation would consider case by case whether the additional flexibility gain justified the additional expense. I hope that in the light of those explanations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment, but if he does not, I hope that the Committee will not accept it.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We hear some strange words now. We hear the objection of the Lord Advocate to bureaucratic intervention. But this whole Bill is bureaucratic intervention, intervention in something that has been giving a perfectly good and desirable service from a consumer's point of view—the British Gas Corporation. Suddenly "bureaucratic intervention" becomes a dirty phrase. To what are we applying this intervention?
The Government have discovered that premium use of gas is now nonsense, and yet for 15 years Governments of both parties, and Ministers of Energy, have proclaimed the need for conservation and have satisfactorily applied the phrase "premium use of gas". But now it does not matter; we must have competition. Does it never strike the Lord Advocate that competition can be wasteful, can lead to wasteful use of gas? I ask the Committee to remember that we are considering here a completely new situation, where there is a greater freedom from governmental intervention in respect of the purposes for which gas will be used.
No doubt those who find gas will be able to export it; it will not even come to this country. Why is it going elsewhere? If the noble and learned Lord looks at what has happened to gas finds by other nations, even in the North Sea, he will find that there has been a wasteful use of gas and a sudden, dramatic depletion, so that it is no longer there. I ask the Committee to remember who and what are dependent on gas. There are 14 million households dependent on it. There is industry dependent on it. It is the lifeblood of major industries in this country, and surely the power proposed in the amendment is one that the Government should gladly take. We have been fighting against the Government taking powers, but now we are offering a power. The Government should have the power to intervene where necessary in the national interest. As my noble friend Lord Beswick said, the power might never be used.
Gas is a finite resource; we may find it, or we may not find it. It is much more likely that with competition there will be much more widespread use of it. The danger of quick depletion becomes greater than ever. It is not good enough to say that we shall leave it to price, with so many essential industries, and the comfort, and indeed the lives, of our population dependent on it.
If the Government are wise, they can curtail the debate considerably and save another Division by

191
accepting the amendment. The power might never be used. The chances are that with this kind of Government it never will be used, since evidently the interests of certain exploiters and would-be suppliers of gas are placed very much higher than the interests of the nation and of consumers, industrial and domestic.
Lord Beswick: I was a little disappointed in the noble and learned Lord's reply in so far as, as my noble friend Lord Ross says, he did not say that he would consider the points in this amendment and see whether there was any way in which he could meet them. However, I was grateful for the explanation he gave, and I shall look forward to reading with great care what he had to say, to see whether I can get any more satisfaction from his words.
I am bound to say, however, that I agree with my noble friend Lord Ross in that I, too, was a little surprised when I heard that the Government's intention was to avoid bureaucratic intervention, especially as we have just passed a clause, five of the seven subsections of which give powers of one kind or another to one lot of bureaucrats and the seventh subsection of which gives power to another lot of bureaucrats to check the decisions or the interventions of the first lot of bureaucrats. I therefore find it difficult to accept that the Government are so very strongly motivated by this desire to avoid bureaucratic intervention.
But more important is this question of whether we can expect market forces to give us the kind of energy strategy which I am quite certain we really believe the country needs. It is conceivable that the market forces may well bring forth more supplies of gas in the short-term and for certain purposes, but in order to have a finite supply controlled properly as to extraction and use, I cannot think that we ought to leave it to market forces. The reply really was unsatisfactory. I shall myself look very carefully at what has been said, and it may be that we ought to return to this point again at Report stage; but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Standards of quality]:
9.33 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw Lord Tanlaw moved Amendment No. 31A:
Page 15, line 22, after ("Corporation") insert ("and with such other persons and organisations as he considers appropriate").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment shown on the Marshalled List as Amendment No. 31A, and with the leave of the Committee, and with the indication of the noble Lord opposite, I would also speak to Nos. 31B and 31C, as I believe they are connected. As this Bill goes on we see that part of its duty is to increase supplies of gas to industry from private suppliers. We are broadly in agreement with this aspect of the Bill. We actually welcome it. But those of us who have had representations from industry know that, although they are quite pleased with this original step forward, as they see it, the chemical industry, in particular, is worried that although the Government have taken one step forward they are
192
taking one step backwards in Clause 13; because industry, too, is worried about the Secretary of State's powers, in this case his powers to prescribe standards.
I think that here is another party outside politics, if you like, also worried, as we on these Benches are, about the Secretary of State's excessive powers as contained in the Bill as it stands, and how he intends to use them. The question asked in Amendment No. 31A is who the Secretary of State should consult; and Amendment No. 31B concerns the Secretary of State's right to prescribe conditions on the supply of gas from a private supplier to a private customer through non-BGC pipelines.
Dealing with the first amendment in my name, I should like to see some consultation by the Secretary of State on the standards of quality of gas supplied, either by the corporation or by private suppliers, being put on the same basis. It would be as a benefit to industry for consultations on the standards and quality of gas from both private and BGC suppliers to be on the same footing. I do not want to weary the Committee, but this is the same point we have been making in regard to other parts of the Bill: that the Government start should be even-handed towards the private and public sectors of industry—in this case, British Gas. We get worried when the Government appear to have two sets of approaches. I think it takes a lot of structure away from the Bill as to where the Government think they are going. That is outside the scope of this amendment.
At the moment, such consultation rarely takes place and the industry has to be grateful for what it gets—which is the view taken. Such consultation could lead to policy, price, volume and priorities where, historically and currently, British Gas has not been all that co-operative with industry and, on some occasions, has been acting in what has been described as a cavalier fashion towards industry. I do not think that this is helpful for the economy and the country. I feel that this amendment would go some way towards alleviating this worry from the industry and encouraging British Gas to open itself up a little more than previously.
On the second part of the amendment, the supply of gas direct from the private supplier through non-BGC pipelines does not need to be of the same standard as those provided by British Gas. The uses quite often are different. The safety aspects of this provision are covered elsewhere in the Bill, so that I will not dwell on that aspect at this time. British Gas has to supply many outlets from the same pipeline, including domestic central heating, gas cookers, as well as industrial plant. Apart from safety considerations, this gas must be of the same calorific value, if only to comply with the recommendations of the manufacturers of domestic appliances.
When gas is transmitted through a private pipeline to an industrial consumer, the industrial consumer may have more flexible equipment than the domestic consumers and therefore the gas need not be of such a uniform character. The industry have had discussions with several potential suppliers of gas from currently undeveloped sources. It is envisaged that gas could be supplied as part of a package of oil products. This type of gas would be variable. Currently, gas of different qualities carried in separate pipelines is an

193
established practice in other countries such as the Netherlands and the USA.
We cannot envisage the need for the Secretary of State to regulate standards of pressure and purity of gas transmitted by private pipelines and by direct suppliers. We on these Benches believe that the term "supply" covers the position well without taking anything from the Bill, and it gives some incentive to industry to support this Bill more fully. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: We now arrive at that part of the Bill which makes amendment to the Gas Act 1972 so as to control the position of non-BGC gas, agreed to in principle in Clause 12 which we have been discussing. The first of the noble Lord's amendments seeks to extend the consultation requirements in the new Section 29B(1) so as to cover not only British Gas but also such organisations and persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. From what he was saying I can understand exactly what he is worried about. I hope by my remarks to dispel those particular worries.
When one looks at the new Section 29B(2) one sees that consultation is required to such persons and organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. That wording is wide enough to cover not only the private suppliers whose supplies would be affected by standards prescribed under new Section 29B(2), but also the British Gas Corporation. The standards currently prescribed for BGC supplies serve two functions: safety and consumer protection, both points which have worried the Committee considerably this afternoon.
Clearly, standards relevant to safety must apply to all supplies, whether BGC or private. But standards serving a consumer protection purpose reflect BGC's monopoly position and the fact that many of its customers are private individuals who are in no position, for example, to test the gas they receive for uniformity of calorific value. Consumer protection standards may not always be appropriate in the case of private supplies.
For example, a supply of a specific calorific value or chemical mixture may be permitted for a specific purpose. Were this to go down, for example, a BGC gas main, this could very well make the gas in the BGC main impure, and nobody would want this to be done. There are these two different arrangements in Clause 13.
Going on to the other two amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in spite of his careful exposition, rather confused me. Amendment No. 31B proposes to delete "pressure and purity" and substitute "supply". I could not understand whether in his mind—if not perhaps in his drafting—the word "supply" meant exactly the same as "pressure and purity". Perhaps we will come to that when the noble Lord replies. The present drafting of the Bill states clearly that such standards are to be prescribed. I submit that this clarity is absolutely vital in the drafting of such a provision as this.
The standards of pressure and purity prescribed for private gas supplies need not in every case be identical to those prescribed for BGC supplies. Section 45(3) of the Gas Act 1972 already provides for flexibility in the making of regulations. Obviously, where private gas uses BGC pipelines, then the private gas must be
194
compatible with BGC gas. We shall be discussing that point when we come to Clause 17 and Amendment No. 36. Where a private supplier builds his own pipeline, there should be room for flexibility without in any way prejudicing public interest. For example, a private supplier whose gas contained a higher proportion of impurities than would be acceptable in the BGC system might build his own pipeline specifically suited to such gas.
There is no intention to obstruct such an arrangement. Indeed, an advantage of this Bill is that by opening the door to private suppliers it will permit the development and supply of what might generally be termed "nonstandard" gas by parties whose facilities have been specifically designed or adapted for the transmission of such gas. At present, such gas may be left undeveloped because of the great expense of suiting it for the BGC system.
The third of the noble Lord's amendments would delete the Secretary of State's power to prescribe standards of uniformity for calorific value and other standards with respect to the properties, condition and composition of gas supplied by private suppliers.
The important point here is that the gas must be suitable for the purpose for which it is supplied. It must also be suitable for the transmission line along which it goes.
Perhaps I may conclude by reminding the noble Lord that, before prescribing any standards for private supplies, the Secretary of State will consult as required in Clause 13—that is, the new Section 29B (2) of the 1972 Act; which is incorporated in Clause 13 of this Bill. I would emphasise that there is no intention to place unnecessary constraints on the ability of private suppliers and their customers to agree on or arrange for a supply of gas of different specifications from those employed by BGC. Such arrangements could be a wholly desirable way of putting to good use gas which might otherwise remain in the ground. But I cannot encourage your Lordships to support these amendments which might in the future be found to have prevented securing the wider public interest in standards of gas supply. In the light of my comments, I hope that the noble Lord may feel that the Bill goes quite a long way towards allaying the fears which he has expressed this evening.
Lord Tanlaw: While thanking the noble Lord very much for his reply to the three amendments, I hope to be able to clarify one or two points which he has raised with me in order to be of assistance. Before giving my view on these amendments, however, I should like to express the difficulty that we have, not only from these Benches but that we all have when dealing with what are broadly called "technical amendments".
There are no matters of principle here, except of course the powers of the Secretary of State. Therefore, when one takes on a brief from an industry which has suggested amendments along these lines, one does it with caution. I believe there is a case—concerning amendments of this kind of an entirely non-political nature—for those who wish to speak on them to get special briefing from civil servants in the Department of Energy before we go into a Committee stage like this.

195
I believe I know what I have in mind in these amendments but, not being a technical gas man, they are limited by technical restraints. On the first part of Amendment No. 31A, I believe there is a strong case for greater consultation with all parties involved, because why is it that the industry is not particularly happy with the Bill as it stands? As I understand it, this Bill is meant to assist industry, and particularly the chemical industry, when the recession lifts, to become more competitive and effective in its pricing. That can be brought about only by having agreed long-term supplies of gas at a reasonable price; and if the industry is not happy with the Bill as it stands, it worries me in case this Bill is not going to assist the British economy and it is not going to assist the competitiveness of the British chemical industry.
That leads me to the second point. The noble Lord asked me on No. 31B what was the difference between pressure and purity and supply? As I understand it, the term "supply" would be much more general and there would not be any specific difficulties in different kinds of gas going down a private pipeline. I understand that this is simply a practical thing, so there will not be too great an interference from the Secretary of State or from any other party about the type of gas that is going down a private pipeline. It seems to me this is a very simple amendment which might need more consultation than it has hitherto received, with the industry itself. We cannot help the noble Lord from these Benches; but I get the feeling that more and wider consultation is necessary.
When we come to Amendment No. 31C, again I am worried that the industry is worried that British Gas is going to obstruct the passage of perfectly normal variable gases that go down exactly similar lines in other
196
parts of the world but not in Great Britain. So far as I am aware, there are no problems with this. The industry says that there are no problems, and all I can do is to believe them. But the industry is worried with the Bill as it stands at the moment and so the argument is not really political. These are non-political amendments. It seems to me that it would be helpful if the noble Lord, although he has already been helpful, would indicate to me that greater consultation has to be undertaken with the industry before this Bill becomes law, so that it will not affect the competitiveness or effectiveness of industry as a whole and, in particular, the chemical industry.
Lord Skelmersdale: If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, there has been considerable consultation with the chemical industry and with the association which represents it. The trouble is that the association started off before the Committee stage of this Bill in another place. They were then replied to, but they did virtually nothing between that time and this. But we will certainly seek to explain about such worries as they have had. Indeed, when they get around to reading the Hansard report of today's debate, what I said to the noble Lord will apply equally to them. But it takes two to tango and the department certainly is not to blame on this issue.
Lord Tanlaw: I thank the noble Lord again for that helpful comment and, with those encouraging words about further consultation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31B and 31C not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Safety regulations]:
9.52 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 17, line 14, at end insert ("and specifying the arrangements to be made by the supplier to deal with any situation likely to cause danger to the public.")
The noble Lord said: During our debates today on various amendments, there has been considerable stress laid on the safety aspect, and Clause 14 is of particular importance as it deals with safety regulations and the safety of the public. Clause 14 is based on Section 31 of the 1972 Act, which deals with safety regulations to protect the public where gas is supplied by the corporation. The section sets out the powers of the corporation's officers to enter premises to examine and, where necessary, to disconnect gas fittings. I think it will be generally agreed that the regulations have worked out very satisfactorily, and also that British Gas has very high standards as regards safety.
The clause seeks to extend the provisions of Section 31 to the private supply of gas. It makes the regulations apply both to the British Gas Corporation and to the private suppliers of gas, and extends the powers of entry to officers authorised by the Secretary of State. The clause does not state who are the authorised officers, but during the Committee stage in another place the Under-Secretary of State made clear that they would be members of the gas standards branch of the Department of Energy and, on an earlier amendment, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate confirmed that that is the position.
But, during that debate in another place, doubt was expressed about the additional staff which the gas standards branch would need in order to carry out these new duties, and my noble friend Lord Ross, who asked about the number of staff at present in that branch, was told that at the moment the figure is around 100. There is concern that there could be incidents arising from the private supply of gas in those areas where there arc no gas standards officers. In the debate in the other place, the Under-Secretary of State claimed that most of the private supply would go to industrial customers and that adequate safety arrangements would he covered in the contracts. He admitted, however—and I quote from column 851 of the Official Report of the Committee stage in the other place—that:
"The private sector could make peripheral supplies available to domestic customers".
It may be that, for industrial supplies, safety arrangements could be included in the contracts. But the Bill does not specify that this shall be done and, as we have stressed from these Benches from time to time on recent Bills that have come before your Lordships, a statement made by a Minister has no force in law and, in a matter affecting the safety of the public, there must be no room whatever for any doubt. That is why the amendment seeks to require the safety regulations to specify the safety arrangements which the supplier must make.
In the case of private supplies to domestic consumers, even though, in the words of the Under-Secretary, these may be only peripheral, the position in our view is
198
potentially much more dangerous, because there are no individual contracts in which safety arrangements could be agreed. In an emergency, the remote village or housing estate being supplied privately could be far from the nearest gas standards officer, a point which was made by my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock on another amendment.
Because of the difficulty of ensuring the safety of domestic customers when gas is supplied privately, it would be preferable for the Bill to limit private supplies of gas to industrial consumers only. It may be, however, that the Government could not accept that position. Then the protection of the public must receive top priority, and an amendment along the lines which I am moving would appear to be absolutely essential. This amendment is a safety provision, and contains so much commonsense that I hope the Government will either accept it or, if they do not like its wording, give an undertaking to bring forward an amendment of their own to cover this important point. I beg to move.
Lord Skehnersdale: I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has very real fears about safety. Before we finish Part II of the Bill, I hope I shall go some way at least towards allaying those fears, because the Government recognise that, in the mind of the public, safety is of the utmost importance. I cannot stress this too clearly.
Before I turn to the amendment itself, it may be helpful if I explain the reasoning behind the provision in Clause 14 that it would affect. Section 31 of the Gas Act 1972 already allows the Secretary of State to make regulations for the protection of the public from personal injury, fire, explosion or other dangers arising from the transmission or distribution of gas by the corporation, or from the use of gas supplied by the corporation. Clause 14, in re-enacting Section 31, extends these provisions so that they cover private supplies of gas through pipes as well as gas supplied by the BGC. The amendment would specifically empower the Secretary of State, in making such a regulation, to specify the arrangements that the supplier should make to deal with any situation that was likely to endanger the public.
The provision in the new Section 31(1) of the Gas Act 1972 would, as it is presently drafted, allow general regulations to be made as to how a supplier should deal with a situation that was likely to cause danger to the public. In general terms, then, the noble Lord's suggestion is already covered.
I am satisfied that the powers in the new Section 31 of the Gas Act 1972 go wide enough to set sufficiently stringent general standards of safety; indeed, these are the powers that have been with us for a number of years in respect of BGC's supplies. The provisions governing the safety of BGC's supplies are therefore completely unchanged. In the case of private supplies that fall outside BGC's monopoly and are for less than 2 million therms a year, the Secretary of State's consent will be required. This gives the Government an opportunity to double-check that the safety arrangements proposed are adequate and that suitable pro-

199
visions have been made in the event of an emergency. For users of above 2 million therms a year, private supplies will be undertaken primarily by oil companies with considerable experience in handling dangerous substances of many types, including—this is important—gas. Their customers will in turn be substantial concerns who will be capable of insisting that supply and safety arrangements are adequate, even if they are not themselves expert in handling gas. In these cases, given that regulations made under Section 31 will apply in the case of every supply, I do not think that such a double-check is necessary.
Bearing in mind all these provisions we have incorporated into the Bill to ensure safety, I do not think that a further measure would be necessary or, indeed, appropriate. I hope that noble Lords will take it from what I have said that we take the question of safety very seriously indeed and that the measures we are proposing are adequate to ensure this.
Lord Underhill: I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply because in effect he has given no reply to the two major points I raised when moving this amendment. My first point was, what will be the position where there may be no gas standards branch office in the area? Nobody has any idea of the number of persons who may have to be appointed. We know at present, in respect of supplies by the corporation, that there will always be a person employed by the corporation near at hand, but that may not be the situation with supplies to outlying areas. That point has not been dealt with.
My second point concerned the possible danger where there are private supplies to domestic consumers in isolated areas. This point has not been dealt with at all. If the Government are concerned—as I believe they are—with safety, as are all members of the Committee, they can accept this amendment because it has no party political attachments. It is a simple amendment on safety. If only the Government will say that they see a point to what the amendment suggests and will take a look at it, then we would not press the matter further. But in the absence of such a statement on safety in the reply made by the Minister, we shall have to ask the House to decide upon it by a Division.
Lord Skelmersdale: I thought that in virtually every sentence I uttered the word "safety" was included, so for the noble Lord to assert that I dismiss safety out of hand is really not very fair. I accept the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I did not answer the questions he put. I must apologise to the noble Lord for not doing so.
The noble Lord's first worry was about where gas standards branch offices are situated. Quite honestly, I do not believe that that is an appropriate question in the circumstances, because I think that the noble Lord misunderstands the purposes of the gas standards branch. The gas standards branch is there to supervise for the Secretary of State the general position of safety. As such, although there will be frequent inspections, it is, generally speaking, a "desk job". The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has commented several times on the fact that there are only 100 people employed in
200
the gas standards branch. I can certainly tell him that if it proves necessary in the light of experience, this number will be adjusted either up or down as the circumstances dictate.
Lord Ross of Marnock: We are most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for this information; he has been very helpful. But does he have the information I asked for, about the number of people in Scotland? Was I right in thinking that the number is about 10?
Lord Skelmersdale: I do not have the precise number for Scotland, but I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, that the number of people in Scotland is included in the figure of 100 at the gas standards branch. The noble Lord can make of that what he wishes, but that was the information he asked for.
With that intervention, I have rather forgotten the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, but perhaps he may like to remind me so that I can give him a reply.
Lord Underhill: My second point concerned private supplies to domestic consumers in outlying areas.
Lord Skelmersdale: It will be a very rare occurrence, if indeed it is ever allowed to happen, that private suppliers will be allowed to supply the domestic market. The only time that I can think of when such an occasion might arise will be when the principal supply is to a factory and the factory has, in effect, tied cottages around it. Perhaps the term "tied cottages" is an emotive one and I should not have used it; I mean, cottages which have been built to house employees of the factory in question. In those circumstances, I can understand the Secretary of State giving his consent to the supply of gas to both the factory and the outlying cottages. But as a general rule, I cannot see that private supplies to private consumers on this small scale will be either necessary or desirable.
Lord Lovell-Davis: If the Minister would give way, he is repeating what Ministers have said in another place and what I believe has already been said here, that they have no intention of privatising transmission and distribution. The fact remains that we are discussing the Bill as it stands, and we are talking about the powers that can be used, and they exist. I would like to repeat what my noble friends have asked: What is there in the Bill which lays down the safety requirements that should be in the Bill?—because we are talking about the powers this Bill gives to supply. It is not good enough for a Minister to talk about this possibly happening only where there are tied cottages. It can happen in other situations as well.
Lord Skelmersdale: The Bill provides the Secretary of State with powers to make statutory arrangements for the safety matters as far as gas supply is concerned. Noble Lords on that side, who have all got much more experience of government than I have, would surely not expect the Bill go go into detail of what in effect would be subordinate legislation at this stage in parliamentary discussion.
Lord Underhill: I appreciate that the noble Lord the Minister is doing his best to reply to the points raised. But really, when the Committee is told that the members of gas standards branch are at a desk job, how does that fit in with the statement, made quite clearly, that these will be the authorised officers given power, under the proposals of the Government in this clause, to have entry? Theirs cannot be a desk job if they have powers of entry. If it be a desk job we are in a very serious situation and our amendment becomes even more important. The Minister says that the position of private suppliers may be a rare occurrence; I have quoted from the Minister's own statement in the other place in Committee, where he said these may be only peripheral. If it is only one private consumer who could be in danger, surely we must have adequate safety regulations.
The other point that we discussed in the amendment is this. Even though we talk about the possibility of having contracts for the industrial consumer, there is nothing in the Bill which lays this down. A statement by a Minister is not sufficient in law for that. Frankly, this is such an important issue of safety that, in the light of the replies given, I must press the amendment.
10.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 42.

DIVISION NO. 7

CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Peart, L.

Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.—[Teller.]

Bishopston, L—[Teller.]

Blease, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Stone, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Underhill, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Loudoun, C.

Ampthill, L.

Lyell, L.

Avon, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstcad, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denham, L.—[Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Faithfull, B.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrers, E.

St. Just, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sandys, L.—[Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Holderness, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trumpington, B.

Kemsley, V.

Vivian, L.

Long, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Tanlaw Lord Tanlaw moved Amendment No. 32A:
Page 19, line 41, at end insert—
("(10) Where the relevant authority is the Secretary of State there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to persons appointed to carry out the functions referred to in subsection (2) above and any other functions arising from regulations made under subsection (1) above such remuneration and such allowances as may be determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury and, where appropriate, such pensions as may be so determined may be paid out of money provided by Parliament to, or in respect of, those persons.
(11) Every person who is a supplier during any period, not being the Corporation, shall pay to the Secretary of State such proportion as the Secretary of State may determine of—

(a) any sums paid by him under subsection (10) above in respect of that period, and

(b) such part of his other expenses as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine to be attributable to his functions under this section,

and any liability under this subsection to pay to the Secretary of State sums on account of pensions (whether paid by him under subsection (10) above or otherwise) shall, if the Secretary of State so determines, be satisfied by way of contributions calculated, at such rate as may be determined by the Treasury, by reference to remuneration.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 32A, which shows the two new subsections, as shown in the Marshalled List. I think the time has come when we must get the pneumatic drills out, start to dig up the road and pull back the woodwork, to find out just how many extra people are required to deal with these safety regulations on which so much discussion and so many views have been given tonight.
Under Clause 13 in the Bill, which introduces a new Section 29B of the 1972 Act, as the Committee is aware, the Secretary of State may prescribe standards for gas supplied through pipes and may appoint competent and impartial persons to carry out tests to ensure that these standards are complied with. Under subsection (5) of new Section 29B, these persons are to be remunerated out of money provided by Parliament. Under subsection (6) the costs are recovered from the suppliers of gas.
These provisions have been taken from Section 26 of the 1972 Act, which of course will be repealed by this Bill. The tests are currently carried out at the department's gas standards branch and the costs are recovered from British Gas. Presumably in future a proportion of these costs will be recovered from other suppliers, depending on the amount of gas which they supply.
Under Clause 14 the Secretary of State may make safety regulations, and the Minister has made great play with the fact that he will satisfy himself that safety arrangements are satisfactory before giving consent to any private supply. There will, therefore, be a need for staff who are competent to decide whether the arrangements made by a would-be supplier are, in fact, satisfactory. Moreover, under subsection (2) the relevant authority may authorise persons to enter premises, examine and test appliances and, where necessary, seal off any fitting or part of the gas supply system. Presumably further staff will need to be appointed for this purpose.
The relevant authority in the case of supplies made by British Gas will be the corporation. Hitherto the corporation will have undertaken these tasks at its own expense, but in the case of the private supplies the

203
relevant authority is the Secretary of State. Yet no provision is made in Clause 14, as it is in Clause 13, for the meeting of costs of employment of these extra staff. These amendments would require the same arrangements to be made—the recovery of costs incurred in respect of private supplies—as are made under Clause 13. If this is not done, the costs will fall upon the taxpayer. Moreover, British Gas will be required to meet the costs in respect of its own supplies, a requirement from which the private supplier will be excused.
Once again I am asking the Government to show that they are even-handed in their approach to both sides of industry. When the noble Lord replies I hope that he will merely confirm this and agree with, if not the wording, then the principle behind these amendments. This amendment would also provide an opportunity for questioning the Government on the actual number of staff they expect to be necessary to exercise this very proper supervision of safety arrangements and, of course, to deal with emergencies. The British Gas organisation of course covers the whole country for the moment, and there are well-established arrangements for dealing with an emergency wherever it may arise. No one has complained at all about the degree of efficiency that the corporation has in this area.
The Department of Energy is not the gas corporation, and it does not have locally based officers, so far as I am aware, who are competent to carry out these tasks. They would either have to appoint them or increase the staff of the gas standards branch at Leicester to undertake the additional work. It was clear from the answer given to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that the staff at Leicester do not apparently get their boots very dirty. I am sure that this is untrue, but they are obviously desk-bound rather than the activists who go out into the field to check the safety of installations.
If this latter course were chosen there would inevitably be long delays before officers based at Leicester could reach premises at which the emergency had arisen, and travelling costs would be heavy, especially to Scotland. It is of course possible that the Secretary of State might have in mind that officers of British Gas might be appointed to carry out these functions. But, if so, it would certainly be expected that the Secretary of State would meet the costs, and he would need to recover these costs from the suppliers. I hope in his reply the noble and learned Lord will clarify this point, which is important to the private suppliers of the industry.
I want to go back to the question of staff numbers. It has been raised before. The only mention of staff numbers is on page vii in the Memorandum, which says:
"The administration of clauses 12 to 17 will initially require 8–10 staff in the Department of Energy, and might eventually require a total of 40–50 staff".
Are these numbers, first, above the 100 staff already mentioned, or do the 100 staff members already mentioned have nothing to do with these clauses of the Bill?
It seems quite clear that these numbers not only include the staff required for safety and quality control referred to above, but they are also the staff
204
to cover the submission of pipeline plans by British Gas to the Secretary of State under Clause 15, and the staff to deal with applications for consent under Clause 12, and appeals to the Secretary of State under Clauses 16 and 17. Overall, it would seem that the figures quoted are extremely low if it is assumed that the Bill achieves the Secretary of State's objective of a substantial private sector involvement in the supply of gas.
I think that the answer which the noble and learned Lord would give to this question will give everyone in this Committee some indication as to how seriously the Government take themselves and their own Bill, because so far as I can see even the maximum number of 50 staff would appear to be quite inadequate to service the safety aspects of this Bill, and indeed to service the private element of this Bill at all. It may be very interesting—not just to me personally but to the Committee—to know how the Government arrived at this figure of 40 to 50. What calculations did they make to come to these figures? Was it that they were trying to use the low field, to use racing parlance, to make sure that it was not going to increase the administrative overheads of the Bill, and hope they get away with it? If this was the low field what is the high field? There are a number of questions which, although it appears to be a rather specialised amendment and one that has important principles involved in it, are of much wider application as to the Government's attitude as a whole in making this Bill positive and active after it is made law. I beg to move.
Lord Bishopston: I shall be brief, although it worries some of us that we should be discussing certain important provisions late at night, with pressure—if that is the word to use in relation to gas—to make even greater progress, and we are tending to curtail some important discussion. In supporting the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, I would remind the Minister that the amendment is important because it is concerned, as others have been, with safety and with the question: who exercises it, who is to be responsible for it and who is to pay for it; and the Government have given little in the way of a clear idea of who is to do what.
The best authority for safety is the BGC, and if private enterprise is to be involved in the making of profit from the sale of appliances and so on, there is no reason why it should not also take some responsibility for safety. However, the public would, I am sure, like an assurance that the BGC will be undertaking that role, with adequate remuneration of course. If the BGC is to be responsible, proper arrangements must be made so that we all know where we are. There must be legal clarity about rights and responsibilities and, as I say, there must be adequate remuneration for the BGC for their part in it. Despite the pressure to make progress, the Minister must clarify the plans so that the corporation and the public have the assurances they seek.
Lord Skelmersdale: I accept the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that we must all know where we are, and I shall seek to give the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, the assurance for which he asked; namely, that there is an even-handed approach to safety, depending on whether one is talking about the

205
safety of the BGC, the safety of the private supplier, the safety of the purchaser or, indeed, the safety of the gas standards branch, and I shall come to all of that shortly.
The broad picture is that there are two levels of safety coverage when an incident occurs involving gas. Looking at the first level—that is, the coverage provided by the supplier of gas—the BGC is at present given rights of entry to deal with potential dangers by virtue of regulations under Section 31 of the Gas Act 1972. Where a private supplier seeks the Secretary of State's consent to supply gas under Clause 12, the gas standards branch will advise the Secretary of State as to the adequacy of the proposed safety arrangements, and one of the points checked will be that the arrangements include a contractual right of entry for emergency personnel provided by the private supplier, so that potential dangers arising from private supplies are covered in a similar fashion to those arising from BGC supplies. I would imagine that in practice the contractual rights of entry would, where appropriate, follow the broad pattern of the rights given to BGC; for example, that the rights would be exercisable in certain circumstances only, and that where the rights were exercised in respect of premises temporarily unoccupied, there would be an obligation to leave the premises as effectively secured against trespassers as they had been prior to the entry.
The second level of coverage is the overall monitoring and investigation by the Department of Energy in the person, if I may put it that way, of the gas standards branch. In the case of gas supplied by BGC, the gas standards branch will continue the monitoring and investigation role it currently fulfils. In the case of gas supplied by other persons, the gas standards branch will have two roles. It will undertake monitoring and investigation, as it does in respect of BGC supplies, but in addition it will have rights of entry under Clause 14 for the prevention of dangers arising from privately supplied gas. The gas standards branch will not be undertaking routine inspections of all private gas supplies; the day-to-day emergency work will be provided by the private supplier, and perhaps that answers one of the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. The provision of statutory rights of entry for the gas standards branch is rather an expression of the public interest in gas safety and a way of ensuring that there is an official means of giving effect to that public interest, if a problem should ever arise which for some unforeseen reason it appears may not be satisfactorily dealt with by the arrangements between a private supplier and his customers.
This residual role of the gas standards branch is in no sense comparable to the day-to-day safety cover provided by the British Gas Corporation. In the case of private supplies, the day-to-day dealing with incidents will be undertaken by personnel provided by the private supplier. Therefore the financial effects will be of a lower order of magnitude than would be the case if it were proposed that the Secretary of State's officers in the gas standards branch should undertake the day-to-day work on incidents involving gas. There will, of course, be some cost as a result of the residual role to be adopted by the gas standards branch in relation to incidents arising from private gas supplies, but it will not be significant in terms of the respective overheads
206
of BGC and private suppliers. The purpose of providing a residual role for the gas standards branch is not to relieve private suppliers of any of the emergency responsibilities currently borne by BGC; on the contrary, we shall expect private suppliers to be equally as diligent as the British Gas Corporation in the provision of emergency cover. The role for the gas standards branch is merely a long stop to give expression to the public interest where private bodies are engaged in an activity of public concern.
The gas standards branch does not now charge BGC for the monitoring and investigation that is undertaken in respect of incidents involving BGC supplies, nor do we believe that it should charge private suppliers for the role that it will adopt in relation to them—the evenhanded approach. I can understand that the noble Lord has drawn on the drafting of Clause 13 in proposing this amendment, but that is a rather different case. Special provision is made there because persons are employed, often on a part-time basis, solely to undertake gas testing. In the context of Clause 14, however, we are talking of full-time civil servants whose work in relation to private supplies will be part of their duties within the gas standards branch. I have addressed the amendment at some length, but both noble Lords had stressed to me how important it was in their minds, and so I hope that my remarks are allowable, even at this late hour.
Both noble Lords were also worried about staff numbers. They referred to the explanatory memorandum and asked about the reference to the eight to 10 staff rising perhaps to 40 to 50. The reference by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, to the penultimate paragraph of the memorandum would realistically be answered like this. The eight to 10 staff do indeed cover the department's requirements for all Part II purposes, including staff required to monitor common carrier work in Clauses 15 to 17.
Possibly one to three staff out of the eight to 10 will be for the gas standards branch in the first instance. But as I told the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, just now, we will need to amend those figures in the light of experience; there will be, for example, the question of how many consents are required. We cannot envisage there being more than the maximum figures stated in the explanatory memorandum. But if we are wrong, we shall have to look at this again, and in the light of experience very naturally we shall have to change it.
Lord Underhill: The noble Lord said that the work will be carried out by a person appointed by the private supplier. Can he explain, not only to myself but to other noble Lords, where that is in the Bill, or will it be covered by regulations? It has not been referred to previously. In the other place the Minister said that the personnel would be members of the gas standards branch. If these people are to be employed and paid by the private suppliers, surely that ought to be written into the Bill. If it is in the Bill, then I must apologise, and hope that the noble Lord will explain it to me.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, indeed, it is not in the Bill. As I was trying to explain, the point is that we are talking about two sets of individuals, in essence doing

207
two different jobs. We are talking about the gas standards branch and the increase in officials that will be needed there. We are also talking about the day-to-day emergency cover, which currently for the monopoly BGC supplies is provided by BGC personnel. But in the future the cover will be provided not only by the BGC for its supplies, but also by the private sector company for its supplies. In other words, each will look after its own. The noble Lord says it is not in the Bill. Of course it is not in the Bill. This is one of the details which, as I said on a previous amendment, really do not get into Bills. But I have sought to explain to noble Lords opposite exactly what will be the position. I am not able at this moment to put my hand on my heart and say that this will be done by regulation, but I can assure noble Lords that it will be done before the Secretary of State gives his consent, where that is appropriate.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I think the Committee should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for having raised this important issue—and there should be no complaint about the length of time we take over it. In fact, I think the real complaint is that at such an hour we should he dealing with a matter of such importance. Because we should remember that what we are dealing with is protecting people from
"personal injury, fire, explosion or other dangers arising from the transmission or distribution of gas through pipes … ".
The situation at the moment is one about which we can be reasonably happy from the experience of the past and our confidence in the skill of the British Gas Corporation; but here we have a new element, and that new element is going to create expense—very considerable expense indeed—for the Department of Energy.
The noble Lord said that we do not need to write certain things into Bills. But eventually we do, especially under this Government. It used to be that people could apply for planning permission quite freely, but now an application for planning permission is supposed, over a period, to meet the cost to the planning authority of the work that is involved for them; so there are now charges there. This goes a little wider than this particular clause, but we are already told that these very hard-pressed men—I suggest that at the most there will be 10 in Scotland—are going to have more work placed on them. They have the job now, according to the Minister. They have two roles, the role of monitoring and the role of checking, which requires the powers of entrance. It means that there is going to be further expense. It is no good saying that you are treating them as one and the same. This is entirely different; this is new. This is something we have not had before. So the whole question of expense arises—and this is from a Government which are so concerned.
On the figures given in the Financial Memorandum I reckon that we are going to have an extra 1¼ men in Scotland to deal with this. You see, we have not so devolved the Department of Energy that we have the Secretary of State. Not even the Lord Advocate can intervene to any great extent in relation to this, but he can advise the Government about the law in respect of the activities of these people in Scotland. There are
208
some questions I should like to ask about that later, particularly in relation to penalties and so on; but, once again, we are faced with this business of time.
I am not happy at all. We are setting up this new organisation, and we are subjecting the Department of Energy, and certainly the gas standards branch, to so much more work which has to be paid for by the public. It should be paid for by this new venture, these new unknowns who are coming in, to whom we are going to dispose of the assets of the gas corporation.
This is a selling Bill. I think it was one of my colleagues here who suggested that the present Government would sell their grannies—and then the rider was added, "Aye, but only with the consent of the Treasury". When it comes to this, we are looking at the question not only of safety but of who is going to pay for it. I think they are entitled to pay through the Department of Energy—and I think this is part of the amendment we have before us—for the services of those who presently are not doing this work because the work does not exist; they are only doing it in respect of the British Gas Corporation, and that is something which has been established over a long period. In fact, the British Gas Corporation also does a considerable amount of work for the British Standards Institute. So you have this excellent and efficient organisation which is going to be destroyed. I do not know how the Government justify this to themselves.
Lord Skelmersdale: I must get to the bottom of this. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, says that the officials of the gas standards branch should be paid. He is presumably referring to their being paid by the private sector for the work that they do for them. We on these Benches have been encouraged to have an evenhanded approach. Are we to charge British Gas for the same service? If not, I cannot see the force of the noble Lord's argument.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I am not concerned about an even-handed approach. I do not want the private people in at all. I think that it is wasteful and destructive of an efficient organisation.
Lord Tanlaw: I am grateful for the noble Lord's reply. I think it has been helpful. On costs, I am assuming that they are recoverable and open to negotiation between the parties concerned. I interpret his answer in that way. He says that he does not want to put it in the Bill because it is too minor an affair. I think costs are not minor affairs. If I understand aright, the costs are negotiable and recoverable from the proper parties. I like to feel that that answer is quite helpful.
So far as the numbers of the extra staff involved are concerned. I wonder whether the Minister realises that this amendment is attempting to be helpful. I believe that I am doing a disservice to the Government and to the Bill by withdrawing it. I intend to withdraw both amendments and to come back at Report stage on this important aspect if no further information is available. The reason I want to withdraw the amendment—because the Government are not being helpful about it—is that I believe the Secretary of State and the noble Lord are possibly having one "put over" by the Department of Energy. I am trying to be

209
helpful in a polite way, as is the form in this Committee. If he brushes this aside (which he is fully entitled to do) I believe that, as the Bill stands without this amendment and the protections in it, the department could make a nonsense of this Bill by slowing down every application. They have not got enough staff. They could put every kind of block in the way of private applications.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, will have no worries if this amendment is not accepted, because I shall withdraw it. This prevents the private suppliers from having a quick application accepted because there will he no staff to do all the checks and balances that are required and the Government, because they are trying to cut back on Government stock, will not allow them to increase it. This is the Government's problem and not the Opposition's problem. I was trying to be helpful. The Chief Whip opposite wishes me to wind up. I will do so. I will withdraw the amendment and, in so doing, I believe that the Government will be left with more problems than if they had accepted the amendments or said they would do something about them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bishopston: Various questions were asked by me and by the noble Lord regarding staff and safety which have not been answered. I presume we can return to this at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
House resumed.

Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Gaming (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
East Lindsey District Council Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
John Francis Dare and Gillian Loder Dare (Marriage Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
  UN SPECIAL SESSION ON DISARMAMENT
  UN SPECIAL SESSION ON DISARMAMENT
  UN ARMS REGISTER
  UN ARMS REGISTER
  UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION: LOBBY OF PARLIAMENT
  UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION: LOBBY OF PARLIAMENT
  UNITED NATIONS: DISARMAMENT MEASURES
  UNITED NATIONS: DISARMAMENT MEASURES
  WESTERN ISLES DEVELOPMENT: WILD BIRD CONSERVATION
  WESTERN ISLES DEVELOPMENT: WILD BIRD CONSERVATION
  WESTERN ISLES DEVELOPMENT: NATURE CONSERVATION
  WESTERN ISLES DEVELOPMENT: NATURE CONSERVATION
  WESTERN ISLES DEVELOPMENT: CONSULTATIONS
  WESTERN ISLES DEVELOPMENT: CONSULTATIONS