Sitting of 13 July 1983

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

    Youth Unemployment
    Dr. Godmanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans to tackle the problem of youth unemployment in Inverclyde.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend recognises the difficulties that young people face in trying to obtain work. That is why we are introducing the youth training scheme, which gives an opportunity for all 16-year-old school leavers and some 17-year-olds in Inverclyde, and in Scotland as a whole, to obtain a year of work experience combined with relevant education and training.
    Dr. Godman: In view of the high incidence of youth unemployment on the lower Clyde and the continuing decline in the number of shipyard apprenticeships open to boys leaving school in Greenock and Port Glasgow, will the Minister use what influence he has with his ministerial colleagues to encourage the placing of defence and other contracts in shipyards on the lower Clyde, particularly at Scott Lithgow, which, as he knows, has a first-class reputation for building and refitting submarines?
    Mr. Stewart: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point on a subject of great importance, on which he spoke with considerable eloquence in his maiden speech. The Government are considering British Shipbuilders' request for aid in the light of the deterioration of its markets. That will be considered in the context of a full review of British Shipbuilders' operations and the Goverrment's European and international obligations.
    Mr. Milian: The Government have had the corporate plan of British Shipbuilders since April. When will there be a positive response to it? Is the Minister aware that unless there is a positive response, with emergency and other aid going into the industry, the prospect for youth unemployment in Inverclyde and elsewhere will be disastrous, because already the number of apprentices being taken on this year has been cut to a fraction of the previous intake?
    Mr. Stewart: The Government are fully apprised of the importance of the shipbuilding industry, as is evidenced by the fact that we have allocated £700 million to British Shipbuilders since 1979. The right hon.
    862
    Gentleman will, I think, he pleased to learn that so far in Inverclyde 790 youth training scheme places have been identified and that IBM and British Shipbuilders are among the leading employers to support that scheme.
    Mrs. McCurley: Will my hon. Friend consider extending the youth training scheme to include young people in their late teens who have been excluded so far from any Government sponsored schemes and who have had no work experience?
    Mr. Stewart: I note what my hon. Friend says. I assure her that all unemployed 16-year-old school leavers will be guaranteed an offer of a place on the youth training scheme. That guarantee is not extended to 17-year-olds, but I expect that there will be sufficient places for unemployed 17-year-old school leavers as well. My hon. Friend will, of course, be aware of the importance of the community programme for those aged 18 and above.

    Engineering Industry
    Mr. O'Neillasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be meeting the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland to discuss the state of the engineering industry.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I have no plans at present to meet the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland, although of course I do frequently meet confederation representatives, both formally and informally, to discuss Scottish industrial matters.
    Mr. O'Neill: Before the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland, will he ensure that he is better informed than he was before the general election, when he referred to the Weir Group as one of the great Scottish successes of the last Parliament? Is he aware that within two weeks of 9 June 450 redundancies were declared in my constituency and that to all intents and purposes the largest engineering shop in central Scotland has been closed? The Government could have done more to help.
    Mr. Younger: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will regret the first part of that supplementary. I should have thought that everyone would be pleased to regard the Weir Group as a great success story. In great difficulty two years ago, it has recovered spectacularly, and I wish it well.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to help the heavy engineering sector in Scotland? Is he aware that the coal-fired conversion scheme for boilers is not making as much progress as had been anticipated, because of doubts about the coal industry? Will he, with the Minister of State, consider a new incentive to help manufacturers of boilers in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I know of my hon. Friend's close interest in the subject. I shall discuss it with my right hon. Friend to see whether anything further can be done, but, as the first part of his supplementary question indicated, the prospects for the engineering industry are, at best, mixed, with some sectors doing very well and others not doing very well at all.
    Mr. George Robertson: When discussing the engineering industry with the CBI, will the right hon.

    863
    Gentleman raise the question of the Hamilton and district engineering training group and ask what sense there is in splashing out large amounts of public money on the new youth training scheme at a time when a well-organised training scheme in the Hamilton area is having to pay off staff and is finding it difficult to get trainees in competition with a scheme that seems to be the public relations poodle of the Department of Employment?
    Mr. Younger: That is not a fair description of the youth training scheme, which is a long-overdue reform in our industrial training and which has been widely welcomed by both sides of industry.
    Mr. Henderson: In his discussions, has my right hon. Friend asked for the CBI's views on the success of the small firms engineering investment scheme, and in particular whether part of its success was related to the fact that the scheme covered people outside as well as inside development areas?
    Mr. Younger: I shall be glad to discuss that further with the CBI in Scotland when we next meet, but I agree with my hon. Friend that the success of the scheme has been an encouraging feature in recent times.

    Doctors and Nurses
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many qualified doctors and nurses in Scotland are known to be unemployed by reason of being unable to find employment in their professions.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): This information is not available.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that, despite that succinct answer, figures are being made available projecting the rate of unemployment among skilled nurses and doctors? Does he agree that it is nothing short of a national scandal that such skilled people should be unemployed at a time when hospital waiting lists are so long? Does he agree also that it is a scandal that such skilled people should not be allowed to practise their skills and so earn their livelihood?
    Mr. MacKay: I am aware that the BMA, for example, is concerned about doctor employment in the future and is having discussions with my Department about that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the reality of the figures in recent years, which show, for example, that from September 1979 to September 1982 the number of nurses employed in the National Health Service in Scotland increased from 26,930 to 31,020. I do not consider that to be a disgrace. I consider it to be a very good record.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is it not the case that the number of doctors and dentists has increased by more than 250 since 1979 and the number of nurses and midwives by more than 7,000? With a net increase in public expenditure on the Health Service, does my hon. Friend agree that the emphasis should be on better patient care?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right. We are emphasising that we expect the increased resources which we have made available to the NHS in the last four years to be put into direct patient care, with the other services concerned with the Health Service being run as efficiently and economically as possible.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister confirm that he has now received plans from the health boards as a result of the White Paper which was produced almost three and a half years ago on the structure and management of the National Health Service in Scotland?
    Mr. MacKay: I am not certain to which plan the hon. Gentleman is referring. If he is referring to the plans of the health boards on the SHAPE priorities, I can tell him that my Department has received plans from most of the boards and are chasing up those which have not put them in. We are starting to hold discussions with the health boards to make sure that their plans accord with the SHAPE priorities laid down by the Government.
    Mr. Corrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Isle of Arran there is a new wing at the hospital, with new equipment and a consultant surgeon and anaesthetist, yet it will be used for only emergency operations? With the facilities and the necessary skilled people there, should it not be used for general surgical purposes?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend has already brought this matter to my attention. I hope that the Ayrshire and Arran health board will, when it considers this matter, take into account the fact that this new facility exists and that there is a surgeon and anaestheist to run it.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: Reverting to the original question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), may we be told why the information is not available? Is it because the Minister does not want to acknowledge that there are unemployed doctors and nurses in Scotland?
    Mr. MacKay: The information is not available because since 1982 the unemployed count has been based on unemployment benefit office records and occupational details are not needed for benefit purposes. I do not propose to divert NHS resources from patient care to be able to quote statistics.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the development of private sector medicine provides jobs for those about whom Labour Members claim to be concerned? Does he further agree that the crocodile tears being shed by them would be more credible if they did not have an ideological opposition to the development of the private sector?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right. Nurses and doctors can and do find employment both in the NHS—obviously the majority of them — and in the private sector, and it is a fact that many of them work in that sector. The Government are in favour of that tandem arrangement, as opposed to the blinkered opposition to private health care by Opposition Members.
    Mr. Ewing: If the Minister is saying that the figures asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) are not available, how on earth was it that in The Scotsman on Saturday morning he was able to deny the figures that were made available by the National Union of Public Employees? Are we to assume that yet again the hon. Gentleman did not know what he was talking about? What effect will the cut of £20 million—which he also announced in The Scotsman on Saturday — have on further employment prospects for doctors and nurses in the NHS in Scotland?
    Mr. MacKay: I am well aware of the number of people employed in the NHS. The figures that were bandied about related to those who might lose their jobs because of the adjustments that we have had to make in public spending. Those figures suggested that the NHS employed many more people than it should, and they were baseless. Once my right hon. Friend decides on the amount of money to be saved in the health budget, the health boards will have to consider how to make the necessary savings. I made it clear over the weekend that I expect them to make them in areas away from direct patient care.

    School Year
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is considering any change in the length of the school year or the school week.
    Mr. Younger: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lambie: Is it not about time that more consideration was given to a shorter school year and a shorter school week; for example, a four-day week? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that with the increasing and acute pressures in society on teachers and pupils, schools would perform more effectively and efficiently with shorter hours, thus giving more time for such things as in-service training?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the point which I think the hon. Gentleman is making—that what matters it is not so much the number of days that one spends at school, as the quality of the teaching that one gets there. Nevertheless, it has for long been accepted in Scotland that about 200 days in the year is the correct lime for children's education to be at its optimum and I have no plans to change that basic number.
    Mr. Wilson: If the Secretary of State does not intend to make any changes in the length of the school year, what does he intend to do about school leavers in Scotland who leave in May but cannot get benefit until September? Will he make representations to the DHSS to adjust the regulations so that school leavers can get benefit a month earlier?
    Mr. Younger: That question should be addressed to the Minister responsible.

    Job Creation
    Mr. McTaggartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to alleviate the unemployment problem in Glasgow.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Glasgow benefits from a wide variety of Government, private sector and local authority initiatives designed to create jobs. Projects such as the Scottish industrial exhibition centre, Glasgow fishmarket and the west of Scotland science park will provide new employment. Some £200 million of public capital has been invested in the east end of Glasgow through GEAR.
    Mr. McTaggart: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that, in spite of the measures which he has just mentioned, earlier this year there were only 2,000 unfilled vacancies in the jobcentres in Glasgow, with 74,000 Glaswegians chasing those vacancies? Is he further aware that more than 40,000 of those people were under 25 and were therefore denied the opportunity of building a career
    866
    at an important stage in their lives? Instead of enthusiastically endorsing Government policies, will the Secretary of State and the rest of the Scottish Office team resign in protest against those policies, which were comprehensively rejected by the people of Scotland at the last general election?
    Mr. Stewart: Glasgow benefits immensely from being part of the west of Scotland special development area. Since May 1979 the Government have assisted 107 companies in Glasgow, through special financial assistance. That has created over 4,000 new jobs and safeguarded 4,467 other jobs. That is an example of what the Government have undertaken to help solve the deep-seated problems from which Glasgow has suffered.
    Mr. Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that rate increases have been a significant cause of the increase in unemployment in recent years? Does he accept: that restraint in increasing rates is essential if new businesses are to be encouraged?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that excessively high rates are a disincentive to new and existing businesses setting up and expanding.
    Mr. Bruce: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the training element in the youth training scheme is carried out within rural areas and within rural secondary schools?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that Glasgow is not a rural area.

    Kirkcaldy District Council
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has made to the representations made to him by the Kirkcaldy district council concerning the action he intends to take against the council for its allegedly excessive and unreasonable expenditure proposed for 1983–84.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): Kirkcaldy district council was informed on 29 June that, having given careful consideration to its representations, my right hon. Friend remained of the view that the council's planned expenditure for 1983–84 was excessive and unreasonable, but that the rate reduction originally proposed should be limited to 2p. As the council is not willing to make a voluntary rate reduction of this amount, my right hon. Friend is therefore seeking approval to a rate reduction of 2p in the report laid before the House on 7 July.
    Mr. Hamilton: Why is this moderate and responsible authority being singled out for this cavalier treatment by the Government? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current rate of the Kirkcaldy district council of 29p is considerably less than the 35p average rate across Scotland for all district councils? Is it not the case that the council is being penalised, as many think in Kirkcaldy, because one of the few Tory councillors is a paid hack of a Minister on the Treasury Bench?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no basis for that strange allegation. Even with the changes that have been made in the budget following the representations made to myself at my meeting with the Kirkcaldy district council, it is still the view of my right

    867
    hon. Friend that its expenditure is excessive and unreasonable. The council has accepted that there could be savings that could be returned to the ratepayers.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that the average rate demand over the past five years in Kirkcaldy has been considerably less than the demands of the six comparable authorities that have been chosen by the Secretary of State for Scotland for comparison with Kirkcaldy? How can he regard the rate in Kirkcaldy as excessive and unreasonable? Will he become more objective, rather than subjective, in analysing the rate in Kirkcaldy and for once throw aside his Hitlerian mantle?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that expenditure has been excessive and unreasonable and that there are a number of criteria on which that judgment is based, one of which is the rate level. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to develop his argument in further detail when the order is debated. If he chooses to do so, I shall answer him in further detail.
    Mr. Henderson: Would my hon. Friend imagine from the remarks of Opposition Members that the rate of the Kirkcaldy district council has more than doubled since the Labour party took full control? Is he aware that there has been an increase of 15½p since 1980, while during the same period the rate of the North-East Fife district council has increased by only 2½p?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that valid comparison. Opposition Members are not best known for their defence of ratepayers, and ratepayers in Scotland have been hard pressed for a long time.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister accept that the principal cause of the increase in rates in Scotland in recent years has been the cut in the rate support grant? Does he accept that many councils have a higher rate of expenditure per head than Kirkcaldy, and in excess of the allegedly indicative guidelines? Does that not demonstrate that the Government have acted in an obscure and prejudiced fashion, and extremely unfairly? Will he explain in some detail, either during the debate on the order or by publication before the debate, how the rate reduction should be limited to 2p? The letter of 29 June gives no reason and merely announces the outcome. What was the reduction in the unfair and excessive expenditure, which he presumably accepted should be made, to justify the decrease?
    Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the debate if he wishes specific answers to those questions. He knows that this is not the proper occasion to debate the details of the order. He knows also that expenditure in excess of the guidelines is only one part of the criteria upon which my right hon. Friend makes his assessment.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the House knows that I have a great interest in Scottish questions.
    Mr. Foulkes: So have many others.
    Mr. Speaker: We are running slightly behind time and I ask for shorter supplementary questions and even shorter answers from the Dispatch Box.

    Economic Prospects
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects an upturn in the economy in Scotland and in Lanarkshire in particular; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: The level of economic activity in Scotland was already higher in 1982 than in 1981. Prospects in Scotland and in Lanarkshire depend on progress in the United Kingdom and world economies, and will be enhanced by the advances already made in productivity and competitiveness.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that his reply is not in accord with the sentiments expressed by many industrialists, both inside and outside my constituency, who state categorically that there is no light to be seen at the end of the tunnel? Is he further aware that 19 per cent. of the insurable population in Lanarkshire are unemployed? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to tell the House once and for all whether he has made any solicitations to Mr. Ian MacGregor about the negotiations that are taking place with a steel company in America, to ascertain what the outcome will be? If the negotiations are successful, will the right hon. Gentleman accept the outcome at Cabinet level? If the Cabinet does not accept them, will he resign?
    Mr. Stewart: The issue which the hon. Gentleman raised in the last part of his supplementary question was referred to by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in his Adjournment debate on Friday. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry at c. 590.
    No one denies that Lanarkshire has had deep and historic industrial problems. However, when the previous Conservative Government were in office 4,730 new jobs were created through selective financial assistance and almost 1,900 jobs were safeguarded. I believe that Lanarkshire will benefit immensely from the integrated projects that have been announced in Motherwell and Coatbridge, which will have budgets of over £80 million.
    Mr. Milian: As Lanarkshire is dependent on the steel industry, as Mr. MacGregor's plan is going ahead, as far as he is concerned, in respect of the United States deal, and as Mr. MacGregor has said that the Secretary of State for Scotland has only to ask for details of the plan to be told what the details are, has the right hon. Gentleman bothered to ask?
    Mr. Stewart: I have already answered that question by referring to the answer given by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in the Adjournment debate on Friday. I confirm that no proposals for a deal with a United States company have been received by the Government. If and when they are received, my right hon. Friend will examine the implications for Ravenscraig with particular care.
    Mr. Millan: I am not asking about the Minister of State's answer on Friday. I am asking whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked for details of the plan.
    Mr. Stewart: I have already made the position crystal clear. No proposals for a deal with a United States

    869
    company have been received. If and when they are received, my right hon. Friend will examine them with great care, especially the implications for Ravenscraig.

    Government of Scotland
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any proposals for improving the arrangements for the government of Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: My colleagues and I are satisfied with the present arrangements but we are willing to consider specific proposals that may be suggested.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State, unlike the Prime Minister, recall that there was a specific pledge about this matter in the Conservative manifesto and that it is the Government's responsibility to bring forward proposals for improving the government of Scotland'? When will the Secretary of State introduce those proposals, which were foreshadowed in the Scottish Conservative manifesto, or is there to be yet another sell-out as there was by Lord Home on the last occasion?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has not given his usual attention to detail. The wording in the Scottish Conservative manifesto was:
    "We remain willing to consider further changes to improve the government of Scotland within the United Kingdom."
    That is a clear statement. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific changes to suggest, I shall consider them.
    Mr. Corrie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there we cannot have a halfway house for the government of Scotland? Either we are in the House as United Kingdom Members or we have a separate Government in Scotland. The people of Scotland do not want a separate Government.
    Mr. Younger: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that there is no sign that the people of Scotland have any desire for a further layer of government, with extra taxes on the Scots to pay for it.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the Secretary of State agree that Lord Home's remarks during the 1979 referendum, to the effect that a future Conservative Government would bring forward a better scheme for devolution for Scotland, which is not altogether difficult to do, might have had a considerable effect on the balance of that result? Has the right hon. Gentleman totally jettisoned the proposal?
    Mr. Younger: I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. If he were to read what my noble Friend Lord Home said at that time, he would see that he made a balanced presentation of the case for and against. All that I am saying at this stage is that we consider that the present arrangements for government in Scotland are working well and we do not envisage any changes at the moment.
    Mr. Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend please remind Opposition Members that what the Scots want more than anything else is less government and not more government, and whatever amount of government they want, the last thing they want is government by the Opposition?
    Mr. Younger: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says. I have no doubt that his assessment of the views of the people of Scotland is correct. It is somewhat surprising
    870
    that all this pressure comes from Opposition Members who have just fought a general election in which they lost 250,000 votes.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Even under the present arrangement, how can the government of Scotland be improved when there has been a cut in the Scottish share of public expenditure in addition to the cuts announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day and when £1 million of oil revenues is going from Scottish oilfields into the Treasury every hour?
    Mr. Younger: The Scottish National party did not exactly receive a tremendous endorsement from the Scottish electorate as a whole. I advise the right hon. Gentleman not to raise the point about expenditure, as, on practically every count, Scotland receives per head of the population much more than either England or Wales.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the lifetime of the last Parliament efforts were made to have all-party talks to discuss the government of Scotland, but they failed because members of the Scottish National party refused to take part?
    Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I noted that, but I thought that the Scottish National party was sensible not to take part, because it acknowledges that it is in favour, not of devolution, but of separation. The Scottish electorate made its view clear about that.
    Mr. Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be no satisfactory way of dealing with Scottish affairs without the establishment of a Scottish assembly, and that we in the Opposition remain committed to that even if the right hon. Gentleman has reneged on his commitment to it?
    Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman has a lot more homework to do with Back-Bench Opposition Members. Everyone knows that there is not the remotest chance of getting all the Members even of the Scottish Labour party to support the procedure that he suggests.

    Borders Region
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange a meeting with the Borders regional council to discuss the effects of public expenditure cuts on local services in the Borders region.
    Mr. Ancram: There has been no request from the council for such a meeting. My right hon. Friend regularly discusses public expenditure matters with authorities collectively through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I thank the Under-Secretary for that answer. Is he aware, however, that major capital assets in the Borders area are declining because of a lack of routine maintenance? Will the Minister give an assurance that if a case can be made on a reasonable basis for increasing public expenditure in that direction in my constituency he will consider it in a reasonable fashion, not in a party political, dogmatic fashion?
    Mr. Ancram: I always consider everything put to me in a reasonable fashion. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the regional council is spending more per head at constant prices than in 1978–79. That does not seem consistent with any reduction in its services that the hon. Gentleman has described.

    Fish Marketing
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the report of the Sea Fish Industry Authority on the marketing of fish; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John MacKay: The Sea Fish Industry Authority's report on fish marketing was received a few days ago. It will require careful consideration.
    Mr. Henderson: In providing that consideration, will my hon. Friend arrange for the report to be published so that informed comment can be made on it, recognising that with all the immediate anxieties about the short-term issues in the fishing industry, the big long-term issue is consumption of fish and therefore marketing?
    Mr. MacKay: The publication of the report is for the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I understand that it intends to publish it. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the great need for improved marketing and sales of fish.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister ensure that the Sea Fish Industry Authority liaises closely with "Food from Britain" in promoting sea fish, which, pending the report, is excluded from the "Food from Britain" campaign?
    Mr. MacKay: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The "Food from Britain" organisation has powers to assist the marketing of fish products and can be expected to work closely with the Sea Fish Industry Authority.
    Mr. O'Neill: Before we can talk about the sale of fish we must ensure that we can catch it. What will the Minister do about the chaos in the herring fishing industry in Scotland?
    Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, the position will be made clear by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who will make a statement tomorrow in the House.

    Local Authorities (Expenditure)
    Mr. Norman Hoggasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to use his powers under section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 as amended.
    Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total reduction in local authority planned expenditure he now expects to achieve in the financial year 1983–84 as the result of the use of his powers under section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 as amended.
    Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend initiated action against five local authorities on grounds of excessive and unreasonable expenditure. After considering their representations, he decided to take no further action against Shetland Islands council and proposed rate reductions lower than he had originally proposed for the remaining authorities as follows: Lothian regional council, 6p, Glasgow district council, 3p, Kirkcaldy district council, 2p, Stirling district council, 2p. No authority was prepared to make a voluntary rate reduction. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend laid reports before the House on 7
    872
    July. If the House approves the rate reductions proposed, the total reduction in planned expenditure by the four authorities will be £18·8 million.
    Mr. Hogg: Are not the Minister and the Secretary of State hell-bent on attacking the democratically elected local authorities and their elected representatives? Are not the authorities that the Minister has listed acting within the law and have they not been freely elected to pursue the policies that have brought about the situation of which the Minister is complaining?
    Mr. Ancram: No, Sir. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. Friend assessed whether expenditure was excessive and unreasonable on a number of criteria, following which he accepted a written submission from the councils and either he or I met the councils, and listened to their representations. In the light of those representations my right hon. Friend made the reductions that I have just mentioned.
    Mr. Dewar: Does the Minister stand by his written answer to me on 30 June in which it was shown that expenditure on services in Glasgow between 1979–80 and 1983–84 remained almost the same in real terms and that if we exclude certain items that the Minister now accepts should have been excluded we see that the expenditure has fallen quite sharply? If he stands by those figures, in what sense could the record be described as excessive and unreasonable?
    Mr. Ancram: As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the debates on the orders to discuss these matters in full. I assure him that where the figures in the submissions that were made to us by the councils were found not to be relevant expenditure, allowance was made for that in the reductions that my right hon. Friend made.
    Mr. Wallace: Now that the Secretary of State has had the opportunity fully to consider the representations made to him by the Shetland Islands council and appreciates the difficulty faced by that authority with regard to oil development and remoteness, will he consider bringing forward proposals to reverse the order earlier this year which derated external plant and equipment in Orkney and Shetland, which resulted in a considerable loss of rating revenue for both authorities and will lead to a great increase in rates for both authorities?
    Mr. Ancram: I do not think that that issue arises out of the original question.

    Mentally Handicapped Children
    Mrs. McCurleyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will withdraw his circular No. 925 in order that all profoundly mentally handicapped schoolchildren may have access to fully qualified teaching staff in schools.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: I am considering this and other issues affecting the conduct of special schools in the light of the 1981 legislation on special educational needs.
    Mrs. McCurley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the objective of raising the standard of teaching in schools applies equally to the mentally handicapped? Where there are exceptions, will he provide for fully qualified teaching staff?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not envisage education authorities being required to employ teachers to the exclusion of other staff, but I am aware that some of those concerned feel that minimum staffing levels should be prescribed by regulation. I shall issue a consultation document on that point. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to agree that there has been grew: progress since the passage of the Education (Mentally Handicapped Children) (Scotland) Act 1974, which was introduced as a private Member's Bill by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Gray of Contin.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the Minister aware that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are worried about the teaching of spastic children at Westerlea school? Will he use his Department's good offices to consult the Scottish Council for Spastics on how the needs of spastic children in Scotland can best be met? Is he further aware that there is considerable disquiet among the parents of such children about their children's needs not being adequately met by the council?
    Mr. Stewart: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall look into the matter.

    Job Creation
    Mr. MacKenzieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what new initiatives he proposes to introduce to reduce the number of people unemployed in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: The Government's policies are aimed at the overall improvement of the economy and this offers the best means of achieving a long-term improvement in employment prospects.
    Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that those policies have been applied for the past four years and, so far, they do not seem to have worked, as the unemployment queues grow daily? Will he institute some way of improving those difficult circumstances? For example, will he use his considerable powers under the Industry Act 1972 to rescue some of the firms that are closing down?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety—the issue worries us all. He knows that various factors, including the international recession, have made our industrial life difficult in the past few years. I am sure he recognises that we have spent a great deal of money and effort on helping firms such as he described. There are many notable examples of firms that have been rescued from liquidation because of help from the Government and the Scottish Development Agency.
    Mr. Johnston: Does the Secretary of State remember visiting Fort William during the general election campaign —something that he refused to do for the previous three years? Does he remember committing the Government to finding wood-related industry? Will he report on the progress, because all that has happened so far is more redundancies and paperwork?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's anxiety. Ever since the Wiggins Teape pulp mill at Fort William closed we have been doing everything we can to find ways of attracting wood-using industries to Scotland. We are continuing those efforts.
    Mr. Corrie: What has happened to the concept of free ports? They appear to have been dropped from the Finance
    874
    Bill. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that, when the House returns after the summer recess, we shall have something to establish the possibility of free ports in Scotland, because they would provide new jobs?
    Mr. Younger: I assure my hon. Friend that the concept of free ports, which the Government generally welcomed during the March Budget, still stands and that the only reason for the present difficulty is that the general election took time from parliamentary business so that it was not possible to fit that matter into this year's Finance Bill. Their establishment remains Government policy and we shall draw up guidelines for the areas that wish to be considered to become free ports.
    Mr. Ewing: The Secretary of State talks of Government policy being the only thing that will improve job prospects in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Did he miss what his right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said, through his Select Committee just before the election—that 50 per cent. of the increase in unemployment was due entirely to the very Government policies about which the Secretary of State is telling us? Is the Secretary of State telling us that he will continue in this Parliament to be complacent and unconcerned about unemployment in Scotland, as was the case in the previous one? If that is his intention, it must be his duty to go as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman must have thought a little more deeply than that about the problems of industry, a fair share of which he has experienced in his constituency. He knows that the main reason why British industry has experienced such difficulty during the recession is that it has lost competitiveness against overseas competitors for many years. That is what we are trying to put right and we are having considerable success.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that the best initiative that he can take in respect of unemployment in Scotland is to start fighting to save the Scottish steel industry? If Mr. MacGregor was wrong when he said that the Secretary of State was not curious enough to seek information about that industry, what does the Secretary of State intend to do? What action will he take in regard to a highly paid public servant, who is apparently so badly informed?
    Mr. Younger: I expect to be accused of many things but not of being inactive about the Scottish steel industry.
    Mr. Buchan: What has the right hon. Gentleman done?
    Mr. Younger: I have made it clear to everyone, including Mr. MacGregor, that if he proposes a new plan for operations at Ravenscraig or any other plant in Scotland, he must present it to the Government. The Government would then have to consider whether such a plan would be good or bad for Scotland.
    Mr. Milian: May I now ask the Secretary of State direct whether he has asked Mr. MacGregor for details of the United States steel deal?
    Mr. Younger: As Mr. MacGregor made clear, he and I have had several meetings about that — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."' At the moment, I am waiting to see whether Mr. MacGregor produces such a plan. As I have

    875
    made clear, if he does he will have to present it to the Government and the Government will have to consider whether it is a good or a bad idea.

    Local Authority Services
    Mr. Craigenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he is having with local authorities in Scotland over future central Government contributions towards the funding of local government services.
    Mr. Younger: I have already met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities twice this year about rate support grant, and further meetings will take place. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for home affairs and the environment will meet the convention in September to discuss housing support grant and related issues.
    Mr. Craigen: Bearing in mind the considerable and intricate control which the Secretary of State now seems to exercise over local authorities, what does he think local authorities are now best able to do which could not be done simply by civil servants and the House?
    Mr. Younger: That is a completely distorted picture of the facts. I thought that the hon. Gentleman knew that many sectors of life, including all businesses and some families, have had to take some cognisance of the fact that we have been going through an extremely difficult recession. I am simply trying to persuade local authorities to play their part in helping the country to survive.

    Gear Area, Glasgow
    Mr. David Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total acreage of ground sites and premises available for sale or rent in the Gear area of Glasgow.
    Mr. Ancram: This information is not held by the Scottish Office but I have asked the Scottish Development Agency to let the hon. Gentleman have that which is available to it.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister confirm that there is an unacceptably high level of undeveloped and empty sites in the east end of Glasgow? Will he instruct the Scottish Development Agency to purchase the 64-acre site that was formerly occupied by Parkhead Forge, which the Government refused to help keep in business last year? Is he not ashamed of the fact that 60 per cent. of young people are unemployed in the east end of Glasgow? Will he instruct the SDA to do something about the number of empty and derelict sites, in a bid to combat youth unemployment?
    Mr. Ancram: I visited that area in my ministerial capacity a fortnight ago. I was impressed by the work that had been done in the past few years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that GEAR is not insulated from the national economy. The SDA has been developing proposals to improve the ability of local work forces to obtain employment in that area.
    Mr. MacKenzie: Will the Minister tell the SDA that land which was formerly used by the British Steel Corporation at Clydebridge and elsewhere in the GEAR area should continue to be used for industrial purposes and no other?
    Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the SDA and local authorities are discussing those problems. As far as I was able to make out at the meeting that I attended, everyone agreed that the area was a prime location and should be regarded as such.

    European Regional Development Fund
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total value of grants made towards projects in Scotland by the European regional development fund since its inception in 1975.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Total commitments towards projects in Scotland since the fund was established come to £270 million.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that these grants have brought considerable advantage to Scotland and provide yet another example of the benefits that Scotland gains from membership of the European Community?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree. Since 1975 about 1,000 projects have been helped by the European regional development fund, assistance that has been recognised as valuable throughout Scotland, except by Labour Members of Parliament.
    Sir Hector Monro: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of these regional development grants are not available for non-assisted areas? Therefore, will he have discussions with the Community to see whether this policy can be changed to concentrate more on unemployment than on assisted area status?
    Mr. Stewart: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but the ERDF is applied only to assisted areas so that help is concentrated where it is most needed.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Stated Case Procedure
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will review the criteria used to determine whether to bring a prosecution under the stated case procedure in cases where a successful prosecution will also threaten the career of the accused.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): The hon. Gentleman's question refers to the stated case procedure. I can only assume he is referring to prosecutions under summary procedure. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that procurators fiscal consider all relevant factors, including the one referred to by him, but the most important factors determining which form of procedure should be used are the seriousness of the offence and the harm caused to the victim.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do Law Officers share lay unease about the extent to which unrecorded court proceedings can lead to the ruin of individual careers?
    The Solicitor-General For Scotland: Concern is expressed from time to time, whether summary procedures are used or the more solemn method. However, following the changes introduced in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 there are now greater opportunities to have the facts in the cases heard under the summary procedure put before the Appeal Courts. That is a useful and worthwhile alteration to the law.

    Laboratory Assistants (Trial Costs)
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what was the total cost to public funds of the recent trial of the Fife area health board laboratory employees; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The information is not available. However, I can say that the trial itself took three full days of court time and that the appeal hearing took up one full day of debate. In addition to that, the case called on another four occasions to deal with incidental procedure. The only identifiable public cost is that of witness expenses, which amounted to £59·62.
    Mr. Hamilton: What good has come of this sorry state of affairs? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that as a result of it all sit-ins and work-ins are now liable to criminal proceedings? Now that the case is over in the courts, will he initiate a public inquiry to see how the thing started in the first place?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall not, and it would not be for me to do so. Important legal issues have to be decided, and these were determined by the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh, following the appeal. As the hon. Gentleman knows, once those legal issues had been resolved, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate decided that no further action should be taken.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. and learned Friend feel that it is regrettable that many otherwise sensible and reasonable people should have got into this position in the first place? Does it not stem from the essential legal responsibility of Fife health board to ensure that there is a clearly qualified medical responsibility for determining patients' health, and lives as well?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Any detailed comment by me on the workings of Fife health board would be inappropriate. However, it was part of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate's decision that great importance was to be attached to the work of the laboratory in Fife. For that reason, among others, he determined that this matter should not be sent back to the sheriff.
    Mr. Ewing: Was the Solicitor-General happy about the Secretary of State's decision to instruct .Fife health board, when the appeal in this matter was pending, to impose conditions on those appellants — [Interruption.] The Solicitor-General should not take advice from the Under-Secretary responsible for health. He will just mislead the Solicitor-General. Was the Solicitor-General happy about the Secretary of State's intervention when the appeal was pending, because many people felt that the Secretary of State had intervened at the time of the strike in a further effort to save the political skin of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson)?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I can only reiterate that matters concerning Fife health board are no concern of mine unless prosecutions arise out of what appear to be incidents of criminal conduct. A prosecution was mounted, and following that there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. The matter has now been resolved, together with the legal issues.

    Scottish Law Commission
    Mr. Canavanasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the Scottish Law Commission.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: While I have no meetings arranged, I expect to meet the Scottish Law Commission from time to time to discuss all aspects of law reform which it is presently considering.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Solicitor-General ask the commission whether there is any other country in the world which, like Scotland, has its own distinct body of legislation but no distinct legislature to deal with it'? Will the Government take action to rectify this anomaly, especially in view of the fact that, whatever the Prime Minister might claim about having a legal mandate, she has no moral mandate to govern Scotland, having been rejected by over 70 per cent. of the Scottish voters at the recent general election? Is he aware that the majority of Scottish voters voted for candidates who wanted a Scottish assembly?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I usually put more coherent questions to the Scottish Law Commission than that which the hon. Gentleman has put to me.
    Mr. Wilson: I congratulate the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General on withdrawing certain clauses relating to the admissibility of evidence from the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. What stage has the Scottish Law Commission reached in re-evaluating the law of evidence in Scotland, and what is the intended parliamentary timetable for the introduction of any fruits of that study?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I expect that there will be more than one report on the reform of the law of evidence in Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the commission is undertaking a large task, but I know that a great deal of work has already been done and I hope that at least one of the reports will shortly he before Parliament.

    Rape Trials
    Mr. Dewarasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he will initiate a study in his Department into the way in which the Crown Office proceeds in cases involving a charge of rape and, in particular, into the admissibility of evidence about the complainants previous character in such trials.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: A report prepared by the Scottish Law Commission will, very shortly, be presented to Parliament, containing recommendations covering the law of evidence in relation to rape and other sexual offences. In addition, the Scottish Home and Health Department is undertaking a research study into sexual assaults, including rape cases. The findings of this research will also be published in due course.
    Mr. Dewar: I welcome the news that the report will be before the House shortly. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman look closely at the possibility of reform, particularly in view of the anxiety over the rules of evidence governing the admissibility of evidence of a complainer's previous sexual character and possibly, as well, the right to publish the name of the accused before conviction, both of which are matters on which there has been legislation south of the border?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The report that will be published shortly will cover the first matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It remains to be seen whether it will make a recommendation precisely along the lines of the legislation south of the border. I can only suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he awaits the outcome of the report. He will be aware that this matter was considered carefully by the Scottish Law Commission.

    Family Law
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Law Society of Scotland on the reciprocity of application of Scottish family law in the United Kingdom.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have had no discussions with the Law Society but the position regarding reciprocal recognition and enforcement of orders for custody of children is currently being jointly considered by the two Law Commissions.
    Mr. Hughes: While I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for that reply, does he not agree that the situation has become urgent and that speedy action is required not only on access to children in custody orders, but on the maintenance of children? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that reciprocity needs to be applied to speed decisions on these matters?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: A number of detailed arrangements are already in force for reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders on both sides of the border. I accept that they are in many respects somewhat complicated, but if the hon. Gentleman has specific cases that he would like me to look into I should be glad to do so.
    Mr. Dewar: When will the Government produce their proposals relating to the Scottish Law Commission's report on the financial settlement following divorce?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the House will be aware, a demonstration has already been given of the consideration to be applied to the recommendations of the English Law Commission on the same matter. However, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware from the terms of the Queen's Speech, there is no intention of dealing with it in the course of this Session.

    Crown Office
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what proposals he has for improving the operation of the Crown Office and other departments under his control.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: All aspects of the operation of the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal service are kept under constant review so that areas in which improvements can be made may be identified and any necessary action taken to increase efficiency.
    Mr. Foulkes: Surely the Solicitor-General must agree, in the light of the result of the general election in Scotland, that it would be sensible to move the staff of the Crown Office out of the old royal high school building and to use that building for the purpose for which it was intended — housing an elected assembly for Scotland. The administration of Scotland should have an elected Government instead of being ruled by the son of a viscount, an earl, and a life peer rejected by the electorate of Scotland.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The administration of the Crown Office is indeed based in the royal high school. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that our independent public prosecution system has important work to do there. The hon. Gentleman's question has nothing to do with the efficient working of that system.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, if proceedings on the motion relating to the death penalty have not been previously disposed of, Mr. Speaker shall at Ten o'clock put the Question on any amendment which may have been moved and shall then put forthwith the Questions on any other amendments selected by him which may be moved and on the main Question or the main Question as amended.—[Mr. Lang.]

Death Penalty
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: It will be no surprise to the House that more than 60 right hon. and hon. Members have made clear their wish to speak in this important debate, and there may be even more. I wish to call as many hon. Members as possible. In the interests of fairness, I propose to balance the rights of Privy Councillors with the claims of other hon. Members.
I therefore make two pleas. I ask that contributions should be brief—perhaps even very brief—so that as many Members as possible may be called, and I ask hon. Members not to come to the Chair to assess their chances. That could well prove to be counter-productive today.
It may also be helpful if I outline how today's debate will proceed. After the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) has moved the motion, there will be a general debate on the motion and the amendments. My selection of amendments has been published. I shall not call on any hon. Member formally to move an amendment before the conclusion of the debate, when, in accordance with the Business of the House motion, there will be an opportunity to vote consecutively on amendments (e) to (i) and, if appropriate, on amendment (j). After that, I shall put the Question on the motion as amended or not amended, as the case may be.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance, in fairness to Back Benchers. Since the last Parliament, there has been a changeover of some 25 per cent. of Members. I seek your assurance that the new voices in this House, as well as the old, will be given the opportunity to put their views.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very surprised that an hon. Member with as much experience as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) should make that suggestion to me. I shall seek absolutely to balance the opinions held in all parts of the Chamber.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although some of us put down amendments that have not been selected, we understand your point about your selection of amendments. We welcome your point about no preference being shown to Privy Councillors. However, it is well known that many in the Cabinet are opposed to the reintroduction of hanging. Some of them have an important responsibility for this matter in part of the United Kingdom. Will you take that into account, Mr. Speaker, and call those members of the Government, because the Home Secretary does not speak for the whole Cabinet?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that only one Government spokesman from the Front Bench will be called.
3.36 pm
Sir Edward Gardner: I beg to move,
That this House favours the restoration of the death penalty for murder.
Tonight, at the end of this debate, we in this House, on an individual, personal and free vote, have to reach a decision that can only be described as agonising. It is a decision that must touch the conscience of us all, whether we are for or against the reintroduction of the death penalty.

883
I should like to thank the Government for giving the House time to debate this important matter. This is a momentous debate. It is an important subject and the debate is outstandingly important because it may very well be the last chance that this House will have to decide the important question whether or not capital punishment for murder should be reintroduced. Furthermore, the debate is important because of the intense public interest and concern that it raises. It is important because it appears to have dramatically divided opinion in this country. That division of opinion disturbs one, because it is not difficult to see serious and reasonable arguments on both sides. Finally, it is important to those of us who believe—as I hope all hon. Members believe — that it is the inescapable duty of the State to protect its citizens in the most effective way that is available to the State from unlawful violence and death by murder.
The Royal Commission on capital punishment which reported in 1953 described murder as the gravest of all crimes. It describes capital punishment as the gravest of punishments for the gravest of all crimes. I am sure that very few hon. Members would doubt that the retributive element which would be involved in the reintroduction of capital punishment is important. It seems to me that what is even more important is the question whether or not capital punishment could, by its deterrent effect, reduce the number of murders that would be committed in this country if it became part of our law once again.
It is said that there is no evidence of this deterrent effect. I understand that, during the past week or so, when this debate has been raging outside the House, it has been said that there are no statistics to which one can point. However, in 1953 the Royal Commission came to the conclusion that the deterrent effect of capital punishment was stronger than that of any other punishment available for murder. It is only right, at the same time, that I should say that there is no convincing statistical evidence. Of course there is not. How could there be?
Let us imagine the two different situations. If there is no death penalty to frighten the criminal, he may go out with a gun and kill. On the other hand, if there was a death penalty, the same person would calculate the chances of being arrested, charged, convicted and ultimately brought to the point of sentence knowing that it could be the death penalty, and would conclude that he would not take the risk and would not, therefore, use a gun or go out and kill. How could that possibly enter into the statistics? That is the point that we must face.
I rely not on statistics — [Interruption] — but on something that we can all understand — the fear of death. That fear has a powerful influence over all normal human beings. It is a fear that can make ordinary, normal human beings behave differently. As Dr. Johnson almost said, nothing concentrates the mind so much as the imminent fear of execution. I submit that nothing is more likely to make a criminal pause before going out with a gun than the knowledge that if he kills with it, he may suffer the death penalty.
The Royal Commission on capital punishment made several forecasts, one of which was that if capital punishment was abolished, there would be an increase in the number of homicides and violent crimes. As we all know to our cost, the Royal Commission was absolutely
884
right in its forecast. However, it went on to say that that increase would last only a short time, and in that it has proved to be wholly wrong.
I hope that the House will accept that I am not relying on statistics, but I must point out the figures that have been so well rehearsed. The number of homicides has nearly doubled since the abolition of capital punishment. The number of crimes involving the use of firearms has spiralled horrendously. Indeed, between 1971 and 1981 the number of offences involving the use of firearms rose from 1,700-odd offences to just over 8,000. That must be a matter of concern to everyone.
I do not doubt for one moment, because it is as obvious as the fact that the fear of death can influence someone's behaviour, that it is equally true, as the Royal Commission was at pains to point out, that the fear of death and its deterrent effect varies with the type of murder. I have an unwavering belief, which has not been moved by anything that I have heard or considered over the years, that the death penalty is a deterrent and is one of the considerations that an ordinary criminal would inevitably take into account. It would undoubtedly affect his behaviour if it were part of our law and were applied to the crime of murder.
Of all the categories of crime upon which the death penalty would operate, I submit that those involving the use of firearms would respond most sensitively to the death penalty. Before the abolition of the death penalty, it was comparatively rare to hear of criminals going out armed. Since the abolition of the death penalty it has become—as I have sought to put to the House—a commonplace crime. The inevitable result has been that, instead of having, as we had before the death penalty's abolition, an unarmed police force — the pride of this country and something that we could boast about—we can no longer have, or afford to have, a completely unarmed police force. The spiral of vicious crime goes ever up, with armed criminals going out on robberies and burglaries, and the time is coming, and will inevitably arrive, when we shall have to have a fully armed police force.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: You would love that, wouldn't you?
Sir Edward Gardner: I do not want to see that. No one wants to see that. It is the last thing that one wants to see. There is no reason why we should not today take a step that would enable us to fulfil an ambition of mine —to lessen the need to arm the police and ultimately to return to the stage of not having to have an armed police force at all.
The reality is that at present, when an ordinary criminal decides to go out with other colleagues on, for example, a robbery or burglary, he does not hesitate to take the tools of his trade with him. One of those tools is the gun. The gun is not empty, but loaded, with live ammunition, because such criminals are prepared to take the risk, if it comes to it, of using it and killing with it. The risk is calculated before the crime is planned and the rewards today from a successful robbery are so great that criminals think that they can afford to take the chance. After all, what will happen to them? They will be sent to prison for life, if found guilty. On average, that is 10½ years.
What about the police? They are in the front line. I am sure that it has not escaped the notice of the House that

885
Lord Devlin, one of our most eminent jurists, and a former Law Lord, wrote an article in today's edition of The Times and had this to say about the police:
"If the police, who are in the front line, hold strongly that the death penalty is a weapon they need, I think that it is difficult for society to deny it."
I would go further than that and say that in those circumstances it is equally difficult for the House to deny it.
If there is no doubt; or if it is probable that the prospect of the death penalty would deter a criminal from using a gun, and if the effect of the death penalty on the criminal's mind is capable of putting an end to the reign of the gun, and of making it possible for us to relieve the police of the need to carry arms, I submit that the House must consider that with the utmost gravity and care.
Mr. Jim Craigen: How does the hon. and learned Member counter the argument that the criminal might equally arm himself to the teeth to avoid capture?
Sir Edward Gardner: That did not happen before, when we had the death penalty. The experience was that the criminal did not go out in that way. Furthermore, if we had the death penalty, the risk of being arrested and convicted of using a gun to avoid arrest and killing somebody with it, would undoubtedly be, as I have said, one of the calculations which in my view and in that of many hon. Members would discourage the criminal from carrying a gun for that or any other purpose.
Mr. Craigen rose—
Sir Edward Gardner: I must get on.
I conclude by submitting to the House this serious point. The death penalty is not just a unique punishment, as undoubtedly it is. If it were brought back by the House on a vote tonight, it would provide a unique protection for society which the state in its duty to defend its citizens, must be prepared to accept and, in proper circumstances, to use.
3.51 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): It is little more than a year since the House last debated capital punishment, but it is entirely right for us to do so once more. As my Hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) pointed out, public interest in the issue is intense, we have a new Parliament, and concern remains very strong. Not one of us, I am sure, failed to be questioned about our views n this issue during the election campaign. [HON. MEMBERS: "I did."] It is now time for each of us, with as clear sight and open mind as possible, to have a new look and to reach decisions once again.
The tradition has grown up that on such occasions the Home Secretary should do three things. He should analyse the evidence and the arguments for and against the general proposition that capital punishment for murder should be restored. He should review the advantages and disadvantages of treating a number of specific kinds of murder as capital offences. Finally, he should give his own personal views on these matters. I shall today seek to adhere to that tradition.
My first task is to try to lay to rest some prejudices which are all too prevalent in the country and which reflect the strong feelings with which this subject is, understandably enough, often approached. On the one
886
hand, hon. Members who oppose restoration are often portrayed as being "weak on crime" and unconcerned by the rising tide of violence which in modern society puts the most vulnerable sections of the community in fear. On the other hand, hon. Members who favour restoration are often classified, and even vilified, as people who wish to take life and who fail to regard it as the sacred thing that men of every age and faith have accepted it to be. Neither picture is accurate. Both debase debate.
Hon. Members in favour of restoring capital punishment will enter the Lobby tonight because they believe that its application will protect and preserve lives. Hon. Members who vote against it will not in any way be showing their lack of commitment to the fight against crime. They will be disagreeing about means, but not about ends. Moreover, no one should believe or allow it to be believed that restoring the death penalty, whether that in itself is justified or not, could have a decisive impact on the broader battle against crime. However the House votes tonight, it must and will be the Government's task to pursue that battle by every means in their power.
Most of us considering the issue of capital punishment reach a conclusion on the balance of the arguments and evidence, but there are those who are utterly opposed in principle to capital punishment. They believe that the judicial taking of life is absolutely wrong, whatever the deterrent effect and whatever the circumstances. That is a view which I of course respect, although it is one which it is perhaps easier to hold for those not carrying the responsibilities of being a Member of this House. One may doubt whether a Member of Parliament who is truly persuaded that only capital punishment would provide adequate protection for the community has the right to deny his fellow citizens that protection because of his personal conscientious objection.
Most of us, however, do not have an absolutist objection to taking life and instead ask the question: would capital punishment provide society with a protection not afforded by other forms of punishment? That should surely be the paramount consideration, although I appreciate that there are those who are much influenced by the impact which capital punishment would have on the general tone of life in this country, particularly as it is reflected in the media. Others draw comparisons with penal policy in comparable countries in western Europe. I understand those considerations, but in the last analysis there will be many who would feel that if capital punishment genuinely is an effective deterrent it would be our painful duty to restore it, however unattractive some of the consequences would undoubtedly be.
It is at this point that one has to turn to the statistics. We cannot avoid looking at them, but we should be making a great mistake if we expected them to give us an unequivocal answer.
Those who argue for restoring the death penalty rightly point to the sharp rise in homicides since 1960. Between the end of the war and 1960 the number of homicides had shown a generally downward trend. In 1960, the offences initially recorded as homicide in England and Wales totalled 282. In 1965, the year capital punishment was abolished, the total was 325, in 1970 it was 396, in 1980 it was 621, and in 1982 it was 619. There are those who argue that the upward trend starting in 1960 is of no significance as that trend started before abolition. Against that, it can be said that the number of executions actually

887
carried out in the last few years of capital punishment was very small and the deterrent effect might, therefore, if it existed, have been somewhat reduced.
There are, nevertheless, forceful arguments against accepting the rise in homicides since abolition as retrospective proof of capital punishment's deterrent effect. It is pointed out that the rise in crime, particularly violent crime and not just homicide, has been a general phenomenon since the early 1960s. If we compare the 10 years 1963 to 1972 with the subsequent 10 years, we find, for example, that the number of homicides rose by 45 per cent. But the number of other serious offences of violence against the person rose by 49 per cent. The conclusion is drawn by those who point to those figures alone that there is no evidence from the figures of the uniquely deterrent effect of capital punishment.
The position is, I fear, a good deal more complicated as there are two cross-currents which both restorationists and abolitionists must consider if they are to be serious.
First, those who call for restoration must recognise that murder is only the most prominent tip of a massive iceberg of tension, violence and unrest in modern society, the causes of which are only imperfectly grasped. It has always been recognised that most murders are, at least to a limited degree, crimes of passion. In 70 to 75 per cent of cases the victim was acquainted with the suspect. In 1981, almost half the homicide victims were members of the suspects' families, or lived or slept with them, and about half of all homicides arose from quarrels, revenge or sheer loss of temper.
However, those who believe that the comparative increase in the category of "other violent crimes" proves that capital punishment does not deter should pause before drawing that conclusion. One would expect the deterrent effect of the death penalty to apply not only in cases of homicide, but in other crimes during which there was a risk that homicide would be committed. That applies especially to robbery. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde said, it may well have affected the willingness of those involved in robberies to carry guns, and to use them if necessary, to escape arrest. The earliest figures available for robberies involving firearms date from 1969. Between then and 1981 such robberies increased from 464 to 1,893.
Before leaving this matter, I should also mention the evidence from abroad, but I am afraid that that is even more inconclusive than our evidence. Research in the United States has been adduced to support both sides of the argument, but critics of that research have exposed genuine and deep flaws in it. Elsewhere in Europe, no fixed pattern emerges, and complication is added by the fact that, even where capital punishment is retained—for example, in Ireland—it has often long fallen into disuse. Therefore, the statistics and evidence from overseas and from Britain cannot determine whether capital punishment is an effective deterrent. To my mind, the figures show one thing —the serious threat which violent crime in general, and especially wanton disrespect for life, pose to society.
None the less, many people will be inclined to take a view on the matter from their knowledge of human nature rather than from the figures. Some will feel that, even if most murders are unpremeditated and undeterrable, there must be a significant proportion where the decision to kill
888
has been made on a more considered basis, and that for such murders at least the awesome threat of death to which my hon. and learned Friend referred must be a unique deterrent. However, such a viewpoint cannot be proved to be correct.
One's instinct may tell one that it is likely that capital punishment is a deterrent for at least some potential murderers, but many will take the view that instinct is an insufficient basis for a general reintroduction of capital punishment. Moreover, many people will be much influenced by the knowledge that, on occasion, there have been convictions that were subsequently proved to be wrong. The risk of error in inflicting a penalty that is, by its nature, irreversible, can never be removed, and if one is considering restoring a punishment that has not existed for nearly 20 years, and where there can be no conclusive proof of the deterrent effect, that must be a relevant consideration.
Each Member of the House will balance in his own way the factors that I have tried to outline in as fair-minded a way as I can, but I shall vote against the general proposition that capital punishment should be reintroduced for all murders.
Some of the factors to which I referred are also relevant to the specific categories of offence mentioned in the amendments to the motion. There are also considerations specific to those categories. Three of the categories of murder for which capital punishment is proposed in the amendments are based essentially on the distinctions drawn in the Homicide Act 1957. It is worth recalling how the Act became law and why it was subsequently repealed, because this relates to the merits of the categorisation now proposed. By 1949, there was widespread unease, especially in Parliament, at the use of capital punishment for all types of murder. Reprieves were granted in about 40 per cent. of all cases in which a person was sentenced to death. In 1949, the Royal Commission to which my lion. and learned Friend referred was established. It reported that it could not find suitable distinctions to justify the introduction of degrees of murder. None the less, the Homicide Act 1957 attempted to do just that.
It is often said that the categories of capital murders established in the Act created anomalies, which ultimately led to its repeal. That is true, but there were two sorts of anomalies — those which are inherent in any such a categorisation, and those which the skilful drafting of legislation might hope to overcome. Both are important, but the first anomaly is more important. Although attempts can be made to single out from other crime murders that are especially prevalent, or that are believed to be more deterrable by the death penalty, the problem remains that any such differentiation, when put into practice, is likely to lead fairly quickly to growing feelings of injustice. There will soon be cases outside, whatever criteria are chosen, that are felt to be more grave than those within them. Public outrage was, and is, no less great in cases of murder in which knives are used, often in the most brutal way, than in cases where firearms are used; in cases of child murder by strangulation rather than murder by shooting; and in cases of appalling ferocity rather than cool calculation. Would distinctions drawn primarily on the basis of the assumed prospect of deterrence be more acceptable to the public now than they were in the past?
The second anomaly was in definitions and borderlines. Definitional difficulty, and the borderline cases to which

889
they give rise, need not be regarded as providing overwhelming objections, but they are real and important and the House should not ignore or minimise them.
Of the amendments on the Order Pacer, by far the most vulnerable on that score is the one which proposes the death penalty for murder in the course or furtherance of theft. Experience of murder trials before abolition confirms that, as does the experience of hundreds of cases that have come before the courts since abolition. Application of the death penalty could depend on the slenderest evidence as to when, how and whether a theft, possibly even a minor theft, had taken place. For that reason, it could be argued that the deterrent effect of this provision would be great. The increase in the number of robberies and burglaries is deeply disturbing, but it is certain that no category of capital offence would cause more public debate and questioning as the details of individual cases came to the fore. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner).
Some may argue that the difficulty could be resolved by making the death penalty non-mandatory, leaving it to judges or juries to decide its applicability. The objection to that is that it would introduce subjectivity into the judicial system in the areas where, for reasons of deterrence and equity, that is least desirable. Many would have grave doubts about the wisdom of conferring such a discretion on either judge or jury.
Several amendments relate to the death penalty for the murder of policemen and prison officers. As Home Secretary, I have a special responsibility to ensure that the police force and prison officers are supported and protected. The debt that we all owe them for their courage and commitment in upholding the rule of law should never be forgotten.
First, with regard to the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), the task of the prison service has certainly become more difficult and dangerous over the years, with officers being put increasingly at risk of violent assault from a prison population that has become more dangerous because of its size and of the type of prisoner within it. During the past 40 years, two prison officers in England and Wales have been murdered while on duty—one in 1948 and the other in 1965. On such, thankfully slender, evidence it is difficult to make a judgment about the effect of, or need for, the death penalty in the case of prison officers.
In practice, the police are more affected by this debate than is the prison service. The case for the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is based on two propositions. The first is that the police are at greater risk from attacks by violent criminals than any other group and therefore deserve the special protection that the death penalty might give them. The second is that their position as the upholders of the law entitles them to that special protection. There can be no doubt that the police are at risk, and there has been an increase in the number of police officers on duty who have been the victims of homicides. In the years since abolition, 28 police officers have been killed in England and Wales in the course of their duties. In the comparable number of years previously, 12 were killed, which is by any standards a shocking increase.
Against that we must set the fact that the risks extend beyond the police, as they would be the first to recognise.
890
Security guards, bank clerk and postmasters are examples of people who face risks similar to those faced by the police. I think that, in practice, it is difficult to say that the circumstances in which capital punishment has a deterrent effect are likely to occur more frequently in the case of murder of police officers than other groups.
That brings me to the second argument: the special position of the police. It is an argument which I respect, but I note that it is not one which the Police Federation in its letter has chosen to make, and I think that it is right. In individual cases of murder, where the victim was trying to prevent the commission of a crime, I think that the public's sympathy is wide and comprehensive. It does not extend just to the police. It extends to the security guard, the bank clerk or the bystander who "has a go". There is a considerable risk that singling out a particular category of victim would in practice, as opposed to theory, over a period prove difficult to sustain. I do not believe that it would be widely understood when the murderer of a police officer was hanged and the murderer of a citizen who was helping the police, possibly at the same time, was not. I shall therefore not vote for those amendments.
However, I should add that, since 1965, 16 adults have been convicted of the murder of police officers. Most of them have been subject to a recommendation by the trial judge that they should serve a minimum sentence, and that recommendation has ranged from 15 to 30 years. None of those 16 prisoners has been released. That should be a clear indication of our attitude towards murderers of police officers. I shall ensure that cases where no minimum recommendation has been made are treated in substantially the same way as those where such a recommendation was made. The expectation must be that all such murderers serve at least 20 years, and that some may never be released.
The next category of murder to be considered, covered by the amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall), is of murder by shooting or causing an explosion. The number of serious firearms offences has increased sharply. Doubtless that is why this category of murder has been singled out. However, it does not follow that the balance of the deterrent argument is necessarily different for that category. Moreover, from the point of view of the gravity of the offence, it is difficult to see why a murderer who has shot his victim should be regarded with greater abhorrence than, say, a poisoner.
Finally, the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), proposes the death penalty for murder resulting from acts of terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland powerfully put the case against restoration [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] — in a statement outside the House, which I am sure that all Members will have read. He naturally concentrated on the effects of capital punishment for terrorist murders in Northern Ireland, and pointed out that the vast majority of convictions for terrorist murders had been in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend recognised, as I do, that it would be very difficult indeed to have one law in Great Britain and a different one in Northern Ireland. He points out the present readiness of terrorists to put their own lives at risk, and the value to the IRA of the creation of martyrs. He reports the view of senior police officers that if capital punishment were introduced convictions would be more

891
difficult to secure. He also points out the risk of violent disorder and acts of vengeance in the wake of executions. Finally, he draws attention to the problems posed by the fact that terrorist trials in Northern Ireland are conducted without juries. The House will undoubtedly give full weight to all that someone with the experience and authority of my right hon. Friend says in these matters.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that in current circumstances there is no prospect of an early return to trial by jury in Northern Ireland. Nor would it be politically acceptable to have murder trials of Irish terrorists take place on this side of the Irish sea. The object must be to give the fairest hearing to the accused. If capital punishment were introduced, one way in which it has been suggested that that object could be fulfilled would be through trial by a judge with assessors, or by three judges.
However, I hope that I may be allowed to look at the problem from a somewhat different perspective, taking into account terrorism more generally, whatever its origins. The truth is that in Great Britain the threat is not only from Irish terrorists. No one, of course, could forget, for example, the horrific attacks perpetrated in Hyde park and Regents park just a year ago this month, when 11 soldiers were killed and 59 people were injured. Those crimes were brutal, callous, cowardly and indiscriminate —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but since 1977 in Great Britain the number of terrorist bombing and shooting incidents attributable to non-Irish groups has almost equalled the number of Irish-related attacks in the same period. Non-Irish terrorists have killed 11 people in that time — but, it is said, capital punishment would do nothing to deter terrorists.
I have already indicated, I hope quite plainly, my general reservations about the balance of the deterrence argument, but I would not go so far as to accept, as has sometimes been suggested, that terrorists are uniquely immune from deterrence. It is certainly true that one will never deter the true fanatic, and some will positively seek martyrdom. However, not all terrorists are fanatics or prepared to kill themselves by going on hunger strike. We should never, even unconsciously, accept the terrorist's vision of himself as an inflexible, high-minded freedom fighter, unconcerned with the consequences. That is not true of those who are bribed, bullied, or lured to commit murder. It may well not be true of those who are knowing and assisting parties to the deed, but do not detonate the bomb themselves. It is not true in communities where the thug and criminal slip into terrorism through the pursuit of gain. In such cases the deterrent argument is neither weaker nor stronger in relation to terrorist murders, than in the case of other murders.
We are told, however, of the risk of reprisals. To this must be added the risk of hostage-taking and other forms of serious disorder. I do not seek to deny or minimise any of those risks, but there is always such a risk in taking any effective action to curb terrorist violence. The terrorist is at war with us. He will take whatever action he can to defeat us. The question is whether we are to be stopped from doing what we think is right by those threats and that blackmail.
Those who favour capital punishment for terrorist murders do not, for the most part, found their case on its deterrent effect. They do so because of a very fundamental belief about the nature of terrorism and the appropriate

892
response to it. Since time out of mind, it has been recognised that violence against the state poses a threat utterly different in character from crime against individuals. The law of treason, for example, though archaic and practically unused in peacetime, still uniquely preserves the death penalty. Acts of terrorism are crimes against civil society as a whole. While all crimes break and challenge particular laws, and may shatter the lives of individual citizens, terrorism deliberately seeks the overthrow of law itself. Its aim is to subvert the legitimate insitutions of democratic government. It attempts to shake the will of the majority to uphold the integrity of the state.
That is why there will be many people who favour the restoration of capital punishment for terrorist murder on grounds quite unrelated to the deterrent argument. Those who take that view are not thirsting for revenge, but they regard it as the duty of the state to signal its total and absolute repugnance for those who commit crimes that undermine its very foundations. There can be no clearer or more decisive a demonstration of that repugnance than to reserve the ultimate penalty, capital punishment, for those who commit such crimes. It is for those reasons that I shall vote tonight for the restoration of capital punishment for terrorist murders.
Hon. Members: Shame.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brittan: Finally, let me say a word about what may follow this debate. The House will, I hope, agree with the way in which the amendments allow hon. Members the fullest opportunity to express their views and vote on them. [Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear, if the House votes for the restoration of capital punishment for any category of offence—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary should be heard. He has as much right to speak for himself as anyone else.
Mr. Brittan: If the House votes for the restoration of capital punishment for any category of offence, the Government will provide drafting assistance for a private Member's Bill designed to give effect to the expression of opinion of the House and will provide time for the Bill to be debated.
The legal and practical problems that would have to be resolved are numerous and formidable and there would be many further controversial decisions to be taken. If the House so wishes, those problems can be resolved and those decisions can be made. The first step is to take the central decisions of principle which the House is debating today.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: A disgraceful speech.
4.20 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I begin by making my position absolutely and, I hope, unequivocally clear. I am wholly and irrevocably opposed to the reintroduction of capital punishment. I am opposed in principle, because I believe that to legislate for the judicial execution of a man or woman held in the state's safe custody would be a reversion to barbarism. We would, in this country, become the only Western

893
democracy where the state possessed and exercised the right to kill as judicial punishment. Nothing can justify savagery of that sort.
A reversion to such a practice would debase and, in the literal sense of the word, demoralise us all. My profound hope is that with our vote tonight we shall reject capital punishment decisively and lay the whole subject to rest —[HON. MEMBERS: "Never."]—because I must tell the House that I feel no pride in living in a society where newspapers publish the memoirs of superannuated hangmen, print drawings reconstructing the execution cell and give details about the noose, the rope and the drop.
It is because I want to put the whole morbid preoccupation behind us that I welcome the Government's decision to hold an early debate on the subject. I hope that after tonight's decision we shall be able to discuss crime and punishment in a great deal more rational fashion than it has been discussed during the past month or five weeks. I say "more rational" because of the violence that is done to logic by many of the claims that are made about the deterrent effect of capital punishment in murder and in a multitude of other crimes.
Later, I want to examine the claim that hanging would, were it reintroduced, reduce the murder rate and affect the number of crimes of violence committed in every category. Before I do that I want to deal with some other aspects of the debate, merely pausing to welcome warmly the Home Secretary's assertion that if capital punishment were reintroduced it would not make a comprehensive change to the incidence and pattern of crime in Britain. Too much of the debate during the past six weeks has asserted quite the opposite and in a moment we must deal with the evidence for the two conflicting judgments.
Before I do that I want to repeat, because I want the House to understand my position clearly, that even were there evidence to demonstrate that capital punishment was a deterrent—such evidence does not exist—I should still believe hanging to be wrong. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I know that some people will argue, have argued, and no doubt will argue again this afternoon that hanging as retribution is right in itself and that in our society one can justify, shall I say as a matter of principle, the taking of a life of a man or woman who has himself or herself taken a life.
Indeed, the Prime Minister, in a television interview during the general election campaign—which I suppose was in part the genesis of the debate—seemed to he saying that some murders were so hideous that execution was an intrinsically appropriate response — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— seemed to be saying that some murderers deserved to die. [HON MEMBERS: "Quite right."] There is no moral or philosophical justification for that view. It is a cry for revenge, and nothing except revenge. I do not believe that the House of Commons should, and I pray that the House of Commons will not, write such a primitive instinct into the laws of Great Britain.
The call for the execution of those who commit the foulest murders — a phrase that is often used—raises another issue which the House must face. If we are to have capital punishment at all, I suppose that it is better that it should be prescribed for only a very limited category of murder and murderers. But if we dc that, we have to accept the problems of definition, problems so great that men and women will be hanged as a result of the
894
interpretation of their behaviour, as a result of judgments about their motives—interpretations and judgments that will outrage the country.
I intend to spend a good deal of the time at my disposal dealing with terrorism, but, in relation to the problem of definition, the Home Secretary must understand that if there is to be capital punishment for terrorist murders, the chaos, confusion and anguish that will be caused in obtaining an appropriate definition will put the entire law into disrepute. Let me give the Home Secretary a simple example from Northern Ireland. If we were to return to capital punishment for terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland, after that law came into effect post offices in Northern Ireland would be robbed and, I regret to say, postmasters would be killed as part of such robberies. It would be the duty of somebody—we shall come to that as the debate continues—to decide whether that robbery was carried out to give funds to the IRA or whether it was intended to take the money south to the Curragh and put it on a horse. Does the Home Secretary believe that a man's life should be determined by such a definition? Those gross anomalies aside, the supporters of capital punishment always argue their case in terms of cold-blooded premeditation, calculated wickedness and ruthless terrorism — all phrases used during a broadcast in which I took part yesterday.
If the death penalty is to be directed to such categories, and to such categories alone, it will be reintroduced for appreciably less than one quarter of all the murders carried out in the United Kingdom. It will not be reintroduced for murder by the mentally sick. It will not be reintroduced for murder by the suddenly deranged. It will not be reintroduced for murder by the unbearably provoked—often the family murders to which the Home Secretary was right to draw our attention. If capital punishment is to be brought in as a deterrent, we are talking about the prospect of it deterring about one murder in five at the most, giving the argument every credit that is possible. It will not deter four fifths of murderers. Even those most passionately committed to capital punishment do not want capital punishment to cover those categories, and four fifths of murders are motivated by a passion which does not allow the consequences to be considered.
Even if the deterrent claim can be justified, its effect on the murder rate in Britain will be neglible. Indeed, I go on to say — I have said it in the House on many occasions and I must say it again today—that there is much evidence to support the view that the hanging lobby has done a great disservice to law and order in Britain by campaigning for capital punishment as if it were a real, quick and certain remedy for all forms of violent crime. By talking about hanging as if it would deter everything from terrorism to armed robbery—
Sir Edward Gardner: Why does the right hon. Gentleman keep referring to hanging? What we are debating today is capital punishment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no!"]—and he knows that as well as anyone else.
Hon. Members: Irrelevant.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard some of my hon. Friends say that his intervention is an irrelevance. They are only partly right. I assure him that in a moment I want to consider the suggestion, which I thought he would not make, but others less experienced might, that somehow the entire process

895
could be made more morally acceptable by shooting, gassing or injecting. In my view, that would not change the moral implications by an iota.
Before I do that, I want to complete the point that I was making. By talking as if capital punishment were the sure and sovereign cure for all our problems of crime, the hanging lobby has diverted us from the steps which we should have taken. They are less spectacular, less newsworthy, less likely to attract newspaper attention and provoke headlines, and could have made a more peaceful society in Great Britain.
Sir Robert Mark, writing in The Times and The Sunday Times, made the same point. He said that we should concentrate on the certainty of detection and conviction and that hanging was, by and large, an irrelevance. Time after time the hanging lobby repeats the old remedies and the venerable prejudice that capital punishment deters. I tell the hanging lobby what every informed person knows —that there is absolutely no evidence to support the view that capital punishment is in itself a deterrent.
If we compare abolitionist and retentionist countries and countries before and after abolition, we find that there is no evidence to prove that execution reduces the murder rate or reduces crimes of violence. The Home Secretary said as much today, and his predecessor put the figures into proper perspective when, rather more robustly four years ago, he said:
"the only sensible conclusion to reach is that their evidence is inconclusive." — [Official Report. 19 July 1979; Vol. 970, c. 2047.]
If the deterrent case is to be accepted, if we are to vote for capital punishment as a deterrent, we at least ought to be sure that it deters. If we are to hang men and women by the necks until they are dead, we ought to do it on more than a hunch, a superstition, a vague impression or the anecdotes that follow Rotary Club lunches. Unless there is some positive proof that hanging deters, the case for hanging cannot be made even by its most sophisticated proponents.
They cannot provide that case. I must provide for them the other statistic, of which we are certain. Had hanging not been abolished in 1964, at least five innocent men would be dead today. That seems to me, and to almost all the people who have commented on the facts, the only statistic about which we can be sure in this entire debate.
Two minutes ago the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) asked why I talked about hanging. I know that there are some people—I am sorry to hear that he is one, if that is the category in which we find him — who want an alternative form of execution. I hope that anyone who talks airily today of the alternatives will answer some of the questions about how they might be used.
A year ago the then Home Secretary urged all supporters of gassing, injections or firing squads to read the Gowers report on the alternative forms of execution. That report shows that all the alternatives to hanging are equally macabre and corrosive to a civilised society. The capital punishment lobby must not hide behind the pretence that there is some decent alternative to the rope and the long drop. I ask them to read—
Mr. Allan Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the gallows in Wandsworth prison are still in
896
working order, that they are kept there to hang people who have committed crimes of treason, violent piracy or arson in the royal dockyards? Is not the very presence of those gallows, which are kept in working order, an insult to a civilised society? Will he and others in the House support the abolition of capital punishment for those crimes as well by voting for the manuscript amendment which I and the hon. Member for—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.
Mr. Hattersley: I agree that in a truly civilised society we would be against capital punishment in any form, including for the most recherché and esoteric of crimes. However, today we are debating, not the theoretical possession of that punishment for use on occasions that will never arise, but the practical reintroduction of capital punishment in the real world for real crimes. It is important to concentrate on that. We must not shelter behind the idea that there is an alternative to hanging which makes judicial execution more acceptable.
The fact is that it is not the method of execution that degrades society, but the fact of execution itself. We must concentrate on that. Anyone who believes that there are better ways to do the thing decently might—I make an unusual request for me—read today's copy of The Sun. That newspaper describes the whole sordid, degrading, dehumanising process of judicial execution. It makes it clear that it is not the method that counts, but the decision to take a life that demoralises us all: it is the act of judicial execution itself.
I quote The Sun because I do not believe that it is possible to overstate the importance of that newspaper's leader today. We all know that the Bar, the Bench and the bishops are against capital punishment. They are all formally against captial punishment. They can be scoffed at as members of the liberal, enlightened establishment, but even The Sun's most bitter critics have never accused it of coming into that category. Yet today that newspaper describes hanging as
"turning a civilised society into a brutal and brutalised nation."
I am happy to pay my tribute to The Sun for putting the position so firmly and succinctly.
That judgment must be true if we merely—"merely" is an inadequate word—restore capital punishment for terrorist killings. The hon. and learned Member for Fylde, with his characteristic honesty, speaking on the radio last Sunday, said that this was the proposition on today's Order Paper which it was most difficult for the supporters of capital punishment to justify. That is right, because the proposition is based on blind prejudice rather than cold logic. It is all the more disturbing, therefore, that the Home Secretary will vote for that amendment tonight.
It was not clear from what the Home Secretary said whether he proposes that execution for terrorist murders should be the punishment in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole, or whether capital punishment should be introduced for Great Britain alone.
Mr. Brittan: Both.
Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary says "Both". That enables me to make a point that is central to the debate. He can tell us that when we talk about terrorist murders there are other forms of terrorism and that he wants to take action against them. He knows, if he is as honest as he wishes to be, and normally struggles to be,

897
that when we debate terrorist murders in the House and outside, by and large we think of Northern Ireland and the effects on Northern Ireland. Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary two questions: is he really coming to the House to propose, and vote for, executing men who have not been convicted by the jury system? Is that what he proposes should happen in Northern Ireland? Perhaps, as the afternoon goes on, the Home Secretary will tell us whether in 1983, in a civilised, democratic society, he is proposing that men who have not been convicted by their peers should be executed. Merely to describe the proposition is to show that it is wholly unacceptable,
I wish to make three further points, all of them concerning Northern Ireland. Having asked the Home Secretary one rhetorical question and received not so much an inadequate answer as no answer at all, I must ask him a second question. Does the Home Secretary realise that by introducing such a proposal he will concede one of the IRA's most passionate demands — that its crimes be treated differently from other people's crimes? It is a long-established principle in this country that the man who shoots a soldier should not be treated in any different way from the man who knifes a bookie's runner and steals his cash. We have always argued that two horrible crimes cannot be given different legal or judicial treatment because the man who commits one of the crimes claims that he is doing it for some special reason or from some special motive.
The IRA wants that distinction to be made. If the Home Secretary has his way, we will for the first time in our law distinguish between terrorists and common criminals. That is madness in terms of the Northern Ireland prospect. Hanging such men will mean that by their deaths they will make a far greater contribution to the cause of Republican violence than they would have made by-their lives. In the eyes of thousands of Irishmen who now despise terrorism and detest the killings, suddenly the British Government will become the instrument of violence and the oppressor.
When I last said that to the House, one Conservative Member said that the martyrs would be not the hanged IRA terrorists, but their dead victims. The problem is that it will not be seen that way in the IRA recruiting areas. Nor will it be seen as a deterrent among the IRA. The Northern Ireland terrorist has virtually no concern for human life, the lives of his opponents, the lives of innocent bystanders, or even the lives of his own supporters. Terrorists have persuaded men to die on hunger strike— indeed, they have terrorised them with threats against their families if they abandon the hunger strike. In future they will organise, glory in and, worst of all, benefit from the execution of their members. It is absolute madness to provide them with such a weapon.
The Home Secretary warned us about various visions of terrorism and asked us not to accept the terrorist on his own definition of his character and conduct—and nor do I. But I ask the Home Secretary not to take comfort in the sentimental notion that all bullies are always cowards. The people with whom we are dealing in Northern Ireland are certainly vile, but weak and undertermined they are not. We must not pretend that they are something out of a Boy' s Own Paper story. They must be dealt with in the most effective way, and judicial execution would be to play into their hands.
I conclude as I began, by making it absolutely clear—
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas rose—
Mr. Hattersley: No. I am sorry, but I must conclude so that the right hon. Gentleman and others can make their speeches.
I conclude as I began. Were all the practical or pragmatic arguments against capital punishment not to apply, I should still resist its reintroduction. Supporters of capital punishment insist on comparing the crime rates before and after abolition, as though abolition itself had created a more violent society. The truth is something different. Violence has grown within our society during the past 25 years for many reasons. To legalise violence in the way proposed would make Britain not a more peaceful nation, but one in which violence had been accepted and institutionalised.
I very much regret the misuse of statistics that we have heard during the past six weeks, and will undoubtedly hear again today, but there is one other point that I regret even more—indeed, almost resent—and that is the suggestion that abolitionists think only of the perpetrators of crime and not of the crime victims. The victims, the potential victims and the relatives of the victims are, like the rest of us, men and women who will benefit most by living in a decent society where violence is loathed and rejected. That loathing must be directed against all violence—by the state as well as by individuals. By killing murderers we become too like the murderers themselves. The whole community is lowered to their standards. For that reason I shall vote against the motion and all the proposed amendments. For that reason I say with great pride that I believe that all right hon. and hon. Members in the Labour party will do the same.
4.45 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: I wish initially to address myself to the general question of capital punishment. I think that my position is well known to all hon. Members. For more than 20 years I have been opposed to capital punishment for all crimes of homicide, and I have always voted against it. I intend to do so tonight. My position is not only as strong as it ever was; it has been confirmed in recent years.
For nearly 20 years capital punishment has been abolished in this country. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner), who moved the resolution with great restraint and wisdom, wishes to change the status quo. He and those who support him must prove that it is necessary, in fact vital, to change the status quo. The onus of proof rests with him and his friends. When the House judges the issue and votes tonight, it should ask itself whether the proposer of the resolution and his supporters have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that it is vital to change the status quo.
In my judgment—and I say this with great respect for my hon. and learned Friend whom I have known for many years—he has not proved 'his case. He said quite frankly that he did not intend to rely on statistics. The Home Secretary rightly said the same. If they did, they would have to explain why the increase in homicides began long before the abolition of the death penalty and why the increase in ordinary crimes of violence has been many times greater than the increase in homicides. It is that factor which has produced attention in the public mind. The growth of lesser crimes of violence has been so great that the public has deduced that the only answer is

899
to deal with homicide by capital punishment. That is a confusion in the public mind. A great deal rests upon us to remove that confusion.
My hon. and learned Friend did not introduce the question of retribution and revenge, although it was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I was saddened to hear murmurs in some parts of the House that appeared to support retribution and revenge. Quite frankly, from any moral viewpoint, I find revenge completely unacceptable. I do not believe that it is for the House to decide whether there should be revenge—[Interruption.] If some of my hon. Friends want revenge, I hope that they will say so and also state their position on other issues that they consider require revenge. It is not for the House or for Parliament to decide retribution either. That lies elsewhere at other times. That is why I cannot accept either of the arguments of revenge or retribution.
My hon. and learned Friend said that our purpose must be to secure the safety of the people of this realm to the greatest possible extent. That is the task of Government both externally and internally, and I agree with him entirely. The question at issue is whether the restoration of capital punishment will improve the security of the people of this realm. That issue remains unproven.
My hon. and learned Friend said that that is a matter of judgment. It is. Others would say that it is a matter of instinct—indeed that has already been said—but in my view the judgment, if it is in favour of restoration, is wrong. This is far too great a matter to rest on instinct. We need more substantial reasons than just instinct for changing the status quo.
I come next to the point which in recent years I have found more and more worrying and more and more impressive. I refer to condemnation by mistake. I find it impossible to accept a penalty that is irreversible when it is so apparent that a number of mistakes have been made. One of my hon. Friends said on the radio that if no one else is prepared to hang people he is quite prepared to do the job himself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] I ask him a rather different question. Because of his views, is he prepared to be hanged by mistake? I am not asking my hon. Friend to reply on the spur of the moment. I shall let him give due consideration to the problem before he finally makes up his mind.
I wish now to deal with the specific amendments on the Order Paper about the restoration of capital punishment in particular cases. In this respect, I emphasise what was said by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and in great detail by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about the Homicide Act 1957. I agree with everything that my right hon. and learned Friend said about that. The Homicide Act 1957 was largely shaped by Viscount Kilmuir as Lord Chancellor. I was involved as the Chief Whip of the Government of the day in trying to bring together those who felt strongly about capital punishment and the abolitionists. The Government wanted to lift the problem out of the constant battle in the House of Commons and try to get public support for a final position. That Act lasted for only eight years. It failed, as the Home Secretary said. It failed because the general public was not prepared to support an Act—nor was the judiciary for that matter—which said that one kind of murderer was worthy of the death penalty and that another
900
kind was not; that if a public figure was shot crossing Trafalgar Square that was a matter for the death penalty, but that if a man poisoned his wife that was a matter between the two of them and did not deserve the death penalty.
There is a basic lesson here about trying to pick out particular aspects of homicide for the death penalty. I believe that the public would quickly say "Yes, if there is to be a death penalty, is not such and such a case also worthy of it?" That is the fundamental argument of principle against trying to select particular aspects of homicide as justifying the death penalty.
If there is to be a selection, I regard the case for the selection of terrorism as the weakest. If murder of the police or prison warders were to be selected, I think that the public would say that those people have a rather better chance of looking after themselves than they, the innocent public. Terrorists present great problems. I think that the Home Secretary is underestimating the determination of terrorists in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, quite regardless of death, to carry through their purposes. Even if one is dealing with Arab terrorists, one finds that very few of them are paid marksmen. If they are paid marksmen, they will weigh up the risks against the penalties. If money is what they want they will take the risk. Therefore, I cannot see that the argument for capital punishment for terrorists is a powerful one.
I come now to the definition of terrorism, the importance of which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will not underestimate, as he glossed over it this afternoon. If there is to be the final capital penalty for terrorism, there is the problem of judges and juries deciding whether a person is a political terrorist. There has been criticism in the Province of attempts to deal with the IRA on the basis that its members should, when arrested, be treated as political prisoners, and it has been said that that is an immense mistake. Exactly this definition, as has so rightly been pointed out, would have to be made permanently for capital punishment if the amendment were agreed. I do not believe that one can gloss over the issue of defining terrorism or of how a jury and the judge would handle it.
Even more important — as the Home Secretary emphasised—is that there is no hope of returning to jury verdicts in Northern Ireland. One will not persuade a jury to convict if there is the death penalty. My right hon. and learned Friend then referred to a judge and perhaps two assessors. But is the Northern Ireland judiciary in favour of dealing with IRA terrorism by a judge and two assessors? I cannot believe for one moment that the judiciary would accept that. I lived through all the problems of 1970 to 1974 and have been back to Northern Ireland many times since. I know the views of the people there and, leaving aside the impact on the IRA, I cannot believe that our judiciary or the Northern Ireland judiciary would be prepared to deal with these cases with an assessor sitting on each side.
Therefore, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has already said, it is out of the question for practical reasons to apply capital punishment there. But we cannot punish terrorist murderers on the mainland by imposing the death penalty if we do not do so in Northern Ireland. The number of cases here is comparatively few—a few Arab and other terrorists—but from the public's point of view, let alone all the other considerations, it is impossible to deal with an Arab

901
terrorist who shoots the Israeli ambassador in one way but to deal with the same crime differently in Northern Ireland, which most people consider to be the home of terrorism. Amendment (e) therefore is entirely impractical.
I am astonished—I must not say that—I was taken unawares by the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary argued as he did. His argument did not seem to deal with any of the basic problems of making terrorism a separate capital crime. Other European countries have had great problems with terrorism—for example, the Federal Republic of Gennany and the Italian Republic. They have dealt with those problems not by bringing back capital punishment, but in other ways, largely by effective police action and by reducing the status of the terrorists so that they could not gain public support. The same is true of the Netherlands. I do not support the argument that we of all European countries should have to reintroduce capital punishment to deal with terrorism.
I conclude with these points. First, we must consider what changes there have been over the past 20 years. One change has been the immense growth of the media—television, radio and the press — and the almost complete removal of privacy. The media's impact in rousing public feeling on the occasion of an execution would be many times what it was in the days before the abolition of capital punishment. One cannot encourage a deeper feeling for the spirituality of man when he is being influenced all the time by the media dealing with executions in that way. That in itself is a powerful argument against capital punishment.
When one considers what has happened in the few states of the United States that have restored capital punishment, one realises the growth in the influence of the media over the past 20 years. It is seen in the horrifying stories that appear before, during and after an execution, especially when men plead for death, which shows that death is not for them a deterrent. I believe that the impact on people is terrible.
Secondly, I am sure, having listened to these debates for 30 years, that the constant emphasis on capital punishment is preventing us from giving real attention and real resources to the problems of crime in a modern democracy. The Government have done a great deal. At one stage criminals had much greater resources than the police. They had better radio facilities, modern communications, such as the use of motorways and other technical devices as well as more up-to-date firearms. The police have now caught up a great deal. We must recognise that if we really are to tackle the per al problems of the country we must turn our attention to that, instead of automatically saying that the answer is hanging and flogging.
I hope, therefore, that this debate can settle it for this Parliament and for many years to come. If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde is right about that — he said that it might be the last time Parliament would vote on the issue—then I warmly support the fact of him having put the motion forward—though I want to see it defeated—I hope for the last time.
I can claim to speak with a certain amount of experience. When one first comes into the House, one faces many pressures in relation to the way in which one should vote. This has therefore become an early test for many of the victors in the recent general election. My
902
career in the House, covering 33 years, has not been entirely without controversy. I think back to debates on Suez, the abolition of resale price maintenance, the European negotiations, the war in the Middle East, the whole reform of the trade union movement and, for more than 20 years, the abolition of capital punishment.
I can say with honesty to every person who has had the privilege of entering the House that, having said clearly where I stood, and having explained to my constituents why I took up the position that I did, they have accepted that as being the right of their Member of Parliament. I hope that that will always be the case. It is the basis of the British constitution; we are not mandated, we cannot be mandated, by a selection committee, by a constituency committee or by the public as whole.
This is the occasion, above all, when we must use our own judgment. I hope that tonight every hon. Member, and particularly new hon. Members, will feel free to use their judgment. I do not believe that the case for the reintroduction of the death penalty has been proved and I therefore urge the House to reject the motion and all the amendments.
5.3 pm
Mr. Roy Jenkins: The speech of the Home Secretary—a speech similar to two on this subject which I delivered from the same position during the 1970s—left me bewildered. He began by setting out the good, clear, reasonable test of saying, "Let us judge the issues by the test of public safety. Let us, in a way, put old prejudices behind us and look at it afresh from that criterion"—and on the whole I would be prepared to go along with him on that—but he then proceeded, coolly and rationally—and to me persuasively—to destroy the case for capital punishment on all the amendments but one—and then he came to terrorism.
As soon as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did that, he galloped through — as a sort of tribute to differing views in the Cabinet—a catalogue of the case put forward by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and proceeded to face none of the issues invlvoed in that case. He elided off into some general asseverations in which he completely deserted the test of public safety and the rational approach which he had previously applied. He went on to say that terrorist crimes had to be viewed with such repugnance, because they were crimes against the state, that we should not apply those rational tests but should use the final supreme penalty without regard to whether it would work or increase public safety.
There are enormous dangers in that approach. It implies that other crimes, however bestial they may be, are not regarded with the same repugnance. That is a dangerous view to take. It also means that we are moving away from looking at the matter clearly and cooly, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman started by doing. He made a good speech to begin with, but it was fatally flawed and so it became a sorry performance at the end of the clay.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot get away with not answering the questions to clarify his position which were put to him by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and which I shall repeat, because, if he does not answer them, I must tell him, as somebody who has twice occupied his office and spoken from the Dispatch Box in very similar circumstances, that he will be neglecting his duty to the House as Home Secretary.

903
I shall deal, because it is the essence of the matter, almost exclusively with the terrorism aspect, and I come immediately to the two points which the right hon. and learned Gentleman must answer. First, the vital issue is whether the supreme penalty—if that is what one is to call it — is to be used in Great Britain only or in Northern Ireland as well.
I remember that in a debate in 1974 the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science put forward the extraordinary proposition that it should be used in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland. I say "extraordinary" because the nature of the threat in relation to the population is, on the record, 600 times as great in Northern Ireland as it is in Great Britain.
It is, therefore, an extraordinary proposition to say that it is a uniquely valuable deterrent but that we should use it where the threat is relatively small and not use it where the threat is 600 times greater. There could be no possibility, no basis in logic or morals, of doing that.
If, in the United Kingdom as a whole, including Northern Ireland, it were to apply, how would we obtain convictions? As we know, trials for terrorism in Northern Ireland are by the so-called Diplock courts, judges without juries, because it is almost impossible to get jury convictions for terrorism in the Province. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that one could hang a man or woman—
Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
Mr. Jenkins: Is the Home Secretary saying that, for the first time for centuries, one could hang a man or woman in a part of the United Kingdom without a jury trial?
Those are the two points on which we must have the clear view of the Home Secretary. Let me make the questions absolutely clear, so that there is no question of his dodging them. Is he proposing that the death penalty should be used in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain? Will he therefore abolish the Diplock courts and, if so, how would he hope to get convictions?
Mr. Brittan: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not find it possible to get the answers that he seeks from my speech. Had he listened carefully he would have heard them. However, I am happy to deal with the matter in this way, though it is slightly curious that he should find it necessary to make allegations of an unfounded kind about whether or not one is prepared to answer his points.
I made it clear that I did not think it was possible to distinguish between Great Britain and Northern Ireland for these purposes. I also made it clear that I fully recognised the difficulties in relation to convictions by jury in Northern Ireland and that I did not expect that to be restored. I spoke of one possibility that had been mentioned—not by me, but by those who favoured this course — namely, that trials in Northern Ireland for offences of a capital kind should be conducted, not by a single judge but by a judge with assessors or by a panel of judges.
Mr. Jenkins: It was not unreasonable of me to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to clarify that, because I do not think it was clear from his speech to any hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The right hon.
904
and learned Gentleman is now saying, having clarified one point totally and satisfactorily, that there would be no distinction on either side of St. George's Channel. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is also saying, and this is less clear—
Mr. Brittan rose—
Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be so impatient. He is floating a possible idea and not submitting a clear proposition. He has no idea whether the procedure of a judge and assessors would work, and he has no idea whether the judiciary would accept it. However, he is proposing that in the peculiarly delicate circumstances of Northern Ireland there should be hanging—as I have said, this would be for the first time for centuries—without trial by jury. That is one of the most extraordinary propositions that a Home Secretary or any other Cabinet Minister has ever put before the House.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to say whether the judiciary in Northern Ireland has said that it would sit with assessors in accordance with the idea that he has floated?
Mr. Jenkins: That is a relevant question, but it would probably be better if the hon. Gentleman were to put it to the Home Secretary in his own speech. I do not think that the system which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has proposed would work. If we are to have capital punishment for terrorist crimes, and if we are to extend that to Northern Ireland, we shall have to return to trial by jury in Northern Ireland. That will result almost certainly in terrorists being hanged occasionally, with the most dangerous repercussive effects. The majority of terrorists would be acquitted and be free to carry on their nefarious trade.
I have no doubt that the dangerous repercussive effects of judicial killing for terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland, or in this country, would be there, and strongly there. That is why Viscount Whitelaw, as he now is, abolished it in 1972. His reasons are set out in the statement that he put before the House in that year. Those reasons have convinced everyone, with the exception of one individual, who has had any responsibility in Northern Ireland over the past decade or so that many innocent lives might be endangered by employing judicial killing.
I had to deal wth hunger srikes, including the hunger strike of the Price sisters, and I was enormously aware of the dangers, which cannot be remotely underestimated. The Price sisters were two girls who threatened to kill themselves. If the issue had been whether they were to be killed on the gallows, think how much more explosive the position would have been. Is there a balance between a dangerous repercussive effect and a deterrent effect? None of us is moving in a realm of absolute certainty, but that seems a particularly difficult case to argue in terms of terrorists, especially Irish terrorists.
A hunger strike that will lead to death is an immensely powerful and obvious example that is present in all our minds, and so I shall not weary the House with it. However, no one can pretend that being an Irish terrorist is to have a safe occupation. Irish terrorists kill themselves by the hundreds, and always have done. In the psychosis of Northern Ireland terrorism, death is very much the basis of the trade. No doubt the primary desire of terrorists is

905
to deal it out to others, but on the whole they are willing for it to be part of their grisly trade. The position of the funeral in the mythology of Irish terrorism is an eloquent tribute to that.
There are some who will say that those considerations apply only to the hard core of fanatics. They acknowledge that by hanging we might create a few perversely triumphant martyrs, but argue that the essential supporting baggage team would be deterred. I do not agree with that argument. For example, we cannot hang landladies who provide safe houses. We cannot hang mothers who shelter their sons. We cannot hang women who shelter their husbands. We cannot hang boys of 13, 14 or 15, and they would be increasingly involved in terrorism. No one is suggesting that we would do so and we must not pretend that we could. There is no question of the House or the country doing that. That being said, do not let us pretend that we can deter the baggage train. Do not let us pretend that we can do something that we cannot. Let us not deceive ourselves that we can create a great weapon of deterrence, only to face the humiliation of seeing it break in our hands.
Irish terrorists may be the primary problem, but the problem does not end there. One of the last acts of judicial execution in western Europe was carried out in Spain, where five terrorists were executed in October 1975. What was the deterrent effect? Nine policemen were shot in the following two weeks. I am convinced that hanging or any other form of judicial killing for terrorism would increase public danger rather than increase public safety. I do not go as far as that in respect of the amendments, but the case in favour of them is unproven.
I, too, have had responsibility for the police. We all have a great regard for their exposed position. I am convinced that if the police were to De singled out for protection and girl bank clerks who resisted armed robbery were not, public-police co-operation would be damaged. That co-operation is crucial to the success of the police in the front line in the fight against crime.
If we look back over the history of the capital punishment controversy, I think the House will agree that the Bentley case, a police shooting case, was one of three cases to drive nails into the case for capital punishment and led to its abolition in the mid-1960s. In my two periods as Home Secretary I was concerned with it least 10 cases of capital conviction. There was no capital punishment in all of them, because the sentence did not exist throughout my time as Home Secretary. However, hanging took place in some of the 10 cases where the convictions were either clearly wrong or where there was a lingering flicker of doubt. There were only 186 capital convictions in the 20 years after the war when capital punishment existed, but the ratio of doubt to certainty was too high. The finality of the punishment is too great for the certainty of human judgment.
I hope that the House will vote clearly and consistently on all the propositions before it. There are some who might say that it would not matter if one or two votes went in contrary directions, but if proposed legislation were framed in that way it would never pass through Parliament. I certainly do not think that it would if the Home Secretary had responsibility for drafting it. That may be a tempting proposition for those who, like myself, do not wish the majority of the Government's legislative programme to pass through the House, but it would not be good in general. It would be bad for the Government's position,
906
bad for Parliament, bad for the integrity of the law and bad for the protection of the public. Let us settle the issue in all its aspects, and let us do so now. We are a new Parliament and we have all been in recent contact with our constituencies. Presumably we have all made our views clear on these issues—certainly I have. Let us give a clear answer to the motion and all the amendments.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a debate on a private Member's motion, so presumably there will be no Government reply. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) raised two most important questions on which the House must know the view of the Home Secretary before it can make a judgment. The first question has been answered, but we do not know the answer to the second one about Northern Ireland and what judicial process, without a system of trial by jury, the Home Secretary recommends should be used before the death penalty is imposed. Will there be an opportunity for the Home Secretary to speak again in the debate to make that vital position plain?
Mr. Speaker: If the Home Secretary were to show that he wished to speak again and he had the leave of the House, that would be in order.
5.21 pm
Mrs. Edwina Currie: There are many in the House who are both more experienced and more eloquent than me, so I intend to be brief.
I shall vote in favour of the return of capital punishment. In doing so, I should like to challenge two of the criticisms that were made, one by the right hon. Member for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who seemed to imply that all the morality in the debate was on the other side. It is not. The other criticism that is frequently made is that those of us who support capital punishment are seeking vulgar popularity and playing to the gallery. Some of those people may glory in this horrible and gruesome business, but I am not one of them.
For me, to vote in favour is to vote with great sadness. Had I been in the House in the 1960s I would have voted for abolition. At that time, it seemed to be a humane act, a great and wise act. I wish that it had worked. Suppose that since then crimes of violence had declined in number, weapons had become almost unknown in crime and the number of murders had become minuscule. By standing the figures on their head in that way, we can see what terrible things have been happening in society.
Reference has been made to the number of murders, but whether someone dies is a matter of circumstance—whether he is near a hospital or the surgeon is skilled enough. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly drew attention to the overall level of violence. I have the report of the chief constable of the county of Derbyshire for 1982, which covers my constituency. Derbyshire is a pleasant and attractive area. By no means could it be said to have the problems of our great cities, including Glasgow. Last year there were four murders, three of which were cleared up. There were two manslaughters, both of which were cleared up. Recently there were two nasty murders in Derbyshire. The level of violent crime in Derbyshire has been rising steadily. Since 1978 — in other words, in the five years for which we have figures —the level of violent crime has gone up by 18·5 per cent. In 1982 it had risen 5·5 per cent. since 1981. That is the tragedy of our society today.

907
Something is wrong. We seem to have become a lawless and dangerous society in which brutality no longer shocks but becomes commonplace, and in which the carrying of weapons of all kinds in the furtherance of crime has become an every-day matter. From many people there is the cry that something must be done. Our sense of natural justice is offended. My sense of natural justice is offended by the feeling that there is no appropriate response. Why should decent citizens go in fear of their lives? If the abolition of capital punishment has anything to do with it or is in any way to blame, and if any criminal sees its disappearance as condoning his activity, its return may help to reverse that trend.
I accept that the return of capital punishment alone is not enough. It is what the philosophers call necessary but not sufficient. Other action is urgently needed. I would support reform of the shotgun laws, the Bail Act 1976 and other measures, but capital punishment is seen by many as an essential element in the return of a firm approach to deal with crime and the criminal at the worst and most evil edge of our society.
Therefore, the death penalty would be a deterrent to all violence, just as its absence has been seen as condoning it. A successful vote for its return would state more clearly than anything else that we could do our abhorrence of violence and its results.
5.26 pm
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I well understand the deep feelings expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I appreciate the emotion that underlay her words, but the issue must be decided not by emotion or feelings and not even by instinct, but as a result of a careful, objective and dispassionate analysis of the facts. That is the way in which the House should proceed. It is the way in which the House has proceeded in the past.
There are strong moral arguments against the reintroduction of capital punishment, but apart from them the practical arguments against the reintroduction of hanging are powerful and overwhelming. Capital punishment is inappropriate as a penalty and ineffective as a deterrent. Those who commit the overwhelming majority of murders in a family or domestic circumstances in a spasm of emotion or a fit of rage or as a result of mental instability are not likely to kill again. In fact, most of them commit suicide shortly after they have committed the murder. In any event, they are not susceptible to an act of deterrence. The penalty would be inappropriate and ineffective for most murders.
Therefore, we have to search for other categories of offenders for whom capital punishment might act as a deterrent. It is at this point that the debate becomes absurd and riddled with anomalies and totally indefensible injustices. For example, two of the amendments suggest that capital punishment should be available for the murder of a policeman or prison officer in the course of his duty. I do not wish to minimise the importance of the job carried out by policemen or prison officers, but I cannot accept that their lives are any more valuable than the life of a sub-postmistress or a security guard. I cannot even accept that they are in greater danger of death or disability than, for example, miners or construction workers. The evidence does not suggest that the return of capital punishment for
908
the murder of policemen or prison officers is likely to act as a deterrent. The figures for the deaths of those two categories of individuals have not substantially changed since the Homicide Act 1957. The average is that, every year since 1957, there have been no murders to two murders of policmen, with the exception of two years.
The same consideration applies to the suggestion that capital punishment should be available for murders by shooting or explosions. Neither I nor my constituents can accept that they are any more despicable a means of killing people than a slow death by strangulation, garrotting or cutting someone's throat. The same considerations apply to murder during a theft. Why is a murder in the course of theft more horrendous, despicable or shocking than murder in the course of rape? Why is it more shocking than the murder of a child? Of course it is not.
What hon. Members who support the motion and its amendments are asking is that we erect a hierarchy of murder and establish a scale with the more despicable murders at one end and the least repugnant at the other end. It is not possible to do that and if it were it would be indefensible and invidious. Those considerations apply most powerfully and convincingly to the suggestion that we reintroduce capital punishment for murders carried out in the course of terrorism. I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that that is the least defensible of the amendments.
It is extraordinary and amazing, as the right hon. Member almost said, that the Home Secretary should suggest in a convoluted way and without substantial logic, evidence or experience that we should vote for the return of capital punishment for terrorism. Such an action is most likely to cause more innocent lives to be lost. It would be utterly unacceptable for a man's life to be taken judicially without the unanimous verdict of a jury. With a jury, it would be difficult if not impossible to obtain and sustain a conviction.
In any event, terrorists are by their nature unlikely to be deterred by capital punishment. They risk their lives every day that they carry a bomb or fire a weapon. They risk their lives to the extent that 229 of them have been killed while committing terrorist actions in the past 14 years. In 1981, another 10 took their lives by a long slow, agonising and painful process. Such men are not likely to be deterred by the thought of a British Government taking their lives in cold blood by judicial means. For the Government to do that would be to make martyrs and heroes of them. That would be utterly unacceptable to the British people.
We all know what happened as a result of the deaths of the 10 hunger strikers. We know of the sympathy that was wrongly aroused for them throughout the world and the enormous sums of money that poured into the IRA's coffers from Britain and especially the United States because 10 terrorists chose to take their own lives slowly. If that can happen, how much worse would it be if the British Government were seen to be taking those lives after a long, considered, and calculated assessment of the evidence? The consequences would be horrendous in terms of the taking of hostages and reprisals on the lives of innocent people.
The Home Secretary is wrong, as are those who support amendment (e), to suggest that, by reintroducing the death penalty for acts of terrorism, we would reduce terrorism or the number of innocent lives that are lost. Exactly the reverse would be the case. Those hon. Members who

909
might be attracted to amendment (e), not least because it has been given official approval by the Home Secretary, must weigh carefully whether such an act is likely to lead to more rather than less violence and more rather than fewer deaths. I suggest that more innocent lives would be lost. For those reasons and many others, I ask hon. Members not to be beguiled by the Home Secretary's erroneous arguments.
There are powerful arguments against following the Home Secretary's suggestion. There are also strong arguments against the reintroduction of capital punishment for any of the other categories. The debate is a side show. What we are discussing is irrelevant to the real problems. The real issues are unemployment and the serious rise in serious crime. We should be addressing ourselves to those issues. We delude ourselves if we believe that by passing any of the amendments or the motion we shall solve any of the real problems or make any significant contribution to the reduction, which we all want, in serious crime. In any event, the return of capital punishment is another Victorian practice that is favoured by the Prime Minister that the country can well do without.
5.34 pm
Sir Ian Percival: For once, I can agree with the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) when he says that these issues should not be decided on emotional grounds. I agree agree with him and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that we are discussing ally one part of the much wider subject of crime and punishment and that it is one which sometimes obscures the other issues. However, that does not in any way detract from the fact that on its own this is a subject of immense importance to the House and the country.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that decisions on this issue are entirely a matter for individual judgment. But from there I part company with him and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North. My judgment is that the ultimate penalty should be part of the armoury of weapons with which the state should be equipped to protect its citizens from the risk of being murdered. In that judgment there is none of the morbid preoccupation of which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke, and which seemed to characterise so much of what he said—and so much of what the tight hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) said. Nor is there the least element of a thirst for blood or revenge in my decision. I have formed the view which I shall now try to express by having listened in the House over the years to hours and hours of what I have always thought to be some o of the best debates we have, in which hon. Members speak independently from their heads and their hearts.
I have reached my conclusions on two practical grounds. First, I believe that the ultimate penalty is a deterrent. I entirely accept that there is no way in which to prove that absolutely but, heavens above, there is nothing new about that. Many things proved in court to the complete satisfaction of either the judge or the jury on much less than absolute cast-iron evidence. One does not normally get it. We have to approach the point in a practical way. No punishment deters everyone. Prison does not deter everyone. It ought to deter many people whom it does not deter, but I have not the least doubt that it does deter many people. Of course, the ultimate penalty
910
does not deter, for instance, those who take the risk of killing quite deliberately. There are quite a lot of them. Nor does it deter the person who kills in a moment of passion. But I do believe that there must have been a substantial number of people who were deterred from killing, the thought having gone through their minds, by fear of the penalty.
The police gave us cogent evidence on this. In the early days during the debates about abolition, they said that the sophisticated up-market gangs who went for the big stuff would dismiss any of the gang who put a pistol in his pocket, because they knew the risks and how quickly a gun can be used even though its use was not intended, and how easily the entire gang could become liable to the death penalty. The police told us that if we removed that sanction such gangs would carry guns. They have been proved right. What we were told, what has happened and the logic of the argument impresses me. There is no way in which to measure deterrence but I am convinced, having listened to the arguments for many years, that the death penalty was and would be a substantial deterrent. In my view, those who are at risk of being killed, and those whose duty it is to protect them, are entitled to demand of the state that it includes that deterrent in its armoury.
When I explain my second reason, I dare say that some people will accuse me of talking about retribution and revenge, but I am not. There are some killings that are so evil and deliberate that the only appropriate punishment —if we still think in terms of punishment, and I do—and the only form of expiation of sins—if we still think in those old-fashioned terms, and I do—is the exacting of the life of the person who took life.
Of course, I recognise the difficulties and the arguments put forward equally sincerely by others. I have considered those arguments over the years as carefully as I can. The possibility of mistakes is the most serious and places a heavy burden on those who have to administer the law when there is the ultimate penalty to ensure that there is no mistake. I recognise too the difficulty of identifying in which cases the penalty should be used, but here I differ in my conclusion from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I shall vote for all of the categories not because I want to see the death penalty in all of them but because I think we have first to decide the question in principle, and then get down to the identification of cases to which it is to be applicable. Once the principle has been decided, that second stage is of enormous importance.
I also recognise that questions must arise about the form of execution and its humanity or inhumanity. However, I think that the opponents of capital punishment too often overlook something. We are talking about taking life, but which is worse — leaving the State to take life in a humane way or to take somebody's life over 30 years, locked up in a cell with no liberty and disintegrating?
I see a sneer from a Member opposite but I ask hon. Members just to think about this. In these debates we have heard how, after 10 years in prison, a human being begins to cease to be a human being, disintegrates and becomes a cabbage. Those who say that execution is inhumane must not draw the line there, but in espousing the alternative, locking somebody up for their natural life, must accept the inhumanity of that too.
Mrs. Jill Knight: While my right hon. and learned Friend is on this point, will he give us the benefit of his advice on, and knowledge of, a

911
suggestion recently made that murderers who are particularly evil frequently take the lives of their fellow citizens while in prison and also those of warders and prison officers?
Sir Ian Percival: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not develop that but it is something that has become more common since the repeal of capital punishment. Somebody in prison for the whole of his life has nothing to lose. However, I shall leave that point for others to develop, as I wish to be brief.
Execution in the case of terrorism is perhaps the most difficult part of the problem. Why is it different? First, it is because the acts in question are so often about as evil as one could possibly imagine. What could be more evil than blowing up a group of bandsmen in the park, or in fact worse still, of course, going to the door of a house and shooting the father in front of his children and wife as so often happens? Acts of terrorism are usually among the most evil that one can imagine, but that is not the end of the special seriousness of these acts. The motive for which they are carried out is to terrify people out of what they want to do or into doing what they do not want to do. It is the most direct intervention with the liberty of the subject by the most violent and evil conduct. If we are to have this penalty for anybody, why should we ever think of not having it for those who commit such evil crimes for such atrocious motives?
Rev. William McCrea: I have come from looking at three charred bodies and the body of another of my constituents. Those four were brutally murdered today by the IRA. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there are many hon. Members in this debate who seem to be more concerned about the guilty than about the innocent, and that the House owes it to the nation and to the widows and orphans of the innocent to ensure that the murderer is put down and the innocent are allowed to live?
Sir Ian Percival: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed by a specific instance what I was saying about the evil nature of so many of these acts. However, I am sure that he will forgive me if I complete my speech in my own way.
Two reasons are given to show why one should not apply the death penalty to those who commit acts of terrorism. One is that we shall make martyrs, but this is the most upside-down argument I have ever heard. If some people are so evil that they will make martyrs of the people who have committed such evil, so be it. I do not believe that any significant number of right-thinking people will glorify such people.
The other and most serious reason given against executing terrorists, and the right hon. Member for Hillhead seemed to be getting close to it, is that we dare not do it because it would create more violence and there would be reprisals. I beg of the House one thing. If the House should reject capital punishment for terrorists, let it be made clear beyond any doubt whatever that it was not fear of reprisals that stopped us from doing it, for if it were to be thought that we were not doing it because we feared the consequences terrorism would indeed have scored an effective and important victory.
5.47 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I was sorry to hear the intervention of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, (Rev. William McCrea), which seemed to suggest that those who support capital punishment believe that the opponents have no sympathy for the victim and are concerned only with the murderer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who are opposed to capital punishment—I am one of them—feel as deeply and as passionately as anybody else about the victims. There just happens to be a difference of view about what can be done about it.
We should be tough with violent crime. I am the only hon. Member who has introduced a Bill—this was some time ago—advocating that society should have the right of appeal against lenient sentences so that heavier sentences could be imposed on criminals. The Bill was defeated, but my proposal was that society should be able to appeal for heavier sentences, just as the criminal can appeal for lighter ones.
The right hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) based his argument on two practical considerations, and I wish similarly to base my case for not restoring capital punishment on two practical considerations. I ask those hon. Members who are in doubt about voting tonight to bear in mind the experience of my constituent, Mr. John Preece, who was convicted of the murder of a woman in Scotland. He was released eight years afterwards when it was discovered that the evidence on which he was convicted was bogus.
John Preece was convicted, not on some vague identification or some uncertain circumstantial evidence, but on the calm, cool, scientific evidence of a Home Office forensic scientist. Could anything be more impeccable than that? That was what the jury thought and convicted him of murder. Later, Dr. Clift, the forensic scientist, was discredited, both as a scientist and as a witness, by the Scottish Court of Appeal. His evidence was totally discredited.
If John Preece could be convicted on such evidence, which appeared to be foolproof, is it not much more certain that other people could be wrongly convicted? If there had been capital punishment when John Preece was convicted, he would almost certainly be a rotting corpse in a prison graveyard now, rather than walking the streets of Stoke-on-Trent.
That is just one example. There have been many more wrongful convictions. The House of Commons should not take it upon itself to impose such a risk, and such a shocking injustice, on innocent people, but that is what we shall do if we vote for the reintroduction of capital punishment.
Furthermore, I do not believe that capital punishment is a deterrent either to those who murder in hot blood or to those who murder in cold blood. By definition, those who murder in hot blood are not responsible for their actions and very few civilised societies accept that they should go to the gallows. Those who murder in cold blood regard death as an occupational hazard. In some cases they regard it as a qualification for martyrdom. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that terrorists will be deterred by capital punishment.
I was horrified by the Home Secretary's comments about the death penalty for terrorists, although not because I have the slightest sympathy for terrorists—either IRA

913
terrorists or any of the other terrorists who come to Britain from all over the world. What will happen if a terrorist is condemned to hang as the result of our vote tonight? Hostages will be taken, and the Government will have to decide whether to go ahead with the execution of that terrorist or whether, in view of the threat to hostages, to back off. The British Government ware faced with that dilemma in Palestine when terrorists captured two British sergeants and the Government said, "We will not give in to blackmail." "Fine" said the terrorists "in that case your two British soldiers will die"—and die they did.
Let us assume that capital punishment is restored and that in a few months' time a terrorist is found guilty and sentenced to death. Terrorists from some countries are really ruthless. They will do the job properly. Let us realistically assume that they kidnap a dozen women and six children and threaten to kill those women and children if the condemned man is hanged. What would we do? No British Government can give way to blackmail, but no British Government could allow the death of 12 innocent women and six innocent children. That dilemma would have been created by those Members who voted for the restoration of capital punishment for terrorists.
I believe that terrorists should be punished very severely, but let us not send them to the gallows. That would only give them what they want and put the British Government in an impossible position. Those are the practical considerations which I would like the House to consider.
The call for capital punishment is a cry from the heart. It expresses an anxiety to do something about the evil of murder, and it must therefore be respected, but it is the wrong solution. It is impractical and does not deal with the real problem, which can be solved only by tackling the root of crime, by improving our police forces and by making many necessary improvements in our urban areas. Capital punishment is a dramatic, flawed and entirely false solution to the problem of capital crime.
5.58 pm
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) on giving us an opportunity to debate a subject of serious concern to the vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom. For many years there have been outbursts from the people that the punishment for crime has been far too lenient. Public outcry has followed the sentences for such crimes as the murder of policemen and prison officers, the rape of women and children leading to their death, and the murder of members of the' general public because of the personal desires of political fanatics. It is small wonder that an estimated 87 per cent. of the total adult population have called for capital punishment to be made available to the courts again and I fully support that view.
During the past few weeks the media have consistently used the expressions "bringing back the rope" or "hanging", and today the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) also used such expressions. There is no reference in the motion to the rope or to hanging or to the method by which capital punishment should be carried out.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The question is very simple. Will the supporters of the motion tell us what alternative method they have in mind? They
914
have carefully sought to negate their arguments by saying that they are not talking about the rope, yet they will not say what they are talking about.
Mr. McQuarrie: If the hon. Gentleman had waited for a few seconds he would have heard my answer I am confident that the judges and the men and women on the juries would be able to find a sufficient deterrent to fit the crime that had been carried out. I envisage punishment being meted out by people in the courts.
We must consider whether the restoration of capital punishment would be a sufficient deterrent to reduce the number of murders committed in the various categories that I have mentioned. We are discussing not only the criminal who commits solely one murder, but the restoration of the death penalty to deter terrorists who murder for their own political ends.
I am well aware that, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, the word "terrorist" is used mainly in the context of Northern Ireland. Like the Home Secretary, I wish to make it clear that the demand for the restoration of capital punishment for acts of terrorism applies to the United Kingdom. I need not remind hon. Members of the London and Birmingham bombings, the bus in Yorkshire, the pub in Guildford, the bandsmen in the park or the Horse Guards—to name but a few. All those killings, and many others, were carried out by those political fanatics, who kill without any thought for the lives that they destroy or for the misery that they leave with the bereaved families for the rest of their lives.
Those terrorists commit such acts because they are well aware that there is no deterrent that they will have to face if they are caught that will result in their deaths My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said that if we restore capital punishment for acts of terrorism that will affect Ireland more than any other area. I remind my right hon. Friend that it was he who presented the case in the House for the setting up of a Northern Ireland Assembly and urged us to vote in favour of it, on the basis that it would be a democratic vehicle to express Ulster's views.
I hope that it has not gone unnoticed by my right hon. Friend that last week the Assembly voted by 35 to 11 for the restoration of capital punishment, to include terrorism. My right hon. Friend set up that Assembly so that it could express its point of view about Ulster. If we say no to the amendment that I have tabled, along with other hon. Members, to the effect that capital punishment should be restored for acts of terrorism, we virtually concede victory to the terrorists.
The whole principle of terrorism, wherever it is carried out, is that by threatening death to members of the public, to police and prison officers, and to men from all services, its perpetrators can influence our political opinions. They therefore use the death penalty as their own deterrent to achieve their own ends. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is so concerned about this matter, why cannot he give us factual information to show that the number of terrorist activities in the Province is being reduced?
What about the man who has committed 20 murders in Ireland and cannot be found? What about intelligence, and the fact that we are unable to detect those who carry out terrorist activities? A man has committed 20 murders in the Province, yet he has not been located. Where is the intelligence service on that?

915
If it is accepted that terrorism will increase, it must also be accepted that it is high time that we managed to arrest those who carry out such a massive number of murders. It was not outwith the bounds of possibility for the Yorkshire Ripper to be captured, and it should therefore not be outwith the bounds of possibility for a criminal who has committed 20 murders to be apprehended as a result of intelligence work.
Another argument against the restoration of capital punishment for terrorism is that the hunger strikers were prepared to die for their cause, but do not let us forget — as the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said—that they stopped at 10. They did so because they believed that the Government would stick to their policy and not give way to their demands. Who could name any one of those 10, with the exception of Bobby Sands? What can be said in truth is that they inflicted capital punishment upon themselves without the necessity of legislation.
If the amendment concerning those deaths that result from acts of terrorism is accepted, that will not suddenly stop the activities of the terrorists in Britain or Northern Ireland. On the contrary, it will give those cowards an additional incentive. But if we approach the matter properly, it will last only for a limited period. At present they have the capacity to carry on undetected, but they do not carry out their heinous crimes every day. If they could blow up the whole Household Cavalry they would do so right away, in one fell swoop. They would carry out bombings every day of the week. However, they do not do so because they want to create the impression that they are gentlemen and only do things now and again to prove their capability. Those terrorists try to create the impression that they are decent people. The concept that such men are brave in their comrades' eyes is bogus when one considers the cowards that they are. They commit their crimes only when they know that there is no chance of being caught or of any harm coming to them. They would carry on—just as the hunger strikers did—only until they reached a stage at which they could call it off, because by that time the deterrent will have been seen to be effective. If their own deaths were assured by their activities they would abandon those activities, because there are only so many martyrs who are prepared to go to their deaths. Those martyrs certainly do not include the leaders. Oh no; they stand back and direct the activities of highly trained fanatics who little realise the risk that they run and who have been brainwashed to think that it is all for the cause.
Those terrorists are trained to inflict the maximum damage without detection. They are trained by the PLO, in Lebanon and in Russia. Their training consists of an unusual political fanaticism. They are the fifth column of world domination by Communism. To them, death is irrelevant, and so their acts of terrorism justify the application of capital punishment that we seek. Cowardice is the character of these beasts and the only way to deter them is to place that power with the courts, to ensure that they will never again have an opportunity to repeat their acts. Such sentences will help to stop murder, but will not necessarily prevent it. There will always be those who act as vicious killers, and until they are caught such killings will continue.
916
If the House approves the restoration of capital punishment, the thought of the death penalty being applied might strike fear into the hearts of those terrorists. We must put an end to terrorism and to the violence that leads to murder. Those who oppose the restoration of capital punishment have produced all sorts of bogus figures in an endeavour to substantiate their case, but the sad fact is that between 1945 and 1964 there was no increase in the number of offences of murder and homicide that were made known to the police, despite the large increase in other crimes.
I hope that the Howard League for Penal Reform, which challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and me to produce figures for the increases, will note that the post-1964 position showed a substantial rise to a new plateau that was almost double the pre-1964 figure. In England and Wales the average for the five years before abolition was 290, while the figure for the most recent five years is 590. In Scotland the comparable annual figure increased from 35 to 81.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde said that there had been a sharp increase in the number of serious offences involving firearms. The total number of notifiable offences in which guns were used increased from 1,734 in 1971 to 8,067 in 1981. In addition, between 1971 and 1981 no fewer than 29 persons were convicted of homicide who had previously been convicted of that crime.
Those who oppose restoration say that the European Court of Human Rights would not permit the United Kingdom to reintroduce capital punishment. That is not true, because the European Court could not unreasonably delay hearing cases of capital punishment that were brought before it. Article 2 of the declaration excludes national capital punishment from its remit.
It is clearly established, and because of the public outcry should be accepted in that spirit, that capital punishment for terrorism is a unique deterrent. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) mentioned the dastardly act that was committed this morning in County Tyrone, in Northern Ireland, in which four UDA soldiers were killed by a remote-controlled bomb.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman has waxed lyrical about his knowledge of terrorists. The UDR members who were killed today by Republicans of some type were good and decent people. If the hon. Gentleman is putting forward an argument, he should get his facts right.
Mr. McQuarrie: I am not putting forward an argument — [Interruption.] Four good UDA soldiers from the Ulster Defence force—[Interruption.]
Rev. Ian Paisley: There is no need for hilarity. Anyone using the letters could make the mistake. The UDR is the Ulster Defence Regiment. The UDA is the Ulster Defence Association, which is a different organisation altogether.
Mr. Allan Rogers: It is a terrorist organisation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Labour Government would not ban it.
Mr. McQuarrie: I am grateful for the correction. I wanted to get the message home that the four UDR soldiers, who were in a convoy of five vehicles, were

917
killed by a remote-controlled bomb detonated by a terrorist organisation. The IRA is said:to have admitted responsibility. It threatened to take such action on the day of this debate. That not only illustrates its utter cowardice, but should be a sharp lesson to all hon. Members that the Province of Ulster must be protected from those beasts.
The people in that Province are entitled to as much protection as others in the United Kingdom. We would be failing in our duty as elected representatives of the public if we did not take the necessary action to safeguard the lives of our people. If we turned our heads and looked in the other direction, the terrorists would consider that the House was afraid to end the terrible outrages.
The terrorists must not drive fear into our hearts or coerce us into taking a decision adverse to the restoration of capital punishment. We have been elected to govern this country and we have not only the responsibility but othe duty to ensure that terrorist activities are stopped. I hope that hon. Members will support this amendment.
I wish to quote statements made in the House and in the other place during previous debates. Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone said during the Lords debate in 1974:
"I believe that when we end the day, sooner or later we have to recognise that society has the right and the duty to take human life deliberately on occasion. In our time we have fought two just wars. We recognise the right of self-defence and the right to take human life to save an innocent person by way of defence of that innocent life. In the last resort I believe that. if society refuses in the end to allow this sanction to the judicial process as an ultimate resort, as the least of evils in certain irreducible cases, eventually we shall lose the values which we all desire to defend." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 1974; Vol. 355, c. 809.]
Mr. Jeff Rooker: The noble lord has changed his mind since then.
Mr. McQuarrie: The noble lord may have changed his mind, but his views in 1974 are relevant today. The facts are relevant today.
The late John Mackintosh, a much respected Member of the House until his untimely death, said during the 1975 debate:
"We in this House must think carefully before we reject an opinion which is widely spread outside."—[Official Report, 11 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 675.]
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said in that debate:
"The IRA makes it quite clear that it considers capital punishment to be a deterrent. Why else does it administer capital punishment as the ultimate sanction against those who break its code? … O'Connell, the IRA leader, considered it necessary on the day we debated this subject about 12 months ago to threaten this House with the death of two British soldiers for every terrorist sentenced to death." — [Official Report, 11 December 1975, Vol. 902, c. 666–67.]
His views and those of others that I have quoted should be heeded by any Member who has not yet come to a decision on how he should vote this evening. The public demand action from us and we must not fail them. [Interruption.] It is a sad reflection on the House that such a subject should be treated with levity by Opposition Members.
Finally, let us remember the late Rev. Robert Bradford., who was brutally murdered while helping his constituents. I also ask all right hon. and hon. Members, before they go through the Division Lobbies, to glance at the plaque above the entrance to the Chamber in memory of Airey Neave, who was killed within the precincts of the Palace
918
of Westminster by terrorist activity. If ever there was a case for the restoration of capital punishment for terrorist activity, that plaque symbolises it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many right hon. and hon. Members who have strong views wish to address the House, and 21-minute speeches will prevent them from so doing.
6.18 pm
Mr. Leo Abse: Until the speech by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) we heard a succinct review of all the arguments that can be rehearsed in a debate on capital punishment. Inevitably, most were not innovatory and those of us who have been Members of the House for a long time are familiar with them. Indeed, we all have a sense of déjà vu.
I wish to draw attention to one matter which seems not to have been emphasised, but rather under-emphasised, if indeed mentioned at all. The churches have sent us a communication. The British Council of Churches has stated its continued opposition to capital punishment and has given three reasons for it. The third reason includes this statement:
"Since some find the thought of execution morbidly fascinating, capital punishment may positively excite a potential killer, and also be unwholesome in its emotional impact on others."
I do not dismiss the experience of the churches in putting forward the proposition that, far from being a deterrent, in some cases hanging is an attraction. That accords with my experience, and there can be few hon. Members left in this House with experience of dealing with those charged with murder while hanging was still the ultimate penalty. I, with many of my professional colleagues, discovered that those bizarre men, who do not possess the rationality that hon. Members sometimes attribute to them, continually resisted our legitimate attempts to save them from the rope. The more we adumbrated reasons why we could persuade the court that a man had acted with diminished responsibility, the more the killer's resentment grew. It became clear that he resented the attempts of his legal advisers to deny him the ultimate victory, as he saw it, which was to have the major part in the macabre theatre of the gallows.
I am not surprised that the churches seized upon that aspect of the matter, because we must take into account the fact that our community has great difficulty in dealing with the problem of masochism. However, in days gone by, because of the identification with the Passion, many would claim that masochism was dealt with therapeutically. Identification with the Crucifixion meant that masochism could be dealt with in a way that did not bring about far more miserable consequences. If some hon. Members doubt that masochism is widespread, they should look at pornography, where they will see spread forth for them the various, although monotonous, details of bondage. The yearning for punishment is extraordinarily deep-seated. If some hon. Members deny what the churches say, or dismiss as extravagant the suggestion that people could yearn for punishment and seek it—those who kill to die—I can give them some statistics. One third of those who commit murder then commit suicide, which means that they pre-empt the gallows or any other punishment. They kill to die. Those who are naive enough

919
to believe that those people would be deterred by the rope are denying the facts. We would be presenting something to' a band of murderers that is likely to excite and encourage them and which, far from containing murder, is likely to increase it.
The type of people who commit murders such as those with which we are dealing are the violent people in our prisons. Anyone who has experience of prisons knows that they are replete with examples of masochism, such as personal mutilation, the cutting off of fingers, and the grotesque use of razors. Those are commonplace to every criminal lawyer. We live in a society that cannot contain masochism and that uses pornography, not religion, to deal with it. Some say that hanging is a deterrent, but it is highly probable that it would be an attraction and would increase, not decrease, the incidence of murder.
Those who deny that are seeking to repudiate an uncomfortable phenomenon. If we examine how convicted terrorists are prepared to rationalise their masochism—to have it elevated to the claim that their acts are socially useful, nationalistic and libertarian, as they see them—we see how readily they die. If we have a culture of martyrdom, where those emphases can be so distorted that terrorists are created national heroes as a substitute for being beatified, we are in dangerous territory.
In common with all Opposition Members who have spoken, and with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), I am astonished that a Home Secretary should expound the extraordinary proposition that an offence against the state is more heinous than an offence against a small child. I would understand such theories if they were being expounded in the Soviet Union. I would understand a Home .Secretary, if there is such a character in eastern Europe, elevating the state above the individual so that a threat to the state would demand the ultimate punishment, whereas a threat to a small child could be regarded as something far less. I do not understand the philosophy, and it causes me grave discomfort that a Home Secretary should advance a proposition that is reminiscent of the doctrines of the Soviet Union. It is certainly not reminiscent of the doctrines of a Western country founded on the principle of the sanctity of the life of every human being.
I do not wish to trespass on the House's time, however tempting it may be to discuss how juries would fail to convict if they were faced with the proposition of determining someone's life or death. However many reasons there may be for capital punishment being unproductive, it is my firm conviction from my clinical experience that, apart from the familial and passionate murders—which presumably no hon. Member would wish to be mandatory capital offences — if we move forward in the way that is proposed, we would add to the burden of the community. It is time that this irrelevancy was put on one side. The actiology of crime is not easy to understand, and to discover the roots of crime is difficult. We find it in the conditions in our inner cities and in our dishevelled family lives. The House should be wrestling with those problems, not squandering its time upon an irrelevancy such as this debate.
6.29 pm
Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I am sure that the House was interested to hear the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) say that the reintroduction of capital punishment, far from deterring murderers, would encourage them. I do not agree with that, and I shall return to the matter in a few moments.
First, I want to deal with an aspect of terrorism which was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and to which quite a number of other speakers have referred. I find myself in disagreement with my right hon. and learned Friend in this matter. As the House will remember, I held the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for two and a half years, and the most serious problem then, as now, was terrorism and terrorist attacks. On this side of the Irish Sea many people consider those terrorists to be the IRA, but they include the Provisional IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Red Hand Commando, and so on. All the time that I was there—and, indeed, before—convicted terrorists were seeking to maintain and to get Her Majesty's Government to accept that in some way the crimes that they had committed were different from other crimes and should therefore be treated differently. Not suprisingly, in their view, their crimes were less heinous and should be treated more leniently than crimes committed by other people. They started with the protests in the Maze prison, when the prisoners refused to wear prison clothes, and refused to work or to come out of their cells. When the Government paid no attention to their demands, they increased the level of protest and started to smear their own excreta on the prison walls—the dirty protest, as it was then.
During the whole time that I held that office I was supported by my Cabinet colleagues, by, I am glad to say, the whole House of Commons, and, I think, by the overwhelming majority of the British people, in my belief that there was no reason why those murderers, bombers, arsonists and criminals should be treated differently from anyone else who had committed the same crime for reasons that were not political. Finally, they escalated the process and tried what they believed was their ultimate weapon, before which they thought that we were bound to give way—the hunger strike. We did not give way. In spite of an upsurge in violence, as the figures show, and as all can see, and in spite of the pressure that was brought on us from all over the world—not by Governments, but by groups of people — to concede the point, we refused to do so.
We received support from one particularly influential quarter. In October 1980, the Pope visited the Republic of Ireland. He spoke, as he always does on his remarkable overseas tours, to huge audiences. In particular, he addressed a multitude of people at Drogheda. He was not talking about the death penalty, and I do not suggest for one moment that he did. He talked about the principle of which I have been speaking. His view, expressed in three words, was plain: "murder", he said, " is murder." He was saying that there should be no differentiation. His views helped us, not so much in this country, but in defending our position in countries overseas.
It seems to me that it would be difficult for us, only two years later, completely to abandon the position to which we held so firmly. In fact, it would be more than difficult; it would be morally indefensible. One could not have said

921
—at any rate, I could not have said—in 1981, "Of course, terrorist murderers must be treated the same as every other murderer", and then say in 1983, "Oh no, terrorist murderers are different from other murderers". So, in spite of what my right hon. and learned Friend said, I believe that it would be wrong to vote for amendment (e), and I do not intend to do so.

I come now to the penalty itself. As the hon. Member for Torfaen said, the matter has exercised successive Parliaments. More than 27 years ago I made my maiden speech in this Chamber on this very subject. I do not recommend hon. Members to read it because it was not a particularly good speech, but what I said then I still believe now: the only valid reason that can be put forward for the retention—as it was then—or the reintroduction —as it is now—of capital punishment is its deterrent value. I believed then and I believe now that it will deter some potential murderers.
I wish to say two things straight away. First, I cannot prove it. There is no way to prove it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that we have to prove it. We cannot prove it. It could not be proved then and it cannot be proved now. In fact, my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary, when we discussed the matter last year, said that the only conclusion that one could reach from studying the evidence was inconclusive. In my opinion, he was quite right. So one can rely not on instinct, but only on judgment. After all, that judgment, such as it is, is what we are all sent here to exercise on behalf of our constituents.
There is another aspect of the penalty. I said that I thought that it would deter some potential murderers, but it will not deter all. That is certain. It would not deter the man who, in a sudden upsurge of rage and passion, as a result of circumstances which hit him so hard that his normal processes of thought and reason did not work, decided then and there to kill another human being. It would not stop him, because that man would not be thinking in a reasonable way at the time.
Moreover, I do not believe that it would stop terrorist organisations. Their view of death — or the view of some of their members—is somewhat different. Those who are determined to further their cause at whatever cost, even that of their own lives, will not be stopped. There might be a number of people on the margin who would not join so readily if they felt that it might be the end of their days, but it would have precious little effect on the terrorist organisations. That I freely admit.
There is another facet of terrorism, particularly in Northern Ireland. It has been said, and I wholly agree, that it would not be possible for us to operate the death penalty for murder by terrorists under the present system of trials in Northern Ireland. It would be quite wrong of us to place on the shoulders of one judge the burden of determining not only the man's guilt, but the sentence.
Some hon. Members have been rather gloomy during this debate about the state of affairs in Northern Ireland, saying that there could never be trial by jury. I do not accept that. When I held office there, there was constant pressure—not very serious, but pressure nevertheless—from the Opposition— indeed, from both sides of the House—for me to review the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act in Northern Ireland, which controls the operations of the so-called Diplock courts. I did not do that. However, my right hon. Friend
922
the present Secretary of State has done it. On his behalf, an inquiry is being conducted by an eminent judge into the operation of the Act.
Regardless of this debate today, I would be surprised if my right hon. Friend did not come to the House in a few months' time to recommend changes. I accept that we would have to make substantial changes in the present system before we could operate the death penalty. Tonight we are being invited to say that this House favours the restoration of the death penalty for murder, which I do, but I accept that it could not be operated until the changes have taken place.
There is another point about terrorism, and it is the idea that if one executes terrorists it makes it easy for them to claim new martyrs. So it does. I agree with that, but they can have martyrs when they like. Today is Wednesday and only last Sunday parades were held in memory of the latest of the martyrs—the first of the hunger strikers to die. He was held up as a great and good man who had died for the cause. If terrorist organisations want martyrs they will get them, even if they have to kill their own people to do it.
Mr. John Hume: Why give it to them?
Mr. Atkins: We should not be deterred from going ahead with what we think is right.
Another point that was mentioned by two or three hon. Members—I think by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) — was that if a terrorist is condemned to die there will be terrible trouble in the form of kidnappings, reprisal killings and all sorts of difficulties. I feel strongly that if we are to be deterred from doing what we believe to be right by the threat that a small number of people—only about 500—will cause so much trouble that it would not be worth while, that would be the road to anarchy. We must never allow ourselves to be prevented from doing what we think is right by the threat of a small number of people to make life impossible for us. I accept that many hon. Members do not agree with me, but that is not a valid reason for doing nothing. Anybody can find an excuse for doing nothing, but a society that does nothing dies.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The right hon. Gentleman is right, but neither I nor, I suggest, any other hon. Member who has argued that there are likely to be reprisals is suggesting that a British Government should be frightened into cowardice by the threat of IRA action. We are suggesting that in such a situation one must assess what course of action is likely to bring about the greatest reduction in the loss of innocent lives. I was suggesting that the reintroduction of capital punishment for terrorism was likely to increase the number of innocent lives that would be lost rather than to reduce them.
Mr. Atkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation, which shows that I misunderstood the purport of his and other hon. Members' remarks. I thought that he was saying that we should not act because it would create too much trouble.
If those two groups will not be much deterred, who would? There are two obvious groups of people who spring to mind who would be deterred by the thought that if they committed murder and were apprehended they would lose their lives. One is the individual who, for

923
whatever reason, sits down and works out that it is to his advantage to kill another person. I say "sits down and works out" because when he does that he takes into consideration all the relevant factors, and this would be one of them.
The other group does the same, and that is the group of people who set out not to kill somebody but to commit some other crime, usually to steal or rob. They plan big, even small, robberies meticulously and take everything into account. I am convinced that in doing so such people must take into account the penalty that they can expect if they commit murder. If we can think of no higher penalty than capital punishment—I cannot—that must act as a deterrent.
If we can save even a few innocent lives—the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) did not seem to think that mattered very much, but I do—is it not our duty to do so? I believe that it is my duty to do that, which is why I shall vote for the main motion tonight.
6.43 pm
Dame Judith Hart: I gave every attention to what the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) said, but may we return to the basic proposition because that inevitably, clearly and logically embraces all the others? If we believe—some of the Home Secretary's remarks before the end of his speech on the use of the death penalty for terrorists were inclined in this direction—that it is wrong in principle, or wrong because there is no evidence that it would act as a deterrent, to reintroduce the death penalty, none of the categories within the amendments on which we shall be voting tonight can be made an exception to that general principle. That is the logic of the situation.
To go on from that point, the Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne and many others have said clearly that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other about how far capital punishment might, if reintroduced, act as a deterrent. There is much evidence to show that it does not act as a deterrent. Indeed, the tenor of the arguments that have come from those who are likely to support the reintroduction of the death penalty tonight, as emerged from the speech of the right hon. Member for Spelthorne, is that there may not be any evidence but that they feel in their bones that it would be a deterrent.
I am sure that such hon. Members would agree that that is not a matter of logic. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is a matter of judgment, although judgment based not on facts or evidence but on something that is felt in one's bones. I shall not go deeply into how far capital punishment might be effective as a deterrent for terrorists. Many convincing arguments have already been produced to counter suggestions that it is. I merely want to say that if we are in doubt, as clearly we are, about whether capital punishment can ever be a deterrent there is no factual evidence to support that proposition with regard to terrorists. We have not had sufficient experience since the Homicide Act 1957 and Sydney Silverman's Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965. I was privileged to be in the House at that time, although not at the time of the 1957 Act.
We must make our own judgments in this House, quite rightly, but it is interesting that other countries which have
924
come to considered conclusions about dealing with terrorism—for example, West Germany—have decided that the reintroduction of the death penalty would not deter or reduce terrorism. That is why, if we were to vote in what is in my view the wrong way tonight, we would be the only country in western Europe, apart from Turkey, to have capital punishment. That is why — not that we should necessarily be influenced by others—there have been letters from the president of the European Parliament, why the synod of the Church voted as it did, and why the barristers have said what they have. They have judgments too, and I venture to suggest that some of their judgments may be a little better informed than those of some hon. Members from whom we have heard today. I do not include the right hon. Member for Spelthorne.
We must accept and be clear about the fact that there is no difference in our concern about those crimes that it is proposed this evening should warrant the death penalty. There is no lack of concern among the abolitionists who do not wish to see the death penalty restored for matters such as deaths in Northern Ireland and in Hyde park, the murders of old ladies and young children, and for all the horrors with which we are all too familiar at the moment. Nor is there any difference in the concern that is felt about the increasing use of firearms or other manifestations of increasing violence in our society. We should all do ourselves the honour of accepting that we share that concern.
The degree of concern is not the indicator of how we shall vote tonight. What matters is how we approach the use of violence and firearms. I agree with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that—I paraphrase a little—if we get this issue out of the way once and for all, we can begin to approach the problems of increasing violence and find the appropriate solutions. While we are all intimidated by the question whether we should vote in favour of a return to capital punishement, we shall not be able to approach these questions clearly.
We can look at the ways in which we can approach the subject of criminality. We can try to reform people, as we do in many cases, often successfully, and we can seek to deter. One piece of evidence that has never been contradicted is that the most powerful deterrent is the certainty of detection and being brought to trial. That is incontrovertible.
That leads me to the subject of more money for the police, what the police should be doing, and so on. One view is that the so-called preventive penalties should be imposed on criminals. Much importance should be attached to that. The person who is capable of committing violence upon another human being can be cold and calculating, someone who commits a crime of passion or psychopathic. I find it incomprehensible that anyone capable of crimes of violence can be other than, at the very least, deeply disturbed. I cannot regard that violence as being within the framework of normal human behaviour. Whatever the background to the crime, the aim of the preventive approach is to keep such a person safely out of society.
That brings us to the whole matter of sentencing—what is meant by a life sentence, and the kind of institutions in which we should keep people when we believe that they will continue to be a danger to society. A tremendous amount of work must be done if one takes the view that, at the very least, one should prevent people from committing further crimes.

925
I believe that, no matter how much some of right hon. and hon. Members seek to keep it from themselves, they are motivated by the concepts of relaibution. They are deluding themselves if they think that they are not. Retribution is a primitive instinct stretching back to lextalionis—an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We have heard radio discussions in the past week or so on this matter. It is clear that this is the prime motive for most people, although they do not realise it.
If we deeply abhor the use of violence against the individual, it is morally and philosophically incompatible for society to exercise violence against the individual. If any hon. Members evade that logical proposition, and are tempted to vote in favour of the propositions advanced this evening, they must ask themselves why. Probably the reason is that they have a natural horror of violent crime without appreciating that something subconsciously creates a feeling that it is right that a person who has killed should be killed. That does not make sense. It is not morality. It is not a philosophical basis upon which society should act.
Those who support the reintroduction of the death penalty do not pay enough attention to those who may later be proved innocent of the crime for which they are executed. My right hon. Friend the Member:'or Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned one case. One of my constituents has served several years in prison after being found guilty of murder — a nasty murder. It is now possible that new forensic evidence will prove that he is not guilty. The Lord Advocate knows of the case so I shall not go into detail. If the motion had been agreed by the House it would be too late for that constituent.
If society decides to use retributive violence—that is what it would be because there is no escaping the fact that that is the principle upon which the judgment is to be made, whether it relates to the general proposition or to terrorism or anything else—it is too late to call back a life. If that happens, society, by using violence, will have killed an innocent person.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dame Judith Hart: I shall not give way because I am about to conclude my speech. I have not taken as much time as some Government Members.
I beg hon. Members to vote tonight with an awareness of what motivates them and an awareness of the House of Commons' real responsibility on the issue. I hope that all the proposals will be defeated and that this is the last time that the issue comes before the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I have no means of controlling the length of speeches, but only 10 Back Benchers have been called so far. That is not very good in a debate of this kind. I appeal for brief speeches. If right hon. and hon. Members could keep their speeches to 10 minutes that would be immensely helpful.
6.58 pm
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The first duty of the House is not simply to debate what punishment we can place upon criminals. It is also to protect the lives of our people and to safeguard the innocent. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on
926
having, in his first speech, robustly placed before the House his intention to protect the innocent and to safeguard the lives of our citizens. I welcome what he said.
I was in the House when we abolished the capital sentence. We did so largely in the belief that life imprisonment would be an effective deterrent in its place. It has not worked out that way. On the contrary, violence and murder have increased rapidly.
The British public are alarmed. That is why, as they listen to the debate today, I think that they will be less concerned about the problems of those who may be called upon to try, convict and, if necessary, execute criminals and murderers—although those matters are important—than with other grave issues.
The first is the practical question of how we are to prevent the killing of many more innocent people. Secondly, how are we to protect more policemen from being shot down in the pursuit of their duties? Thirdly, can we avoid the death penalty continuing to be imposed, whatever the House may say, by those who, having lost confidence in the ability of the state to protect them, take the law into their hands—as has happened in Northern Ireland—and by armed criminals, and conceivably by armed policemen seeking to protect themselves and society against those criminals? Those are the practical questions that the British public are looking to the House to tackle.
The best speeches this afternoon were made by those who spoke about what they know. I admired the speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who spoke for the Liberal-SDP alliance. Both have carried heavy responsibility, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins). I, too, shall speak only of that which I know.
As the House knows, I have a connection with the police service. When the capital sentence was abolished the Police Federation warned the House that it would lead to a dramatic increase in the carrying and use of firearms. That is exactly what has happened. In the year before abolition the number of guns used in crimes in Lendon was 43; last year the number was closer to 2,000. That is a 25-fold increase. Before abolition, when a professional gang planned a job the elder members frisked the younger members to ensure that they were not carrying guns They did so because they knew, to put it in the vernacular, "If you kill a cop we all get topped". It is no longer that way. Today, it is the norm and not the exception for criminals to carry guns when they commit robberies. They do so for the simple reason that they know that their lives are not at risk.
There is also a new balance of risk for the police officer. When a policeman confronts a criminal with a gun, the odds are tilted against him. In that split second when the armed robber must decide whether to pull the trigger and shoot the policeman, the robber knows that if he surrenders he will go to prison for, perhaps, five to seven years for armed robbery. But if he shoots the policeman, he eliminates the witness and greatly improves his chances of getting away with the loot. And even if he is caught and convicted of murder the worst that can happen to him is life imprisonment. With remission, that can mean little more than 101/2 years, though I noted what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the length of sentence served by the murderers of policemen. I do not accept, and I

927
doubt if the House would accept, that the difference between five to seven years for armed robbery and only 10 years for murder is worth the life of a police officer.
Mr. Rooker rose—
Mr. Griffiths: No. In deference to Mr. Speaker's wishes I shall seek to end my speech as quickly as possible.
Mr. Rooker: But the hon. Gentleman's statement is not true.
Mr. Griffiths: There is a further consequence. Whereas, before abolition, unarmed police officers would not hesitate to tackle armed criminals because they knew or they believed that they were protected by the invisible bullet-proof waistcoat of the capital sentence, today even the bravest of policemen hesitates. He often sends for a gun.
What the Police Federation and I predicted when the House abolished the capital sentence has come to pass. We have put an end to the once-proud tradition of our unarmed police force. We therefore face the risk, whether or not we like it, that we have not succeeded in abolishing the capital sentence. On the contrary, it will be administered more and more not by due process of law and by the courts, but by armed criminals and, on occasion, by armed police officers defending themselves and the public.
I wish to deal briefly with terrorism. I declare an interest in that I frequently visit Northern Ireland and have some connection with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I say one thing to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He made an eloquent statement—and I respect his judgment—about Northern Ireland, but I find it singular that he should have consulted the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland and arrived at conclusions on his advice, while making no attempt to consult the statutory body that the House has set up, the Northern Ireland Police Federation, 100 or more of whose members have died. Their view is the direct opposite to that in his statement. They want the capital sentence and that fact should be placed upon the record.
I say with some temerity in the presence of Northern Ireland Members that not long ago I stood in the ruins of a dance hall in Ballymena where dozens of young people were killed, maimed and blown to bits. I reached one firm conclusion — that it is the victims, past, present and future, who have a far stronger call on Parliament's sympathy and practical assistance than any murderer or terrorist.
I wish also to give one warning to the House. We all know that technology plays an important part in terror. The advance of micro-miniaturisation is tilting the balance in favour of the terrorist and against the security services. There are new micro-detonators which can be secreted in body orifices. Precision guided missiles are also becoming increasingly available to terrorists not only in Northern Ireland but all over the world. I must further warn the House of a new threat—the advance of micro-circuitry that makes it possible for the bomb-maker to plant a device —perhaps 501bs of gelignite—and to blow it up four months later. The possibilities that that engenders for, for example, the ceremony at the Cenotaph, with that kind of technology being available to terrorists, illustrate the magnitude of the risks that we face.
928
I conclude with one simple point. The death sentence would not deter the terrorist fanatic. I concede that he might even welcome it. The death sentence might have some influence on those who are motivated into terror by a whole ragbag of emotions such as braggadocio, hero-worship, theatricality and so on. But what is certain is that the death sentence can have some impact on the professional assassins who, more and more, in Northern Ireland and internationally do the terrorists' dirty work for them. The professional assassin—the jackal—is, above all, a calculator. He calculates the odds. It is right and moral that the professional assassin who prepares a bomb and places it in a public hall to blow up large numbers of innocent people, and does so for pay in advance, should take into account when calculating his crime the possibility that he, too, might suffer the same capital sentence that he himself imposes on the innocent without due process of law.
It is for that reason, as well as the others given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that I shall vote in favour of the amendment on terrorism and also the other selected amendments.
7.10 pm
Mr. John Hume: This debate is about law and order. There can be few Members whose constituents have such a desperate need for law and order as those whom I represent. I live in the middle of the Bogside in the city of Derry, an area so ravaged by violence and so disturbed by extremism that outsiders cannot usually understand how normal life can be possible there. Normal life, as it is understood by most people, is not possible in Derry because there is no law and order, in the usual sense of term. I therefore think that I can understand better than most the yearning for law and order that motivates those who support the motion.
The desire for order is innate in human nature. It is a deep and powerful instinct. It can protect us against chaos and can be the foundation of democracy and freedom. But because those who are lucky enough to have a system of law and order often seem complacent and because those who do not often seem turbulent or cowed into despair, many people forget that no people on earth yearn more for law and order than the deprived, the oppressed and the minorities. If the House does not understand that, it will never understand Ireland, will never understand our awful and terrible history, will never understand that what we all want to stop for ever is terrorism in Ireland.
My people want law and order more than any Member in this House because they need it more than any Member in this House. We must ask ourselves firmly, will the death penalty for terrorism, will hanging Irish terrorists, promote law and order in Northern Ireland or will it destroy law and order in Northern Ireland? That question is central to the debate. It has been made even more central by the remarkable position taken by the Home Secretary today.
It is a central question for other reasons. It is central statistically because far more murders are committed in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in Great Britain. It is central legally because, as has already been said, it would be illogical to introduce the death penalty for Britain alone. It is central politically because the political consequences of hanging Irish terrorists would be so overwhelming as to dominate every other issue in Ireland for the foreseeable future.

929
Who are the terrorists who would be hanged? An Irish terrorist is a person who for good reasons distrusts British democracy and its application to Ireland and for bad reasons thinks that violence can solve the problems of Ireland. The distrust of British democracy in its application to Ireland is widely shared in Northern Ireland, for good reasons. It is shared by me and I do not have to give lectures on Irish history from 1912 onwards or on the silence of the House between 1920 and 1969 to explain why a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland have a deep distrust of British democracy. Nor do I have to reiterate my opposition to violence because I do that on my own doorstep every day.
As almost everyone has admitted that the death penalty will not deter terrorists, we must ask ourselves what effect the death penalty would have on society, particularly on a society where terrorists flourish because they move among people who, because of their personal experience, are deeply distrustful of Government.
Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
Mr. Hume: I will not give way. Mr. Speaker has asked hon. Members to be brief.
As terrorists are moving in a society that is deeply distrustful of Government and which, in consequence, is deprived of any real sense of security, the effect of the introduction of the death penalty is certain—it would destroy any hope of democracy in Northern Ireland and, in addition, would undermine the reality of democracy in the Republic of Ireland. What is now a disaster in Northern Ireland would, if the death penalty were introduced, become an unmanageable clamity throughout Ireland. There would be many more deaths, both in Britain and in Ireland. If we try to solve a problem by methods that will create even greater problems, is it sensible even to discuss the issue?
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Hume: When reassessing the British decision to execute the leaders of the 1916 uprising in Dublin, Winston Churchill said that, as a consequence of that action,
"the keys of Ireland passed into the hands of those to whom hatred of England was the dominant and almost the only interest."
Hatred of Britain, the result of grisly experience of generations of Irish life, has, alas, strong roots in Northern Ireland, particularly among young people. It was magnified two years ago by the Government's handling of the hunger strike. Never in its wildest: dreams could the IRA have expected to recruit the support that was won for it by the British Government's tragic mishandling of the hunger strike.
Rev. William McCrea rose—
Mr. Hume: Those who are interested in Northern Ireland will remember the images of that time: the black flags on almost every telegraph pole, the grotesque wall paintings, the nihilistic slogans, the pornography of death, the street violence and the deaths of innocent people.
That hatred, the instability and the macabre display of that time, are as nothing compared with the reaction that would take place in Ireland if Irish men or women were hanged under British law. If the House wants the IRA to win, then hang them.
930
Reference was made today to the murders which took place in Northern Ireland last night. A UDR convoy was blown up and four UDR soldiers were killed—
Rev. William McCrea rose—
Mr. Hume: An attempt was made to kill every man in that convoy—
Rev William McCrea rose—
Mr. Hume: Does any hon. Member not believe that that attack was timed to influence the result of our debate? The leaders of terrorist organisations want to see the introduction of hanging. I live among them and I know their thinking. They would be delighted if hanging were introduced. Let not the House think that the leaders will be hanged. The leaders are not in gaol. It will be the young followers who are sucked into the organisations because of the desperate position in Northern Ireland.
If the House wants the whole of Ireland to be convulsed in a frenzy of hatred, if the House wants once and for all to remove the prospect of a lasting peace, a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland and the prospect of friendship between our two peoples, nothing would be more certain to bring that about than the hanging of Irish people under British law. This House would then hand over the keys of the whole of Ireland to those who want to come to power by the bomb and the bullet.
Churchill was right when he wrote, in reference to British attitudes in Ireland:
"The grass grows green on the battlefield, but never on the scaffold."
If the House again erects a scaffold in my country, it will turn the whole of Ireland into a savage and bloody battlefield. For the sake of democracy, for the sake of friendship, for the sake of ordinary men, women and children, and for the sake of peace, for God's sake, do not do it.
7.20 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: The gallows has already been erected in Northern Ireland, not by the hands of this House but by the hands of the Irish Republican Army. There is a cry to this House from those who have already been hung, drawn and quartered—murdered and tortured by the Irish Republican Army—and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) should keep that in mind.
It is all very well to say that if something happened here there would be such an outrage that neither the North nor South of Ireland could be governed. I too have read Irish history and studied the situation in Northern Ireland, having been brought up there. There was a parallel in the history of the South of Ireland with what is happening in the North today. Irregulars under De Valera were doing the very same as the IRA is doing today—killing, bombing and murdering—to bring down the treaty Government of the Republic. They murdered not only ordinary individuals but their own colleagues who had fought against Britain in the war before the civil war. There is a page in Irish history that is not mentioned by Republicans; it is the darkest page of the troubles—the civil war when Republicans of various hues fought one another.
The result was that that treaty Government were going to fall and a man named Kevin O'Higgins, who understood Irish Republicans and their methods—he himself was one — realised that the only way to deal with the

931
situation was by the ultimate deterrent, capital punishment. Therefore, he ordered that those with the gun and those who went to kill should themselves be killed.
There were, of course, deaths and outcries. But within two or three years the carnage was finished. De Valera disbanded his irregulars, went into politics and became the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. Kevin O'Higgins had to suffer; he was killed. However, he brought peace to the South of Ireland. One can draw the parallel today. In the North of Ireland the killing is going on.
The hon. Member for Foyle said that the IRA wanted the return of capital punishment. That is strange. Joe Cahill was a condemned man in the cell but, because of the weakness of Government, was reprieved. He took part in the recent campaign of murder. He was regaled on our radio, and he warned the people of this Parliament not to dare to bring in capital punishment, or they would deal with the matter. The IRA is against capital punishment being re-enacted by this House. There was an hon. Member with close associations with terrorism in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. When did he come to this House? He was an absentee Member, though he was always here when there was going to be a vote on capital punishment.
I repeat that the IRA leaders are against capital punishment because it makes the recruiting sergeant's work impossible. At present he can say, "If you are captured you will go into the Maze prison, where immediately there will be a 50 per cent. cut in your sentence." In other words, a terrorist can act however he likes inside the prison, but automatically half his sentence is cut off. That is happening in our Province today.
Some amazing statements have been made in speeches today. For example, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that the real way to deal with terrorism was to wean the population away from it, and that that was the policy which his Government followed.
The figures which I now give must stick in the mind of the hon. Member for Fylde: 102,000 votes—not the 500 to whom the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) referred — or 43 per cent. of the entire nationalist vote, went to these murderers. They voted for the bomb, the gun and the bullet and for genocide of the Protestant community. There is no way that this House will wean people away from terrorism in the way the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup claimed.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) described the IRA as tough men. Of course it comprises tough men. They know that they have been dealing with weakness in successive British Governments. That is why they are doing so well in their campaign against this House and our people.
We were told by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) that we had to abolish jury trials. I remind him that in Standing Committee, when he was a member of the Labour party, the Socialists voted to a man against abolishing juries, as did the leader of the SDLP, and I voted against the abolition of juries. However, if we bring in capital punishment, we must return to jury trials. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Of course we must. We cannot have anything but a return to jury trials. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members occupying the Front
932
Benches may laugh, but they do not know Northern Ireland. I assure the House that there can be jury trials in Northern Ireland.
It is interesting to recall what happened in Standing Committee. Lord Rawlinson, then a Law Officer, said that Protestant juries were perverse and therefore had to be abolished. When I asked him to prove that, he could not, but he won because one Roman Catholic Member was won over. Opposition Members were there. They took part in that debate, and they understand what happened on that occasion.
Jury trials can be reintroduced. Juries were not intimidated in Northern Ireland. Witnesses were intimidated, but the IRA did not know who would comprise the juries until they were picked. I repeat, if there is to be a return to capital punishment, there must be a return to jury trials.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I have exceeded the time I should have taken. I am grateful for having been called to speak in the debate.
7.28 pm
Mr. Ron Lewis: Whatever views hon. Members take about the reintroduction of capital punishment, it is clear that all have spoken against the increase in violence in recent years. I regret to have to say that, like many hon. Members, I was deeply shocked two Sundays ago to learn of what occurred when soldiers were engaged in entertainment in my constituency. I can only express the hope that those who gave my city a bad name will be brought to book and punished.
My local newspaper, the Cumberland News, then said:
"There is no doubt that drink plays a major part in inciting unruly groups."
There must be a case for stronger measures to keep under control the sale of alcohol to crowds of youngsters. Subsequent to the debate, and possibly when we return in the autumn after the summer recess, I hope that the House will consider further whether anything can be done in a non-partisan manner to try to curb the increase in violence that has besmirched the good name of many of our towns and cities.
I have made it clear at every election that I have fought that should the issue of capital punishment be raised I should oppose it or its reintroduction to the best of my ability. To those who are keeping one eye on their constituencies and taking account of popular opinion within them, I draw attention to the words of Edmund Burke, who said that a Member is sent to this place not as a delegate but as a free-thinking representative who is entitled to vote as his or her conscience dictates. That is the line of approach that I shall take this evening, as I have taken in the past. I have made my position clear to my constituents.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) — I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—because, as a Christian, as one who occupies the pulpit on most Sundays, I cannot find it in my power to advocate that the state should take human life. It is morally wrong on the part of anyone to take human life and it is morally wrong on the part of the state.
In previous Parliaments we have debated abortion. Hon. Members, both men and women, from both sides of the House have strongly condemned abortion, but in a

933
debate of this sort they will act against their stance on abortion and speak in favour of hanging and vote for it. I cannot understand how they can do that.
Mr. Vivian Bendall rose—
Mr. Lewis: This is a moral issue and I shall treat it as such. If by some mischance we were to agreed to bring back capital punishment, the problem would not be solved. The problem will remain whatever the House does, and events in the past have told us that if a person sets out to kill he will not be deterred by the thought of the gallows. Those who have murdered while under the influence of drink, when probably sex has been involved, have shown that they were not concerned about the rope. That applies to other murders and is not restricted to those in which sex has been a factor. In many instances deaths have resulted from brawls.
I shall allow my head to overrule my heart and I shall vote in accord with what I consider to be my duty. Speaking as a Christian with all my faults and failings —I am not holier than thou and I am not one of the dogooders—I believe that if my master Jesus were in the Chamber and had to make a decision on this issue, he would vote against bringing back the rope.
7.37 pm
Sir Hugh Fraser: I wish to answer one of the questions that was put to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He asked why the status quo should not be sufficiently and equitably maintained since our last major debate on this issue three years ago. There are two main reasons for changing the status quo. The first is the one to which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) referred, and that is the growth of violence against the person over the past three years. Secondly, and almost as alarming, is the chasm which is developing between the governed and those who attempt to govern from this place. For example, the leaders of the police often say that the death penalty should not be reintroduced. However, there is a solid vote for its reintroduction on the part of police officers who come into contact with crime day by day. There is the same position in the prison service. The public are baffled when they find that the two loudest voices protesting against the restoration of the death penalty in Northern Ireland are those of the supporters of the IRA and the Secretary of State himself. That confuses the public.
Outside the House there is confusion and a wish to see the death penalty restored, not just as a deterrent but for the simple reason that the British people believe that it would be an earnest of the intentions of the House to deal with violence. That has not happened, and we have seen what happened in Northern Ireland today. In two elections since 1979, the Conservative party has been returned to office on a law and order ticket, among other things. We have promised the people bread and given them a stone.
The restoration of the death penalty is concerned not so much with the crime of murder as with the hierarchy of violence throughout society. Those who do not want the death penalty argue that it is not a deterrent. Of course it is not an absolute deterrent. There is no absolute deterrent, or there would be no martyrs singing in heaven. There may be no such thing as an absolute deterrent but there are dissuaders, and it is dissuasion from crime which is the important element.
934
I have had some experience in a small way of being a terrorist and I acted against terrorism while undertaking my duties in the Colonial Office. When I was behind the lines, I was told that anyone found in uniform or out of it would be shot out of hand. That dissuaded me from embarking on many acts of derring-do which otherwise I might have done—a result to my credit and to the credit of others.
The discipline in terrorist organisations is the discipline of the death sentence and the firing squad, whether it be the PLO or the IRA. To say that the death penalty is in no way a dissuader is complete nonsense, for dissuader it is.
That is not the main argument for the return of the death penalty. The issue is much wider. First, I believe that society expects an element of retribution. Support of the law depends not just on consent but on approbation. That is what the country demands. Secondly, the principle that it would be an error for the House ever to forget is that if there be violence and terror, it must not be the gangster who imposes the terror but the state. If there be a question of violence, the monopoly of violence must be the monopoly of the state, and those who break the monopoly will themselves be broken. That is the basis of a sufficient and effective state.
Whatever my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) says, I say that in the country today there is a feeling that if violence is not controlled or put under more effective control than over the past few years other people will take law and order into their own hands. That will mean armed police and vigilantes. It will mean the sort of thing that we have seen in other countries. That is why I believe that at this stage it is important that this principle should be restored. It is the only principle which, in the hierarchy of punishment, can meet the variety of crimes that threaten our society.
7.42 pm
Mr. William Ross: Like many others from Northern Ireland, I am sometimes inclined to stumble over various designations and initials of organisations in Ulster. That is why I sympathised today with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), who stumbled over the UDA and the UDR. I am sorry that right hon. and hon. Members forgot that the debate is being broadcast and listened to in Northern Ireland. They laughed at the hon. Gentleman. I wonder if they are thinking now what effect their laughter had on no fewer than six families in Ulster today. Six people were murdered in the Province today, two alleged informers on IRA activities and four members of the security forces.
Since the debate began I have been steadily forced to the conclusion that we have a most ineffective police force and court system because all that I have heard about are the mistakes that have been made and the innocent men who have been condemned to death. If innocent men were condemned to death and suffered the supreme penalty when the police investigations and trial procedures must have been the most meticulous, I must come to the logical conclusion that our prisons are now full of innocent men and women. If it is not so, more mistakes must be made in murder cases than in general crime investigations and criminal trials.
On the Diplock courts, I disagree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in one respect. He wants the return of jury trials if the death penalty is put into operation. However, I believe that there is no reason for

935
slanging the Diplock courts. They have done a reasonably good job all the way down the line. If they are good enough for trying murderers and sentencing them to life imprisonment, they are good enough to send murderers to their deaths.
I also make it plain that I have always been against the principle of the Diplock courts. I have always believed that jurymen could have been found, who would have carried out their duty, even if it eventually cost them their lives. A society that is not prepared to produce jurymen even at the cost of their lives is a society that is on its way to die. We should bring back jury trial to Ulster for all cases as soon as possible. I see no reason why it should not be reintroduced immediately.
The debate has circulated around morality, practicality and deterrent value. For myself, morality would have to be judged on biblical grounds, but, as so many hon. Members reject biblical morality and teaching, I fail to see why I should argue on the grounds of that morality today. I shall base my remarks in support of the death penalty on the practical effects that it will have on dealing with terrorists and murderers in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made it plain that, even if he had been convinced that the death penalty would be successful, he would still have been against it. In taking that view he undermined and destroyed his case. Therefore, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to discount the conclusions that he reached, because I do not understand how an effective system and weapon can be lightly discarded just because one does not like it. It does not matter whether a weapon against terrorism, murder and violence is a nice weapon to use. If it is effective and gives us the desired result, it should be used. I stood in the ruins of the Ballykelly bombing. I saw what was pulled out. I did not like it. Anyone who thinks that hanging is a nasty sight should have gone to Ballykelly; he might have changed his mind rapidly.
The question is then raised of who is to be hanged. It is the question of the death penalty for murder, yet one gets the impression from the debate that all those who have killed another human being are considered murderers when in fact a clear line is always drawn between manslaughter and murder. Therefore, we are talking about two totally different classes of killing—for manslaughter a prison sentence that could be long or short, and for murder the death penalty. I would go across the board for murder, whether it is committed by an organisation engaged in terrorism or by a person who kills for profit in a cold, calculated and premeditated way.
The mentality of the terrorist murderer is largely a product of the modern world. We are concerned mainly with Irish terrorism, which is the most spectacular terrorism with which we have to deal. It is with us all the time. I should like to refer to the mentality and attitude of Irish terrorists.
There are those who are against the death penalty, such as the Chief Constable of the RUC, judges and leading churchmen, who have all proclaimed themselves against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has declared himself for it, as have churchmen on the Government Benches. None of the people against it are at the cutting edge. The Police Federation, the constable on the road, the ordinary men
936
and women who face terrorists and those who have suffered at their hands take a different view. Those who are insulated from the terrorists are in no position to pronounce on the issue.
What will be the effect of reintroducing the death penalty for Irish terrorists, the IRA, the UVF or any others? We have been told that there will be street violence. We have had street violence before. We have had 15 years of it. We have also had kidnapping, and the victims have been murdered. Undoubtedly terrorism will increase for a time, but what is the alternative? The alternative is that we retreat from violence and allow those who perpetuate street violence, murder and kidnapping to succeed in driving us from our chosen path. In other words, we shall allow terrorist organisation to defeat the forces of law and order and the House, which is the governing body of the nation.
Today, four members of the UDR have been murdered by cold-blooded, calculating members of the IRA. They are not the first and, I fear, they will not be the last. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said that death would not and does not deter the IRA. The IRA does not believe that. Today, it has proved that it believes in the death penalty, as it killed two of its own because it thought that they were informers. For the purposes of terrorist organisations, it does not matter whether the two people that the IRA murdered as informers were guilty. All that matters is that the terrorists' power has been projected once again into its community. Members of the community in which it lives and moves have been told by the murders that if they do not stay in line they will be killed.
The second lesson to be learnt from today's events in Ulster relates to the murder of members of the UDR. Some will say that, by that action, the IRA is thumbing its nose at the House and telling us to do our worst. It is not. It is telling us that it intends to step up violence, to make our lives hell and to do everything it can to make our lives difficult. Beyond that comes the lesson from the hunger strikers. Once again, the wrong conclusions have consistently been drawn from that. I have an advantage over most hon. Members in that I knew one of the hunger strikers who died and one who came off the hunger strike.
The real lesson of the hunger strikers is not that 10 died but that only 10 died. The lesson is that, by standing firm on that issue, the Government defeated the IRA. The real lesson is that if the IRA and other terrorist organisations are to be defeated, they must be met on their own ground. The organisation must be met every time it ups the bet. When it is met, it can and will be defeated. It will not be defeated by running away. If we are to break the terrorist organisations, we must break the power of the godfathers. To beat them, we must match their sentence, which is death.
What of the fanatics? We will always have fanatics and they will not be deterred. They are the most ruthless, cold-blooded and dangerous of all, death penalty or no. Until they are executed, imprisoned or killed they will not stop and that is the way to deal with them. We must fight and defeat the IRA. The death penalty is a practical step because it has a tremendous and unrealised deterrent value. It should be brought into effect at the earliest possible opportunity.
7.55 pm
Sir Ian Gilmour: I shall come back to the interesting remarks made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about the Diplock courts because I wish to confine my remarks to terrorism. Despite what the Home Secretary said and his powerful if rather vague advocacy of the death penalty for terrorism, the case for it is much weaker than it is for any other issue. I wish to take up two of my right hon. and learned Friend's points. I am sorry that he is not here, although I understand that he has a good reason.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Frield the Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival) came to the wrong answer because to some extent they asked the wrong question. It is true that terrorists are evil and an affront to civilisation because they wage war against society, but that is not the end of the matter. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) said, it is not a matter of doing what we think is right. What we think is right depends on its consequences.
If we intend to introduce the death penalty we must ask ourselves whether we shall thereby diminish terrorism and aid the security forces, or whether we shall increase terrorism and make the task of the security forces even more difficult. We do not have to rely simply on our hunches to answer that question. Several countries have faced such circumstances. One has already been mentioned. Capital punishment existed in Franco's Spain, although Spain was rather chary of wing it.
In September 1975 that country shot five terrorists for being guilty of shooting policemen. The result was that, within eight days, no fewer than nine policemen had been shot by terrorists in reprisals. The Police Review in Britain commented that
"whether it was right or wrong to execute the Spanish terrorists, subsequent events hardly bore out the case for bringing back the death penalty to deal with the situation in Britain."
I commend that comment to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths).
The second precedent is Palestine after the second world war. The late Arthur Koestler wrote in his book "Promise and Fulfilment" about what happened when capital punishment was first used in 1947. He wrote:
"In April, four terrorists were hanged … The executions were followed by a new wave of assassinations, bomb-throwing and mine laying, which caused further deaths within the next few days; on the scene of each attack the terrorists left a hangman's noose as their signature".
Presumably those who favour reintroducing hanging in Britain think that the IRA would act differently from the ETA and the Irgun terrorists. I should like to know their evidence. We have heard no evidence to suggest that the IRA would act differently from the way in which it and other terrorist organisations have acted.
There is also the problem of communal violence. I remind the hon. Member for Londonderry, East that capital punishment in Northern Ireland was abolished because of the imminent execution of a Protestant. It was thought that such an execution would lead to considerable communal violence.
We must ponder something else. When I was concerned with these matters throughout the Conservative Government of 1970–74, and as an Opposition spokesman for the rest of the 1970s, I never came across one commander of security forces who favoured capital
938
punishment for terrorism. Every one opposed it. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that that is still the case. They opposed it because they believed that capital punishment would lead to more rather than less terrorism and fewer convictions. That is hardly a desirable combination.
Why do my right hon. and hon. Friends who want to reintroduce hanging for terrorism decide on this issue alone to pay no attention to the security commanders? On any other, they would pay serious attention to them. For some reason, they have decided totally to ignore them on this issue.
My final point has already been touched on and is whether we should extend the penalty to Northern Ireland. I did not fully understand what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was saying initially, but he has made it clear that he thinks that the death penalty should be extended to Northern Ireland. We would then have an absurd position. Virtually everybody—except my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary agrees that one cannot hang a man without a jury trial. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that he would welcome jury trial, but that is not a serious solution because it would lead to few convictions, because the witnesses and the jury would be intimidated. The result of bringing back hanging for terrorism in Northern Ireland would be that fewer terrorists would be convicted, which is not desirable.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary tossed out an extraordinary suggestion when he said that it might be possible to have three judges sitting together, or just one judge and a couple of assessors. With all respect to him, that is not something that should come from the Home Secretary. It might come from me or one of my right hon. or hon. Friends on the Back Benches, but the Home Secretary should have settled proposals if he is to advocate to the House a serious matter, and this could hardly be a more serious matter. Instead of that, he said that one might have a couple of assessors. That would be intolerable for public opinion here and in Northern Ireland, and for the assessors. That is not a serious point of view.
We would still have an extremely difficult and impossible quandary. If we extend the death penalty to Northern Ireland there would have to be jury trials, which would mean no convictions, and if we do not extend the death penalty to Northern Ireland we will have hanging on this side of the Irish channel, where there is little terrorism, and not on the other side of the Irish channel, where there is a great deal of terrorism. Either way, that argument reduces the whole case for hanging for terrorism to absurdity.
The experience of other countries, the views of the security commanders and the realities of our judicial system all point in exactly the same direction and make the case against hanging for terrorism overwhelming.
8.2 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: New Members, more than any others, have experienced the pressure of public opinion on this issue, or at least of assertions of what public opinion is said to be. I intend tonight to vote against the reintroduction of capital punishment, in any form, and for any form of murder. If I had thought that public opinion must rule my conscience I should not be in this House, for

939
I should not have stood for election. I hope that many other new Members will take that view and vote with their consciences tonight.
I should like to concentrate on two specific matters—matters which are practical legal considerations. The first concerns the meaning and nature of the legislation that would have to be introduced if capital punishment were reintroduced. The second concerns the administration of justice.
Let me deal first with the meaning and nature of the laws that would have to be created. We have seen many attempts to define different categories of murder. The intention behind those attempts has almost always been to define the most serious as the capital crimes.
The Homicide Act 1957 was a signal failure. It demonstrated plainly the arbitrariness of the distinctions that were created. It is too glib to say that those who draft statutes have now discovered the magic of definition, which would remove the arbitrariness from such distinctions. With the 1957 Act, the callous poisoner who, for motives of gain or lust, killed in a painful and calculated way escaped the gallows; whereas the social inadequate who went to steal from the gas meter and made a spur-of-the-moment decision, not to kill but to cause serious injury, rendered himself liable to be executed. Such an arbitrary distinction is not acceptable in a civilised legal system.
What is more, how do we define terrorism for the purposes of distinguishing between capital and non-capital crime? I have not heard from those hon. Members who wish to see execution for terrorists one word of explanation of how they would define terrorism so that we would have a legally workable definition in court.
There is also the problem of the definition of
"police officer during the course of his duty."
Every day, in many magistrates' courts, solicitors argue about the meaning of those very words. These are not cases of murder, but minor offences of assault.
Once again, we should see people executed because of arbitrary decisions based upon arbitrary legislation. How will the public react when they perceive that arbitrariness? How can we defend such laws against the accusation by our critics that the House had acted on emotion rather than on argument, and on gut feeling rather than on good judgment? The reintroduction of capital punishment, in whatever form, would create arbitrary laws; and arbitrary laws are thoroughly bad laws.
Secondly, there is the administration of justice. We all agree that it is of profound importance that murderers—all murderers if possible—should be brought to justice. Practitioners, and there will be some in the House, who have experience of capital trials in years gone by will say that, whatever public opinion may seem to be, juries were in fact reluctant to convict of capital crime, at least in England and Wales. In this regard, the statistics are persuasive. In 1955 and 1956, of those crimes that were reported by the police as murder, about 22 per cent. of the accused were convicted of murder. Between 1970 and 1972, the last years for which comparable statistics are available, and after the abolition of the death penalty, the rate had gone up to nearly 40 per cent. Capital punishment is a deterrent — a deterrent against the conviction of murderers by juries.
940
Another practical consideration is majority verdicts. One of the arguments deployed in the House when it was agreed that majority verdicts should be permitted was that no more capital verdicts were required, that is, no more verdicts that could lead to death. Are we to send people to the gallows on the basis of majority verdicts? Would majority verdicts have been introduced in the knowledge that capital punishment would be restored? This is extremely doubtful.
I have heard it said on the radio by an hon. Member that the answer to that problem was to have capital punishment only if there was a unanimous verdict. That is a naive proposition. It introduces an even less acceptable element of arbitrariness — the element of luck in finding an abolitionist on the jury.
My final point is also about juries. One of the main reasons for the revival of the debate on capital punishment has been the level of terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is less than intellectually honest to try to divert our attention to other forms of terrorism. When we talk of terrorism in this debate, we are all thinking of Northern Ireland. Terrorist trials in Northern Ireland are held in the Diplock courts because practical experience showed that it was not possible to find juries prepared to run the personal risk to themselves of convicting for terrorists offences, even offences falling far short of murder.
The reintroduction of capital punishment would inevitably mean that the House accepted executions without jury trial. That would be a change going to the very basis of our legal system. The suggestion that an individual man or woman should be killed as a result of the judicial verdict of another individual man or woman is horrific to any practising lawyer and should be horrific to the laymen too. The Home Secretary talks vaguely of having one or two assessors, but nobody knows what he means by that. Is he suggesting that people should be convicted of murder by something resembling a magistrates court?
We rely upon the checks and balances of the jury system. To suggest that we should do otherwise in capital cases is profoundly offensive to those of us involved with the practice and administration of justice. That was made plain yesterday by the overwhelming majority at the annual meeting of the Bar. It has been made plain by the majority of those judges who have let their views be known, and by those who have to manage the prisons.
These are practical problems. I hope that the House will give them full weight in deciding to vote against the reintroduction of capital punishment.
8.13 pm
Mr. Vivian Bendall: I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that this debate should not have been called so early in this Parliament. We faced a similar situation in 1979, when a debate was called early in the Parliament. It would have been in the best interests of the House — especially the new Members — and of the general public, to hold the debate in the autumn. New Members of Parliament would then have been able to make a better assessment of the views of their constituents.
I am also somewhat concerned about the new stance taken by the Government on this issue. When we last debated this matter in a similar way in May 1982, the then Home Secretary, Viscount Whitelaw, in replying to the

941
debate, commented upon the situation that would arise if the House were to vote in favour of the death penalty for any of the categories of murder. He said:
"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."—[Official Report, 11 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 637.]
The answer to a question last Thursday suggested to me that the Government may have changed their view. Apparently it is now the view of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that, if we vote in favour of the death penalty for any of the categories of murder, there should be a private Member's Bill. That is a complete turnaround by the Government on the assurances given a year ago to this House, given again by Viscount Whitelaw, during the election campaign and also referred to on "Panorama" in the middle of May when the Prime Minister was interviewed by Robin Day.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Robin who?
Mr. Bendall: Sir Robin Day.
There has been a clear change in Government policy, and I do not believe that that change has been made clear to the general public. We should be given an explanation by either the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Send for her.
Mr. Canavan: Send her to the gallows.
Mr. Bendall: We should be told why there has been such a change in Government policy. The Government have a duty to the House and to the British people to make the reasons plain.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made absolutely clear his views about the death penalty in relation to Northern Ireland. He has a right to do so, even though I may disagree with him. I fail to understand, however, why various other Ministers have not given us their reasons for the course of action they may wish to take. It is no good saying that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has special responsibilities. The Secretary of State for Scotland also has special responsibilities, so perhaps we ought to hear from him too.
Mr. Canavan: Where is he?
Mr. Bendall: Where indeed? We are debating a serious issue of national interest. There is no doubt that the people of this country will study this debate seriously. They have a right to know the views of important members of both Government and Opposition who would have to administer the law or to take decisions affected by our vote tonight.
In recent years there have been many opinion polls. Many hon. Members have recently taken straw polls. I do not necessarily believe that one should cast one's vote on the basis of a straw poll, but, in our democratic system, when we are considering issues that arouse the emotions of the general public, we should brief ourselves as fully as we can.
We are discussing a number of categories of murder. I am deeply concerned about some of the views expressed outside the House. The bishops, the judges and others have every right to their opinions — everyone has in a
942
democratic society — but I am worried when judges, prosecuting counsel and others say that they may not be prepared to administer the law if Parliament decides to change the law in favour of the death penalty. I find that very dangerous. My answer to those who try to influence events in that way is that if the law changes and they feel that they cannot administer it, although it is the democratic will of Parliament, they should leave the positions that they hold. Otherwise, such a situation would take us into very dangerous waters.
I am bitterly disappointed about much of the role that the Church has recently played in politics —[Interruption.] I knew that some of my remarks would be unpopular but there are things that must be said. I should like the Church—regardless of which Church it is—to be more active in speaking out against violence. I should like it to exert more influence on that subject. We only seem to hear from the Church on certain aspects of politics. It does not seem to cover the wider spectrum. I have never heard the Church of England Synod refer to the victims in its debates on murder and capital punishment — [Interruption.] Again, that comment might be unpopular, but there are things that need to be said.
We have been battling for many years against one factor that has forced many people to seek the return of the death penalty. I refer to the fact that the measures taken after 1957 have basically failed to work, because life imprisonment has not meant exactly that. Murderers leave prison 10 to 12 years after committing their crimes and often serve much shorter sentences than possibly the train robbers, the Krays, the Richardsons and others who have committed capital murders, although frequently against their own criminal kind—[Interruption.] That is one reason why the British public are concerned about what is happening. The sentences meted out to others who commit murder are minimal by comparison.
We have correctly heard that the number of policemen murdered since the abolition of the death penalty has nearly trebled. Much has been said about the serious acts of terrorism that are committed. I do not intend to go into the details, but hon. Members should bear in mind the sad situation that obtained at the Maze prison, and the fact that several hunger strikers committed suicide before sanity prevailed with their relatives, and came to the aid of others who wished to continue on that path. They realised that the Government were not prepared to give way. The problems must be brought closer to home. We must have more influence on the family unit, where the problems originate. We must also have more influence in the schools, where the problems also have their root. Those are the areas that we must tackle.
I admire the comments made by the Home Secretary today when he said that we should introduce capital punishment for terrorism. I am only sorry that he did not include the use of firearms and explosives. It is difficult to define whether a terrorist who robs a bank is committing a criminal act or an act of terrorism. However, if firearms and explosives are included, the difficulty is removed. That inclusion would make it clear that the use of firearms or explosives would warrant the death penalty. Therefore, I am sorry that the Home Secretary could not find it in his heart to go further. If he believes in the death penalty for terrorists, he must surely believe in the death penalty for those who use explosives and firearms. That is why I shall support the motion and the amendments, and I trust that other hon. Members will join me in the Lobby.
8.25 pm
Mrs. Renée Short: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) has complained that the Church does not speak out against violence in our society, or on behalf of the victims. However, the Church has consistently spoken out about certain forms of violence. I think of the horrors of nuclear war, or perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not think that that is violence. In speaking out against nuclear war, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Church is speaking on behalf of the potential victims? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will think again about the role of the Church.
Mr. Bendall: Would the hon. Lady like to give way?
Mrs. Short: No, I do not think so.
Parliament, of course, must take responsibility for what it does, and we must be aware of the views of those who send us here, for we must answer to them for what we do. Indeed, several hon. Members have already made that point. I have received nine letters from my constituency, so my constituents are apparently not unduly concerned about what I might do tonight. They have not been whipped up by the press, which has been organising public opinion polls, just as it did during the election campaign, to try to whip up a feeling of hysteria.
We must answer to our constituents, but that does not mean that we must ignore our consciences and do what we believe in our hearts to be wrong. Parliament would be a poor place if we were to do that. I do not know whether hon. Members realise it, but we are discussing this fundamental issue on the anniversary of the judicial murder of a woman. The hanging of Ruth Ellis, as I well remember, was a horrific affair. I believe that the majority view then was that she should have been reprieved, but she was not, and she died what must have been, for her, an utterly terrifying and lonely death. That brought home to many of us the utter futility of the death penalty and the enormity of taking life, even when a life had been taken, and in circumstances that many people could well understand. Treachery and betrayal can call up the deepest emotions normally hidden in the human heart, and no one can say with any certainty that it could never happen to him.
The argument that the death penalty would, if reintroduced, prove a deterrent to terrorism is false. It did not deter in the past. Terrorism, in the context that many think of at present, has a long and terrible history. Hon. Members have already reminded us of some of the appalling events in Northern Ireland.
The fear of death was not in the minds of those who were deputed by their peers to commit those acts. In the past the prize of martyrdom acted almost as adrenalin to spur on the evil doers. It gave them the motivation and drive to carry out the murders of innocent people who stood in the way of their political goal. That has been the position throughout history. In every country there have been periods of prolonged terror with countless lives lost but little evidence to show that the guillotine or the hangman had any deterrent effect.
Almost 124 years ago the first Royal Commission was set up by the House to decide which murders should be punishable by death and which should not. That Royal Commission, even in 1864, favoured the abolition of the death penalty, but it tried to categorise murders into capital and non-capital offences because it felt that it had to make
944
concession to public opinion as it believed public opinion to be at that time. Since then, debates of this type have become a ritual in the House. I hope to goodness that this will be the last. I wish that this debate could conclude with a clear vote against the death penalty and that that would settle the matter.
The judicial hanging of a human being has never, to my mind, served any useful purpose. I do not believe that this callous, cold-hearted ritual should ever be brought back into our lives. There is a paradox in the argument of hon. Members who say how wicked it is to take a human life when those who support the motion would do just that. Those of us who oppose the reimposition of the death penalty do not believe that the taking of human life is part of a civilised society and we renounce our right to do that. Society must be protected and criminals deterred, but there is no evidence that hanging is a deterrent. The dreadful risk is that if we vote in favour of the death penalty mistakes will again be made and innocent people hanged. The cases of Timothy Evans and Craig and Bentley spring to mind, but there were several others.
In earlier centuries the usual penalty for theft was to cut off the hand of the thief. That practice still operates in some middle east countries. No one would ever suggest bringing back that penalty in this country — or would they? One never knows with the Conservatives. We have been re-educated about that. I hope that Conservative Members are now being re-educated about hanging. Legalised murder is brutalising and degrading. It does not deter. Every criminal, petty or not, thinks that he will get away with it. Those who kill in a fit of rage do not have time to think about whether there is capital punishment. When the rage is over, they are horrified at what they have done and are filled with remorse. I do not believe that the deterrent argument holds water.
If we reintroduce the death penalty for terrorism, we shall create a whole new mythology and literature of martyrdom. Songs will be sung for generations, plays will be written about the so-called martyrs, the literature will expand and new generations of terrorists will grow up with the desire to emulate and to exceed what has been done before.
The hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) has not proved his case. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, revenge is not acceptable. It proves nothing, it deters no one and it serves only to make martyrs in evil causes. The right hon. Gentleman was also right that concentration on capital punishment prevents us from doing anything positive about penal reform.
It is largely, but not exclusively, in poverty that the seeds of crime are sown, and poverty is made more likely by the present Government. To do anything positive to reform the penal system and the way in which we deal with law-breakers is one of the most unpopular causes to plead in the House and in this allegedly enlightened land, as I know to my cost, but reform is certainly needed. Our prison system is a disgrace. A terrifying fate awaits any long-term prisoner in our overcrowded, overstaffed and insanitary prisons. Thousands of men suffer those overcrowded conditions and on the whole nothing is being done to re-educate or reform them.
I hope that the House will vote against the motion and that this will be the last debate of this kind.
8.33 pm
Mr. Terence Higgins: It is now nearly 20 years since the House voted for the Second Reading of the Bill to abolish capital punishment. At that time I had recently entered the House, having had the honour to be elected to represent Worthing. I well recall being greatly influenced by the speech of the then Mr. Henry Brooke, who had just left the office of Home Secretary. He said that he had changed his mind and strongly advocated that the House should vote for abolition.
Mr. Henry Brooke's remarks were reinforced from his own experience. In particular, he referred to the frame in the Home Secretary's office which contained a list of those due to be considered for reprieve, having been condemned to death. He referred to a Latin tag, which was translated as:
"No pause for thought is too long where the death of a man is concerned."
I hope that that frame will not be reinstated in the Home Secretary's office. Many of the arguments put forward by that Home Secretary are still relevant, although there are new arguments that did not exist 20 years ago, such as the impact of majority verdicts, trial without jury and terrorism.
Reference has been made to the difference of opinion in the House and to our constituents' view on the matter. That must be of great concern to every hon. Member. I have always believed that politics must be a two-way business so that one takes fully into account one's constituents' views. One also has a duty to explain to them the arguments expounded here and elsewhere. It is important to stress — I am disturbed by reports of colleagues who take a different view — that we are not sent here as pocket computers to register simply on the basis of numbers what our constituents believe. If we do that, we are failing in our duty. We have a far more difficult task, which is to take fully into account the arguments of our constituents, to listen to debates in the House, to examine all matters as fully as possible, and then to vote as our constituents would vote if they had the same opportunity as we do. We must explain to them, in Burke's immortal words, that we are here as representatives, not as delegates.
Much has been made of the argument that this is a matter for individual Members' consciences. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and others laid great weight on that argument and appealed to hon. Members' consciences. I do not believe that it would be a problem of conscience if I were faced with the simple issue of saving the life of an innocent person or saving the life of someone guilty of murder. That would be a clear-cut decision, which Hs not a matter of conscience but one of judgment. However, in this debate, it is difficult to make up one's mind on the basis of judgment, taking all the arguments into account.
The crucial question, as is well established from this and earlier debates, is whether a vote for the restoration of capital punishment would save innocent lives. I have no sympathy for criminals or terrorists. My anxiety is for the community as a whole, but one must ask whether the case for deterrence has been proved, given the fact that mistakes have been made in murder cases. The onus of proof is on those who believe that capital punishment is a deterrent, and they have not made their case.
That does not mean that I am soft on crimes of violence, and preoccupation with this matter has distracted the
946
attention of the House from the need for heavier penalties for crimes of violence. It might be argued that as the judiciary has discretion to impose sentences for robbery with violence and armed robbery, an amendment today stating that such crimes should have a sentence of at least 20 years served would do far more to deter bank robbers than would capital punishment.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: How does my right hon. Friend know?
Mr. Higgins: Our attention has been distracted from the main issue, which is the need for heavier sentences.
There is a real problem because of the introduction of majority verdicts. If a man were found guilty of murder, with two members of the jury believing him innocent, one could not go ahead and hang that man. However, if one goes for a unanimous verdict in such cases, there is a real danger that because a member of the jury is opposed to capital punishment on moral grounds the person would be acquitted and go free, receiving no punishment at all. It is perhaps unfortunate that my hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did not deal with this matter.
I shall deal briefly with terrorism and the various arguments that have been raised on that tragic subject. I have no sympathy whatever with terrorism, and I believe that the whole House shares my utter revulsion at and abhorrence for the deeds that have been carried out by terrorists. Several arguments have been put, in particular about the problem of creating martyrs.
Capital punishment would give the terrorists a real propaganda weapon. One cannot use the comparison of the hunger strikers. Someone rightly said that the Government stood firm and in the end the hunger strikes stopped. That would not happen if we reintroduced capital punishment. If murders and terrorist murders continued, the process of capital punishment would necessarily continue, and that would provide a propaganda weapon of a totally different order from that which existed when the people concerned decided to take their own lives. We should be concerned about that.
In the wider context of terrorism, I was much impressed by the remarks that were made by Sir Robert Mark at the time of the Balcombe street seige, when the terrorists were persuaded to surrender. He said that they would have been most unlikely to surrender if they knew that they would be hanged. That again is something that we should bear in mind.
There is also the problem of hostages. If capital punishment were imposed, with the long drawn-out process that would necessarily precede the hanging of any terrorist, there is the possibility that hostages would be taken. If I were convinced that the Government would stand firm in those circumstances I believe that the risk would be worth taking, but there is no guarantee that the Government would stand firm, faced with going ahead with capital punishment at a time when the lives of perhaps 20 or 30 hostages were at stake. If the Government did not stand firm the victory for the terrorists would be great, as would be the defeat for law and order.
Then there is the point that has been made on a number of occasions about whether we could have capital punishment for terrorists when the decision would be taken by a judge, or a judge and two assessors.
Mr. Brittan: Three judges.
Mr. Higgins: As my right hon. and learned Friend says, apparently, three judges. The number of judges is not relevant, with great respect. I am sorry that my right hon. and learned Friend did not spell out what he had in mind in greater detail. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is possible that public opinion would not find a decision of that nature acceptable. Indeed, it would place tremendous responsibility and strain on the individual judges, in a totally unprecedented situation—at any rate, in modern times. However, if we go back to a system of trial by jury in Northern Ireland, in particular, there is a risk of intimidation, with the result that people might be acquitted and suffer no penalty whatever. I am therefore not convinced that it would be right to restore capital punishment.
In view of the strength of argument in the debate 20 years ago, when it was almost unanimously agreed that it was impossible to differentiate between capital and non-capital murder — certainly Mr. Henry Brooke stressed that aspect—and when it was rejected by the House on that occasion, I find it extraordinary that we now have a series of amendments on the Order Paper which seek to do precisely that. One cannot differentiate between different categories of murder, and certainly not, as has been stressed by several hon. Members, between terrorist and non-terrorist murders. As has been rightly said, those are equally terrible and it is right that the same penalty should be imposed. However, for the reasons that I have given, it would not be right to restore capital punishment in any of those cases.
8.44 pm
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: The debate was opened by two Queen's counsel — the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) and the Home Secretary. They both had expensive educations. I listened to them as a simple layman and I had no sense of deprivation in not having had a legal training. They did the cases that they put forward no justice.
The hon. and learned Member for Fylde almost admitted that there were no statistics to prove that capital punishment of whatever kind is a deterrent. The Home Secretary underlined that. All the figures produced by all the authorities that we can lay our hands on also underline that fact. That destroys the principal argument for the reintroduction of capital punishment.
If it does not deter, why is the argument for capital punishment put forward unless it is some form of retribution? But retribution does not solve the problem. We are still left with murders and violence of one kind or another, endemic to our society. They are increasing day by day.
At every general election in the past 20 years to my knowledge the Conservative party has promised that it is the party of law and order and will solve the problems. It has singularly failed to do so and it is in desperation that debates such as this are put forward from time to time. They are to try to prove the Conservative party's virility in one way or another by showing its firmness and determination to root out murder. But, of course, they do nothing of the kind.
The Home Secretary's speech was the most appalling that I have heard from a Home Secretary in the past 30 years. He is one of the most over-rated Members of the House. I have thought so ever since he became a Member. Whatever position he has held, I have had that view
948
confirmed. He underlined it this afternoon by an almost off-the-cuff remark. He said that he would reintroduce capital punishment for terrorism. He said that we cannot have juries but that we shall have two or three assessors, a little quango the members of which will get together in a happy little knot to decide that somebody shall be for the rope.
Would there be a majority verdict, two to one? What would be the mechanics by which a man would hang, be shot, be poisoned, or whatever? For a prominent member of the Cabinet to make such a speech is absolutely disgraceful. It has rightly been shot down by almost everybody who has spoken in the debate.
The Home Secretary also said that the argument was raging in the country. It is doing no such thing. In a document in the Library I read that in a previous debate an hon. Member said that she had received 800 letters on the subject. I have never had 800 letters on any single subject under the sun in all the years that I have been in the House, and on this particular matter I have had precisely four. Right hon. and hon. Members can make of that what they like. They cannot presume that the country is seething and desperately anxious for the rope.
Even if that were so, it has been said repeatedly in the House that we are not here to govern by public opinion poll. We are here to make our own judgments, to exercise our own consciences and to take the rap in our constituencies for whatever we do or say. I have always made my views abundantly clear, and there has never been any threat to my existence in the House. My position has never been threatened by virtue of my attitude on this matter.
I forecast that, whatever the outcome tonight, no legislation on capital punishment will be passed by Parliament. I build a scenario. What will happen if the Home Secretary's advice is taken by the House—I do not believe that it will be — and we accept the proposition that there will be capital punishment for terrorism? A private Member will try to introduce legislation with the Government's advice. He might be better off without it. The Government must then define their terms. Many Prime Ministers all over the world have at one time been defined as terrorists—in Africa, South America and all over the former British Empire.
I can name 20 hon. Members who would like to be on a committee on capital punishment legislation, defining exclusions and the rest, but there is no prospect of succeeding with such a Bill. The Government know that no guillotine motion would be possible.
The Prime Minister, contrary to her promise during the election campaign, said that the Government would have nothing to do with this matter. The Government are divided. They see a way out. Even if the vote goes in favour of one proposition or another, there is no hope in hell that it will be translated into legislation.
The Government are gunning for the Home Secretary. His bacon will be saved by the device of a private Member's Bill. The legislation is dead, whatever the result tonight. That is why the Government are behaving in this hypocritical way. I hope that this is the end of this sad story and that we will get down to solving the undoubted problems of increasing violence. The greatest violence is to put nearly 4 million people on the dole.
8.54 pm
Mr. George Gardiner: I commend to the House amendment (i) which stands in ray name and which seeks to restore the death penalty for murders committed in the course or furtherance of theft. Having heard this debate through, although the contributions from both sides have obviously been sincere, I am left with the feeling that insufficient account has been taken of the weight of public opinion.
My amendment covers the category of murder that comes closest to ordinary people in their daily lives. It seeks to lessen the danger and the feat that they feel. My amendment would restore the possibility of capital punishment for those who take guns oh raids on banks or wages vans with the intention of using them to shoot their way out of trouble. The scene of such a tragedy could be any high street bank to which our constituents go regularly in the course of their business. It could be a security van visiting a factory, office or other place of work.
The amendment seeks to restore the possibility of capital punishment for those who take weapons with them when burgling homes, knowing that they might use them to eliminate an unfortunate innocent witness to their crime. It seeks to restore the possibility of capital punishment for street thieves — for muggers and people who use violence and weapons other than guns at the cost of innocent victims' lives. It seeks to restore the possibility of capital punishment for that despicable crime that is becoming prevalent—breaking into a home, battering an old person, taking their savings and leaving the victim without any apparent concern about whether he or she lives or dies. Indifference to human life has become associated with many forms of crime. I find that most frightening of all.
A newspaper report a few weeks ago, which did not take up much space, began with the words:
"Two men who killed Mrs. Violet Beckett, 84, by putting tape over her eyes and mouth, tying her to her bed and leaving her, were both jailed for 12 years at Birmingham Crown court yesterday. The pair also stole the £400 she had saved to pay for her funeral."
That type of murder comes closest to people's experience in their daily lives. Ordinary people live in fear of that happening to them. Is it any wonder that the majority of people demand the further protection that they believe the possibility of the death sentence would give them?
I cannot accept the Home Secretary's contention that some exemplary sentences would cause the greatest public disquiet. That disquiet, anger and fear exist now. The argument of the advocates of capital punishment is not about taking life, but about saving it. We have a duty to do whatever we can to ensure that men, women and children do not become the innocent victims of violent crime.
Many statistics have been used in the debate. In the past 10 years in that category of murder to which I refer—the furtherance of theft or gain—5000 innocent people have lost their lives.
The Timothy Evans case is thrown at us as an example of a possible innocent life taken. We must remember the 500 innocent lives that have been lost in the last 10 years as a result of murder by those bent on theft. I cannot comprehend how abolitionists can disagree that at least some of those 500 innocent lives could have been saved if the possibility of capital punishment had obliged the criminals to pay a passing thought for their victims.
950
It is freely acknowledged on all sides that hon. Members have a difficult and moral decision to make. Moral questions are not easy. They are often difficult to decide. That is so tonight. The moral arguments are not all on one side. Many opponents of capital punishment this evening have talked about the possibility of error when a capital sentence is carried out. That is a possibility which I, in honesty, have to understand and accept. What if an innocent life is taken? I take that on board when considering the problem. But that is not the end of the moral argument. An equally moral question is whether we can continue to deny to citizens innocent of crime the final thin protection of obliging the criminal to show some consideration for their lives while pursuing his ends.
I agree that the death of Timothy Evans poses a moral problem, but so does the death of Mrs. Violet Beckett, left casually to die by those who had robbed her of £400. Her life should weigh on our consciences—together with the lives of many of the 500 killed during the process of theft in the past 10 years—as does the life of Timothy Evans.
I have no doubt where the balance of such moral argument lies. I shall vote accordingly tonight to save lives —the lives of those destined, under the law as it stands, to become innocent victims.
9.1 pm
Miss Betty Boothroyd: The first argument presented to the House this afternoon was put by the hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner). It was that the public wishes the return of the death penalty for the crime of murder. I tend to think that perhaps the majority do wish for that. The return of the ultimate penalty would be regarded as a mark of determination by the House to deter the criminal. No doubt such symbols have a powerful attraction, but they are of little benefit when they do not produce the required results. From all that I have read over many years and heard today, it is hard to find substantial evidence to suggest that judicial killing is an act that deters.
I do not doubt that it does deter some, but it does not deter others. There is no real statistical evidence for believing that there is a clear correlation between the murder rate and the existence or otherwise of the death penalty. It cannot be proved one way or the other. Therefore, it must be a question of judgment.
The second argument before us is that of retribution. Many hon. Members bellowed in support of that emotional attitude. I find it difficult to argue with those who demand retribution because of the sheer single-mindedness of that approach. They believe that murderers should be hanged irrespective of the consequences of that decision. The retributionists tonight will not find much difficulty in making their decision. But I do not believe that revenge and retribution are the business of Parliament. The business of Parliament is justice and the protection of the innocent—justice in the form of harsh punishment for the guilty and justice in protecting the lives of the innocent and the values of our society. Retribution can never and should never have a place in the deliberations of a Parliament.
The third argument before us is that of selectivity. Those who do not believe in judicial killing are not being asked to throw their convictions overboard; they are being persuaded to make their convictions flexible. It has been suggested throughout the debate by those who have tabled amendments that a more flexible approach will suffice.

951
They suggest that we should discriminate in applying the capital sentence. We are being asked to apply it not to all murders, but to killings in furtherance of certain types of crime, which are spelt out in the amendments. Many hon. Members have acknowledged that to restore selective judicial killing would present the judiciary with enormous problems.
Attempts to implement legislation which distinguishes between capital and non-capital murders have been unsuccessful. We have heard that earlier legislation produced anomalies despite years of study and examination in attempts to define different types of murder. We must face reality. Either we have the death penalty for all murders or we do not reinstate it. That is the issue before the House. We cannot distinguish between one category of murder and another.
Let us consider the issue in practice. I give as an example a raid on a post office or a bank in which a clerk is killed. Subsequently the prosecution produces evidence to suggest that he who killed the clerk had former associations with a terrorist organisation but that those associations had been severed some years before. The accused denies that he was politically motivated but insists that he was financially motivated. There would be grave suspicion and doubt in such a case. It could be that the individual who carried out the killing had no connection with a terrorist organisation but there was evidence to suggest that his associates were politically motivated. It would be an impossible task for juries to distinguish between motives. It would result in far fewer convictions. The legal system would be in disarray and brought into disrepute. It is a ghoulish proposition and an impossible task to draw moral distinctions, as some amendments seek to do, between different types of murder.
The fourth argument concerns the delusion that judicial killing would horrify and deter those prepared to commit major crimes of terrorism. I believe that the Home Secretary is wrong, and dangerously wrong, in what he said today. History disproves the case. History disproves the contention of deterrent. One has only to consider Ireland in the past, Palestine as it then was, Cyprus and more recently Spain. Reprisals on innocent people produced no evidence that the overall result of capital punishment is effective to deter the terrorist any more than it protects the innocent. This was acknowledged 10 years ago in relation to Northern Ireland. At that time, a courageous Conservative Home Secretary moved the abolition of the death penalty there. In doing so he said that he was absolutely convinced that in the days preceding and following any execution police and soldiers would be at increased risk and that it would be likely to promote more shooting and more risk of death than to reduce it. That was later confirmed when that former Home Secretary was in Opposition. It has been upheld by Home Secretaries for 10 years.
I was saddened today after all those years to hear the astonishing views of the new Home Secretary in an incomplete, incoherent argument on a most crucial issue. We are dealing not with criminal thugs but with fanatics, and I do not think he recognises that. We are talking about people who put their lives at minimal cost in comparison with the cause for which they fight because they are
952
hooked on the drug of fanaticism. Death is their business and their only fear is meeting death without the full glare of publicity.
Although martyrdom is an old and classic argument, it is still valid. It was demonstrated in the wave of emotion which followed the self-inflicted starvation of Maze prisoners. That produced money, prestige and support for the IRA, and I am in no doubt that judicial execution would see even greater escalation of that support for violence, swelling the ranks of the paramilitary ready for the grisly romanticism of martyrdom.
For those who perpetuate outrageous acts there is no shred of sympathy. They must be met with long, tough sentences. I make no bones about the fact that I welcome the practice of committal for decades and conviction for life, and I regret that the Home Secretary did not give the figures in relation to Northern Ireland.
I come now to the final argument, to the democratic process which brings into conflict individual conscience and majority opinion. The first question put to me at the first meeting of the election campaign was on this subject. Although over the years in the House I have demonstrated my opposition to capital punishment, I cannot say that all my constituents are aware of my views. But I am not a mandated delegate and this is not a delegated assembly. I owe respect for the point of view of those whom I represent. I also owe them my judgment in seeking what is best for the country as a whole.
It would not only be wrong in itself but wrong in the interests of the nation to reinstate capital punishment on the basis of outside opinion. That opinion I must face and convince. If I fail, my views and I can be rejected. However, it would be intolerable if I were to allow gunmen to blow me away from the opinions I hold. We all owe our unpressured opinions to the nation, and I shall act in that manner tonight.
9.13 pm
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I have listened to the debate carefully and tried to evaluate the arguments that have been put forward. As some hon. Members may know, I have for long held objections on grounds of conscience to capital punishment, but that cannot be the end of the matter. This is an issue, not only of the individual hon. Member's conscience but of the judgment of each one of us as to whether the restoration of capital punishment would increase the security of the nation.
We are obliged to take into account the views of the constituents who sent us here. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) said—and this has been a burden throughout the debate; I agree with it on constitutional grounds — we are not mandated delegates. We are representatives and therefore must take into account the views of our constituents. That must be part of our judgment, but it cannot determine it.
Let us remember that it is the restoration of capital punishment that we are discussing. Hon. Members have spoken about abolitionists. Capital punishment has been abolished—it has gone—and the argument is whether it should be restored. We should be talking about restorationists, not about abolitionists. The burden of proof is upon those who wish to reverse the decision of the House and return to another situation.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Why?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, the status quo has altered.
Mr. Lawrence rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, I shall not give way.
Has the burden of proof been discharged? Has it been established in the debate that the death penalty is a unique deterrent that would increase the security of the country? That has not been established and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) said that it could not be. If that is so, the case cannot be made out for altering the status quo.
We know that it is probable that perhaps six people have been wrongly executed. There may have been more, but can we return to the death penalty in the light of the evidence that mistakes have been made? That question has not been answered in this debate.
Much of the debate has been devoted to execution for terrorists. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary devoted a considerable part of his speech to that issue. I am the first to acknowledge that it is extremely difficult for someone to speak as Home Secretary on this subject. He has a dual role which it is extremely difficult to discharge adequately. We all respect the conscientious right of my right hon. and learned Friend as a Member of this place to have his own opinion and his own vote, but he has an additional and different role from that, which is just as important. As Home Secretary he has a particular responsibility in this area, and it is up to him to give guidance to the House from the beginning.
I have to say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I do not think that he was clear in the guidance that he gave. He was rightly challenged by successive contributors to the debate from both sides of the House to provide clarification. There were two issues. First, he was asked whether the death penalty for terrorists would apply in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: That was made clear.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, that was eventually made clear.
Mr. Taylor: I made it clear.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Possibly: in fact it was made clear in response to a question from a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). The second issue is just as crucial and it has not been answered. It is whether the Home Secretary believes that it is possible without a restoration of jury trial in Northern Ireland to bring back the death penalty for terrorism. Is that possible?
If we consider the whole of our constitutional history, even in our darkest days—and there have been some black ones—we find that no responsible person has ever put forward the proposition that someone should lose his life—suffer the supreme penalty—save by the judgment of his peers. On an issue of this sort we need the utmost clarity from my right hon. and learned Friend in what he tells us he is proposing.
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, I shall not give way.
It has been suggested that perhaps a judge in Northern Ireland sitting with assessors would be a substitute for a jury. Has my right hon. and learned Friend asked the
954
Northern Ireland judiciary whether it would be willing to adopt such a role? If he has made such an inquiry, what has been the response? We in the House are entitled to that information if we are to make a considered judgment on the facts.
Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: One of the most outstanding speeches in the debate was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne. I served with him in the Cabinet when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I can vouch, though it is not necessary, for the truth of everything that he said about the events during that period. He pointed to something of even more importance than jury trial. That is the consistent view of the Government and Opposition that there is nothing special about terrorist activities as such in Northern Ireland. What are the IRA and the others? They are not political offenders. They are common criminals, and they should be treated in that way. My right hon. Friend made it clear, with all the authority that his experience must command, that he was not in favour of bringing back the death penalty for terrorism alone.
Even if the death penalty were brought back not for terrorists alone, we would still be faced with the problem. If one brought back the death penalty in general for murder, what would happen in Northern Ireland for offences of terrorism? One would be impaled on the horns of the same dilemma. What would one do? Would there be a death penalty for everything save for terrorist offences in Northern Ireland? It is outrageous even to suggest such a thing. The issue has not been thought through. Until it has been a great deal more thoroughly than it has been during the debate, it is the duty of the House to give a negative reply.
We have had a full debate. It is true that many people who are deeply anxious about violence and crime in our society—rightly so—think that some sort of short cut solution will come about through the death penalty. Ii will not. They may be wrong in thinking that, but continuous debates in the House and elsewhere on the subject foster and create that delusion. Let the verdict of the House tonight—no one knows what it will be—be one thing, and it is this. Let it be the final verdict on the issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. To bring the debate to an orderly conclusion I should like to call the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) at 9.30 pm and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) at 9.45 pm.
9.23 pm
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Most civilised societies have already abolished capital punishment. Those who seek to bring back capital punishment are seeking to lower our standards below those of many other countries. When we had capital punishment 20 years or more ago, hanging was used only for a small and limited number of murderers. Had capital punishment been applied more widely, I think that it would have been abolished many years earlier. Not one hon. Member who spoke up in favour of capital punishment today argued that it should be used in a widespread manner. Every hon. Member said that it should be used in a particular and limited manner. That makes its function as a deterrent that much less effective.

955
I argue, as other Members have, that individuals who seek to bring back hanging or some other form of capital punishment have the onus firmly on their shoulders to prove that it should work as a deterrent. I appreciate that not all hon. Members who want to reintroduce capital punishment have argued that it would be a deterrent, but most have. Rather than simply saying that the death penalty would somehow be effective, they have a responsibility to say why it would be effective.
There are other aspects of our criminal law where the evidence for a penalty or punishment is clear-cut. On something as drastic as the death penalty, the least that we can demand is that some evidence of its effectiveness be produced. It is not as simple as saying, "We will have capital punishment as a deterrent or we will not." If we have it, consequences that could be damaging to society will follow. Supporters of capital punishment have not covered that point properly.
The Home Secretary did not argue that capital punishment should be reintroduced for acts of terrorism because it would be a deterrent. Indeed, if I remember correctly, he said that it would not be a deterrent. He said that terrorism is so reprehensible that, irrespective of whether the death penalty would be a deterrent, he wants to reintroduce it. He went further and said that he wants the death penalty for terrorism not because of the loss of life of individuals but because terrorism represents a threat to the state.
That is a long way from the anxieties of most hon. Members who have spoken today, who are worried about the threat to the lives of fellow citizens. Not so the Home Secretary. He talked about the state. In that, he is different from almost every Home Secretary that most of us can remember. All of them opposed capital punishment. Indeed, only one Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) — has believed that capital punishment is appropriate. Home Secretaries and Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland are in a better position to judge the effectiveness of the death penalty. Their views should be listened to with respect. If they oppose it, they must have real reasons that are based upon their experience for doing so.
Some countries use the death penalty as a weapon of repression. South Africa and Iraq are but two. It seems that we are in grave danger of lowering our standards to those of states that are not democratic and use the death penalty to repress their citizens. Surely we do not want to do that.
The death penalty brutalises any society that uses it. Most of us can remember people waiting outside Wandsworth or other prisons at dawn for the notice saying that someone had been executed. Some hon. Members have said today that they want a method of capital punishment other than hanging. That argument has not had much weight. If we are to consider hanging—the other methods are also brutal—it is worth pointing out that it is an obnoxious way in which to deal with someone in the name of the state, even if that person has committed a ghastly murder. It involves the noose being placed in such a way that it will break the neck. It involves arms being tied and a hood over the person's face. It involves the use of rubber underwear so that excrement does not fall from the hanged person or, if the person to be hanged is a
956
woman, to prevent the womb falling out. Do we want all of that in the name of the state and then a body that is so disfigured that the relatives might not be allowed to see it?
The hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) said that it was the duty of the state to protect its citizens. I agree with that, and, having heard the arguments from both sides of the House, I submit that the best way to protect our citizens and make life in our country safer, more decent and more tolerable is to defeat every one of the amendments and the motion that seeks to reintroduce the death penalty.
9.30 pm
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I start on a personal note. When I first came here 20 years ago, I listened to Sydney Silverman and agreed strongly with, and supported, his views on the abolition of the death penalty, as I still do. As the years have gone on, I have operated on a broader canvas related to responsibilities as Northern Ireland Secretary and Home Secretary. I shall relate my remarks to my experience and explain why, with that experience, I am still against capital punishment.
From holding those two posts, I know that Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Secretary and not for the Home Secretary. It used not to be that way. Northern Ireland was the responsibility of the Home Secretary and, apart from 1968–70 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) had responsibility, it was very much a backroom job. In the face of the events of 1972 the Northern Ireland Office was set up. The Province is a place apart and a divided community. Some 2,250 people have been killed there, with further killings recently. At least 25,000 have been injured, while 300 members of the Provisional IRA are lying dead in the Milltown cemetry in the Falls road. I was astounded that the Home Secretary spoke in favour of an amendment that is almost completely concerned with Irish terrorism, and that he floated ideas on which his Department, except vicariously, could not have commented, for which he had no responsibility and of which he has no knowledge.
I rest my general case on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who spoke of the effect in general of the removal of the death penalty and against a return to the categorisation of murders. I am concerned about the frailty of the courts. One of the cases mentioned in the documentation that has been sent to us is an instance when I was linked to the reversal of a sentence for murder.
I understand the feelings of those who are concerned about the increase in crime. The way to deal with that is to control the number of guns that are available, consider the length of sentences and investigate the causes of crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Abse) said. That is the way to proceed. They would make pointless additions to party manifestos that cannot be carried out, which lead to disillusion among the electorate and cannot mean a return to capital punishment, as the right hon. Member for Stafford (Sir H. Fraser) said.
I found the Home Secretary's approach to terrorism strange. He floated ideas for which another Department is responsible. He has a responsibility for a terrorism in this country that is almost completely Irish. The Irish terrorism is our problem. It is not Soviet inspired and it does not come from Cuba, although there was a time when Libya funded both sides in the Northern Ireland conflict. The

957
events in Northern Ireland follow 200 or 300 years of history, and the ghastly murders that have taken place should make us understand the feelings of the people who come from Northern Ireland, who live with this daily, and who believe that over here nobody is interested. The violence comes from Ireland.
Northern Ireland Members and others know that I have not been out since March 1974 without a police guard, or stayed in without a police guard on my house. I know what the Provisional IRA and the INLA and God knows what feel. I have seen the blood on the streets. I know about the 2,300 dead and about the terrorism. I locked up 600 terrorists in detention and I know the names of others who dabbled with terrorists at different times, but who have talked about democracy with their second breath.
Having had that experience—and I have a right to refer to it—I can assert that to hang Irish terrorists—or shoot them or kill them by whatever new means may be suggested—will not solve the Irish question. Matters would get worse even in advance of legislation. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) points out, Ireland would burn the moment the first person died. There may be 30 or 40 terrorist groups in Northern Ireland. They spawn in the same way as pressure groups here. The only difference is that they kill. We have a Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which defines terrorism. I have not been able to find any other legislation in the world that defines terrorism. It is defined as using violence for political ends, including any use of violence to put people in fear.
Northern Ireland is a place that has elected five members of the Provisional Sinn Fein. That is a group that I legalised in order to get political action. It is a group that broke away from the Marxist Official IRA in 1969. One member of that group has been elected to this House. Two members of it, whom I know have been associated with murder, were elected to the Assembly. For the State to involve itself in hanging and capital punishment flies in the face of 300 or 400 years of Irish history.
I agree with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, not because I belong to his club—I belong to the Home Secretary's club as well—but because he knows what lie is talking about. In his letter to the chairman of Waveney constituency association he made a number of good points that were based on his experience.
"Most terrorists believe that they will not be caught. The defeat of terrorism depends on arresting and convicting … As I shall explain … capital punishment is likely to make it more difficult to secure evidence".
He had taken advice from the police in Northern Ireland. He then referred to the jury system, and so on.
The right hon. Gentleman is right, but his words are based on experience, in the face of which he changed his mind. What the Home Secretary has said today about Irish terrorism did not meet the facts or the feel of the Province. The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is not the first to have changed his mind. Viscount Whitelaw changed his mind in the face of the possible hanging of a Protestant and a Catholic.
The Home Secretary cannot simply float an idea. He cannot simply recommend to the the House that we should return to the death penalty for murder, having discussed it in the House. He had a duty to put forward the facts. Was he speaking for the Government?
Mr. Brittan: No.
Mr. Rees: We now hear that he was not speaking for the Government.
Mr. Brittan: There is no mystery about that. I made it perfectly clear that in my speech I was giving certain facts to the House and that I was also giving my personal view. As the House knows perfectly well, there is a free vote on all these matters. Whenever I gave my personal view, I made it clear that I was doing so. There has never been any doubt about that.
Mr. Rees: There is doubt about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He has argued that we should have capital punishment in the United Kingdom as a whole, but with a different system in Northern Ireland. He suggested that there should be two assessors. I voted in 1973 for the system of having two assessors with a judge. When I arrived in Northern Ireland I realised that the idea was rubbish. The Home Secretary should have consulted his right hon. Friend. He should not have floated his ideas here. Has he considered the question of jury trial? Even if I had not been Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, no member of my family would be a juror in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not know the facts if he can come to the Chamber and say, "I float this idea. Have a look at it on the basis of a private Member's Bill." The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not discussed the matter with the judiciary in Northern Ireland, and nor should he. That is the job of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to come here with ideas that will not work. Of course, as Home Secretary, he is entitled to put them forward, but a Home Secretary should do his homework better.
We have made mistakes before. A Tory Government introduced the special category. We supported it but a Tory Government introduced it. The building of the H-blocks and the ending of the use of special category led to the last Northern Ireland Secretary's problems. But has the Secretary thought that in a sense he has argued this afternoon for a return to a special category for Irish terrorists? We should not treat Irish terrorists—whether Protestant or Catholic, Republican or Loyalist—as other than criminals. That is what they are. They are not, and should not be allowed to get away with the idea that they are separate and different.
There is a political side to this question. I disagree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Whatever Joe Cahill says in a newspaper, I am sure that the Provisional IRA, the INLA, and the other organisations want the death penalty to be restored. I tell the House that they would love it. They would love a return to capital punishment. They would vote for it if they were here. They would want to be on the world scene. They would want embassies to burn and ambassadors abroad to be shot. That is what the Provisional IRA lives on. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned, they also live on a substantial number of votes in Northern Ireland.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: My right hon. Friend is short of time and I appreciate the fact that he has given way. I have had to sit in the Chamber listening to hon. Members talk about terrorism in Northern Ireland. I confirm that my right hon. Friend gave me that brief to end the special category. However, the Home Secretary has

959
today gone back on that. Sometimes Ministers have dirty, horrible jobs to do. I was certainly a Minister who had dirty and horrible jobs to do in Northern Ireland. I had to go to the Maze prison, as part of my duty to the House, to see certain groups of people. I have never said or uttered a word about what they said to me. I have mentioned what I put to them, but they told me that their only disappointment about the way things were going was that they were not facing a Brit firing squad or were not to have Brit nooses put around their necks. That is what the House should consider tonight.
Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend has told me that before. The people on hunger strike told him that they did not want to die by their own hands. It would have been better for their cause if they had died at the hands of the British Government. That is what we must consider in the months ahead. We may make the same sort of error as was made after the Easter rising. That rising was a flop, but in the heat of war the British Government shot the Irish patriots, killed the Redmond party and played a major part in the later development of the South.
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Gangsters.
Mr. Rees: They may be gangsters, but there are a lot of gangsters in Northern Ireland and on both sides. It is wrong to give the idea that they are all on one side. I could use an unparliamentary word to describe all those who believe that killing and murder is the way to proceed. However, I do not want to hang them, or to repeat the mistakes of the Easter rising. My advice to the Opposition is to vote against the main motion and the amendments. Terrorism is reinforced by the Home Secretary's attitude tonight. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends: do not listen to the Home Secretary; listen to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has got it right.
9.44 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: It has been good for democracy and for Parliament that the debate on this exciting and emotive issue has been reasonable and thoughtful. I shall deal with terrorism and Ireland later. My principal task is to deal with the main argument about capital punishment. I merely say at this point that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and those who agree with him about the hunger strikes should remember that they stopped when the Government made it clear that they would not give in.
The case for capital punishment as presented by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fylde, (Sir E. Gardner) is, first, that it will prevent some murders, curb the carrying of guns and give more protection to the law-abiding public. It is argued by some that capital punishment is a just penalty for murder, but most of those who have spoken today have made it cler that it is the deterrence argument that influences them most.
Several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart), asked for proof. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said that he would not vote for capital punishment unless it was proved that it would save lives. As he and every hon. Member knows, in dealing with human conduct there is no way of proving anything at all. We cannot say what will happen in the future. As with all
960
policy—financial, social or whatever—we must consider the available evidence and make a judgment whether a reasonable person would conclude from the facts that a certain result would ensue. If hon. Members, especially those who are undecided, examine the available facts, they will undoubtedly conclude that the deterrent of capital punishment would save lives and be in the overall interest of this country.
What are the facts? One has not yet been mentioned, but I hope that every hon. Member will consider it before voting. The papers published by the Library show that during the 20 years after the second world war, despite a substantial increase in crime generally, there was no increase in the number of murders. The figure was almost static at about 300. Indeed, contrary to the view of my view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the figures actually fell during that period, with 347 in 1946 and 296 in 1964. There was a big rise in crime and plenty of social upheaval, but there was no increase in the murder rate. That leads one to conclude that capital punishment had a deterrent effect in containing the number of murders.
What has happened since then? The figures show that since abolition there has been a sharp rise to a new plateau of killings, with an average of about 600 per year. As the Home Secretary told me in a parliamentary answer the other day, in the five years before abolition the number of killings was 290 per year, whereas in the past five years it has been 590. I challenge anyone to say that there is nothing in those figures to suggest that capital punishment was at least an influence on the situation.
Even if one throws that argument out of the window and says that it proves nothing, I ask every hon. Member before voting to consider why there has been such a dramatic increase in the use of guns by criminals since abolition. It is not a matter of a 2 or 3 per cent. increase. It is common knowledge that when we had the deterrent of capital punishment British criminals rarely carried guns. We were almost unique in the world in having criminals who went out of their way to avoid carrying guns. We all know what has happened since abolition. Guns are now used regularly in quite petty offences and robberies. The increase in the use of firearms is alarming. The Home Secretary told us that even during the past 10 years the number of serious offences involving firearms increased from about 1,700 to about 8,000.
Another figure which I hope hon. Members will consider is the horrifying one contained in the recently published criminal statistics, which shows that during the past 10 years 29 innocent humans in Britain were murdered by someone who had previously been convicted of murder, been imprisoned and then released. Although we hear about the possibility of hanging innocent men, we should also remember those 29 innocent people.
Some hon. Members, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, asked, "Where is the evidence?" Those facts and others are enough to convince a reasonable person that there is a definite link between the abolition of capital punishment and the increase in murders and the use of firearms.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I am upset by the concept that there is no argument showing that capital punishment is a deterrent, so may I give the House some figures?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In Scotland, between 1950 and 1957, there were 7,500 assaults on the

961
person each year. Between 1957 and 1964 there was an average of 17,000 such assaults. Since the abolition of capital punishment, the figure has been 80,000 a year, and last year there were 100,000 assaults. In 1957 there were 32 High Court cases in Scotland—[Interruption.]—and last year three times as many people were killed.
Mr. Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend's remarks emphasise the point that I have tried to make. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), in a very good speech, said that even if he were convinced that capital punishment was a deterrent he would not vote for it. That is morally wrong. I hope that he realises the enormity of what he said, because it means that even if he believes that capital punishment is a deterrent he is prepared to condemn innocent people to die as a result. Some hon. Members have said that it is a simple question whether we vote for capital punishment, which is horrible and harrowing, or whether we do not. However, it is not so simple, because those who accept the figures must choose between hanging or judicially killing some murderers, or condemning some innocent people to death.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup asked where our duty as Members lay. It was a special pleasure for me, as I am sure it was for you, Mr. Speaker, to hear a former Chief Whip saying that we must be guided only by our consciences and by no other consideration. I remember the warmth and comradely friendship that he showed me when I had to explain to him that I would vote against the party's policies.
Mr. Heath: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the House when I as Chief Whip influenced a free vote on a moral issue such as capital punishment. Perhaps he will also explain that he joined the Government of which I was Prime Minister at my invitation, on the basis that, because of his European views, he would resign if the Government introduced a Bill to enter the Community—which he did — and that later I invited him to rejoin the Government, which he also did. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we should get back to the debate.
Mr. Taylor: I am sure that my right hon. Friend keeps careful notes. What he said is important. Where does our duty lie? Certainly it is right that we should vote for what we believe to be the right thing. On the other hand, it would be wrong wholly to disregard not only the extent of public feeling, but the depth of concern. Some people have given the impression that the only people who care about crime are strange females at Tory conferences who wave umbrellas. We know that that is not true. There are many mothers of young children and many parents of teenagers who are desperately concerned about them being out late at night and what is happening to them.
There are also those who argue that we should forget about deterrence because it does not influence human conduct. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) said that she did not accept that deterrence mattered on any issue. I can accept that, but I hope that some of my hon. Friends who are thinking of voting tonight against capital punishment will examine the logic of saying that we as a nation are prepared to spend billions of pounds on the most horrifying weapons of nuclear destruction, not because we want to use them, but
962
because we believe that they will deter foreign aggression, but are not prepared to have a deterrent that will deter crime at home. The two are widely different issues, of course, but, despite that, I hope that they will accept the argument.
Then there is the cleavage among the experts. Some experts argue that capital punishment will not save lives. Others argue that it will. I hope that before every hon. Member votes he will think about what Lord Devlin said this morning, that if the police, who are in the front line, strongly hold the view that the death penalty is a weapon that they need, it is our duty not to deny them.
We should all accept that the issue of terrorism is not easy. Strong arguments are advanced on both sides, as has happened today. All I hope is that if we reject the argument on terrorism it will not be on the basis of some of the arguments that have been put in the debate. Basically, it has been argued that there is nothing much that we can do about terrorism and that if the IRA respond in a certain way there is nothing that we can do about it.
Surely the whole basis of terrorism is that those who carry it out hope that by inflicting illegal capital punishment, or threatening it, they influence the views of people like ourselves, or the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), in a very sincere speech, said, as did the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), that if one guilty terrorist is hanged, Ireland will go ablaze. What do we think about the relatives of the 2,000 innocent people who have been murdered by the IRA? Are we to assume that the only thing about which Ireland gets excited is the killing of a guilty terrorist?
I appeal to those who are in genuine doubt—as I know many are — on this vital issue of terrorism to remember that some of us reluctantly took the advice of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and walked into the Lobby to support the creation of the Northern Ireland Assembly, not because we believed in devolution, but because we were convinced by what he said about the need to have a democratic voice to express the views of the people of Northern Ireland.
If there is one thing in the history of Ireland that is clear, and on which I think everyone agrees, it is that far too many people think they know how to solve the problems of Northern Ireland but do not have to go through the agony of suffering as a result. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Where there is doubt, we should take the advice of those who have to live with terrorism, those who have to suffer, and those who have to die.
As the police in Northern Irelnd and the Assembly have made it clear that they believe that capital punishment would save lives and give protection, I believe that we should take the necessary action. No one welcomes the introduction of capital punishment. It is distasteful and harrowing. On the other hand, I believe that all of us in Parliament have to support and do things that are harsh and unpalatable because we believe that they are in the public interest. We shall be failing in our duty if we do not vote for the restoration of the deterrent which will smite fear into the heart of potential offenders and save innocent human lives.
Amendment (e) proposed: At the end of the motion to add
'resulting from acts of terrorism'.—[Mr. McQuarrie.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 361.

Division No. 16]

[10 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Gregory, Conal

Alexander, Richard

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Amess, David

Grylls, Michael

Ancram, Michael

Gummer, John Selwyn

Arnold, Tom

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Aspinwall, Jack

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Hannam, John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Baldry, Anthony

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Beggs, Roy

Hawksley, Warren

Bellingham, Henry

Hayward, Robert

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Heddle, John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hickmet, Richard

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Hill, James

Blackburn, John

Hind, Kenneth

Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

Hirst, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Holt, Richard

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hooson, Tom

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Bright, Graham

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Brinton, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Jessel, Toby

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Browne, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Bruinvels, Peter

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Bulmer, Esmond

Kilfedder, James A.

Butcher, John

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Carttiss, Michael

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Knowles, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Latham, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Lawrence, Ivan

Churchill, W. S.

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Lightbown, David

Cockeram, Eric

Lord, Michael

Colvin, Michael

Luce, Richard

Cope, John

McCrea, Rev William

Cranborne, Viscount

McCrindle, Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

McCusker, Harold

Dickens, Geoffrey

Macfarlane, Neil

Dicks, T.

MacGregor, John

Dover, Denshore

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

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

Dunn, Robert

McQuarrie, Albert

Emery, Sir Peter

Marland, Paul

Evennett, David

Marlow, Antony

Eyre, Reginald

Mates, Michael

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Mather, Carol

Fallon, Michael

Maude, Francis

Farr, John

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Favell, Anthony

Merchant, Piers

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mills, Ian (Meriden)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Moate, Roger

Forth, Eric

Molyneaux, James

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Monro, Sir Hector

Fox, Marcus

Montgomery, Fergus

Franks, Cecil

Moore, John

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Fry, Peter

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Gale, Roger

Moynihan, Hon C.

Galley, Roy

Murphy, Christopher

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Neale, Gerrard

Glyn, Dr Alan

Neubert, Michael

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Nicholls, Patrick

Gow, Ian

Nicholson, J.

Grant, Sir Anthony

Normanton, Tom

Greenway, Harry

Norris, Steven

964

Oppenheim, Philip

Stokes, John

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Sumberg, David

Osborn, Sir John

Taylor, John (Strangford)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Page, John (Harrow W)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Paisley, Rev Ian

Temple-Morris, Peter

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Terlezki, Stefan

Pattie, Geoffrey

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Pawsey, James

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Pink, R. Bonner

Thornton, Malcolm

Pollock, Alexander

Thurnham, Peter

Porter, Barry

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Tracey, Richard

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Trippier, David

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Trotter, Neville

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Viggers, Peter

Roe, Mrs Marion

Waddington, David

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Rost, Peter

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Walker, William (T'side N)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb7)

Wall, Sir Patrick

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Ward, John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Warren, Kenneth

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Watts, John

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Whitfield, John

Speed, Keith

Whitney, Raymond

Speller, Tony

Wiggin, Jerry

Spence, John

Wilkinson, John

Spencer, D.

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Winterton, Nicholas

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wolfson, Mark

Stanley, John

Wood, Timothy

Steen, Anthony

Woodcock, Michael

Stern, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mr. George Gardiner and

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Mr. Vivian Bendall.

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Bottomley, Peter

Adley, Robert

Boyes, Roland

Alton, David

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Brooke, Hon Peter

Anderson, Donald

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Ashby, David

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Ashdown, Paddy

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Bruce, Malcolm

Ashton, Joe

Bryan, Sir Paul.

Atkins Robert (South Ribble)

Buchan, Norman

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Buck, Sir Antony

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Budgen, Nick

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Burt, Alistair

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Butler, Hon Adam

Barnett, Guy

Butterfill, John

Barron, Kevin

Caborn, Richard

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Beith, A. J.

Campbell, Ian

Bell, Stuart

Canavan, Dennis

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Benyon, William

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Bermingham, Gerald

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Berry, Hon Anthony

Cartwright, John

Best, Keith

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Bidwell, Sydney

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Blair, Anthony

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Body, Richard

Clarke, Thomas

965

Clay, Robert

Harman, Ms Harriet

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Harris, David

Cohen, Harry

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Coleman, Donald

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Concannon, Rt Hon J, D.

Harvey, Robert

Conlan, Bernard

Haselhurst, Alan

Conway, Derek

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Hayes, J.

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Hayhoe, Barney

Coombs, Simon

Haynes, Frank

Corbett, Robin

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Corbyn, Jeremy

Heath, Ft Hon Edward

Couchman, James

Heffer, Eric S.

Cowans, Harry

Henderson, Barry.

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Craigen, J. M.

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Critchley, Julian

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Crouch, David

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Crowther, Stan

Home Robertson, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hordern, Peter

Cunningham, Dr John

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Dalyell, Tarn

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Howells, Geraint

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

Hoyle, Douglas

Deakins, Eric

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Dewar, Donald

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Dixon, Donald

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Dobson, Frank

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Dormand, Jack

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Dorrell, Stephen

Hume, John

Douglas, Dick

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Irving, Charles

Dubs, Alfred

Janner, Hon Greville

Duffy, A. E. P.

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Durant, Tony

John, Brynmor

Dykes, Hugh

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Eadie, Alex

Johnston, Russell

Eastham, Ken

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

Joseph, Ft Hon Sir Keith

Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Kennedy, Charles

Ewing, Harry

Key, Robert

Fatchett, Derek

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Faulds, Andrew

King, Rt Hon Tom

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Kinnock, Neil

Flannery, Martin

Kirkwood, Archibald

Fletcher, Alexander

Knox, David

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lambie, David

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lamond, James

Forman, Nigel

Lamont, Norman

Forrester, John

Lawler, Geoffrey

Foster, Derek

Leadbitter, Ted

Foulkes, George

Leighton, Ronald

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Lester, Jim

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Freeman, Roger

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Litherland, Robert

Freud, Clement

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Garrett, W. E.

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

George, Bruce

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Loyden, Edward

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lyell, Nicholas

Godman, Dr Norman

McCartney, Hugh

Golding, John

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Goodlad, Alastair

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Gorst, John

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Gould, Bryan

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Gourlay, Harry

McKelvey, William

Gower, Sir Raymond

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Grist, Ian

Maclennan, Robert

Ground, Reginald

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

McNamara, Kevin

Hampson, Dr Keith

McTaggart, Robert

Hanley, Jeremy

Madden, Max

Hardy, Peter

Madel, David

966

Maginnis, Ken

Rossi, Hugh

Major, John

Rowe, Andrew

Malone, Gerald

Rowlands, Ted

Maples, John

Ryder, Richard

Marek, Dr John

Ryman, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Martin, Michael

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Scott, Nicholas

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Sedgemore, Brian

Maynard, Miss Joan

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Meacher, Michael

Sheerman, Barry

Meadowcroft, Michael

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Mellor, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shersby, Michael

Michie, William

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Mikardo, Ian

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Miscampbell, Norman

Skinner, Dennis

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Snape, Peter

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mudd, David

Soley, Clive

Needham, Richard

Spearing, Nigel

Nellist, David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Nelson, Anthony

Squire, Robin

Newton, Tony

Steel, Rt Hon David

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

O'Brien, William

Stott, Roger

O'Neill, Martin

Stradling Thomas, J.

Onslow, Cranley

Strang, Gavin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Straw, Jack

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Tapsell, Peter

Park, George

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Parris, Matthew

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Parry Robert

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Patchett, Terry

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Tinn, James

Pavitt, Laurie

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Pendry, Tom

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Penhaligon, David

Wainwright, R.

Pike, Peter

Waldegrave, Hon William

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

Walden, George

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Powell, William (Corby)

Wallace, James

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Waller, Gary

Prescott, John

Walters, Dennis

Prior, Rt Hon James

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wareing, Robert

Radice, Giles

Weetch, Ken

Raffan, Keith

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Randall, Stuart

Welsh, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Wheeler, John

Redmond, M.

White, James

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Wigley, Dafydd

Renton, Tim

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Rhodes James, Robert

Wilson, Gordon

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Winnick, David

Richardson, Ms Jo

Woodall, Alec

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Robertson, George

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Rogers, Allan

Tellers for the Noes:

Rooker, J. W.

Mr. Campbell-Savours and

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Mr. Mark Fisher.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the motion.
Amendment (f) proposed: At the end of the motion to add:—

967
'of a police officer during the course of his duties.'—[Mr.Eldon Griffiths.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 344.

Division No. 17]

[10.15 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Aitken Jonathan

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Alexander, Richard

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Forth, Eric

Amess, David

Fox, Marcus

Ancram, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Arnold, Tom

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Aspinwall, Jack

Fry, Peter

Atkins Robert (South Ribble)

Gale, Roger

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Baldry, Anthony

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Gorst, John

Batiste, Spencer

Gower, Sir Raymond

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Grant, Sir Anthony

Beggs, Roy

Gregory, Conal

Bellingham, Henry

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

Berry, Hon Anthony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Grylls, Michael

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Blackburn, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

Hanley, Jeremy

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hannam, John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hawksley, Warren

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hayward, Robert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Heddle, John

Bright, Graham

Henderson, Barry

Brinton, Tim

Hickmet, Richard

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Hicks, Robert

Browne, John

Hill, James

Bruinvels, Peter

Hind, Kenneth

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hirst, Michael

Bulmer, Esmond

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Butcher, John

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Butler, Hon Adam

Holt, Richard

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Hooson, Tom

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hordern, Peter

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Howard, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Chope, Christopher

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Churchill, W. S.

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hunter, Andrew

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Jessel, Toby

Clegg, Sir Walter

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Cockeram, Eric

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Colvin, Michael

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Coombs, Simon

Key, Robert

Corrie, John

Kilfedder, James A.

Cranborne, Viscount

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Knowles, Michael

Dicks, T.

Lang, Ian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Latham, Michael

Dover, Denshore

Lawler, Geoffrey

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lawrence, Ivan

Dunn, Robert

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Durant, Tony

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Emery, Sir Peter

Lightbown, David

Evennett, David

Lord, Michael

Eyre, Reginald

McCrea, Rev William

Fairbairn, Nicholas

McCrindle, Robert

Fallon, Michael

McCusker, Harold

Farr, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Favell, Anthony

MacGregor, John

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

968

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

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

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

McQuarrie, Albert

Speed, Keith

Marland, Paul

Speller, Tony

Marlow, Antony

Spence, John

Mates, Michael

Spencer, D.

Mather, Carol

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Merchant, Piers

Stanbrook, Ivor

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stanley, John

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Mills, Ian (Meriden)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Moate, Roger

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Molyneaux, James

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Monro, Sir Hector

Stokes, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Sumberg, David

Moore, John

Taylor, John (Strangford)

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mudd, David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Murphy, Christopher

Temple-Morris, Peter

Neale, Gerrard

Terlezki, Stefan

Neubert, Michael

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Nicholls, Patrick

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Nicholson, J.

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Normanton, Tom

Thornton, Malcolm

Norris, Steven

Thurnham, Peter

Oppenheim, Philip

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Tracey, Richard

Osborn, Sir John

Trippier, David

Ottaway, Richard

Trotter, Neville

Page, John (Harrow W)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Paisley, Rev Ian

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Viggers, Peter

Pattie, Geoffrey

Waddington, David

Pawsey, James

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Walker, William (T'side N)

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Wall, Sir Patrick

Pink, R. Bonner

Ward, John

Pollock, Alexander

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Porter, Barry

Warren, Kenneth

Price, Sir David

Watson, John

Proctor, K. Harvey

Watts, John

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Whitfield, John

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Whitney, Raymond

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wiggin, Jerry

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Wilkinson, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Winterton, Nicholas

Rost, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wood, Timothy

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Woodcock, Michael

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Yeo, Tim

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Younger, Rt Hon George

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mr. George Gardiner and

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mr. Vivian Bendall.

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Barnett, Guy

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Barron, Kevin

Alton, David

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Beith, A. J.

Anderson, Donald

Bell, Stuart

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Ashby, David

Benyon, William

Ashdown, Paddy

Bermingham, Gerald

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Best, Keith

Ashton, Joe

Bidwell, Sydney

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Blair, Anthony

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Body, Richard

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Bottomley, Peter

969

Boyes, Roland

Foster, Derek

Bray. Dr Jeremy

Foulkes, George

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Freeman, Roger

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Freud, Clement

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bruce, Malcolm

Garrett, W. E.

Buchan, Norman

George, Bruce

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Buck, Sir Antony

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Budgen, Nick

Godman, Dr Norman

Burt, Alistair

Golding, John

Butterfill, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Caborn, Richard

Gould, Bryan

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Gourley, harry

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Gow, Ian

Campbell, Ian

Grist, Ian

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ground, Reginald

Canavan, Dennis

Gummer, John Selwyn

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hardy, Peter

Cartwright, John

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Harris, David

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Clarke, Thomas

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Clay, Robert

Harvey, Rcbert

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Haselhurst, Alan

Cohen, Harry

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Coleman, Donald

Hayes, J.

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Hayhoe, Barney

Conlan, Bernard

Haynes, Frank

Conway, Derek

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cope, John

Heffer, Eric S.

Corbett, Robin

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Corbyn, Jeremy

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Couchman, James

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cowans, Harry

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Home Robertson, John

Craigen, J. M.

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Critchley, Julian

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Crouch, David

Howells, Geraint

Crowther, Stan

Hoyle, Douglas

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Cunningham, Dr John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Davies. Ronald (Caerphilly)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

Hume, John

Deakins, Eric

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dewar, Donald

Irving, Charles

Dixon, Donald

Janner, Hon Greville

Dobson, Frank

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Dormand, Jack

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Dorrell. Stephen

John, Brynmor

Douglas, Dick

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Duffy, A. E. P.

Johnston, Russell

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Dykes, Hugh

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Eadie, Alex

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Eastham, Ken

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

Kennedy, Charles

Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Ewing, Harry

Kinnock, Neil

Fatchett, Derek

Kirkwood, Archy

Faulds, Andrew

Knox, David

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Lambie, David

Fisher, Mark

Lamond, James

Flannery, Martin

Lamont, Norman

Fletcher, Alexander

Leadbitter, Ted

Fookes, Miss Janet

Leighton, Ronald

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Forman, Nigel

Lester, Jim

Forrester, John

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

970

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Renton, Tim

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Rhodes James, Robert

Lilley, Peter

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Litherland, Robert

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Robertson, George

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Loyden, Edward

Rogers, Allan

Luce, Richard

Rooker, J. W.

Lyell, Nicholas

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

McCartney, Hugh

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Rossi, Hugh

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Rowe, Andrew

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Rowlands, Ted

McKelvey, William

Ryder, Richard

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Ryman, John

Maclennan, Robert

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Scott, Nicholas

McNamara, Kevin

Sedgemore, Brian

McTaggart, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

Madden, Max

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Madel, David

Shersby, Michael

Maginnis, Ken

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Major, John

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Malone, Gerald

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Maples, John

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Marek, Dr John

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

Martin, Michael

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maude, Francis

Snape, Peter

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Maynard, Miss Joan

Soley, Clive

Meacher, Michael

Spearing, Nigel

Meadowcroft, Michael

Squire, Robin

Mellor, David

Steel, Rt Hon David

Michie, William

Steen, Anthony

Mikardo, Ian

Stern, Michael

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Stott, Roger

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Miscampbell, Norman

Strang, Gavin

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Straw, Jack

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Tapsell, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Needham, Richard

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Nellist, David

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Nelson, Anthony

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Newton, Tony

Tinn, James

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

O'Brien, William

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

O'Neill, Martin

Wainwright, R.

Onslow, Cranley

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Waldegrave, Hon William

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Walden, George

Park, George

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Parry Robert

Wallace, James

Patchett, Terry

Waller, Gary

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Walters, Dennis

Patten, John (Oxford)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pavitt, Laurie

Wareing, Robert

Pendry, Tom

Weetch, Ken

Penhaligon, David

Welsh, Michael

Pike, Peter

Wheeler, John

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

White, James

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Wigley, Dafydd

Powell, William (Corby)

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Wilson, Gordon

Prescott, John

Winnick, David

Prior, Rt Hon James

Woodall, Alec

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Radice, Giles

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Raffan, Keith

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Randall, Stuart

Rathbone, Tim

Tellers for the Noes:

Redmond, M.

Ms. Jo Richardson and

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Mr. Alfred Dubs.

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment (g) proposed: At the end of the motion to add 'of a prison officer during the course of his duties'.—[Mr. Blaker.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 348.

Division No. 18]

[10.30 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Aitken Jonathan

Forth, Eric

Alexander, Richard

Fox, Marcus

Amess, David

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Arnold, Tom

Fry, Peter

Atkins Robert (South Ribble)

Gale, Roger

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Baldry, Anthony

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Batiste, Spencer

Grant, Sir Anthony

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Gregory, Conal

Beggs, Roy

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

Bellingham, Henry

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Grylls, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Hanley, Jeremy

Blackburn, John

Hannam, John

Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Hawksley, Warren

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hayward, Robert

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Heddle, John

Braine, Sir Bernard

Henderson, Barry

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hickmet, Richard

Bright, Graham

Hicks, Robert

Brinton, Tim

Hill, James

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Hind, Kenneth

Browne, John

Hirst, Michael

Bruinvels, Peter

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Bulmer, Esmond

Holt, Richard

Butcher, John

Hooson, Tom

Butler, Hon Adam

Hordern, Peter

Carlisle, John (TV Luton)

Howard, Michael

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Chapman, Sydney

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Chope, Christopher

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Churchill, W. S.

Hunter, Andrew

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Jessel, Toby

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Clegg, Sir Walter

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Cockeram, Eric

Key, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Kilfedder, James A.

Coombs, Simon

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Corrie, John

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Cranborne, Viscount

Knowles, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Latham, Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

Lawler, Geoffrey

Dicks, T.

Lawrence, Ivan

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Dover, Denshore

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lightbown, David

Dunn, Robert

Lord, Michael

Durant, Tony

McCrea, Rev William

Emery, Sir Peter

McCrindle, Robert

Evennett, David

McCusker, Harold

Eyre, Reginald

Macfarlane, Neil

Fairbairn, Nicholas

MacGregor, John

Fallon, Michael

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Farr, John

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Favell, Anthony

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

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

McQuarrie, Albert

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Marland, Paul

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Marlow, Antony

972

Mates, Michael

Speed, Keith

Mather, Carol

Speller, Tony

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Spence, John

Merchant, Piers

Spencer, D.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mills, Ian (Meriden)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Stanley, John

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Moate, Roger

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Molyneaux, James

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Monro, Sir Hector

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Montgomery, Fergus

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Moore, John

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Stokes, John

Moynihan, Hon C.

Sumberg, David

Mudd, David

Taylor, John (Strangford)

Murphy, Christopher

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Neale, Gerrard

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Neubert, Michael

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Nicholls, Patrick

Temple-Morris, Peter

Nicholson, J.

Terlezki, Stefan

Normanton, Tom

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Norris, Steven

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Osborn, Sir John

Thornton, Malcolm

Ottaway, Richard

Thurnham, Peter

Page, John (Harrow W)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Tracey, Richard

Paisley, Rev Ian

Trippier, David

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Trotter, Neville

Pattie, Geoffrey

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pawsey, James

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Waddington, David

Pink, R, Bonner

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Pollock, Alexander

Walker, William (T'side N)

Porter, Barry

Wall, Sir Patrick

Price, Sir David

Ward, John

Proctor, K. Harvey

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Warren, Kenneth

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Watson, John

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Watts, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Whitfield, John

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Whitney, Raymond

Rost, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wilkinson, John

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Winterton, Nicholas

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Wolfson, Mark

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Wood, Timothy

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Woodcock, Michael

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Skeet, T. H. H.

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Mr. George Gardiner and

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Mr. Vivian Bendall.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Bell, Stuart

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Alton, David

Benyon, William

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Bermingham, Gerald

Ancram, Michael

Best, Keith

Anderson, Donald

Bidwell, Sydney

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Blair, Anthony

Ashby, David

Body, Richard

Ashdown, Paddy

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Boyes, Roland

Ashton, Joe

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Brooke, Hon Peter

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Barnett, Guy

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Barron, Kevin

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Bruce, Malcolm

Beith, A. J.

Buchan, Norman

973

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

George, Bruce

Buck, Sir Antony

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Budgen, Nick

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Burt, Alistair

Godman, Dr Norman

Butterfill, John

Golding, ,John

Caborn, Richard

Goodlad, Alastair

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Gorst, John

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Gould, Bryan

Campbell, Ian

Gourlay, Harry

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gow, Ian

Canavan, Dennis

Grist, Ian

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Ground, Reginald

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Cartwright, John

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Clark. Dr David (S Shields)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hardy, Peter

Clarke, Thomas

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clay, Robert

Harris, David

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Cohen, Harry

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Coleman, Donald

Harvey, Robert

Concannon. Rt Hon J. D.

Haselhurst, Alan

Conlan, Bernard

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Conway, Derek

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Hayes, J.

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Hayhoe, Barney

Cope, John

Haynes, Frank

Corbett, Robin

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Corbyn, Jeremy

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Couchman, James

Heathcoat Amory, David

Cowans, Harry

Heffer, Eric S.

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Craigen, J. M.

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Critchley, Julian

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Crouch, David

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Crowther, Stan

Home Robertson, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Cunningham, Dr John

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Dalyell, Tam

Howells, Geraint

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Hoyle, Douglas

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Deakins, Eric

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Dewar, Donald

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Dixon, Donald

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Dobson, Frank

Hume, John

Dormand, Jack

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dorrell, Stephen

Irving, Charles

Douglas, Dick

Janner, Hon Greville

Dubs, Alfred

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Duffy, A. E. P.

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

John, Brynmor

Dykes, Hugh

Johnson-Srnith, Sir Geoffrey

Eadie, Alex

Johnston, Russell

Eastham, Ken

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ewing, Harry

Kennedy, Charles

Fatchett, Derek

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Faulds. Andrew

King, Rt Hon Tom

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Kinnock, Neil

Fisher, Mark

Kirkwood, Archibald

Flannery, Martin

Knox, David

Fletcher, Alexander

Lambie, David

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lamond, James

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Lamont, Norman

Forman, Nigel

Leadbitter, Ted

Forrester, John

Leighton, Ronald

Foster, Derek

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Foulkes, George

Lester, Jim

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Freeman, Roger

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Lilley, Peter

Freud, Clement

Litherland, Robert

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Garrett, W. E.

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

974

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Loyden, Edward

Robertson, George

Luce, Richard

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Lyell, Nicholas

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

McCartney, Hugh

Rogers, Allan

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Rooker, J. W.

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

McKelvey, William

Rossi, Hugh

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Rowe, Andrew

Maclennan, Robert

Rowlands, Ted

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Ryder, Richard

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Ryman, John

McNamara, Kevin

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

McTaggart, Robert

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Madden, Max

Scott, Nicholas

Madel, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Maginnis, Ken

Sheerman, Barry

Major, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Malone, Gerald

Shersby, Michael

Maples, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Marek, Dr John

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)

Martin, Michael

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Skinner, Dennis

Maude, Francis

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Meacher, Michael

Snape, Peter

Meadowcroft, Michael

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mellor, David

Soley, Clive

Michie, William

Spearing, Nigel

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Squire, Robin

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Miscampbell, Norman

Steen, Anthony

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Stern, Michael

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Stott, Roger

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Strang, Gavin

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Straw, Jack

Needham, Richard

Tapsell, Peter

Nellist, David

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Nelson, Anthony

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Newton, Tony

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

O'Brien, William

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

O'Neill, Martin

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Onslow, Cranley

Tinn, James

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Park, George

Wainwright, R.

Parry Robert

Waldegrave, Hon William

Patchett, Terry

Walden, George

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Wallace, James

Pavitt, Laurie

Waller, Gary

Pendry, Tom

Walters, Dennis

Penhaligon, David

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Pike, Peter

Wareing, Robert

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

Weetch, Ken

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Welsh, Michael

Powell, William (Corby)

Wheeler, John

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

White, James

Prescott, John

Wigley, Dafydd

Prior, Rt Hon James

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wilson, Gordon

Radice, Giles

Winnick, David

Raffan, Keith

Woodall, Alec

Randall, Stuart

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Rathbone, Tim

Yeo, Tim

Redmond, M.

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Rhodes James, Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Mr. Ian Mikardo and

Richardson, Ms Jo

Mr. Peter Bottomley.

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment (h) proposed: At the end of the motion to add:
`by shooting or causing an explosion..—[Mr. Bendall.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 374.

Division No. 19]

[10.42

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Amess, David

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Aspinwall, Jack

Hawksley. Warren

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Hayward, Robert

Baldry, Anthony

Heddle, John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Henderson, Barry

Beggs, Roy

Hickmet, Richard

Bellingham, Henry

Hicks, Robert

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Hill, James

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hind, Kenneth

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Hirst, Michael

Blackburn, John

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Holt, Richard

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hooson, Tom

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Howard, Michael

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Brinton, Tim

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Browne, John

Hunter, Andrew

Bruinvels, Peter

Jessel, Toby

Butcher, John

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Chapman, Sydney

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Chope. Christopher

Kilfedder, James A.

Churchill, W. S.

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Knowles, Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lawrence, Ivan

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Cockeram, Eric

Lightbown, David

Colvin, Michael

Lord, Michael

Conway, Derek

McCrea, Rev William

Coombs, Simon

McCusker. Harold

Corrie, John

Macfarlane. Neil

Cranborne, Viscount

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Dickens, Geoffrey

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

Dicks, T.

McQuarrie, Albert

Dover, Denshore

Marland, Paul

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Marlow. Antony

Dunn, Robert

Mather, Carol

Emery, Sir Peter

Maude, Francis

Evennett, David

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Eyre, Reginald

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Mills, Ian (Meriden)

Fallon, Michael

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Farr, John

Molyneaux, James

Favell, Anthony

Monro, Sir Hector

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Montgomery, Fergus

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Moore, John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Forth, Eric

Mudd, David

Fox, Marcus

Murphy, Christopher

Franks, Cecil

Neale, Gerrard

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Neubert, Michael

Fry, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Gale, Roger

Nicholson, J.

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Normanton, Tom

Glyn, Dr Alan

Norris, Steven

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Grant, Sir Anthony

Osborn, Sir John

Gregory, Conal

Ottaway, Richard

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

Page, John (Harrow W)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Grylls, Michael

Paisley, Rev Ian

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

976

Pattie, Geoffrey

Sumberg, David

Pawsey, James

Taylor, John (Strangford)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Pink, R. Bonner

Temple-Morris, Peter

Porter, Barry

Terlezki, Stefan

Proctor, K. Harvey

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Thornton, Malcolm

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Thurnham, Peter

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Trippier, David

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Trotter, Neville

Rost, Peter

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Waddington, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Walker, William (T'side N)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wall, Sir Patrick

Silvester, Fred

Ward, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Warren, Kenneth

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Watts, John

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Speller, Tony

Whitfield, John

Spence, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Spencer, D.

Wilkinson, John

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stanbrook, Ivor

Winterton, Nicholas

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Wolfson, Mark

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Woodcock, Michael

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Mr. George Gardiner and

Stokes, John

Mr. Vivian Bendall.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Bruce, Malcolm

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Buchan, Norman

Alton, David

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Buck, Sir Antony

Ancram, Michael

Budgen, Nick

Anderson, Donald

Bulmer, Esmond

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Burt, Alistair

Arnold, Tom

Butler, Hon Adam

Ashby, David

Butterfill, John

Ashdown, Paddy

Caborn, Richard

Ashley. Rt Hon Jack

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Ashton, Joe

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Atkins Robert (South Ribble)

Campbell, Ian

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Canavan, Dennis

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Barnett, Guy

Cartwright, John

Barron, Kevin

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Beith, A. J.

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Bell, Stuart

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Clarke, Thomas

Benyon, William

Clay, Robert

Bermingham, Gerald

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Cohen, Harry

Best, Keith

Coleman, Donald

Bidwell, Sydney

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Conlan, Bernard

Blair, Anthony

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Body, Richard

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Cope, John

Bottomley, Peter

Corbett, Robin

Boyes, Roland

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Couchman, James

Bright, Graham

Cowans, Harry

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Craigen, J. M.

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Critchley, Julian

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Crouch, David

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Crowther, Stan

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

977

Cunningham, Dr John

Hordern, Peter

Dalyell, Tam

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Howells, Geraint

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

Hoyle, Douglas

Deakins, Eric

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Dewar, Donald

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Dixon, Donald

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Dobson, Frank

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Dormand, Jack

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Dorrell, Stephen

Hume, John

Douglas, Dick

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dubs, Alfred

Irving, Charles

Duffy, A. E. P.

Janner, Hon Greville

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Dykes, Hugh

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Eadie, Alex

John, Brynmor

Eastham, Ken

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Johnston, Russell

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Ewing, Harry

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Fatchett, Derek

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Faulds, Andrew

Kennedy, Charles

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Key, Robert

Fisher, Mark

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Flannery, Martin

King, Rt Hon Tom

Fletcher, Alexander

Kinnock, Neil

Fookes, Miss Janet

Kirkwood, Archibald

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Knox, David

Forman, Nigel

Lambie, David

Forrester, John

Lamond, James

Foster, Derek

Lamont, Norman

Foulkes, George

Latham, Michael

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Lawler, Geoffrey

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Freeman, Roger

Leadbitter, Ted

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Leighton, Ronald

Freud, Clement

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lester, Jim

Garrett, W. E.

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

George, Bruce

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lilley, Peter

Godman, Dr Norman

Litherland, Robert

Golding, John

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Goodlad, Alastair

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Gorst, John

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Gould, Bryan

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Gourlay, Harry

Loyden, Edward

Gow, Ian

Luce, Richard

Grist, Ian

Lyell, Nicholas

Ground, Reginald

McCartney, Hugh

Gummer, John Selwyn

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

MacGregor, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Hanley, Jeremy

McKelvey, William

Hardy, Peter

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Harris, David

Maclennan, Robert

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Harvey, Robert

McNamara, Kevin

Haselhurst, Alan

McTaggart, Robert

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Madden, Max

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Madel, David

Hayes, J.

Maginnis, Ken

Hayhoe, Barney

Major, John

Haynes, Frank

Malone, Gerald

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Maples, John

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Marek, Dr John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Heffer, Eric S.

Martin, Michael

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Meacher, Michael

Home Robertson, John

Meadowcroft, Michael

978

Mellor, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Michie, William

Sheerman, Barry

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Miscampbell, Norman

Shersby, Michael

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Moate, Roger

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Skinner, Dennis

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

Needham, Richard

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Nellist, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Nelson, Anthony

Snape, Peter

Newton, Tony

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Soley, Clive

O'Brien, William

Spearing, Nigel

O'Neill, Martin

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Onslow, Cranley

Squire, Robin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Steel, Rt Hon David

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Steen, Anthony

Park, George

Stern, Michael

Parry Robert

Stott, Roger

Patchett, Terry

Stradling Thomas, J.

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Strang, Gavin

Patten, John (Oxford)

Straw, Jack

Pavitt, Laurie

Tapsell, Peter

Pendry, Tom

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Penhaligon, David

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Pike, Peter

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

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

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Powell, William (Corby)

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Tinn, James

Prescott, John

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Wainwright, R.

Radice, Giles

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Raffan, Keith

Waldegrave, Hon William

Randall, Stuart

Walden, George

Rathbone, Tim

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Redmond, M.

Wallace, James

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Waller, Gary

Renton, Tim

Walters, Dennis

Rhodes James, Robert

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wareing, Robert

Richardson, Ms Jo

Weetch, Ken

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Welsh, Michael

Robertson, George

Wheeler, John

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

White, James

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Wigley, Dafydd

Rogers, Allan

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Rooker, J. W.

Wilson, Gordon

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Winnick, David

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Woodall, Alec

Rossi, Hugh

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Rowe, Andrew

Yeo, Tim

Rowlands, Ted

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Ryder, Richard

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Ryman, John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Tellers for the Noes:

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Ms. Harriet Harman and

Scott, Nicholas

Mr. Ian Mikardo.

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment (i) Proposed: At the end of the motion to add:—
'in the course or furtherance of theft'. —[Mr. George Gardiner.]
Question Put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 369.

Division No. 20]

[10.57 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Amess, David

Alexander, Richard

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

979

Beggs, Roy

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Bellingham, Henry

Key, Robert

Bevan, David Gilroy

Kilfedder, James A.

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Blackburn, John

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Knowles, Michael

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Lawrence, Ivan

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Lightbown, David

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Lord, Michael

Brinton, Tim

McCrea, Rev William

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

McCusker, Harold

Browne, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Bruinvels, Peter

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Butcher, John

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

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

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

McQuarrie, Albert

Chapman, Sydney

Marland, Paul

Chope, Christopher

Marlow, Antony

Churchill, W. S.

Mather, Carol

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Maude, Francis

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Clegg, Sir Walter

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Cockeram, Eric

Mills, Ian (Meriden)

Colvin, Michael

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Coombs, Simon

Molyneaux, James

Corrie, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Cranborne, Viscount

Montgomery, Fergus

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Moore, John

Dickens, Geoffrey

Moynihan, Hon C.

Dicks, T.

Mudd, David

Dover, Denshore

Murphy, Christopher

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Neale, Gerrard

Dunn, Robert

Neubert, Michael

Durant, Tony

Nicholls, Patrick

Eyre, Reginald

Nicholson, J.

Fallon, Michael

Normanton, Tom

Farr, John

Norris, Steven

Favell, Anthony

Oppenheim, Philip

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Osborn, Sir John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Ottaway, Richard

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Page, John (Harrow W)

Forth, Eric

Paisley, Rev Ian

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Fox, Marcus

Pawsey, James

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Fry, Peter

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Gale, Roger

Pink, R. Bonner

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Porter, Barry

Glyn, Dr Alan

Proctor, K. Harvey

Gorst, John

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Grant, Sir Anthony

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Gregory, Conal

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

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

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Grylls, Michael

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Hanley, Jeremy

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Hawksley, Warren

Shersby, Michael

Hayward, Robert

Silvester, Fred

Heddle, John

Skeet, T. H H.

Hickmet, Richard

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Hicks, Robert

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Hill, James

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Hirst, Michael

Speller, Tony

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Spence, John

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Spencer, D.

Holt, Richard

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Hooson, Tom

Stanbrook, Ivor

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Hunter, Andrew

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Jessel, Toby

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Stokes, John

980

Sumberg, David

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Warren, Kenneth

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Watts, John

Terlezki, Stefan

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Whitfield, John

Thornton, Malcolm

Wiggin, Jerry

Thurnham, Peter

Wilkinson, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tracey, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas

Trippier, David

Wolfson, Mark

Trotter, Neville

Wood, Timothy

Twinn, Dr Ian

Yeo, Tim

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Walker, William (T'side N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wall, Sir Patrick

Mr. George Gardiner and

Ward, John

Mr. Vivian Bendall.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Alton, David

Cartwright, John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Ancram, Michael

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Anderson, Donald

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Clarke, Thomas

Arnold, Tom

Clay, Robert

Ashby, David

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Ashdown, Paddy

Cohen, Harry

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Coleman, Donald

Ashton, Joe

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Conlan, Bernard

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Conway, Derek

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Baldry, Anthony

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Cope, John

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Corbett, Robin

Barnett, Guy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Barron, Kevin

Couchman, James

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cowans, Harry

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Beith, A. J.

Craigen, J. M.

Bell, Stuart

Critchley, Julian

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Crouch, David

Benyon, William

Crowther, Stan

Bermingham, Gerald

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Berry, Hon Anthony

Cunningham, Dr John

Best, Keith

Dalyell, Tam

Bidwell, Sydney

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Blair, Anthony

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

Body, Richard

Deakins, Eric

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Dewar, Donald

Bottomley, Peter

Dixon, Donald

Boyes, Roland

Dobson, Frank

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dormand, Jack

Bright, Graham

Dorrell, Stephen

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Douglas, Dick

Brooke, Hon Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Dykes, Hugh

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Eadie, Alex

Bruce, Malcolm

Eastham, Ken

Bryan, Sir Paul

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Buchan, Norman

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Evans, Ioan (Cynon Valley)

Buck, Sir Antony

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Budgen, Nick

Ewing, Harry

Bulmer, Esmond

Fatchett, Derek

Burt, Alistair

Faulds, Andrew

Butler, Hon Adam

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Butterfill, John

Fisher, Mark

Caborn, Richard

Flannery, Martin

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Fletcher, Alexander

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Campbell, Ian

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Forman, Nigel

Canavan, Dennis

Forrester, John

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Foster, Derek

981

Foulkes, George

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Lester, Jim

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Freeman, Roger

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Freud, Clement

Lilley, Peter

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Litherland, Robert

Garrett, W. E.

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

George, Bruce

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Godman, Dr Norman

Loyden, Edward

Golding, John

Luce, Richard

Goodlad, Alastair

Lyell, Nicholas

Gould, Bryan

McCartney, Hugh

Gourlay, Harry

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Gow, Ian

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Grist, Ian

MacGregor, John

Ground, Reginald

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Gummer, John Selwyn

McKelvey, William

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Maclennan, Robert

Hampson, Dr Keith

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Hardy, Peter

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Harman, Ms Harriet

McNamara, Kevin

Harris, David

McTaggart, Robert

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Madden, Max

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Madel, David

Harvey, Robert

Maginnis, Ken

Haselhurst, Alan

Major, John

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Malone, Gerald

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Maples, John

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Marek, Dr John

Hayhoe, Barney

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Haynes, Frank

Martin, Michael

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Maynard, Miss Joan

Heffer, Eric S.

Meacher, Michael

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Meadowcroft, Michael

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Mellor, David

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Merchant, Piers

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Home Robertson, John

Michie, William

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Mikardo, Ian

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Howells, Geraint

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Hoyle, Douglas

Miscampbell, Norman

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Moate, Roger

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Hume, John

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Needham, Richard

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Nellist, David

Irving, Charles

Nelson, Anthony

Janner, Hon Greville

Newton, Tony

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

O'Brien, William

John, Brynmor

O'Neill, Martin

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Onslow, Cranley

Johnston, Russell

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Park, George

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Parry Robert

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Patchett, Terry

Kennedy, Charles

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Patten, John (Oxford)

Kinnock, Neil

Pavitt, Laurie

Kirkwood, Archibald

Pendry, Tom

Knox, David

Penhaligon, David

Lambie, David

Pike, Peter

Lamond, James

Pollock, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

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

Latham, Michael

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Lawler, Geoffrey

Powell, William (Corby)

Leadbitter, Ted

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Leighton, Ronald

Prescott, John

982

Prior, Rt Hon James

Squire, Robin

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Steel, Rt Hon David

Radice, Giles

Steen, Anthony

Raffan, Keith

Stern, Michael

Randall, Stuart

Stott, Roger

Rathbone, Tim

Stradling Thomas, J.

Redmond, M.

Strang, Gavin

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Straw, Jack

Renton, Tim

Tapsell, Peter

Rhodes James, Robert

Taylor, John (Strangford)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth,

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Robertson, George

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Rogers, Allan

Tinn, James

Rooker, J. W.

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath,

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Wainwright, R.

Rossi, Hugh

Waldegrave, Hon William

Rowe, Andrew

Walden, George

Rowlands, Ted

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Ryder, Richard

Wallace, James

Ryman, John

Waller, Gary

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Walters, Dennis

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Wareing, Robert

Scott, Nicholas

Weetch, Ken

Sedgemore, Brian

Welsh, Michael

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wheeler, John

Sheerman, Barry

White, James

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Wigley, Dafydd

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Wilson, Gordon

Short, Mrs (W'hampt'n NE)

Winnick, David

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Woodall, Alec

Skinner, Dennis

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Smith, Rt Hon J, (M'kl'ds E)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Snape, Peter

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Tellers for the Noes:

Soley, Clive

Ms. Jo Richardson and

Spearing, Nigel

Mr. Alf Dubs.

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put, That this House favours the restoration of the death penalty for murder:—
The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 368.

Division No. 21]

[11.11 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Alexander, Richard

Brinton, Tim

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Amess, David

Browne, John

Aspinwall, Jack

Bruinvels, Peter

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

Butcher, John

Atkins Robert (South Ribble)

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Carttiss, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Chapman, Sydney

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Churchill, W. S.

Beggs, Roy

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

Bellingham, Henry

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Bendall, Vivian

Cockeram, Eric

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Conway, Derek

Berry, Hon Anthony

Coombs, Simon

Bevan, David Gilroy

Corrie, John

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Cranborne, Viscount

Blackburn, John

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

Dickens, Geoffrey

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dicks, T.

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dover, Denshore

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dunn, Robert

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Durant, Tony

Braine, Sir Bernard

Emery, Sir Peter

983

Evennett, David

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Eyre, Reginald

Molyneaux, James

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Monro, Sir Hector

Fallon, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Farr, John

Moore, John

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Moynihan, Hon C.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mudd, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Neale, Gerrard

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Neubert, Michael

Forth, Eric

Nicholls, Patrick

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Nicholson, J.

Fox, Marcus

Normanton, Tom

Franks, Cecil

Norris, Steven

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Oppenheim, Philip

Fry, Peter

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Gale, Roger

Osborn, Sir John

Galley, Roy

Ottaway, Richard

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Page, John (Harrow W)

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Glyn, Dr Alan

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Parris, Matthew

Gower, Sir Raymond

Pattie, Geoffrey

Grant, Sir Anthony

Pawsey, James

Gregory, Conal

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Pink, R. Bonner

Grylls, Michael

Pollock, Alexander

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Porter, Barry

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Proctor, K. Harvey

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Hawksley, Warren

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hayward, Robert

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Heddle, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Hickmet, Richard

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Hicks, Robert

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hill, James

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Hirst, Michael

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Holt, Richard

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Silvester, Fred

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Sims, Roger

Hunter, Andrew

Skeet, T. H. H.

Jackson, Robert

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Jessel, Toby

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Speller, Tony

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Spence, John

Key, Robert

Spencer, D.

Kilfedder, James A.

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Steen, Anthony

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Knowles, Michael

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Lang, Ian

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Latham, Michael

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Lawrence, Ivan

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Lightbown, David

Stokes, John

Lord, Michael

Sumberg, David

McCrea, Rev William

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

McCusker, Harold

Temple-Morris, Peter

Macfarlane, Neil

Terlezki, Stefan

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

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

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

McQuarrie, Albert

Thornton, Malcolm

Malins, Humfrey

Thurnham, Peter

Malone, Gerald

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Marland, Paul

Trippier, David

Marlow, Antony

Trotter, Neville

Mates, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mather, Carol

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Viggers, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Waddington, David

Merchant, Piers

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Mills, Ian (Meriden)

Walker, William (T'side N)

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Wall, Sir Patrick

984

Ward, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Wolfson, Mark

Warren, Kenneth

Woodcock, Michael

Watts, John

Younger, Rt Hon George

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Whitfield, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wiggin, Jerry

Mr. Teddy Taylor and

Wilkinson, John

Mr. Christopher Murphy.

Winterton, Mrs Ann

NOES

Abse, Leo

Colvin, Michael

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Alton, David

Conlan, Bernard

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Ancram, Michael

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Anderson, Donald

Cope, John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Corbett, Robin

Ashby, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ashdown, Paddy

Couchman, James

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Cowans, Harry

Ashton, Joe

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Craigen, J. M.

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Critchley, Julian

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Crouch, David

Baldry, Anthony

Crowther, Stan

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cunningham, Dr John

Barnett, Guy

Dalyell, Tam

Barron, Kevin

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Beith, A. J.

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

Bell, Stuart

Deakins, Eric

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Dewar, Donald

Benyon, William

Dixon, Donald

Bermingham, Gerald

Dobson, Frank

Best, Keith

Dormand, Jack

Bidwell, Sydney

Dorrell, Stephen

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Douglas, Dick

Blair, Anthony

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Body, Richard

Dubs, Alfred

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Duffy, A. E. P.

Boyes, Roland

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dykes, Hugh

Bright, Graham

Eadie, Alex

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Eastham, Ken

Brooke, Hon Peter

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Ewing, Harry

Bruce, Malcolm

Fatchett, Derek

Bryan, Sir Paul

Faulds, Andrew

Buchan, Norman

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Fisher, Mark

Buck, Sir Antony

Flannery, Martin

Budgen, Nick

Fletcher, Alexander

Bulmer, Esmond

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Burt, Alistair

Forman, Nigel

Butler, Hon Adam

Forrester, John

Butterfill, John

Foster, Derek

Caborn, Richard

Foulkes, George

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Campbell, Ian

Freeman, Roger

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Canavan, Dennis

Freud, Clement

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Garrett, W. E.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

George, Bruce

Cartwright, John

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Godman, Dr Norman

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Golding, John

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Goodlad, Alastair

Clarke, Thomas

Gorst, John

Clay, Robert

Gould, Bryan

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Gourlay, Harry

Cohen, Harry

Gow, Ian

Coleman, Donald

Grist, Ian

985

Ground, Reginald

Lamond, James

Gummer, John Selwyn

Lamont, Norman

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Lawler, Geoffrey

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Hampson, Dr Keith

Leadbitter, Ted

Hanley, Jeremy

Leighton, Ronald

Hardy, Peter

Lester, Jim

Harman, Ms Harriet

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Harris, David

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Lilley, Peter

Harvey, Robert

Litherland, Robert

Haselhurst, Alan

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Hayhoe, Barney

Loyden, Edward

Haynes, Frank

Luce, Richard

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Lyell, Nicholas

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

McCartney, Hugh

Heathcoat-Amory, David

McCrindle, Robert

Heffer, Eric S.

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

MacGregor, John

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

McKelvey William

Home Robertson, John

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Hooson, Tom

Maclennan, Robert

Hordern, Peter

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

McNamara, Kevin

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

McTaggart, Robert

Howells, Geraint

Madden, Max

Hoyle, Douglas

Madel, David

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Maginnis, Ken

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Major, John

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Maples, John

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Marek, Dr John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hume, John

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Martin, Michael

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Irving, Charles

Maude, Francis

Janner, Hon Greville

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Maynard, Miss Joan

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Meacher, Michael

John, Brynmor

Meadowcroft, Michael

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Mellor, David

Johnston, Russell

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Michie, William

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Miscampbell, Norman

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Kennedy, Charles

Moate, Roger

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Kinnock, Neil

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Kirkwood, Archibald

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Knox, David

Needham, Richard

Lambie, David

Nellist, David

986

Nelson, Anthony

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Newton, Tony

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)

O'Brien, William

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

O'Neill, Martin

Skinner, Dennis

Onslow, Cranley

Smith, (lsl'ton S & F'bury)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Park, George

Snape, Peter

Parry Robert

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Patchett, Terry

Soley, Clive

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Spearing, Nigel

Patten, John (Oxford)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Pavitt, Laurie

Squire, Robin

Pendry, Tom

Steel, Rt Hon David

Penhaligon, David

Stern, Michael

Pike, Peter

Stott, Roger

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

Stradling Thomas, J.

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Strang, Gavin

Powell, William (Corby)

Straw, Jack

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Tapsell, Peter

Prescott, John

Taylor, John (Strangford)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Radice, Giles

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Raffan, Keith

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Randall, Stuart

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Rathbone, Tim

Thome, Stan (Preston)

Redmond, M.

Tinn, James

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Renton, Tim

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Rhodes James, Robert

Wainwright, R.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Waldegrave, Hon William

Richardson, Ms Jo

Walden, George

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Wallace, James

Robertson, George

Walters, Dennis

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Wareing, Robert

Rogers, Allan

Weetch, Ken

Rooker, J. W.

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Welsh, Michael

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Wheeler, John

Rossi, Hugh

White, James

Rowe, Andrew

Wigley, Dafydd

Rowlands, Ted

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Ryder, Richard

Wilson, Gordon

Ryman, John

Winnick, David

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Woodall, Alec

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Wrigglesworth, Ian

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Yeo, Tim

Scott, Nicholas

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Sedgemore, Brian

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Sheerman, Barry

Tellers for the Noes:

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Mr. Ian Mikardo and

Shersby, Michael

Mr. Peter Bottomley.

Question accordingly negatived

ALARM System
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
11.26 pm
Mr. Tom Sackville: I applied for the debate on the ALARM project first, because of its great importance to the 3,500 employees of British Aerospace at Lostock in my constituency, to their families and to the surrounding economy generally. I did so, secondly, because of its importance to up to 150 other British subcontractors around the country. The third reason was the wide-reaching importance and consequences for the future of the British defence industry and other high technology areas.
I do not need to go into detail about the relative merits of ALARM and HARM. However, the RAF has the requirement for such a defence suppression weapon and British Aerospace has produced a design for a suitable system and has spent millions of pounds of its funds on initial development.
The ALARM system is entirely British designed and involves a great deal of British defence technology. It would be built entirely at Lostock. Against that, the Americans are bidding, through Texas Instruments, for a rival system called HARM. It is similar in application but parts of it have been brought to a more advanced stage of production.
A decision to buy British would appear to be the obvious choice, not least because of the attractions of moving towards Europen self-sufficiency and independence in such weapon systems. Many times during the past few months there have been rumours of an imminent decision, but for reasons at which we can only guess that decision has not been forthcoming. That has led to much speculation and has caused great distress among many of my constituents who are likely to be affected.
The local impact can be summarised as follows. Without the ALARM contract British Aerospace will progressively shed at least 900 of the 3,500 jobs at the Lostock plant. It employs 400 apprentices and without ALARM will be unable to maintain that number. Nor will it be able to offer the 63 new apprentice places to those selected from the 1,700 who applied for this year's apprentice intake. The whole viability of Lostock as an economic production unit may be threatened.
The factory at Lostock is a highly sophisticated unit, responsible for injecting £40 million into the local economy annually — an economy beset by high unemployment. Only a mile away from the factory is the Horwich British Rail engineering works, which is threatened with closure and the loss of more than 1,000 jobs at the end of the year.
I cannot stress too much that British Aerospace Lostock is the linchpin of the local engineering community. The factory boasts one of the largest and best equipped machine shops of its type in Europe. With its new apprentice training school it is one of the most important seats of technician training in the north of England and a vital source of training manpower for other industries. Since 1946, Lostock has trained more than 3,000 apprentices, many of whom have made an invaluable contribution to British industry generally.
The loss of this contract would also have a wider effect on British industry as a whole and in particular on the
988
defence industry. The technology employed in the project involves the use of advanced microwave techniques, including new substrate materials, multistage Kahlman filtering and the latest microflex gyros.
The industrial spin-off of the work involved is enormous, not only at Lostock but over the range of subcontractors who make everything from specialised electronics to parachute retarder material. The spin-off would stretch well beyond defence. Much of this technology would be lost to Britain as a result of the cancellation of the project, but if the project goes ahead the technological lead stays with Britain. The techniques being developed for ALARM would be used in future defence projects such as the advanced short-range air to air missile and the AST 1240, the short-range self-protection anti-radiation missile.
Even more important, the export sales potential for ALARM would provide work for thousands of British people in many industries through to the end of this century to an extent in no way matched by the limited offset work offered by HARM. The Governments of Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Sweden, who all have a known requirement for a defence suppression system of this type, are awaiting the decision of the British Government over the procurement of ALARM before finalising their own procurement. Two major French companies have confirmed their interest in co-operation with British Aerospace for such systems for the French air force and undoubtedly the availability of ALARM would enhance exports of British military aircraft such as Hawk and Tornado.
I am forced to speculate on why the Government have not already decided to buy ALARM. We must suppose that the British Government have been subject to intense diplomatic pressure to buy the American system. This may result from an understandable American desire to dominate the world market for such defence suppression weapons. Such pressure is applied within the context of the so-called two-way street of mutual arms purchases between Britain and America. Indeed, there are large potential sales of aircraft and other armaments to America over which this matter could become a lever.
I would respectfully suggest that we should not create a precedent for giving in to such pressure, particularly in the light of changed circumstances resulting from the 45 per cent. of the Trident missile system which will be spent in the United States of America. This figure works out at approximately £350 million per year over a 10-year period or a 170 per cent. increase over the average historic figure of £200 million per year spent in the United States.
I am forced to wonder whether we are in danger of being deceived into a misplaced concern for future trade with the United States which is definitely threatened by a Congress increasingly protective of politically entrenched arms manufacturers. Are we not bending over backwards to accommodate our American friends when there are interests on the other side doing their best to block purchases of foreign military equipment or subcontract work from going outside the United States? I would cite the Martin Baker ejection seat as a recent example of this danger. Indeed, at present a member of the House Banking Finance and Urban Affairs Committee is seeking to initiate legislation designed to restrict the use of offsets. This would of course put at risk even the offset which has been offered to British firms, such as Lucas, on a British purchase of American HARM.

989
I submit that we would be making a grave long-term error in contemplating the cancellation of the ALARM project for what may prove to be merely short-term considerations. The recent history of British industry has been characterised by our propensity for giving up our lead in vital technological fields. Are we going to do it again, this time in the sphere of defence suppression weapons? Are we thinking of throwing away up-to-the-minute British technology to buy what will soon be outdated United States technology?
Such a course of action would represent a kick in the teeth for British industry as a whole. We talk boldly of wealth creation by investment in new technology and going out to market it aggressively to the world, but how can we keep up in any technology if we do not invest in our own products? Indeed, how can any salesman sell from an empty suitcase? I urge the Minister to consider these points carefully and to ensure that his decision is announced to the House during the remainder of the present Session.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I must protect the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville). Do the hon. Members who are rising have the agreement of that hon. Member and the Minister to intervene?
Mr. Sackville: They do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
11.37 pm
Mr. Christopher Murphy: As we debate ALARM and future British weapons systems, we are considering not only that most important of Governmental tasks, the defence of the realm, but the development of expertise and technology without which the nation will be the poorer in stature and the more dependent on others. Additionally, the commercial and employment consequences are self-evident. It is regrettable that the SDP-Liberal alliance is not represented at this debate, which is well supported by Government Members.
It is vital that projects such as ALARM, with which my constituency has been closely connected, should receive the support of the Ministry of Defence and the RAF. It is also vital that other projects involving British Aerospace dynamics division, such as ASRAAM, should be afforded priority consideration for relevant Government commitment. That should also be the case for projects involving the British Aerospace aircraft division, such as the A320 airbus.
Britain has for long provided skill and innovation in aerospace which have been a source of justifiable pride and success. Denationalising British Aerospace has added lustre to an already outstanding industry, but inevitably there remains a role for the Government as both sponsor and purchaser. I have long campaigned, with certain positive results, for due recognition to be afforded to British Aerospace projects such as the 146 aircraft, the A300 airbus, the Sea Eagle missile and ALARM. the last named deserves the early and favourable decision for which my hon. Friend I are rightly pressing tonight.
11.39 pm
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I wish to make three points. First, will my hon. Friend the Minister reiterate the commitment which his predecessor, Lord
990
Trenchard, gave in correspondence with me when he said that, as a matter of principle, in assessing the viability of any British submission for a defence contract, the United Kingdom content in terms of men, taxation, the recycling of that taxation and national insurance would be taken into account in valuing the real net cost of the submission? If he is willing to make that statement again, we are discussing what is without doubt the cheapest system available for the United Kingdom.
Secondly, I commend to my hon. Friend the courage that is being shown by British Aerospace in contracts like this by offering a fixed-price contract. This means that one has the assurance of a fixed expenditure of money, and the whole of British industry is looking to the MOD to have that sort of courage.
My third point is vital. From information that is available in the United States, it is clear that aircraft like the Tornado seeking to penetrate Soviet defensive systems of the kind that are deployed today will not succeed in so doing for more than two missions. The whole of the Royal Air Force would be wiped out in a matter of days of conflict.
It is intolerable that the delay that we are now experiencing should be such that our pilots' capability to defend this country will be inhibited to the point of a danger that is not acceptable to anybody in the House. Every day of delay gives the Soviets a better chance to conquer the abilities of HARM and ALARM. I believe that we need some of both.
11.41 pm
Mr. Robert Atkins: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) for allowing me to have some time to speak on this subject, which we pursued before the general election and will continue to pursue until we get a favourable decision.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister some questions. He has done much for the British defence industry over the years. I hope that he will continue to do so by encouraging his colleagues to go along with this missile decision. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the ALARM project may not need the transfer of technology that would be needed if we purchased the HARM system? Will he confirm also that it has become evident that the American manufacturers are not prepared to go along with such a transfer of technology for the seeker device in the missile?
Can my hon. Friend confirm that the HARM manufacturers are offering only a cost-plus contract, as opposed to a fixed-price contract, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West referred? Will he confirm that the Tornado in its dual role capacity will not be able to carry JP255 as well as the HARM system because of the weight problems and the possible need to rewing the Tornado to carry such a weight? Will he confirm that the requirement of the Royal Air Force does not necessitate having the HARM system, when the ALARM system will do the job just as well at half the price and half the weight?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West for allowing me to intervene. I hope that the Minister will take into account the views that have been expressed in the debate and press strongly, as I know he is doing already, to ensure that the decision goes the British way, which is the best way in my opinion and that of my hon. Friends.
11.43 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) for raising this subject. It must be some time since we have had such an excellent attendance at an Adjournment debate, which shows the concern in many parts of the House, particularly, though not entirely, on Government Benches, for the future of the project.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble, South (Mr. Atkins), the decision on which weapon to purchase to meet the Royal Air Force's defence suppression requirement is expected in the near future. I can only add that one hopes that it will indeed be the near future.
I shall respond to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren). I assure him that what I would call the full cost assessment, looking at what the real costs are, is the basis that we shall use. I have noted the other points that he made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble, South asked me to confirm or deny certain points. It goes without saying that the technology for ALARM would be developed and based here, so no transfer of technology would be relevant, whereas that is not so for HARM, as is well known. It is also true that approximately half the contract price for HARM would be on foreign military service sales terms. They are decided by the United States Government when the purchase is made. There is, therefore, some doubt even at this stage.
I have noted the points about what Tornado should or can carry. I do not want to go into too much detail, but the difference is largely to do with the operational mode. If there is a designated aircraft — I think that that is somewhat risky in wartime—HARM does rather better. If it is decided to carry an anti-radiation missile with others in a mix on several aeroplanes ALARM is favoured. People disagree about whether the designated concept is a good idea. Those who have been involved in wars have a habit of telling us that the designated platform tends to be the one that goes "u/s" on the day and one is left managing without it.
I should like to give the House two assurances. First, I and my right hon. Friends are extremely well aware of the issues that have been raised tonight. They have been taken into account in our assessment of the balance that we must strike between the competing claims of the British Aerospace ALARM and the American-developed HARM which has been offered to us either on co-production between Texas Instruments in the United States and Lucas Aerospace in Britain and known as "British HARM" or directly from the United States Government. I stress that the arguments for each are clear to us. I cannot recall a defence procurement decision for some months that has attracted so much interest.
The considerations that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West highlighted in his excellent speech are foremost among those that we are taking into account. It would be foolish to pretend that both weapons do not have good points. If it were an open and shut case in one direction we should not be having this debate. We must find ways in which to give proper weight to a range of factors, including the following: the various operational and technical characteristics of each weapon and their
992
capabilities against the threat posed by Warsaw pact air defence units in the later years of this decade and in the 1990s when the threat can be expected to be intensified; the maintenance of job creation in British industry—a feature of the ALARM and the "British HARM" bids which has rightly figured prominently in my hon. Friend's case; and the several dimensions to the cost — total programme costs, the unit costs of production weapons, whether costs are fixed in contract or liable to change and, perhaps most important of all, cost effectiveness. We are given to understand that British industry will have the opportunity to bid for places in the HARM programme, although that is not the same as getting them. Nevertheless, the export market appears to be significant.
Much as I might like to enter a detailed comparison of the various factors, that would not be appropriate now. Some details, such as cost figures or relative in-service dates, even though some information has been made available by the competing firms, must remain matters of commercial confidence for the Government. In other areas, such as export potential, British technological and industrial interests and operational effectiveness against the threat, the Government are in the final stages of forming their own conclusions on the relative merits of each proposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West mentioned the guided weapon expertise of British Aerospace. Its achievement in developing and producing guided missiles was amply demonstrated by the successful use during the Falklands crisis of the Sea Skua helicopter-launched anti-ship missile. We also have high hopes for Sea Eagle, the air launched anti-ship missile that is currently being developed by British Aerospace. I pay credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) who has espoused the cause of the British Aerospace dynamics group so effectively for so long.
Hon. Members may wonder why I am mentioning the Sting Ray torpedo in the context of the debate, but what is at issue is the continued technological competence of a vital part of British industry. We have to have regard the good performance in the Falklands by Sting Ray, which was rapidly deployed down there. In the event, it was not used, but it was a project that attracted unfavourable attention because of its inadequate performance in its early years. Since it has been taken over and taken in hand by industry, I am glad to be able to tell the House, and also the Public Accounts Committee if it is listening, that its costs have not increased in real terms since 1978–79, and there are not many projects about which one can say that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West spoke about the future of Lostock near Bolton and the value of the technologies in ALARM for future missile systems and concepts, not least the technology contributed by Marconi Space and Defence Systems in homing heads. The work at Lostock would be in assembling the production missiles and would, as my hon. Friend will agree, come later in the decade. Before that, in the development stage, there would be significant employment at British Aerospace dynamics group factories at Hatfield, Stevenage and Bracknell. With the current economic circumstances and high unemployment, we are well aware—I once again assure my hon. Friends of this — of the implications of the ALARM programme for British Aerospace and for Lostock, and for employment throughout the country, as well over 100 subcontractors would benefit. This is an important point

993
that needs to he born in mind because usually only the leading companies catch the headlines and are the people about whom we hear. However, there are still 100 other companies involved in this programme.
In regard to future weapon systems, I believe that my hon. Friend would have in mind both the scope for other missile programmes than ALARM for British Aerospace, and the other firms involved, in coming years, and the opportunities that could now be opening up for new missiles fitted with anti-radiation homing heads—or the application of this technology to existing designs. Certainly there are such opportunities.
Seeker technology is the key to many advanced weapon systems and the maintenance and enhancement of our competitive position in this is an important issue that is at the forefront of our considerations. Seekers for anti-radiation missiles are doubly important. These must measure and classify signals from enemy radars, which may be changed quickly and perhaps subtly in some circumstances to outwit the missiles and, of course, decoys may also be used. We must have the capability to react very quickly to such changes and this is best assured when we have the detailed knowledge of the seeker that comes from designing and building it ourselves. Indeed, it is true in electronic warfare as a whole, where it can be said that we own only half the system and the enemy owns the other half. This is a lesson that our experience in the Falklands reinforced and that we must not forget.
994
There are also wider possibilities, some of them collaborative, in the homing head activities generally, which include active radar and infra-red as well as anti-radiation techniques. Potential applications are by no means confined to air-launched weapons. The possibilities also embrace land-based and ship-launched weapon systems. Some of these are much longer term, but we attach high importance to them, as the essay "New Technology, New Tactics" in last week's defence White Paper shows.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate lo my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West and to the significant number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House who are present and who have been concerned enough to stay after the excitement earlier this evening, that the claims of ALARM to be selected for the new defence suppression weapon requirement are appreciated fully and are being taken into account in detail by us. Certainly the Government need to have regard to a whole range of factors in addition to the traditional ones of cost and delivery timescale.
I warned my hon. Friend before the debate that I should not be able to surprise him this evening, but I hope, as he does, that the decision will not now be long delayed.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve o' clock.

WALES
  Stray and Killer Dogs
  Stray and Killer Dogs
  Water (Committee Report)
  Water (Committee Report)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Crown Office
  Crown Office
  Caravan Parking
  Caravan Parking
  Travelling People
  Travelling People
  Anti-blood Sports Protests
  Anti-blood Sports Protests
  Armed Trespass
  Armed Trespass
  Warrant Sales
  Warrant Sales
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Paramyxovirus
  Paramyxovirus
  Less Favoured Areas
  Less Favoured Areas
DEFENCE
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Helicopters (Queen's Flight)
  Helicopters (Queen's Flight)
  Dartmouth Royal Naval College
  Dartmouth Royal Naval College
  Rifle Associations
  Rifle Associations
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Mature Students
  Mature Students
  School Buildings
  School Buildings
  Disabled Children
  Disabled Children
  Village Primary Schools
  Village Primary Schools
  Staffing Policy
  Staffing Policy
  Inner London Education Authority
  Inner London Education Authority
PRIME MINISTER
  Poland (Economic Aid)
  Poland (Economic Aid)
  Universities and Polytechnics (Research Work)
  Universities and Polytechnics (Research Work)
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Devon (Road Improvement Schemes)
  Devon (Road Improvement Schemes)
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Wandsworth
  Wandsworth
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Health and Safety Commission (Chairman)
  Health and Safety Commission (Chairman)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Custodial Sentences
  Custodial Sentences
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Animal Experiments
  Animal Experiments
  Police Resources (Use)
  Police Resources (Use)
  Immigration Control
  Immigration Control
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Murder Statistics
  Murder Statistics
TRANSPORT
  Heavy Vehicles (Safety Checks)
  Heavy Vehicles (Safety Checks)
  Bridge Street Underpass
  Bridge Street Underpass
  Container Terminal, Falmouth
  Container Terminal, Falmouth
  British Airways
  British Airways
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Refugees (Education)
  Refugees (Education)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  European Community (Imports-Exports)
  European Community (Imports-Exports)
  Steel Quotas
  Steel Quotas
  Protectionism (OECD Study)
  Protectionism (OECD Study)
  Moneylenders
  Moneylenders
  Holiday Caravans (Northern Ireland)
  Holiday Caravans (Northern Ireland)
  British Technology Group
  British Technology Group
  Higher Education and Industry (Research Links)
  Higher Education and Industry (Research Links)
  Universities and Polytechnics (National Database)
  Universities and Polytechnics (National Database)
  Motor Industry (Trade Balance)
  Motor Industry (Trade Balance)
  Car Ownership
  Car Ownership
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Pre-birth Screening
  Pre-birth Screening
  Farmers (Family Income Supplement)
  Farmers (Family Income Supplement)
  National Health Service (Practitioner Statistics)
  National Health Service (Practitioner Statistics)
  Area Health Authorities (Planning Services)
  Area Health Authorities (Planning Services)
  St. Thomas' Hospital
  St. Thomas' Hospital
  Hospitals (Kitchen Hygiene)
  Hospitals (Kitchen Hygiene)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Hospitals
  Hospitals
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Agency Nurses
  Agency Nurses
  Nurses and Doctors (Training)
  Nurses and Doctors (Training)
  Misuse of Drugs
  Misuse of Drugs
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Still-born Babies (Burial)
  Still-born Babies (Burial)
  Child Benefit Books (Loan Security)
  Child Benefit Books (Loan Security)
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
  Voluntary Unemployment Deductions
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authorities (Concessionary Grants)
  Local Authorities (Concessionary Grants)
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  County Councils (Abolition)
  County Councils (Abolition)
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Commission of New Towns (Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City)
  Commission of New Towns (Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City)
  "Lead in the Environment"
  "Lead in the Environment"
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Sporting Links
  Sporting Links
ENERGY
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Local Authorities (Land Purchases)
  Local Authorities (Land Purchases)
  Enterprise Zones
  Enterprise Zones
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Local Government (Payments)
  Local Government (Payments)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Housing Executive (Empty Properties)
  Housing Executive (Empty Properties)
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
SCOTLAND
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Scottish Legislation
  Scottish Legislation
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Salmon Fishing
  Salmon Fishing
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Inshore Fishing
  Inshore Fishing
  Fishing Quotas
  Fishing Quotas
  Antonine Wall
  Antonine Wall
  Cottage Hospitals (Tayside)
  Cottage Hospitals (Tayside)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Farming Industry
  Farming Industry
  British Alcan
  British Alcan
  Transnational Companies
  Transnational Companies
  Rates
  Rates
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Orlit Houses
  Orlit Houses
  Heroin Addiction
  Heroin Addiction
  Solvent Abuse
  Solvent Abuse
  Elections (Holiday Votes)
  Elections (Holiday Votes)
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Water (Lead Levels)
  Water (Lead Levels)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Belize
  Belize
  Chile
  Chile
  Iran (Human Rights)
  Iran (Human Rights)
  China and European Security
  China and European Security
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Lieutenant Alan Gingles
  Lieutenant Alan Gingles
  France (Nuclear Emergency Notification)
  France (Nuclear Emergency Notification)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Membership (Benefits)
  Membership (Benefits)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Petrol Price (Value Added Tax)
  Petrol Price (Value Added Tax)
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Velocity of Circulation
  Velocity of Circulation
  Money (Inflow and Outflow)
  Money (Inflow and Outflow)
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Employment Categories
  Employment Categories
  CBI (Meeting)
  CBI (Meeting)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Nationalised Industries (Costs)
  Nationalised Industries (Costs)
  Government Assets (Sale)
  Government Assets (Sale)
  Theatre Museum
  Theatre Museum

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

Pound Coin
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ask the Royal Mint to change the new £1 coin so as to make it more easily identifiable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the pound is the only circulation coin produced in a yellow metal, it is twice as thick as any other coin, it has a distinctive lettered edge and its reverse is different from other reverse designs. It is felt these differences are sufficient for the general public to differentiate between the £1 coins and others once then become familiar with them. There was very extensive consultation about the proposed specification of the new coin before it was issued. Those approached included organisations representing the blind and the handicapped, who confirmed that the new coin, because of its relative thickness, was sufficiently identifiable.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that Answer I must admit that I am rather mystified by it. Would he not agree that if one has poor sight, or if one is elderly or is a foreign tourist—and tourists are so helpful to our balance of payments—it is extremely difficult to differentiate between the £1 coin, the 20p coin and even, perhaps, the 5p coin? Is he aware that in my estate shop I am now finding that the public are extremely reluctant to accept the £l coin as change? I also understand that that is the case in the retail trade generally. My noble friend mentioned that the coin is a different colour. I have not noticed that. I should like to ask my noble friend whether it could be electroplated in a gold colour or perhaps, like the Maria Theresa dollar, which the Mint used to produce, have a hole in it—in which case it would have to be somewhat larger!
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend will be glad to know, as I think I said earlier, that the Royal Mint consulted over 100 different organisations, including representatives of the retail trade, to which he referred, banks, the vending machine industry, user groups, and representatives of the blind and
792
handicapped. Furthermore, certainly all Members of another place (I am not sure about your Lordships) were sent a copy of the Royal Mint's discussion document before a formal recommendation on specification was made to Ministers. So far as the identification of the £1 coin from a 20p piece or a 5p piece is concerned, my noble friend will be aware that a 20p piece has a multi-faceted edge, and a 5p piece is just under half the thickness, as measured by me this morning, of a £1 coin—which I did manage to exchange with the person who came to brief me!
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, if my noble friend thinks that thickness is something that appeals to the Government, can he tell us why the thin and extremely dirty existing pound notes, which are obviously preferred to the new coins because there are hundreds of thousands of them, should not be removed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that is a matter of opinion. Only 20 minutes ago I was talking to someone who said that many of the elderly were only too pleased to find that the rather dirty pounds notes which are in circulation were being replaced by coins.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is there as yet any evidence of conterfeiting of these new £1 coins? Will the noble Lord bear in mind that the director of a Government factory which has all the necessary equipment, told me recently that he could make these coins at a cost of 1p each, which suggests that a considerable profit would be possible? What advice are the Government giving to retailers to help them identify counterfeit coins?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into any details about how the Mint or anybody else distinguishes a counterfeit coin from a real one. However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that part of the coin is designed in such a way as to defeat the type of thing to which he refers.
Lord Allerton: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend: what has been the cost of introducing this coin into the currency?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, a pound for each pound exchangeable.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the joys of carrying coins is the chink that they make in the pocket, and that the new £1 coin, when chinked, does not chink? Although I am aware of the fact that the coin is thicker and smaller than most coins and that the noise it will make will therefore be of a lower range than that of any other coin, it sounds precisely like plastic clinking against plastic.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I have not had time to experiment with the coin that I was given before lunch, but I can tell my noble friend that if the £1 coin had a hole in the middle, which my noble friend Lord Massereene suggests, it would probably make even less of a clink.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can my noble friend say that it is Government Policy that eventually the £1 coin will take the place of the £1 note? I ask this specifically because I can foresee a time when charities will suffer considerably. People now put £1 £2 or, if they are generous, £3 in an envelope, but they cannot put coins in an envelope. Can my noble friend tell me how long the £1 note will be part of the currency?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend an answer. No decision has yet been reached as to when the pound note will be taken out of circulation. However, her points will certainly be borne in mind.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me where this strange "Noddy" money was created, and who thought of it? It is completely losing the charisma of our old British money.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it was considered at a time when, as the noble Lord is aware, unfortunately —and I know that it is very sad —the pound became a much lower value unit than it had been hitherto. Furthermore, many other countries, including Germany, France and Sweden, have coins of similar value. It was during that time, and during the time we have been able to look at other coins, that we have seen that there has been a need to introduce a coin to replace the note.

Mr. Nelson Mandela
2.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what actions they have taken and will now take to persuade the South African Government to release Nelson Mandela as called for in the United Nations Security Council resolution of June 1980.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have on appropriate occasions made clear our concern about the imprisonment of all political prisoners in South Africa, including Mr. Mandela. We shall continue to do so.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that when Mr. Mandela was imprisoned in 1962 he was 45 years old and, therefore, he is now either 65 or 66 years old? Is she further aware that life imprisonment in South Africa means imprisonment until death? In these circumstances, is it not time that the Government made renewed endeavours to secure the release of this most important detainee? Finally, is the noble Baroness aware that if the South African Government persist in their certainty of retaining Mr. Mandela until his death, they themselves will regret it?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we of course voted for the United Nations Security Council Resolution No.473 in 1980. We supported the joint statement issued by the European Community in October 1982 marking the United Nations day of solidarity with political prisoners in South Africa, and of course we have made the South African Government fully aware of our views. There is no doubt that Mr. Mandela's release would be widely welcomed as evidence of the desire for reconciliation in South Africa.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that both her replies will be widely welcomed, not merely on behalf of the Government and Opposition parties, but indeed on behalf of the British people? Such thoroughly well-founded, good answers which we have heard this afternoon will be ancknowledged throughout the civilized world. Therefore, by itself the Answer that we have received in this Chamber will contribute to Britain continuing to give a lead to obtain Mr. Mandela's release from prison or at least to ensure that he is brought to trial, where the world can test for itself what, if any, his crimes have been. Therefore, I thank the noble Baroness for her replies.
Lord Walston: My Lords, as one who had the privilege and sadness some 15 years ago of visiting Nelson Mandela on Robben Island, I support the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and urge the Government to renew on every occasion —and particularly at this present time—the efforts that they have already made to secure his release.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has said on this matter. I can only repeat that, of course, the South African Government are fully aware of our views.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is heartfelt wish by all sections of this House that, however welcome it be, something more constructive than her statement this afternoon could, in fact, be done? Is she aware that resolutions have been passed and that the United Kingdom has participated in them, but that nothing has been done about the imprisonment of a man which has now lasted for over 20 years? In co-operation with Foreign Ministers in Europe, could she not call in the South African ambassadors in each of the countries to acquaint them with the feeling that exists in Parliament in this country —and I have no doubt in parliaments of every European country—that something must be done by South Africa to release her political prisoners, certainly including Mr. Mandela, if she wishes to be treated with any sort of respect by the civilized world?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have noted the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on this matter. I can only reiterate to him that the Government must be the judge of how best we can help Mr. Mandela's case. We believe that some actions could, in fact, be counter-productive. I should like to confirm that we do of course condemn the punishment of people for their political beliefs, and we have made this quite clear.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the sentiments she has expressed are shared by many people on this side of the House as well, and also that the European Parliament has more or less unanimously voted for the release of Nelson Mandela?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that point. As I indicated in my first answer, we supported the European Community in their vote on political prisoners.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, while we thank her for her answers, verbal pressure on the South African Government has hitherto not been productive? Therefore, is it not time to examine the possibility of something more than verbal pressure on the Government? Is it not time to consider the possibility of some more perhaps economic pressure, or something of that sort?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. As I indicated to his noble friend Lord Mishcon, we have made plain to the South African Government our views on this matter. We have to judge carefully how we can best help Mr. Mandela, and I think that we must recognise that some proposals could well be counter-productive.

National Coal Board: Monopolies Commission Report
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the National Coal Board.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, the commission have produced a thorough and valuable report. This highlights the board's two central problems, which are separate but closely related, of over-capacity and high-cost pits. A Statement will be made in due course on the action to follow the report.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which at least suggests that there will be a Statement at some time or another. Would he not agree that this report focuses on one important fact; namely, that some £300 million a year of the losses of the Coal Board seems to be attributable to only 30 pits out of 190? This is of course a strong argument for closure. Can my noble friend say whether the Government have in mind some policy of a general kind to assist the areas which have to face such closures mainly in Scotland and in Wales?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. In fact, I think that the chairman has recently said that 10 million tonnes of capacity is responsible
796
for a total loss of about £400 million a year, both in direct losses and in the cost of stocking surplus production. As far as the second question of my noble friend is concerned, there is always a wide range of measures to encourage the creation of new jobs in high unemployment areas, and obviously the Government will keep in mind the impact of coal redundancies on regional unemployment figures. For instance, the board have given an assurance that alternative jobs will be found for all those from Cardowan who wish to continue in the industry.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, am I not right in saying that the Coal Board are very generous to miners who become redundant? At a small mine in Fife the other day I think they received £20,000 redundancy money each if they could not be found a new job, and they also received £100 a week until they got the old-age pension. I think I am right in saying that, because the Coal Board are very generous to the miners.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I note the comments of my noble friend.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate whether his promised Statement will be made before the House rises for the Summer Recess? Is he aware that a good many people who are being taxed to the extent of some hundreds of millions of pounds to sustain in operation pits which will always be profitless are getting a bit impatient?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I note my noble friend's comment. I know it is hoped to be able to produce a Statement before the end of this Session.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that in any future strategy for the coal industry a high level of investment should be maintained in order to make the best and most efficient use of this valuable resource, and furthermore, to facilitate the progressive replacement of high-cost capacity?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord will be well aware that at the moment investment stands at just over £800 million, and that our total cost for this particular year is £1·2 billion. I should like to reiterate that the Government are totally committed to the development of a modern and viable coal industry.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, if one of the main problems troubling the Monopolies Commission about the National Coal Board is the loss sustained annually by the board, apart from a bare number of privately-owned pits before nationalisation the coal industry has never, in a wholesale fashion, made a profit?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend take into consideration, before the Statement is made, that some £4 billion has been put into this industry, over the last 10 years, which is quite a lot of money; that much of the loss is focused on a relatively

797
small number of pits; and that the closure of those pits therefore calls for greater mobility of labour and co-operation on the part of, among others, the unions concerned to support the movement of redundant men to more likely pits?
The Earl of Avon: Indeed, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend. We are of course anxious to support this industry in every way possible. It might interest the House to know that the best 20 pits have average costs of about £28 a tonne, which is very competitive, whereas the worst 20 pits have costs of £89 a tonne, which is more than double the average United Kingdom price.

Unemployment Benefit: Abatement
2.57 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to refund any part of the 5 per cent. abatement in the unemployment benefit which is to be restored in November.
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, the abatement was made to achieve savings in public expenditure, as well as in anticipation of taxation. We reviewed the position when the benefit came into tax, as we had undertaken, in the light of the resources available and competing priorities. Taking those factors into account, we decided that we could not make good the abatement at last year's uprating; we can do so from this November—but not retrospectively.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the letter that he sent me following our exchange concerning his Statement on 23rd June in which he wrote on the same lines as he has just answered? If this 5 per cent, abatement in the unemployment benefit was made at least partially as a matter of savings may I ask whether he is then saying that the Government over the past 12 months have been cutting the unemploymnent benefit by 5 per cent, simply as a matter of Government savings?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, as I have said, we do not intend to back-date the making good of the abatement. That would be contrary to the intention to make savings; and furthermore the administrative problems it would raise would be enormous. In discussion on the Bill in 1980 it was repeatedly stated that the level of benefit, once it was brought into tax, would have to be considered in the light of the prevailing economic circumstances, and that is precisely what we did. Resources and priorities simply did not permit us to make good the abatement of unemployment benefit until this year.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, so the noble Lord is saying that over the past 12 months unemployment benefit has been cut by 5 per cent, as a deliberate matter of Government policy?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, all I was explaining to the noble Lord—which I think he knows perfectly well—was that there were competing priorities and this was one area where it was thought that it was necessary to make a specific cut. It has not been possible to restore the abatement until next November for the reasons which I thought I had explained just now.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that unemployment is a domestic and financial tragedy to those involved? In view of the Chancellor's recent Statement on cuts in public expenditure and the obvious signs of further cuts to come, will the Minister give a concrete undertaking that unemployment benefit will not be cut; and furthermore that the system of payment will continue? Is the Minister aware that I asked that last question because of the Prime Minister's insistence on a return to Victorian values, and Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne's article in the Sunday Telegraph where he talks about returning to the era of the deserving cause? That is my concern and I hope for a guarantee from the Minister.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am certainly not responsible for what is written in the Sunday Telegraph. On 23rd June I repeated a Statement here which indicated the way in which benefits would be uprated in November by 3.7 per cent., which was the figure worked out as a result of the reversion from the forecast method to the historic method. There is no intention to cut them at all.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the rise in unemployment benefit which was anticipated, was in anticipation of a rate of inflation that never occurred, and therefore talk of a 5 per cent, cut in the rate of unemployment benefit is absurd? It is a 5 per cent, cut in an unanticipated increase because the rate of price increases was much lower than had been expected.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend puts his finger on the point very fairly and firmly.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, surely this is not accurate.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that a 5 per cent, deduction in unemployment benefit took place from 1980 and took into account the whole issue of inflation? Will he again confirm that, despite the fact that the Government used the excuse that the abatement was to be imposed until the time that benefit came under taxation, the Government have been penalising the unemployed by 5 per cent., irrespective of the fact that benefit came under taxation 12 months ago? For the past 12 months the unemployed have been underpaid by 5 per cent, irrespective of inflation.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, the decision to abate the increase in short-term benefits was made in 1980 when we had to curb the

799
growth in public expenditure as an essential basis of our economic strategy. Social security could not be exempted from those necessary curbs.
As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, when there is a benefit improvement of any kind those who are no longer entitled to benefit when changes take effect do not gain from it, nor do those still on benefit gain retrospectively. Supplementary benefit has throughout been available to those who needed it and has not been subject to any abatement.
Lord Banks: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government have rejected suggestions that national insurance, including unemployment benefit, should be privatised?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with respect, that is a rather different question.
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that the exchange of statistics across the Chamber on this matter is extremely difficult for everyone in the House to follow with precision? Notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord Vaizey said, will the Minister use his best endeavours to ensure that the House has an opportunity to debate these matters more fully in depth rather than at Question Time by means of Question and Answer, so that we can have an authoritative statement on the Government's position on unemployment benefit in the future?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I quite agree that this is a very complicated matter. Whether or not there will be time for a debate on it is a question for the usual channels.

Rent (Abolition of Control) Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to repeal the Rent Act 1974, the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, the Rent Act 1977 and other enactments restricting the freedom of tenants. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Vaizey.)
On Question. Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Commons Registration (Glamorgan) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
Tor Bay Harbour (Torquay Marina, &c.) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Committees of the House
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare); My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Kilmarnock be added to the following Select Committees in the place of the Lord Kennet:—

Committee of Selection

Select Committee on House of Lords Offices

Select Committee on the Procedure of the House

Select Committee on Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses.—(Lord Aberdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

World Hunger
3.7 p.m.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm rose to call attention to the accelerating growth of world hunger and to the urgent need of practical assistance to the third world to encourage the increased production of food; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I must thank the House for slotting this debate into the very short time between the general election and the Recess and I must thank my, colleagues on these Benches for allotting this very precious time to me. I believe that this is an important subject for two particular reasons. The first reason is that apart from nuclear war, starvation and hunger in the world is probably the most serious problem affecting mankind. One might say that it is the worst problem because we do not know whether there will be a nuclear war, but we do know that there will be more starvation. I guess that by the time this debate is over several hundred people will have died from starvation. It could be thousands.
The second reason is a personal one. For 20 years I was a senior executive of an overseas bank operating mainly in the third world and I suppose that for every one of those years I was in and out of Africa. Anyone who has had that experience not only becomes fascinated—and at times utterly frustrated—by that strange continent but finds it gets you in its grip and does not let go. During this past decade since I retired I have kept a close watch on what has been happening. During that decade things have steadily deteriorated and not improved.
In recent time we have had some very interesting reports from commissions on this subject. But it is fair to say that even in the early days when I was operative in those countries I realised that about 75 per cent, of the population was not benefiting in any way from the boom that came with independence. I was able during that time to see presidents and ministers, and although they paid lipservice to the importance of agriculture there was no political will at all and very little happened. I suppose one did one's best in providing funds for co-operatives and marketing boards. Agricultural advisers were appointed in West Africa. East Africa. and central Africa but even at the end of those two decades I was bitterly disappointed in what had been achieved.
Some time in 1960 or 1961 I ran into a senior consultant of a well-known firm of American consultants. It is a household name that your Lordships would recognise if I repeated it so I shall not repeat it. He was an adviser to the United States Agency for International Development about where money should be placed. I said. "I hope that you will do

801
something substantial for agriculture". To which he replied, "No, I am not recommending any money going to agriculture. The object of USAID is to create an industrial base in Nigeria, and from that everything else will flow". That was the first time, I think, that I had heard of what came to be known as the policy of "trickle down". In other words, if you get prosperity at the top, it will soon get down to those at the bottom. In my experience, even in my day in Africa, it was exactly the opposite. What happened was that people left the country and swarmed into the towns looking for employment. In fact, that was the reason for the formation of the vast and ghastly shanty towns round Lagos and Abadan and Kano.
I suppose that the latest report of any real importance was what I call the No. 2 Brandt Report The Common Crisis, which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, introduced for debate in this House a few weeks ago. But the most important document that I think I have seen in recent years is the book called, Down to Earth, which is by Erick Eckholm. It was produced at the instigation of the International Institute for Environmental Development, which, as I think some noble Lords will know, was the platform for that magnificent and widely-known person Barbara Ward—Lady Jackson. She wrote the foreword for this book, and I think it likely that it was the last thing that she ever wrote. I think it is fair, therefore, to make one short quotation from her introduction, which is as follows:
"One of the saddest of all the metaphors is surely that of eating the seedcorn. Yet the inexorable pressures of population in a limited environment and its resources are at the moment forcing hundreds of millions of people to do just this, to burn cow dung instead of using it to enrich the soil, to cultivate steep slopes until the precious soil is washed away down the rivers".
Eric Eckholm tells us that there are now 68 million Africans who are believed to be undernourished—that is about 15 per cent, of the entire population of Africa—and this in a continent where the world's greatest reserves of unexploited food production exist and where agricultural development can only be described as dismal. The per capita output has been reduced by 10 per cent, in the last 20 years. If human hunger is to be wiped out, Eckholm points out, it is necessary to have agrarian reform, small holder progress, employment creation and dissemination of the means to exploit the opportunities which exist. I do not propose to make many quotations, but further on in this book it says that the world has at present 1.5 billion hectares of arable land under cultivation, and also estimates that 5 million to 7 million hectares of this are being completely lost for agricultural production every year through soil degradation.
I realise that family planning is a very important side of this coin, and I expect other speakers will deal with it, but to me it is such a complicated and important one that I think it should be the subject of another debate. I think that, in the context, it is worth saying that it is anticipated by the United Nations that the 470 million people now in Africa will rise in number by the end of the next century to 2.2 billion. How they are to be fed, we just do not know. It has been said that if you improve hygiene, medical conditions and so on the population will not increase at that rate and that
802
the birth rate will fall. In the long run, I think that this may be true. I believe that it has been true in the European context. In Kenya, where great strides have been made in improving these particular conditions, they seem to want more babies than ever—and I will refer to that later on.
I do not want to quote too many statistics, but the World Bank estimates that there are now one billion absolute poor in the world. The best definition that I have seen of "absolute poor" is one by Robert Macnamara, which says:
"those whose condition of life is so degraded by disease, illiteracy, malnutrition and squalor as to deny its victims basic human necessities: a condition of life so limited as to prevent realisation of the potential of the genius with which one is born, so degrading as to insult human dignity".
Another sinister statement that he makes is:
"The era of the population explosion will necessarily be … short".
They will starve.
For some time, food production in Africa has been increasing by only 1·6 per cent. per annum while the population growth has been increasing at double that rate. Africa, south of the Sahara, is the only region in the world where food production per capita has declined over the last two decades and where food imports have increased by 9 per cent, per annum. In Kenya, which I have mentioned before, once the great hope of the African independent countries, there is a population growth of 4 per cent, per annum—the greatest in Africa—and a food production growth of only 1·5 per cent., It is now importing food on a considerable scale. This is a country which, on the whole, has made good use of its aid. There are few prestigious enterprises serving no useful purpose, but overseas earnings that should be bringing in the many requirements for further development are now being used almost entirely for the importation of food.
It has been pointed out that food aid is changing the tastes of the people for foodstuffs, mainly grains, and that they are no longer prepared to put up with the cassava, and the millet, which was their normal food. African countries are now importing 40 million tonnes of food per annum, and the Brandt forecast is that this figure will he 72 million tonnes by the end of this decade and 100 million tonnes, if such food exists, by the end of the century. My final figures—and I will not bore your Lordships with any more—are for Nigeria, a country which I know well, where even in my day, in the late 'fifties, we were financing the importation of a great amount of grain from America. In 1981, Nigeria imported no less than £1·8 billion-worth of food. After severe import restrictions in 1982, that was reduced to £1·2 billion-worth of food. On top of that, to my surprise, they are said to be importing £440 million-worth of alcoholic drinks. This is the story of what has happened to their bonanza of oil—unlimited imports of all types of goods, including food, in a country which could almost feed the rest of Africa. I think I have painted a sufficiently gloomy background to come to my point, which is this. What do we do about it? What can we actually do? The time has come for something practical to be done. The first thing is to deal with the problem of food aid. It is quite natural, I think, that people should say there is so much surplus grain—the Americans are paying people not to grow it—and we have milk lakes, butter mountains, wine

803
lakes and all sorts of other examples of surplus food production in the EEC and elsewhere, why can we not use this to solve some of the problems?
In June 1981 the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, told the House that the British Government had reservations about the development benefits of food aid and that they had consistently opposed increases in EEC dairy food aid. He was right. I hold the proof in my hand. I received quite recently a book sent to me by OXFAM, produced by that well-known man, Tony Jackson, and by Deborah Eade, who are research people who know more than anybody about the distribution of food. It is called Against the Grain—a very appropriate title. They point out that, already. £1 billion-worth of food is sent annually in aid from the developed world to the developing countries, 70 per cent, is sold on concessional terms, and 30 per cent., on what is called project food aid. Food donors fail to acknowledge that in most cases project food aid applies a first-aid measure to what is a long-term disease. It ignores the fundamental problem, which is poverty, and attempts to address the symptom, which is hunger.
This book gives example after example of the complete failure of the world food programme to deal with disasters, quite apart from the fundamental problem. For instance, in 1976 the world food programme aimed to send food to Bangladesh for starving children and pregnant mothers. It arrived more than a year late. In the Haiti drought of 1977, food arrived in 1978 after a good harvest. Skimmed milk requested by Granada after the disastrous floods in 1976 arrived in 1979. The United States food aid for the Bas Zaire famine in 1977/78 arrived in July 1979, and so on. The Oxfam survey said:
"We found in all the major disasters that there was always enough food in the surrounding area to take care of the needs and there was rarely any necessity to import food at all. What was needed was money."
The EEC has a notorious record for the late arrival of food aid. There are also too few routine checks on donations to ensure that inappropriate foods are not sent—because a large amount of inappropriate food has been sent—and that it arrives at the right destination.
So much for food aid for disasters. We must continue to look at disasters, of course, but what about countries with persistent food shortages? In 1980, the CRS medical director for sub-Sahara Africa said this:
"The question is—does supplementary feeding added to education and the development process provide the answer to the problem? One would like to say yes, but experience and extensive literature on the subject tell us that the answer is no."
This report concludes by saying:
"It may be going against the grain to call for a substantial reduction in non-emergency project food aid. However. analysis of the experience of the last 25 years suggests that it is time we did."
That is what Tony Jackson says.
I now come to what I think is the best suggestion made so far and that is from Mr. Pisani, who is the EEC Commissioner responsible for the policy on aid and development. He has visited several countries himself: I think they were Mali, Kenya and Zambia. He said to the presidents of those countries:
"Only a change of policies will enable you to reach self-sufficiency. I am here to tell you that as soon as you have adopted new policies we can provide you with inputs designed to implement them."
804
That is a very good start, but I was very depressed when I saw a working document which came out a few weeks ago from the European Parliament by the rapporteur, Mrs. Cerretti. While welcoming Mr. Pisani's initiative, they did state that 50 million ECUs (about £30 million) would be made available to support the initiative. They went on to say that the strategies required are production, marketing, storage, transportation and structural measures which consist during the first stage of financing measures to pave the way for action in the four main preselected areas. There should be food, fuel, reafforestation, watersupply, diversification and efficient management of domestic livestock. All that is absoluteley right. Provision is also made for training operations in these two fields. However, it is also said that aid should be made available to all the developing countries, with priority being given to the least developed countries. That is going back to a global approach instead of what I thought Mr. Pisani was doing: he was picking one or two places and making a start on really practical measures. Instead of saying "the least developed countries", I would say "wherever there is some chance of success". I think that is the important thing.
The more sinister thing about this report is that it goes on to say at the end that the whole thing is subject, despite what is said, to the Commission's proposals and agreement. This could lead to a delay of up to several months as regards the dispersal of urgently needed aid and it could put the funds in jeopardy. It would enable the Council, acting by a qualified majority, to take a different decision from that proposed by the Parliament. So, while I would praise what Mr. Pisani has done, it still leaves us in the steering position, and action must be taken by the United Kingdom.
I suggest that we have various reasons for doing this. First, we still have some responsibility for our ex-colonial territories and, secondly, we have a special relationship with them. I am glad to say that, after certain difficulties, the relationship seems to be improving again. But, more importantly, we have expertise in this country which cannot be matched by any other country in the world. First, we have the CDC which we debated in your Lordships' House not long ago. That has a magnificent record of achievement and, if there had been the necessary political will in the countries where it operates, there could have been vast improvements. In fact, it has started hundreds of small farms, which has been a magnificent demonstration of what can be done.
Then there is the Overseas Development Institute, which was started by the late Sir Leslie Rowan. I was a founder member with him, and over the last 20 years they have accumulated some impressive knowledge and done a great deal of fieldwork. They probably know as much about this problem as anyone. Also there are a number of academic institutions—for example, Reading Unversity—which have carried out some most interesting experiments. There are Wye College, Norwich, Sussex, and IDS, and of course Oxfam. Also I should mention the Intermediate Technology Development Group, a much neglected and under-funded institution, which of course was the brainchild of the late Dr. Schumacher. It has done

805
some astonishingly good work in providing intermediate technology to developing countries—small pumps and things like that, which are of tremendous use.
I believe that from these institutions which I have mentioned—and no doubt there are others—we could form teams which could sit down and draw up a package for each country. The needs of each country are entirely different, so each needs a different package. It is all very well to say, as Dr. Pisani has said,"If you start to change your policies then we will give you what you want". We have to tell them what they want, because they do not know but we do. I think there is a great responsibility on this country to start producing package deals so that we can put them to these countries and see whether we cannot get something going.
Some people will say that the problem is one of conditionality—a well-known phrase, which means that people do not like being told what they have got to do. That is perfectly true but I think that with the special relations we now have with our ex-colonies the situation is very different. Also the situation is so serious that they would take a different view. I had the pleasure a few weeks ago of receiving six people who had just returned from the British Executive Service Overseas. They had spent some months in various developing countries. They said their welcome was overwhelming and I believe things have changed and that, if we took the initiative, we should be welcome. I know that there are many other calls on aid but what we are doing to help is extremely impressive, What is the good of bringing more babies safely into the world if during the next three years they are going to die of starvation or live a life of deprivation and degradation?
I also know that there are other things which are equally important. For example, commodity prices are what we have to look at all the time. I do not know whether people realise that commodity prices in 1960 were 25 per cent, higher in real terms than they are today; yet that coincided with the biggest economic growth in the Western world. If we could afford to pay those prices then and prosper, it is foolish for us to think that we have good terms of trade now when, by having cheap commodities, we are ruining our customers, who are going bankrupt. If we did have that 25 per cent, increase in commodity prices, this great financial crisis would disappear overnight.
I think I have said enough on this life-and-death problem. I want to finish with a little tailpiece. A few years ago I was in Tokyo leading an international financial mission and during it I said to a leading Japanese, "What is your attitude to the third world?" He said, "Oh, we shall give it massive help, but do not think that we do it from any altruistic motive: we do it because we believe it is the only way of stopping a third world war". I have nothing against altruism but, to put the whole thing at its lowest, what I am recommending is in our self-interest. I should like to end by saying that if they turn to us and we turn them down, we know very well to whom they will turn. I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for this timely debate. It follows soon after our debate in the last Session on the Brandt Commission's memorandum and it comes at a time when a number of countries, particularly in Southern Africa, are facing serious food shortages, largely as a result of a further year of drought. Against such a background, I am glad that we now have the opportunity to consider such a very important matter.
The Government have made it clear, in the many debates we have had on development issues in this House and in another place, that we view with concern the plight of those people in poorer developing countries who day by day do not have enough to eat. This makes tremendous demands in terms of commitment and organisation on the governments of the developing countries themselves, and poses a challenge to industrialised countries to use the resources we have to help build up a long-term solution. As a background to other noble Lords' contributions, I should like to sketch out how we are using our own aid programme to assist in the increase in food production. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak again towards the end of the debate and try to pick up any points made by noble Lords which call for a reply from the Government.
Information on the subject of world hunger is controversial. There is probably a sufficient overall supply of food in the world—the problem is getting it to those in need. Here I must stress that increased food aid is not the answer, and I agree very much with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. Food aid makes sense for emergency relief, as he said, but in other situations can actually discourage food production in developing countries and make matters worse. The solution lies in encouraging self-reliance in food by developing countries, so that they can afford to buy what they need.
It seems generally accepted that the present world population of about 4.400 million people is likely to increase to about 6,200 million by the year 2000, because of increasing life expectancy, particularly in the poorer countries. To meet the effective world demand for agricultural products, present output will have to be doubled by the year 2000. Most of this will have to be met in the presently poorer countries.
Cereals provide most of the energy and protein supplies of most people in the world. They are also a major source of animal food. Today around 1,500 million tons of cereals are produced each year. If world production is to reach the present level of consumption in Western Europe, about 3.000 million tons will be needed in the year 2000. There will be a need for similar increases in root crop, vegetable, fruit and beverage crop production, as well as of fibre and oil seed crops. It is generally accepted that bringing presently unused land into production will not make a major contribution to increased crop production. Such land has low productivity and the costs of making it productive will be great. The greater part of increased production will need to come from increased yields per unit area and from improved farming systems.

807
For many years, successive British Governments have accepted the importance to developing countries of rural development and food production in particular. The increased importance attached to the agricultural sector in British aid policy was matched by a similar reorientation by other donors, notably the World Bank.
Aid to the agricultural sector remains a high priority, because agriculture is the basis of the economy in nearly all developing countries. Following the Cancun Summit meeting, the Prime Minister reported in another place that:
"The main priority must be for developing countries to grow more food for their own people, This means giving farmers the right incentives and technical support. Aid should be designed to reinforce these objectives".—[0fficial Report,Commons. 26/10/81; Col. 557.]
In November 1981, the then Minister for Overseas Development, Sir Neil Marten, told the FAO Conference that:
"the United Kingdom gives special support to rural development concentrating a high proportion on the poorest developing countries … we are trying to increase our total aid co-operation investment in food and agriculture both directly and indirectly".
Others have been similarly concerned. The European Community Council of Ministers reaffirmed the priority which the Community gives to the food and agriculture sector and has launched a National Food Strategy initiative which we have been actively supporting. Commonwealth Heads of Government, at their meeting in Melbourne in 1981, recognised that the ultimate solution to the world food problem lies in greater food self-sufficiency in developing countries.
In formulating aid policy to the agricultural sector, we take into account the specific needs of different countries, but of course what we do is subject to requests from developing countries. In Asia, the high priority areas are irrigation, land resource conservation and assessment, oil seeds, crop protection. forestry and agricultural research. In Africa, priority is attached to agricultural policy and planning, crop protection, agricultural research—including farming systems—marketing and credit, agricultural management, livestock, forestry extension and training. Inputs are needed in many countries in post-harvest activities, such as processing, storage and marketing.
While the experience of the mid-1970s demonstrated some difficulties in channelling aid resources productively into the agricultural sector, it has also shown some of the constraints which need to be tackled for development of the sector and which can be relieved by effective aid. For example, there is a particular need in Africa for inputs of skilled technical manpower to enable capital aid to be absorbed effectively. We have found that programmes need longer periods of active involvement by donors than in the past.
In Britain, we have built up and sustained a unique capability to co-operate with developing countries to meet their varied needs, Our expertise—again, a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm—covers a wide range of disciplines, and many institutions are involved, including private firms of consultants and contractors, universities and government-supported research stations.
808
The aid programme draws on this valuable pool of experience. For example, about half the total research and development programme commissioned by the Overseas Development Administration is directed to the agricultural sector. This programme is aimed at gathering new knowledge and evolving new techniques directly related to the needs of developing countries. The emphasis is on research likely to be of practical use in a reasonable period of time, and special priority is given to research and development of direct relevance to the poorer sectors of the poorer countries, with particular reference to the development of the rural sector. Relatively small investments in contracted research enable the resources of British science to be brought to bear on the needs of developing countries.
Under the aid programme, our help to the agricultural sector falls into two main categories —multilateral and bilateral. On the multilateral front, we are playing an important part through our contributions to the international institutions, such as the World Bank, the European Development Fund, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. The last-named fund began operating in 1977 and our contribution to the initial funding was £18 million. Our share under the First Replenishment is £12.9 million. The World Bank's lending for agricultural and research and development projects increased dramatically from 2.2 billion U.S. dollars in 1970 to 1973 to more than 13.2 billion U.S. dollars in 1978 to 1981. That was an increase from 19 to 31 per cent. of total World Bank and IDA lending. A rising share of this total supported the poorest countries and there has been greater emphasis on crops most likely to be grown or eaten by the poor.
The Regional Banks are another important source of funds for agricultural development. For example, under the programmes of the Inter-American Development Bank in the period 1961–82 5,138 million US dollars (22·8 per cent, of the total aid) went to the agricultural and fisheries sector. In the current financial year, the United Kingdom is expected to provide over £5 million to the Bank. Technical co-operation is a vital support to capital aid, and the largest multilateral source of funding for such co-operation is the United Nations Development Programme, to which the United Kingdom is a major contributor, providing £18·5 million in 1983.
The United Kingdom is a founder member of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. The centres in this system perform a crucial role in helping to build up agricultural production in developing countries. The success of the International Rice Research Institute in developing improved rice varieties with high yield potential, and their impact on rice production in Asia is well known. Other centres have also made significant contributions towards improving food production in developing countries. Increased emphasis is being placed on the development of new technologies suited to the poor farmer. Improved varieties, genetically endowed with drought tolerance, resistance to major pests and diseases, and the ability to yield well with fewer inputs, are of special benefit to farmers with few resources.

809
It is a long-term operation but there have been remarkable successes already. Neither farm size nor form of land tenure significantly affects the adoption of improved varieties. Among consumers, low income groups gain most from the low food prices resulting from increased supplies. Income gains among farmers are directly proportional to farm size but additional income generated by new varieties stimulates non-agricultural as well as agricultural employment. The high yielding varieties are grown on more than one-third of the total wheat and rice lands in the developing world—by 1980, a total of 55 million hectares, equal to the total cereal growing area of Central and South America—and their extent continues to grow by some 4·5 million hectares a year. Since 1971 our contributions to the core budgets of the centres have come to over £25 million. In 1983 we are contributing £4 million. In addition, we are spending in 1983 about £1 million on contracted back-up research in this country in support of the centres. This enables the sophisticated resources of British science to be brought to bear upon the more basic research problems necessary to the centres' work but beyond their present resources.
On the bilateral front, our aid to the agricultural sector remains a high priority. Agricultural projects involving capital aid are often associated with technical co-operation assistance in the form of personnel, training and consultancies. Experience shows that agricultural projects need particularly careful preparation and need to involve a wide range of expertise.
This expertise is available to us from the professional staff of the Overseas Development Administration, and from consultants in the private sector, universities and other research organisations. With changing needs and growing capacity elsewhere, we have judged it possible to reduce the size of the Land Resources Development Centre and to merge the former Tropical Products Institute and Centre for Overseas Pest Research into the newly-created Tropical Development and Research Institute. We regard these organisations, with their high international reputations, as a valuable part of our aid programme and believe that these changes will make them more cost-effective. Faced with the problems of world hunger and the urgent need for practical assistance, we think it vital to ensure that we obtain the greatest possible benefits from the aid money that we spend.
Some examples will illustrate what we can do under our bilateral aid programme. One project about to start is for deep tubewells in Bangladesh. We are contributing £17.36 million towards this 142 million dollar World Bank project. The main aim is to increase food production by installing 4,000 deep tubewells in areas identified as largely unsuitable for other types. The wells will irrigate 300,000 acres and enable crops to be grown during the dry season. The project will also assist farmer co-operatives as well as providing for groundwater studies and experiments to test different water distribution systems and alternative deep tubewell designs. It will be supported by British consultants.
810
Our aid programme to Zambia provides examples of two approaches to boosting agricultural production. To assist smallholders, we have allocated, as part of the Zambian integrated rural development programme, £3 million, plus a team of technical co-operation officers to three districts which presently import food from other parts of the country. Under the project, oxen are being trained and sold to farmers, roads and bridges built to open up agricultural areas, local marketing organisations improved through the provision of stores and scales, and health units and village wells constructed. The project, together with economic farmgate prices—a vital element for sound agricultural development—has produced a 50 per cent. increase in maize production. To help meet the growing demand for bread in urban areas, we are providing £500,000 for irrigation equipment for wheat production. This will be sold to large-scale commercial farmers. At present, Zambia imports 90 per cent, of its wheat requirements.
Our technical co-operation programme in Egypt illustrates what we are doing to help over the important question of skilled technical manpower. In 1982 a consultancy agreement was concluded under which assistance totalling £300,000 is being given over three years for the development of the Agricultural Staff Training Centre at Sakha as a "centre of excellence" in agricultural extension, crop production and agricultural mechanisation. Under this agreement, we are providing a full-time resident adviser; a series of consultancy visits; a total of 15 training awards in Britain for staff from Sakha; specialist equipment, machinery and books; and a grant towards the cost of site improvements at the centre.
The work done by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the agricultural sector constitutes a significant part of the United Kingdom's contribution to alleviating world hunger. The CDC has been traditionally active in agriculture. Forty-nine per cent, of its total commitment of over £700 million is in renewable natural resources; between 50 and 60 per cent, of its new commitments each year go into this sector. Projects it operates or is assisting currently farm over 1 million hectares throughout 49 countries. It has developed the nucleus estate and smallholder formula, allowing some 485,000 small farmers to make the transition from subsistence to cash crops.
This debate is given particular focus by the reports we have been receiving of the drought in Africa. We are watching the situation closely. The picture that is emerging suggests that the effects of the drought are patchy. Some countries have escaped altogether, or very lightly. Central and Southern Africa, including countries such as Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe, is the region worst hit. East Africa, with Ethiopia the principal and a tragic exception, has escaped the worst effects. Ghana and Mauritania in West Africa are very badly affected.
Of course the effects of the drought have been compounded by other factors. Animal diseases, such as rinderpest and foot and mouth, have taken their toll. Refugee problems are both a cause and a symptom of the difficulties faced by some countries. Pest infestation and lack of roads and transport are other crucial factors.

811
Again we are doing what we can. In the current crisis, we have already provided approximately £½ million of drought relief assistance to Ethiopia. In addition to the substantial relief we provided last year, we have this year donated mobile trucks for Botswana's emergency feeding programme. Over the last two financial years we have contributed towards an emergency airlift of food in Chad and have provided transport to ferry relief supplies. We have also just agreed to transport emergency food supplies presented to the Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator for Chad by another donor. We have responded to a Red Cross appeal for transport and other items for an emergency feeding programme in Mauritania. We have provided transport for Zimbabwe's emergency feeding arrangements through non-government organisations working there.
This is disaster relief. We also do much, under our normal bilateral programmes, to counter the effects of droughts such as this. I shall return to this subject at the end of the debate, if noble Lords wish.
We cannot let a debate like this pass without a reference to the work done by British voluntary agencies, such as the British Red Cross Society, VSO, Save the Children Fund and Christian Aid, to mention just a few among many, in helping to reduce the misery brought by drought and hunger. It goes almost without saying that they are able to meet needs which even the best designed and administered official programmes simply cannot cope with.
Noble Lords will know that we continue to support the voluntary agencies through the aid programme under the pound for pound scheme. Their work is not limited to disaster relief; they do much to encourage agricultural production and to bring long-term benefits. We are, for example, supporting with Action Aid a village project in the Gambia aimed at helping women to grow and market a variety of vegetables. In Andhra Pradesh in India, we are supporting an Oxfam project which is providing advice and loans to a group of smallholders who are improving a stretch of previously uncultivated land. We are convinced that this small part of the aid programme gives us good value for money.
These are some of the areas in which we are using the aid programme in support of food production policies. Our aid to this sector is flexible, and it is backed, as I have tried to show, by a high degree of British expertise. We work closely with international organisations and other donors, recognising that we cannot make a great impact on our own and that our efforts have to be seen in the context of international actions. But we take seriously our responsibility to contribute where we can to the efforts of the poorer developing countries to feed their people, and we shall continue to make this a priority within our aid programme.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I should like to begin, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, by congratulating most sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, on having introduced this debate—but more particularly, upon the skill of his speech. I know from personal experience the great difficulty of covering this kind of
812
subject in a short speech and I felt that the speech to which we listened earlier was an admirable example of what should be done.
As to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which we have just heard, I am sure we are all grateful to her for that description of the way in which the aid programme is directed towards food production. But I cannot let it pass without pointing out that the noble Baroness was speaking only a few days after the announcement of Government expenditure cuts which involve, if I am right, cuts in the aid programme of £20 million. In the context of today's debate, I express the hope that when that £20 million comes to be detailed in its application in the operations of the Overseas Development Administration at least those aspects of it to which the noble Baroness has referred will not suffer cuts, because of the urgency of the matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has referred.
May I begin my own contribution to this debate much as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, did—by briefly looking back 20 years. He was then in Africa, and I had the experience at that time of some ministerial responsibility in inaugurating the aid programme. It was then, as a junior Minister, that I joined with Mrs Barbara Castle and with Sir Andrew Cohen in establishing the new Ministry of Overseas Development. I remember our early discussions in the Ministry about development strategy. I sat with Mrs Castle in consultation with that group of experts whom we had gathered together in Eland House. Time and again during those discussions I felt like interjecting—and I know that on a number of occasions I did interject—the simple question: what about agriculture? I recall that in those days, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said in respect of African countries, third world agriculture did not receive a high priority in our deliberations.
I have a second recollection of those days. It was when Mrs Castle, who was then Minister, went on a ministerial visit to India and asked to see, and did see, family planning clinics in that country. She came back full of determination to help in the battle against the population explosion. I recall also that at that time, the whole subject of family planning was still regarded as a most delicate one; I remember how Mrs Castle's enthusiasm raised quite a number of official eyebrows during our consultations.
Looking back from the standpoint of this debate, I feel inclined to say how right I was to ask that question: what about agriculture? And how right Mrs Castle was to urge the importance of population policies. I say this because the problem of world hunger is a twofold one. On the one hand, it is a question of food production and food distribution, to which the noble Baroness devoted her speech; but on the other hand, there is the pressure of population on the world's food resources. To my mind, there is little use in tackling food production unless the population problem is tackled with equal vigour. The two are inextricably intertwined.
On this subject of the interplay of population with food production, the experts give us figures galore of great complexity and sophistication. One can find evidence of progress in this country and that; but elsewhere one finds depressing evidence that matters

813
are getting worse. We are told, for instance, that over the past decade, in the world as a whole food production just kept pace with the growth of population. But overall statistics and averages can conceal tragedies for those who are below the average. As the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, adequately described, in the continent of Africa as a whole we are well below the average. Because during the 1970s output per capita there fell by some 15 per cent.
We are expecting this week a gloomy report from the Food and Agriculture Organisation documenting the food crisis that threatens huge areas of Africa because of the relentless drought. Famine is threatening there on a massive scale. We have seen tragedy after tragedy, but we are told by the experts that we are on the verge of a greater tragedy yet. The message of this debate therefore can be simply told in simple language. Many—too many—babies are being horn in the third world; many—too many—babies are dying in the third world—for the simple reason that they and their parents do not have enough to eat.
Yet we are told—and I am sure that it is true—that enough food is being grown and produced in the world for every one of them to be adequately fed. But we then come up against the problem of mal-distribution. The food is not being produced where it is needed, and nor is it being moved through the process of trade to the places where it is needed. I pause to ask the question: why do not the processes of trade—the well-known market forces—move the food to where it is needed? The simple answer is, the food does not go to those places because the people there are too poor to pay for it and there is no profit to be had in moving it there. Therefore, we are faced with a vicious circle of poverty.
Throughout much of the third world, children are born into a poverty-stricken countryside. Some—many of them—die; but those who do survive spend their lives, which are sadly all too short, eking out a bare, miserable subsistence often from an unrewarding and unwatered soil. Some of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, reminded us, seek to escape; they move into the cities. But those cities are already grossly overcrowded; they are already taking the form of the miserable shanty towns where the lives of the people who live in them are even worse than in the impoverished countryside from which they originate.
Then comes the challenge to us. Those teeming millions—many of them unemployed; most of them drastically poor—are living on the verge of social unrest and potential revolution. Therefore their governments in order to maintain some sort of social stability need to borrow the resources to attempt that task, So we enter upon the vicious financial circle within what I have called the vicious circle of poverty. The third world governments borrow more than they should; they cannot repay the interest, and so the international banks allow them to borrow more in order to repay the interest. We have had the example only this week of the IMF wrestling with the problem of Brazil.
I ask the question: what are we in the West doing about this vicious circle of poverty? I should like to recall, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, did, the Cancun conference and what happened after it
814
because I think we have there a glaring example of supreme folly in our wrongheaded approach to this problem. The noble Baroness said that after the Cancun conference the Prime Minister spoke in another place about the need for food in the third world. I recall that before the Prime Minister came back to make that statement she went to Mexico City to inaugurate a vast steelworks which was financed by a huge British loan—in my judgment, the very worst kind of development from all points of view.
Recently in the European Select Committee of your Lordships' House—on which I am happy to serve—I had the chance of getting the reaction of Mr. Ian MacGregor to that kind of policy and that kind of action. In posing my question, I said to him that it seemed to me that it was wrong from the point of view of the developing country to have that kind of huge steelworks built with our money. I asked him how wise did he, as Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, think it was to build up yet another competitor in a steel market already grossly over-provided. He agreed that it was wrong; but then he went on to say that if we do not provide the money someone else will. So we have to do crazy things because if we do not then others will. What a basis for policy that is! Surely that is not the way to break into the vicious circle that I have described. It simply increases the pace at which the circle spins around.
We behave in these matters—as we do indeed in domestic policy—in the mistaken belief (to use the much quoted phrase) that there is no alternative. There is an alternative if we break into the present policies which have proved and are proving disastrous and if we implement new policies. Some of those were admirably put before your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and his remarks parallel what I now want to say.
We should start in the African village, or indeed among the peasants throughout the world, and we should do those things and help the villagers to do those things which can improve the quality of life in the villages. We should abandon the folly of trying to bring about a Western style industrialisation in the third world. We should bring amenities, especially water and electricity, to the villages, rather than drive the village population into the towns. This does not mean by any means that we should condemn the villagers to be forever hewers of wood and drawers of water. We should bring appropriate industry and appropriate technology to the villages where the people live. That can and should be done not by the futile transfer of massive Western technology to the third world; we should seek out, we should invent and we should develop technologies appropriate to the third world's needs. Despite some examples which the noble Baroness gave us, I do not believe we are doing nearly enough in this respect.
There are of course many organisations in the world which are engaged in the pursuit of this kind of technology. But they are the poor relations of development organisations. They are largely voluntary and are not yet sufficiently supported by either national or international funds. I should like particularly to refer to one of the organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, referred, and I am proud to be a vice-president of it. He referred to the

815
Intermediate Technology Development Group. I would just recall to your Lordships that two young mountaineers have just recently been running more than 2,000 miles through the Himalayas in order to gather some small voluntary contributions for that organisation. That organisation and many others should be substantially financed from official funds and should not have to rely on that kind of fund raising.
Regarding Government policy in these matters it seems to be the case that, far from giving aid and much needed support to the development of appropriate technologies, the Government seem intent on cutting down on certain units which are doing valuable work in this field. The noble Baroness described an outline of Government policy in relation to the scientific units of ODA, and we are of course expecting a Government White Paper on that precise subject. I suggest that the evidence which was put before the House of Commons Select Committee on these units—and particularly the evidence which came from Oxfam and similar voluntary bodies who know the value of these scientific units in the third world at the grass roots—proves the case for more rather than less official support for those scientific units. We shall look for the White Paper, I fear, with some apprehension but with some remaining hope that the Government's policies will be in the right direction in this matter.
On other occasions we have argued in this House particularly, as has been referred to, about the Brandt Commission Report and for the need for a great increase in resources to be made available to the third world. My purpose today has not been to deploy that argument, although of course it remains very strong in my mind and I repeat the regret that this week there has been a reduction in the aid programme. What I am doing today is urging the Government to rethink the nature of the aid that is provided. It is not only more aid that is needed in order to conquer hunger; it is aid that is better directed. I say this despite my admiration for much of the work of the Overseas Development Administration described by the noble Baroness.
There is an urgent need for the promotion of sounder development policies. Here, the responsibility rests as much with third world Governments as it does with aid-giving Governments. But there are ways and means whereby aid-giving Governments, including our own, can induce the adoption of better development policies by the third world Governments. Therefore, I conclude that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, is perfectly right to call our attention, as he has done, to the urgency of the hunger problem in the world today.
In my view, an urgent reappraisal of policies is needed to meet the crisis which the noble Lord has described. People must become more conscious of and therefore I suggest more angry about the crisis of hunger. There will be less hunger in the world only when there is more anger in the world: anger that too many children are born only to die before the year is out; anger that poverty and misery are the fate of two-thirds of the human race; anger that Western industry stagnates through, we are told, lack of demand but when in the world there are hundreds of millions of people whose very basic needs are not being met; anger, I suggest, that Western statesmen are failing to
816
harness the massive resources which are at our disposal to meet the massive needs of the south; anger that the nations which could do something about all this are led by Governments that seemingly will not do anything about it; and anger that the demands articulated through the Brandt Report, through the group of 77 at the Belgrade UNCTAD conference, and in conference after conference throughout the world, are sadly falling on unresponsive minds.
In my experience your Lordships' House is not the most likely forum in which such anger can be expressed, but I think that we can and should respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has done. He is to be congratulated in presenting to us one of the world's greatest problems—and, I agree, perhaps the world's greatest problem—facing us today.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, 30 years ago I was trying to borrow what was then a great deal of money from a banker to pay for a large tract of upland Scotland that I had bought. I put a tremendous story in front of this chap, and with great skill I outlined what I wanted and what I was going to do for Scotland. He sat with a stony face and I knew that I had failed. However, at the end of the time the stony-hearted chap sighed and said, "It is wonderful. It is what I should like to do myself. Of course you can have the money". That was the first time I realised that bankers have hearts. The second time in 30 years is today. The noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, with great practicality, put the case on a subject which he obviously knows well and illustrated it in a manner that was totally convincing to me. I congratulate him not only on bringing the subject forward but for putting it in a way which I can understand and which I believe will help to solve some part of the problem rather more quickly, if I may say so, than the anger which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, thought was necessary.
This is a problem which is enormously long-term. Recently I sat in front of my house during fine weather and I looked over the Howe of Strathmore. I saw the marvellous countryside with the crops looking tremendous—I am happy to say my own are looking better than my neighbours'—and was thinking about my speech on this problem of hunger in Africa. When I looked at the Howe of Strathmore I realised the enormous long-term investment not only in the land and the drainage and the build-up of the humus in the land but in the education of the people who bring it to the productivity—and indeed beauty—which is providing the surpluses which we have in Europe today. There was a time when people in this country starved. It was cured by the farming revolution that took place at the same time as the industrial revolution. Until the prairies were opened up this country itself fed the expanding industrial population. A great many pioneers in England and Scotland—Coke of Norfolk, "Turnip" Townsend, Grant of Monymusk, and many others—put enormous work into the training of people to bring the land and production to its present perfection. It is that problem which we face all over the world, and particularly in Africa.
When one considers the multiplicity of Government and private schemes and the amount of money involved and what has been done that the noble

817
Baroness—perhaps slightly complacently from her department brief—was telling us about, the effect has not been great. It is not all bad, of course. There are successes. Without any doubt the success in India of planting new varieties, of providing education and of pouring in fertilisers has made a tremendous improvement in the feeding of that country. But no one who has been in Calcutta could possibly say that it has been totally effective. There is a great deal to do yet.
However, although we must consider many other things apart from straight aid and straight knowledge, the type of people and their history is also enormously important. I have been with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, in China, several times and I have been enormously impressed with what they have been able to do there. The great achievement of the revolution and the Communist Government was not in any system that they put in but simply the provision of peace for agriculture to develop and the Chinese to use their ancient skills. But there they had the organisation, the people and the inherited skill of over 6,000 years of the cultivation of irrigated land, which is enormously important. What the Chinese do in various places—Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong—shows that one is dealing with an enormously industrious and clever people. But even they need all the help that they can get in the form of modern techniques.
It is terribly true that the structure and quality of the Government has a terrific amount to do with the ability to use aid properly. To take one example in Africa—I should like the Minister to confirm this if she can—the United Republic of the Cameroon, way back in the early days of food aid, turned away two food ships. I was told this by the Prime Minister at the time, who is now the Speaker of the joint Parliament, Dr. Muna. They discussed the position and they realised that the effort in distributing the food would take more of their time, money and energy than would be worth it; with the result that, so far as I can find out, there is no record of aid to the Cameroon recently. They tell me that they are self-sufficient in food. This must be an example of competent people and a competent Government adopting the right policy. I hope that we are assisting them in every way we can with advice, seeds, new varieties and that sort of thing. But their own efforts have obviously been enormously important.
The structure of agriculture in the USSR is enormously important to all of us in the West. It has been a total and complete failure. I remember the late Nye Bevan saying that there were two ways of dealing with farmers: in Britain and Europe we bribed them and we had plenty of food; in Russia Stalin shot them, and he was short of food. I have said this before in this House: basically the motivation of the farmers is perhaps the most important factor in the production of food. If they do not get something out of it, they will not produce the food. It is here that Tony Jackson in his book (which had a great effect on myself, as well as on the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm) highlighted the harm that had been done by well-meaning schemes in removing the motivation for the ordinary farmer to grow the food. In many cases—in Nigeria, for
818
example—the importation of food destroyed the agriculture simply because it was not worth growing more food than you needed to support your own family.
We talk of village and rural life. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, was perfectly correct to talk of the rural poverty and squalor in which many people live in African villages. They look at their life before them. They can see it on a map. They come into a little bit of ground if they are lucky enough to have a father who has some, and they labour there all their lives for little. Their children are born, and some of them die, and they can see no future. It is little wonder that they, and particularly their wives, are attracted to the towns where at least they can see some change and opportunity—in spite of the fact that when they get to places like Lagos they turn it into an unsafe and squalid collection of shanties. But still the life in the village must be improved. A little cash in the pocket is enormously important to a peasant farmer and particularly to his sons and daughters living in the village.
I was in Nigeria recently. I took the opportunity to fly up to Kano and have a look round the project there, because I had been there 40 years before. I was amazed at what could be done in the area round there by good advice. I went to see a commercial firm of consultants. They showed me what they were doing, and what they were doing was good. They were taking target farms and putting new seed and new techniques into these farms and making the particular farmers or peasants a little better off. They were producing a green spear or a green dot in the middle of an area, and the farmers round about wanted to know how they could get in on the act. It is this sort of practical demonstration which can do an enormous amount to improve the food production in a particular area.
The farmers will do it if they are shown how and if they are shown that it leaves a profit. But it is no good the farmers producing extra food if they find they simply cannot sell it at a reasonable price. You have to have a Government structure which gives some form of fall-back protection against miserably low prices and gives them some guarantee and security for their productivity. It is that which has produced the surpluses that we are now worrying about in Europe. We have grave need for the countries of Africa in particular to have this sort of worry instead of the appalling worry which they have at the moment.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, was very practical when he said that we should tackle first our own ex-colonies and present friends. What he says is perfectly true: advice of a practical nature is extremely welcome. We could do a great deal in these colonies if a particular scheme was produced and promoted by Britain, as a bilateral move, and backed properly by Government money. It makes a tremendous difference if you know the country and know the culture. I am sure that that sort of specific scheme should get our full backing. It would work. I think that if the Japanese believe that it is necessary for their prosperity to promote the prosperity of the third world, then it must be right and it must be wholly practical. We should engage the enthusiasm of people in this country, and all over the world, to help. There is nothing more satisfactory than making the

819
traditional or conventional two blades of grass grow where one grew before.
We should take as a motto for the movement, to educate and to motivate. One is no use without the other. The person who ultimately can do it under proper conditions of Government and education, is the peasant himself on his own land. If he is properly educated and motivated, then the hunger problem can be solved.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Stamp: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Seehohm, for initiating this debate today. In taking part, if your Lordships will bear with me, I should like to consider in depth and in some detail an aspect of aid to the third world that is very relevant to the subject we are discussing and one in which I have been deeply involved for many years. It is concerned with the communication of information and instruction and the distribution of material aid for raising living standards—of which increasing food production is such a vitally important part—for the poorest of the poor, particularly the many millions living in rural areas.
The urgent need for such aid and the magnitude of the problems involved were fully stressed in the Brandt Reports and doubtless will also be stressed in the present debate. My deep interest in aid to the third world in the educational field developed over the 25 years when I was Professor of Bacteriology at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, where I was engaged in teaching qualified doctors, a high proportion of whom came from the developing countries, many destined to become teachers on returning home.
The training of medical teachers was in fact a most important aspect of my school's activities, and I learnt at first hand of the great part our country is in a position to play in aid to the developing world in the training of teachers—not necessarily medical—who would pass on to others what they had been taught. It is an aspect on which I feel too little emphasis was placed in the recent debate when the question of increased financial assistance for students coming to this country from overseas was being discussed.
There can be few, if any, forms of aid likely to be more cost effective, and for this reason in my view the highest priority should be given to would-be teachers from the developing world, particularly in certain disciplines of basic importance. These include non-medical aspects of biology as applied to agriculture, food production, and conservation, in which also, as a member for 30 years of the governing body of Imperial College of Science and Technology, I became very interested, particularly in the work being done at the college's field station at Silwood Park.
During those years there was also deepening concern at the rapidly increasing world population, with many debates on the subject in your Lordships' House, and teaching in family planning methods came to be regarded as more and more necessary in the training of doctors working in the third world. But the training of university teachers could be only one part of the problem. At the other end of the spectrum there was
820
an even greater need for the training of the so-called extension workers—the communicators of instruction and information to the millions living in abject poverty, to whom I have referred. This has been a major interest of mine since I retired 12 years ago, and one that I have discussed with many people in a number of countries.
My ideas on the subject as a teacher have changed considerably from in the early days an over-emphasis on the use of audio-visual aids as the answer to the problem of the shortage of extension workers, to a more balanced and comprehensive view of what is required. I shall be going into that later. I have taken part in some of the discussions on the subject as a member of the British delegation to conferences of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. As a member of the Scientific, Education and Cultural Committee I have raised the subject on several occasions—at Tokyo in 1974, at Prague in 1979, and in Caracas in the same year. Following that last occasion I continued on a personal visit to Brazil, for discussions at the University of Pernambuco, at Recife. While considerable interest was expressed there I became very conscious of the problems involved in implementing my ideas, not only in Brazil, but in the whole of the South American continent and other countries where there was an urgent need for agrarian reform, and where there may be marked resistance to birth control.
During another year I went on a personal visit to the Gulf States, and then on to Riyadh. In all those places I found many people who were deeply interested in what I had to say, expressing the hope that our country would take a lead in developing some ideas that I put forward. But that was as far as it went, and I seemed to make very little progress with those here who were in a position to help. I need not go into the correspondence on the subject that I have had with the Overseas Development Administration, but there was a ray of hope when, in April of last year, I was invited, through the British Council, to visit the University of Gezira, in the Sudan, to discuss there my ideas. In this I was greatly encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who thoroughly approved of my ideas, though he emphasised that requests for aid along the lines that I was advocating should come from the Government of the developing country. It was not for the donor country to make suggestions, though of course we should be prepared to consider any, subject to other existing priorities.
It would take too long for me to describe my experiences on that trip, much as I should like to do so, but it helped me to formulate further my plan and my ideas, which I should now like to outline. The overriding aim, over which there can surely be no disagreement, whatever may be one's views on aid to the third world as at present administered, must be to achieve the maximum possible cost effectiveness at all levels—organisational, administrative, and operational. This involves, in the first place, the greatest possible co-operation between developed and developing countries, and between those working in the different fields. It also requires a sense of dedication and personal involvement on the part of all, from leaders in the countries concerned and all who are in a position to promote the plan, to the humblest workers in the field.

821
Further, in order to make the most effective use of the manpower available, and having regard to the immense task with which they are faced, extension workers should, as a basic principle, be trained in more than one field, embodied in the concept of combined extension service training. In this, each field, whether that of food, health, or family planning, must be looked upon as being of equal importance and interdependent. I liken the concept to a stool with three legs, which must be equally strong if it is to bear the immense load to be placed upon it.
The training should be carried out in developing countries in institutes set up for the purpose. They might perhaps be known as National Institutes for Combined Extension Service Training, with the acronym NICEST. The organising of the institutes would be the responsibility of experts from the developed and developing countries, working in close co-operation with one another, those from the latter, with their intimate knowledge of what is required and the problems involved in the country concerned, being particlarly important. Together they would have to consider, in the first place, the qualifications required of the staff and students who, having regard to the importance to be attached to national involvement, should, as far as possible, be nationals of the country concerned.
In the case of the teachers, in view of the likely shortage of candidates with adequate qualification in many, if not most, countries, they might have to be supplemented, at least in the initial stages, by graduates from developed countries. In any case the staff would have to undergo a preliminary training course covering all aspects of the work in which they would be involved. This could best be organised in an industrialised country, where the co-ordinating machinery and advisory expertise would be most readily available.
So far as the students were concerned, as the qualifications required would be of a much lower standard—for example, up to O-levels—it is to be hoped that their places could in most cases be filled entirely by nationals, at least after the initial stages. This is essential, in view of the importance of a knowledge of the language or languages and perhaps dialects of the country concerned, as well as a knowledge of local customs and even superstitions, that make the task of the extension worker so much less difficult. It is a lack of all this that is such a handicap to those from developed countries working in such organisations as Voluntary Service Overseas, and the American Peace Corps, valuable as their work has been, and still must be for the immediate future.
The organisation of the institutes would also involve a consideration of the length and depth of training possible in the different fields, which might include, on the agricultural side, production of non-food crops for export, as well as of food, and, on the veterinary side, animal husbandry concerned especially with livestock. On the medical side it might include mass immunisation, public health, and child care, together with, wherever possible, the all-important family planning. Instruction in literacy, however, would clearly be impracticable in the time available,
822
important though this might be in the long run. In each of these fields the particular aspects that should be included as first priorities would have to be settled, and these would of course vary considerably from country to country, with the aim being to confer the greatest possible overall benefit on the community concerned.
It would also be important to avoid over-loading the curriculum, which, as I know from experience is not an easy matter when teachers in different subjects are competing with one another for time on a course. Time would also have to be found for the students to receive instruction in the use and care of audio-visual aids—an essential aspect of the whole plan—and also, if possible, in the driving and care of their means of transport, whether this be lorry, Land Rover, Jeep, motor-cycle or beast of burden. The object of all this must be to make them as far as possible a "Jack of all trades", which must also contribute to cost-effectiveness.
Besides receiving a basic technical training, the instructors would also have to be trained in their overall duties and responsibilities, which might be referred to as the "five Is" and summarised as follows. First, instruction, followed, secondly, by interrogation to assess its effectiveness. Thirdly, implementation, involving the provision of material forms of aid of all kinds, followed, fourthly, by inspection to determine the extent to which the instruction had been applied in practice. Finally, the institution or setting up of local village community centres where instruction could be continued, providing also a source of feedback of information as to the results achieved. Such training should be given in the first place in the class, and subsequently in the field. Bearing in mind the capabilities of the students, instruction, interrogation and inspection should be as standardised, as objective and as simple as possible—principles represented by another acronym, "SOS", which is not entirely inappropriate.
Instruction should be primarily by means of audiovisual aids with programmes, covering all the subjects to be studied, drawn up by the experts, particularly those with a knowledge of local needs and problems. In each subject the aid should basically be to inform as to what and what not to do, and why, and how to do it. Interrogation should be by means of comprehensive multiple choice questions, which provide the simplest and most accurate way of marking, following which the results would be statistically analysed and stored in a computer. Such monitoring of instruction, which is most important in achieving cost-effectiveness, would be carried out regularly and be regarded as part of the course in which the students would participate. In this way they would learn evaluation methods that they themselves would use later on in field work. Under such conditions, of course, interrogation would have to be verbal in the case of the illiterate.
Before all these proposals were implemented on a major scale, pilot trials would be necessary in a few countries so that if necessary they could be modified in the light of experience. An important aspect of these trials would be research into teaching methods and planning, following the principles outlined under "SOS". With these basic procedures, variables that might affect the overall effectiveness of instruction

823
could be studied in turn—for example, the effect of the immediate repetition of instruction, followed by re-examination. I can think of few experiments more fascinating than such a study—one that would be shared by the students and increase their interest. They would also be given a second chance to absorb information and be able to learn from their mistakes.
Another vitally important study that might be carried out under such controlled conditions would be of different types of audio-visual aids, comparing in particular moving and still picture techniques, and also comparing audio-visual aid systems with sound only systems. This would be most interesting in view of all the arguments I have heard over the years concerning their relative cost-effectiveness. It would also be most interesting to assess the relative effectiveness of all these methods in the field and, in particular, that of the transistor radio used without any personal instruction. There is also the effect of incentives, such as prizes or other forms of reward both in class and in the field. This by no means exhausts the possibilities for investigation, some of which might only become apparent during the course of these studies.
I turn now to the countries that might participate in the trials. The approach to these countries would be important. It should be made in the first place as a request for help in promoting a project that might be of great value to the whole of the developing world in the educational field, rather than just another suggestion with regard to aid for their own country. In this way, the importance of a unified policy and procedure would be emphasised. This must involve the fullest discussion of the proposals between representatives and experts of potential donor agencies and of participating countries, and full agreement reached on the principles laid down.
However, the difficulties that might be encountered in obtaining this agreement should not be underestimated. There might well be jealousies and rivalries among those whose co-operation was essential, and also resentment at any suggestion of outside help over a project they felt they could develop on their own. Alternatively, it might be said that it was all being done already, however unrealistic such a claim might be having regard to the special features of these ideas. However, with goodwill and a full appreciation of what was involved, these problems could doubtless be overcome.
The selection of a country for the trials would be vitally important, affecting as it would the whole future of the project. Few, if any, would be suitable from all points of view. In the first place, it should have a relatively stable Government with the leader and the ministers involved in fullest sympathy with the project. The needs of the country should ideally encompass the whole range of instruction envisaged, with subsistence farming and acceptability of family planning particularly important in this respect. As I have already said, adequate numbers of suitably qualified students should be available, bearing in mind that, for the type of training involved, qualities of character and dedication would be even more important than scholastic achievement. The selection of students on this basis would, in fact, be a vitally
824
important procedure also affecting the whole success of the plan.
Other factors that would have to be taken into account would include ethnic composition, the number of languages or dialects involved, tribal relationships, and so on. It is clear that, before the selection was made, feasibility studies would have to be carried out. It would be several—perhaps many—years before the trials could be completed and failure in some countries would have to be allowed for. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the trials might be initiated by several industrialised countries before proceeding to implement the plan on the widest possible scale As regards that aspect, cost-effectiveness must continue to be the overriding aim. This would involve group co-operation between countries—including the sharing of training facilities, expertise, et cetera—particularly between those having in common certain important features such as religion, language, race and culture which would facilitate and encourage their collaboration, a collaboration which would also be in association with industrialised countries with which they had special links.
Equally essential would be the development of a streamlined organisation in each country, free as far as possible from unnecessary bureaucracy, with adequate supervision of financing to ensure that funds available were used as effectively as possible, including as far as possible the elimination of waste and corruption. It goes without saying that there would have to be the closest co-operation also with existing international and voluntary organisations working in these fields, the plan being essentially complementary to all they are doing and designed to make it as effective as possible.
To many of your Lordships the problems involved may appear well nigh insuperable, as they have so often seemed to me over the years. There has, however, been a recent development that offers more than a ray of hope for a breakthrough and points a way forward. One of our largest multinational companies is planning to finance some feasibility studies, to which I have referred, in several countries. If the results are promising, this could well lead to the establishment of institutes in one or more. This initiative is to be in co-operation with a very well-known institute concerned with the promotion of intermediate technology in various fields and at different levels in this country and overseas. I need hardly say what impetus this undertaking must give to the whole project, providing a lead for others, both in our own and other industrialised countries, to follow. It must also be a stimulus to Governments and other international aid-giving agencies throughout the free world to do likewise and also help provide the very large sums of money that must eventually be required. As regards this aspect, voluntary fund-raising organisations might also play a big part, particularly in view of the many-sided objectives of the project.
The provision of adequate financial aid to the developing world and its effective use for the purposes that I have described are a challenge to rich and poor countries alike. Both aims are essential if the world is to be saved from the disaster on an unprecedented scale that we are discussing today. This challenge must be met.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too should very much like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, both on introducing this debate and on the clear way in which he set out the problems as they are before us today. This is my first opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lady Young on her introduction as to what the Government are doing, which clearly will not satisfy everybody. I think that what they are doing is most enlightening and, indeed, enlightened in that it is being directed at the areas where the needs are perceived to be.
I shall talk from a different and I hope complementary point of view—complementary not only to other noble Lords who I have mentioned and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, but also complementary to the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, who again spoke from a slightly different point of view. I shall talk as a food processor. I must, of course, remind your Lordships that I work for the Cake and Biscuit Alliance and the Cocoa Chocolate & Confectionery Alliance, which in their turn look after the manufacturers of those products.
The key word that I detect in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, is the word "urgent". I would suggest to your Lordships that that is what we must look at most. Initially, I came across this problem of hunger in what is called the third world in the 20 years after the war when I travelled the world in the Navy. At that time I suppose that the most important country afflicted in this way was India. To that extent as far as I could tell Africa had not become a problem.
Then—perhaps importantly as a stage in one's acquaintanceship with this problem—I met a friend, a Dr. Staughton, who was a retired professor of agriculture and who in his time had also been Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ghana. When I spoke to him, which was around 1970, he had retired and was working for the World Health Organisation. He told me of his experiences. One thing that stuck, which I believe is very relevant today, was that he said it would then have been possible for Kenya alone to produce all the wheat required throughout Africa. He had explained that Kenya had the right climate and soil and that everything else was right. I asked why Kenya was not doing so. He replied, "Because the other African Governments will not let it in".
That is where I believe the urgent side of the problem arises. The problem is not so much that we in the developed countries are not trying to do the right thing—of course, we are not putting in enough money and for this sort of problem one never can—but people are starving today because, for various reasons (I shall not question the reasons) Governments are erecting trade barriers which prevent food from being imported into their countries.
I ask my noble friend Lady Young to encompass this when she winds up the debate in order to see whether the Government have seized the point. We should try to persuade these Governments that a freeing of trade barriers would allow them to import, in particular, processed foods. I absolutely agree with all those who say that the long-term solution—and, indeed, to a certain extent the short-term solution—for these countries is to encourage them to develop their own
826
agriculture efficiently. I believe that that is absolutely right. But that will not solve the problem urgently because it will take time before adequate provision of local agriculture will tackle this problem. The noble Lord, Lord Stamp, has pointed out how instruction and education is required and he suggested the means to help that along.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I think it would be much better if the noble Lord did not interrupt at this point. I am quite prepared to sit down soon, but not now. I have a theme and I am trying to develop it. The noble Lord has already interrupted me enough to be a nuisance. To return to the point—and I am absolutely at a loss because of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie—the fact is that we will not feed these people on an urgent basis if we rely entirely on the development of their local agriculture. It is a fact that in the developed countries 65 per cent. of the food that is consumed today is processed food. There are two reasons for that. One is that the vast majority of the population is in the urban centres, and, for practical purposes, they can only be fed if there is a reasonable amount of processed food which can be kept over a relatively long period of time.
It is also true that many of the peoples in the newly emergent nations—and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, mentioned this—have in fact gone to the urban districts and present a problem there. We would all, perhaps, like them to return to their farms, but the fact is that if you want to feed people in large cities of India above starvation level then you must have a great deal of processed food. I shall not plug the percentages and the particular facts. but it is an essential part of the developed countries' ordinary diet. In fact, it is also very wholesome, because regulations are made to ensure that that is the case. Therefore, if it were possible to break down trade barriers so as to enable countries in the immediate future to import processed foods, then we would go some way towards licking the problem of immediate hunger, immediate starvation and immediate deaths.
Your Lordships will say—as the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said in his speech—that there is the problem of finance. I entirely agree that this is a key factor. I am no economist and cannot provide the immediate answer to that, but last night I happened to read what I thought was a most interesting suggestion on this general theme by the noble Lord, Lord Lever, published in the current edition of the Economist. I think that that article is worthy of a glance.
If the developed world is prepared to put in the sort of money to get the development of agriculture within these countries off the ground, it might perhaps be prepared to put the same sort of money into freeing the barriers which these countries now think they have to erect in order to pay for the relatively cheap processed foods from the highly developed Western world in order to solve the problems of immediate hunger and death. It is urgent and immediate; I am not concerned about the long-term.
People say that if we follow this line—indeed, the countries themselves say this—that will impede the

827
development of the processing of food within the countries themselves. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, indicated, it has taken 100 years or so for the Scottish farmers and, indeed, the other British farmers to reach the stage of efficiency and competence at which they are today, and to obtain from their land what they can, which these other countries can also obtain. Likewise, it has taken a 100 years for us in the food processing industry to reach the present stage, and this applies particularly to the last 50 years. It is not something that can be done overnight.
Some of my friends in industry have experimented with joint ventures in various countries overseas and on the whole they have not been successful. They have not been immediately successful, partly because it is a fairly complicated and sophisticated operation which requires extra experience—not training—of actually working with this modern machinery to produce as economically as one can the sort of products about which I am talking. There is no immediate competition with the local development.
Relevant to this is a visit I made to Japan in November last, when we were investigating this same sort of problem. Of course, the Japanese are not in the same position as the countries we are talking about; there is no question of starvation there. However, there is a massive change in local tastes taking place. I believe it is principally because of the newly-emergent freedoms of the women of Japan. They are saying, "We are not going to waste time making conventional Japanese food; nor are we going to stay at home to do it. Therefore, we have to have easy-to-eat processed foods, just like the Europeans, or the Americans, or both". This has led to a great demand for processed foods of all sorts; but over the last 30 or 40 years the Japanese have not concentrated on developing either their agriculture or, even more so, their food processing capability. Therefore, they are way behind in what they need in that area in order to satisfy their own increasing current demand.
In this respect I would suggest that when you take a country like India exactly the same sort of thing applies. They have a biscuit industry, and it was introduced by British companies. The demand of the people who we know are dying and who are living below starvation level is there today, and could absorb not only the Indian capability of biscuit production within the Indian biscuit environment, not only their own agriculture, but more still. This is where we should provide it—and provide it from the sort of resource in which we have the expertise, which is well developed, but which they have not yet got.
We must tackle these barriers. It really is tragic. It is impossible for our people to export to India because the tariff rates are high. There are restrictions on taking out any profits you make on a transaction; and it is really a gift to the Indians if you get something in there and you then cannot get it out again. All this is balanced, in effect—no doubt for very good reasons—to make sure that overseas companies cannot work their way in and sell their products in a reasonable marketing way within that country.
Take, for example, another country—Nigeria. They have an import duty of 115 per cent. on chocolate
828
products. Practically all of their cocoa, which is one of their main industries, is bought by this country. They have not yet got a chocolate manufacturing industry of any significance at all. They are, in effect, depriving their people of chocolate products because they have this great barrier. Perhaps we could concentrate again on the urgency expressed within the Motion before us, and say to ourselves, "Yes, we will do all the things other people have been talking about; yes, we will get on and help them develop their agriculture, and do all these things; but for the immediate future let us encourage them to take down their tariff barriers and allow us to supply them while we have the expertise to do it, and then we can save the lives of the starving millions".
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, without wishing to upset him further may I inform him, and ask for his comment on the fact, that the sort of aid that he has been talking about, of a temporary character, even on basics like wheat, has been ruining the economies of the said countries without them paying the extra price for food? That has been the subject of all the literature that has been produced in recent years showing the failure of the sort of food aid the noble Lord has talked about.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am not talking about food aid; I am talking about food trade. We are not able to provide the sort of food I am talking about within the food aid umbrella. It is the raw materials that the farmers produce, or the primary processed products as opposed to the secondary processed products, that go in under food aid. Even that has a problem, if your Lordships will forgive me, for I have really finished. There was a stage when we were trying to develop a biscuit which had a high proportion of milk as part of the way of solving the milk lake. We tried this out on certain African countries under food aid. In the end it came to a halt because it was much too expensive to produce.
When the people were given these special biscuits, which all the nutritionists had said were the best biscuits that had ever been produced—the doctors thought that they were spiffing, too; and the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, would have loved them—in places like Kenya they said, "Why should we have a special biscuit? Why shouldn't we be treated just like the people in Europe who produce them, and have their biscuits?" You cannot get the food aid type of product, which is not the real thing, in there: you have to have the ordinary product that people are used to. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. We have not been given a chance. We have not been able to get into India with products that would make any difference, not for 30 years. That is what we must be allowed to do, and I would put it at the top of my list.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, although it has been said before, not in a formal way but with great sincerity, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and my noble friends for introducing this debate. Those of us who have been campaigning on this issue for many years must have been encouraged by most of this debate. The interest, knowledge and the ideas which have been expressed in speeches have stimulated us all.

829
The fact that one has such a long list of speakers today indicates a concern which we must all welcome.
I think it will be generally accepted that there are three great issues before the world today. The first is the breakdown of our economic system, which means that 36 million people are unemployed in Western countries. The second is the danger of nuclear war to future generations. The third is the subject we are discussing today. I do not know how we can live calmly when, according to the World Health Organisation, 30 million people are dying every year from hunger and from medical neglect, 17 million of them children. That would mean that in 10 years 300 million people had died unnecessarily, 170 million of them children. Those figures are almost as great as those involved in the fear of the disaster of a nuclear war.
Often, when we discuss this subject, we are urged to be compassionate. But compassion has a certain sense of those who are better off assisting those who are worse off. I want to urge a sentiment greater than that. Those millions in Africa and Asia who die are us. We are all a human family. We are they and they are us and it is a sense, not of compassion for others, but of identity with others which we must seek if we are to find a solution for this problem.
I hope no one will think that we are being generous if we give aid to these hungry people. For three centuries this country and other countries in Western Europe have benefited from their occupation of the territories of the third world in Africa and Asia: cheap food; cheap raw materials from them, and we have done little in those 300 years to remove the poverty that was in their midst. At the end of it we have left them with unbalanced economies which prevent them from removing the poverty in their countries today.
Yes, aid is necessary; necessary, as Willy Brandt and his commission pointed out in his recent report, particularly for the poorest countries, and it is here that the relationship with the second of the great issues which I have described—military expenditure—is brought in. Willy Brandt says in his report that a mere fraction of 1 per cent. of military expenditure could end poverty in the poorest countries of the third world within a decade.
The principal point that I want to make in speaking to the House today is this. Absolutely necessary as aid is in the present situation, it is no solution to the problem. The poverty and hunger in the third world are due to the economic relationships between the developed and the developing nations. They were settled at Bretton Woods in 1944 before the nations of the third world even had their independence. They were not represented. Due to the benevolence of Keynes, those decisions were better than one might have expected under those conditions, but they were very heavily weighted on the side of the West and in more recent years those relationships have worsened. Therefore, a solution must be found, not merely in thinking of aid but in thinking of new economic relations between the industrial powers and the developing world.
For 10 years now this has been discussed at UNCTAD and elsewhere, and the opposition which has been expressed—first by representatives of the
830
United States of America and, secondly, by the representatives of our own Government—to any fundamental change in economic relations during the last ten years is largely responsible for the hunger that is in the world today.
The third world nations have made their own proposals. They are called the new international economic order. They ask for a partnership between the industrialised nations of the world and the third world instead of the present weighted relationships. They ask for it in financial aid. They ask for it in the operation of multinational companies. They ask for control of prices which vary so much and may thrust people into poverty owing to lower prices for their goods. They ask for a partnership in wholesale and retail trades, because we in this country pay 10 times more for goods produced in the third world than the producers receive. They ask for partnership in freightage of their goods. That new international economic order is the only long-term solution to the problems of hunger and poverty. Only when the Western world begins to understand that it must fundamentally change its relationship, not think just in terms of profit, dividend and exploitation but in terms of human need, shall we be able to solve this problem.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Energlyn: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, I should like to approach this Motion just like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in its practical and urgent aspects. I was recently in Finland and they have a well-known furnace for smelting copper. They devised a scheme whereby Finnish engineers assembled these furnaces in different parts of the world. Finnish engineers commissioned them and Finnish engineers are circulating round the world keeping them in good condition. This is a task force bringing the employment of 2,000 engineers into Finland. This is the kind of thing which is in my mind in approaching this very important point that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, makes, which is that we should set up practical package deals to meet the needs of a particular country.
The technology of agriculture may not appear to be as glamorous as the micro-chip or computers, but this technology is playing an increasingly important part in the understanding of soils, plant growth and in the sophisticated development of agriculture.
When the earth was formed there were no animals or plants on dry land; they all had to live in or close to water. Then, some 250 million years ago, Nature changed all that and invented, for the animals, glandular tissue so that they could reproduce out of contact with water. She invented pollen so that the bare land could be vegetated for the animals to live upon. And so evolution began. This became a feature of the earth which had some extraordinary results. Some 300 million years ago there were forests adjacent to water which were gigantic, They made the forests of the Amazon look like undergrowth. It was in those forests that vast quantities of humus were formed, which created the coal that we mine today. By studying this somewhat academic subject there has emerged an understanding of this incredible growth of plants in this significant period of the earth's history because

831
after that time, as I have said, Nature had invented glandular tissue and pollen.
Both of these biochemical events made use of only one type of amino-acid, that is, the type where all the atoms are arranged on the left-hand side. Nature abandoned the use of the right-handed amino-acids. The left-handed amino-acids are the ones that cause growth; the right-handed amino-acids are the ones that prevent disease. The combination of these two acids has been the subject of this somewhat academic investigation.
Some 10 years ago, in collaboration with the Hungarians, I had been following their experiments and they had been following mine; and some few weeks ago I was there to witness the result of our experiment, which is that by using the commodity called coal we can now accelerate the growth of disease-free plants by a factor of three-fold. This is a dramatic illustration of the use of academic science in the problems of the growing of food so that with reasonable confidence I can suggest to your Lordships that we shall soon see in Britain coal mines producing coal not for the purposes of fuel but for the purposes of agriculture. We shall be producing a special type of fertiliser which will accelerate growth. Here is a product from Britain which would fit into Lord Seebohm's point; there are certain areas of the world where this type of export could be of enormous and immediate value in the production of food.
To return to task forces, I maintain that it is worthy of your Lordships' consideration to think of the training of task forces in this country where young people can be attracted into the technology of agriculture. I mentioned this recently in your Lordships' House and I was besieged with letters from young people wanting to join my "land army", as they called it. I persist in this because here we have an outlet for young people which will give an immediate new area of employment for the benefit of the countryside and the way of life in Britain.
To develop that theme further, again I should like, in a somewhat academic way, to refer to the most important natural element or, rather, molecules in this whole subject; namely, water, Without water you can do absolutely nothing. Water controls the population of every animal and plant on the face of the earth, so the understanding of water is an important academic subject of enormous practical value. In Britain we have a vast amount of knowledge of water and its various forms and I suggest that task forces of engineers could be sent abroad to create more water supply in the right places. But, in sending them out, I personally think that we ought to adopt a kind of lease-lend approach to the problem and finance them on a lease-lend basis. The opportunities that this would create for young people I believe would catch on.
Turning to the more erudite biochemical developments which are taking place, I have previously mentioned in your Lordships' House—and I quote:
"the example of a young man called Allan Cooke, who has developed and proved a substance which he calls Agrosoke, which would convert the sand dunes into fertile soils. All one has to do is to level the sand dune, sprinkle it with Agrosoke, cover it over with
832
more sand, and some manure and water, and one has a fertile soil. He has proved this and has received a massive order from the Government of Abu Dhabi. This is a material which could be made to work for us."—[Official Report, 2/2/83; col. 839.]
This certainly is a very valuable export into those arid areas of the undeveloped countries of the world.
I personally am also involved in this area. We have been fabricating new soils. These soils can be containerised. Your Lordships will be aware of the familiar domestic grow-bag technique. We have now come to the conclusion, on cost analysis, that we can export these new soils into soil-less areas as cheaply as one can export cement. With these few illustrations, I should like to suggest to your Lordships that task forces should be created in Britain to develop the practical thrust of the package deal which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, recommended to the House.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, in thanking Lord Seebohm for raising this topic for our general discussion, I want first to apologise to him for having no special expertise of the kind that many previous speakers have displayed in the subject; although it is one that I have thought about and one that, in its scope and generality, seems to me to be very proper for us to discuss here. I must also apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I may have to leave before the debate is terminated.
I do not think that anybody can have looked at any television report on the terrible tragedy brought about by drought in Ethiopia without feeling not so much the anger that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, spoke about—since there is no human individual to be angry with or, if so, only in the most marginal and indirect way, for it is a horrible freak of nature which brings this state of affairs into being—so much as of general distress and indeed a certain helplessness. It seems to me that this is, and must be, the first priority in any style of foreign aid, the relief of immediate and intense distress. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, quite rightly in one stage of what he was saying, he was suggesting that this was a rather meagre view of the whole problem and that, in general, local resources were usually sufficient to deal with emergency conditions where large numbers were likely to be wiped out in a short period of time; and that, anyway, the West European countries attempting to work in concert had proved themselves hopelessly incapable at relieving distress because they always got the relieving materials to the distressed spot long after those there had more or less forgotten about it and had by some means or another got back on to some normal basis of living. I think it might be worth emphasising this priority, as I see it, to the relief of distress over any constructive or projected programme of altering the fundamental economic character of less developed countries by reflecting a little on the history of foreign aid. After all, we ourselves were the beneficiaries of foreign aid immediately after the last war: we and other Western European countries. The benefits were very great and the whole of Western Europe was put back on its feet: the rather unstable (in principle) democracy introduced into the Federal Republic of Germany, the reinstituted democracy of France and, after a long interval, the reintroduced democracy of Italy. This was essentially a stabilising exercise, the

833
economic aid that reconstituted war-battered Western Europe after 1945.
In the light of that, I think it was very natural that people should suppose that large monetary credits given to nations in difficulties by nations better off than they would produce the same beneficial effect. Of course we all know that did not happen; and I think it is a recognised wisdom among the development community, if I may so describe them, that the reason for this is that the pouring of large sums of money into the less developed countries had a highly destabilising effect in Africa which has tended to preoccupy us today, and also in South East Asia and Latin America.
The effect of this was the production of an extremely unattractive variety of authoritarian government of various types of ideological flavours varying from extreme left to extreme right, but all in various ways dislikeable from our point of view as being extremely negligent of human rights, and incapable of preserving that degree of order and public decency in the communities over which they rule which it would be reasonable to expect—certainly that any donor country would expect to find in a recipient of aid so that there would be some guaranteee of the aid going in the direction intended.
This connects with the contention from which I began because the point about the relief of distress is that the gap between the recognition of distress and the identification of the immediate things which are needed to remove it and the getting of those things to the people who need them is a very small one. There are not, so to speak, a long series of inferential connections to be made between the problem's identification and its solution. It is a question of being reasonably efficient. Immediately, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said, this efficiency has not always been evident when relief has been supplied on an intergovernmental scale by the European Community. But when done by private organisations such as Oxfam, it has been, so it seems, rather notably efficient.
I think it is a universally distressing human experience to give money to a charity and then find that most of it has been wasted on administration or in some other way not directly relevant to the proclaimed purpose of the charity. Thinking about this beforehand, it seemed to me that it was even more disagreeable than to be taken in by a confidence trickster—pound for pound, I hasten to add—because at least the confidence trickster gives you a show for your money whereas on the whole the charity offers no more than the rattling of a tin.
Reference was made earlier to the idea that we should somehow awaken an enormous wave of public enthusiasm for aid; but that kind of thing is not terribly popular with electorates, which are I think merciful or capable of feeling pity for distress—that is, for bringing relief where relief is needed—but less enthusiastic about making contributions to build up from a very low basis some community other than their own. So that is another good and politically practical reason for laying emphasis on the relief of distress.
But more serious I think is the lack of connection. I said that the point here was that in the case of aid to
834
under-developed countries after the war the reason why it was not a success in the form in which it was originally undertaken was that the monies were stolen by intermediaries or used for absurd purposes such as superfluous airlines, bodyguards, imperial grandeur, and so on in developing countries instead of going to the intended destination to meet the basic needs of the people. This had a destabilising effect because it was not in its nature reconstructive. It was not reestablishing an existing social equilibrium; and that is exactly what Marshall Plan aid was. The disasters of the war had themselves had a destabilising effect which it was the function—one which was successfully carried out—of aid to the Western European countries to correct.
This leads us to the next step, and the ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, do take this very much into account without explicitly referring to it. His idea is that aid should be designed to attach itself to the most primary basic need, the need for food. But there is one subject, alluded to very explicitly by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, which I feel we have circled about a little. That is the problem of population. If the food output of undeveloped countries is greatly augmented, can we be sure that it will not simply lead to an increase in population which does not in effect enlarge the actual intake of food by the persons who have come to be added to these communities: in other words, the Malthusian effect will follow in which the population increases to the largest number just capable of subsistence.
There has always been a certain mystery about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. There are War, Pestilence and Famine, but experts differ on what the fourth is. I think it is fairly obvious that it must be some form of family planning—certainly by far the most agreeable of these four beasts. In saying this, I am simply underlining what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, was saying: his programme for increasing the food supply, which is as near as possible to the relief of distress, for it seeks to cater for the most primary of human needs. That is something which must have at any rate the very next priority to the direct relief of the kind of immense distress which exists in Ethiopia at the present time. Even this, unlike the relief of distress, which has an equilibrium-preserving character, may have a destabilising effect if it is not undertaken in a very full consciousness and awareness of what the effects might be on population. My noble friend Lady Young said that the estimation was that the world population of 4 billion-plus at the present time would increase to 6 billion by the end of the century. Is this a prospect that we ought to view with calm resolution? I do not say that I have any very obvious or immediate way of preventing it from coming about, but I do recall in my late boyhood hearing a clamour in this country—I refer to the mid-30s—about our declining population and the decline of our net reproduction rate to below one.
That soon ceased to be the case whatever reason there may have been for it —the blackout, perhaps. At any rate, it shows that it is a speculative exercise to extrapolate population trends, and always has been. All I am saying is that any programme which is designed to increase world food supplies ought to be

835
constantly monitored for its effect on population; and if it proves to be in effect self-defeating—simply multiplying the number of people who have enough to stay alive in a miserable way but not enough to enjoy their lives or to develop the capacities that lie within them—then some alternative device needs to be adopted. It is an extreme, but I think it is still a perfectly conceivable possibility, that even a programme as well conceived and as answerable to experience as the one outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, could still destroy itself by simply running away in population increase: a multiplication of the existing misery. It is in fact partly because of my suspicion that this might happen that I still want to emphasise the very special priority for the relief of obvious distress—the case where something totally new occurs; not just the continuing existence of a great deal of hunger and deprivation in the world but a condition of absolute, destructive, social catastrophe. That I think must always have our first attention.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, has raised a number of fascinating points in the speech that we have just heard. He is really the first person to deal with the problem of population, although, as he said, it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Oram. I am not capable of producing anything like a full answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, has said. Nevertheless, I think it is the general experience of developing countries that they go through a phase when they get above starvation level—if they happen to have been at that level—and when they are getting enough food, so that people are no longer dying of starvation, and when the population goes up by leaps and bounds.
But then, fairly soon after that, following a number of developments which are not actually part of the providing of food but which follow on from the providing of food—because until you have a good supply of food you do not get decent education, decent government or all sorts of things that you need—the population increase starts to come under control. But you have to go through this bad period, when it appears that what you are doing in producing food is merely producing more babies who are going to need more food.
I think it is the experience of most developing countries who have gone through that period that the only humane way of dealing with the problem is, first, to produce the food and then to go on to the other fruits of civilisation which can be produced only by a country which is not suffering from starvation. It is only when you get to the stage where your children are being brought up healthily that you can open up the schools and can start teaching and producing a middle-class, and doing all the things which are necessary if you are eventually to get a stable, healthy and properly fed population producing its own wealth within its own country. But the beginning of all this is the production of enough food for the country, and we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, not only for putting down this subject for debate but for the terms in which he has done it, and, also, for the way in which he has centred on the problem of food as being
836
absolutely basic and on the need for countries to feed themselves.
It may be a little bold to say it, speaking from these Benches, but I believe that free trade is a bonus. Free trade is something which is secondary to the production of food. Before you have free trade, it is important that every country—and I do not except our own or the developing countries—is able to feed itself. It is only after that that free trade becomes something important which can increase wealth, because it is swapping surpluses between countries. At the moment when you are swapping less than surpluses and are dealing with necessities, free trade can be much more of a danger than a help.
I must say that I was not at all happy with some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who I regret to see is not in his place, and particularly with what he said about Nigeria and the production of chocolate. I believe that the Nigerian Government has behaved in the most exemplary way. It seems to me that when you get a developing country producing raw materials and, for one reason or another, not processing those raw materials but shipping them to developed countries for them to process and then send back to the countries from which the raw materials originally came, it is a very bad situation. What we need to do is to encourage places such as Nigeria and other producers of chocolate, coffee and similar commodities to gain the ability to process their own food, partly for their own people and partly for export. Although it could be very nice for us if we were able to produce the machinery and the labour to process the food for them, it would not be particularly good for them or for the world as a whole. That is another sense in which protectionism probably comes a necessary first, before free trade.
Aid needs to be channelled to the relief of the poor, and one of the problems is that in every country there is a ruling class which sees itself as the embodiment of its country and which does not necessarily have the right judgments as to what helps the poor. It is extremely important that donor countries should make up their own minds about their priorities. We went though a period which lasted for 10 or 15 years, and which is not yet quite over, when we all used to have heart-searching about the kind of aid that we gave to countries and said,"It is not for us to decide what kind of aid we should give." But if it is not for us to decide, we should not be giving the aid. It is for us to decide how we must give it; and we must give it according to our consciences and in a way which we think will best relieve the poverty and the misery which we see as the problem that must be dealt with. For that reason, it is extremely important that this Government concentrate on helping the basic needs of countries—helping agriculture and helping people to produce food in the way that I have been talking about.
When we are looking at the problems which face the present Government and at how they spend their money on aid, we must give the Government the greatest possible encouragement in that area. We do not do very much good if we just sit here on the Opposition Benches and say that the Government must spend more money. We know that the Government will not spend more money. We may deplore it,

837
but it is the truth. We must find a way in which the Government can and should spend money, and which the Government themselves will see as an effective way of spending money.
It seems to me that we have that way in the shape of the various organs which the Overseas Development Administration has developed—the Tropical Products Institute, the Centre for Overseas Pest Research, about which I have talked earlier in this House, and the Land Resources Development Centre. Those three bodies are a good start, and they are much appreciated and much respected by the countries which we are trying to help. It is madness to try to cut such resources, which go to the very root of the matter, which are chock-full of real expertise and which, above all, are trusted by Governments in a way that private firms are not trusted by Governments. It is no defence of the cuts made in them to say that they are not being abolished. The fact is that at the moment there is a real threat that they will be cut down to the stage where they will not be able to operate as well as they should. Pound for pound, they produce really solid work for the developing countries. I believe that the Government should think again about this particular point.
There are other bodies like them and there are other areas in which what I am saying also applies. For instance, the Centre for World Development Education, which we have discussed in this House in the past, is, I believe, very well worthwhile. I started to discuss it and plead its cause before I became a member of its governing body. Now I am a member of its governing body and must declare an interest. However, my belief in this centre dates from well before that time. It is quite interesting to note that the centre has been looking for outside support. The centre has had to look for outside support because the Government have told it that it will not get any more Government money and that it must go out and find private support. It has done so. Indeed, it has been extremely successful in obtaining private support.
However, it has come up against some refusals, and I should like to quote to your Lordships one such refusal from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. This we all know to be a body of considerable responsibility which weighs its words. It replied as follows:
"The materials produced by the centre are clearly of a high standard and my trustees would take the view that Government support for work in this area should be strengthened rather than diminished. But my trustees feel that they should not be prevailed upon to step in where the Government is withdrawing its support, and accordingly I have to inform you they do not feel able to respond to your request".
The Government may feel that that is a wrong-headed approach, but it is a fairly common approach. Bodies like the Centre for World Development Education—bodies which are so important in the aid world—are not, I believe, going to be able to do the absolutely first-class work that they are doing unless the Government re-think some of their attitudes towards helping them.
As I have said before, I am not one of those who ask for the total amount of money to be increased. I suspect that if I were the Minister responsible I should be tempted to cut down aid and to start again from the
838
beginning. But the place where I would start again from the beginning would be the firm base of these bodies and this expertise, because they are known and trusted by the various countries concerned.
The Minister responsible for overseas aid is at the moment in Kenya. This is very good. He will learn a great deal. I know that he has already learned a great deal. The Minister is, of course, a man who, we know from his past, has a very particular interest in and a real conscience about matters of this kind. We also have a new Foreign Secretary. Both these men are capable of recognising value for money. However, when we recognise value for money we must not succumb to ideological prejudice. It is a mistake to think that things can necessarily be done better by private enterprise. There are certain areas in which private enterprise is at its best. There are, quite clearly, other areas in which established Government bodies serve in a way in which private enterprise is incapable of serving.
In the field of aid I believe that there is a very strong case for a real substratum of public endeavour and public expenditure, and it is the Government of this country which must express the goodwill of this country towards the developing countries. The Government of this country must express that good will by producing the machinery as well as by producing some of the money for it. I hope that as a result of this debate the Government will turn their attention even more keenly than they have in the past to the problem of how to tackle the basic problem of aid. The basic problem of aid is to do with food and with the rescuing of developing countries from starvation. It is on these matters that aid must be built up. I believe and hope that this Government can do something about it.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I would add my tribute of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for introducing what by any estimation seems to me to be one of the most imperative and important issues upon which your Lordships could be engaged. I would approach it from the standpoint of the church. In this regard I dare say that I can speak without impudence for the Bench of Bishops, who are engaged on their proper business in York at this moment, for there is a tradition within the Christian church with regard to poverty which should not be excluded from this debate. We have always believed in the necessity of almsgiving. This is not a peculiar attitude that is unknown elsewhere. I believe that one of the quadruple requisites of a good Muslim life is the regular giving of alms. The begging bowl is one of the most important elements in the Buddhist make-up. And, indeed, we have the authority, over the spikenard incident in the New Testament, that,
"The poor ye always have with you".
For it was of course a fact that almsgiving was the melancholy realisation that though it was possible to alleviate the misery of a few, the basic problem of poverty was insoluble. Therefore, in approaching it from the moral standpoint "I must" was dependent upon whether "I can" and contingent upon "I can".

839
What has happened comparatively recently is that the morality of almsgiving has had to be replaced by something which can be regarded as aid. That is not a conclusive way of describing it, but it recognises that now we must do very much more because we can do very much more. It is not impossible now to feed the hungry. Hitherto it has always been impossible, in general terms, to undertake that benevolent enterprise. We can now say, with comparative certainty, that, but for the problems of distribution, there is enough food to go round if those problems of distribution can be overcome. It is in that light that I seek to approach this particular debate today, and not least to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, upon two of the phrases included in his Motion: "The accelerating growth of world hunger" and "practical assistance to the third world to encourage the increased production of food".
Let me begin by recognising that the church does not necessarily represent as large a community as churchmen would desire and that indeed the church cannot be regarded as the sole contributor to the solution of this problem. But I think that the church has a very important part to play. In that regard, I quickly move to some of the practical opportunities which I think lie within the concept of the approach to this problem, and which indeed can provide some kind of temporary answer to the most iniquitous, dangerous and immediate impacts of hunger.
It is not very much use talking about the long-term treatment of hunger. Hunger is an immediate problem. It is no good talking about the preservation of the future if you are in the process of destroying the present. Therefore, what touches my heart and exercises my mind in the first place is what can we do, what can be done, in order to save the lives of those who are now dying so terribly in misery and in such shortness of life on this planet? And if there is one answer, it seems to me to lie within the possibility that voluntary organisations, and others which have been mentioned by the speaker who immediately preceded me, can in fact provide that immediacy, though we do not in any way denigrate the opportunity and the demand for more corporate action—and, indeed, for action on the part of communities acting as a whole.
May I therefore make one or two suggestions in this area? It is beyond doubt that the churches themselves have access to immediate problems and instances of hunger through the missionary field. We in the Methodist Church—and I hope that I may be allowed to boast a little about what we have seen useful to do—have already agreed to offer 1 per cent. of the income of Methodists to the provision, through the missionary societies and through the churches overseas, of immediate aid where that aid can be quickly channelled and does not go through the kind of composite and difficult procedures which in many cases seem, unfortunately, to deny the very purpose for which these benefactions are offered.
This kind of immediacy can in my judgment meet what the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and others referred to as the danger spots: the type of famines which spring up from time to time and which, if they cannnot be eradicated, can be largely contained by this kind of direct action.
840
Secondly—and this is by way of introducing into this debate a matter that has not appeared before your Lordships as yet—it is possible (and I hope it can be done) that the Christian churches will improve upon the general evangelical process by which, hitherto, they have marvellously advanced the prospects of wellbeing but in others have retarded it. It is no secret that we are confronted with a resurgence of a particular kind of evangelism which concentrates on the next world, is charismatic without being sensible, and has very little to say about the immediate needs of people—counselling that they should be content for the sake of "pie in the sky" rather than embark upon the kind of programmes which could improve their condition down below.
I wonder whether your Lordships appreciate to what extent this kind of envangelism has impeded the real progress of people living in the third world, and how quickly it could be withstood if there were a harder and less sympathetic line being offered to those who quite sincerely but nevertheless are retarding the very processes which the Christian faith should be encourged to change. This can be done, and I hope that it will be done.
I will now pass on to a matter that is not so immediate but which seems to me to be as imperative. A great deal of the aid that is offered today is offered contingent upon the acceptance of certain responsibilities in a warlike world. I join with the noble Lord who spoke earlier and with my noble friend Lord Brockway in the assertion that there is a very close connection very often between the granting of aid and the preservation of the kind of security that is offered in terms of armaments. If only we could transfer something of this enormous burden of armaments to the cultivation of educational processes and remedial processes, remembering that for the cost of one jet fighter there could be provided 40,000 health clinics.
I know that this is a risk, but perhaps your Lordships will allow me to repeat that which I have said on other occasions in the House—that I believe the risk of such a transfer of goods from the field of armaments to the fields of culture and wellbeing would be a risk worth taking, and one that could offer far greater hopes of avoiding the holocaust which otherwise seems to loom.
There is one other aspect to which I now come for a brief moment: the increase in world poverty. I saw some statistics the other day to the effect that 100 years ago the average rich person was about twice as well off as the average poor person. That statistic, like a great many others, can be open to some disagreement. But what is not open to disagreement is the geometric progresssion whereby that gap is now 35 times as wide; and by 1985, it will be 45 times as wide. We are living in a world where, hitherto, poverty—both basically and comparatively—has increased. And why? There are many more manifestations of goodwill. There are many more people who are concerned to help. There are many more communities of various kinds, under various names, which are attempting to alleviate poverty. Yet poverty grows larger, more ominous, more dangerous and more dreadful year by year. I ask, why?
The Brandt Report is an attempt to solve the problem of poverty within the framework of a capital-

841
ist society. All but one of those participating in the Brandt Report were representatives of capitalist communities. I believe that this is a false and wrong process. There is an inbuilt necessity whereby, by the processes of enlightened self-interest, privatisation and capitalist principles in general, the inevitability of the widening of the gap—whatever the goodwill of those who seek to close it—is a foregone conclusion. Therefore, I will conclude by reading to your Lordships something that the Methodist Church has said—and it is an august and powerful institution, as your Lordships know:
"The marketing system always was loaded in favour of the powerful. In the last 30 years it has run riot. Huge multinational and transnational corporations have created monopolies, cornered markets, and gobbled up small firms. In the name of efficiency, they have streamlined operations and increased unemployment in many places. Yet the people running them have usually been doing their job conscientiously—increasing profits for their shareholders and following the principles which they have been taught. Who is to blame? Blaming the system is not enough. The task is to change the system".
I am well aware, as I sit down, that I have nothing very particular and immediate to say about changing the system. I am convinced that the import of this conversation promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, today, carries with it the affirmation of a system that can support true aid—not to the point of some kind of special almsgiving from those who have to those who have not but in the resettlement of the whole constitutional process whereby we cross the boundaries of nation, state and privilege and become members of one common humanity. If this conversation this afternoon can contribute in any way to that end, it will have been infinitely worth while.
6.8 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I wish to venture outside the main theme of the valuable debate begun by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and not cover so much of the very valuable ground and suggestions which have been made by others. My reason for doing so is that I believe the main problem we face today is to get the third countries back on to a sound economic base. It is all very well to think in terms of help with food production and so forth, but unless there is law and order in those countries, and unless there are peaceful conditions in which agriculture can be improved, then there is no hope for those who are hungry.
I know that the noble Lords, Lord Seebohm and Lord Oram, and others, have touched on the financial crisis and on that aspect of the matter it is the great banking nations which have to shoulder an immediate responsibility. Their loans—or rather the loans of their banks—to the third world have become an intolerable burden. That is not the fault of those who borrowed. Rather, it is the fault of the terms on which the loans were originally made.
The loans were made in dollars. We all know what has happened to the dollar; the dollar has appreciated, so that those who borrowed in dollars find that repayments are harder to meet than before. They have been borrowed on interest terms which are impossibly high. I know why the creditor countries originally made those terms; it was in their fight against inflation, but in fighting against inflation the burden for the third world becomes insupportable. Again, the borrowing
842
was too short-term and the third world cannot be developed on the basis of short-term loans and long-term projects.
Apart from all that, we have had the fall in commodity prices. We have had countries or groups of countries like the European Community encouraging the production of things like sugar on terms which are fine for their own people but lead to a surplus, and only the rich can afford to encourage such surplus, to the damage of the poor, to the damage of the countries which are much more natural sugar producers. Lastly, of course, over the last 15 years there has been the vast rise in the price of oil.
What has all that led to? Again and again in the last year or so we have had the International Monetary Fund trying to solve the problem by restructuring the debts of various countries, a rescheduling worked out on terms which are essentially capitalist terms and terms in which the banks who are also taking part have a special interest. The terms are too severe, and the rulers, in trying to implement what they have been told to do, are forced to cut the living standards of their people, living standards which are already pitifully low. The sequel to all this, as we know, is grave disorders; the capitalist world is blamed and Russia rejoices in the troubled waters.
We are in measure to blame, for the financial crisis is, as I have endeavoured to show, in degree our own fault. The noble Lord, Lord Quinton, touched on this and so did various other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. The third world countries were encouraged to over-borrow for unsound projects, and who were they to resist when they thought that this in some measure might be for the benefit of their people? Terms were set which have become impossible to honour. There was a notable article in the Investors Chronicle of 3rd June by Bryan Reading, their consultant editor, It is titled "Come the Whirlwind", and its sub-title contains the following:
"Williamsburg summiteers be damned for your shortsighted complacency".
I will quote no more, but I do recommend all your Lordships to read it, and I beg the Williamsburg summiteers not only to read it but to act on it. It sets out vividly and in detail the trouble of the debt crisis and the urgent need for the rich nations to act now.
It is not enough for Governments to hope that somehow industrial recovery and the efforts of the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements and the World Bank, will get over the difficulties. The burden of the debt is too heavy and, as I have tried to show, it is not all the fault of the third world countries. Only the summiteers, if I can call them that, can afford the cost of rescue, and they must do so, or where they have sown Russia will reap. No wonder Mr. Andropov is reported as saying:
"We firmly believe that socialism"—
and, I would put in brackets, communism—
"will prove its advantages through peaceful competition with capitalism".
It is not, of course, all the fault of the banks. A good deal of it is the fault of our Western governments, for they form economic policy and they are the ones who must help before the crisis breaks. Unemployment, we all know, is a scourge of the world, but I believe that

843
for the third world countries their debts and what follows from their debts is even worse. We alone can provide the cure.
What do I suggest to break this vicious circle, this crisis? I suggest that the seven Williamsburg countries and several other of the rich capitalist countries—Switzerland and Saudi Arabia, for example—should announce the equivalent of a Marshall Aid Plan for the third world debtor countries. Of course, the treatment for the different countries will vary according to the circumstances. In the case of Nigeria all that are needed are some tiding-over arrangements. The case of Sudan is totally different. Take Mexico; I think there again the need is for some tiding over. But for Chile more aid and real help is needed.
What should be the guidelines for this help? I think there are three things the Western world should do. The first is that they have to reduce the dollar burden of the debts. Secondly, they must allow a much lower rate of interest, totally different from the sort of figures that are having to be paid now. And lastly, the terms of the debts must be extended for up to 20 years. It cannot all be dealt with at once. We must recognise, having made the announcement of Marshall Aid, that we have got to deal with it piecemeal. I would suggest, for example, that the United States of America should take the main responsibility for the South American countries. I would suggest that the European Community should take the main responsibility for Africa, and so on.
I know that the creditor banks will have to accept some loss over the years, but they, knowing that their governments are in some measure going to shoulder the burden and relieve them of the spectre of default which now faces them, would surely be more than compensated. Such bodies as the International Monetary Fund should continue to monitor the economic plans of the third world, and in so doing they should encourage them in moderate degree to buy again from the capitalist countries. That could importantly help our unemployment and could help world recovery. I have tried to show that the solution of the debt problem can do more at this moment to help the destitute nations than anything else. It is the rich capitalist countries that must help. Otherwise we shall be faced—and I am sure of this—with a crisis which grows on itself and at that moment something will have to be done.
I am sure the first priority must be, as I said earlier, to restore the economic soundness of the third world countries. The capitalist world, the Western world, must wake up and act now along Marshall aid lines. I recognise that this calls for real sacrifices by us, but we can afford it. We are indeed the only people who can afford it. We must remember that if we do it will be to the long-term benefit of us all.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it is not simply conventional etiquette for me to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm for initiating this debate. It was to have been initiated before the election. The noble Lord and I have had very similar Motions down
844
on the Order Paper. He has been lucky, and I am glad that he has been enabled to initiate this debate today.
There is a practical reason why I thank the noble Lord, not only for initiating the debate but for his opening speech, and that is because he touched on what seems to me to be one of the crucial issues in the whole wide spectrum of world hunger. He pointed out that an attempt has been made to introduce an industrial society into many third world countries before there had been a sound and solid routing of the agrarian system. I believe that history has shown that all successful industrial revolutions have been based upon the surplus created by an agrarian revolution; that always the industrial revolution has followed a successful agrarian revolution. Whether it be the capitalist or communist countries, during this century both regimes have tried to introduce industry before agriculture into third world countries. To me that appears to be one of the fundamental weaknesses in our traditional aid system, in the efforts of the communists and in the very well-meaning efforts of those who have been advising the third world countries on their economic development.
This leads me to pay a particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Balogh, who has been teaching the same lesson, to my knowledge, for 30 years, and also to his collaborator, Professor René Dumont, of France, with both of whom I have been privileged to be associated in trying to counteract this false advice that has been given so often to the third world Governments. Therefore, it is for a specific reason that I thank the noble Lord for initiating this debate and for the way in which he did so.
When I came here today one noble Lord, who shall be nameless, said to me, "There are 23 speakers on world hunger this afternoon. You are the thirteenth. How can you possibly say anything that has not been said before?" I am going to try, because I believe that I have a particular and perhaps unique short message to give in this debate. The noble Baroness who is to wind up will be surprised to hear that it is a message of hope. It is a cheerful message, and it is a remarkable message. I refer your Lordships to the small county town of Cullompton in Devonshire. Why? It is because in that town an experiment has taken place, and is taking place, which may be the most important experiment that has been conducted in any field in the 20th century. I say that quite advisedly. Over the past 10 years a man called David Mackenzie has been experimenting with a new form of soil conditioner. He has been kind enough to send me full details of his experiments, of the production of the soil conditioner and of the tests now being conducted by Dr. Jayaweera, a chemist from the Plymouth Polytechnic. Incidentally, Mr Mackenzie has been greatly helped in this work by the local Co-operative Bank
I cannot say, because I am not a chemist, that this experiment is yet a proven success, but it has been sufficiently proven to have already attracted £400 million-worth of orders. What does it do? As a layman I can only describe to your Lordships that we know, for instance, that the Sahara has not always been a desert and that there was a time when it flourished and was cultivated right across its present width. We believe that soil can turn to sand and that eventually, perhaps after millions of years, sand can turn back to

845
soil. All that I can say to your Lordships as a layman is that in this case Mr. Mackenzie claims that his soil conditioner, which is called Landspeed, acts in the same way but much quicker than the natural process of the transformation of sand and clay to productive soil. He does not know how it works except that, as distinct from the normal fertiliser which is spread on the surface of the ground and has to sink in, this seems to work from underneath to break down the clay and transform the sand, provided—and this is the point I particularly make to the Government and to which I shall return in a few moments—there is not a large amount but a sufficient quantity of water available in the locality.
This new company shows that British people still have inventiveness and still have compassion, because Mr. Mackenzie was turned to this experiment from his experience of seeing the malnutrition and the death of children from hunger that we have heard about this afternoon. Therefore, the experiment shows that in Britain we still have the initiative and the compassion to turn our efforts to the solution of the life and death problems which are facing half of mankind. The result of this experiment, and the setting up of Mr. Mackenzie's firm, provided that it is successful, as it appears to be at the moment, will of course provide a great deal of employment in the Devon area, where unemployment is running at the rate of 13 per cent.
This is precisely the issue which I have been trying to get across to this Government ever since they came to office four years ago. Here is one method—and I have always stressed, one method—by which the world depression, and the British part of the world depression, can be tackled in conjunction with an effort to meet the needs of that half of the world's population which does not have the purchasing power today to buy the goods that our unemployed could be producing. But the success of this experiment depends upon there being, first, an infrastructure (even if it is only rudimentary) of irrigation, and, secondly, the purchasing power of Governments in third world countries for such a thing as this new soil conditioner. If it is successful, it will revolutionise the agricultural production of the world—and this is where the Government come in.
There are three specific questions which I should like to ask the noble Baroness who is to wind up for the Government. I was surprised that in her list of the Government's achievements she mentioned British Government support for the United Nations Development Programme. Since 1978 British Government support for the UNDP has fallen in real terms by 56 per cent., and yet this was a programme initiated by the British under the leadership of that very noteworthy British civil servant, the late David Owen. This programme provides us with more resources from the expenditure in Britain and the employment of Britons than it costs us in monetary subscription to the programme. It does what I have been arguing for over the past four years: it provides to Britain a greater return than our investment in it. Yet the Government have cut it, and are cutting it. I understand that this year's subscription to the UNDP will be the same monetary figure as last year, which,
846
given inflation, means that there has been a cut. I should like the noble Baroness to meet this point.
Secondly, I would ask the noble Baroness what is the Government's attitude towards the scientific units of the Overseas Development Administration, which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, among others. Here, again, this is an area of British Government activity that should already be cognisant of the work going on in Devon and should be there helping, offering scientific services and integrating the work of Mr. Mackenzie into British overseas development. But I understand that those scientific units, which are so valuable in overcoming the practical difficulties in the third world and which cost so little, are being cut. I ask the noble Baroness whether this is the case and, if so, why. Are they not an investment, and not an expenditure, for this country?
Finally, I ask the noble Baroness whether she considers that it is possible to talk seriously about world hunger and the problem of assisting that half of mankind who are suffering from that hunger to produce for themselves, to become self-sufficient in food and to get the farmers of the third world interested and back on their land, while the common agricultural policy of the EEC remains as it is. That common agricultural policy, with its artificial and wasteful subsidisation of Europe's farmers, has, as I think the noble Baroness will confirm, doubled Government expenditure on subsidies to farmers this year. It is partly the reason for the cuts in public expenditure announced last week; and it is now costing this Government £462 million this year in subsidies. Is it possible consistently to talk at one and the same time about helping and encouraging third world farmers to produce and create self-sufficiency in their own countries when the Government are spending taxpayers' money in subsidising agricultural exports that go to the rapidly increasing populations of the towns in the third world countries, about which we have heard this afternoon? Is that not a contradiction? I suggest that it is. So long as we—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is using the wrong phrase when he talks about the subsidy of exports. Export refunds are not subsidies. They are the refund of extra costs endured by paying, in accordance with the common agricultural policy, higher costs on the raw materials from which the exports are made. In point of fact, the refunds do not measure up to the extra costs of the raw materials; they are always slightly less. But in no way are they subsidies. It is an error which other people have fallen into in identifying that particular point, and I should just like to put the noble Lord right.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I think that this is very much a matter of semantics. In practice, what is happening is that, subsidised by their Governments, the Western world, of which we are a part, is exporting agricultural produce (particularly processed produce) to the third world countries at such a rate that the farmers in the third world just cannot compete with it. We have only to look at our grain and butter mountains today. The figure which I have just quoted, which I do not think the noble Lord has contradicted—and I shall be interested to hear it

847
commented on by the noble Baroness—is £462 million this year which the Government are having to pay out to the farmers. It is double the figure of last year.
I simply suggest that here are three specific questions to which I should like the noble Baroness to address herself in winding up. It seems to be a contradiction, on the one hand, to use fine words about how the third world farmers should get back to the land and, at the same time, to be cutting down the institutions in this country which can help them with their problems; and, coincidentally, to be using the monetary power of the developed world to thrust upon these countries exported agricultural products which are making it less likely and attractive for their farmers to produce for their own people.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I should like to join in the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, not only for enabling us to discuss this very important topic today but for the masterly way in which he presented his case. With his distinguished background in a banking career, if I may say so, that comes as no surprise. This is the first time that I have embarked on this particular subject, although it has been discussed in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions. I do so with considerable diffidence. I know a lot less about it from personal experience than most noble Lords who have taken part.
However I recall back in 1946 my National Service in Austria, a country which hardly qualifies to be called part of the third world, but in which there was a great deal of hunger. I do not think that it was hunger on the scale which there is today in, for instance, parts of India, and Somalia, but there was a great deal of hunger, in particular among children and older people. If it had not been for UNRRA—which, if I have my facts right, I believe to stand for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration—in a country two or three hours away by air from here there would have prevailed disasters similar to those which undoubtedly now prevail in at least some of the countries of the third world. So it is a sobering thought that back in 1946 that kind of thing was happening.
Paradoxically, I was supposed to have gone to India for my National Service as previous National Service drafts had done, but the then War Office, in the way in which it decided things, decided at 48 hours' notice that we should be sent elsewhere. So I eventually found myself in Austria, much to my disappointment, and the nearest that I have been to India was when recently I saw that very impressive, if rather controversial film, "Ghandi".
I was interested to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, in his mention of the delightful Devon town of Cullompton. I think that it is 30 years or more since I was last there. I was at school at Tiverton, five miles away, during some of the war years, and I used to visit Cullompton regularly, in particular during the school holidays. So far as I am aware, the very interesting piece of technology which the noble Lord has described was not in existence at that time, but it is interesting to consider what a small town can do in connection with this very big social problem.
848
I was also especially interested in the reference to Finland made by my noble friend—if I may so call him—Lord Energlyn. I have twice visited Finland, and I know that it can do a great deal, in particular from the standpoint of its medical, industrial and technological expertise. I believe that it has done much for the third world countries, particularly in terms of medical and technical knowledge. Of course one must get things into perspective. A country such as Finland has fewer commitments than, for example, have we and can probably spend more of its gross national product in helping third world countries. However, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord was right to mention the point.
I should like to make a final point in the form of a question. As my noble friend the Minister knows, in April I was in Canada for a week, not on any direct parliamentary business under the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or anything like that, but for the Joint Statutory Instruments Commonwealth Seminar. I got talking to one or two of the Indian delegates. We were discussing constituencies, and how many constituents they had to represent. One Indian mentioned that he had 1 million constituents. That I think shows, at least indirectly, the problem which countries such as India face. Presumably that delegate has to look after farmers, as well as workers in industry, commerce, and elsewhere, and he has to become au fait with the general social problems of India, with the poverty trap there, and with how his country can most effectively be fed and he has to liaise with the sources which carry out all this work.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister to what extent have what I might call our old Commonwealth countries—Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, besides ourselves—when they have met for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, discussed the whole matter of help to the third world, with particular reference to food? Further, to what extent are there discussions among the countries as to which of the third world countries they can best help? To me, as a complete greenhorn in a matter of this kind, it seems that this is probably one of the most effective methods of giving help.
A few years ago I was one of the delegates to the Annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Jamaica, a country which has a tremendous amount of raw material—bauxite, much of it, I think, Canadian owned. Although I think that in the past few years Jamaica has made tremendous strides, I wonder whether it has had enough practical expertise and help, not so much in terms of money, but in terms of equipment and knowhow, possibly from Canada, which I think I am right in saying has poured so much capital into that country, and I believe some of the other Caribbean countries too.
I make those points very briefly. I am afraid that I am cynical enough to think that it will be very difficult to solve this problem in the lifetime of most of us, but I wonder whether it can be helped along by more communication, more discussion, among the Commonwealth countries, particularly when they meet for their annual conference. I did not give my noble friend the Minister notice of this question, but perhaps it might be considered.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, it is sometimes said that your Lordships' House is out of touch with the modern world, and it is therefore with some trepidation that I take as my theme for this evening an extract from a letter written by a provincial governor to the Emperor of China, in the year 1069. He said:
"Now we propose to survey the situation in regard to surpluses and shortages in each circuit, to sell when grain is dear and buy when it is cheap, in order to increase the accumulation in government storage, and to stabilise the price of commodities. This will make it possible for farmers to go ahead with their work at the proper season, while the monopolists will no longer be able to take advantage of their temporary stringency".
I should like this evening to try to develop a little the twin themes of food storage and price stabilisation. However, first, I should like to look briefly at what appear to be the causes of world hunger and famine. It seems that hunger today is not caused by a shortage of food; it is caused by the inability of people to acquire the means to obtain the food that they need. Poverty and hunger stalk hand in hand and that seems to he the case even in relation to famine. For instance, during the Ethiopian famine of 1973 the estimates of mortality varied from 50,000 to 200,000, but there was no dramatic decline in food reserves in the country. In fact, food was actually exported from two of the provinces which suffered the main impact of the famine. The Sahel suffered one of the worst famines in recent memory in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Deaths in 1973 were thought to have amounted to over 100,000. Yet the FAO has documented that every country in the Sahel actually produced enough grain to feed its entire population, even during the worst drought years. In Bangladesh in 1974, 26,000 or more people died in the famine. Yet 1974 was actually a peak year in Bangladesh for the production of rice and feed grains.
How can so many people have died of starvation when there was enough food available in the country and sometimes even in the province where the famine was taking place? The answer is that only certain groups suffered the effects of the famine. The natural disasters which gave rise to the famines deprived those groups of their ability to acquire food—they deprived them of their entitlement to food. For instance, in Ethiopia the pasturalists suffered through the drought. Many of their cattle died. The cattle which remained were unsaleable. They had no resources to acquire food and they starved. In Bangladesh and also in Ethiopia the landless agricultural workers were not hired because the farmers were feeling the pinch of the drought. In the case of Bangladesh a great deal of the rich agricultural land was flooded and so there was no work for the labourers to do. They had no source of income and so they starved. In each of these recent famines food was available, but some sectors of the community did not have the means to acquire it.
What is true of famine is also true of seasonal pre-harvest hunger. It is not enough to have reserves of food. Each family or individual must have its or his/her entitlement to a share of that food reserve. One answer lies in storage. Too often the difference between the buying price of staple foods at harvest time and the selling price to consumers later in the year is far too wide. Often Government agencies may
850
be inefficient or inept; private traders may profiteer; storage is insufficient or inadequate; and storage losses are too high.
To bridge the gap between one harvest and the next, and to cover climatic disasters, there is a great need for more cheap, efficient storage for staple food grains. Help in providing and managing storage is a highly cost-effective form of aid. Good storage reduces the cost of holding food reserves by reducing waste. It makes possible a strategy for food security and market stabilisation, and it provides the physical reserves of food which are needed where they are wanted and when they are wanted.
The Tropical Development and Research Institute tell me that they regard the two most effective forms of storage to be, on the one hand, the traditional village or on-farm storage controlled by the producer; and, on the other hand, at the other extreme, nationally controlled high technology storage with professionally managed stores. In the small village store or small farm store, traditional storage methods are very often already well adapted to local conditions although some small improvements may be possible. Storage in these small stores for short periods is quite an economic proposition as a form of private sector enterprise.
In contrast, long term storage and storage from season to season is unlikely to be a profit-making enterprise, unless profits are taken which can be regarded as profiteering. There is a strong case for Government aid to, and control of, long term storage. It is in this area that I believe there is major scope for highly cost-effective inputs of capital equipment and management technology from this country in the form of aid. I strongly urge the Government not to make any cuts in aid which would affect this sector.
Another most important form of aid to the agricultural community is one upon which this country has, under successive Governments, rightly concentrated. It is a contribution to knowledge, to appropriate technology, to research, to extension and rural education. Again, I urge the Government not to cut back on funding to the institutions which are serving agriculture in the third world, especially the small farmer, but rather to extend this very cost-effective form of aid. In this context I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in his plea for a reconsideration of Government plans to cut back expenditure on the Land Development Resources Centre and the Tropical Development Research Institute.
I have argued that hunger in the third world today is caused not by an absolute shortage of food, but by the poverty of the rural poor. I have argued that improved storage and the dissemination of appropriate technology can effectively and relatively cheaply help to alleviate the problem of hunger. These are economic considerations but there is also a moral dimension.
6.57 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have listened to many debates on this topic over the years and a long time ago I played the part which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, plays so gracefully at present. But in all

851
those years I have never heard a more effective opening speech than that of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. If I say that I put it on a par with that of our own Labour Party champion, my noble friend Lord Oram on the last occasion, the noble Lord will realise that I am paying him a large compliment.
The noble Lord may be getting rather bored with compliments and so I will offer a criticism, perhaps the first that he has really encountered today. I was not too happy with the way in which he decided to end his speech with an appeal to self-interest, which is another word for "selfishness". I thought that he could have learnt some valuable lessons from the noble Lord who has just sat down and who was about to deal—if he had given himself more time—with the moral aspect. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, sitting beside him also spoke in moral terms. So the noble Lord is surrounded by moralists and if he wanted any more moral stiffening he could get it from the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who talked about sacrifice on an earlier occasion.
The noble Lord will forgive me for saying that, because I do not want it to sound like a jarring note when all is praise. However, I must add the thought that no one is less likely than the noble Lord himself to respond to a selfish appeal. He is, above all, a man who has devoted himself to this cause with total disregard for his own interests. So I felt that the appeal to our lower nature did not come well from one whose higher nature is so evident.
I must follow the example of my noble friend Lord Oram today in taking the general position of the Government on this occasion more or less for granted—in sorrow, but also, as my noble friend Lord Oram said, in anger, although neither the noble Lord, Lord Oram, nor I are perhaps good examples of angry old men. At any rate, I share with him the view that one ought to be indignant about the Government's attitude in this matter.
We were told on the last occasion that during the first period of Conservative rule in recent times the real aid was cut by 19 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, told us just now that some particular aspects of it were cut by 56 per cent. So it is no good pretending that we applaud the attitude of the Government; we condemn it. Personally, I regard it as a scandal that in a Christian country, whoever is in power, we should make such a paltry contribution to these malnourished countries of the world. But I am afraid that in recent times the Conservative Government have set us a very bad example, and from the latest pronouncement it seems that the example may deteriorate rather than improve. But let us not be too despondent about that in advance.
I very much agree with what was said by the last speaker about this puzzling phenomenon of increasing wealth and growing hunger. I am following here the War on Want organisation's views, but that organisation must not be held responsible for what I say. However, it has given me a good deal of assistance. I would submit that this puzzling phenomenon of increasing wealth, increasing poverty and even increasing starvation is not the result of population growth. Indeed, even today the global community is
852
able to produce enough proteins and calories to feed everyone. As the noble Lord has. just said, it is the result of growing economic inequalities between the poor and the rich. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and other speakers dwelt on that during the debate.
The poor go hungry because they do not have enough purchasing power to buy food at prevailing prices. Of course, in this island—which is still powerful and wealthy compared to most countries in the world—we can bewail that, and we cannot put all that right even by the most heroic, self-sacrificing exertions. But it is a fact and should be a guide, a background, for all we say.
Following the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and other speakers, and leaving over what you might call a general condemnation of the Government's attitude to aid, I should just like to take up one or two points which have been submitted to me as being particularly important. I make no apology for repeating the first one, although it has already been made by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, whose speech I missed, and by the noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Northbourne. According to a document shown to me, 30 per cent. of the world's food production is destroyed by pests—a problem which is particularly acute in tropical and the poorest countries of the world. The last speaker may well have had that in mind when he reminded us that the United Kingdom has established a unique reputation through the work of the Tropical Products Institute and the Centre for Overseas Pest Research, both organisations working under the auspices of the Overseas Development Administration.
The noble Baroness may not have had much notice of this particular question, although I am not the first person in the debate to raise it, but can she give us any idea whether our impression is right that the Government intend to make savage cuts which will greatly reduce the operation of the bodies mentioned and also the equally respected Land Resources Development Centre? I do not think that I need dwell on this as it has been touched on by other speakers. I am wondering whether the noble Baroness can tell us what will happen, because if that work is being undermined, it would really be a shocking performance.
It has also been brought home to me that the International Fund for Agricultural Development draws support from this country and other countries. It has been established to respond to the fundamental rethinking of food strategies. A willingness to contribute additional resources to this body would be a practical sign of a commitment to tackling world hunger. I have not given the noble Baroness notice of this and I do not see why, off the top of her head, she should be expected to provide answers, but at any rate I must raise the question of what the Government intend to do about our contribution towards the International Fund for Agricultural Development.
I realise that the time is late, but I ought to say just a few words about the work of British voluntary agencies. I have in mind such bodies as Oxfam, Christian Aid and War on Want, which helped me with these remarks, and CAFOD. I would also mention International Relief, which is not primarily based in Britain but is important here. I would couple

853
that body with the other bodies, except that it is not looking for Government assistance. I understand that in Britain we give only some £500,000 a year to match contributions from voluntary agencies for development projects. This figure appears to be derived from official information; I wonder whether it can be confirmed? It is a figure which compares very poorly with those of our European partners, which have very much larger schemes in operation with their respective voluntary agencies.
There is obviously an opportunity to do quite a lot to aid the third world—the most impoverished countries—without some colossal drain on the Government's expenses and without interfering with their particular philosophies. Such projects must enhance community development and go direct to the problem of hunger and malnutrition in a locality. There are various ways in which the Government could co-operate much more closely with the voluntary agencies, including joint development financing. So I am putting it to the noble Baroness—and this is a general question with which she might well be prepared to deal—are the Government prepared to do anything more than they are doing at this moment to assist voluntary agencies, and are they ready to work more closely with them?
There are a great many speakers yet to come. I do not come before your Lordships as one with first-hand knowledge of the subject, as have the last speaker and other speakers. I come before your Lordships rather as someone who has studied these questions for many years, looking at them from the point of view of a Christian citizen in a country which is incredibly wealthy compared to the countries which we are discussing. As I said earlier, I think it is shocking that we do not do more, and I am only horrified at the thought that we might be about to do less.
7.7 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, having spent most of my adult life in the third world, it gives me the greatest pleasure to welcome the initiative of my noble friend Lord Seebohm in tabling this Motion tonight. However, I would put it to your Lordships that the debate we are having this evening is of added importance in that it forms part of a series of debates on the third world which we have had over the past few months. As your Lordships are well aware, we have had valuable and wide-ranging debates on the Brandt Commission Report and on communism in the Middle East and the third world generally. Indeed, if the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, had been fortunate in the ballot for the debate next Wednesday—and I offer him my sincere apologies, having been unfortunate myself on so many occasions—we would have been discussing the need to extend British exports to the third world.
Finally, if I may mention it, next Wednesday, with the leave of your Lordships, I hope to ask an Unstarred Question about what is to my mind the most terrible and the most tragic of all the problems affecting the third world—the continuing violation of human rights.
However, I must return to world hunger. I should like to amplify what many noble Lords have said this evening in praising the work of the Overseas
854
Development Administration. I think that our effort over the years has been truly magnificent and it has been widely praised. I should like to look at four areas: first, the Arabian Gulf; secondly, Bangladesh; thirdly, Uganda and, fourthly, the Yemen Arab Republic.
First, let me deal with the desert. To some of your Lordships, and perhaps others outside your Lordships' House, desert food conjures up visions of sheep's eyes, camel's liver and other Bedouin specialities too indelicate to mention in your Lordships' House; and of course also dates which are, as I am sure we are all aware, one of the most nutritious foods in the world. It was British expertise which was responsible for the improvement of date cultivation, particularly in Iraq. To others perhaps the desert would bring to mind St. John the Baptist and his diet of locusts and wild honey. Like the Baptist, I have eaten both with relish.
Few of your Lordships would need any invitation to sample wild honey, but sad to say it is becoming increasingly rare. Indeed, when one can find it in Arabia it is almost more expensive than the most valuable honey one can find in the West End. But the locust is, of course, a more refined taste; but how good it can be when eaten fried in rancid butter. Indeed, if it were possible I would like to see its introduction by the Refreshment Department of your Lordships' House.
While we would all deplore the gradual disappearance of wild honey, none of us would regret the passing of the locust plagues, which of course have played such a terrible part in destroying the world's resources of food. Some of your Lordships may perhaps remember the great locust plagues of the 1940s and 1950s. I have seen them myself. I have seen the sky darken with clouds of locusts which descend on any living thing and strip it so completely that nothing is left after their visitation. But the point I want to make is that it was British expertise which, in the 1940s and 1950s, got to grips with this problem by locating the main areas of the swarms and by poisoning the hoppers with poisoned bait.
Let me turn now to Uganda where there is an important project going on just now which is concerned mainly with pesticides. In Bangladesh, as the noble Baroness the Minister of State has mentioned, there are useful projects going on which concentrate mainly on wells, the use of fertilisers, and on improving rice cultivation. The fourth area I should like to examine is the North Yemen, the Yemen Arab Republic, which I know well. There there are two very important projects. One is a research and development project which has done a great deal to raise the standard of agricultural and forestry development, and the other is a veterinary project which again is very well valued and that has concentrated on both preventive and curative medicine, on training, and on research.
In all these schemes we have been greatly helped in our efforts—and this is an important point to make—not only by the excellence of our expertise but by the excellence of our training resources. We take great pains to train our personnel not only in the technical skills which are essential but also in getting to know the countries and, above all, in learning the language. In this we have the edge over many other

855
donor countries. Where, for example, can one find a Dutchman who speaks fluent Swahili?
Backing up the training of our own personnel we can of course offer excellent training facilities in Britain which are widely appreciated. We have, of course, suffered many setbacks and frustrations in our aid programmes. Some of them have been mentioned by noble Lords, and perhaps I may mention a few others. One is the lack of co-operation with the locals. Another, and important one, is the failure of local countries to produce personnel who are able to take over from British personnel and follow in the way they have indicated. But perhaps the most important setback is the lack which so often occurs of a properly structured state pricing mechanism.
So much for the activities of the Overseas Development Administration. I should like to turn now briefly to two voluntary agencies. Several of your Lordships have mentioned in your speeches the part they play in the fight against hunger. I have time to mention only two. One is Oxfam and the other is the British Red Cross. Many of your Lordships will be aware of what Oxfam does in the way of encouraging local people to dig their own wells, and so on. I would mention a really first-class scheme which is now going on in Upper Volta where the people are being encouraged to dig their own wells, often with very little outside financial help. They are saving money to build dams and to construct their own grain stores. In all these ways the agencies' emphasis—and this, of course, goes for the British official effort too—has been on self-help and on making use of the best existing resources, whether they be human or material.
Another important project which Oxfam is engaged in—and I do not think that this has been mentioned by any of your Lordships, although I have not been able to listen to every speech—is the study of pesticides. We all realise the value of pesticides in increasing food output. But according to a fascinating survey which has been undertaken by Oxfam—if your Lordships wish to read more about it I would recommend to you a little booklet called The Circle of Poison by the Pesticides Action Network—the uncontrolled use of pesticides has brought about considerable human poisoning, pollution of the environment, and unfortunately an upsurge of insect resistance to pesticides. Indeed, according to Oxfam's estimate there are something like 275,000 pesticide poisonings in the third world every year, of which 10,000 result in deaths.
The British Red Cross are also doing excellent work, and they are aware of the importance of training schemes to raise food production, and in addition to that of course, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, they send every years tens of thounsands of tonnes of food to victims of natural and man-made disasters. I think I have said enough to indicate the value of our continuing and, if possible, increased contribution.
I shall not argue about the need for greater financial aid. I am fully aware of the stringencies. But perhaps I could put to the noble Baroness the Minister of State three possible guidelines for the future. First, I would recommend that we devote more aid to agriculture, and particularly to small farms. I think that those of your Lordships who have had experience of the third
856
world will agree that it must be the small farmer whom we help. We need to put more money to small farmers and less to big steel mills—this was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oram—power stations, and so on, which do not benefit the poorer people.
Secondly—and this is a point which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned—we need to increase our co-funding of the voluntary agencies. It may surprise your Lordships to know that both West Germany and Holland devote 6 per cent. of their total aid budget to this purpose. Ireland devotes 4 per cent; Great Britain, unfortunately, devotes 0.23 per cent. and if one includes the volunteer programmes 0.7 per cent. I would strongly recommend that that proportion be increased.
Thirdly, I would suggest that we take a more positive role in pesticide control in the light of the Oxfam survey. We need to revise the licensing requirements for pesticides and to improve the monitoring of pesticide residues.
Finally, there is another very important aspect to this question. Whatever we may do, whatever the British Government may do, whatever the voluntary agencies may do, we must surely instil among the richer countries of the third world, and indeed in the developed world too, a greater sense of their own awareness of this problem, and a greater realisation of their own responsibilities.
I went back to the Arab Gulf last summer trying to raise money for a certain charity. I was met by a man who, 27 years ago, was a very humble employee of mine. He was a launch driver living in the simplest of conditions. He met me in his second Mercedes. He took me to dinner at the Hilton, of which he was a part-owner; and he also claimed to be a part-owner of three other major hotels. He boasted about his four houses, two of them in the Gulf and two in Britain. There were other examples I met of this extraordinary rags to riches syndrome.
Some of your Lordships will be aware of the enormous budget which the Getty Museum in Malibu has. If I am correct, the budget is one million dollars a week. Just think how much good only a tiny part of this money could do if it were properly channelled towards the developing world through the aid agencies. But that is not happening, although many countries are giving a good deal of money, and those in the Gulf through the Governments; but private individuals seem so distressingly unaware of this need.
I will end, if I may, by quoting from a speech by Robert Kennedy at Capetown in 1966:
"Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring, these ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance".
7.23 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for his Motion. That many people must be starving must arouse the concern and compassion of us all. Hunger and famine are concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. They are not general in the third world. If they were, the population could not have grown so rapidly in recent decades. Many people. including some noble Lords,

857
blame population pressure and population growth for third world poverty and hunger. Yet people do not starve in the densely populated Asian countries such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, or the relatively densely populated regions of Western Malaysia, the Ivory Coast and Southern Nigeria. Most of Africa and much of Asia is sparsely populated, and even in India much uncultivated land is officially decribed as usable.
Nor is rapid population growth, the so-called population explosion, behind poverty. The population explosion is another word for a large fall in mortality. Is this a disaster for those directly involved? In the third world, as in the West, people like to live longer and to see their children survive. Nor are these children an unwanted burden, thrust upon their parents. They give emotional satisfaction and often also contribute to family income. The idea that people in the third world procreate, heedless of consequences, reflects distasteful and unwarranted contempt for hundreds of millions of people. Adverse weather, notably drought, cannot explain famine and hunger. Governments cannot control the weather, but they do control their policies.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s I spent five years on a study of Nigeria and the Gold Coast, now Ghana. Northern Nigeria is adjacent to the Sahel, with a broadly similar climate. In contrast to the present-day Sahel, there were no famines in colonial times in Northern Nigeria. Why? It is because the pre-war colonial administration maintained public security, attended to basic communications, facilitated private trade and generally allowed people to pursue their own economic activities. Even today one does not hear about famine in Northern Nigeria or the Ivory Cost, while it seems to recur regularly in Ethiopia, the Sahel and some other African countries where private trade is virtually suppressed.
With a smoothly functioning trading system there are reserves of stocks and trading links between regions and countries. An area hit by drought can then draw on stocks or on outside sources. Where private trading is suppressed and trade put into the hands of state monopolies, the position becomes precarious. This is the situation in many African and some Asian countries, where efficient trading systems have been destroyed or crippled, sometimes with expropriation and expulsion of unpopular groups, especially ethnic minorities. Adverse weather causes acute and widespread hardship, even famine—witness in recent years Ethiopia, the Sahel, Mozambique, Uganda and Zaire.
In most of sub-Saharan Africa, Governments pursue other policies besides suppression of trade which obstruct agricultural advance and emergence from subsistence farming and thereby reduce food supplies. I can mention only a few: under-pricing of farm produce by Governments; ban on the import of consumer goods and of simple farming equipment; large-scale diversion of resources to prestige projects, including uneconomic industrialisation; forced uprooting of people from their homes; compulsory collectivisation of farming. There is a more comprehensive treatment in a 1981 World Bank report on accelerated development in sub-Saharan Africa.
858
In Tanzania, the suppression of private economic activity and compulsory villagisation have been official policy for many years. The effects on food production have often been noted in the British press. This is what Dr. David Hopper of the World Bank has written about these policies:
"Government attempts to bring about a social transformation…have been responsible for a major decline in national food output.…As long as food aid"—
or long-term loans for food purchases—
"is supplied to Tanzania by the industrial nations, the social experiment will continue".
The food situation is also precarious in parts of India. This is to some extent the result of attitudes and beliefs deeply ingrained in rural India, such as the caste system and the reluctance to take animal life, especially that of cows. But some Government policies, such as restrictions on trade, investment and imports, expensive industrialisation and large-scale official spending on the space programme, armaments and nuclear weapons, have also exacerbated poverty and hunger.
Hunger in Africa and Asia is not the result of inescapable natural calamities or of irresponsible procreation; nor is it the result of Western misconduct, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said. Throughout the third world the poorest and most backward countries and groups have few or no external contacts, and multinationals do not operate there. Government policies are largely to blame. The Governments in question have often been supported morally, politically and financially by the West. To take but one example, it has been widely and rightly recognised, even by supporters of President Nyerere, that without large-scale aid he would not have been able to persist for so many years with the forced, large-scale removal of people into so-called socialist villages.
I spent April of this year in the Sudan. There are more than 650,000 refugees there from neighbouring countries some two-thirds from Ethiopia, about a quarter from Uganda and the rest mostly from Chad and Zaire. I visited two refugee camps. It was harrowing. The refugees had fled because of political persecution, lack of public security or economic adversity caused or aggravated by official policies in that country. The churches and other voluntary agencies help as best they can. Their efforts are reinforced by modest official funds. But these funds, as well as those which go to drought-stricken areas, are trivial compared to the large official transfers which go to the governments whose policies have forced the refugees to flee, policies which are underpinned by official Western aid, often including British aid.
Several noble Lords, and above all the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, have eloquently drawn our attention to the plight of millions of people. We should carefully scrutinise the policies we pursue or support in order to make as sure as we can that these policies truly benefit those millions of hungry people and do not aggravate their plight or add to their number.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I did not wish to interrupt his speech; but would he agree that so far as Tanzania is concerned the policy of Ujama is a policy of self-help and self-reliance and that the private trading that he speaks of as being suppressed did not exist?
Lord Bauer: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that the compulsory herding of millions of people into the Ujama villages is a form of self-help. What is certain is that its effect on food production has been devastating. Certainly there was considerable private trading in the market towns and rural areas of Tanzania, in large measure by Asian traders who have been forcibly squeezed out.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the debate has been a very interesting one and it is a pleasure to listen to very well-informed people speaking on their specific subjects. The only speech that flung me into the depths of the Gobi Desert for an absence of understanding and realism was the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bauer. But I will not deal with that now. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, was:
"To call attention to the accelerating growth of world hunger"—
and we ought to note "accelerating growth"—
"and to the urgent need of practical assistance to the third world to encourage the increased production of food".
And, I should have thought, to encourage the increased production and better distribution of food.
I must say that in my travels around this globe, in the various desolate parts of Africa, India, Australia and other countries—and I should like the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, to note this—I have seen people terribly hungry in those parts of the world just as they were in South Wales, just 190 miles away from where I am speaking. when I was a child, when they were under a vicious, uncaring Government. Let us not get too worked up about state industry, state this, state that or private initiative and private enterprise. Let us concentrate on the results.
I think that we have had a number of good suggestions. I am always keen to listen to my noble friend Lord Energlyn. He never speaks for long but what he has to say is always something practical and useful and something which can help. It is not tied up with state monopoly or private enterprise but with a genuine concern to make a real contribution.
I think that this is particularly important because, up to the last world war, in which I spent a lot of time in peculiar places, and when I was in Parliament in the other place and then went round the globe, I can tell your Lordships that what struck me almost as forcibly as the poverty that I saw, the ignorance that I saw and the disease that I saw, was the shame that these lands had been colonies of my country. That is what hit me in my travels. It would not have hit me so hard if I had come from another country. I thought my own country was a better place. I was born here. I had a conscience about it and still have.
When we listen to people talking with their immense amount of knowledge—and I think of the noble Lords, Lord Oram, Lord Energlyn and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, with their great knowledge and experience—we realise that what we do not seem to be able to do is to plan a worthwhile result to it all. Millions of pounds are given for help and aid; but, somehow or the other, as the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, expresses—and incidentally he moved his Motion excellently earlier this afternoon—it brought to us the awful truth, the terrible truth, that, despite a better conscience in the
860
world since the end of the last bout of insanity, the second world war, and despite the improved conscience and the desire to do something much better, nevertheless hunger, ignorance and disease have been on the increase.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, said—and I agree with him—there is no use our holding up our hands in horror and saying that it is all because of increased population. There is always an argument about that. Every baby that is born is born with a pair of hands, as well. They might become useful hands if we could make them practical and increase their own standards.
The noble Baroness, in her worthwhile contribution (and I am in no way critical) had to resort to figures to make sure that we understood that our Government are doing their best in making their contribution—and no doubt they are. But I must say that I am sorry that the Ministry of Overseas Development has been done away with. That Ministry had a tough job but it was slowly and surely being freed of the shackles of other departments of state. With the Home Office and the Foreign Office it was on its own, shouting. I believe it would have been an example to other such organisations as the United Nations and some others in the EEC.
And, talking about the EEC, there is the need for planning there. Here we are talking about starvation and hunger in the third world: that is, the places with nowhere to live or to sleep properly, places with no medication. Perhaps they would be almost glad if a hydrogen war were to wipe them out. While debating that, we shall be probably debating again in a few weeks' time the lakes of wine, the mountains of butter, and so on, in the Common Market. All the warehouses that I have seen built there are full of food which we cannot give away—and we do not know how to do so.
I really find it difficult to believe that with this massive know-how we cannot really do this. The reason we cannot do it is because we do not sit down to plan it. When I listen to people like the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, with their massive experience in both their great disciplines, I think I am on fairly good ground in saying they would be the last people to decry sensible, intelligent planning, whether in science or in a desire to help other people.
It also seems to me that we have to make certain that we understand the difference between what somebody called urban squalor and poverty, whether it be in Africa or in India, and that in the rural parts of Africa. It seems from the statistics I have been reading that you can link the two things together, so that where you have poverty-stricken peasantry, even, the real people who are starving are those who are totally landless. This is information that I have had given to me by experts who have travelled to these places, made investigations and written books about them. Therefore, it would be very arrogant to disregard the people who make that sort of claim.
The problem that we have to face is: what has it got to do with us? If they are landless, as some are, in what way can we help when we have no political say whatsoever in such countries? This, I think, was a factor mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bauer. This is indeed a very grievous problem, but we must not

861
surrender. I believe that we have to continue; and one of the things I should like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to take on board is this. It is something we tried in the late 1960s, and it began to work. We in this country have a vast amount of experience. If we in this country, with our great British Empire, have been the only nation which has been able to transform an empire into a commonwealth of nations, I believe that, with the kind of rough justice and sound commonsense that we possess, we should be able to find ways, as we have done here and there, of alleviating the starvation that afflicts mankind, and, in so doing, make use of our technology and education.
I link these together because, as I understand it, it is not impossible for technology by itself, when applied to what is described as the third world, to exacerbate the situation and to produce more people having more hunger, and that therefore there needs to be very intricate planning as to how it is applied. We do a bit of it in this country now. We have a couple of machines which throw two or three thousand people out of work, or we have a particular policy which throws a few millions of people out of work. They are not starving, but they are angry and hurt. But when this happens in other parts of the world it can really result in starvation, and I do not think we can just shrug it off by saying that it has nothing to do with us. We have to make a contribution in the world's forums. I sometimes despair of the United Nations until I remember some of the endeavours made in various parts of the world by its various organisations. They have been mentioned during this debate. Then one wonders why we cannot do more.
It is not just a case of getting young men and women in agronomy, in agriculture and in medicine in various parts of the world, because no matter how much money we give them they have to be doing two things. First and foremost they have to alleviate, and then, after that, they have to teach. That is what Julius Nyerere fought so hard to do in Tanzania when he resisted all the aid from the Chinese and the Soviet Union. He thought he could go it alone, and he tried. He did not get much aid from the West. He might have got a bit more from the Soviets or the Chinese, but he did not ask because he happens to be a Roman Catholic and that country is a strong Christian country.
That is another thing I should like the noble Baroness to take on board: that there are people who might turn to a form of society that we would find detestable. That is a very real threat; but it is necessary that we should go that way. We must see to it and get our colleagues in the free world to give help and aid, and not do stupid things as we did three or four decades ago. I can remember, and I saw—let me say this slowly—the success of the groundnut scheme. In its first few years it faltered. There were errors made: I was there, and saw them. People had never seen an internal combustion engine in their lives. Somebody once said, "It would be far better if you got a thousand oxen here instead of these machines". There was a little place where we trained people to become engine artificers, and in the Gambia there was a little miniature university that we built at the same time as the aid was given. A young boy went there at 12 years
862
old, and in the end he knew more about an internal combustion engine or a combine harvester than I did, in a brief period of 10 years. Such a person was making a very useful contribution.
We have to see that education and technology are channelled so that the standard of life is improved and more food is produced so that people can grope slowly forward to the position of being able to stand on their own two feet. That must be taken into consideration as well as the aid. Aid by itself is a wonderful thing, of course, and the contributions from the voluntary overseas organisations are magnificent; but aid by itself is about as useless—I am sorry to have to say it—as a flag day to maintain the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force, or shaking a few tins on a Saturday afternoon to maintain the National Health Service. Those days have gone. You cannot do that any more. You need people collecting money in a sensible and civilised way, and that is so internationally, too.
I should like to see our country making a brand-new start on this, because it seems to me that when you are talking about science and technology and coupling them together to reduce world hunger, you have to add another dimension. That dimension is humanity. Humanity always has to be at the centre. It is not the science itself; it is not the technology itself; it is the good effects that can be brought about for suffering humanity. If the world were told it could really ban the bomb collectively by doing away with world hunger and concentrating upon the Motion moved today by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, then I think that in an international way we could take full cognisance not only of the Motion but, indeed, of the speech of the noble Lord. We have also had many other well-informed speeches during debate today.
International action is going to require international understanding. That action and that understanding have to make full use of all our science and technology; but, at the same time, never must we lose sight of the humanity of it all. Neither must we do it for purely political purposes: that will not get us anywhere, either. It has to be something we feel within the depths of our souls, so that we understand what it really can mean.
I believe this country has made a remarkable contribution; and I hope that we will not simply leave this as a debate in your Lordships' House, so that by 10 o'clock tonight it will be all over and forgotten. If that happens we need not have bothered to come here today, need we? I hope that the Government will take on board some of the propositions that were voiced right the way through this debate, beginning with the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, so that they can be examined. We know full well that our country cannot do it all by itself, but it can set an example for others to follow and make a real contribution in erasing this appalling affliction that exists among so many of human kind today.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, why he regards the British colonial record in Africa as so bad, when he considers that Ethiopia and Liberia are two countries which are in a worse condition but have never been colonies of Britain or of any other European country?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, Ethiopia has. But I cannot get comfort from saying "Look how terrible, starving, mutilated and suffering from ignorance and disease this country is, which is a percentage sight worse than it was when it was a former British colony". That would be an appalling attitude, barren of any understanding, and if we take that view we might as well get hold of the New Testament and rip out the parable of the Good Samaritan once and for all.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, is a modest man, but tonight he has every reason to feel not only pleased but proud about the debate that he has stimulated, first by his very thoughtful and well-informed speech, and, secondly, by the successive speakers who have contributed to this debate. I share the gratitude of other noble Lords who have spoken, for the fact that he has given us this opportunity. Having listened to all the speeches, I find it hard—and I would not expect, in any case, to do so—to make any original contributions to the debate. But it may be helpful if I give your Lordships some of the thoughts which have come into my mind while listening to the speeches, and pick out those aspects of them which seem to me most important.
First, it is absolutely right when people say that the causes of hunger throughout the world are, first, poverty and, secondly—a very close second—ignorance. Poverty stems from very many causes and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bauer, would agree that it is not only found in those countries which have been in receipt of massive aid, or in those countries which have suffered under or enjoyed—depending on which way you look at it—socialist forms of government. Poverty is found in such countries as Ecuador, the Philippines and the homelands of South Africa, none of those having received any significant degree of aid, and none of those having languished under totalitarian, or, at least, socialist-communist governments. But poverty is to be found everywhere and especially in the third world.
I found the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, extremely important and they were supported by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He spoke on the price received for the primary commodities which are, after all, the main source of wealth for most of the third world. I suggest to your Lordships that it is impossible significantly to reduce poverty in the third world without a drastic change in the terms of trade. Until the developed world pays more for the primary products of the third world, in relation to the price that it receives for its manufactured products, there will be no significant change in the poverty that exists in the third world. That is the first point that we must have very firmly in our minds. There must be higher and more stable commodity prices. This may be the place, but it is certainly not the time to go into the methods of achieving that. We have had debates on it and I hope we shall have more. I am fully aware of the weaknesses and the failures of many commodity arrangements, but it is to that problem that we must first direct our minds.
864
The second factor, which is in some ways more complex and in other ways easier to solve, is the problem of ignorance. I believe that ignorance in the third world, and particularly in the rural areas of the third world, among those who are responsible for creating the major wealth from the primary and agricultural products stems from what I would call the Dick Whittington syndrome. As your Lordships will remember, Dick Whittington left his village because he saw no future for himself there. He was a young man of ambition and he trekked to London in order to find his fortune. You know the story of how he remained, after a certain setback, and later became Lord Mayor of London.
The people of the third world are to a very large extent imbued with the Whittington syndrome. Certainly, the most ambitious and the most intelligent of them are, and those of your Lordships who have had experience of the third world and its rural areas will know full well that, when there is a particularly bright child in a rural school anywhere in the third world, the school teacher will say, "Work a little harder and you will be able to get into the city. You will be able to get a job there with a white shirt. You can sit in an air-conditioned office. You may become a lawyer, you may become a bank clerk or, if you are very clever, you may even work for Barclays Bank". That is the ambition of the best and brightest people in the rural areas of the third world.
In other words, there is, as there was in this country until relatively recently, a creaming-off of all those with the greatest ambition and the greatest intelligence and potential from the rural areas into the urban areas, with the result that it is the least intelligent—the skimmed milk and not the cream—who are left behind. If you are going to have a prosperous, modern and efficient agriculture it cannot be left to such people. It must have the leaders of society, the most intelligent, and they must be persuaded to remain in the rural areas.
Why do they not do so? It is not only because of the fact that in the cities they will earn, or think they will earn, more money—though sometimes they are mistaken. It is also because of the amenities that they get in the city, because they will have electricity instead of an oil lamp, they will have television, they will have running water from a tap, so they will not have to walk a mile down to the stream with a bucket on their head when they come back from working in the fields, in order to carry water back to their families.
Those are some of the reasons, but not the only ones. It is because they find that there are better schools and because the best teachers stay in the city. They do not bury themselves in the bush, in the jungle or in the outback. So if the parents have ambition for their children, as all good parents do, they will say, "They must be brought up, not like I was in the village school, but in the city where they have good teachers". They will get better medical services there, because, again, the best doctors and the best hospitals are to be found in the city and not in the rural areas. Also—and this is something which should not be forgotten but often is—people find more intellectual stimulus in a city because there are others around them there who have similar ideas which stimulate them. They will have a mutual interchange of view, which is difficult to

865
find in small rural communities in the third world. Those are all problems which have to be overcome if we are to have the right sort of people staying in the rural areas.
All these things can be done only with very considerable investment in services, rural electrification, good water supplies and a good transport system so that people can move about and do not feel isolated—and, above all, with very considerable investment in good clinics, doctors, schools and teachers. Those are investments which yield no return in the commercial sense of the word but they yield a very high return in human terms, though it takes a long time for it to come. But it is no good saying, "We will lend money from the World Bank", even if the money is lent at concessionary rates which will have to be paid back in five or 20 years' time. That cannot be done. This must be straightforward aid—a gift, properly administered, with no thought of the money coming back. Those are the things which must be done so far as the infrastructure is concerned.
Coupled with that, if more food is to be grown there will have to be not only the adoption of better techniques—which will need increasingly better educated people to make use of those techniques—there will have to be more land brought into cultivation, more drainage schemes, more bush clearing. All this costs money. If one is to get an economic return on that money, inevitably the food which is produced will have to cost more, because of the high standing charges. This presents one with something of a paradox or dilemma. We have already agreed that the cause of hunger is poverty. If we have a policy which puts up the cost of food we shall increase malnutrition and hunger. Therefore I come back to my original statement: there must be a reversal in the terms of trade so that the third world countries become relatively richer—richer relative to the developed world. Then even those who are working in factories and in city offices will have higher wages and will be able to afford to pay more for their food.
There is of course ample good land available in the world. There is no problem about that. There is no reason technically why there should be any food shortage. The land is there. The techniques are there. All that can be done, provided one realises what is needed in order to do it and provided that the funds are made available. That is the broad brush picture. But much can be done on a very much smaller canvas and I should like to touch briefly on two aspects. Both have been mentioned, one of them in passing by the noble Baroness. It concerns the activities of the Commonwealth Development Corporation with which I am proud to say I was, until recently, closely associated for many years.
As the noble Baroness told us, the Commonwealth Development Corporation has done a very great deal in many of the third countries of the world to promote agricultural production. It has done so in a variety of ways. It has learned a great deal about it. One of the most important things it has done, which was just touched upon by the noble Baroness, was to formulate the concept of the nucleus estate. This kind of estate is designed to grow a commodity for export—oil palms, tobacco, rubber, maybe sugar (though not so much for
866
export as for indigenous consumption)—and is not designed in most cases to grow food for internal consumption, for various technical reasons.
Coupled with the estate are the smallholdings of the workers and their families on the estate so that they can grow food for themselves on these smallholdings—also food which can then collectively be carried into local markets or into the nearest town, thus adding to the total food available for the non-rural population. Not only is the land made available for these people, so also is expertise—technical advice, machinery, fertilisers, sprays, which are properly and not dangerously used. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, rightly pointed out the dangers of the improper use of sprays. All this is under the aegis of the Commonwealth Development Corporation and makes a very great contribution both to the total wealth of the country concerned and also to the nutrition of the people of the whole district or region.
However, it is no good simply putting down a project of this kind in the middle of a remote, poverty-stricken area. I come back to my earlier remarks about the need for infrastructure in order to make this work. May I give an example. Six months ago I was in one of the islands of the group known now as Vanuatu in the South Pacific. This is a very big project of the Commonwealth Development Corporation which I hope is now being developed; but in order for it to develop a small and simple harbour is needed to ship out the produce and bring in the raw materials required. A few miles of road are also needed. They have to be constructed by means of aid. I hope that the money is now forthcoming and has already been given by ODA in order to make this possible. Without that money the whole scheme would fall to the ground. There had therefore to be a marriage of these two things.
That is simply one of the activities of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It is a very significant contribution and is an example to many other people of what can be done.
In addition—I shall not dwell on this for any length of time because other noble Lords have mentioned it—the work done by the Tropical Products Institute and the Centre for Overseas Pest Research is enormously important. An area of research which has not been mentioned is that of research into bilharzia which causes malnutrition among some 85 million people. I am not sure of the figure but an enormous number of people suffer from bilharzia. But that research, which is now well advanced, is being impeded by lack of funds, as are many other small pieces of research of great value, which would cost only a few tens of thousands of pounds.
That brings me to my final point. I hope that the noble Baroness will not think that I am ending on a sour note, but the Government cannot say with sincerity that they deplore world hunger, malnutrition and starvation and then cut such modest contributions as we are making towards solving the problem. I should of course like the Government to announce tonight—although I know they cannot do so—that the recommendations of the Brandt Report will be implemented and that all the major countries of the world will cut their defence expenditure by 1 per cent.,

867
which in our case would mean £140 million. That of course the noble Baroness cannot do; but I hope that she will try to persuade her colleagues in the Government that an offer of that kind, made in all sincerity while the Geneva talks are taking place and thrown out as a challenge not only to the United States but to the Soviet Union, could, putting at its lowest, have a very good public relations effect, and it might conceivably stimulate those two countries into making some gesture of that kind. It would be a fine thing if this country made such a gesture.
Apart from that—and this is a rather more mundane suggestion—I hope that the noble Baroness will come completely clean in her reply about these matters. I have to say to her that the record of this Government is not a very happy one or one to be proud of in the matter of aid. I hope that the noble Baroness will say, "This is a world shame. Rich countries such as our own, suffering from a whole series of diseases of excessive eating, must help—and we shall give more." Or she may say (but I hope that she will not), "It is too bad. What a pity. But after all we cannot jeopardise our already high standard of living by giving away a few more millions of pounds. It is true that without our aid some more children will die and that there will be more malnutrition. But our responsibility is towards maintaining our own standard of living." The noble Baroness must say one or other of those two things, and I hope that it will be the former.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, we have heard a very interesting debate and I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for giving us this opportunity. I must also congratulate the noble Lord on the way in which he introduced this debate. I agree with him that the subject we are discussing tonight is of the utmost importance. In fact, I would put it on the same level as that which my noble friend Lord Brockway put it.
At any time, famine which will merit news headlines lies just below the surface of most third world countries. A little drought or flood, pest infestation, civil unrest or war and a marginally fed community tumbles into famine. Unfortunately, about 500 million people—and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, put it as high as 1,000 million—live under such a condition. While those people live in such an impoverished state, farmers in certain other countries are being paid not to grow food. The people who live in those marginal conditions are in the third world; the farmers who are being paid not to grow food are in the north, or the area often referred to as the first world.
It is ironic that it is the third world that lives at this starvation level, because agriculture began in what is now called the third world. The ancestral homes of the world's most important crops are in third world countries—rice, wheat, maize, potato, cassava, sweet potato, yam, sugar cane, soya bean, pulses, numerous vegetables, most fruit trees, cotton and other fibres, many forage grasses and legumes, and numerous forest trees including most hardwood species. This is not surprising, because agriculture revolves around the harvest of solar energy—and abundant, year-round sunshine is the third world's greatest asset.
868
We should therefore ask the question: why should an abundance of natural resources co-exist with low farm productivity and constant hunger? Can we not take steps to convert the natural blessings of the third world—its basic life-support systems of land, water, sunshine, flora and fauna—into the wealth that is vital to its people? Why are many developing countries still giving low priority to agriculture?
Julius Nyerere once said that the people of Africa must recognise that, so far as Africa is concerned, development and rural developments are in reality synonymous. He was right. This holds good not only for Africa. The first essential in any success in the struggle against poverty and world hunger must be realisation and acceptance of that fact by many of the countries of the third world. Third world countries should lose no further time in developing a strong, national food security system which will protect basic life-support systems such as land, water, flora, fauna and the atmosphere. They should provide social security to provide the needed purchasing power to the rural and urban poor through greater opportunities for gainful employment. They need to take greater care in the use of non-controlled insecticides which cause crop and health injuries—and I was very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, raised that last point.
Third world countries should also provide water security—for both drinking and irrigation. They should provide nutrition, education, population stabilisation and efficient health services. They should endeavour to increase the land under cultivation without undue deforestation and increase the productivity of land and labour of existing farms.
They should concentrate, too, on gradual improvements in small scale, "traditional" agricultural rather than rapid transformation to modern agriculture; and they should reorientate services in favour of smaller farmers. Farmers live in a world of action, so personal experience is the only meaningful source of conviction. Farmers must be shown how the blending of individual ownership and group action can better serve the interests of the individual and the community. Farmers are accustomed to co-operating; they help each other sow and they help each other reap. It is not too difficult to make them realise the need to co-operate in other spheres.
Agricultural research is also of the utmost importance and should be supported and encouraged with determination and vigour. Agricultural research organisations should help by demonstrating how enlightened self-interest demands that farmers who live in a watershed or in a village participate in the management of farm operations that elevate and stabilise yield per unit of cash input.
While much can be done to alleviate poverty in rural areas by improving conditions in agriculture, it would be wrong to think that rural poverty can be alleviated by the agricultural sector alone. Every possible incentive must be given to non-agricultural income and employment creation. Moreover, it is inconceivable that the countries which at present experience the type of poverty we are discussing can conquer it on their own. They need the help of the international community, and the international community owes them that help.

869
Moreover, most developing countries, but especially the poorest, now face severe economic difficulties resulting largely from harsh external circumstances beyond their control. While the prices of their manufactured imports have increased in line with inflation in the industrialised countries, the prices of their commodity exports have slumped to their lowest level in real terms for 50 years. As a group, developing countries are now estimated to have lost between 1980 and 1982 some 200 billion dollars in purchasing power. Let me draw attention to the fact that that is in only two years.
Moreover, it is now accepted wisdom—and I was expecting it to be challenged, but it has not been challenged this evening so far as I can gather—that there can be no sustained prosperity for the rich if there is no prospect of improvement in the condition of the poor. Were the rich to withdraw all measures of concessional development assistance, the poorest developing countries would have their quota of human suffering increased beyond its already intolerable levels. But the industrial countries would also suffer. The recommendations of the two Brandt Committee Reports are therefore relevant to our discussion today, and it is a pity that more action is not being taken along the lines suggested in those reports. The international agencies should be encouraged to play their full part in this struggle, and individual industrial countries should he called upon to fulfil their pledges on official aid. Only the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have reached the target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product as official aid. In fact they have exceeded it. But the richest country, the United States of America, has been among the ones furthest away from the target; and I am afraid this country is only half way there.
The World Bank, and in particular its Industrial Development Association window, has been devoting much of its resources to agricultural development, and it should be encouraged and supported in doing this. It is therefore very much to be deplored that the United States of America is refusing to make its contribution to the Industrial Development Association. I am glad that at least in this respect Her Majesty's Government have not followed their bad example. I know at least Her Majesty's Government are making their full contribution to IDA. Further, the EEC, and in particular its Development Commissioner, seems aware of the problem and I hope he will receive the proper support that he deserves. I like the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, about a package for each country, and I hope that that will be explored.
Now may I say a word about food aid. Food aid there must be; there will always be emergency situations, and there is also the need to help nations to meet their food needs while they develop their agriculture to its full potential. But food aid must supplement and not replace internal agricultural production. This is a question of fine balance; but that balance must be struck if food aid is to be beneficial and not detrimental to the fight against world poverty and hunger. I am glad that noble Lords have commended the work of the CDC; there is no need for me to say anything further than that I agree with what has been said. I am glad also that mention has been made of the good work of the non-governmental agencies. I
870
support those who have already asked that Government support to these non-governmental agencies should be increased. I think it is one of the ways in which one can get the food and the health services and the other welfare services into the remote areas. Therefore I hope there will be schemes for increasing the support that Government now give to these agencies.
Finally, I want to say a word about development education, because it is a pity that the Government continue to turn their back on this important contribution to this field. If we are to be successful in bridging the gap between the haves and the have-nots we must convince the man in the street of the importance of so doing. Therefore there must be an educational programme aimed at convincing him, because until that is done and done successfully we will not be able to do the job. I really do hope that the Government will re-think their attitude in this particular matter.
History shows us that man causes civilisations to blossom but he also causes them to decay. Some historic centres of agriculture are useless deserts today. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, spoke about the Sahara. In contrast, some areas that were considered hopeless wastelands in the early part of this century are now fertile farming areas. A proper combination of political will, professionalism and people's action is essential to harness the power that science gives us for increasing human happiness and wealth. Franklin Roosevelt mentioned freedom from want among the four freedoms. In 1946 Lord Boyd-Orr resigned as Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation when a decision on his plan for "food security" was postponed. The words he used were:
"The people want bread and we are to give them paper."
In 1960 President Kennedy promised that world hunger would be abolished within a decade. A decade later Dr. Kissinger made almost the same pledge. Yet the situation is worse than it was. We can solve this problem if we have the will. Let us go to it.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that we have all listened with the greatest interest to the well-informed and comprehensive contributions made to this most interesting debate. I, too, add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for introducing it and my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who is speaking, I believe, for the first time from the Dispatch Box. We all listened with great interest to what he had to say.
I know from my contacts outside this House, particularly the many people that I met during the general election campaign, that this is a subject which attracts the attention that it deserves in this country. In the course of the debate we have heard a large number of constructive suggestions for dealing with the problem, starting with those of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, himself. He proposed teams with a package of help for each country. He suggested better ways of making use of experts from scientific institutions and universities.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about new methods of storage of staple food grains.

871
We had many examples of expertise from the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster—one was in the control of pests—and many examples of help from voluntary organisations.
There was, I believe, general agreement that food aid was not the answer to many of the problems, except in emergencies—a point which I think the noble Lord. Lord Pitt, would accept—and agreement, too, that aid needed to go to the individual farmer, to the village, to the particular project, and that we have learned from mistakes in the past. I was very glad that there was praise from many of your Lordships for the Overseas Development Administration. I shall read with very great interest in Hansard tomorrow the speeches of my noble friends Lord Quinton and Lord Bauer. I shall return later to answer some of the specific points they raised. However, both noble Lords have made us think fundamentally about our ideas on aid, and fundamental thinking must be one of the purposes of such debates as we have had today.
I have been asked a number of questions, beginning with the content of the aid programme. I believe it was the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who described himself and the noble Lord. Lord Oram, as two angry old men. I do not know that that is entirely fair, and I am not sure that I can allay their anger or, indeed, that of the noble Lord, Lord Walston. But may I confirm that on the level of the aid programme, following the recent announcement of a reduction in public expenditure, I can do no better than quote the words of my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development in another place. On 11th July he stated that,
"there will be an 8 per cent. increase in cash terms over last year's budget, and that will be ahead of the rate of inflation".—[Official Report,Commons, 1117/83; col. 607.]
I can also confirm that no existing commitments are affected by reductions in this year's programmes.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, referred to the responsibilities of developing countries themselves. This is sometimes forgotten by those most enthusiastic about aid when they urge the British Government to dictate development priorities in other countries. Britain's aid programme is one of genuine international co-operation. We must recognise that we support only a small part of the total development effort so that the aid we give to one sector may be matched by aid to other sectors and from other donors. This, of course, accounts for some of the apparent quirks in any aid programme.
Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, by saying that we have our own ideas about where our aid should go, but the fact is that we have to work with Governments who also have their own ideas. May I also assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who asked about the Cameroons, that he is quite right in saying that the Cameroons have not received any food aid from Britain or the Community for at least the last five years.
A number of noble Lords raised the old subject of population, hunger and family planning. This was raised, first, by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, by the noble Earl, Lord
872
Longford, and by my noble friend Lord Quinton. All referred to the necessity for curbing population growth.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt to say that I hope I am not associated with that remark on family planning.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not in any way wish to associate the noble Earl, Lord Longford, with something with which he does not wish to be associated. My point is that the noble Lord referred to the general problem, but I shall read Hansard and if I am mistaken I am very sorry and I apologise.
Noble Lords referred to the necessity for curbing population growth as well as for increasing agricultural production. As noble Lords will know, this is not a simple problem for official development assistance programmes. However, we always try to take account of the effects of population growth on our projects and will continue to support the work of international organisations working in this field such as the United Nations Family Planning Association and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
My noble friend Lord Bauer said that the population increase was the result of a decrease in mortality rates. This statement is obviously correct. but what is really required is fewer babies, not more deaths, if I may put it in those terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, referred to intermediate technology and spoke of voluntary efforts to raise money for it. The Intermediate Technology Development Group is not entirely ignored by official agencies. In fact, the ODA's appropriate technology fund channelled about £750,000 through the ITGD in the last financial year as well as financing other intermediate technology projects from other sources in the aid programme. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that we would not think it right for Government support to replace all voluntary funds. nor would we wish to remove the incentive for such exploits as mountain walking in the Himalayas for fund raising purposes.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lords, Lord Brockway and Lord Soper, all referred to trade and the world economy. However, in spite of the reservations of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, the elements of a strategy to deal with indebtedness in developing countries were formed and solutions were identified at Williamsburg which we believe are the only sound solutions. They are, first, world-wide economic recovery: second, effective adjustment in development policies in the countries themselves; third, adequate private and official finance; and, fourth, the expansion of an open trading system. But we are not complacent and noble Lords will know that members of the IMF have recently taken steps to increase the resources available to the IMF.
I was not entirely sure whether the hunger mentioned in the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, was quite the same as the hunger mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Mottistone, but I confirm to him that we support an open trading system which we believe is in the best interests of the world economy.

873
I know that my professional advisers will be fascinated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, on the use of coal to increase the growth rates of crops. The noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, have underlined the existence of scientific resources in Britain that are able to meet the most pressing needs of the developing countries. I was interested to hear the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, for the training of extension workers. We are, of course, always prepared to consider requests from developing countries for assistance in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, questioned our support for the United Nations' Development Programme. We have not been able to increase our level of support for the UNDP because of other competing claims on our aid programme. We are seeking in the longer term to direct more aid to bilateral activities because we have found, in general, that these are easier to design and control than the multilateral activities and that they are, in fact, more cost effective. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, showed his own concern about mutilateral activities when he referred to the European Community. Of course the common agricultural policy is imperfect within the Community, but it is our responsibility to make it better.
A number of your Lordships referred to the scientific units—the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Hatch of Lusby. The Government recognise the importance of these units and greatly value the work they do. We have noted the concern of a number of your Lordships who raised these points. Indeed, on the whole question of the scientific units of the Overseas Development Administration, I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, on 4th July, in answer to a Question in the House, that a response to the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place would be made as soon as was practical and the remarks that he made would be taken into account. That indeed remains the position.
My noble friend Lord Auckland asked about our co-operation with other Commonwealth countries. In my opening remarks I said that we would consult with other international institutions and other donors over our aid programme. I included in that Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We also share with these and other Commonwealth countries in supporting the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, to which the British contribution is nearly £5 million a year.
A great many of your Lordships referred to voluntary agencies. I share the view expressed of their importance. I spoke of them in my opening remarks. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked specifically about the level of our support for voluntary agencies. I hope he will understand that I shall have to write to him with the details for these agencies. He mentioned Oxfam and CAFOD specifically.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I was really asking for a general comment on the possibilities of expanding the aids through voluntary agencies. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, with much more expert knowledge than I have explained how
874
contemptible our record was compared with that of other countries.
Baroness Young: My Lords, at this late hour this is not a point on which I have the information. I think it would be wiser if I were to look at what the noble Earl said, and indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and write to the noble Earl on the point of Government funding to voluntary agencies. I can assure them and other noble Lords that we shall continue to seek ways in which we can best support the efforts of voluntary agencies without destroying their essentially independent voluntary status, which is of course a very large part of their value.
I think that I showed earlier that we are doing much under the aid programme to help increase food production in the third world. We very much recognise the need for the third world to develop its agricultural sector. We shall be looking to increase the proportion of our aid going in this direction, particularly in areas where we can contribute from our own special experience and capacity. We have had very many examples of where this now happens. This is something which we must continue and increase. However, our resources are not unlimited and we must make sure that the funds available are directed to sensible and effective ends.
Many of your Lordships have referred to the need to draw attention to this important subject. It is, I think, debates in your Lordships' House on an occasion like this which enable us to cover a great many points, to hear the point of view of a great many of your Lordships and to have a number of valuable and constructive suggestions. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, for raising this issue today.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, it would be quite improper for me to make another speech now, so I shall not do so. My only plea is that I think it is time that the talking stopped and more action started. I must say how immensely grateful I am to everybody who has supported my Motion. My little match seems to have lit quite a fire. I think it has been a splendid debate. I am most grateful to everybody. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The "General Belgrano"
8.44 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will appoint an independent commission to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the decision to sink the "General Belgrano".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I first say to the noble Baroness who is to answer this Question that I greatly appreciate the stamina she is showing and the interest which she is displaying by staying on, after a long and exhausting debate, to answer this Question. While I am speaking particularly to the noble Baroness, may I suggest to her that she takes the first

875
opportunity of taking the Prime Minister aside and having some very stern words with her.
It was on 28th June that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, told me that she assumed I had read the letter from the Prime Minister to the National Union of Seamen. I asked the Library here and in another place to look out this letter. With their usual diligence, they sought it but could not find it. Eventually they turned to No. 10, only to get the answer late last night that it was not the practice of the Prime Minister to reveal the contents of a private letter to a third party. May I suggest to the noble Baroness that she suggests to the Prime Minister that it is time that there was better communication between the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet.
Let me clear up right at the beginning one or two canards that might be thrown at me in this debate. First, I have no sympathy whatever with the Argentine invasion of the Falklands. I am totally opposed to the use of force to settle international disputes. Secondly, nothing that I say and nothing that I intend in this discussion is any reflection whatever on the Armed Services who did what they were told with excellence and with courage. This issue is one of a political decision and not of military action. Thirdly, I make no accusation whatever against any individual Minister. My concern is that a series of contradictory statements appears to have been made by the Government, dubious answers given to questions and hidden evidence. Therefore. there is public concern whether and when the Government are telling the truth and whether the casualties among the British and the Argentine Forces were really necessary.
May I also make particular mention of the work done, first, by my honourable friend Tam Dalyell, who I believe will go down when the history of the period is written as a man who would not be deflected from what he saw as his duty and who has uncovered a whole series of facts which should be known to the public; and, secondly, of my right honourable and learned friend, the Member for Aberavon, Mr. John Morris, who is a former Minister of Defence, and who put a whole set of questions in the debate in the other place on the gracious Speech—questions which have not been answered and some of which I shall be repeating tonight.
Let me next set the broad background of the Question that I am asking. On 30th April 1982 the efforts of Secretary of State Haig to get agreement between the two sides over the Falklands collapsed. On the same day the United States declared its support for Britain. This meant that Britain had got the support of all the countries of the EEC, the USA and Japan; in other words, Britain was in a position to mobilise economic sanctions against the Argentine if she so decided. The following day, on 1st May, the duty of seeking an accommodation—negotiations or some compromise—between the two sides fell upon Peru and the United Nations Secretariat. On that same day a Vulcan bomber based on Ascension Island, Sea Harriers and then Naval ships took part in a bombardment of the Stanley runway. Presumably this would have increased the power of the United Kingdom to exercise a blockade against the Argentine. The Argentine admitted 56 casualties during that bombardment.
Also on the same day (1st May 1982) Mr. Francis Pym, then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, was in Washington to seek the chance of a peaceful settlement. When he arrived in Washington he gave a press conference at which he said that the attacks on Stanley, which I have just mentioned, were intended to concentrate Argentinian minds on a peaceful settlement. Then he added:
"No further military action is envisaged at the moment, except to keep the exclusion zone secure".
The following day, Sunday 2nd May, the "Belgrano" was sunk, at approximately 8 p.m. London time. Three hundred and sixty-eight lives were lost. The Peruvian peace initiative was destroyed. The opportunity for consideration of the peace proposals mentioned by Mr. Pym in a letter to the Daily Mirror on 20th May of this year was abrogated. War became inevitable—a war in which 1,200 British and Argentinian lives were lost; a war which cost several thousand million pounds in British money; and a war which led to the ruinous Fortress Falklands policy, to the rearmament of Argentina, now apparently with the help of British money, to the impossibility of a political settlement and to an absence of any secure future for the islanders.
These three major questions arise from this situation. First, why was the order given to sink the "Belgrano" at that particular time, 30 hours after the ship has been located? Secondly, did that order torpedo not only the "Belgrano" but the last chance of peace? Thirdly, did the sinking lose Britain international moral support and result in the loss of the "Sheffield", the "Coventry" and the "Atlantic Surveyor", along with all the casualties and other ships?
I now come to specific questions of which I have given the noble Baroness notice. They are divided into two sets. The first set of questions is on the military situation, and the second set is on the political consequences. I should like to read them out without comment in order to save time, and to give the noble Baroness the most ample opportunity possible to prepare to answer them. Why did Sir John Nott then Minister of Defence tell the House on 4th May 1982, (as reported at columns 29 and 30 of the Official Report) that the "Belgrano"
"was close to the total exlusion zone and was closing on elements of our task force, which was only hours away",
when it has since been established that the "Belgrano" was on a course away from the islands and away from the task force?
Secondly, why did the noble Lord, Lord Lewin, the Chief of Staff, tell the BBC that,
"from the time the 'Conqueror' sighted the 'Belgrano' to the time it took to sink her was only a matter of hours"?
Why did the Government White Paper state:
"The 'Belgrano' was detected on 2nd May",
when Commander Wreford-Brown, captain of the "Conqueror", declared that he followed the "Belgrano" for over 30 hours and reported contact? Why was the order not given to sink the ship on 1st May, when the "Belgrano" was certainly a greater potential threat to the task force than it was on 2nd May?
Thirdly, why did Sir John Nott tell Parliament on 5th May (as reported at column 156 of the Official Report):
"The actual decision to launch a torpedo was clearly one taken by the submarine commander",
when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the predecessor in this House of the noble Baroness at the Foreign Office, told this House in answer to a Question from myself that the decision was taken by the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet?
Fourthly, why has Parliament been told that the "Conqueror" might have lost the "Belgrano" in the shallow waters of Burdwood Bank when the draught of the "Conqueror", the depth of the bank and the course of the "Belgrano" render such an explanation invalid? Fifthly, was there any naval intelligence that the Argentine Government had ordered ships back to port?
The second set of questions is on political statements and the political consequences of the situation which I have so far described. First, why did the Prime Minister state on television on 7th June this year that if she had not given the order—that is, to sink the "Belgrano"—she would have endangered the "Hermes", the "Invincible" and other ships when they were east of the Falklands and the "Belgrano" was nine hours away, on the west of the islands and steaming westwards?
Secondly, why did the Foreign Secretary make the statement, which I have already quoted, in Washington on 1st May? Thirdly, what document was prepared by the Peruvian Government for signature on 2nd May? What discussions were held by the British Ambassador in Lima on 1st and 2nd May? Were these reported to the Foreign Secretary or the Foreign Office? Did he have authority from the Foreign Office to hold the discussions, and did the Prime Minister know of them at the time of her decision?
Fourthly, was the Prime Minister aware of the negotiations which were described later by Secretary Haig as
"a formulation that provided hope that a settlement could be reached"?
Fifthly—and perhaps most crucial of all—what attempts were made by the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet to get the views and the news of the Foreign Secretary before the decision to sink the "Belgrano" was taken?
I consider that the public have a right to know the answers to these questions. I accuse nobody. I have simply put the questions about which there is public doubt. I consider that the questions which have not yet been answered by the Government represent a prima facie case for an independent investigation in which witnesses can be called and questioned. I ask the noble Baroness, who I hope is not too tired after this long day, to answer the questions that I have put.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, for making his case tonight without repeating some of the wilder and more
878
paranoid allegations against the Prime Minister which have been made in this field, especially by Mr. Dalyell in another place. We should also be grateful to the noble Lord for the tribute which he very justly paid to the armed services for the part that they played in this affair. Frankly, it had come to the point of being rather difficult to judge this demand for an inquiry on its merits. It was difficult to feel sympathy for such a demand when put forward in such an unattractive and exaggerated manner.
It is one thing to say—and it may be true—that the Government were too anxious to stop delaying tactics by the Argentinians over the peace negotiations, or that the Government were not anxious enough to avoid loss of life. Those are hard charges, but it is possible to make them. However, to argue that the Prime Minister deliberately ordered the sinking of the "General Belgrano" in order to torpedo the peace talks, is a wild and unjustified allegation which should never have been made. After all, it is also true (is it not?) that one can make a terrible mistake without necessarily being wicked, stupid or careless. Indeed, everyone who has had to take difficut decisions, especially in wartime, knows that it is quite possible for intelligent, conscientious people, acting with the utmost good faith, to make terribly wrong decisions. Indeed, that is especially true when one has to make the decision against time, on incomplete or uncertain information, and when people's lives are at stake. Mistakes are made in such circumstance and they are sometimes cause for criticism, in some cases they are cause for sympathy, but they are never cause for what we saw in the general election—a series of bitter, personal insults against the Prime Minister made for electoral purposes.
However, having said all that, I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Hatch, that there are questions that need answering and that should be cleared up in the Government's own interests. I suspect that there are a number of perfectly sound answers to a number of questions that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has put to the Minister. It is in the general interest and in the interest of the Government that the matter should be cleared up. My own feeling is that the most worrying aspect is the extraordinary conflict of statements made by the Government themselves: the conflict between the earlier statements made, for example, about the position of the cruiser, about its direction and about its distance from our surface forces, and the later statements made officially on those points.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in wondering why the cruiser was sunk at that moment, when it had been trailed for as much as 30 hours. It suggests possibly that the Government despaired too early and too readily of achieving a negotiated settlement for withdrawal of Argentinian troops and that they underrated the impact of their own success with the bombardment and with the blockade on the position of the Argentinians. I do not think that the answers to these questions are necessarily difficult to find. It might well be in the general interest, and in the interest of the Government, to set up an inquiry and discover and publish the answers. It is for those reasons that, while we wish to disassociate ourselves completely from wild and paranoid allegations made by Members of the Opposition, we on this side think

879
that there should be an independent inquiry into these questions.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships long because it is getting late. From the moment the news first reached us in early May last year, the sinking of the "General Belgrano" has been a very emotive topic. Some highly charged exchanges have taken place in another place, and serious allegations have been made against the Government. Many, not only housewives from Bristol, are not entirely satisfied with the answers to the questions that have been asked. It is therefore timely that the matter has now been raised in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.
I should describe why I, personally, am interested in this Unstarred Question. I have spent only a small part of my life in the armed services, as a national serviceman. I did not see active service; but since early teenage years during the last war I have been keenly interested in the causes of the peculiarly nasty human habit of war and its conduct. As a doctor, I am only too keenly aware of the scale of human suffering involved; and, while I am not a pacifist, I am not alone in feeling that even for a just cause it is worth making superhuman efforts to explore every possible means of preventing war before resorting to force.
After the Argentine seizure of the Falklands and South Georgia last year—incidentally, without the loss of a single British or Falkland Islander's life—many of us reluctantly accepted that at least a display of force was justified. Galtieri was unlikely to withdraw with the threat of sanctions alone. With the bloodless recapture of South Georgia, with its heroic and remarkable exploits of helicopter flying in terrible weather conditions, many of us who had doubts about the wisdom of sending the Task Force were won over. Above all, no lives had yet been lost. But soon, however, we heard of the bombs on Stanley Airport—again, we probably thought without loss of life. But here it appears that we were wrong. Antipersonnel weapons were used, and the runways in fact remained usable.
It was soon after this that we learned of the sinking of the "General Belgrano" well outside the 200-mile exclusion zone. Why was she sunk? It was because she apparently posed a threat to a section of our Task Force and was closing upon them. But when the 200-mile exclusion zone was first imposed, no suggestion was made that craft outside the zone might be sunk without warning, without being given the chance to turn back. Now we have learned from the Written Answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place that when the torpedo struck the "General Belgrano" had already turned for home. There are many of us who want to know more about this. As the "General Belgrano" sank the crew of more than 1,000 had to take to lifeboats and rafts and abandon ship into an icy sea which quickly caused the death from hypothermia of any who failed to get on to an overcrowded rescue craft or who fell off one. In such conditions it is, to me, pretty remarkable that two-thirds of the crew were saved. Nevertheless, 368 were lost. I remember at the time shuddering at the
880
thought of this loss of young life in that cold sea, and wondering whether it was really necessary.
Suddenly, a "gentlemanly" war with few lives lost changed to a struggle involving great grief and suffering with its accompaniment—avenging anger. The skill and at times almost foolhardy heroism of the Argentine Skyhawk pilots was, I think, largely based on this determined rage and indignation. As we now know, we probably would have lost more ships and men if the Argentine bombs had been properly primed. International opinion, which until then had been coming round to support the British cause, hesitated; uncommitted nations condemned the British act. We have still not been forgiven. Now, more than a year after the war is over, it should be possible, without fear of revealing military secrets, to hear the full reasons for this act, authorised from Northwood, which sparked off the real shooting and killing war in the Falklands.
Recently, even more disturbingly, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has mentioned, we have had reports that a peaceful solution acceptable to Galtieri and involving the withdrawal of Argentine and British troops was about to be concluded under Peruvian auspices at or around the time of the sinking of the "General Belgrano". So many questions have now been asked, both here tonight and in another place, and have met with unsatisfactory replies, that nothing less than a full independent inquiry, which is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will satisfy the critics and also many of the supporters of the Government. I might add that if this inquiry is denied the conclusion will inevitably be drawn that the Government have something to hide. Alternatively, if the inquiry is held they will have a chance to prove that the allegations that have been made are groundless.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question. If, as we are told, the "Belgrano" was sunk for military reasons and to ensure the safety of our ships, could the noble Baroness tell us why the escorting destroyers—which were the more dangerous of the small fleet because they carried the Exocets—were not sunk instead of the big ship, which was rather old-fashioned and armed only with heavy guns?
9.11 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, your Lordships have had a very long sitting and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is involved in two debates here today, so I hope to be brief. My noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby, and indeed all who have taken part in this debate, have spoken with clarity. I may say in passing that it is interesting that, while the other place has been debating what to do about the death of individuals in a developed country, your Lordships have been discussing the death of millions of people in the third world. I am sure that we look forward to the time when the two issues are the cause of equal concern and publicity.
We are debating the issue of the sinking of the "General Belgrano", which resulted not only in the death of several hundreds of people when she was torpedoed, but indirectly in the death of many more

881
casualties then and since. It is claimed that the sinking of this Argentine vessel was justified as she could have caused the death of hundreds of British personnel later. It is well, in relation to the debates in both Houses today, to recall the words of John Donne when he said that:
"Any man's death diminishes me".
But if the main aspect of concern as shown today and at other times is the sinking of the vessel, then many think—rightly or wrongly—that the scuppering of the vessel resulted in the scuppering of talks which might have led to the settlement of the dispute between Britain and the Argentine, and which might well have prevented the loss of over 1,000 task force and civilian lives, apart from the lives of the Argentinians.
There is of course the resulting on-going commitment of the defence of the Falkland Islands. I think that Her Majesty's Government were right to ask the noble Lord, Lord Franks, to head an inquiry into the Falklands campaign, and this has indeed cleared the air on a number of issues. I want to be helpful to the Government—as I always seek to be—by asking them to allow the case that they claim to have to be examined. I make no accusations for we need facts in order to make claims of any sort.
Your Lordships have debated the document, The Falklands Campaign: The Lessons(Cmnd. 8758). Paragraph 110 refers briefly to the "General Belgrano" encounter. I shall not repeat the questions posed by my noble friends, Lord Hatch of Lusby and Lord Rea or indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. But I will say that they are an expression of the concern of many people, both here and abroad. The Falklands Campaign document spends just five paragraphs on the preliminary diplomatic history leading up to the real hostilities. The Government commendably warned the Argentines time and time again to withdraw and avoid further conflict. However, as I say, it is widely felt that the scuppering of the "Belgrano" also ended the peace talks in which the Peruvians were also involved and inevitably led to the conflict.
It does not require one to visit the Falklands, as some of us have been so privileged, to be able to appreciate the magnitude of the task accomplished by our forces. Praise for the success of the operation should not lead to British people overlooking the fact that it would have been far better and much more to the Government's credit had it saved the peace rather than won the war over 1,000 casualties and billions of pounds later.
Some very serious charges have been levelled at the Government, and they will continue to be so levelled unless the Government are able to give acceptable facts and assurances. I do not at this stage want to suggest what kind of inquiry should be held. Parliament has various means of ensuring an examination of such issues. If the noble Baroness is not able to announce plans for an acceptable inquiry I hope that she will be able to ensure that Parliament is enabled somehow to examine the evidence in detail.
In asking that I have in mind not only that it may help the Government but that it would also resolve some of the concern about Britain's conduct in a world which has always had good reason to look to Britain
882
for the maintenance of high standards and principles. Finally, the Falklands campaign document, to which I have referred, makes a valid point when it asserts in paragraph 257:
"It was crucial that public opinion, both at home and abroad, understood and supported our cause."
It goes on to claim:
"It was vital to retain the support of friends and Allies abroad. That this was largely achieved is a measure of our success in providing a reliable account of the diplomatic and military developments."
I believe that Her Majesty's Government would do well to accept the view of the Opposition that the substance of that paragraph, the Government's own document, will warrant their special consideration at this time.
9.16 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I confess that I would be misleading your Lordships if I said that it was with any sense of pleasure that I rise to reply to this short debate this evening initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby. Rather, it is with a weary sense of déjà-vu,since so much of what the noble Lord has said has been heard before both in your Lordships' House and in another place. I am reluctant to try your Lordships' patience still further by repeating at any length the answers which have similarly been given already to these questions. But since I am called upon to reply, I shall do so as briefly and succinctly as I can.
First of all, I must repeat what I told your Lordships on 28th June. The Government see no reason to have an inquiry into this matter, and nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, or indeed other noble Lords have said this evening inclines me to revise this belief. However, since the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is insistent I must repeat to your Lordships yet again that the decision to sink the "General Belgrano" was taken for purely military reasons, not political reasons as he stated. The plain fact is that the Argentine cruiser posed a threat to the task force, for reasons which have been explained on previous occasions, and that the task force commander sought and obtained a change in the rules of engagement to enable her to be engaged.
Noble Lords and others who choose to overlook our responsibility for the security of the task force also tend to forget that Her Majesty's Government had notified the Argentine Government in a message delivered on 23rd April—and immediately circulated in the Security Council—that whatever the extent of the 200-mile Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands
"any aproach on the part of Argentine warships…which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response".
I hope that that point answers the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who seemed to imply that no warning had been given.
This warning was unambiguous, and the Argentine Government, which itself had launched hostilities with its armed invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2nd April 1982, can have been in no doubt of the potential consequences of ordering its fleet to sea as the task force approached, and of its responsibility for keeping the "General Belgrano" in the area where it was on 2nd May regardless of any course it may have been on

883
at any particular time. For anyone to profess surprise or shock that the "General Belgrano" should be attacked under these circumstances is I believe to display ignorance or disingenuousness.
Lord Rea: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness? In fact if the "General Belgrano" was posing a threat to the task force, why was she not sunk when she was actually much nearer to the task force rather than heading away after she had been tailed for 30 hours by the "Conqueror'?
Baroness Young: My Lords, this if I may say so is one of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has put to me quite specifically and which I am going to answer later in my remarks. To suggest that the "General Belgrano" was attacked in order to avert the possibility of any peaceful settlement—in particular, to "scupper" the so-called Peruvian peace proposals—is I believe absurd. I was grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, on that point.
I must remind your Lordships of the Government's untiring efforts to achieve a negotiated end to the conflict, with the unflagging assistance of such able intermediaries as Mr. Haig, President BelaÚnde of Peru, and the Secretary-General of the United Nations. These efforts were in train before the sinking of the "General Belgrano" and, I stress, continued unabated thereafter, despite the Argentine military Government's persistent evasiveness and intransigence, which on 17th May—more than two weeks after the sinking of the "General Belgrano"—finally thwarted the attempts of all concerned.
I must also tell your Lordships that for the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, to continue with his suggestion that the attack on the "General Belgrano" was in any way connected with the Peruvian proposals—when it has been stated categorically by Her Majesty's Government that news of these did not reach London until after the sinking—is to imply a warp either in time or in the noble Lord's imagination.
I can but reiterate what I told your Lordships two weeks ago: the report of the proposals was telegraphed to London at 2215 GMT—just ofter five o'clock in the afternoon Washington time—on 2nd May. The attack on the "General Belgrano" had taken place over three hours before that.
There is no question of that report having been unnecessarily delayed. The first intimation of the existence of any proposals from the President of Peru came in a series of conversations that same day in Washington between the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, Mr, Pym, and Mr. Haig. Clarification of the ideas expressed by Mr. Haig was needed before it was possible to send a report to London. Even then, Mr. Pym was given nothing which remotely suggested that an agreement was at hand: what Mr. Haig outlined was, as Mr. Pym has stated publicly,
"at best a promising basis for further work".
One comes back yet again to the simple fact, unpalatable as it may be, that the "General Belgrano"
884
had been attacked over three hours before news of the Peruvian ideas reached London.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, gave me notice of the 10 specific questions to which he required answers and I will give him the answers to the questions in the order in which he has written them. On the first question, which was the question which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, also put, both noble Lords are seeking yet again to throw doubt on the reasons for the attack on the "General Belgrano". The Government have explained the reasons in great detail. The fact is that the cruiser and her escorts presented a threat to the task force. The precise course being followed by the cruiser at any time was merely incidental to this threat. The cruiser had changed her course many times during the day in question and could easily have done so again at any moment.
On the second question it is not for me to comment on remarks attributed to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin. As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, will see if he reads the Falklands White Paper, the paragraph in question deals with the question of the events which took place on 2nd May last year. It was not intended to indicate when the cruiser was first located.
On the third question, the noble Lord is confusing two events. Ministers approved a change in the rules of engagement, requested by the task force commander, to enable the cruiser to be engaged outside the total exclusion zone in accordance with the Government's warning of 23rd April 1982, that any approach by Argentine warships which posed a threat to our forces would encounter the appropriate response. The actual decision to fire the torpedo was taken by the commanding officer in accordance with his revised rules of engagement.
On question number four, it was the judgment of the task force commander himself—an experienced submariner—that the "General Belgrano" could have been lost over the Burdwood Bank and it was for this reason that he sought a change in the rules of engagement.
On question number five, it is a long-standing convention, followed by successive Governments, not to discuss intelligence matters. I do not propose to depart from this practice.
On question number six, the Government have already explained that the "General Belgrano" and her escorts represented a clear threat to the task force. If she had not been attacked she would have been free to carry out attacks on our own ships. The fact is that after the cruiser was sunk the Argentine surface fleet never again put to sea during the campaign.
On question number seven, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to Mr. Pym's comment quoted in The Times on 2nd May 1982 that:
"No further military action is envisaged at the moment except to keep the exclusion zone secure".
It has been repeatedly emphasised that the "Belgrano" did constitute a real threat on 2nd May which was why she was attacked.
On question number eight, I cannot speak for the Peruvian Government but if any document had been drawn up it was without our knowledge or encouragement. Our Ambassador, Mr. Charles Wallace,

885
called on the Peruvian Foreign Minister on 1st May to discuss matters unrelated to any peace proposals.
On question number nine, it has already been made very clear that the first intimation that the Government had of the existence of any proposals from the President of Peru came in a series of conversations between Mr. Pym and Mr. Haig in Washington on 2nd May. The result of these conversations was telegraphed to London at 2215 GMT on 2nd May, over three hours after the attack on the "Belgrano".
Finally, on question number ten, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on 5th July that she had nothing further to add to the explanations which had already been given.
I do not wish to spend more time on these allegations and insinuations. To do so would serve only to encourage those whose purpose is to score what I imagine to be party political points by constantly repeating them. Such repetition brings neither credit to the repeaters nor credibility to the allegations. Still less does it make them grounds upon which to call for any form of inquiry. As I said at the start of my remarks, the Government see no reason at all to have an inquiry. I have done my best to give full answers to all the questions that the noble Lord has asked me this evening.

Severn-Trent Water Authority Bill
Reported from the Select Committee; a special report was made and ordered to be printed, and the Bill was recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past nine o'clock.

  CAPITAL GAINS TAX: METHOD OF CALCULATION
  CAPITAL GAINS TAX: METHOD OF CALCULATION
  CAPITAL GAINS INDEXATION: STAFFING EFFECT
  CAPITAL GAINS INDEXATION: STAFFING EFFECT
  SPEED LIMITS: DEPARTMENTAL ADVICE
  SPEED LIMITS: DEPARTMENTAL ADVICE
  SEAT BELT EXEMPTIONS
  SEAT BELT EXEMPTIONS
  CAR PARKING: FACILITIES FOR EMBASSIES
  CAR PARKING: FACILITIES FOR EMBASSIES
  LIFE-SENTENCE PRISONERS
  LIFE-SENTENCE PRISONERS